Yes, I shuttered this blog.
No, I am not ramping it back up.
Consider this a one-time special issue, an issue that's being published because I've noticed some things recently that I feel need addressing.
(WARNING: This could take a while)
1. They are ALL trying to erode faith in our electoral process, for different (and the same) reasons.
Republicans want to erode faith in the voter rolls ("illegals voting", "voter fraud" etc.), Democrats want to erode faith in the voting process ("hackers", "Russians" etc.) The Republicans want to do this because their best straight-line to retaining power is smaller voter turnouts. The Democrats want to do this because they use shaky citizen faith in elections to forward their goals.
BOTH parties are doing this because it helps them craft a message that besmirches the other side, and removes legitimacy from their opponents, from the jump, immediately after an election. Questioning the validity of your opponents win, including going so far as to question the structure of the electoral process (i.e. the electoral college) serves a dual purpose of forcing your opponents to battle on multiple fronts and giving you a ready-made excuse to automatically oppose any policy proposal no matter how good it could be. (Hint: usually government policy proposals as not good (see: the ACA) and have more negative unintended consequences than they actually provide benefits. This is because all politicians, regardless of the level of government in which they serve, do not care about the people but about winning re-elections and staying in power.
2. Yes, there is a trough, and yes, you probably don't have access to it.
Why do politicians in Texas, running for the State House of Representatives, spend tens of thousands of dollars for a job that pays around $2000/year? Why do Senators and Congressmen pay Millions, including self-funding, to win jobs that only pay 5 or low 6 digit salaries per year?
Because the wealth of politics is not in the salary but in the generosity and information provided by ones cronies. Politics in America today (nee, the world actually) are never about public service or any of the other clap-trap that professional politicians provide in interviews.
Politics is about power and prestige, about payola and personal wealth.
Even Senator Bernard Sanders, avoid Democratic Socialist (more on that later) is the proud owner of three not inexpensive homes. Think about that for just a minute. The man running on platforms of income inequality and constantly railing against the so-called 1% is himself a member of the.....1%.
Republicans themselves talk about the myth-laden "American dream" as if it's a panacea.
In fact what all of these politicians want is to punish the other parties 1% while bolstering the hopes of their own.
3. It's less about wealth, and more about donations.
When the Democrats gripe about 'the rich', they're really griping about 'the rich' who make political donations to the Republican party. This means that Democrats line-up against natural mineral extraction companies and, increasingly, groups like the NRA.
Republicans line up against trial lawyers, anthrapogenic climate change and union wish-lists both to punish Democratic donors, and to enrich their own special interests. Democrats are not immune to this. Don't believe me? Take a look at the investment profile of one Al Gore and then it becomes very clear why he's such a strong proponent for carbon exchanges and other measures that would do little to actually effect the Earth's Climate, but would provide a gigantic increase to he and his fellow traveler's portfolios.
4. You are nothing more than useful idiots to them.
If you're a true believer for any one party, if you think that the Democrats care for the little guy at the expense of anything else or that the Republicans are morally more pure then you're exactly the mark they're looking for.
Politicians fan outrage by manufacturing tragedy. Almost every action by the other side is the "worst they've ever seen" when in fact, it's really not. Very few things that we see are "beyond the pale" but are instead fairly normal considering the arc of American political history. Trump might be unartful, but is hardly the affront to American politics that others make it seem. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" or Barack Obama's "those who say" (when no-one was actually saying that) are simply Trump's tweets using more flowery language.
What politicians understand is that their true-believers have very short political memories. This is why Republicans can refuse to discuss Merrick Garland for the SCOTUS but, without a hint or irony, say it's unprecedented for Democrats to try to do the same for Kavenaugh. People eat this up because they have tribal memory patterns, which choose to ignore the sins of their party and enhance the sins of the other.
All during this those same people who rail at each other on TV and in the news shows are meeting at country clubs, having lunches and dinners and are laughing their asses off at just how stupid the American body politic really is.
5. No one (serious) really wants socialism.
What Democrats want is a regulatory state enforcing policy while the ruling class oversees the ruled class. They also want money to be given to government so that that money can be redistributed to their political patrons.
6. No one really wants freedom.
The Republicans want a regulatory state enforcing policy while the ruling class oversees the ruled class. They also want money to be retained by their friends and the burden placed on those who do not make big donations to them.
7. The media IS biased, but not how you think.
The fact is the media could care less if the Democrats win. What they really want is to have access to those in power. They courtiers to the ruling class and will prostrate themselves in order to maintain that access every. single. time.
In a perfect world, journalists would be ciphers, dutifully recording the events of the day, and uncovering malfeasance on the part of the government and industry with equal zeal.
As we know, this is not a perfect world, not even remotely close.
Too many journalists go into the industry with the dream to "change the world" instead of "reporting the facts". The offshoot of this is that most media now operates as an editorial rebuke of things the reporters don't like. Investigative journalists have been replaced by editorial writers who write no news, but who provide opinions (masked as "analysis") designed to forward an agenda and "change the world'.
This is true on both sides, which explains why people don't trust the media.
8. This is going to sound harsh, but the ruling class (and their courtiers) HATE you.
They honestly do. Except for your votes (which they are going to cast as fraudulent) and your campaign donations (which they really don't care about except in PR releases showing that they have "grassroots support" [See: Beto O'Rouke]) every politician at every level of government would be happiest if you would just vote, and then go away.
This is why I no longer vote, because it's useless. You're just picking on horrid person over another. In fact, voting is the laziest way that you can participate in a Democracy. It's easy to go cast a ballot from time to time, it's hard to stay engaged and advocate for good governance, good media, good oversight and fair and honest regulation.
The problem in America now is that few people vote, and even fewer people are willing to do the hard things that it takes to ensure the proper functioning of the Republic.
Even the people that are "activists" are typically just drones for politicians. They have no original thoughts, or the ability to craft them.
IF they come out swinging and making too many hits their lesser ideas are adopted by the parties, their rage is then focused on the "other side" and they're weaponized against whichever target the ruling class feels is appropriate. (See: the Tea Party and Black Lives Matter for evidence of this).
9. This is going to get worse.
As long as we the people continue to fight against each other, give large swaths of the political class passes, then there is going to be no incentive for the ruling class to change. The problem here does not lie with the Democrats, it does not lie with the Republicans, and it is not the fault of the media.
It is the fault of us.
Showing posts with label Democracy has a half-life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy has a half-life. Show all posts
Thursday, August 09, 2018
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Gun Control: Which laws exactly?
We have now reached the point where the political outrage machine gets cranked up to eleven and spleen-venting takes the place of grief and shock. Dutifully, QuestLove tweeted out every Republican Representative and Senator who expressed condolence to the Vegas victims replete with the amount of money the NRA donated to their campaigns. (Strangely, he did not feel the need to single out Democrats thusly). Jimmy Kimmel came on your TV, spooled up some tears, and emotionally emoted that Something! must be done.
But what exactly?
The early candidate is to outlaw "silencers" which is more of an admission that one doesn't understand guns rather than a call to do something about them. "Silencers" are actually "flash suppressors" and, unlike you see in the movies, the guns still make one heck of a noise when fired.
The second thing you hear is to "close the gun show loophole". OK, but by all accounts Stephen Paddock purchased his firearms either from a gun store, and completed all of the requisite background checks, or we don't know where he obtained them yet. So it's not clear that that would have had any impact at all.
Limiting the amount of guns is my favorite. Yes, the man appears to have owned several guns but it's unclear that he would have been less successful with five guns than say the 23 that he had. Limiting ammunition is another bad idea, both would only encourage an untraceable black market which would result in us having no idea where the guns or bullets really are.
Finally, and my favorite, is the idea that gun owners should be forced to "voluntarily give up their guns". Nevermind that this proposal is an oxymoron, it's also impractical and will lead to only the law-abiding citizens doing the same. What this means is that only criminals will own guns, and anyone who continues to own a gun will become a criminal. It's amazing how quick our tribes are to try and criminalize behavior they don't like, while simultaneously trying to decriminalize what they enjoy.
While I'm no fan of "conceal and open carry" laws, in most cases having a gun is not going to prevent any crime, none of us are Jason Bourne after all, I don't think their repeal would do much, very few crimes are committed by lawful gun-carriers after all.
I also don't think the answer lies in arresting and incarcerating people who buy guns that are really meant to go to their criminal husbands, boyfriends, etc. Which is nothing more than a way for the Right, this time, to make 'more' illegal things, and people, they don't like.
I might get on board with outlawing bump-stocks, for which I can see no practical application outside of making the gun a more-effective killing machine, and I am on-board with closing the so-called gun-show loophole. Not to prevent criminals from receiving guns but to ensure that everyone who purchases a firearm through legal channels is legally entitled to do so.
The editors of National Review yesterday had a point when they wrote: "not every crime demands a new law" but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at ways to prevent them going forward. Not is it advisable to strip rights away from otherwise law-abiding citizens in a vain effort to punish the law-breakers. Unfortunately that is an action that our elected rulers always seem to take.
It is understandable that people are distraught over Sunday night's shootings, that they are angry and looking to lash out. What's not defensible is the belief that the only sane solution to the problem is revoking a key portion of the bill of rights. Especially when you consider the same people that want to repeal number 2 are knee-deep in efforts to kick the shit out of the other nine as well.
Rule of law, as messy as it may be, is vital to the health of a country. Once that goes so do the last tools to hold back tyranny. Which, ironically, is the reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.
But what exactly?
The early candidate is to outlaw "silencers" which is more of an admission that one doesn't understand guns rather than a call to do something about them. "Silencers" are actually "flash suppressors" and, unlike you see in the movies, the guns still make one heck of a noise when fired.
The second thing you hear is to "close the gun show loophole". OK, but by all accounts Stephen Paddock purchased his firearms either from a gun store, and completed all of the requisite background checks, or we don't know where he obtained them yet. So it's not clear that that would have had any impact at all.
Limiting the amount of guns is my favorite. Yes, the man appears to have owned several guns but it's unclear that he would have been less successful with five guns than say the 23 that he had. Limiting ammunition is another bad idea, both would only encourage an untraceable black market which would result in us having no idea where the guns or bullets really are.
Finally, and my favorite, is the idea that gun owners should be forced to "voluntarily give up their guns". Nevermind that this proposal is an oxymoron, it's also impractical and will lead to only the law-abiding citizens doing the same. What this means is that only criminals will own guns, and anyone who continues to own a gun will become a criminal. It's amazing how quick our tribes are to try and criminalize behavior they don't like, while simultaneously trying to decriminalize what they enjoy.
While I'm no fan of "conceal and open carry" laws, in most cases having a gun is not going to prevent any crime, none of us are Jason Bourne after all, I don't think their repeal would do much, very few crimes are committed by lawful gun-carriers after all.
I also don't think the answer lies in arresting and incarcerating people who buy guns that are really meant to go to their criminal husbands, boyfriends, etc. Which is nothing more than a way for the Right, this time, to make 'more' illegal things, and people, they don't like.
I might get on board with outlawing bump-stocks, for which I can see no practical application outside of making the gun a more-effective killing machine, and I am on-board with closing the so-called gun-show loophole. Not to prevent criminals from receiving guns but to ensure that everyone who purchases a firearm through legal channels is legally entitled to do so.
The editors of National Review yesterday had a point when they wrote: "not every crime demands a new law" but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at ways to prevent them going forward. Not is it advisable to strip rights away from otherwise law-abiding citizens in a vain effort to punish the law-breakers. Unfortunately that is an action that our elected rulers always seem to take.
It is understandable that people are distraught over Sunday night's shootings, that they are angry and looking to lash out. What's not defensible is the belief that the only sane solution to the problem is revoking a key portion of the bill of rights. Especially when you consider the same people that want to repeal number 2 are knee-deep in efforts to kick the shit out of the other nine as well.
Rule of law, as messy as it may be, is vital to the health of a country. Once that goes so do the last tools to hold back tyranny. Which, ironically, is the reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.
Tuesday, October 03, 2017
Las Vegas Shooting: The Government We Deserve
No sooner had the bullets stopped flying in Las Vegas than certain politicians and media outlets (whom I will not dignify) started firing up the political machine. It mostly came in the form of tweets, calls for the political opposition to drop their deep-held beliefs and side with them as the only reasonable course of action. Of course, the demonization of the NRA began almost immediately as well, and while I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I agree with some of their resistance to certain issues, I do not think they are the PR arm of a gun-toting political movement hell-bent on allowing people to shoot one another.
They are a political group, similar in nature to the Sierra Club, or any of the single-issue political groups on the right or left, but they are demonized because they a) mostly donate to Republicans and b) have been very successful in their efforts to promote legislation.
One area in the on-going game of political PR where the Democrats have most certainly won is in casting the opponents funding groups as somehow evil or a malignant force for society. Oil Companies? Polluting the world, the NRA? Actively trying to kill you. Drug companies? Trying to make big bucks on the backs of the dying. It's not an accident, it's a political plan by the left that they are winning in the same way they have won the culture wars. In short: The GOP has not become the hot-mess that they are wholly because they have bad ideas, in large part they struggle because their leadership is shite and their messaging is even worse.
It has now gotten so bad that even expressing sorrow and wishing good thoughts to victims of tragedy is seen as a negative event by the left's useful idiots. While the right makes up fake-news about Islamist terrorists where none exist, or continually tries to find a boogeyman for their adherents to latch on to.
What dies in all of this is reason, and reasonable arguments. For all of the bemoaning of the depths to which our politics has fallen both sides firmly believe that the root-cause of this is the actions of the other 'side' exclusively. This is because we've elected a group of carnival barkers to rule us, with no thought given to their intelligence or ability to actually govern. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again.
The problems in America are not caused by Trump, or by Obama or by the media, or anyone other than US. We have allowed things to devolve this far because WE abdicated our position of power in the Republic and handed it over lock, stock and barrel to a group of low-functioning idiots with a penchant for strongman style histrionics and rhetorical flair.
In a sane world, reasonable people could disagree on the merits or extent that gun control is needed. However, no reasonable person should disagree that every legal option should be investigated when it comes to preventing mass shootings.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not healthcare is a "right" or a "privilege" but should be able to agree that what we currently have is irreparably broken and the entire system needs an overhaul. Reasonable people can also disagree on what exactly the overhaul should be.
Reasonable people can disagree on taxation and government revenue, on where the money is going, but should be able to agree that the current tax code is a partisan, rent-seeking mess filled with too many rules and give-aways to political patrons.
But, and this is a big, big but, we no longer operate as reasonable people in our politics, either in the murky, stupid world of social media or in the increasingly page-click driven world of actual media.
I have made no secret of my disliking of the Republican party. The GOP is a dysfunctional, anti-intellectual mess right now. And while I dabbled with independence before I believe this time it will stick because where before I still found GOP politicians with ideas, I currently find many of the ideas from both parties to be lacking in both reason and logic. I can never be a Democrat because of their authoritarianism and, frankly, pretty scary ideas about how the country should be ran, but I can never be a Republican either because of the same.
It is possible, albeit unlikely, that the current Supreme Court case on gerrymandering could help alleviate some of this by removing the incumbent protection system but I doubt it. I doubt it because we've now all firmly entrenched ourselves within our tribes and our only goal is to "sick-burn" the other tribe. We don't want to govern, we have a NEED to win. And not just that, to humiliate the other side in large part to feel like we're something, instead of just floating along in life, accomplishing nothing and generally being......a loser.
To be honest, I'm not sure of the fix, if any exists.
And that might be the most depressing bit of all. That this cannot be fixed because most Americans, despite protestations to the contrary, don't WANT it to be. We NEED to hate the other side because it makes us feel superior, we need to gloat, to assure ourselves through smugness that we are, in fact, the superior people. We NEED to laugh at the stupidity of our political opposites because it helps us cover up our own.
