what's been floating my boat lately:

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein-

9/4/19 (21:44)

  • heavy cannabis use has been linked to psychosis according to psychiatrists at UCB and Yale. this comes as no surprise to me. I remember being at Venice Beach when I was a teenager and the pro-pot crowd was out there all the time arguing for legalization and talking about how it's just a plant and all that. This seems to be a common argument. It's natural so it's fine. Then again so is dog shit and tobacco and opium, but not many people are interested in smoking those things. So there's that. Then there's the common sense approach that says all things in moderation. The studies are finding that heavy or consistent use is the problem. Though, if you listen to the podcast I linked, you'll find that the doctors would like more study on where the line should be drawn. Lastly, we have to take into account that today's pot just isn't "natural" in the usual sense of the word. It's been so modified and bred for potency that the majority of it doesn't resemble the pot that was growing in the wild 100 years ago.
  • Berkeley has voted to eliminate all natural gas in new buildings. This is a classic Berkeley move. Not a carrot approach of incentivizing electric only buildings or solar panels. Not requiring more stringent leak testing or any number of other ways of mitigating the effects of natural gas on the envirornment...just outright banning. They have a hammer so everything looks like a nail and they don't care about choice. As dumb a choice as this is for residential buildings, it's even worse for restaurants. Proponents will bring up induction cooking, which is nice enough in my experience, but it doesn't work on copper pans or aluminum cookware and I can't imagine it works well on a wok or other oddly shaped cookware. Berkeley is anti-Chinese restaurant it would appear. This kind of knee jerk closing off of options/freedom is something I hate more and more every year.
  • Cypress Mandela training center is a vocational training place in Oakland that supposedly takes young people and trains them for the trades. I'm looking to hire so I tried going to their website to look into getting someone from their program. They have a page that says "hire our graduates" and it talks about how they train people, but doesn't give any link for actually contacting them about hiring their grads. So, I went to the contact us part of the page and told them I'm interested in hiring someone for the building trades. Never heard back from them. I've done the same at Laney college carpentry program. I've done the same at Civic Corps. I've also had two cold calls (emails, actually) from people looking for work. In both cases I responded within an hour with follow up questions about the type of work they want and what their skills are. In every single case I've listed I haven't heard back from these people. What conclusion should a person reach after all this? That these training programs are serious about helping their students succeed at the next level? That people who apply for work are actually interested in working and finding a career?
  • These experiences are the kinds of experiences that harden a person. My general outlook is that we should give people a chance and that if you give people a chance they will seize the opportunity and make their lives better. It's a liberal inclination, I think; and it's a good one. However, when life experience teaches you otherwise you either have to bury your head in the sand or change your worldview. In my case my worldview has changed. Some people want opportunity and some people are willing to work hard when given the opportunity to better their lives. But the percentage of people who are willing to do that is a lot lower than I thought before, and a lot lower than I would like. It's also a lot lower than a society would need in order to sustain any kind of socialism or communism.
  • I really underestimated the power of an issue like global warming for people to argue for grabbing power in all sorts of ways. on 2/2/7 I wrote about a local radio station talking about global warming as a leftist plot to grab power and make money on solar panels or something. It seemed ridiculous at the time, but the power grab element is an actual possibility. Global warming is being used as a cudgel to attack all sorts of things and argue for even more. The green new deal comes with all sorts of race related elements. "Environmental racism" is a buzzy term that is being thrown around a lot lately. Global warming is a threat to the entire human race and so it carries with it a lot of weight with the people who agree that it could mean an apocalypse. I'm not saying that global warming is a hoax. I'm not saying that most of these responses to it are pure power grabs. However, it has surprised me quite a bit how much people can use it to argue for all sorts of things they want. And I definitely see the potential for it to be used to argue for some really radical things in the future....
  • For example, the Amazon is burning now and people are talking about how awful that is for the global environment. If there's a leftist version of Trump I could easily see them seizing on this moment to take some sovereignty away from Brazil since their inaction on the fire or deforestation in general, is a threat to us all. Of course in this case Europe would be in support of the president (instead of opposing them as they do Trump - which thankfully keeps him in check a bit) which would make it all the more powerful. There are just so many examples of how global warming can be used as justification for sweeping changes. I didn't believe it 12 years ago, but, if you keep your eyes open, you'll see how often the apocalyptic threat of global warming is invoked to argue for the curtailment of someone's freedom. It's the left-wing equivalent of terrorism under Bush.
  • "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth."
  • There's a consistent theme amongst the liberal intelligencia and that is that whites lack culture. The Daily (NY Times) podcast had a story the other day about music on the campaign trail and they basically derided the music of Trump as just blaring Americana whereas everyone else has this really cultured and interesting music that embraced the struggle of being a woman or being a POC. I used to buy into this canard as well that white people don't really have culture. Salt Lake City would be a perfect example of a place that would get sneered at by the coastal elites as being devoid of culture. The truth is that white people have as much culture as everyone else. Same with Mormons. It may not be as interesting to you and you might not like parts of it as much, but it's really off-putting to say that a place like SLC or white people in general "lack culture." This is the kind of thing that a lot of smart media people just don't get and it's the kind of thing that slowly eats away at whites to the point where they feel under attack and it makes way for Trump.
  • Liberal elites only understand the rest of the country in as much as JD Vance has explained it to them. They all seem to have read his book and that's their only touchstone for understanding white rural culture. It would be like me reading Invisible Man and referring to black people only in terms of that single book. It's pathetic. There needs to be a lot more understanding going around or we're not going to get out of this shit.

