All of 2020

12/15/20 (17:44)

If you make a "3" with your fingers how do you do it? I think Europeans are more likely to use their thumb, index finger, and middle finger. Americans use index, middle, and ring. My third grade teacher used middle, ring, and pinky.

11/27/20 (22:28)

Thanksgiving was spent going to Santa Cruz on a whim. Went to the Mystery Spot and also stopped to see Luke et al on a whim and that led us to the beach for the sunset. Whim on whim on whim. We hadn't planned a dinner either so we tried to do Chinese, but that was thwarted. Then we tried calling like 30 places and ended up settling on Domino's because they were the only ones open. We keep it classy. Kids loved it though so it was fun for all.

At Domino's I gave a tip because I usually do and it's Thanksgiving and all, and the guy said thanks and that I was the first tip of the night. Meryl was really perturbed by this.

Another failure of the media I've noticed lately is their emphasis not just on imprecise language (which I've written about before), but on the overuse of vague terms as hedges or fillers. They use "sort of" and "kind of" and "like" quite frequently. On NYT pod I heard the reporter say that "a sort of ringing endorsement was delivered by a judge..." Really? (edit: this is like being sort of pregnant). This is an artifact of a generation that wasn't taught to avoid these words and that language is just about getting a general point across, so being thoughtful about the words that come out of your mouth doesn't really matter. They didn't listen to their grandparents, I suppose. And maybe using this language doesn't matter in your day to day life, but when you're a professional communicator in the media then there's a difference between saying a thing and saying sort of a thing. Pay attention and you'll hear it all the time.

The sample of Enya on Ready or Not is one of my favorites of all-time. Their sample of I Only Have Eyes for You on Zealots is also great.

The Rolling Stone put out a revised Top 500 albums of all-time and it's a clear marker of the woke generation. I don't have the full original list in front of me, but suffice it to say that it's a far more diverse list now. Joni Mitchell is #3, Led Zeppelin doesn't make the top 50, Lauryn Hill is #10, Drake is higher than Metallica (who delivered the only metal album in the top 100 [Paranoid is #139])...These lists will always have omissions and disagreements, but some are better than others. This one is shit.

Saw a sign in Berkeley the other day that said "They won't divide us." Lol. Us vs. them is the definition of division, but whatever.

I used to think that the saying "ignorance is bliss" was a sarcastic rebuke against the idiots of the world. An observation that they were only happy because of their stupidity. But of course that "the unexamined life isn't worth living" so to be ignorant is one of the worst things you could be. However, I've recently been thinking more about this and I think of "ignorance is bliss" as a possible prescription for lifelong happiness.

Stay ignorant and you'll be happy. Don't open pandora's box. You don't want to know what's in the box. Stay uninformed. The more you know, the more you'll be upset. As another aphorism goes "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." Yeah, isn't it great?! If I had it to do all over again it might be fun to actively avoid knowledge of human depravity. Completely avoid the news. Read simple books and listen to unthoughtful things. Talk about the simple things in life. It wouldn't mean necessarily being shallow. I could still love and think about what the purpose of life is and all that. But just be blissfully ignorant of the many ills of society. "Ignorance is bliss" isn't a warning - it's advice.

The ending of Pi pretty much sums it up. Same for Memento.

I think the purity test for the left is more difficult than it is for the right. The right only seems to care that you're on their side ideologically. The left has more boxes to check these days. It's not enough to just vote the right way, you have to be an ally, you have to make the right noises on all the right topics, you need to literally bend the knee or raise your fist in solidarity with the party.

About 20 years ago I started noticing the dashcam footage coming out of Russia. It seemed that wack shit was always going down over there, but the reality was that more of it was just being captured. But why did everyone have dashcams there? Because they don't trust each other. Scammers run wild over there so you need dashcams. Same is becoming true in the US. Look at youtube at all the uber/lyft dashcam videos. Most of them aren't doing it for shits and giggles - it's protection against crazy riders who try to pull shit. This one is the most heartbreaking one I've seen. The daughter sees the dad trying to steal shit and she tries to stop him, but he does it anyway. Then he gets caught and says dumb shit. And he's got a prosthetic leg to top it all off. The whole thing is just sad. We don't trust each other anymore and the dashcams are just one more sign of this fact.

I don't know what we need to do to restore trust. Accountability is certainly a big part of it, though.

11/17/20 (20:34)

Most of what I write here strives to be different from what is normally talked about. For this reason, and others, I probably come off as more controversial than I actually am. I'm exploring ideas and looking for areas that aren't as discussed or agreed upon. There's no fun or point in writing 2,000 words on how and why Trump is a POS.

Picking up where I left off last time...the media was making a big deal because Harris is the first woman VP-elect. We had this choice before many many times in the past. What's notable about it this time is that she won. But if this was a big deal for you, there were many times you could have let your actions speak louder than words. For example, in 2000 I voted for Ralph Nader and his VP running mate Winona LaDuke. I also voted for Elizabeth Warren and Biden/Harris. I didn't, however, vote for Sarah Palin. I suppose, though, that you could have done that if it was really important to you to have a woman in office. I'm guessing none of my readers cared enough about it to vote Republican, however.

Here are a couple facts: Georgia has a population of 3.7 million. Popular vote in Georgia is approx. 5 million.

So, those are two facts as far as we can tell and yet when you combine them it looks lot like there is voter fraud. How can Georgia have a population of 3.7 million if they've already counted almost 5 million votes cast in Georgia for Trump and Biden? The answer is that the country of Georgia has a population of 3.7 million and the state of Georgia has a population of 10.6 million. Apparently these two facts, when combined in a confusing way, have contributed to some thinking there has been fraud in the election. Sad!

NYC had lines of 4-6 hours for early voters. This lines issue is the same issue that has been used as ammo in the argument for voter suppression elsewhere. (Purging of voting rolls being the other big example of suppression). But here are excessively long lines in what is a Democratic stronghold. So, I don't think it's fair to say that long lines are always a sign of suppression. Although, that doesn't stop some people ("“This is nothing more than clear and simple voter suppression,” she said. “Voter suppression of senior citizens, voter suppression of people with disabilities and voter suppression of working women and men." The truth is that NYC didn't open enough polling places for early voting so there were long lines. Even with COVID and mail in voting, people still showed up in person so much that the lines were 5 hours long. This is ridiculous, of course, and another sign that government can't do its job - even when Democrats (who supposedly want to see government working well) run things. But it's also a sign that incompetence is more likely than malice (Hanlon's razor)...even if you wish it were otherwise. And let's be clear, there are some who really want there to be suppression so they can have someone to blame for their failures - or those of their party.

White men are the most privileged in society, right? So why do they disproportionately commit suicide? The most common theory I hear is that they have no one to blame for their fate in life so they take their own life when faced with despair. Whatever your model of the world, you have to come up with a theory that explains such an outcome.

A big part of my outlook on life is that life is suffering. My view of the state of nature is that it's basically chaos and despair. Happiness isn't the state of nature - hard work and despair are. Hobbes said life is nasty, brutish, and short. I think that's more accurate than the opposite.

I watched a lot of national geographic type stuff when I was a kid. And though most of it wasn't as concentrated as (this) that sort of thing is basically my view of nature. I think if you view life as potentially that bad on a regular basis, then it's a lot easier to take things like COVID in stride. If, however, you think life should be rainbows and unicorns, then any derivation from that hurts all the more.

If you have a rainbows and unicorns view of life it's also easier to go down the path of blaming others and thinking of life as oppressor vs. oppressed. After all, life should be great and yet it isn't so it must be someone's fault. Nature is paradise so things only go badly when corporations and governments and oppressors fuck everything up...so the reasoning goes. It's also easier to have this view of life when you've been spoiled by the success of the generations before us which have helped build a society that is good relative to the chaotic state of nature.