You can't fix stupid, increasingly, it seems that we don't want to.
They are a political group, similar in nature to the Sierra Club, or any of the single-issue political groups on the right or left, but they are demonized because they a) mostly donate to Republicans and b) have been very successful in their efforts to promote legislation.
One area in the on-going game of political PR where the Democrats have most certainly won is in casting the opponents funding groups as somehow evil or a malignant force for society. Oil Companies? Polluting the world, the NRA? Actively trying to kill you. Drug companies? Trying to make big bucks on the backs of the dying. It's not an accident, it's a political plan by the left that they are winning in the same way they have won the culture wars. In short: The GOP has not become the hot-mess that they are wholly because they have bad ideas, in large part they struggle because their leadership is shite and their messaging is even worse.
It has now gotten so bad that even expressing sorrow and wishing good thoughts to victims of tragedy is seen as a negative event by the left's useful idiots. While the right makes up fake-news about Islamist terrorists where none exist, or continually tries to find a boogeyman for their adherents to latch on to.
What dies in all of this is reason, and reasonable arguments. For all of the bemoaning of the depths to which our politics has fallen both sides firmly believe that the root-cause of this is the actions of the other 'side' exclusively. This is because we've elected a group of carnival barkers to rule us, with no thought given to their intelligence or ability to actually govern. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again.
The problems in America are not caused by Trump, or by Obama or by the media, or anyone other than US. We have allowed things to devolve this far because WE abdicated our position of power in the Republic and handed it over lock, stock and barrel to a group of low-functioning idiots with a penchant for strongman style histrionics and rhetorical flair.
In a sane world, reasonable people could disagree on the merits or extent that gun control is needed. However, no reasonable person should disagree that every legal option should be investigated when it comes to preventing mass shootings.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not healthcare is a "right" or a "privilege" but should be able to agree that what we currently have is irreparably broken and the entire system needs an overhaul. Reasonable people can also disagree on what exactly the overhaul should be.
Reasonable people can disagree on taxation and government revenue, on where the money is going, but should be able to agree that the current tax code is a partisan, rent-seeking mess filled with too many rules and give-aways to political patrons.
But, and this is a big, big but, we no longer operate as reasonable people in our politics, either in the murky, stupid world of social media or in the increasingly page-click driven world of actual media.
I have made no secret of my disliking of the Republican party. The GOP is a dysfunctional, anti-intellectual mess right now. And while I dabbled with independence before I believe this time it will stick because where before I still found GOP politicians with ideas, I currently find many of the ideas from both parties to be lacking in both reason and logic. I can never be a Democrat because of their authoritarianism and, frankly, pretty scary ideas about how the country should be ran, but I can never be a Republican either because of the same.
It is possible, albeit unlikely, that the current Supreme Court case on gerrymandering could help alleviate some of this by removing the incumbent protection system but I doubt it. I doubt it because we've now all firmly entrenched ourselves within our tribes and our only goal is to "sick-burn" the other tribe. We don't want to govern, we have a NEED to win. And not just that, to humiliate the other side in large part to feel like we're something, instead of just floating along in life, accomplishing nothing and generally being......a loser.
To be honest, I'm not sure of the fix, if any exists.
And that might be the most depressing bit of all. That this cannot be fixed because most Americans, despite protestations to the contrary, don't WANT it to be. We NEED to hate the other side because it makes us feel superior, we need to gloat, to assure ourselves through smugness that we are, in fact, the superior people. We NEED to laugh at the stupidity of our political opposites because it helps us cover up our own.
You can't fix stupid, increasingly, it seems that we don't want to.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
BadScience: The Lack of Trusted Voices Matters a LOT.
Given my history of writing, and knowing my occupation within the oil and gas industry, you might be surprised to find out that I DO believe that the Earth's climate is changing. I believe that the climate of this pebble has been changing for somewhere around 4.54 Billion years and it continues to do so today.
You may also be surprised to find out that I'm very concerned about pollution that results from modern society including, but not limited to, my very own oil and gas industry. As you read above, I also, despite my open Christianity, believe that the Earth was NOT created 5-6,000 years ago but more like 4.54 Billion years ago and that evolution is a very real thing.
I also think that one of the worst things to happen in modern society is the politicization of pretty much everything. This despite, for years, writing what is known by my handful of readers as being a pretty horrible politics blog.
And yes, I believe in, and appreciate, science. Most importantly I value the scientific method and frequently mourn it's recent passing. I mourn it because there are a lot of bad things that happen when we don't believe in science, or the scientific method, and allow our politics to dominate the conversation.
- Vaccines (or the refusal to use them)
- Nutrition (and the obesity epidemic)
- Food supply (ethanol and GMO's being two examples of this)
But the things I worry most about are pollution and climate change, in that order.
When Al Gore first formed his investment group and realized that the American populace was a) sadly uneducated on the scientific method and b.) he could make a mint off of this fact, it all started to go downhill. What followed was a movie with nine proven factual errors being given the Oscar for "Best Outstanding Documentary" and outsized influence because those of a similar political disposition liked the cut of Gore's jib.
And everyone loves a villain.
Trust me when I tell you that there is NO better villain in this world than so-called "Big Oil". Not that they're evil, but that they operate on a massive scale, generate some fairly hefty profits at times, are primarily led by old Caucasian guys and, when accidents happen, they are whoppers.
But they usually are just that, accidents. In my over a decade working in the industry I've never heard, or been part of, conversations about harming the environment, or cutting corners to put people in harm's way. I'm not suggesting this goes on, but most of the engineers that I've met have no desire to have their project 'in the news' or 'creating a headline'. That's just truth. I realize few believe it but since you probably aren't in the industry there's no way I can prove it and it probably wouldn't matter anyway.
That's because we've been conditioned, by our politicians and society, to discount information that contradicts our beliefs no matter how compelling the facts are surrounding the case. For example:
The Climate Change Computer Models (around which there is such scientific "consensus" that they are treated as Gospel) are not accurately matching what is going on in the real world. They neither foresaw the "pause" in heating that occurred nor are they accurately reflecting the real-world results of a decrease in carbon. This doesn't mean that human activity doesn't contribute to the change, only that it might not be the main driving force behind it.
In "scientific" circles, that makes me a "climate denier' which symbolizes my empathy and de facto agreement with Holocaust deniers according to leading scientific lights such as Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (the Science Guy). There are some who even suggest (seriously) that those who point this out should be arrested, sent to 'reconditioning camps' even. I guess so that we can have the heresy beaten out of us?
But again, those two distinguished thinkers that I just referenced are less scientists now and more political activists. That's where the money and fame lie. There is also the problem that neither Tyson, or Nye are actual climate scientists. That's right, the leading argument used by Michael Mann against those who pointed out flaws in his hockey stick diagram (namely, that they weren't climate scientists) can be leveled accurately against the two proponents of the same.
And this gets us to the point of this post (finally):
The biggest problems with climate change are not that enough resources are being spent, too few economies are being destroyed, too little money is flowing into the already sizable bank accounts of Al Gore's investment groups, too-little power is being handed over to the world government, that the poorer nations aren't getting paid enough money by the richer ones, no. The biggest problem is that the politicization of the issue is preventing us from figuring out what we can do to deal with it rather then destroying society in a fairly useless attempt at stopping something that's been going on before man was even a single-cell organism.
The biggest problem is us.
Because we choose to listen to politicians who are simply trying to punish political enemies (and, in many cases, impede the other 'side' from fund-raising or rent-seeking), get re-elected and gain majorities at all levels over government in order to increase their power base and pay off their political patrons. We chose to forget what the scientific method really is in lieu of some neat Power Point slides and a movie or three with gee-whiz special effects. Think about this: It was a Democratic US Representative who stated she wanted to "Nationalize the US Oil companies" and you know what? Once that happened the debate over "carbon-caused climate change" would disappear overnight.
We put too much power in the hands of functional idiots, and then we wonder why things are as they are.
We currently have a President who couldn't make a solid go of it as a casino owner in an industry that basically prints money. And look at the US Senate. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi: "You will never find a bigger hive of scum and villainy." And REALLY stupid people. The House of Representatives is just as bad. Even worse are your state-elected officials, and then your municipal and county politicians. It's an ever growing pile of incompetence, inability and utterly clueless people. (Not to mention, horribly socially awkward) And, no, it's not the fault of everyone else, your elected representatives are just as bad. You won't admit it in most cases because then you have to admit that you voted for them.
The worst thing about all of this is that not only have we elected low-functioning idiots to rule us (and, make no mistake about it, they're not public servants, THEY ARE RULERS in America at this point) but we're taking totally gormless entertainers seriously.
No, Jennifer Lawrence, it wasn't God who was punishing us for Donald Trump that caused the hurricanes, and no Neil deGrasse Tyson it wasn't climate change that suddenly caused them to appear.
It was primarily the Atlantic mulitdecadal oscillation.
That you haven't heard that term on a newscast, from a politician or from *snicker* Leonardo DiCaprio is everything wrong with the entire situation in one.neat.package.
You may also be surprised to find out that I'm very concerned about pollution that results from modern society including, but not limited to, my very own oil and gas industry. As you read above, I also, despite my open Christianity, believe that the Earth was NOT created 5-6,000 years ago but more like 4.54 Billion years ago and that evolution is a very real thing.
I also think that one of the worst things to happen in modern society is the politicization of pretty much everything. This despite, for years, writing what is known by my handful of readers as being a pretty horrible politics blog.
And yes, I believe in, and appreciate, science. Most importantly I value the scientific method and frequently mourn it's recent passing. I mourn it because there are a lot of bad things that happen when we don't believe in science, or the scientific method, and allow our politics to dominate the conversation.
- Vaccines (or the refusal to use them)
- Nutrition (and the obesity epidemic)
- Food supply (ethanol and GMO's being two examples of this)
But the things I worry most about are pollution and climate change, in that order.
When Al Gore first formed his investment group and realized that the American populace was a) sadly uneducated on the scientific method and b.) he could make a mint off of this fact, it all started to go downhill. What followed was a movie with nine proven factual errors being given the Oscar for "Best Outstanding Documentary" and outsized influence because those of a similar political disposition liked the cut of Gore's jib.
And everyone loves a villain.
Trust me when I tell you that there is NO better villain in this world than so-called "Big Oil". Not that they're evil, but that they operate on a massive scale, generate some fairly hefty profits at times, are primarily led by old Caucasian guys and, when accidents happen, they are whoppers.
But they usually are just that, accidents. In my over a decade working in the industry I've never heard, or been part of, conversations about harming the environment, or cutting corners to put people in harm's way. I'm not suggesting this goes on, but most of the engineers that I've met have no desire to have their project 'in the news' or 'creating a headline'. That's just truth. I realize few believe it but since you probably aren't in the industry there's no way I can prove it and it probably wouldn't matter anyway.
That's because we've been conditioned, by our politicians and society, to discount information that contradicts our beliefs no matter how compelling the facts are surrounding the case. For example:
The Climate Change Computer Models (around which there is such scientific "consensus" that they are treated as Gospel) are not accurately matching what is going on in the real world. They neither foresaw the "pause" in heating that occurred nor are they accurately reflecting the real-world results of a decrease in carbon. This doesn't mean that human activity doesn't contribute to the change, only that it might not be the main driving force behind it.
In "scientific" circles, that makes me a "climate denier' which symbolizes my empathy and de facto agreement with Holocaust deniers according to leading scientific lights such as Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (the Science Guy). There are some who even suggest (seriously) that those who point this out should be arrested, sent to 'reconditioning camps' even. I guess so that we can have the heresy beaten out of us?
But again, those two distinguished thinkers that I just referenced are less scientists now and more political activists. That's where the money and fame lie. There is also the problem that neither Tyson, or Nye are actual climate scientists. That's right, the leading argument used by Michael Mann against those who pointed out flaws in his hockey stick diagram (namely, that they weren't climate scientists) can be leveled accurately against the two proponents of the same.
And this gets us to the point of this post (finally):
The biggest problems with climate change are not that enough resources are being spent, too few economies are being destroyed, too little money is flowing into the already sizable bank accounts of Al Gore's investment groups, too-little power is being handed over to the world government, that the poorer nations aren't getting paid enough money by the richer ones, no. The biggest problem is that the politicization of the issue is preventing us from figuring out what we can do to deal with it rather then destroying society in a fairly useless attempt at stopping something that's been going on before man was even a single-cell organism.
The biggest problem is us.
Because we choose to listen to politicians who are simply trying to punish political enemies (and, in many cases, impede the other 'side' from fund-raising or rent-seeking), get re-elected and gain majorities at all levels over government in order to increase their power base and pay off their political patrons. We chose to forget what the scientific method really is in lieu of some neat Power Point slides and a movie or three with gee-whiz special effects. Think about this: It was a Democratic US Representative who stated she wanted to "Nationalize the US Oil companies" and you know what? Once that happened the debate over "carbon-caused climate change" would disappear overnight.
We put too much power in the hands of functional idiots, and then we wonder why things are as they are.
We currently have a President who couldn't make a solid go of it as a casino owner in an industry that basically prints money. And look at the US Senate. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi: "You will never find a bigger hive of scum and villainy." And REALLY stupid people. The House of Representatives is just as bad. Even worse are your state-elected officials, and then your municipal and county politicians. It's an ever growing pile of incompetence, inability and utterly clueless people. (Not to mention, horribly socially awkward) And, no, it's not the fault of everyone else, your elected representatives are just as bad. You won't admit it in most cases because then you have to admit that you voted for them.
The worst thing about all of this is that not only have we elected low-functioning idiots to rule us (and, make no mistake about it, they're not public servants, THEY ARE RULERS in America at this point) but we're taking totally gormless entertainers seriously.
No, Jennifer Lawrence, it wasn't God who was punishing us for Donald Trump that caused the hurricanes, and no Neil deGrasse Tyson it wasn't climate change that suddenly caused them to appear.
It was primarily the Atlantic mulitdecadal oscillation.
That you haven't heard that term on a newscast, from a politician or from *snicker* Leonardo DiCaprio is everything wrong with the entire situation in one.neat.package.
Monday, January 23, 2017
2017: The United States is an authoritarian country.
Americans don't like free speech, although they claim to cherish it.
This fact was driven home by all of the cheering that occurred when a Nazi got punched in the face during the inauguration. Apparently, other's right to free speech does not end where your fist begins these days.
To bolster their case supporters of l'affair de sucker punch are using old Captain America comic strips and WWII propaganda posters to support their cause. This is OK but it ignores the fact that a.)Comic books are fantasy and b) the propaganda posters were selling war bonds, which provided the armed forces (the business end of American foreign relations) the ability to knock eight bells out of the Nazis.
These events led me to do some thinking, during which I tweeted out the following:
1. Most Republicans are not Conservative
2. Most Democrats are not Liberal.
3. A vast majority of Americans are authoritarians....PROVIDED the Government shares their values and beliefs.
By dropping the 'conservative' (corporatist/Statist) and 'liberal' (progressive/Statist) tags and viewing politics through an authoritarian spectrum what's happening right now begins to make a lot more sense.
Trump was not elected President by a conservative Republican party. He was elected by a group of people who disagreed with Obama and the Democrats trying to take away rights that they liked. It was less free-market, limited government thought than it was the thought that Trump would shut-down the crowd that they didn't like.
The media, and progressive commentators love to frame this as racism or homophobia, depending on which group is being targeted. And while there is some of that for most people it's more a desire to simply be left alone, to go about their own business and to not have to do business, or interact much, with people with whom they disagree. Their preferred method of dealing with this? Government fiat, which Trump has promised he will do.
What many conservatives really want is for progressive groups to be silenced, banned from the public square and forced to live their lives according to so-called "Judeo-Christian principles" on which they claim the country was founded.
