"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
"The End" features Starr's
only drum solo in the Beatles' catalogue (the drums are mixed across two
tracks in "true stereo", unlike most releases at that time where they were
hard panned left or right). Fifty-four seconds into the song are 18 bars
of lead guitar: the first two bars are played by McCartney, the second
two by Harrison, and the third two by Lennon, with the sequence repeating.
Harrison suggested the idea of a guitar solo in the track, Lennon decided
they should trade solos and McCartney elected to go first. The solos were
cut live against the existing backing track in one take. Immediately
after Lennon's third and final solo, the piano chords of the final part
of the song begin. The song ends with the memorable final line, "And in
the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make".
best album of all-time.
they should remake a bunch
of classic movies, but within the current political climate. so, they tell
the story of norma rae, but instead of starting a union because of legitimate
grievances she complains to management about manspreading and doesn't get
anything done because of systemic patriarchy. basically it could be a series
of reimagined classics cut short because of political correctness.
in the last few weeks i've
heard two distinct condemnations of banks and home lending practices over
the last 15 years or so: 1) poor people of color can't get housing loans
because banks discriminate. 2) poor people of color were duped into loans
both these arguments have
come from the left and seem in contradiction. i'm not sure what the perfect
sweet spot is supposed to be for banks seeing as i have literally heard
both ends of the spectrum being cited as examples of discrimination against
people of color in specific regards to housing.
at some point i think we
need to have a serious, honest, and frank conversation about the extent
to which agency and free will exist. of course many people have this conversation
in their 20s, in college, or whatever. but, as a society, i think we need
to be a bit more honest and open about it and have it in those terms...to
what extent can people be held responsible for their own actions? i'm not
a determinist, but there are smart people who are. i'm also not a complete
libertarian who believes that it's your job to be an expert in every piece
of paper you put your signature on, but there has to be some expectation
that all people take their own fate into their own hands. without this
fundamental premise i think we may as well just pack it up and cut straight
to the chase: socialism and equal outcomes for all.
a couple examples of government
doing a good job to help protect consumers: cooling off period when you
buy a car and 3 day right to cancel home improvement contracts. there are
probably a lot more. this helps protect the impulsive consumer or the consumer
who feels pressured by a salesman. i'm not sure if they have something
similar for home mortgages. but let's be real - if you're making 25k/year
and you own a $500k house then you have to (or should) know that something
isn't adding up. maybe the salesman sold you on an adjustable rate mortgage,
but at that point you probably wanted to be fooled.
TINSTAAFL. there is no
such thing as a free lunch. if it's too good to be true then it probably
is. you need a healthy skepticism and if you don't have that as an adult
then i'm sorry, but that's not really society's problem.
what's good for the goose
is good for the gander. if the above applies to poor individuals of color
(or whoever your favorite victim group is), then it applies as much or
more to banks that give shitty loans to people who have no chance of paying
them off. i believe in moral hazard. the banks should become government
property long enough to ride out the storm and sell to a bank that can
let's not forget the seven
sins (the first two of which apply heavily here):
commerce without morality
wealth without work
pleasure without conscience
knowledge without character
science without humanity
religion without sacrifice
politics without principle
i talked about that last
one just a couple weeks ago.
and regarding what the
IDW is up against these days: All censorships exist to prevent any one
from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress
is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting
existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is
the removal of censorships. -George Bernard Shaw
"wherever germany extends
her sway, she ruins culture" - nietzsche
"It was impossible to get
a conversation going, everybody was talking too much." -Yogi Berra
the incel movement got
a bit of coverage lately. for those who don't know...an incel is an involuntary
celibate. basically guys (mostly) who can't get laid for whatever reason.
this tends to end up in them being very bitter and angry (mostly with women).
basically, some of them are saying there is a right to sex. they have a
right to sex because it's a biological imperative - a basic human need
- and so society should take care of that for them. what's fascinating
to me, and i haven't heard anyone else address it in quite this way, is
that some of them have become sexual communists in this way. all the coverage
i've heard about the subject has focused on them being women-hating psychos,
but none of the mainstream coverage acknowledges the logic of the argument.
perhaps it's because it's the same logic that communists use to justify
their taking the labor of others for their basic needs.