Someone said "Small minds discuss things. Average minds discuss people. Great minds discuss ideas." (Some think it was Eleanor Roosevelt, but it's not confirmed.) I think this is an important quote to remember these days. We have a lot of brilliant minds that have been focusing on one person for the last four years. I've said for a long time that Trump will be gone in 4-8 years, maybe less, and so we need to have discussions that keep that in mind. I'm less concerned about what he does or says than about the ideas raised by his tenure. I've also seen enough bogeymen in my life to know that it's just whack a mole with these idiots. All the experts have been saying for years that so and so is as bad as they come (Gingrich, Tom Delay, Mitch McConnell, Trump, Boehner, Lott, etc.). Principles and ideas should rise above these idiots and yet they hardly ever do.

Democrats are bewildered once again this election cycle. Among other things they are scratching their heads over the increase in votes for Trump by Blacks (small increase to about 10%) and Latinos (decent increase 28-->32%). The reason this doesn't compute is that they have a model of the world that views things along starkly racial lines. It mostly holds for Blacks (90% voting for Democrats), but for Asians and Latinos (both about 30%) it's not as stark as Democrats' view of the world would expect. It's the same reason they have no answer for Log Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans). They think belonging to a demographic group should equate to a political outlook. Besides this being a pretty racist world view, it's also plainly wrong. It doesn't take into account that race/gender aren't defining characteristics for all people. It doesn't take into account religion. It doesn't consider free thought. It doesn't allow for nuance like Mexican vs. Cuban or Chinese vs. Vietnamese. Liberals tend to be the ones to point out that race is a social construct and yet they are also the ones who don't seem to understand the limitations of this construct.

Why did we hear about Kanye West running for president and possibly taking votes from Biden, but I never heard about Jo Jorgensen taking votes from Trump (538 may have actually addressed it once)? I think this is yet another indicator of a clear pro-Biden bias in the media. Jorgensen received way more votes and (as I pointed out in a previous post) may have actually influenced the election (if you buy that sort of thinking), yet she received almost no "spoiler" type coverage in the liberal media that I follow. Half as many results come up for "kanye spoiler biden" as come up for "jorgensen spoiler trump" in case that means anything.

If we want better people in leadership positions (and I think we should) then we need to allow them to make mistakes from time to time without canceling them or raking them over the coals. With the media coverage as it is you get people who don't mind the constant scrutiny and attention....in other words extraordinarily thick skinned people or very power hungry people or narcissists like Trump and Bill Clinton. Couple this media dynamic with the need to raise ridiculous amount of money and you get narcissistic people who are super rich, don't mind asking for money, are beholden to the rich...none of these things are recipes for good candidates.

If you haven't heard of onlyfans then you're probably not on the internet much. Seeing as more and more of the real world is moving to the fake world, you should probably at least be aware of what's going on there. In a lot of ways the internet is the distillation of the worst (and best) of humans. Anyway, here's a video on the psychology behind onlyfans. Might be an interesting data point to keep in mind when you consider the dynamics of power in gender today.

If you're a pro-diversity person, like me, then you have to be saddened by studies that find that Blacks do better when taught by other Blacks (1. 2. 3.). Or that girls learn better in all girl environments (1. 2. 3.). I've heard these arguments before and it's always in a pro-black teacher or pro-all girls school sort of discussion. But, at the same time, it undermines any argument you might make for diversity as a strength. It reaffirms things that David Duke and Mohammed Ali agree on: people should stick with their own tribe. This is a sad outcome if you don't like that conclusion. Personally I'm not a pro-all girls school type of person. I believe that girls need to learn to get along with boys and vice versa. At the same time, it sure seems clear that girls do better without boys around so should do worse because we believe in diversity?

I haven't been able to find as much data on how boys do without girls, so that's another question. It's also pretty clear to me that school today is a better match for girls than boys. No more shop classes or vocational training and much more geared towards people who can sit still for hours on end and learn in a rigid environment. Boys tend to be more high energy - ADHD and autism spectrum types and these attributes are in stark contrast with the pedagogy of today's schools. Makes sense, I suppose, since most teachers are women. We also now have more women in college than men. So, it sure seems that, at least in education, the power seems to be clearly on the side of girls.

When Clarence Thomas got grilled his response was to call it a modern day lynching. When Kavanaugh got grilled his response was equally angry and he called it an attack because of pent up rage having to do with Clinton's loss. WTF is wrong with these people? I think Kavanaugh's response, in particular, was disqualifying. However, I didn't see much discussion about Amy Coney Barrett's qualifications when she was nominated. There was a bunch of talk about the process, but very little in the media about whether she could do the job or not. This should be the only real question. After Kavanaugh showed his partisanship he should have been out. ACB, though, didn't have a response like that. She dodged all the questions like they usually do, but that's not unusual anymore. I wish they were required to answer questions of substance. This would be accountability of some sort, but that doesn't happen. It's interesting to note that a lot of people have in mind that Thomas sexually assaulted Anita Hill. In fact, some talking heads have even claimed that...I guess the collective memory on this has shifted. The reality is that he talked to Hill about porn and stuff and made her uncomfortable, but he was never accused of rape or assault like Kavanaugh (or Biden and Clinton and Franken and Trump and Hastert for that matter).

If you believe that SCOTUS judges should be term limited (18 years is usually the number thrown out), would you be willing to have that term limit start with the judged selected under Biden? If you're not even willing to make a simple concession like that then how do you expect the other side would ever concede anything?

Unfortunately we have a society that thinks in zero sum ways these days. If I give in then I lose and they win. This is what happens when you have this sort of unholy alliance between the worst parts of Marxism and Post-Modernist-everything-is-about-power thinking.

Does anyone else find the timing of the vaccine announcement pretty obvious? They clearly had the information in the bag and waited until after the election was called to announce it. Election was called Saturday and the vaccine was announced Monday. Not saying this is a bad thing...they probably didn't want to influence the election one way or another, but it's interesting to note. From what I gather, the vaccine looks pretty legit, but will have some logistical issues since it requires a cold chain (quite a bit colder than usual, too) and requires two shots.

I'd also like to throw out there that I'm in no rush to get the vaccine. I'm not in an at risk group and this vaccine came in less than a year when the fastest vaccine in history was 4 years. Are any liberal minded people going to be brave enough to be at all skeptical of the vaccine or are they going to toe the party line? Does the fear and hate of multinational corporations suddenly disappear because the party is all in on the pro-vaccine train? It combines the anti-anti-science/anti-anti-vaxxers movement with the anti-Trump (who is in denial about COVID) movement, so I'm guessing Democrats will be all about getting a vaccine...and this is supported by the polls. 81% of Dems say they would get vaccine and 58% of Republicans.

It's another one of those situations where we get to see what is more important. If having a woman VP is super important then you would have voted for Palin. If distrust of multinational corporations is really high then you wouldn't get the COVID vaccine. But, in reality, it looks like having a woman VP isn't as important as having a Democrat VP. And embracing science is more important than distrusting the profit motive of a huge corporation. Personally, I'm in no rush - I'll let other people be the guinea pigs. I trust science, but it's gotta be real science that is well-reviewed, has a large sample size, isn't rushed, etc. Good science takes time.

The COVID situation is changing as the experts predicted. With the changing weather the case count is increasing quite a bit. See first image below. However, the deaths are staying steady. Usually deaths lag behind, but that's not the issue here. Deaths are going down because we're getting better at dealing with COVID. We're also identifying more cases because testing is increasing. As I called many months ago, the number of cases was way underreported in the early months.

Of course none of this seems to matter to any of the people in charge. The fact that we're handling things better than ever doesn't seem to have entered into the calculus for Newsom or others who are now calling for increasing restrictions as case numbers increase. The fact that students have been out of school for 8+ months doesn't matter. The mental health impact doesn't matter. It seems as though the only data point worth their while is the number of cases.

11/5/20 (23:34)

Things are looking a lot better for Biden now. Definitely a squeaker, but it appears as though he could get as much as 306 in the electoral college, which is what Trump got in 2016. And he would win by as much as 7 million popular votes. This would be good news overall, but not the repudiation of Trump I was hoping for.