Unfortunately, this tends to make Democrats very smug.
Democrats get that way because they've framed themselves, with ample help from the media, as the party of inclusion. The problem with this argument is that they are even more exclusionary than Republicans. Over and over in the media you see progressive talking-heads crying crocodile tears over the "death of the moderate Republican". This ignores the fact that the Democrats have long-ago shed the moderate Democrat from their party, more successfully and more completely than have the Republicans.
In truth, both parties, and their sycophants, want the same thing, just targeted toward different groups. A huge majority of Americans want the country's laws designed to support their way of life, their preferred belief system to the exclusion of everyone else. Tolerance for everyone except the intolerant is said with a straight face, and not a hint of irony.
The problem with free speech has always been that it tends to be a little messy. True free speech means that neo-Nazis can be interviewed in the public square, that 'hate' groups are free to spew whatever vile message they want, and that around 1 Million people (mostly middle-class, Caucasian women) can gather in cities across the country and chant, scream, and ultimately litter up the place by leaving their signs behind as trash.
People are already calling this the "Left's Tea Party" which is odd because I thought that was why Occupy was supposed to be. But if this is some new-aged progressive tea party then the Republicans should be glad for this, because it was the uncertainty and political naivety of the Tea Party that led Republicans into the political desert for the last eight years. (In part, not in whole)
What the Democrats don't need right now is a political shuffling, a circular firing squad where their most moderate members (which, to be honest, is like having the most curable cancer) get picked off in primaries and are replaced with a group that can't shoot straight. They already suffer from sub-par leadership, imagine them with no leadership at all.
As the year goes on I predict that the cacophony is only going to increase in volume, will become more frequent and will suck up most of the remaining political oxygen in the country.
Because, if history has taught us anything, it's that people react the most violently when they're not exposed to differing opinions, beliefs and ideals, and begin to think that their world-view is not just different, but superior to the opinions, beliefs and ideals of "those people".
I am not optimistic that America in her current state can do much to stop this from happening.
This fact was driven home by all of the cheering that occurred when a Nazi got punched in the face during the inauguration. Apparently, other's right to free speech does not end where your fist begins these days.
To bolster their case supporters of l'affair de sucker punch are using old Captain America comic strips and WWII propaganda posters to support their cause. This is OK but it ignores the fact that a.)Comic books are fantasy and b) the propaganda posters were selling war bonds, which provided the armed forces (the business end of American foreign relations) the ability to knock eight bells out of the Nazis.
These events led me to do some thinking, during which I tweeted out the following:
1. Most Republicans are not Conservative
2. Most Democrats are not Liberal.
3. A vast majority of Americans are authoritarians....PROVIDED the Government shares their values and beliefs.
By dropping the 'conservative' (corporatist/Statist) and 'liberal' (progressive/Statist) tags and viewing politics through an authoritarian spectrum what's happening right now begins to make a lot more sense.
Trump was not elected President by a conservative Republican party. He was elected by a group of people who disagreed with Obama and the Democrats trying to take away rights that they liked. It was less free-market, limited government thought than it was the thought that Trump would shut-down the crowd that they didn't like.
The media, and progressive commentators love to frame this as racism or homophobia, depending on which group is being targeted. And while there is some of that for most people it's more a desire to simply be left alone, to go about their own business and to not have to do business, or interact much, with people with whom they disagree. Their preferred method of dealing with this? Government fiat, which Trump has promised he will do.
What many conservatives really want is for progressive groups to be silenced, banned from the public square and forced to live their lives according to so-called "Judeo-Christian principles" on which they claim the country was founded.
Unfortunately, this tends to make Democrats very smug.
Democrats get that way because they've framed themselves, with ample help from the media, as the party of inclusion. The problem with this argument is that they are even more exclusionary than Republicans. Over and over in the media you see progressive talking-heads crying crocodile tears over the "death of the moderate Republican". This ignores the fact that the Democrats have long-ago shed the moderate Democrat from their party, more successfully and more completely than have the Republicans.
In truth, both parties, and their sycophants, want the same thing, just targeted toward different groups. A huge majority of Americans want the country's laws designed to support their way of life, their preferred belief system to the exclusion of everyone else. Tolerance for everyone except the intolerant is said with a straight face, and not a hint of irony.
The problem with free speech has always been that it tends to be a little messy. True free speech means that neo-Nazis can be interviewed in the public square, that 'hate' groups are free to spew whatever vile message they want, and that around 1 Million people (mostly middle-class, Caucasian women) can gather in cities across the country and chant, scream, and ultimately litter up the place by leaving their signs behind as trash.
People are already calling this the "Left's Tea Party" which is odd because I thought that was why Occupy was supposed to be. But if this is some new-aged progressive tea party then the Republicans should be glad for this, because it was the uncertainty and political naivety of the Tea Party that led Republicans into the political desert for the last eight years. (In part, not in whole)
What the Democrats don't need right now is a political shuffling, a circular firing squad where their most moderate members (which, to be honest, is like having the most curable cancer) get picked off in primaries and are replaced with a group that can't shoot straight. They already suffer from sub-par leadership, imagine them with no leadership at all.
As the year goes on I predict that the cacophony is only going to increase in volume, will become more frequent and will suck up most of the remaining political oxygen in the country.
Because, if history has taught us anything, it's that people react the most violently when they're not exposed to differing opinions, beliefs and ideals, and begin to think that their world-view is not just different, but superior to the opinions, beliefs and ideals of "those people".
I am not optimistic that America in her current state can do much to stop this from happening.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
2017: The Year of Unprincipled Opposition.
Alternate title: Why we are stuck with Trump.
When you lose, it's never a good look to go pout in a corner. Even IF you have a blowtorch that's willing to provide you with cover.
But that's the tack that the Democrats have decided to take.
We live in a time when America could use a healthy dose of principled opposition. Instead we're being given a partisan hissy fit that's indirectly leading to the President Elect being who he is. Even the Republicans are either marching in lock-step, or going off the deep end (Hi Evan McMullin) with no seeming middle ground.
The fact is, not everything that Trump has done so far has been awful. He's been petulant with the media of course, and has all of the tact of a constipated black bear, but aside from displaying a tendency to try and bully watchdogs and silence critics he's done an OK job selecting cabinet members etc. Most of them (gasp!) have been fairly conservative.
Of course, Conservative is the rub for the Democrats. Having an EPA director that doesn't toe the Al Gore "enrich my investment groups" line is somehow viewed as disqualifying. Groups that are beholden to the Gaia lobby suggest conflicts of interest where there are none, all while ignoring the very real, and very lucrative conflicts that they carry into the debate.
So we're up to about 30 congressional Democrats who are refusing to attend. John Lewis of course, the civil rights activist who was correct on segregation, but is a little dodgy on the Constitutional process to elect a President. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) has also said he's taking his Socialist-leanings and going to spend his time playing with a "my little tractor" toy set. Or something.
Of course, almost every celebrity is sitting this one out, either because (as John Legend claimed) artistic people tend to not like hate or (more likely) because performing there would lead to severe personal cost both financially and physically. If there's one thing our progressive elite love, it's a good outrage as a chance to financially ruin or threaten physical harm toward those who don't toe the public line (It's the same for some of you Republicans, so lose that smug look.)
Of course, a celebrity-free inauguration is a good thing for the health of the Republic, something our "hee-hee" media seems unwilling to comprehend, or an angle they are unwilling to report. In fact, any lessening of the Presidency as it currently stands can only be viewed as a positive. The President is not our national daddy, despite what Chris Rock thinks.
Nor is the President a monarch or, Constitutionally, designed to be all that powerful. Our lazy elected representatives have made the office that way by refusing to worry about the details of sweeping legislation, leaving them to unelected bureaucracies operating under the Executive branch. Separation of powers? Bah. Humbug!
But what's bad for our elected officials might be a good thing for us. And no, that's not hypocritical. Because by attending the inauguration, and supporting the concept of a smooth transition of power, the Congress persons would be fulfilling a job duty essential to the functioning of the Republic. By refusing to do so they are suggesting that the very thing that makes us American, fealty and faithfulness to the Constitution and the rule of law, is no longer valued by our leadership.
Our ignoring of the hand on the Bible thing tells a different message. It tells the government that we, the people, don't give two cents worth of care about their little dog and pony show. That we are in charge and we choose to do something else why they put on airs and prance around the yard like trained monkeys barking for coins.
Mines horse-racing and college basketball this weekend then. What's yours?
When you lose, it's never a good look to go pout in a corner. Even IF you have a blowtorch that's willing to provide you with cover.
But that's the tack that the Democrats have decided to take.
We live in a time when America could use a healthy dose of principled opposition. Instead we're being given a partisan hissy fit that's indirectly leading to the President Elect being who he is. Even the Republicans are either marching in lock-step, or going off the deep end (Hi Evan McMullin) with no seeming middle ground.
The fact is, not everything that Trump has done so far has been awful. He's been petulant with the media of course, and has all of the tact of a constipated black bear, but aside from displaying a tendency to try and bully watchdogs and silence critics he's done an OK job selecting cabinet members etc. Most of them (gasp!) have been fairly conservative.
Of course, Conservative is the rub for the Democrats. Having an EPA director that doesn't toe the Al Gore "enrich my investment groups" line is somehow viewed as disqualifying. Groups that are beholden to the Gaia lobby suggest conflicts of interest where there are none, all while ignoring the very real, and very lucrative conflicts that they carry into the debate.
So we're up to about 30 congressional Democrats who are refusing to attend. John Lewis of course, the civil rights activist who was correct on segregation, but is a little dodgy on the Constitutional process to elect a President. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) has also said he's taking his Socialist-leanings and going to spend his time playing with a "my little tractor" toy set. Or something.
Of course, almost every celebrity is sitting this one out, either because (as John Legend claimed) artistic people tend to not like hate or (more likely) because performing there would lead to severe personal cost both financially and physically. If there's one thing our progressive elite love, it's a good outrage as a chance to financially ruin or threaten physical harm toward those who don't toe the public line (It's the same for some of you Republicans, so lose that smug look.)
Of course, a celebrity-free inauguration is a good thing for the health of the Republic, something our "hee-hee" media seems unwilling to comprehend, or an angle they are unwilling to report. In fact, any lessening of the Presidency as it currently stands can only be viewed as a positive. The President is not our national daddy, despite what Chris Rock thinks.
Nor is the President a monarch or, Constitutionally, designed to be all that powerful. Our lazy elected representatives have made the office that way by refusing to worry about the details of sweeping legislation, leaving them to unelected bureaucracies operating under the Executive branch. Separation of powers? Bah. Humbug!
But what's bad for our elected officials might be a good thing for us. And no, that's not hypocritical. Because by attending the inauguration, and supporting the concept of a smooth transition of power, the Congress persons would be fulfilling a job duty essential to the functioning of the Republic. By refusing to do so they are suggesting that the very thing that makes us American, fealty and faithfulness to the Constitution and the rule of law, is no longer valued by our leadership.
Our ignoring of the hand on the Bible thing tells a different message. It tells the government that we, the people, don't give two cents worth of care about their little dog and pony show. That we are in charge and we choose to do something else why they put on airs and prance around the yard like trained monkeys barking for coins.
Mines horse-racing and college basketball this weekend then. What's yours?
Friday, December 30, 2016
The (Official) YDOP 2017 Prediction Post:
Or, things that absolutely, positively, 100% are not going to happen next year.
A few days ago we took a trip down memory lane reliving a 2016 that was widely agreed-upon as one of the worst American years in recent history. It was a year that gave us President-Elect Donald Trump, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, a new, expansive tax on Las Vegas hotels designed solely to enrich Sheldon Adelson and a 1-13 49ers team that just needs to be put down.
But....as in all things, 2017 offers us a new hope for a brighter future as baby new year births from the loins of old man 2016 with all of the promise and hope that these things typically signify.
Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, let's look ahead shall we?
The United States.
The biggest story is, of course, Donald J. Trump. Congratulations America, you finally did it, you elected an ape in a suit to be President instead of one of the many, qualified conservatives that stood against him in the primary. Of course, the Democrats put-up possibly the worst political candidate of the modern age to stand against him so.....
Contrary to the whinging of many, I don't predict an 'end to the Republic' in 2017. As a matter of fact, I think things will move along pretty much in the same shitty manner they are now. The Democrats, out of any semblance of functional power and lacking ways to pay off their various constituencies, will be loud, shrill, stupid and aghast at just about everything Trump does. They will be so shocked it will appear that a Tesla coil has taken full time residence in the Congressional chambers. The NeverTrump crowd, or what's left of them, will sheepishly move back onto their porches with psuedo-witty aphorisms such as "I'm old enough to remember" etc. etc.
The problem, of course, is that many of them are just that. Old.
Business, being what business is, will continue to saunter along without accomplishing much. Companies, still unsure about the long-term future, will continue to hoard cash and progress will be achingly slow. The past gave us the moon-landing and the internal-combustion engine, it also gave us the computer, refrigeration, radio, television and the internet. The future is going to give us faster internet speeds and 2-year commitment packages with phones that might, or might not, catch fire when we log onto TalkAbout, the new "big" social media platform that will enrich it's designers despite the lack of a clear path to profitability. Facebook will become both public enemy number one and the biggest social media platform out there, while Twitter continues to fall in on itself, buried under an avalanche of anonymous trolls and social justice warriors hoping to get noticed.
But, and this is the important part, the Federal bureaucracy will still function, and it will still continue to choke-off meaningful economic growth under the name of 'consumer protection' and 'safety'. The Alphabet-soup of organizations that de-facto run this country will continue to place out-sized influence into the hands of lower-level clerks who, in many cases, barely generate enough brain-power to keep their legs functioning properly. Due to federal employment laws that would make Franz Kafka stand mouth agape with wonder the government is unable, and unwilling, to get rid of these modern day miniature Torquemadas who run rough-shod across corporate profitability each and every day.
Houston
"Space City" as it was once called, is looking down the gun barrel of years and years of bad electoral decisions. From the man who gave us the current pension mess to the man who never found a crony capitalism deal he didn't like to the woman whose anger threatened to rip the city apart to a career back-bench legislator whose life ambition was to become Mayor (think about that for a minute), the incredibly sub-par run of Mayors lacking basic leadership skills has crippled the city to a level that might take municipal bankruptcy to recover from.
Houston is a mess, and it's going to continue being so long as Sylvester and friends sit around City Hall wondering what speech he can give next in order to fool the citizenry into believing that he actually has a clue. More importantly, can he forestall the coming financial vortex for eight more years allowing him to continue to claim the problem "fixed" (in the same manner former-Mayor Bill White "fixed" the pension mess and former Mayor Annise Parker "fixed" homelessness) and skate out of town with a few legacy-making projects under his belt? (Note: He might want to try and do better than Bill White, who only managed to escape with a sidewalk named after him.)
Because the financial and actual infrastructure of the city are crumbling the people have turned inward. Traffic is a mess on the best of days, a dystopian nightmare on the worst. People have gotten so selfish on the road that little things like courtesy and traffic laws have gone the way of the Dodo. Cutting people off to skip a turn line is now commonplace, as is undertaking on the right and pulling in front of people and slamming on the brakes. (Helpful hint: Stay out of the blind spot of other motorists, trust me on this one).
Houston's public transportation system has hit the skids, as reimagining turned out to be an art-installation where the artist (Christof Speiler) did little more than imagine empty buses and design a plan to make it so. Have you seen Metro's ridership numbers lately? It's not pretty. Of course, the toy train is chugging along, moving moderately well-off Houstonians to bars and events, and spit-polishing itself for the upcoming Stupid Bowl. It's Lady Gaga this year folks, let's pray we don't see HER bare breast during the halftime show. Maybe she'll sacrifice a nutria rat?