  • 9/2/19 (21:39)

  • it would be interesting to see if the media is more likely to report on the race of a shooter if he (usually a man) is white or other. for example, the shooting at a high school football game in AL was by a black guy, but NPR didn't specify his race. but, on the same date, there was a story on the Odessa shooting and they specified the shooter as a white male. two stories within 3 hours of each other and the race is inconsistently mentioned or not. i don't think this is just and innocent inconsistency. i think the media is reluctant to mention the race of perpetrators nowadays. perhaps that's a welcome reprieve from the times when the news reported black crime more than white crime. that may actually still be the case in local news, but it definitely doesn't seem like it's the case in national news. i suspect there's also a difference between local TV and local newspapers, with the TV probably being more racist against blacks than newspapers. and national left of center outlets like NPR being the most unlikely to call out non-whites. just guesses based upon my observations, though. no data.
  • good read about how amazon patented taking pictures on a white background. gotta love our system.
  • now that the Mueller report attacks have proven to be fruitless (i.e., lacking traction with the average voter), the new anti-Trump narrative that has cropped up is calling him out on his trade war with China. i guess it's as good a strategy as any. it's funny how transparently the media attacks politicians on the same issues all at once. it's called pack journalism and it's alive and well in the mainstream press. what the elites don't understand about this is that the average American doesn't really care about prices of plastic shit going up in the abstract as a result of the tariffs. just like they don't care about the fact that they benefit in the abstract from low trade barriers that supposedly help the entire country. if joe bob loses his job to a Mexican factory worker he's just not all that interested in the fact that his neighbors are creating more jobs with the lower cost of goods as a result of NAFTA. average people care that China is pulling one over on us. even the Europeans know this and i think they are secretly happy with some of the hard nosed tactics Trump is employing. overall they definitely disagree with his tactics, but everyone pretty much acknowledges that China needs to be knocked down a peg or two. that's what the average Americans understand with regards to China and trade. beyond that it's a lot of elite talk about stuff they don't get or don't care about. China isn't dealing straight, they're being smarter and tougher, and we don't like it. as smart as the elites are, it's always funny to me that they don't understand the simplest of arguments.
  • all that isn't to say that i endorse the position of anyone involved, but i do understand the position the average American holds. i also understand that the Europeans are going to hurt more than we are because of this trade war. i also think it's time to play hardball instead of tip toeing around the tulips with China.
  • i'm calling "pimple popper MD" on firefighters. while i have a great deal of respect for the hard work they do, i also think they're overrated. the chicks all love them and society in general is all over their nut sack. most of the time they're polishing the chrome on the fire trucks, not saving lives. they make EMT calls and that's nice, but actual fire fighting is few and far between. when you take into account the fact that they're consistently among the highest paid city employees making in the mid-six figures in cities like Oakland, it really pushes them into the realm of the overrated. total compensation for a lot of these fire chief types is $400k+ which is just crazy when you consider that you could get 4 teachers for that price. just not worth it.
  • the latest example of the stupid Democrat party trying to socially engineer outcomes to stupid results is in the way they made the candidates get a minimum number of donations in order to be on the debate stage. each candidate needed to get at least 65,000 unique donors in order to appear on the second debate. in some cases, this meant spending as much as $35 through advertising to get a $1 donation. the idea was that they wanted the candidates to have broad support. the reality is that candidates have been wasting Democratic dollars on reaching this arbitrary threshold. it's the law of unintended consequences and it's a law that every technocrat and social engineer thinks they can think their way out of. they never can. this doesn't mean you shouldn't ever try to engineer things, but it does mean you should be very selective. "am i engineering something that is worth the inevitable and unforeseeable unintended consequences?" or is this just something i'm trying to do to make our party look like we care about the little people?


    Copyright 1998, 1999,2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
    2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, & 2019 by me.
    everything on here is my opinion, so don't sue me.


    Search www.aptpupil.org