I think the big story of this election (once we get past the lawyers doing their bullshit and we finally have a winner...assuming there isn't some kind of attempted coup) is the split vote from Americans. They clearly didn't approve of Trump (projected 7 million votes more for Biden), but they also don't approve of the Democratic agenda (to the extent that there is one). Just like the Republicans under Obama, Democrats haven't done much to articulate a coherent national agenda. Party leaders haven't pushed a Green New Deal or healthcare or any of the other things the pundits discuss. I frankly don't know what they were planning on doing the next couple years other than those things that their proxies talked about. There are discussions of defunding police, raising taxes on the rich...but I'm I think they are being purposely vague so they don't tie themselves to a particular policy.

So, there are vague policy ideas in the mix and this is coupled with an overall sense that Democrats are oriented towards the kinds of things I mentioned. Race is a central issue. The environment may be a big issue. Healthcare. Increasing taxes. Police reform. But because nothing has been very well articulated they've left a bit of a vacuum and the imagination runs wild for the average voter. They look at how Democrats are running things in Seattle and Portland and California and they are forced to decide if that's what they want on the national level. The average American probably isn't too excited about most of what they're seeing there.

So, they don't like Trump and vote against him. They don't think the Democrats have much of a plan and see that the Democrats are basically oriented pretty far to the left and so they vote for Biden and their local Republican Senator or Representative. Democrats are going to lose seats in the House and likely won't gain control of the Senate.

If you're the Democrats you're happy about Biden, but you really should be taking very seriously this loss in the Congress. Of course, the Dems probably won't learn their lesson. They will double down on racial issues (which don't resonate with the marginal voter). They will flub the discussion of taxes. They will talk about the environment from the wrong perspective (tending towards talking about how much we pollute and how awful we are [Americans are bad - see my 3 points below] instead of talking aspirationally about how we can bring blue collar jobs to middle America and lead the world in self-sufficient technology).

In GA the race is now within 1,000 votes. Why haven't the Democrats complained about the 3rd party candidate Jo Jorgensen who has 61k votes? A couple reasons: 1. the election isn't over yet and it probably won't come down to GA. 2. the 3rd party candidate is from the Libertarian party so she is "taking votes away" from Trump, not Biden. Jorgensen is getting 1% of the vote in GA, PA, AZ, NV...If she wasn't on the ballot there's a decent chance we'd be looking at a second Trump term. So, if you're one of those people who blamed Nader for Bush, then you should be thanking Jorgensen today. I won't hold my breath.

Every time there's an election the media pundits try to ascribe the win to a single group of people. Sometimes it's women. Other times it's Hispanics. This year it will probably be black voters. Just bear in mind that this is an absurd idea being put forth by absurd people.

Another example of bad Americans I forgot to add below is the "basket of deplorables" from Hillary. How did she think that would go over well with the undecided/marginal voter who probably has a family member who is voting for Trump? Your friends and family are deplorable and racist for voting for Trump...vote for me. Well, we saw how that worked out.

Another Hillary example that ties into point #3 is her comments after the election that, though she lost, she won the parts of the country that contribute to most of the GDP. here. "I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards. You know: 'You didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you don't want to, you know, see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it.'"

She embodied a lot of what's wrong with politicians and Democrats more specifically. I think this is why people still talk about her. In a way she's a more interesting and relevant politician than her narcissistic, lying husband.

This comment of hers in particular illustrates the kind of elitism you see from the leftist intelligensia. Like much of what they say it's factually correct and yet quite wrong-headed. What's the implication of a comment like that? "Yeah, I lost the dumb people who don't generate any money, but they don't matter as much." If you hate those voters they probably won't vote for you. And this is where I have more faith in the average American. They tend to have a pretty good bullshit detector. They can tell when someone is disengenuous.

So, what happened with the average American voting for Trump in 2016 then? Isn't he a bigger con artist than Hillary? Of course he is - in a way. I think the average American could tell that Trump truly believed America is a great country and wants to help the average American. They could tell that normal politicians hadn't worked in a long time. So it was time to give Trump a try. Back to my 3 points below. Trump affirmed that America is having trouble, but that America and Americans are fundamentally good. There's nothing to be ashamed of. Things are fucked now, but I can help, I want to help, and it's not your fault that things are this way.

Republicans added something like 13 women Representatives. If you're a rah-rah feminist type is this a good thing? What's more important - Democratic representation or female representation? This is interesting to me because it's a chance to see what people actually value. Do you actually want women and their different life experiences coming to the table? Or do you want people who are going to uphold your view of what women should want in the political sphere? Is it better to have a pro-life woman on the supreme court or a pro-choice man? If it's actually about female representation then it's the former. If it's about perceived women's issues then maybe it's the latter.

11/3/20 (20:08)

Voted for a major party candidate for president for the first time in my life this week. Not thrilled about Biden, but Trump is cancer so I had to do it.

If Trump wins, remember, it's no big deal. Like John Mulaney said - nothing will change...Trump vs. Biden...same difference since they're both old white guys.

If Trump wins, it's exactly this kind of thinking from Democrats that will hand him the victory. All old white guys are the same. Your race and gender determine who you are.

The Democratic/intelligentsia argument generally seems to be along these lines, and I've written directly and indirectly about this before:

1. America is bad... and has always been bad (1619 Project is a great example of this thesis). Michelle Obama being proud of the US "for the first time in her adult life" is another.

2a. You're bad. If you're a cisgender white man then you're part of the power structure and you're bad for even existing. White silence is violence...and yet your speech is also violence. If you speak then it's because of your entitlement. If you don't speak then it's upholding a racist/misogynist paradigm. If you move into an urban area it's gentrification (racist), if you move out of an urban area it's white flight (also racist)

2b. Not only are you bad for existing, but much of what you do is bad in the eyes of some of those in our coalition (whom we openly embrace out of fear of getting called out by our own): You eat meat, which is murder. You drive a truck which contributes to global warming, which is the greatest threat the world faces. If you have doubts about the peaceful nature of Islam then you're an Islamaphobe. If you're not attracted to trans women then you're transphobic. Etc.

3. You're stupid. Americans are stupid. You're dumb for loving America. You're dumb for considering voting for Trump or Bush or even McCain and Romney. Romney is evil, remember? You don't understand science. You don't understand culture. You're without culture. Any culture you have is bad. Any good culture you have is stolen from others (cultural appropriation).

I don't think this is a good way to get the middle to vote for you. America is bad. You're bad. You're stupid. I'm not a Republican and yet I feel this message coming through in what much of what the Democrats have to say about the country. Republicans tend not to acknowledge even the existence of a bad history in America. Democrats almost revel in this bad history. They seemingly love writing books and articles about it. Other Democrats share those books and articles. If you're reading this you're probably a Democrat and you've probably shared books/articles about these things by: Michelle Alexander, Ibram X. Kendi, Ta-nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones. You've lamented over the evil history and present facts of America on issues of race or foreign relations. We're a war-mongering, overly religious, stupid, unenlightened country. These are the things that Democrats I know generally believe. They have evidence for these things and are therefore not incorrect.

However, that doesn't win elections. Obama won in part because of that message of hope. He turned out the black vote and that helped, but he also didn't judge whites for the evils of the nation's past. He talked more about the great things the country is about I went in to tonight hoping that Biden would win Florida and NC and we could rest easy that, even with all the counting to be done with mail-in votes, Biden would get a clear victory. However it's looking like the chances of knowing anything definitive tonight are unlikely.

As things stand right now, AZ is probably going to Biden which is good news. Biden needs VA and 2 of 4 midwestern states (OH, PA, MI, WI). Democrats are going to continue to cry about the electoral college and democracy. I think Democrats aren't clear on what game it is they're playing.

It's possible to play chess and make the goal getting as many of the opponents pieces as possible. But that's not how you play chess - it's all about checkmating the king. Crying about the fact that you got more of the other player's pawns after they get your king is kind of idiotic.

Let's say the Democrats win the trifecta...I've heard some pundits talking about what the priorities should be. To me it's very clear what they should do and, as usual, I'm not in line with what they've been saying. Most have said things like Green New Deal or reestablish good ties with our allies abroad or healthcare reform or roll back tax cuts for the rich or a wealth tax or any number of pet policies.