to simplify things it goes
like this: i'm a communist who believes in a right to housing, food, healthcare,
internet, etc. i don't provide these things for myself (for legitimate
or illegitimate reasons - it doesn't matter to the communists), so the
rest of society should provide these things for me. all the incel movement
has done is include sex in the list of human rights. i wrote about the
issue of creeping "human rights" several
months ago and a year ago,
and here's yet another example of it. when i complained about it then it
could be seen as a conservative complaint because i complained about things
that liberals today are pushing for (free internet, healthcare, right to
preferred gender pronoun use, etc.) and now it could be seen as a liberal
complaint since the liberals have been big on reporting on the incel movement
(probably because it's essentially an anti-woman movement and that fits
nicely into their narrative).
i don't drink coffee and
i don't care about starbucks, but it occurs to me that they're getting
shit on a lot lately and it's an example of the left eating itself. they
decided to take a day to talk about race and they got shit on for it being
ham fisted or whatever. one manager maybe kicks out a couple of black guys
and everyone shits on starbucks. it's really bizarre because they should
be praised in a lot of ways. they provide free college opportunities for
their employees, they offer good advancement, good benefits, good flexibility
for students and parents, and good wages. yet they get shit on at every
opportunity. if they had 100 stores instead of 27,000 then i think people
would have a very difference opinion of them.
i'm in no way an economist,
but i'd love to see some analysis of this concept that it seems like no
matter how things change we always find a way to work roughly 40 hours
a week at the median level. consumer goods cost less, food costs less,
but those savings are just offset by new "needs" like cell phones or rising
costs in healthcare or other sectors. it seems as though there's just a
limiting societal factor of us working about that much and having whatever
wage that works out to (adjusted for inflation or not) and the only issue
is how that amount of work (as represented by money) is going to be divvied
up by various potential needs or sectors.
i guess the counter point
to this would be that we have higher levels of consumer debt than we did
in the past.
malcolm gladwell is really
hit and miss lately. he either really nails it or totally misses. one of
his recent podcasts was about the nature of memory and how flexible and
imperfect it is. he talked about studies where people recall being one
place on 9/11 a year after the attacks and then a totally different place
when they were asked again 5 years after the attacks. i find this mildly
interesting, but not all that compelling. i remember precisely where i
was and i know with metaphysical certainty that i'm remembering correctly.
but that's besides the point. his point seemed to be that brian williams
was simply misremembering when he told his story about landing in the middle
east under terrorist fire. it's the story that got him suspended for a
while and gladwell was doing his best to be an apologist for him. frankly,
i think it's nuts. it's one thing to misremember where you were when a
big event happened and it's another to misremember being in the middle
of enemy fire when you're just a journalist (or hillary clinton since she
also lied about something similar). being in a life threatening situation
is just vastly different. memory isn't infallible...and when he addresses
the role memory plays in a movement like #metoo i can see how it's salient
to remember that there's two sides to a story and your memory of every
detail can have holes. but this is very different from remembering 1) i
was under rocket fire in a foreign country and my life was in legitimate
danger or 2) i landed on a peaceful tarmac and nothing was happening. there's
a clear binary that exists and it's a leap beyond all leaps to try to give
the benefit of the doubt to williams on this. sorry not sorry.
in the further collapsing
trust of our institutions the NBA continues to have ref issues to the point
where people are posting play by play recaps of bad calls in playoff games.
1) people take this shit too seriously (i used to also) 2) society is fucked
when we can't even trust foul calls anymore
did i write about oprah
and her "speak your truth" nonsense? post-modernism run amok. it's also
strange when people (usually liberals and PC academics) talk about speaking
your truth but they shout down or deride any "truth" that they don't like.
it's a very odd dynamic that they can't see the blatant hypocrisy. "you
should speak your truth"..."but not you because you're a white guy and
you can't know anything about racism, oppression, sexism, privilege, etc."
for example. what about
the truth of the trump voter? shouldn't they speak their truth? personally
i think the whole idea is idiotic. you can give your opinion and your experience
(and everyone should), but don't call it truth. but if you believe the
nonsense mantra of "speak your truth" then at least have the courage to
let it apply to everyone.
