"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
Hillary got 2,842 delegates
in the 2016 Democratic primary. Warren got 69 delegates in the 2020 Democratic
primary. Those are facts. Despite these facts some nuts think that Warren
lost the nomination because of sexism. I dislike Hillary. I like Warren.
But some of these Warren supporters and media pundits are starting to annoy
COVID-19 is really ramping
up fast now. NBA has suspended games, Trump is shutting down travel, large
events are being canceled left and right. Overall it's probably a good
thing that so much is happening so early so that it slows the spread. The
slower we can get this thing moving the better we'll be able to respond
as it peaks. Private enterprise in the US appears to be doing a better
job than governments at this point. South Korea and Singapore are models
for how to approach this from an efficacy standpoint. Not sure about details,
so I always wonder about liberty in these situations. Clearly China and
totalitarian governments that don't have to answer to basic human rights
have a greater ability to respond than countries that respect individual
DNC decided to change the
debate rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard. The old rules said you had to get
delegates and now they're saying that you need to have 20% in the polls.
They also changed the debate rules to allow Bloomberg in after he bought
himself into the race. If you don't think the DNC is corrupt, undemocratic,
and wanting to fix the results by now, then you'll never be convinced otherwise.
But, of course, they're not as bad as the only other choice people think
they have so we'll just ignore all these obvious issues. After all "perfect
is the enemy of good." What a fucked up race this has become.
I voted for Warren and
she's out now. It was the first time in my life I voted for a Democrat
for president and she lasted for less than a week afterwards. Guess it's
Some are saying she lost
because she's a woman. I'm really tired of this argument. If electing a
person with a vagina was so important to people with vaginas (or allies
thereof), then she would have more than 4.5% of the delegates declared
so far. There are more women in the U.S. than there are men. Woman turnout
at greater rates than men. And yet Warren getting 4.5% of the delegates
is a sexism issue somehow. I'm not sure how you contort your mind to believe
this stuff. It's actually a testament to women that they don't vote solely
based upon genitalia. It would be concerning if men split their vote on
Sanders/Biden and all the women split their vote on Gabbard and Warren.
Instead, it appears as thought women are capable of voting for a person
based upon something other than what is in their pants.
Now, some will retort that
women are only voting for someone other than Warren because of "electability."
I think this is basically a made up metric. Made up by the media. Not only
is it largely made up, but it's also ludicrous to think that anyone can
determine its trueness. Electability is whether or not someone can win
and that's entirely dependent upon whether or not you and your neighbors
vote for the person. So, to determine whether or not a person can win you're
trying to guess what your neighbors are going to vote and they are doing
the same about you. Of course everyone is trying to determine who you and
your neighbors are going to vote for. The media is trying, pollsters are
trying, the candidates are trying, and they are often wrong unless you're
talking about the short term. But, somehow some people think they know
what their neighbors and not neighbors are going to vote for and then they
alter their vote based upon these views so they can pick someone more of
their neighbors might like. It's the most twisted and retarded game of
guessing you've ever considered. And yet this is what people do and this
determines a person's "electability" - which I contend is basically a made
up thing that we should all be ignoring.
It's why I've voted for
Nader 4 out of 6 times. Because "electability" is for sheep and soothsayers.
So, if you can tell the future, then vote for the person who you like of
the two people who are really close to winning. If you can't tell the future
(99.999% of humans), then vote for the person who you would like to do
the job. And if that person absolutely must have a vagina, then vote for
the vagina having person you like most. There's still an opportunity for
Democrats to blindly vote for what they always claim they want: a woman
of color as president. Tulsi Gabbard is a woman of color who is still running
for president. Even though Kamala Harris said "Look at what's happened.
There are no women currently in this race." after Warren dropped out. There
is in fact a woman in the race and she's not even white. So, Democrats
still have the choice of a woman of color. A woman who has served in the
military. A woman who wants to get out of foreign entanglements.... We'll
see how Democrats respond. Hillary already called her a Russian asset.
Harris pretended she's not even running anymore. The DNC has changed the
debate rules to exclude her.
So, Warren didn't lose
because of her vagina. Another theory is that she lost in part because
her health care plan was botched. She took a while to roll it out and it
basically was Bernie 2.0. I agree that she didn't roll it out that well,
but Jane Doe doesn't even know about the minutiae of her healthcare plan
or how it was rolled out. This is something pundits and wonks notice, but
not the average person. A lot of people peak in the polls at some point
and then fall. The voters try a person out and then reject them if they
don't like their policies or the cut of their jib or if being number one
brings out skeletons, etc. It's not because of her healthcare roll out
and it's not because of her vagina. The people in the media who bring those
things up are idiots. How many people have been number one in the polls
and didn't end up with the nomination? Jeb Bush, Mayor Pete, Warren, Bernie/Biden
(one of them will end up losing, both have been #1 at some point), Gingrich,
Herman Cain, etc. Many candidates get a moment in the sun and are later
rejected for a variety of reasons.