To me, though, it should be entirely about changing the game going forward. Getting started on things like: 1. federal standards on voting so we don't have 50 different ballots for federal elections (no more butterfly ballot issues, no more hanging chads, no more questions about digital votes, etc.). 2. DC representation. Whether they become part of MD or their own state. They need representation. 3. Properly aligning electoral college and representatives according to population. WY's district has under 500k people. MT's district has almost 1 million. Fair apportionment of representatives and electoral votes should be common sense. Increasing the number of representatives almost certainly needs to happen along with this. 4. Get rid of filibuster.

In 2016, 538 gave Trump a 29% chance to win. This year they gave him a 10% chance to win. The chance that he wins both those would be 2.9%, right? So, if Trump wins then I'm done with 538. I like them. They seem very smart and well-reasoned. They seem balanced. If they're wrong again, though, it's just not a very useful site when it comes to prediction (which is what they're supposed to be about).

I used to buy the line that the media is only as liberal as its rich corporate owners. But I think these days it's pretty obvious that the media is (overall) quite liberal. One thing I've noticed about the media is that they do a lot of stories about the things the reporters like and wish for. So, they will do stories about how suburban white women are rising up and voting Democrat. (You may recall that white women voted for Trump over Hillary in 2016). The obvious take away from a story like this is that white women, like the one telling this story, are righting a wrong and going to swing Biden into the Oval Office in 2020. This is an aspirational story. It's something that the reporter wants to be true. Sure, all the facts of the story are likely to be true - all the people interviewed are doing what they said they're doing, things have been fact-checked, etc. This makes the facts of the story true, but not necessarily the conclusion that the reporter wants you to reach. There's a lot of this kind of "reporting" that I see and it's a big part of the reason for my dropping podcasts like Radiolab from my feed a couple years ago. Everything becomes political, and it's not even the kind of political that seeks truth - it's political that seeks to find a way to reinforce an existing belief.

This is a core problem not only with our media, but also our society. We live in a data age. There's so much data out there that it's easier than ever to assemble a few white moms who don't want to vote for Trump this time around and think it means something. You can assemble gaffes from Hillary and make her look like she's losing her mind. 538 seems above this to the extent that this is possible. So, if I lose 538 it will be a big blow to my faith in yet another institution.

BTW, I called Lindsay Graham winning reelection. Democrats sent almost $60 million to his opponent in just a few months and yet Graham still won. When I found out about this I knew it was a bad idea. They did this against Ted Cruz in 2016 and O'Rourke lost there. They did it again with Graham and lost. The ironic thing about the Democrats is that they're the party of smart people (they tend to win the college educated voters by a good margin), but they make some of the dumbest possible decisions. You're just throwing your money away by trying to defeat Graham and Cruz. Can a registered Democrat reader explain this to me please? WTF is your party doing?

Along the same lines of making the same mistake twice...GA and TX are supposedly swing states this year. I can't say I ever bought into that either. I'd be shocked if either go to Biden. NYT currently thinks things are close in GA. I'm highly skeptical that GA will go to Biden.

If you think that Trump is Hitler-esque then what would you expect? Well, Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to subvert the rule of law and take a step towards fascism. Trump had an equal opportunity with COVID and rioting. He could have shut down the borders. He could have instituted martial law. So, perhaps he's not as fascist as some would have you believe. You can't simply ignore a fact like this. It's easy to miss because it's a thing he didn't do, but it's an important thing to notice.

Another thing that Trump could have done, but didn't, was announce that a vaccine was approved and shipping out. He's a liar and a bad person. He could have announced it today, but he didn't. Why didn't he?

If Trump wins, and possibly even if he doesn't but it's close, I think political scientists, pundits, etc. really need to rethink how they evaluate things. What does someone need to do to lose a reelection campaign? No one has lost reelection in 28 years. Is it even possible anymore? Money doesn't move the needle like people used to think. Trump has underspent his rival both times and won once and has a chance to repeat. Having the media on your side doesn't seem to matter anymore. No point in making nice with them like the Democrats always do. Trump speaks directly to the people via Twitter, etc. In some ways, being adversarial with the media is an advantage because, like me, many Americans don't have much respect for the media anymore. Again, more things that Democrats don't seem to understand about the country.

How much does policy matter? It matters to the media. It matters to the academics. But how many white papers have you read? Do you even know what a white paper is? Does anyone care that Hillary had a white paper on just about every policy a candidate could have a policy on? People care about party. People care about how a candidate makes them feel. They care about disposition and attitude. They want the candidate to be on their side.

When was the last time the shorter presidential candidate won? In the TV era the shorter candidate has won 4 times. 1972, 1976, 2000 (debatable), 2004.

So, let's say Biden wins. If so, it'll be a close win and maybe after a few days or weeks. Will there be rioting? I'd say the more likely source of riots would be if Trump wins.

Trump could announce that he's won tonight. He's the kind of person who would do that despite it being very much uncertain. If you're Biden maybe you beat him to it. The media will cover it. They'll be surprised and will probably give some caveats and fact check a bit, but Biden could just assert that PA is projected to go his way and that he's won the race. Puts Trump on the defensive. These are the kinds of games people could start playing if they really don't care about norms anymore.

It pains me to say this, but CNN has the best coverage tonight. John King is really good about putting the numbers in context. They seem to have gotten past all the hologram nonsense that they were doing in years past. It seemed that they were trying to be cutting edge with technology as though it indicated they were good at reporting. They also don't have 10 talking heads on the screen at the same time like they have done in the past. So, as far as covering the horse race aspect of the election, they're doing well.

Trump is the funniest president of my lifetime.

10/8/20 (15:28)

Doesn't look like the NFAC has hit the mainstream media yet, but they're a militia group that is heavily armed and protesting. It's just a matter of time before a white militia protesting for second amendment rights or statues or white supremacy or whatever, meets these guys and there's a shoot out.

Steering into the iceberg.

10/5/20 (23:35)

Need a week off just to catch up with movie reviews, desk work, organization, house work, etc. 2/3 of our bathrooms are down to the studs right now. I could work on that for a couple weeks and not be done.

Trump has a virus that doesn't exist, despite being in amazing health. Weird.

It seem as though a lot of people are acting very strangely lately. I don't know if it's 2020 and the virus and all that or just my perception. Sure seems as though people are losing it.

Our storage unit was broken into last week. We have 4 storage units right now, primarily for staging inventory. Luckily they didn't take anything. They generally seem to look for tools and other small things that they can resell quickly.

In 1984 Orwell writes a lot about perpetual war. I think software developers have the same mentality. Constantly updating their software to justify their existence. Making useless changes to the UI just to keep you on your toes and keep their jobs. I prefer the old days when you would pay for software and it wouldn't change. Now, it's constantly changing and "improving." They move where things are and how things look, etc. Worst part is that they just create new problems. Obnoxious.

According to Matthew Iglesias "law and order" is "a racist dog whistle." I'm not sure what the world is coming to quite honestly. If we can't speak in the most basic ways about the most fundamental elements of a peaceful and functional society without being called racist then we may as well pack up shop and call it a day. This is the kind of thing that illustrates how far out there the left has gone on some of these social justice issues. He said it on the Ezra Klein show and it was just taken as plain fact that he was right in saying this. Just because Trump talks about law and order doesn't mean that he has co-opted the term to the point where you can't use the term without being associated with racism. We're in crazy territory when we can't have reasonable conversations about these obvious fundamentals without being called racist.

Smashing Pumpkins deserve a revisit.

It was cool when bands would play their own music and it wasn't all autotuned and perfect.

It occurs to me that many of the bands I like the most are from the mid-90s. The average college student today would view that music the way I viewed music from the mid-70s when I was in college. And Michael Jackson is as old to them as the Beatles were to me.

Finished Call of the Wild, Righteous Mind, Fight Club, and Treasure Island recently. All good books in one way or another. Treasure Island is really influential when it comes to the buckaneer/pirate genre and must have been a fun adventure book for the time. Call of the Wild had good writing and the narration was good on the version I got. Righteous Mind fleshed out a lot of the ideas I've heard from Haidt so many times. He's an important thinker for the time and I wish more people would be introduced to his ideas. Fight Club was very close to the movie except the last 10% or so.