i wonder what would happen
if trump tried to hire his brother for attorney general like JFK did. apparently
the NYT and others gave JFK a pretty hard time about it. good to see some
consistency on the nepotism topic.
wine seems to be a gross
misapplication of resources. billions spent on cultivating grapes for minor
differences in flavor. wonder what the global warming impact is on shipping
glass bottles from italy and france to california. i wonder if wine drinking
liberals care about that as much as i used to care about people driving
wish we talked more about
ideas, not individuals.
wish we talked more about
individuals, not groups.
abortion and gun control
people are basically the same - for each it's a religious issue. for the
second amendment people they're fundamentalists - "never take my guns.
never restrict me from having any guns i want." for abortion rights folks
it's "never restrict my right to an abortion." neither group seems very
willing to give in on even common sense restrictions or changes to current
for those who like to look
to europe as enlightened:
atlantic...germany on abortion: "women seeking first-trimester abortions
are subject to a mandatory three-day waiting period and a counseling session.
Abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy are forbidden except in
cases of grave threat to the mother's physical or mental health."
finland on abortion: "
abortion is available up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, unless the woman is
under 17 years old, in which case she may have an abortion until she's
20 weeks pregnant. But even for early abortions, women must provide a "social
reason" for seeking to terminate her pregnancy, such as poverty, extreme
distress, or already having at least four children. While in practice most
abortion requests are granted, it still forces women to prove to an authority
the validity of their desire not to have a baby"
denmark on abortion: "abortion
is available on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Afterward, exceptions
are made for cases of rape, threats to the woman's physical or mental health,
risk of fetal defects, and -- revealingly -- in cases where the woman can
demonstrate lack of financial resources to care for a child."
apparently there was a 7 year old who won the pride parade in LA. i'm
not sure what it means to win the pride parade, but i guess they liked
him. he's 7 and he's a trans person. just let that sink in. i guess there
are a lot of people who find this to be really good news, but i can't say
i'm one of them. saying that isn't really allowed in polite society anymore,
but i guess i'm old because i care less about that every day. this is horse
shit. this kid apparently knows enough about men and women and gender roles
to reject what he was born with. an astonishing accomplishment at seven.
it sure seems as though transgender people embrace gender roles as much
as anyone else, including the most ardent conservative republicans.
there was a munk
debate about political correctness recently wherein the side arguing
that political correctness hasn't gone too far basically refused to address
the core issue of political correctness. it was a bizarre debate because
one side was at least attempting to argue the core resolution and the other
side just talked about oppressed people and their oppressors. i suppose
this is why the "con" side won the debate. i believe pretty strongly that
this debate about political correctness is a valid and important one. politically
incorrect speech is absolutely stifled in polite society, in leftist enclaves,
in academia, and in the mainstream media. it's really something that i
think moderates need to fight against, or else we'll all suffer the consequences
of limited speech, limited action, limited political debate, exchange of
free ideas, etc. of course, trump is partly a backlash against this. a
vote for him is, in a very real way, a vote against incumbents and the
political elites, but it's also a vote against a system of repressed speech
and ideas...things that occur under the guise of political correctness.
this isn't to say that
i like trump or that i think it was a wise vote to choose him over hillary
because the system needed shaking up so badly or because PC culture has
run amok. i've said it before that he's the wrong answer to the right questions.
the concerns are valid and real and i sympathize with them very much, but
trump was an awful choice. sanders also struck a nerve for many of the
same reasons, but he didn't get quite the following for a variety of reasons.
jordan peterson was in
that debate and he's one of the people identified as being in the intellectual
dark web. i've seen the rise of these thinkers for the past two years
or so and the NYT finally published something that seems to have gotten
some legs on the topic. the common thread with the people comprising the
IDW is that they are speaking out against homogeneous academia, against
political correctness, and against basic notions that we can't have reasonable
debates about topics that are considered taboo today. everyone mentioned
in her article has been on my podcast rotation for a while now. i found
bari weiss's piece on the IDW to be quite fair in a world where a lot of
criticism against harris and peterson revolves around them being racists
and shills for the alt-right. these are clearly attacks from people who
either are wholly ignorant of what those two people stand for, or who are
willingly lying for political purposes.