Speaking of the Stupid Bowl, rumblings are already starting that this, LI if you've been paying attention, could be Houston's last. The last that is unless we take a good, hard look at NRG and commit to providing Houston's middling football team with a Billion-plus dollar play-pen to compete with the likes of Dallas, Minnesota, Los Angeles and (soon) Las Vegas. NRG is not even 20-years old, and you're going to be pummeled with opinion pieces in 2017 talking about how "out of date" it already is and that only a massive injection of public funds is going to save it.
And then we get to the Astrodome, County Judge' Ed Emmet's great, gray, dingy, whale. Of course, there are plans, a parking garage-slash-er-uh-something-or-other that will be there and which will make the wheezing old building shine again because......I don't know, history? Every other city worth a damn, and many that aren't, rightly decided to implode their former "state-of-the-art-at-the-time" complexes but not Houston. In Houston it's been decided that almost anything older than 5 minutes is suddenly historical and deserves to remain standing, forever, even if no one really gives much of a damn about it, never visits any more and there's really no use for it.
It's much the same with Houston's restaurant and bar scene. When a place closes people lament the closure, rip their garments and dress in sack-cloth, right after admitting that they "haven't been there in years".
The Media.
2016 was the year we lost our faith in the media. 100%, totally. It's done, finished, and there's scant evidence that they're going to try and work their way back. Today the New York Times, the Old Grey Lady, dared to lecture Americans on the 'antiquated mechanism' that is the Electoral College. Coming from a newspaper that's a laughable argument. TV News is all but shot, newspapers are honestly at this point just too stubborn to die and anything on the Internet is just as likely to be so-called "fake news" as it is to be the ravings of some progressive nutter. Did you know that "Star Wars" is about *gasp* WAR? This was news to the functional idiots working at Vox.com after all.
2017 is, unfortunately, going to give us more of the same. Because for all of the hand-wringing and concern-trolling from the media on why the American people don't understand their brilliance, there's no talk of ideological diversity, which is the thing they are lacking most.
Want to annoy a newspaper person? Criticize them. Even justifiable criticism, calling out a factual error, is responded to with anger and vitriol. Pointing out bad reporting is met with "Don't you know we're PEOPLE?" and other nonesuch. And if you disagree too strongly? They just stop listening. Which is the good thing about living in an ivory tower, you can just shut the windows to drown out the noise.
There are going to be a LOT of stories in 2017 about the ridiculous nature of rural White America, and how it's ruining the multicultural, fair trade, organic crunchy future that the progressives have designed. Instead of telling us the news of the day, these modern-day low-functioning idiots think they are uniquely qualified to "explain" it to us because they possess a degree in journalism and a blow-torch coupled to word processing software with dodgy spell-check. Oh, and they're hip, everyone they hang out with tells them so. They go to poetry-readings and cocktail-happy-hours at the museum and trivia night at the bars where they drink beer so crafty it was fermented in the navels of local poets. Do you drink beer like that? Or wait in line for two hours to eat lunch at the types of places where people wait in line two hours to eat lunch? Do you dine at a restaurant that has a unisex bathroom?
No? Then you will need the news explained to you because you obviously aren't worthy of much more than having the news explained to you by those who do. Now, if you don't mind providing your credit card number and stop asking questions whenever they bill you randomly for "special issues" that have pretty much nothing to do with anything important.
The media will also be turning up their "fact-checking" and "news analysis" as means to insert their political opinion into the news of the day which was once taboo but is now widely praised and, here's a bold prediction, will result in the first Pulitzer Prize being given to a full-on opinion piece disguised as a hard-news expose. Hell, they're not even going to hide it any longer.
The World.
News flash: There will be wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters, man-made disasters, shootings, stabbings, muggings, beatings, honor-killings etc. The Jews still won't like the Muslims and the Muslims still won't like pretty much anyone. The Americans and Chinese will continue to demonize one another publicly (while speaking diplomatically privately) because their leaders understand the controlling power of a faceless boogeyman. North Korea will continue to live in the dark ages and Cuba will continue to oppress it's people. Raul Castro is not a reformer, but the ideological successor of Fidel. People will continue to wear Che shirts not understanding that, if they knew him in real life, they would either hate him or, more likely if they are women, be raped by him. The UN will continue to tut-tut at everyone and seek for more money by claiming the world is on the verge of overheating in a man-made microwave.
We'll continue to hear how climate change is going to bring about doom and gloom, despite the actual weather and climate results not matching up with the computer models. Scientists, whose very careers are almost totally dependent on continued funding for climate disaster research, will assure us that it's the models that are correct and reality that has it wrong.
Oil will continue to be relatively low priced, as will natural gas, coal will continue to become more and more scarce in the developed world, but will be more and more valued in the developing world due to low prices. Around once per month we'll be reassured that workable, economicly renewable energy is 'right around the corner'.
But we'll see some good things too. We'll hear stories of generosity and bravery, of hope and kindness. There will be beauty in tragedy and mercy in times of war. We will see acts of courage so grand they bring tears to our eyes, up until the point the media/Hollywood machine seeks to capitalize on them that is.
And all of us, the wealthy, the poor, the somewhere in between, will continue to live our day to day lives trying our best to eke out an existence in spite of, not because of, our ruling class and their courtesans.
Such has it always been, such will it always be.
A few days ago we took a trip down memory lane reliving a 2016 that was widely agreed-upon as one of the worst American years in recent history. It was a year that gave us President-Elect Donald Trump, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, a new, expansive tax on Las Vegas hotels designed solely to enrich Sheldon Adelson and a 1-13 49ers team that just needs to be put down.
But....as in all things, 2017 offers us a new hope for a brighter future as baby new year births from the loins of old man 2016 with all of the promise and hope that these things typically signify.
Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, let's look ahead shall we?
The United States.
The biggest story is, of course, Donald J. Trump. Congratulations America, you finally did it, you elected an ape in a suit to be President instead of one of the many, qualified conservatives that stood against him in the primary. Of course, the Democrats put-up possibly the worst political candidate of the modern age to stand against him so.....
Contrary to the whinging of many, I don't predict an 'end to the Republic' in 2017. As a matter of fact, I think things will move along pretty much in the same shitty manner they are now. The Democrats, out of any semblance of functional power and lacking ways to pay off their various constituencies, will be loud, shrill, stupid and aghast at just about everything Trump does. They will be so shocked it will appear that a Tesla coil has taken full time residence in the Congressional chambers. The NeverTrump crowd, or what's left of them, will sheepishly move back onto their porches with psuedo-witty aphorisms such as "I'm old enough to remember" etc. etc.
The problem, of course, is that many of them are just that. Old.
Business, being what business is, will continue to saunter along without accomplishing much. Companies, still unsure about the long-term future, will continue to hoard cash and progress will be achingly slow. The past gave us the moon-landing and the internal-combustion engine, it also gave us the computer, refrigeration, radio, television and the internet. The future is going to give us faster internet speeds and 2-year commitment packages with phones that might, or might not, catch fire when we log onto TalkAbout, the new "big" social media platform that will enrich it's designers despite the lack of a clear path to profitability. Facebook will become both public enemy number one and the biggest social media platform out there, while Twitter continues to fall in on itself, buried under an avalanche of anonymous trolls and social justice warriors hoping to get noticed.
But, and this is the important part, the Federal bureaucracy will still function, and it will still continue to choke-off meaningful economic growth under the name of 'consumer protection' and 'safety'. The Alphabet-soup of organizations that de-facto run this country will continue to place out-sized influence into the hands of lower-level clerks who, in many cases, barely generate enough brain-power to keep their legs functioning properly. Due to federal employment laws that would make Franz Kafka stand mouth agape with wonder the government is unable, and unwilling, to get rid of these modern day miniature Torquemadas who run rough-shod across corporate profitability each and every day.
Houston
"Space City" as it was once called, is looking down the gun barrel of years and years of bad electoral decisions. From the man who gave us the current pension mess to the man who never found a crony capitalism deal he didn't like to the woman whose anger threatened to rip the city apart to a career back-bench legislator whose life ambition was to become Mayor (think about that for a minute), the incredibly sub-par run of Mayors lacking basic leadership skills has crippled the city to a level that might take municipal bankruptcy to recover from.
Houston is a mess, and it's going to continue being so long as Sylvester and friends sit around City Hall wondering what speech he can give next in order to fool the citizenry into believing that he actually has a clue. More importantly, can he forestall the coming financial vortex for eight more years allowing him to continue to claim the problem "fixed" (in the same manner former-Mayor Bill White "fixed" the pension mess and former Mayor Annise Parker "fixed" homelessness) and skate out of town with a few legacy-making projects under his belt? (Note: He might want to try and do better than Bill White, who only managed to escape with a sidewalk named after him.)
Because the financial and actual infrastructure of the city are crumbling the people have turned inward. Traffic is a mess on the best of days, a dystopian nightmare on the worst. People have gotten so selfish on the road that little things like courtesy and traffic laws have gone the way of the Dodo. Cutting people off to skip a turn line is now commonplace, as is undertaking on the right and pulling in front of people and slamming on the brakes. (Helpful hint: Stay out of the blind spot of other motorists, trust me on this one).
Houston's public transportation system has hit the skids, as reimagining turned out to be an art-installation where the artist (Christof Speiler) did little more than imagine empty buses and design a plan to make it so. Have you seen Metro's ridership numbers lately? It's not pretty. Of course, the toy train is chugging along, moving moderately well-off Houstonians to bars and events, and spit-polishing itself for the upcoming Stupid Bowl. It's Lady Gaga this year folks, let's pray we don't see HER bare breast during the halftime show. Maybe she'll sacrifice a nutria rat?
Speaking of the Stupid Bowl, rumblings are already starting that this, LI if you've been paying attention, could be Houston's last. The last that is unless we take a good, hard look at NRG and commit to providing Houston's middling football team with a Billion-plus dollar play-pen to compete with the likes of Dallas, Minnesota, Los Angeles and (soon) Las Vegas. NRG is not even 20-years old, and you're going to be pummeled with opinion pieces in 2017 talking about how "out of date" it already is and that only a massive injection of public funds is going to save it.
And then we get to the Astrodome, County Judge' Ed Emmet's great, gray, dingy, whale. Of course, there are plans, a parking garage-slash-er-uh-something-or-other that will be there and which will make the wheezing old building shine again because......I don't know, history? Every other city worth a damn, and many that aren't, rightly decided to implode their former "state-of-the-art-at-the-time" complexes but not Houston. In Houston it's been decided that almost anything older than 5 minutes is suddenly historical and deserves to remain standing, forever, even if no one really gives much of a damn about it, never visits any more and there's really no use for it.
It's much the same with Houston's restaurant and bar scene. When a place closes people lament the closure, rip their garments and dress in sack-cloth, right after admitting that they "haven't been there in years".
The Media.
2016 was the year we lost our faith in the media. 100%, totally. It's done, finished, and there's scant evidence that they're going to try and work their way back. Today the New York Times, the Old Grey Lady, dared to lecture Americans on the 'antiquated mechanism' that is the Electoral College. Coming from a newspaper that's a laughable argument. TV News is all but shot, newspapers are honestly at this point just too stubborn to die and anything on the Internet is just as likely to be so-called "fake news" as it is to be the ravings of some progressive nutter. Did you know that "Star Wars" is about *gasp* WAR? This was news to the functional idiots working at Vox.com after all.
2017 is, unfortunately, going to give us more of the same. Because for all of the hand-wringing and concern-trolling from the media on why the American people don't understand their brilliance, there's no talk of ideological diversity, which is the thing they are lacking most.
Want to annoy a newspaper person? Criticize them. Even justifiable criticism, calling out a factual error, is responded to with anger and vitriol. Pointing out bad reporting is met with "Don't you know we're PEOPLE?" and other nonesuch. And if you disagree too strongly? They just stop listening. Which is the good thing about living in an ivory tower, you can just shut the windows to drown out the noise.
There are going to be a LOT of stories in 2017 about the ridiculous nature of rural White America, and how it's ruining the multicultural, fair trade, organic crunchy future that the progressives have designed. Instead of telling us the news of the day, these modern-day low-functioning idiots think they are uniquely qualified to "explain" it to us because they possess a degree in journalism and a blow-torch coupled to word processing software with dodgy spell-check. Oh, and they're hip, everyone they hang out with tells them so. They go to poetry-readings and cocktail-happy-hours at the museum and trivia night at the bars where they drink beer so crafty it was fermented in the navels of local poets. Do you drink beer like that? Or wait in line for two hours to eat lunch at the types of places where people wait in line two hours to eat lunch? Do you dine at a restaurant that has a unisex bathroom?
No? Then you will need the news explained to you because you obviously aren't worthy of much more than having the news explained to you by those who do. Now, if you don't mind providing your credit card number and stop asking questions whenever they bill you randomly for "special issues" that have pretty much nothing to do with anything important.
The media will also be turning up their "fact-checking" and "news analysis" as means to insert their political opinion into the news of the day which was once taboo but is now widely praised and, here's a bold prediction, will result in the first Pulitzer Prize being given to a full-on opinion piece disguised as a hard-news expose. Hell, they're not even going to hide it any longer.
The World.
News flash: There will be wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters, man-made disasters, shootings, stabbings, muggings, beatings, honor-killings etc. The Jews still won't like the Muslims and the Muslims still won't like pretty much anyone. The Americans and Chinese will continue to demonize one another publicly (while speaking diplomatically privately) because their leaders understand the controlling power of a faceless boogeyman. North Korea will continue to live in the dark ages and Cuba will continue to oppress it's people. Raul Castro is not a reformer, but the ideological successor of Fidel. People will continue to wear Che shirts not understanding that, if they knew him in real life, they would either hate him or, more likely if they are women, be raped by him. The UN will continue to tut-tut at everyone and seek for more money by claiming the world is on the verge of overheating in a man-made microwave.
We'll continue to hear how climate change is going to bring about doom and gloom, despite the actual weather and climate results not matching up with the computer models. Scientists, whose very careers are almost totally dependent on continued funding for climate disaster research, will assure us that it's the models that are correct and reality that has it wrong.
Oil will continue to be relatively low priced, as will natural gas, coal will continue to become more and more scarce in the developed world, but will be more and more valued in the developing world due to low prices. Around once per month we'll be reassured that workable, economicly renewable energy is 'right around the corner'.
But we'll see some good things too. We'll hear stories of generosity and bravery, of hope and kindness. There will be beauty in tragedy and mercy in times of war. We will see acts of courage so grand they bring tears to our eyes, up until the point the media/Hollywood machine seeks to capitalize on them that is.
And all of us, the wealthy, the poor, the somewhere in between, will continue to live our day to day lives trying our best to eke out an existence in spite of, not because of, our ruling class and their courtesans.
Such has it always been, such will it always be.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
BadPolitics: Waiting for the other shoe to drop on this election.
I stated last night on Twitter that this had to be on last Monty Python prank being pulled on America.
"Two dipshits run for political office"
The debate going on with Python staff (one dressed in drag of course) providing silly answers to questions asked by John Cleese. Suddenly, he turns, looks at the camera and says:
"And now for something completely different"
*Cue Music.*
As we all are aware by now that's not what's going on. America, perhaps once the greatest country in the world (debatable I know) is stuck with a horrific game of "would you rather" to determine who will occupy the office of the Presidency from 2017 to at least 2021, barring tragedy.
Would you rather: Be subjected to Donald Trump's blustering idiocy for the next 4 years or Hillary Clinton's shrieking foolishness? This is really a loaded question because, no matter who ends up winning this game show, America is going to lose badly.
It's easy to look at the surface of things and blame the 2-party system with which we're saddled.
Yes, it limits choice and the Republicans and Democrats both have gamed the system to severely restrict the ability of other parties to enter the fray. From draconian ballot access rules to exclusionary debate standards everything in America is not designed to establish Democracy, but to protect the two parties that benefit the most from the sham that we currently practice.