Otherkin. The next frontier? We're here, we're other kin. Get used to it.

9/30/20 (20:52)

Presidential debate #1 was last night. Missed the first 45 minutes or so, but what I saw was a totally childish shit show. Watching from the beginning now, but I doubt it'll do much to sway my views.

There's a saying that goes something like "Don't wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it." That's basically what we had here. It's back to the Hitler quote about needing to become fascist to defeat fascism. Biden called Trump a clown and a fool and broke norms left and right. Of course he was just following Trump, but this is what happens. Ratcheting to the breaking point. Ratchets only go one direction.

Depressing.

How to get a raise in construction. Good video that applies to most professions I would guess. Solve problems, prove your worth, don't bring headaches. I never got this when I was an employee because I was just there for a wage. I think that's a failure of most employers. Employers should try to give employees a reason to care. Employees should seek to prove their worth and make life easier for their boss. Should be a symbiotic relationship, but usually it's just full of mistrust. Employees often feel exploited. Employers often feel like employees are lazy/just there to collect a check.

Another example of people telling you what you should be doing with your life and telling you what decisions you should be making is the move to make Uber, Lyft, etc. have all the people who work for them be employees instead of independent contractors. We'll see how it shakes out, but it's possible that the companies will pull out where that becomes law. All those people who willingly do the work now would be without that option. A lot of these laws run the risk of cutting off your nose to spite your face. We know what you need even if you don't.

Amanda Ripley understands Americans.

Some mistakes NYC made during the pandemic.

Source for the following. The best indicator of COVID spread, imo, is the death rate per 1m. By this measure the worst states are: (in order) NJ, NY, MA, CT, LA, RI, MI, DC, AZ, MI, IL. I don't like the raw numbers because they don't adjust for population size. I don't like the active cases or recovered cases or total tests because those aren't testing the thing that matters the most. Tests could indicate that you have a lot of problems (so, the US has tested way more, even adjusted for population, than South Korea because SK doesn't have the same spread we do. They don't have to test as much because the problem isn't as big. On the other hand, you want to see lots of tests instead of burying your head in the sand). Active case and recovered cases rely upon tests and that's somewhat subject to political will and infrastructure. Deaths are much harder to hide and most likely to be a fair representation of what's actually going on. Plus, they are the most important thing to measure.

So, of the 10 states (plus DC), 2 are legitimately Republican. AZ is a purple state that is currently projected for Biden, but it has a Republican governor, so let's say it's Republican. So, 3/11 are Republican. Does this matter? Does this comport with the media narrative? Of the 17 states/territories above the national average of 640 deaths per 1 million people, 4 of the states are solidly Republican. AZ and FL are purple, but let's call those Republican. 6 out of 17 are Republican states.

If you look at the 10 states with the lowest death rate 5/10 are Republican (AL, WY, WV, MT, UT). I'd say 2 of the other 5 are purple (WI and ME). The remaining 3 are Democrat (HI, VT, OR). The obvious thing to notice is that the spread out and isolated areas have a lower death rate and also tend to be more Republican.

A lot of Southern states have greater Black population and are Republican and are getting a lot of positive tests, but the death rate isn't as high as it was in NY, NJ, CT...at least so far. What's going on there? Republicans are supposed to be bad on COVID (not encouraging masks and distancing, denying its very existence, etc.), the South is supposed to have bad healthcare, Blacks are supposed to die at a greater rate, the South is getting a lot of active cases (if you sort active cases by population the top ten are: LA, MI, FL, AL, AZ, GA, SC, TN, ND, IA...that's 7/10 in the South)....yet despite all this the South isn't getting the same deaths that NY, NJ, MA, CT got. Have we learned that much about how to treat it? Is population density the primary driver? NJ death rate per million is 1,829. LA death rate per million is 1,185. CA, just for comparison, is 402. Spain is 620. France is 489. Germany is 114. South Korea is 8. No country in the world is as bad as NY, NJ, MA, or CT. Can we really blame Trump for the high death rate in these four Democrat strongholds? I think an honest person would have a hard time doing that. Surely he's a part of it, though.

For a long time our death rate was better than a lot of European countries like UK, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, etc. Those days are gone as we seem to have not learned from the early mistakes. Sad! Honestly, though, the thing that kills me the most is that it's not a partisan issue. I really do wish that it were as simple as "Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. Democrats are good at running the country so we just need more Democrats." Unfortunately Democrats continually prove that they are only marginally better than Republicans. Whether it's keeping their extreme wing under control, maintaining basic law and order, running schools, keeping citizens safe when something like COVID comes along, etc.

Got a call from my GL insurance auditor who said he wanted to come to my house to take pictures of my home office. WTF? I asked about this and he said it was SOP. I said I'm a general contractor. He said it's SOP. I ask my broker and she said it was fine. I schedule date with him. He calls the day before we're supposed to meet and now says he doesn't need to come to my office, but needs to see a job site. WTF? Why can't people do their job correctly? It's obvious no one would want to see the computer on my desk. How did I find this odd, but he didn't? Now I need to scramble to find him a job site on 14 hours notice.

Finished a big bathroom renovation that we had going for a few months. It was actually 3 bathrooms and a laundry room and it was made longer by COVID and some bad plumbing, etc. Glad to be done with it. Picky customers.

Also finished a deck that was for another picky customer. He made me change out the same section of railing 3 times because he didn't like the wood. It's wood. It has knots and imperfections. If you want the nicer stuff then pay for the clear heart or get plastic crap. I just don't understand people sometimes.

Really don't want to be in people's houses anymore worrying about protecting their precious flooring and catering to their idiotic whims. Much prefer installing hundreds of feet worth of fencing for good money.

This fencing project we did was for a storage facility that was getting broken into every month so they finally had me quote them on installing 650' of new expanded metal fencing. It's right along the train tracks so we had to deal with homeless people, a stray dog, making sure we dodged the needles and condoms, but it was nice to just work instead of having to deal with tenants and homeowners.

9/25/20 (21:39)

I don't relisten to many podcasts (though I have almost 200 saved for posterity), but I listened to the Carlin podcast again. I think he does a good job of articulating a position that I very much agree with. As stated below, he's a non-partisan guy by nature and I relate a lot. It's really disappointing to see where we are as a society right now. I think a lot of people understand it as a political problem, but I disagree. I believe Steve Bannon (for all this faults) is a pretty smart guy on some things and he really nailed the fact that politics is downstream from culture. You can't change the political institutions or policies or obscure senate rules and expect society to change. It has to be the other way around.

I should probably rewatch "Adaptation." I remember thinking it was all about selling out when I watched it. As I get older, though, I see the wisdom in being able to change your mind. I've changed my position on many things. If you haven't changed your mind on big things what does that say about you? 1) You got it all perfectly correct right out of the womb (congrats). 2) You're in the wrong on some things and unable to change.

It's no surprise that Christians raise Christians. Democrats raise Democrats. etc. etc. So, if you're one of those people (like I once was to some extent) who takes some pride in not changing (a tree in a windstorm, to be generous), then perhaps it's time to rethink some things.

A lot of the people I've encountered who dislike guns the most are the people who have hardly even seen one in real life. Not sure if I've gone over this before... But if there's something you don't have any real experience with and you want to ban people from having it, then maybe you need to rethink things. This is another in a line of things that I wrote about in the last post - people who want to tell you how to live your life because they know what's good for you. They want to tell you what wage you can work for. They want to tell you how you can live. They want to tell you that guns aren't good for you. They want to tell you drugs aren't good for you. I've been pretty staunchly anti-drugs for my entire life. It's something I haven't changed on, but I have changed in that I think people should get enough rope to hang themselves. It's your choice if you want to go down the path of having drugs in your life. Maybe you can keep it under wraps and maybe you can't. Maybe you can take care of a firearm yourself and maybe you can't. But the option should be yours (given a few basic hurdles like age requirements, licensing, maybe a mandatory class, etc.).