Renovating our kitchen
now. Deck is mostly done (still need to build stairs). Side deck is getting
there also. Have a lot of projects going on right now...side deck, back
stairs, main deck stairs, kitchen, shear wall at bottom of interior stairs,
drywall patches from deck work. Kitchen is the #1 priority since we can't
cook. Mostly done with the plumbing and electrical. Insulation, flooring,
drywall will be next. Cabinets and flooring will be done by others.
Big news these days is
COVID-19. A lot of misinformation going around, but here are the basic
facts as far as I can tell: mostly older people (60+) who are dying. Much
worse for 80+. R naught is in the 2-3 range meaning that each person with
it gives it to 2-3 others. This could change if we wash hands, stay away
from each other, don't touch our face, etc. It seems like most people know
about it, but it seems like most people aren't being that good about not
spreading it. Mortality rate is 1-3%. I think it's probably closer to 1%
because a lot of people aren't getting tested. California only has 5k tests
as of last week so even if you wanted to get tested, there's a decent chance
This is a good dry run
for something more serious. If you haven't already prepped for this then
you should after this. We have masks already and plenty of sanitizer, food,
water, etc. But I think I take self-sufficiency more seriously than most
people. A lot of political hay is being made over this. A lot of talk about
people not getting paid time off. A lot of people talking about Trump not
responding correctly. "Never let a crisis go to waste" as rahm emmanuel
used to say.
Like I said, we have a
lot of the essentials in our kit already, but many aren't prepared. With
any kind of disaster I think the biggest thing to think about is that the
government will not help you at all for at least two weeks. For national
emergencies it could be much longer. A lot of people seem to have the attitude
in life (and with emergencies as well) that Uncle Sam will take care of
me. If you trust the government to do anything then you're going to be
in a world of hurt. Maybe you trust the government to run healthcare or
whatever and that's dumb in my opinion, but you have to be next level stupid
to think that government can run emergency response in such a way that
you don't need to prepare for yourself. Look at Haiti, Katrina, Hurricane
Andrew, Paradise fire, etc. In none of these circumstances does the government
help a majority of the people in a timely manner. Eventually they might
help cut some checks or FEMA gets there and helps the worst of the worst,
but it's not happening quickly and it's not happening for everyone.
If it's a regional disaster
then the government will be much more able to help. Earthquakes, fires,
etc. are contained. The state and Federal govts. can help with supplies,
etc. Still, it could be a couple weeks before supply lines are open, communications
lines are good, and it could be much longer before water, power, gas is
restored. For biological or nuclear issues then we are looking at potentially
national implications. If it's nukes then we could have been attacked and
if it's a state actor then they likely didn't launch only one attack. I
consider this a low level risk. Biological is what we're seeing now. If
we get something truly pandemic level like Spanish flu, then the whole
country/world could be looking for the same things (masks, anti-viral meds,
etc.). If this happens then it would be months before you can get what
you need. Don't bother waiting in line or calling anyone for help. You're
on your own.
For me, my default disposition
is that I'm on my own. I strive to be self-sufficient as much as possible.
For someone who is the opposite then these disasters are going to be a
wake up call and an overall rough time. I like my way better. If I can't
get anyone's help then it's just another day. If the government knocks
on my door and gives me a bunch of free water and medicine then it's a
bonus. Prepare as though you can only depend on yourself and if anything
better than that happens then you're golden.
The worst possible disaster
is a national one that is prolonged. In this scenario you'll likely see
some break down of societal norms and an increase in crime. If that ever
happens then we're all in trouble. I think it's unlikely overall. What
could get us there? Civil war, major financial collapse, major pandemic,
major attacks on our soil. Overall pretty unlikely so I haven't prepped
for them. These are the scenarios that get people buying bomb shelters,
stocking up on weapons, stocking up on seeds, year long food supply, etc.
Not worth it imo.
For COVID-19 there are
some saying it could infect up to 40-70% of global adults. Let's say that
makes for 3 billion adults with a 1% mortality rate that means 30 million
dead, maybe 2 million in the U.S. Most of them pretty old. From a cold
and calculating point of view this is bad, but it's certainly not as bad
as it could get. This is the test run for Spanish flu 2.0. What if something
has the transmittance of measles (R naught of 18, I believe) and the mortality
rate of small pox (33%) or Ebola (50%+)? Basically everyone would get the
disease and a third to half would die, so you're talking about 2-4 billion
dead. So, yeah, COVID-19 sucks, but it could be a lot worse.