Yes, Congress has become an incumbency protection racket with the two parties only arguing around the margins of gerrymandered maps hoping beyond hope that one or the other will make a monumental mistake (like the GOP nominating Trump [or, in a normal year Clinton]) that will turn off the electorate to temporarily upset the balance of power allowing them to have majorities in both the Executive and Legislative branches that allow disastrous laws like the Affordable Care Act to pass through on partisan lines.
But that's not 'quite' the root cause of the problem, although it is a symptom of it. Neither is it that all politicians, and by all I mean all, at every level, each and every one of them, are completely and separately a breed of their own.
Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a politician? It's like talking to a auto-quote generator. If you meet them at a bar they *might* have a single beer, which they will sit on the table and nurse like a cancer patient while regaling you with their policy priorities and (this last bit is inevitable) "what you need to do" to help them get over the finish line. Politicians don't have conversations, they have sales pitches. They view every.single.interaction with constituents as either an opportunity to gain a vote, or (more importantly) gain a donation. If the media is there then you become a prop in their minstrel show. At no point do you get the feeling that they are a public servant and you are an important part of their constituency.
We're long removed from the fantasy of "citizen politicians" who spend the day working on the farm, or in the city, only to be pulled away for a few years, to serve the country and make sage, wise decisions on the matters of the day. That America ever was there is a fallacy that probably needs to die.
What we have today are people who spend a lifetime preparing to run for office, who spend their lives surrounded by the ruling class, so removed from the serfs that they soon lose all ability to socially interact with them. On the Left you have Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel and Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. On the Right you have Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Harris County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez. People who spend their entire lives running from office to office just trying to find a way to glom onto the machine so they're don't have to try and cut it in the private sector.
On the other side are the gadflys. The hangers-on to the political class who act as political remoras, sucking onto the political class and basing most of the business dealings on them. In Houston we have people like Marty McVey, a man who has, as near as I can tell, no remarkable business acumen except for the innate ability to latch onto the local Democratic political machine and make profit from the largesse of it.
Occasionally, as in the case of McVey and, more notably, Donald Trump, these drains on society decide that they too should make a run at public office. After all, they've grown up their whole business lives around politicians, they view themselves as having the gift of gab and the feel the same way about the commoners as their politician friends do. It should be a wash right?
Except it's not, and in the case of Donald Trump I'd say there's a better than average chance his campaign was always intended to be a raging dumpster fire in order to aid and abet his life-long friend Hillary attain the office of her dreams.
But the politicians aren't the root-cause of the problem either, they are only a symptom.
Finally we have the media. So far in the tank for Clinton they think the fake chest at the bottom with the air hose running through it is filled with real gold. The media have become blinded by their intense desire to be included in the types of parties their lobbyist friends are invited to. Why else do you think the President attends the White House Correspondents dinner? It's to throw the sycophants a bone.
To be clear. There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything closely resembling an "unbiased" media. There was never a "good ol' days" where all we got was a solid dose of Walter Cronkite truth. Hell, even Sir Walter the Revered himself didn't give us that. There is not a person on this Earth, not one, who is capable of 100% repressing their personal beliefs when writing on a topic. THERE.IS.ALWAYS.BIAS. Always. There are no exceptions to this, either on the left or the right.
But still, we're not talking about the problem, only a symptom of it.
The root cause, the Pater Familia of where we are today, stuck in the worst election cycle ever with the two single worst candidates to ever be nominated for office by a major party, is because we, the people, the so-called "backbone of the Nation" have stopped thinking, stopped paying attention, and have outsourced our political discourse to the three groups above.
And I'm not just talking about the 2/3rd of Americans who can't name all three branches of government, I'm referring to people who consider themselves "politically clued in". I'm talking about party activists, people who stay up late watching FoxNews and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, People who spend their Monday nights at county party committee meetings, their Saturdays phone-banking or block-walking instead of watching College Football as God intended.
I'm referring to people who can name the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, both Minority leaders, the whips, their Governor, all of the State elected officials, their party chairman and their local politicians as well.
Or, as politicians like to call them: useful idiots.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties could have spared us from this mess. The Republicans could have shown a backbone and not allowed a life-long Democrat, and Friend of Bill (Clinton) take over their nomination process and, through open primary votes from non-Republicans, become the parties standard-bearer. And the Democrats could have decided that no, they're NOT going to run interference for Hillary, forcing her to face some real competition instead of just crazy Bernie and...um...that other guy that ran, for a minute...ah never mind, you don't remember him either.
Even after the nominations it could be stopped. If only people would be willing to call out their own party when they're wrong.
But they're not. They can't be. Because so many political types have based so much of their self-worth on whether or not their chosen party wins we're to the point that policy doesn't matter. This is why politicians can "evolve" on issues and suddenly a vociferous pro-defense-of-marriage Democratic blogger pivots and writes (without a hint of self-awareness) that anyone anti-GLBTQPI(Z? We need to find something different, I'm getting lost) thoughts is a bigot who should immediately be ran out of polite society on a rail.
We either don't think, or we don't care. The result of this is that the ruling class has successfully convinced us that the real threat to the Republic, the number one danger facing us, of changing our way of lives and taking away all of our freedoms, is.....us.
And we thank them for it, begging them to take over more, empowering them with more and refusing to see what is going on right in front of us each and every day.
"And now for something completely different."
Except.....it won't be.
"Two dipshits run for political office"
The debate going on with Python staff (one dressed in drag of course) providing silly answers to questions asked by John Cleese. Suddenly, he turns, looks at the camera and says:
"And now for something completely different"
*Cue Music.*
As we all are aware by now that's not what's going on. America, perhaps once the greatest country in the world (debatable I know) is stuck with a horrific game of "would you rather" to determine who will occupy the office of the Presidency from 2017 to at least 2021, barring tragedy.
Would you rather: Be subjected to Donald Trump's blustering idiocy for the next 4 years or Hillary Clinton's shrieking foolishness? This is really a loaded question because, no matter who ends up winning this game show, America is going to lose badly.
It's easy to look at the surface of things and blame the 2-party system with which we're saddled.
Yes, it limits choice and the Republicans and Democrats both have gamed the system to severely restrict the ability of other parties to enter the fray. From draconian ballot access rules to exclusionary debate standards everything in America is not designed to establish Democracy, but to protect the two parties that benefit the most from the sham that we currently practice.
Yes, Congress has become an incumbency protection racket with the two parties only arguing around the margins of gerrymandered maps hoping beyond hope that one or the other will make a monumental mistake (like the GOP nominating Trump [or, in a normal year Clinton]) that will turn off the electorate to temporarily upset the balance of power allowing them to have majorities in both the Executive and Legislative branches that allow disastrous laws like the Affordable Care Act to pass through on partisan lines.
But that's not 'quite' the root cause of the problem, although it is a symptom of it. Neither is it that all politicians, and by all I mean all, at every level, each and every one of them, are completely and separately a breed of their own.
Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a politician? It's like talking to a auto-quote generator. If you meet them at a bar they *might* have a single beer, which they will sit on the table and nurse like a cancer patient while regaling you with their policy priorities and (this last bit is inevitable) "what you need to do" to help them get over the finish line. Politicians don't have conversations, they have sales pitches. They view every.single.interaction with constituents as either an opportunity to gain a vote, or (more importantly) gain a donation. If the media is there then you become a prop in their minstrel show. At no point do you get the feeling that they are a public servant and you are an important part of their constituency.
We're long removed from the fantasy of "citizen politicians" who spend the day working on the farm, or in the city, only to be pulled away for a few years, to serve the country and make sage, wise decisions on the matters of the day. That America ever was there is a fallacy that probably needs to die.
What we have today are people who spend a lifetime preparing to run for office, who spend their lives surrounded by the ruling class, so removed from the serfs that they soon lose all ability to socially interact with them. On the Left you have Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel and Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. On the Right you have Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Harris County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez. People who spend their entire lives running from office to office just trying to find a way to glom onto the machine so they're don't have to try and cut it in the private sector.
On the other side are the gadflys. The hangers-on to the political class who act as political remoras, sucking onto the political class and basing most of the business dealings on them. In Houston we have people like Marty McVey, a man who has, as near as I can tell, no remarkable business acumen except for the innate ability to latch onto the local Democratic political machine and make profit from the largesse of it.
Occasionally, as in the case of McVey and, more notably, Donald Trump, these drains on society decide that they too should make a run at public office. After all, they've grown up their whole business lives around politicians, they view themselves as having the gift of gab and the feel the same way about the commoners as their politician friends do. It should be a wash right?
Except it's not, and in the case of Donald Trump I'd say there's a better than average chance his campaign was always intended to be a raging dumpster fire in order to aid and abet his life-long friend Hillary attain the office of her dreams.
But the politicians aren't the root-cause of the problem either, they are only a symptom.
Finally we have the media. So far in the tank for Clinton they think the fake chest at the bottom with the air hose running through it is filled with real gold. The media have become blinded by their intense desire to be included in the types of parties their lobbyist friends are invited to. Why else do you think the President attends the White House Correspondents dinner? It's to throw the sycophants a bone.
To be clear. There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything closely resembling an "unbiased" media. There was never a "good ol' days" where all we got was a solid dose of Walter Cronkite truth. Hell, even Sir Walter the Revered himself didn't give us that. There is not a person on this Earth, not one, who is capable of 100% repressing their personal beliefs when writing on a topic. THERE.IS.ALWAYS.BIAS. Always. There are no exceptions to this, either on the left or the right.
But still, we're not talking about the problem, only a symptom of it.
The root cause, the Pater Familia of where we are today, stuck in the worst election cycle ever with the two single worst candidates to ever be nominated for office by a major party, is because we, the people, the so-called "backbone of the Nation" have stopped thinking, stopped paying attention, and have outsourced our political discourse to the three groups above.
And I'm not just talking about the 2/3rd of Americans who can't name all three branches of government, I'm referring to people who consider themselves "politically clued in". I'm talking about party activists, people who stay up late watching FoxNews and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, People who spend their Monday nights at county party committee meetings, their Saturdays phone-banking or block-walking instead of watching College Football as God intended.
I'm referring to people who can name the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, both Minority leaders, the whips, their Governor, all of the State elected officials, their party chairman and their local politicians as well.
Or, as politicians like to call them: useful idiots.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties could have spared us from this mess. The Republicans could have shown a backbone and not allowed a life-long Democrat, and Friend of Bill (Clinton) take over their nomination process and, through open primary votes from non-Republicans, become the parties standard-bearer. And the Democrats could have decided that no, they're NOT going to run interference for Hillary, forcing her to face some real competition instead of just crazy Bernie and...um...that other guy that ran, for a minute...ah never mind, you don't remember him either.
Even after the nominations it could be stopped. If only people would be willing to call out their own party when they're wrong.
But they're not. They can't be. Because so many political types have based so much of their self-worth on whether or not their chosen party wins we're to the point that policy doesn't matter. This is why politicians can "evolve" on issues and suddenly a vociferous pro-defense-of-marriage Democratic blogger pivots and writes (without a hint of self-awareness) that anyone anti-GLBTQPI(Z? We need to find something different, I'm getting lost) thoughts is a bigot who should immediately be ran out of polite society on a rail.
We either don't think, or we don't care. The result of this is that the ruling class has successfully convinced us that the real threat to the Republic, the number one danger facing us, of changing our way of lives and taking away all of our freedoms, is.....us.
And we thank them for it, begging them to take over more, empowering them with more and refusing to see what is going on right in front of us each and every day.
"And now for something completely different."
Except.....it won't be.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Election Day 2016: ....and nothing else matters....
We're 84 days away from the end of all things good and holy, some thoughts.
- No matter who wins, we all lose. At this point we're just splitting hairs over which of the two candidates, The Anointed One, or the Bronzed Ego, is going to make a worse President. The reality is they are both going to be awful and neither has the apparent chops to improve or, in the case of the Ego, "pivot" to anything approaching respectability.
- At this point, I don't think it's necessary to fully recap why Donald J. Trump would be a disaster, but it still seems that some people are holding out hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton will somehow be not that bad. They're wrong of course, because a Hillary Presidency will be just as big, if nor more of, a disaster.
Not a disaster of the "OMG! we're all going to DIE!" type or even one that puts the very fabric of the country in danger but a disaster in the continued dearth of leadership vein that most cities, some states and the country has seen over the last several years.
To be clear. I'm not as gloom and doom as most. In fact, when bad leaders are in charge there is typically opportunity for some, and I imagine they will take advantage of it, creating wealth, and hoarding it (wisely) as they have always.
What is certain to suffer is America's "position in the world" if you feel that type of thing is important (I do, but not in a manner that you might thing) and the government's ability to function in a manner that is subject to the rule of law.
- A bigger concern, to most, should be that the cities, towns and states are starting to show real signs of wear and tear, as groups such as Black Lives Matter and ineffectual, progressive, politicians find new and creative ways to continue receiving loyalty from the very groups that they are exploiting the most.
In fact, monolithic blocs of voters skewing heavily towards one party or another is probably a bigger concern than the fact that there are still a lot of people who believe, heartily, that their vote matters. The same pundits who cheered the black votes 90+ percent loyalty to candidates with (D) following their names are suddenly shedding crocodile tears over only 11% of white in one state voting against candidates with (R) following it. Repeat after me: lock-step voting is bad. No matter the demographic slicer that's being applied.
- The good news: Football season is starting soon which means: A distraction.
The Olympics have been OK but there's nothing that can distract from the depressing reality that out of 300 Million people the best we could find was a habitual liar and live-action baboon to run for office is startling. But, "Gary Johnson!" you holler, to which I say: "Meh."
Even the Libertarians couldn't sort it out and nominate someone who was, to put this indelicately, Libertarian. At least the Greens have nominated another communist carnival barker I guess? Some things never change.
- Then there's the sad case of Evan McMullin, an apparently decent man who's been caught up in the hissy-fit of rejection from some of the more Reagan-underwear wearing fellows over on the Right. "Back to the 80's!" is not a winning campaign slogan.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't have thought "Back to the 50's!" would have been either but here we are, in 2016 listening to the two nominees for the two major parties in a diminishing world power yearn fondly for the heady, early days of the Cold War.
Happiness is rarely found in the past, but rarely expected in the future, at least where politics is concerned.
- No matter who wins, we all lose. At this point we're just splitting hairs over which of the two candidates, The Anointed One, or the Bronzed Ego, is going to make a worse President. The reality is they are both going to be awful and neither has the apparent chops to improve or, in the case of the Ego, "pivot" to anything approaching respectability.
- At this point, I don't think it's necessary to fully recap why Donald J. Trump would be a disaster, but it still seems that some people are holding out hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton will somehow be not that bad. They're wrong of course, because a Hillary Presidency will be just as big, if nor more of, a disaster.
Not a disaster of the "OMG! we're all going to DIE!" type or even one that puts the very fabric of the country in danger but a disaster in the continued dearth of leadership vein that most cities, some states and the country has seen over the last several years.
To be clear. I'm not as gloom and doom as most. In fact, when bad leaders are in charge there is typically opportunity for some, and I imagine they will take advantage of it, creating wealth, and hoarding it (wisely) as they have always.
What is certain to suffer is America's "position in the world" if you feel that type of thing is important (I do, but not in a manner that you might thing) and the government's ability to function in a manner that is subject to the rule of law.
- A bigger concern, to most, should be that the cities, towns and states are starting to show real signs of wear and tear, as groups such as Black Lives Matter and ineffectual, progressive, politicians find new and creative ways to continue receiving loyalty from the very groups that they are exploiting the most.