Been working on this large fencing job near a storage space in Oakland. It's right next to the railroad tracks and I've been out there several times to repair various units that have been broken into (most likely by homeless/drug addicts). The company is finally taking out the chain link fencing and putting in expanded metal along the whole thing. 650' of fencing that we took out and are going through to put in new stuff. A homeless guy tried to walk off with some of my tools while we were out there working. Another homeless chick walked by and looked totally wrecked. Track marks, skin all fucked up, etc. So, maybe, just like Republicans want women getting an abortion to watch a video first, we should make people who want to do drugs watch a video of people like that.

The biggest emotion that came through in Carlin's podcast was that of disappointment. It's just really disappointing to see people, and society at large, making bonehead decisions. This isn't difficult stuff like the ban the box policy passed by Obama that backfired. No unintended consequences here. This is basic shit. Depressing.

Looks like we're going to have another Catholic on the SCOTUS. 7 Catholics and 2 Jews. This used to be a major cleavage in US society. JFK being Catholic was a big deal. Now Catholics run the SCOTUS. Race and gender are the cleavages of today I guess. Maybe that's encouraging? What will the cleavages be in 20 years? Furries? Polygamists? Amy Coney Barrett would be the only one on the court who didn't go to Yale or Harvard (I think I have that right...they've all been to one of two Ivy Leagues). So there's some diversity there at least. And she has a vagina so that's a plus!

We really need to stop ratcheting up the Israelis vs. Palestinians type stuff here. Nothing good is going to come from packing the court or refusing to concede an election or any number of things. Who are the leaders in our country who are acting to unify? Who is out there trying to de-escalate? Whoever it is doesn't get nearly as much press coverage as all the other blowhards. Again, the media amplifying the worst and making the problem worse.

Breonna Taylor cops weren't indicted was the headline I saw. But it turns out one was, but not for her killing. Each one of these cases has its own subtleties. The Taylor one I think is less about race or class than some of the others are potentially. To me it highlights a systems failure. Atul Gawande is famous for coming up with a checklist for surgeons so that they don't forget to sew up organs, scrub before surgery, remove instruments, or whatever. People are human and we miss things. Where life and death are involved you need to increase friction. Increase the amount of time it takes to get things done. Introduce checklists and redundancies. When it comes to making money and getting shit done, you want to decrease friction. But it makes sense to me that there should be a lot of talk and bureaucracy (something I'm generally against, but it has its advantages when the stakes are life/death) and checklist type stuff before a no knock raid where guns are going to be in the mix. Get all the officers on the same page. Talk to everyone involved. Go down the checklist and make sure nothing is missed. This is government use of force against its citizens...there should be some deliberation and time taken to ensure innocent lives aren't lost.

In a perfect world the federal government would have people who analyze best practices and disseminate that information to all local authorities. They wouldn't necessarily be mandatory, but a list of suggested practices in a variety of situations. This could be applied from everything to policing to nutritional programs or housing policies or procurement policies. Theoretically the government could draw from academics, local authorities, etc. and synthesize all this into a pretty good list on any given topic. They've done this on restoration of old buildings because contractors working in historic homes need to be on the same page when doing the work.

Another thing that comes up in some of these shootings is the question "why do the cops need to shoot a person 10 times?" This is a question of ignorance and there's nothing wrong with that as long as it's asked from a place of curious ignorance, as opposed to accusation. The reason is that a lot of times people are shot a few time and they're still able to get rounds off. Cops are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized, and I think that makes perfect sense. 1) you should only shoot if someone's life is on the line 2) keep shooting until they're not a threat anymore. You don't shoot once in the leg and wait to see if the person stops shooting back at you. That's Hollywood stuff. Check out some Active Self Protection videos to get a feel for what cops deal with. Seen a couple videos there where someone is shot, but still gets off rounds.

The left is like feathers blowing around. The right is like a weight keeping everything from moving around too much. Enough feathers moving in the same direction and the weight moves. Need both.

This video nails it. This ties into the horseshoe theory of the extremes. Farther you go towards the extreme end of the horseshoe, the closer you get to the other extreme.

Does the criminal justice system treat African-Americans fairly?

Listened to the Firm recently. Book practically made for film. Fluffy.

Listened to Death Of Ivan Ilyich the other day. Ikiru-esque, which is high praise. I think I'll need to listen to it again now that I know where it was going. Good book.

Listened to Art of War. Quick one. Good wisdom. Don't destroy your enemy or make him desperate. Keep the army intact (could have used that in Iraq, but we disbanded the army. oops). Know your enemy (another Iraq failure). Another piece of wisdom is essentially that you should try not to lose first and then try to win. This has been a life strategy of mine. Similar to the black swan idea that you want to stay in the game. The most important thing is to stay in the game.

A common retort to conservatives who are anti-government is "Well, you like the military so you're not against all government. Maybe we should just make Welfare (or whatever) as good as the military and then you'd like it." Sounded nice when I first heard it and I may have even tried it on some conservatives. Problem is that the military isn't all that good either. War is awful and difficult so you can't exactly compare it to the DMV where all variables are pretty well accounted for, but still...our military has a lot of waste and a lot of pretty basic failures even in recent history.

Be skeptical of the smart people telling you they have the answers. We probably need more technocrats, but I think they don't know nearly as much as they think.

Dolly Parton's Joshua is very similar to Johnny Cash's Boy Named Sue. Boy Named Sue was written by Shel Silverstein and was inspired by Jean Shepherd who wrote A Christmas Story.

Is Jolene Dolly Parton's best song?

Listening to Righteous Mind (Jonathan Haidt) now. I've listened to a lot of Haidt so some of it is old territory, but of course the book fleshes the ideas out more and sometimes that's nice. Other times it's just the author going over five examples of/stories that illustrate the same concept. One example of confirmation bias that he relates is a study where subjects were given a set of 3 numbers (2, 4, 6) and they could submit their own 3 numbers to see if they conformed to the pattern. People generally would ask other 3 digit sequences like 24, 26, 28 and the researcher would say "yes" to indicate that the 3 digit sequence conformed to the rule the researcher had in mind. Then they might ask if 11, 13, 15 worked and the researcher would say it did. So, most subjects would stop there and pronounce that the pattern was 3 numbers separated by 2. What people tended to not do is present a sequence that might refute their hypothesis like 55, 56, 57 or 33, 31, 34. The first sequence conforms and the second does not. The actual rule is any 3 numbers that are in ascending order.

It's an interesting little study, but I found it interesting because it's a lot like race/class in our culture right now. As I wrote the other day. We see a lot of Black people being shot or whatever it is in the news this week and we are seeing that familiar 2, 4, 6 pattern. We think we know what we're seeing. And we're not wrong, but we're not totally right either. There are lot of 3 digit sequences that fit the pattern most people had in mind, but there are even more sequences that fit the real pattern that is occurring. The more true pattern is that poor people are being shot by cops.

So, whenever the media or so-called experts talk about some way in which Blacks are being oppressed, etc. ask yourself if it's unique to them or if it's even more true of men or poor people or perhaps something else. In many cases I've found that that's the case. Race gets you partly there, but mostly because of the find and replace that happened with Blacks in America.

Another thing you can look at, if racism is your concern, is Black immigrants. If racism (that is, hate of black skin) is the primary driver of these problems then you would expect similar outcomes for Black immigrants and native born Blacks. You would have to control for age (immigrants tend to be younger, but so do Black people, relative to White Americans). You would also want to control for immigrants relative to the native population. Immigrants tend to earn less overall (in part because of age, but maybe also because they don't have the same resources, are working their way up the ladder, etc.). But, just looking at the raw numbers, it's pretty clear that Black immigrants are doing better than native born Blacks. A couple sources (2) (3). "The Michigan State University study showed that black African immigrant men had earnings increases of 79 percent from 1990 to 2010, making an average of $45,343 in 2010. White men born in the United States earned an average of $49,478. Black men born in the United States earned just $24,000 in 2010, according to the study."