In fact, monolithic blocs of voters skewing heavily towards one party or another is probably a bigger concern than the fact that there are still a lot of people who believe, heartily, that their vote matters. The same pundits who cheered the black votes 90+ percent loyalty to candidates with (D) following their names are suddenly shedding crocodile tears over only 11% of white in one state voting against candidates with (R) following it. Repeat after me: lock-step voting is bad. No matter the demographic slicer that's being applied.
- The good news: Football season is starting soon which means: A distraction.
The Olympics have been OK but there's nothing that can distract from the depressing reality that out of 300 Million people the best we could find was a habitual liar and live-action baboon to run for office is startling. But, "Gary Johnson!" you holler, to which I say: "Meh."
Even the Libertarians couldn't sort it out and nominate someone who was, to put this indelicately, Libertarian. At least the Greens have nominated another communist carnival barker I guess? Some things never change.
- Then there's the sad case of Evan McMullin, an apparently decent man who's been caught up in the hissy-fit of rejection from some of the more Reagan-underwear wearing fellows over on the Right. "Back to the 80's!" is not a winning campaign slogan.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't have thought "Back to the 50's!" would have been either but here we are, in 2016 listening to the two nominees for the two major parties in a diminishing world power yearn fondly for the heady, early days of the Cold War.
Happiness is rarely found in the past, but rarely expected in the future, at least where politics is concerned.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Election 2016: None of it matters.
Proving what we all knew to be true, a newly released cache of bathroom server e-mails were released raising new questions about whether Hillary & Bill Clinton used the Clinton Foundation to personally enrich themselves by offering access and favors from HRC's State Department.
E-mails renew questions about Clinton Foundation and State Department overlap. Eric Lichtblau, New York Times
I am shocked! To find out the Clinton's were breaking the law and will face no consequences for it!
Round up the usual suspects and fire another staffer!
Then watch as she takes the oath of office (presumably with her hand on a Bible) for the Presidency of the United States of America.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is awful and yes it's true that, throughout her entire career, she's been known more for opportunism, riding her husband's considerable coattails and corruption than she has been for actual accomplishments. And yes it's more than somewhat likely a Clinton Presidency will be earmarked by crony capitalism, the politics of favoritism,some very, very sketchy business dealings, total disregard for the rule of law and corruption not seen since Bill tried to turn an intern into a humidor.
The American people know this, even honest-Democrats, in their quiet moments, know that they nominated a rank opportunist with a moral code that makes a petty thief look like a choir boy in comparison, We know that Hillary will sell out our safety and security for a large donation to the Clinton Foundation. We know all of this because it's already happened. And no matter how many times she attempts to "reintroduce" herself to us we know that, at heart, she really is a pretty awful human being, a pimple on the ass-crack of American society.
But none of this matter because......The GOP nominated Donald J. Trump to run against her.
The GOP took a look at all of their candidates, looked at the negatives that Clinton carried with her to the race (she's not even especially popular with Democrats) and decided to nominate the Brad Lidge to her Albert Pujols. The one man who could snatch defeat forcefully from the jaws of victory, who could possibly cause them to lose not only the Presidency, but the Senate and the House as well.
As a bonus they've exposed the party proper as racist, functionally illiterate, economically stupid and more sheep-like in their devotion to party over principle than even the Democrats.
Heckuva job Reince.
You know you're screwed in a political contest when the guy you nominated to head your ticket is the worst of the two options when Hillary Clinton is the other. In fact, it's so bad that the Senate and (yes) even the House GOP majorities could be in play. Trump has managed to alienate just about every minority group, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and classical liberals that used to make up the old coalitions. What he's left with is an angry soup of misplaced rage, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. Gross.
It's gotten so bad that the most ardent Democrats are concern-trolling without fear of reprisal.
The only answer that I can see is to stop voting and start living. Because the reality is your life is not going to be made better by Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Greg Abbott, this idiot or even this one. (h/t to Kevin from BlogHouston for the last two links) All politicians can do is make your life worse. So it's not up to you to go out, live it, and make it better.
#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary
#NeverVote
And yes, you can still gripe. Last I checked there's no voting requirement attached to the 1st Amendment. But, when the choices are all bad, not voting might be the wisest choice of all.
E-mails renew questions about Clinton Foundation and State Department overlap. Eric Lichtblau, New York Times
I am shocked! To find out the Clinton's were breaking the law and will face no consequences for it!
Round up the usual suspects and fire another staffer!
Then watch as she takes the oath of office (presumably with her hand on a Bible) for the Presidency of the United States of America.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is awful and yes it's true that, throughout her entire career, she's been known more for opportunism, riding her husband's considerable coattails and corruption than she has been for actual accomplishments. And yes it's more than somewhat likely a Clinton Presidency will be earmarked by crony capitalism, the politics of favoritism,some very, very sketchy business dealings, total disregard for the rule of law and corruption not seen since Bill tried to turn an intern into a humidor.
The American people know this, even honest-Democrats, in their quiet moments, know that they nominated a rank opportunist with a moral code that makes a petty thief look like a choir boy in comparison, We know that Hillary will sell out our safety and security for a large donation to the Clinton Foundation. We know all of this because it's already happened. And no matter how many times she attempts to "reintroduce" herself to us we know that, at heart, she really is a pretty awful human being, a pimple on the ass-crack of American society.
But none of this matter because......The GOP nominated Donald J. Trump to run against her.
The GOP took a look at all of their candidates, looked at the negatives that Clinton carried with her to the race (she's not even especially popular with Democrats) and decided to nominate the Brad Lidge to her Albert Pujols. The one man who could snatch defeat forcefully from the jaws of victory, who could possibly cause them to lose not only the Presidency, but the Senate and the House as well.
As a bonus they've exposed the party proper as racist, functionally illiterate, economically stupid and more sheep-like in their devotion to party over principle than even the Democrats.
Heckuva job Reince.
You know you're screwed in a political contest when the guy you nominated to head your ticket is the worst of the two options when Hillary Clinton is the other. In fact, it's so bad that the Senate and (yes) even the House GOP majorities could be in play. Trump has managed to alienate just about every minority group, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and classical liberals that used to make up the old coalitions. What he's left with is an angry soup of misplaced rage, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. Gross.
It's gotten so bad that the most ardent Democrats are concern-trolling without fear of reprisal.
The only answer that I can see is to stop voting and start living. Because the reality is your life is not going to be made better by Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Greg Abbott, this idiot or even this one. (h/t to Kevin from BlogHouston for the last two links) All politicians can do is make your life worse. So it's not up to you to go out, live it, and make it better.
#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary
#NeverVote
And yes, you can still gripe. Last I checked there's no voting requirement attached to the 1st Amendment. But, when the choices are all bad, not voting might be the wisest choice of all.
Monday, August 01, 2016
Teach the Children: They're not teaching much about Government at University of Houston are they?
Who in the world is teaching these kids?
'All Lives Matter' gets Texas student suspended, sent to diversity workshop. Blake Neff, Daily Caller.
Oh good Lord no.
And this is from the President of the SGA, someone who, most probably, is preparing himself for a career in government. And he doesn't even understand what the First Amendment is, what it does, or what all it protects.
Or even, apparently, why it is important.
Or, more importantly, what a public university is. He might also want to look up "banana republic" while he's at it, because the UofH SGA seems to be failing to understand why the rule of law is important, and why doling out punishment based on what the current SGA President "feels" about the entire thing sets a bad precedent. Do Universities even teach the rule of law any more, or why it's important?
It's pretty clear that they don't, at least not at UH.
Having an SGA that throws the tenets of good governance out the window to "set an example" (and, it should be noted, remove what they consider to be a stain on their character from their midst) is just another case of children throwing egg on their faces in an attempt to wash their hands.
They look worse now than they ever would have looked by allowing Rohini Sethi to go unpunished, and face the blowback of popular mood. Because suspending the body's constitution to grant the President "emergency powers" to punish someone according to his feels is a bad, bad idea.
It's an embarrassment to UH as a whole and it makes their SGA pretty much worthless. (if it wasn't already)
Were I a civics or political science professor at the University of Houston I don't think I'd advertise that fact right about now. Because one thing is for sure, they haven't been doing their jobs.
The ONLY thing in this that Shane Smith got right is this: Living in a country that (just) possesses the right to free speech also means that said speech comes with consequences. Like business decisions, those consequences are best left for market forces to decide.
There's one additional point to be made in this story about how we've all decided that any dismissal (no matter how slight) of our cause du jour is sufficient cause to spool up the outrage machine but I'm too sick of it all to make it.
UH should be embarrassed by this. But they won't be. Instead they'll learn all of the wrong lessons and those who are against freedom of thought will gain another ally in the war against dissent.
You've had a good run America.
'All Lives Matter' gets Texas student suspended, sent to diversity workshop. Blake Neff, Daily Caller.
(From University of Houston Student Government Association President Shane Smith)
"The first amendment [sic] prevents a person from being jailed by the government for what they say. But [it] does not prevent people from receiving other consequences for what they say.”
Oh good Lord no.
And this is from the President of the SGA, someone who, most probably, is preparing himself for a career in government. And he doesn't even understand what the First Amendment is, what it does, or what all it protects.
Or even, apparently, why it is important.
Or, more importantly, what a public university is. He might also want to look up "banana republic" while he's at it, because the UofH SGA seems to be failing to understand why the rule of law is important, and why doling out punishment based on what the current SGA President "feels" about the entire thing sets a bad precedent. Do Universities even teach the rule of law any more, or why it's important?
It's pretty clear that they don't, at least not at UH.
Having an SGA that throws the tenets of good governance out the window to "set an example" (and, it should be noted, remove what they consider to be a stain on their character from their midst) is just another case of children throwing egg on their faces in an attempt to wash their hands.
They look worse now than they ever would have looked by allowing Rohini Sethi to go unpunished, and face the blowback of popular mood. Because suspending the body's constitution to grant the President "emergency powers" to punish someone according to his feels is a bad, bad idea.
It's an embarrassment to UH as a whole and it makes their SGA pretty much worthless. (if it wasn't already)
Were I a civics or political science professor at the University of Houston I don't think I'd advertise that fact right about now. Because one thing is for sure, they haven't been doing their jobs.
The ONLY thing in this that Shane Smith got right is this: Living in a country that (just) possesses the right to free speech also means that said speech comes with consequences. Like business decisions, those consequences are best left for market forces to decide.
There's one additional point to be made in this story about how we've all decided that any dismissal (no matter how slight) of our cause du jour is sufficient cause to spool up the outrage machine but I'm too sick of it all to make it.
UH should be embarrassed by this. But they won't be. Instead they'll learn all of the wrong lessons and those who are against freedom of thought will gain another ally in the war against dissent.
You've had a good run America.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Party Conventions: Now that that is out of the way.
Our 2-week National nightmare is over. All that's left is a spot of media/politician hanky panky followed by odd outbursts by the Bronzed Ego.
One thing conventions do signify however is that the entire slog of this Presidential campaign has finally reached the beginning of the end. We've moved from "presumptive nominee" to "nominee" and soon it will be "President elect". In between these points I have to advise that it's still going to be wise to ignore the media, at least until after November and probably wait until after January (the inauguration) just to be on the safe side.
Again, some notes:
- No, this was not "the best convention ever" put on by the Democrats. It was a good convention, marked by all of the things the uneducated proletariat wants to see (Hollywood, politicians, Katy Perry, etc.) but it was always going to be drug down by the utter lack of quality that the Anointed One possesses as a Presidential candidate. It was a low ceiling, although they certainly bumped up against it.
- Politics is show-business for ugly people. And while that's (admittedly) a canard it's one that has the added benefit of being 100% true. Politics in the electronic age isn't about making and keeping so-called "promises", and it's certainly not a battle of ideals. Today politics is bread and circuses. Morgan Freeman hits the Stage and everyone gets rapturous about "God" all of the sudden. Katy Perry (HS Dropout) comes on stage, sings something and then extols the audience about the virtues of the Anointed One. People are ecstatic that Ms. Perry likes their candidate, it makes them feel cool somehow, as if they have something in common with the Katie.
- The truth is, we vote how we have been conditioned to vote. For the most part anyway. Yes there ae examples of people who break away from the family voting pattern, switch parties etc. etc. Most of those however are because a different conditioning took place outside the home. Right now, Democrat/Statist ideas are cool. "President Obama is your Daddy" would have, in a sane Republic, been laughed out of the public square and been made into a symbol of vapidness. Today however it's made Chris Rock (Chris freaking Rock) into a deep political thinker.
- The bigger scandal, if it can be called that, is that your vote doesn't matter. I know, voting is the "cornerstone of democracy" and you have an obligation to run to the polls and cast a vote for a horrendous person who is going to get away with it, I promise. Even if you think you are taking the time to study the issues you're not. Because there are people out there who are taking more time, it's their jobs, and have a much better understanding of the complexities of modern-government in the authoritarian age than do you.
Also, there are more people out there casting what are basically auto-votes, or votes that they cast almost without thinking, than you. There is no more useless form of personal expression in American Democracy than vote-casting, yet no form of expression has been held more sacrosanct despite having very little meaning in today's environment of creative electoral map-drawing and incumbent protection schemes. This is doubly true if your voting district is either deep red, or deep blue (and, it probably is).
Voting in America is nothing more than an exercise in crowd control. It's not about whether or not the Democrats or Republicans have the best ideas. It's whether or not their conditioning sticks. Once in power they then control the message to pass things they want to pass anyway.
- They can do this because the media is stupid. (With a few exceptions, mostly at the local, investigative level) Really stupid. While the linked article tries to make the case that Texas could do all sorts of cool stuff (instead of try and protect it's powers) with the money they used to sue, is anyone asking what could be bought with all of the money donated to politicians instead?
That's because the media have been conditioned just as we have. They've been raised (probably) in Democrat homes, taught in Democrat schools and graduated from Democrat-ran J-schools. They now work under Democrat bosses. They don't view taxation as bad or, honestly, even understand how it works, and they still operate under the assumption that politics is operating just as it has during the Watergate era. As political scandal grows increasingly sophisticated, reporters yearn for the days of large press pools and "press" tags jammed inside the bands of reporter fedoras.
Instead of reporting the news they 'analyze" the news or, worse, try to 'explain' to us the events of the day. The worst journalism possible is so-called "fact-check" journalism which is neither factual, or actually checks out all that much. In most cases it's just a reflection of how a particular reporter feels about an issue.
All of what we are seeing here is a ham-fisted attempt to dumb down the complicated into simple, bite-sized portions in order to stir up the easily irritated. Give Trump and Hillary this, they understand what makes the simpletons in their party tick and they are currently tugging on the right levers. For better or for worse.
At the end of this process one fact remains: Out of 300 Million(ish) people in the United States we have chosen, through a quasi-Democratic process, two of the worst among us to lead us. We have done so willingly, and we were just force-fed two shit-show spectacles congratulating us for hitting a new low.
If you watched however. I'm proud to say I didn't, not a second. And my life is better for it.
You should try it some time.
One thing conventions do signify however is that the entire slog of this Presidential campaign has finally reached the beginning of the end. We've moved from "presumptive nominee" to "nominee" and soon it will be "President elect". In between these points I have to advise that it's still going to be wise to ignore the media, at least until after November and probably wait until after January (the inauguration) just to be on the safe side.
Again, some notes:
- No, this was not "the best convention ever" put on by the Democrats. It was a good convention, marked by all of the things the uneducated proletariat wants to see (Hollywood, politicians, Katy Perry, etc.) but it was always going to be drug down by the utter lack of quality that the Anointed One possesses as a Presidential candidate. It was a low ceiling, although they certainly bumped up against it.
- Politics is show-business for ugly people. And while that's (admittedly) a canard it's one that has the added benefit of being 100% true. Politics in the electronic age isn't about making and keeping so-called "promises", and it's certainly not a battle of ideals. Today politics is bread and circuses. Morgan Freeman hits the Stage and everyone gets rapturous about "God" all of the sudden. Katy Perry (HS Dropout) comes on stage, sings something and then extols the audience about the virtues of the Anointed One. People are ecstatic that Ms. Perry likes their candidate, it makes them feel cool somehow, as if they have something in common with the Katie.
- The truth is, we vote how we have been conditioned to vote. For the most part anyway. Yes there ae examples of people who break away from the family voting pattern, switch parties etc. etc. Most of those however are because a different conditioning took place outside the home. Right now, Democrat/Statist ideas are cool. "President Obama is your Daddy" would have, in a sane Republic, been laughed out of the public square and been made into a symbol of vapidness. Today however it's made Chris Rock (Chris freaking Rock) into a deep political thinker.
- The bigger scandal, if it can be called that, is that your vote doesn't matter. I know, voting is the "cornerstone of democracy" and you have an obligation to run to the polls and cast a vote for a horrendous person who is going to get away with it, I promise. Even if you think you are taking the time to study the issues you're not. Because there are people out there who are taking more time, it's their jobs, and have a much better understanding of the complexities of modern-government in the authoritarian age than do you.
Also, there are more people out there casting what are basically auto-votes, or votes that they cast almost without thinking, than you. There is no more useless form of personal expression in American Democracy than vote-casting, yet no form of expression has been held more sacrosanct despite having very little meaning in today's environment of creative electoral map-drawing and incumbent protection schemes. This is doubly true if your voting district is either deep red, or deep blue (and, it probably is).
Voting in America is nothing more than an exercise in crowd control. It's not about whether or not the Democrats or Republicans have the best ideas. It's whether or not their conditioning sticks. Once in power they then control the message to pass things they want to pass anyway.
- They can do this because the media is stupid. (With a few exceptions, mostly at the local, investigative level) Really stupid. While the linked article tries to make the case that Texas could do all sorts of cool stuff (instead of try and protect it's powers) with the money they used to sue, is anyone asking what could be bought with all of the money donated to politicians instead?
That's because the media have been conditioned just as we have. They've been raised (probably) in Democrat homes, taught in Democrat schools and graduated from Democrat-ran J-schools. They now work under Democrat bosses. They don't view taxation as bad or, honestly, even understand how it works, and they still operate under the assumption that politics is operating just as it has during the Watergate era. As political scandal grows increasingly sophisticated, reporters yearn for the days of large press pools and "press" tags jammed inside the bands of reporter fedoras.
Instead of reporting the news they 'analyze" the news or, worse, try to 'explain' to us the events of the day. The worst journalism possible is so-called "fact-check" journalism which is neither factual, or actually checks out all that much. In most cases it's just a reflection of how a particular reporter feels about an issue.
All of what we are seeing here is a ham-fisted attempt to dumb down the complicated into simple, bite-sized portions in order to stir up the easily irritated. Give Trump and Hillary this, they understand what makes the simpletons in their party tick and they are currently tugging on the right levers. For better or for worse.
At the end of this process one fact remains: Out of 300 Million(ish) people in the United States we have chosen, through a quasi-Democratic process, two of the worst among us to lead us. We have done so willingly, and we were just force-fed two shit-show spectacles congratulating us for hitting a new low.
If you watched however. I'm proud to say I didn't, not a second. And my life is better for it.
You should try it some time.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Political season: The Democrats are not "becoming" the party of the wealthy, they HAVE been the party of the wealthy.
They're just a LOT better at convincing the poor that they're on their side by promising them a ton of shit that, ostensibly, others will pay for and they'll get for "free".
Some Slate writer is in a tizzy. Because Michael "the Demagogue's Demagogue" Bloomberg has cast his faux-independent brand behind Hillary Clinton. "Soda-bans for all the Country!" to shortly become the Democrat's battle cry.
Or will it be a tax on carbon? A tax that most corporations support, as opposed to Al Gore's self-enriching cap and trade scheme, because taxes of this type are the easiest to pass along to both the customer and private royalty owners.
How about "free" college education for those making under $125,000 per year? The Democrats are basically proposing we do for higher education what we've done for primary education. In short, making it all but worthless, prohibitively expensive and the quality version of such being priced out of the market except for the wealthy?
Think I'm wrong? Currently our primary education system is, by almost every measurable metric, failing spectacularly. Schools are underfunded, taxes are being raised prohibitively on the poor to make ends meet while teacher's unions continue to strike and hold-out for more and better freebies from the governments that run the thing.
Getting a diploma from a public high school is meaningless in the job market. It doesn't signify a base level of learning, or that one understands the concepts of basic math, reading or writing. (or, say, personal finance). What it means is that you were stubborn enough, or popular enough, to stick to it for 12 years before finally walking across a stage without spiking yourself on the staircase.
Even a college degree is diminished these days. Experience on the job is much more valuable than book learning. In fact, unless you're studying to become a teacher or college professor, I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, of the daily work you do has nothing to do with what you learned in school.
But businesses do value degrees from certain, private institutions, and they are going to be the only ones that matter if we make education "free".
And the primary people that gain acceptance to these private schools? The rich. Or the connected, or the handful of "diversity" students who are given what basically amounts to a pity pass. Sander's populist rhetoric notwithstanding, nothing is more perpetuating to a ruling class than convincing the rubes who are ruled to accept something with no inherent value as valuable. It's really the Democrat's greatest political success and they're building a winning coalition off of it.
"But the people aren't that stupid" you are saying right now.
Oh really? How else do you explain cities such as Baltimore continuing to elect Democrats into positions of municipal power despite the fact that almost 60 years of Democratic rule has morphed their communities into dysfunctional dystopias?
With the implosion of the Republican party, and an education system that's stopped valuing classical liberal thought, the Democrats are on the verge of making all of America into it's urban cores. A nation, much like Mexico FWIW, where the ruling class and their courtesans dine on peacock, baby seal and champagne while the poor eek out a living on their allowance of cheese and soylent.
Bread lines? Phaw. Peasant food of the future will be manufactured, from cockroaches.
Drink up fellow proles.
Some Slate writer is in a tizzy. Because Michael "the Demagogue's Demagogue" Bloomberg has cast his faux-independent brand behind Hillary Clinton. "Soda-bans for all the Country!" to shortly become the Democrat's battle cry.
Or will it be a tax on carbon? A tax that most corporations support, as opposed to Al Gore's self-enriching cap and trade scheme, because taxes of this type are the easiest to pass along to both the customer and private royalty owners.
How about "free" college education for those making under $125,000 per year? The Democrats are basically proposing we do for higher education what we've done for primary education. In short, making it all but worthless, prohibitively expensive and the quality version of such being priced out of the market except for the wealthy?
Think I'm wrong? Currently our primary education system is, by almost every measurable metric, failing spectacularly. Schools are underfunded, taxes are being raised prohibitively on the poor to make ends meet while teacher's unions continue to strike and hold-out for more and better freebies from the governments that run the thing.
Getting a diploma from a public high school is meaningless in the job market. It doesn't signify a base level of learning, or that one understands the concepts of basic math, reading or writing. (or, say, personal finance). What it means is that you were stubborn enough, or popular enough, to stick to it for 12 years before finally walking across a stage without spiking yourself on the staircase.
Even a college degree is diminished these days. Experience on the job is much more valuable than book learning. In fact, unless you're studying to become a teacher or college professor, I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, of the daily work you do has nothing to do with what you learned in school.
But businesses do value degrees from certain, private institutions, and they are going to be the only ones that matter if we make education "free".
And the primary people that gain acceptance to these private schools? The rich. Or the connected, or the handful of "diversity" students who are given what basically amounts to a pity pass. Sander's populist rhetoric notwithstanding, nothing is more perpetuating to a ruling class than convincing the rubes who are ruled to accept something with no inherent value as valuable. It's really the Democrat's greatest political success and they're building a winning coalition off of it.
"But the people aren't that stupid" you are saying right now.
Oh really? How else do you explain cities such as Baltimore continuing to elect Democrats into positions of municipal power despite the fact that almost 60 years of Democratic rule has morphed their communities into dysfunctional dystopias?
With the implosion of the Republican party, and an education system that's stopped valuing classical liberal thought, the Democrats are on the verge of making all of America into it's urban cores. A nation, much like Mexico FWIW, where the ruling class and their courtesans dine on peacock, baby seal and champagne while the poor eek out a living on their allowance of cheese and soylent.
Bread lines? Phaw. Peasant food of the future will be manufactured, from cockroaches.
Drink up fellow proles.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
A convention guide from someone who isn't watching the conventions.
Some thoughts.....
Yes WE can! (Pander to a group in an attempt to lock them in a cycle of perpetual poverty as we've done in the past)
...and lie. (We're politicians, it's what we do)
Shame! (ding, ding) Shame! (What America needs are workable solutions, the Republicans gave us a shit-show, the Democrats are giving us Sarah Silverman's Game of Thrones fantasy)
Warren also did the 'nazi' salute when waving. (In the manner of Alt-Right talker Laura Ingraham. Not so amazingly, the media let this one pass)
Positive - no hate (It's easy to sit around and call the other side "stupid". That's a rhetorical crutch for the simple-minded. It's harder to come to the realization that YOUR side doesn't have many of the answers that are needed because it's locked into a vicious cycle of cronyism and patronage that is running the country and many of it's cities into the ground.)
Personal politics aside: It was a good speech. (And the tweet from POTUS was spot-on as well.)
238 years of American "progress" (We've morphed from "Yearning to be free" to "Where in the hell do I pee?")
Free! Stuff! Now! (Paid for by those making just a little more than you. In other words, every Bernie speech ever.)
Comedians for Clinton! (Or, two boobs supporting a lying boob)
Of course, there's the usual rumblings (From Republicans of a Lee Greenwood lean) about the Democrats having no visible American flags on their stage. This should not surprise you since the Democrats stopped being an American party, and morphed into a globalist party, a long time ago.
Oh sure they have the same problems as the Republicans. A large bloc of under-educated, noisy, uncivil, Nationalist, borderline racist and "activist" groups sucking up a lot of the political oxygen right now but for all of their Black Lives Matter pandering the Democrats are still a lily white group at the top, the only difference being that they do a better job of integrating minorities into their lower ranks, primarily through the promise of freebies.
In the end both parties are purveyors of the same snake-oil, only the labels have changed. The ingredients of hatred, smugness, Statism and a stripping away of the rights of those whose ideas differ is still the nasty concoction inside the bottle.
One other not so subtle difference. The media is actively marketing the Democrat's snake-oil. And that is an advantage the Republicans may never be able to fully overcome. Americans are being convinced that stuff is free and sold the idea that one party is "correct" while the other is "wrong". That's never a sign of long-term viability in a functioning Republic. If you believe that way it's a good damn sign that you're the problem.
Yes WE can! (Pander to a group in an attempt to lock them in a cycle of perpetual poverty as we've done in the past)
...and lie. (We're politicians, it's what we do)
Shame! (ding, ding) Shame! (What America needs are workable solutions, the Republicans gave us a shit-show, the Democrats are giving us Sarah Silverman's Game of Thrones fantasy)
Warren also did the 'nazi' salute when waving. (In the manner of Alt-Right talker Laura Ingraham. Not so amazingly, the media let this one pass)
Positive - no hate (It's easy to sit around and call the other side "stupid". That's a rhetorical crutch for the simple-minded. It's harder to come to the realization that YOUR side doesn't have many of the answers that are needed because it's locked into a vicious cycle of cronyism and patronage that is running the country and many of it's cities into the ground.)
Personal politics aside: It was a good speech. (And the tweet from POTUS was spot-on as well.)
238 years of American "progress" (We've morphed from "Yearning to be free" to "Where in the hell do I pee?")
Free! Stuff! Now! (Paid for by those making just a little more than you. In other words, every Bernie speech ever.)
Comedians for Clinton! (Or, two boobs supporting a lying boob)
Of course, there's the usual rumblings (From Republicans of a Lee Greenwood lean) about the Democrats having no visible American flags on their stage. This should not surprise you since the Democrats stopped being an American party, and morphed into a globalist party, a long time ago.
Oh sure they have the same problems as the Republicans. A large bloc of under-educated, noisy, uncivil, Nationalist, borderline racist and "activist" groups sucking up a lot of the political oxygen right now but for all of their Black Lives Matter pandering the Democrats are still a lily white group at the top, the only difference being that they do a better job of integrating minorities into their lower ranks, primarily through the promise of freebies.
In the end both parties are purveyors of the same snake-oil, only the labels have changed. The ingredients of hatred, smugness, Statism and a stripping away of the rights of those whose ideas differ is still the nasty concoction inside the bottle.
One other not so subtle difference. The media is actively marketing the Democrat's snake-oil. And that is an advantage the Republicans may never be able to fully overcome. Americans are being convinced that stuff is free and sold the idea that one party is "correct" while the other is "wrong". That's never a sign of long-term viability in a functioning Republic. If you believe that way it's a good damn sign that you're the problem.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
PostGOP: The problem with our politics
Politics makes us angry. And stupid. REALLY stupid (Caution, NSFW).
We know this but we continue to think that politics is a unifying force, a chance to walk into the ballot box and "do some good" by voting the "right way". It's activism without effort or consequence. You don't even have to do research any more because there are pay-to-play voter guides that arrive in your mailbox which tell you who the approved candidates are, depending on your party of choice that is.
Trudging out to a voting location on election day is the lowest form of political participation. It's a cop-out designed by a system whose sole purpose is the preservation of the system. Because it's so easy and, due mainly to voter fraud and gerrymandering, so meaningless today, it's cheapened what it means to be an activist as well.
Consider this: Yesterday 100 "sheroes" (Really Huffington Post?) stripped down into their pre-apple Eve outfits and held mirrors over their heads in "protest" of....what? The so-called "war on women?" In the Middle East there are the Yazidi women who are taking up arms and fighting against ISIS insurgents who would round them up, gang rape them, and sell them into sex slavery. In Pakistan their "Kim Kardashian" was just strangled by her brother in a so-called "honor killing" which drew cheers and praise from many Pakistanis. In America, 100 women in the buff holding up mirrors because they might have been, possibly, body shamed at some point. (ignoring the fact that the most egregious forms of body shaming often come from other women)
This does not give men a pass. In fact, the so-called "bro" culture needs to be placed on the ash-heap of history to be burned beside Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" dirge. Here's an idea men: Don't sexually assault women. Full stop. Just because a woman is dancing with you, or speaking with you, or dresses and acts suggestively, doesn't mean that she wants a night of hot, sweaty sexual relations with you, or to even be groped by you. She probably just wants to be noticed which, in a way, is kind of sad.
The problem is that we've allowed the boundaries of personal relationships to be argued within the political realm. We've given it over to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to tell us how we should interact with one another. In many cases, we're now looking to President Barry to tell us when it's OK to make love.
This is a problem for a couple of reasons. One, take a look at most politicians. Many of them marry for their careers, have children for their careers and then carry out a charade that lasts for years in the name of their careers. What the hell do they know about what normal, work-a-day people need from love and affection? Given what we know about the Clintons, do you think their marriage is based on love of one another? Or profit? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.
Yet we continue to trudge into the voting booth and pull the lever to put people in power whom we would never invite over to a backyard cookout, or invite to our kids weddings. We do this, and then we ignore them until the next election season.
And that is the problem with our politics.
We have bought into the lie that voting is our responsibility to our Democratic Republic and it goes no further. We vote, they rule, period end of story. The people that you put into office then take a look at razor-thin voter margins with low participation rates and claim a "mandate" that allows them to take policy proposals drafted by aides, influenced by their particular set of patronage and claim they are doing the "will of the people". And we allow it, because taking the time to write a letter or make a phone call or, horrors, run for office ourselves in today's hyper-charged environment detracts from our Saturdays watching college football.