I've heard a lot of studies that find similar things, so I don't think it's a stretch to say that Black immigrants are doing quite a bit better (economically) than native born Blacks. It would be interesting to see incarceration rates of Black immigrants relative to native born Blacks as well. I would suspect it would be lower. This is all to point out that black skin, at the very least, doesn't tell the whole story. Perhaps racism against black skin is part of the equation, but it's clearly not explaining everything since you have 2+ million Black immigrants earning (on average) more than people who look the same, but were born here.

Again, the issue points back to longer running downstream effects of history (slavery, Jim Crow). I don't see much evidence that current hate of those with black skin is what's keeping Blacks down. So, the good news seems to be that racism isn't as bad as some would have us believe. The other good news is that, as far as I can tell, the laws are no longer racist. But as they say in Magnolia - we may be done with the past, but the past isn't done with us.

Not sure how we undo the knock on effects of slavery, but identifying that as the problem seems like the first step. If you think it's racist judges and cops and implicit bias then you're really not going to have the desired effect. It's like caulking around your windows when there's a hole in the roof. Not a bad idea, but not addressing the real issue either. Or maybe it's like worrying about your prostate cancer after you've just been shot in the stomach. Both can kill you, but which do you think is going to do the job first?

I think a lot of this cultural stuff could be solved if we lived around different people more. Not sure how to do this while retaining the first principle of people being able to choose where they live. Mixed zoning, incentives, different school funding method? Rich people go where good schools are. Good schools are where property tax income is high, it's kind of a loop. There just aren't enough people who will actively take their money to marginal neighborhoods in an effort to lift up the area. It's a disappointing reality that people talk about loving diversity and equity and all that, but their actions speak more loudly. Their kids go to private school, they live in the suburbs, they live in buildings with a door man, etc. It seems like most of the people who talk about this shit are limousine liberals with little to no real contact with poor people or POC.

My zip code demographics.

One thing I like about my job is that I get to see so many different people from different walks of life. I have a few buildings/customers I work for who are in pretty shitty areas. The trifecta is when you see a prostitute, syringe, and human shit on the street in the same day. Not an everyday occurrence, but it happens. I'll see at least one of those basically every day. Again, back to the experience issue I brought up with guns above...if you're not experiencing, in some way, a variety of walks of life, how are you qualified to legislate or judge anything relating to those people? Most city people have very little experience with rural people or their realities and vise versa (although city living is far more available through cultural texts so rural people probably have a better idea of what city dwellers go through than vise versa).

I've written before about examples like rural schools that have the occasional bear or other wildlife that visits. This is something most city folk wouldn't ever think about when deciding whether or not guns should be allowed at schools. City folk probably don't have on their radar that a lot of rural people supplement their diet with meat they hunt. Or they may not know anything about the problem that deer pose in some communities because natural predators are gone - so hunting is good way to keep the populations under control. I've lived in cities most of my life so there are no doubt many others that I don't know about.

I would like the next evolution in basketball to be using all 12 guys. Full court press, more defense. Most teams go 8-9 deep? Used to be 7-8 during the playoffs so I think they're moving in the right direction. Get stamina into the game more. If you get 4 turnovers a game on a full court press then that's 8 free points. That's gotta translate to making the playoffs or not for some bubble teams.

9/22/20 (22:23)

There's a problem with certain people telling other people how to live their lives. Often it comes from a seemingly good place. Regulators will say you can't work for any less than $14.14/hr (in Oakland) for example. Or, you can't build a house with bedrooms smaller than 70 sq. ft. These are seemingly good things, but they have consequences. It raises the cost of living for those on the lowest end of the income spectrum. For people with little to no skill they are unlikely to get jobs. I've written before (8/7/18) about the fact that teenage employment is 30 percentage points lower than it was at its peak in the late 70s. Part of that could be that kids these days are lazy or working on extra curricular activities to try to get into college, but a bigger part of it is likely that the average employer doesn't want to hire a kid for a summer when they cost so much. A teen with little to no experience is really only going to be good with a broom or stocking supplies or something similar. Is it really worth paying that person $14.14/hr plus FICA taxes, UI, WC, and the cost of training? Businesses have clearly made the decision that it isn't. Hire someone with kids to feed, someone who is motivated, someone who already has the ability to show up on time and put in consistent effort. Training a kid from the bottom up is fine if you're paying them $50/day, but when you triple that it just doesn't pencil out in low margin businesses like fast food. At any rate, the issue I'm getting at is that good intentions don't matter much. Also, maybe it's better to hold off on telling other people how they should live.

One issue that comes up a lot is the issue ot intentionality. How much do intentions matter? If you buy into the Ibram X. Kendi binary then they don't matter. I think Chomsky has made a similar argument, but with regards to foreign policy. Kendi (I think) would say that if a policy has a racist effect then it is racist - regardless of intentions. I think there's a legal doctrine related to this and the Civil Right Act as well, IIRC. Something like if laws have a negative consequence for Blacks then they violate the act, regardless of intentions. One can understand this perspective to some extent. But I don't think it's wise to be too doctrinaire on this point. For example - Obama had a tax on tanning salons in part of his attempt to fund the ACA. This clearly is a tax on white people, so does that make it a racist policy? How about his ban the box initiative which had the unintended consequence of have fewer Blacks hired? Another racist policy? This is the downside of this "with us or against us" thinking that Bush espoused, the "racist or anti-racist" thinking that Kendi espouses...it's too binary. As our society gets more digital we seem to also be getting more binary. hmm.

Dan Carlin doesn't post much on his podcasts these days, but he's great and I keep subscribed to all of his stuff. He dropped a new podcast yesterday and it's one of his best. Usually he has 3-4 hour episodes about WW2 in his Hardcore History channel. Or he has thoughts about society in his Common Sense channel. This one was from Common Sense and you should probably check it out. Left me wanting to cry. He says a lot of the stuff I've been thinking. He hasn't voted R or D (for president) since 1992...something I can relate to since I haven't voted R or D ever. But, like him, I'm making an exception this year and voting for Biden. With Trump the threat is existential. We're in a very sad place right now. Probably will relisten to it tomorrow.

Working out and getting drunk are opposites. One is good for you, the other isn't. One makes you feel good while you're doing it, and sucks after. The other sucks while you're doing it and is good after.

Don't talk much about work or family lately. Kids are doing well despite all the bullshit. The remote learning stuff is basically just like a youtube playlist. About 90% of teachers could be fired. I think the 5 minutes of "personal attention" they are getting daily is borderline worthless. Could probably just have videos of the best teachers giving the best lessons and that would be better given the remote learning situation.

Alameda county is doing pretty well on the COVID front.

Work is pretty steady right now, but always worried about booking stuff for the future. Keeping 3 people busy is a lot harder than keeping 1 person busy. Especially when we don't have a major renovation going. We finally finished the major remodel we were doing in SF a few months ago. It took a year to get PG&E to install a new gas meter. The level of incompetence and delay in that organization is amazing. The project consisted of digging a trench about 40 feet long, tapping into the main supply (the hard part), installing the meter, and covering it all back up. I'm OQ 02-13 and OQ 05-07 certified now which means I can legally do trenching for this kind of work and let me tell you - there are a lot of rules, but it's not really a complicated thing - especially for this project. And yet, they were able to make it take a year. This is the kind of thing that should take 2-4 weeks in a functioning world.

Anyway, that project is complete and sold. Closes Friday. Between COVID, PG&E, and my inexperience, I think we either barely broke even or lost a little on the investment. It was a good learning experience. New foundation, lots of structural work, total gut job.

I like music as much as the next guy, but I find things get stuck in my head more than ever before. It kinda sucks. Maybe this is one reason I like more atonal stuff or ambient music - doesn't stick with me as much.