And no, I'm not just pointing a finger at you, I'm guilty of this myself.
The result of our apathy and inaction however is a political system that is not only broken, it's hopelessly corrupt and totally unresponsive to the will of the people. It doesn't matter what the issue is, both sides will immediately seek to triangulate it in a manner that most benefits their political patrons. They then roll this out to their sycophant "activists" and "party regulars" who have been looped into the system through outright bribery, or an appeal to their sense of belonging to a special club. All of this is then packaged up neatly in a tidy bow by a compliant media who regurgitate material uncritically to those outside the circle.
The citizenry, if they're paying attention at all, take a peek at a sound byte, shake their heads at the idiocy of the "other side" and wonder who's going to be the next winner of The Voice. But they voted, they tell themselves, so they can bitch. Anyone who didn't just needs to shut the hell up. This is a ridiculous argument because there is no voting requirement tacked on to the First Amendment. I heard someone, although I cannot remember who (sorry!) suggest that voting is the easiest and least participatory thing in politics that you can do, and I agree.
It also makes you the angriest. Because you're moving along in your day to day life not winning or losing, you're just hanging on. And politics, like sports, gives you a chance to feel that you ARE winning at something, that your hum-drum life, being hollered at by the boss for your TPS report lacking a cover sheet, actually has some meaning when a team with which you have no actual affiliation wins. When someone is against your team, or (even worse) "for" the other team, you get viscerally angry because they are chipping away at your absolute sense of superiority. Your political party is no longer reflective of your political leanings, it's a core component of your identity and any threat to it is dealt with aggressively and (unfortunately in some cases) violently.
And round and round it goes.
The rest of that saying is "where it stops, nobody knows".
But I think we're now witnessing a self-perpetuating cycle. No calls for civility, or a cease in hostilities, is going to slow the political outrage train. We've gone so far off the rails that I think any and all hope of political reconciliation is gone. The progressive left's need to feel morally superior is only out-weighed by the alt-right's need to be outraged.
In retrospect, it's not surprising that the two sides have nominated two reprehensible human beings to be their standard bearers. The only surprise is that it's taken this long to get this low.
We know this but we continue to think that politics is a unifying force, a chance to walk into the ballot box and "do some good" by voting the "right way". It's activism without effort or consequence. You don't even have to do research any more because there are pay-to-play voter guides that arrive in your mailbox which tell you who the approved candidates are, depending on your party of choice that is.
Trudging out to a voting location on election day is the lowest form of political participation. It's a cop-out designed by a system whose sole purpose is the preservation of the system. Because it's so easy and, due mainly to voter fraud and gerrymandering, so meaningless today, it's cheapened what it means to be an activist as well.
Consider this: Yesterday 100 "sheroes" (Really Huffington Post?) stripped down into their pre-apple Eve outfits and held mirrors over their heads in "protest" of....what? The so-called "war on women?" In the Middle East there are the Yazidi women who are taking up arms and fighting against ISIS insurgents who would round them up, gang rape them, and sell them into sex slavery. In Pakistan their "Kim Kardashian" was just strangled by her brother in a so-called "honor killing" which drew cheers and praise from many Pakistanis. In America, 100 women in the buff holding up mirrors because they might have been, possibly, body shamed at some point. (ignoring the fact that the most egregious forms of body shaming often come from other women)
This does not give men a pass. In fact, the so-called "bro" culture needs to be placed on the ash-heap of history to be burned beside Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" dirge. Here's an idea men: Don't sexually assault women. Full stop. Just because a woman is dancing with you, or speaking with you, or dresses and acts suggestively, doesn't mean that she wants a night of hot, sweaty sexual relations with you, or to even be groped by you. She probably just wants to be noticed which, in a way, is kind of sad.
The problem is that we've allowed the boundaries of personal relationships to be argued within the political realm. We've given it over to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to tell us how we should interact with one another. In many cases, we're now looking to President Barry to tell us when it's OK to make love.
This is a problem for a couple of reasons. One, take a look at most politicians. Many of them marry for their careers, have children for their careers and then carry out a charade that lasts for years in the name of their careers. What the hell do they know about what normal, work-a-day people need from love and affection? Given what we know about the Clintons, do you think their marriage is based on love of one another? Or profit? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.
Yet we continue to trudge into the voting booth and pull the lever to put people in power whom we would never invite over to a backyard cookout, or invite to our kids weddings. We do this, and then we ignore them until the next election season.
And that is the problem with our politics.
We have bought into the lie that voting is our responsibility to our Democratic Republic and it goes no further. We vote, they rule, period end of story. The people that you put into office then take a look at razor-thin voter margins with low participation rates and claim a "mandate" that allows them to take policy proposals drafted by aides, influenced by their particular set of patronage and claim they are doing the "will of the people". And we allow it, because taking the time to write a letter or make a phone call or, horrors, run for office ourselves in today's hyper-charged environment detracts from our Saturdays watching college football.
And no, I'm not just pointing a finger at you, I'm guilty of this myself.
The result of our apathy and inaction however is a political system that is not only broken, it's hopelessly corrupt and totally unresponsive to the will of the people. It doesn't matter what the issue is, both sides will immediately seek to triangulate it in a manner that most benefits their political patrons. They then roll this out to their sycophant "activists" and "party regulars" who have been looped into the system through outright bribery, or an appeal to their sense of belonging to a special club. All of this is then packaged up neatly in a tidy bow by a compliant media who regurgitate material uncritically to those outside the circle.
The citizenry, if they're paying attention at all, take a peek at a sound byte, shake their heads at the idiocy of the "other side" and wonder who's going to be the next winner of The Voice. But they voted, they tell themselves, so they can bitch. Anyone who didn't just needs to shut the hell up. This is a ridiculous argument because there is no voting requirement tacked on to the First Amendment. I heard someone, although I cannot remember who (sorry!) suggest that voting is the easiest and least participatory thing in politics that you can do, and I agree.
It also makes you the angriest. Because you're moving along in your day to day life not winning or losing, you're just hanging on. And politics, like sports, gives you a chance to feel that you ARE winning at something, that your hum-drum life, being hollered at by the boss for your TPS report lacking a cover sheet, actually has some meaning when a team with which you have no actual affiliation wins. When someone is against your team, or (even worse) "for" the other team, you get viscerally angry because they are chipping away at your absolute sense of superiority. Your political party is no longer reflective of your political leanings, it's a core component of your identity and any threat to it is dealt with aggressively and (unfortunately in some cases) violently.
And round and round it goes.
The rest of that saying is "where it stops, nobody knows".
But I think we're now witnessing a self-perpetuating cycle. No calls for civility, or a cease in hostilities, is going to slow the political outrage train. We've gone so far off the rails that I think any and all hope of political reconciliation is gone. The progressive left's need to feel morally superior is only out-weighed by the alt-right's need to be outraged.
In retrospect, it's not surprising that the two sides have nominated two reprehensible human beings to be their standard bearers. The only surprise is that it's taken this long to get this low.
Friday, July 15, 2016
USLV: When our institutions are not up to the task.
What is a country to do when it's leadership proves incapable of addressing the moment? Or when its for-profit media decides that pimping for page hits goes above their stated mission of factually reporting the "news"? Or when the elites just decide that the hoi polloi are too stupid to be entrusted to make their own decisions?
These are questions that Americans will face over the coming months as the bag of hammers that used to be a functioning political party embraces the Bronzed Ego and the loose collection of special interest groups that used to make up the left embraces the Anointed One.
Historically when the official institutions start to fail the collapse of an empire was not far behind. The machinery of the bureaucracy working efficiently being vital to the salvation of the state. In America, it's possible that this is different.
Because the machinery of the State has been malfunctioning for quite a while, and life has continued to move forward.
Executive Offices? Broken since at least the Clinton regime. And odds are, despite most people thinking their state is the bee's knees, your State apparatus is a clunker as well. In Texas, where I live and work, much is made of the so-called "Texas miracle" which provided jobs to some in an overall jobless National climate. Politicians bragged and wanna-be politicians waxed poetic, none of them admitting that they had very little to do with things going well.
In fact, Texas succeeds in spite of itself. Administratively, the State is broken. Inefficient and improperly administrated getting something done in Texas is a shit-show of passing the buck and frustrating meetings and phone calls. I'm willing to bet your state is just the same.
At the municipal level our cities are being ran into the ground by elitist, progressive mayors who view the job as nothing more than an opportunity to establish a patronage system and buy votes. Newly elected Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner has spent more time in office ensuring that his patrons receive lucrative board positions in quasi-governmental agencies than he has doing anything else. Trust me, your Mayor is just the same.
Currently, America is ruled by a rather witless, mean-spirited man who has clearly spent most of the last eight years trying to hide the fact that he's wholly unqualified for the job. It's so bad that even his supporters can only blather along about "respecting the office of the President" rather than respecting HIM as the President. That all of that is just so much bullshit (there is nothing about ANY elected political office that is due respect) is besides the point. When the truth is inconvenient, repeat the lie. In this case the lie is that President Narcissus has things under control.
Legislatively it's only slightly better but still bad. There's too much "there out to be a law" or 'Something! must be done." thinking and less trying to figure out how to get the law out of the way. If you want to see the symptoms go try and get through the federal register, see all of the laws that you could be breaking right now but had no idea they were laws.
At a State level it's even worse. High-minded legislators identify a solution that needs a problem and doggedly work to find it. Typically this 'problem' is that the rubes over which they rule are too stupid, in their opinion, to think for themselves. This leads to a poorly crafted law designed to 'fix' a problem that doesn't exist which creates unintended consequences elsewhere.
Municipal government, especially in authoritarian, progressive cities are the well-spring of most modern day idiocy. Before bad ideas reach the State and Federal levels they are typically piloted in poorly ran cities. It's almost as if the State and Federal Legislators are deliberately picking the worst ideas to foist on Americans just so they can laugh at the struggle.
"We're the government and we're here to help." is a threat today, not a promise.
I'm willing to bet you don't have the respect for the judicial branch any more. And why would you? You're less likely to get a serious hearing in a Federal court of law than you are to get ran though the ringer by the bureaucracy. Criminal justice and regulatory reform are not just nice things to have, they're mandatory if the government wants to re-elevate it's standing in civil society.
Even worse than the government however, is the media. I've said about all I can say about the current state of newspapers, they're a hopeless case that, to be honest, have no more place in the public discourse. They could have maintained a very important role had they decided to focus on local issues in an honest and transparent manner. Had they decided to watchdog the governments that local citizens often lack the time to.
Instead they retained the old, wheezing business model that elevated the unsigned editorial and increasingly based news coverage on those ideals. They became separated from their reader based and, over time, began to view them as too stupid to be trusted. Today, media elites at newspapers operate only as courtesans for the ruling class. They serve no meaningful function and should be roundly ignored.
Now, after all of that, the good news.
As you wake up this morning and watch what used to be a political party rally around the Bronzed Ego, as you stare in dumbfounded awe as so-called "revolutionary" FeelTheBern sells out to the Anointed One and a book deal and as you watch the horrific news from Nice and you see President Narcissus on ESPN, of all places, lecturing you on his topic du jour remember this:
It is still possible, just, to operate in America today. Yes if you want to start a business you have to navigate a Minotaur's maze of red tape and regulation, and yes you certainly don't want to get on the bad side of the local magistrate lest your life become hell. But business is still moving along. Jobs are still out there to be had and wealth can still be created.
All of this happens because the strength of America is not in her ruling or courtesan classes. It is present in her people and that has not been entirely stripped from us.....yet.
These are questions that Americans will face over the coming months as the bag of hammers that used to be a functioning political party embraces the Bronzed Ego and the loose collection of special interest groups that used to make up the left embraces the Anointed One.
Historically when the official institutions start to fail the collapse of an empire was not far behind. The machinery of the bureaucracy working efficiently being vital to the salvation of the state. In America, it's possible that this is different.
Because the machinery of the State has been malfunctioning for quite a while, and life has continued to move forward.
Executive Offices? Broken since at least the Clinton regime. And odds are, despite most people thinking their state is the bee's knees, your State apparatus is a clunker as well. In Texas, where I live and work, much is made of the so-called "Texas miracle" which provided jobs to some in an overall jobless National climate. Politicians bragged and wanna-be politicians waxed poetic, none of them admitting that they had very little to do with things going well.
In fact, Texas succeeds in spite of itself. Administratively, the State is broken. Inefficient and improperly administrated getting something done in Texas is a shit-show of passing the buck and frustrating meetings and phone calls. I'm willing to bet your state is just the same.
At the municipal level our cities are being ran into the ground by elitist, progressive mayors who view the job as nothing more than an opportunity to establish a patronage system and buy votes. Newly elected Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner has spent more time in office ensuring that his patrons receive lucrative board positions in quasi-governmental agencies than he has doing anything else. Trust me, your Mayor is just the same.
Currently, America is ruled by a rather witless, mean-spirited man who has clearly spent most of the last eight years trying to hide the fact that he's wholly unqualified for the job. It's so bad that even his supporters can only blather along about "respecting the office of the President" rather than respecting HIM as the President. That all of that is just so much bullshit (there is nothing about ANY elected political office that is due respect) is besides the point. When the truth is inconvenient, repeat the lie. In this case the lie is that President Narcissus has things under control.
Legislatively it's only slightly better but still bad. There's too much "there out to be a law" or 'Something! must be done." thinking and less trying to figure out how to get the law out of the way. If you want to see the symptoms go try and get through the federal register, see all of the laws that you could be breaking right now but had no idea they were laws.
At a State level it's even worse. High-minded legislators identify a solution that needs a problem and doggedly work to find it. Typically this 'problem' is that the rubes over which they rule are too stupid, in their opinion, to think for themselves. This leads to a poorly crafted law designed to 'fix' a problem that doesn't exist which creates unintended consequences elsewhere.
Municipal government, especially in authoritarian, progressive cities are the well-spring of most modern day idiocy. Before bad ideas reach the State and Federal levels they are typically piloted in poorly ran cities. It's almost as if the State and Federal Legislators are deliberately picking the worst ideas to foist on Americans just so they can laugh at the struggle.
"We're the government and we're here to help." is a threat today, not a promise.
I'm willing to bet you don't have the respect for the judicial branch any more. And why would you? You're less likely to get a serious hearing in a Federal court of law than you are to get ran though the ringer by the bureaucracy. Criminal justice and regulatory reform are not just nice things to have, they're mandatory if the government wants to re-elevate it's standing in civil society.
Even worse than the government however, is the media. I've said about all I can say about the current state of newspapers, they're a hopeless case that, to be honest, have no more place in the public discourse. They could have maintained a very important role had they decided to focus on local issues in an honest and transparent manner. Had they decided to watchdog the governments that local citizens often lack the time to.
Instead they retained the old, wheezing business model that elevated the unsigned editorial and increasingly based news coverage on those ideals. They became separated from their reader based and, over time, began to view them as too stupid to be trusted. Today, media elites at newspapers operate only as courtesans for the ruling class. They serve no meaningful function and should be roundly ignored.
Now, after all of that, the good news.
As you wake up this morning and watch what used to be a political party rally around the Bronzed Ego, as you stare in dumbfounded awe as so-called "revolutionary" FeelTheBern sells out to the Anointed One and a book deal and as you watch the horrific news from Nice and you see President Narcissus on ESPN, of all places, lecturing you on his topic du jour remember this:
It is still possible, just, to operate in America today. Yes if you want to start a business you have to navigate a Minotaur's maze of red tape and regulation, and yes you certainly don't want to get on the bad side of the local magistrate lest your life become hell. But business is still moving along. Jobs are still out there to be had and wealth can still be created.
All of this happens because the strength of America is not in her ruling or courtesan classes. It is present in her people and that has not been entirely stripped from us.....yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)