Work-wise I find that I don't really like doing the pretty work as much. I can get things looking pretty good and there's some satisfaction to it. But I'm a more practical person and people nit-picking over a grout line or a small imperfection in the drywall is just too grating for me. I don't like people also, so there's that. But picky people finding things wrong with natural pieces of wood or complaining about small imperfections just kills me. I'd much rather be the guy in the trenches clearing shit out of drains or troubleshooting electrical work or something. I have no problem getting dirty or being in nasty situations. I thought about crime scene cleanup for a bit, but I don't think it pays enough. I want to make things work and fix things that are damaged. I don't really want to cater to your first world problems. Some people (including in the trades) take this stuff way too seriously. I fully support the trades. I think great trim carpenters and tile setters are a sight to behold. But they're also catering to the .1% of the world and there are much more important things we can be doing with our time, energy, and talents. I think I'd like to gravitate more towards functional work. Tenant improvements, maybe some commercial work, etc. Something where function is more important than form. Something where 8/10 is good. The amount of effort it takes to go from an 8 to a 10 just isn't worth it, IMO.

There's a saying that quantity has a quality all its own. I think you could also say that functionality and completion have a quality all their own. "Good enough and done is better than perfect and pending." Done is better than perfect. I think this kind of mentality is frowned upon by some. I'd rather improve the homes of 100 people than make perfect the homes of 10. I'd also rather not tear out a perfectly good bathroom just so someone can have the latest shit they saw on HGTV. I throw so much shit in the trash every week it's amazing. Each trip I take to the dump is usually about 2-3000lbs. Think I've taken 5 trips in the last two weeks, although it's been pretty busy lately for some reason. And I do a lot more recycling than most contractors. Clean wood goes in the green bins, cardboard gets recycled, and everything that goes to the dump gets sorted as well.

Starting 650' worth of fence tomorrow. Storage facility gets broken into every other week so they finally decided to upgrade their fencing. 7k lbs. of expanded metal fencing, repairs to broken into units, new middle and bottom rails, etc. Big job, good money. They tell me how to build it and I get it done. That's the stuff I like. The challenge is in the logistics, budgeting, etc. Not in spending 20 minutes on a single miter joint using a Domino and hot melt polyurethane glue.

Wasn't ever a big Sound of Music fan, but watching it a few months ago with the girls got me into it more. Really good story and execution. Great soundtrack. There are fewer than 10 musicals that are worth watching, but that's definitely one of them.

I have a guy from Guatemala on my crew (Edwin) and he's learning stuff still. Been working with me for a year and knows a bit of English and now he knows a bit about the trade as well. One thing I've noticed in working with a lot of guys from Mexico and Guatemala is that they tend to sort people into races quite a bit more than most Americans I've ever met...and I'm not talking about Twitter, SJW, Kendi, Coates type people who I've never met in real life. There was a painter working on a job with me once and he told me I was about to get a ticket so I ran outside and tried to get the meter maid to stop, but she didn't. I came back inside and the guy told me about how he didn't like Black people (meter maid was Black) and how she was a bitch and how the Blacks are always going out in the street and fighting and stuff. Probably the most outwardly racist person I've ever met in real life. Edwin talks about the differences between people from Mexico and Guatemala and he gives the Mexican guy on my crew a hard time and vise versa. It's interesting in part because woke white people group Black and Brown together, but my experiences is that Black and Brown (Latin) people have pretty different cultures in some ways. I try to tell some of these guys that we're not really supposed to talk about this stuff this way, but it's just the way they talk. Asians are all Chinese, for example. The BLM movement is a mystery to them (roughly: "if I, an illegal immigrant, can make a living here what are they complaining about?").

It's one of the things I enjoy about my work - learning about the different cultures from all the different crews I work with. A few of the guys (like that painter) are pretty politically incorrect, but sometimes they just come from a culture that views differences in people differently than we do. It's also refreshing to work with a lot of immigrants from Central America, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Russia, Hong Kong, Ireland, etc. who have a different view of America - as a place of opportunity - than many of the people I usually am around. Most of the people I'm usually around are white natives who are college educated. These are the people who have lived in/visited Western Europe and often are pretty critical of the US (rightly so in some cases, especially now). But it's nice to see have a different point of view from an outsider. Maybe this is one reason why I like immigrants so much. They tend to work hard. They tend not to be entitled. They tend to like this place. It's refreshing relative to the people who are born here expecting an easy life, free stuff, etc. American Exceptionalism, to the extent that it's a real thing, doesn't just happen. You don't just automatically have more than your parents - there has to be work involved. The opportunity might happen automatically, but the reality doesn't materialize unless you act upon it.

9/21/20 (21:48)

Was it Hitler who said that in order to defeat fascism you must become fascistic? We saw a bit of that with FDR and his Gabriel Over the White House type use of executive power. We're seeing suggestions of it again with Trump. RBG dies and so people on the Left suggest packing the courts should Biden become president. Sure, it's not strictly illegal, but we know where this goes. It leads to the absurd. So, perhaps this is just a threat to avoid Trump nominating some who is truly awful or to scare a couple moderate Senators into not voting for a Trump nominee. But if we take the threat literally then it's really a further erosion of norms which Democrats claim to take seriously. Remember, you can't be the party upholding norms and pissing and moaning about Trump eroding those norms while simultaneously threatening to severely erode them yourself. Further, it should be pointed out that RBG spoke on the issue of packing the court and she thought it was a bad idea that made the SCOTUS a political body. She was clearly against it.

Lebron has been first or second in the MVP voting 8 times. He's also been first or second in the NBA championship 9 times. There's a lot of emphasis on getting rings, and I understand that, but getting to the finals 8 years in a row and 9 total is damn impressive. It looks like he'll make it again this year. He's done it in the East and West. With a variety of teammates, some average and some great (Wade, AD). He's top ten no matter how you slice it.

Hillary said that "Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is." Isn't this a little bit like saying that the only way we're going to lose is if the election is rigged? Trump has gotten plenty of (deserved) flack for saying that. Sometimes the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats are smarter about how they will be perceived. Her version has slightly more nuance and she gives a reason, but the bottom line is that 1) she doesn't think he should concede "under any circumstances" and 2) she thinks Biden is going to win. Trump is saying sorta the same thing, only through the filter of an id-dominant moron.

There's a thing that happens every time a citizen comes into the political sphere. It happened with Rittenhouse, the suburban couple, George Floyd, the gold star Khan family, etc. The Right or Left will dig up dirt on these people and assassinate their character in the media so that their respective side and rest assured that these aren't real, good Americans...they're just shitty people so you're free to hate them. Again, one more reason why the media is a major problem in our society and far worse than Trump. There's a 100% chance Trump will be out of our lives in 1-20 years. The same can't be said about this kind of 24 hour, sensationalist, hit piece, sound bite, partisan media that we've been living with for at least 20 years.

If enough people believe a thing it becomes true. This is true for the value of a company. This is true for the electability of a candidate.

Add Harrisburg to the list of failed Democratic cities. When you have the same mayor running the show for 28 years it's just not a recipe for success. It's a recipe for graft, corruption, concentrated power...

Speaking of that suburban couple who spoke at Trumps inauguration...They talked about how the suburbs are under attack. I'm not sure what the hell they're talking about, but whatever. The response seemed to be that this was a racist dog whistle. Sure, "suburbs" and "urban" have become stand-ins for white and black, but I think it's more accurate to say that they are being classist here. Perhaps it's 85% racist, but it's 100% classist. Why focus on the race part when the class part is more accurate? I don't know these losers, but I imagine they would be just as aghast if a poor white dude who was working on his hoopty in his yard moved in next door, as they would be if a black guy moved in next door.

That said, I didn't listen to their whole speech - I just got the shitty parts from the usual liberal media sources so I'm guilty of not getting the full story. I don't even know their names. They're just the shitty fat white suburban couple with guns.

This country needs better people. We talk a lot about career training, politics, religion, education, etc. Bottom line is that we don't have enough good people anymore. Every thing is failing every step of the way.

Apparently Richard Spencer endorsed Biden. I guess this means Biden is now endorsed by the Neo-Nazis. Biden, for his part, renounced his support. I don't think Trump did the same. I don't think Trump would renounce anyone's support for anything ever.

The post office conspiracy thing seems to have died out. Democrats are the party of thoughtful science and yet that one had legs for a couple weeks. Righteousness really gets under my skin and the elite Democrats really think they're so much better than Republicans. So, even though I can't stand most of Republican policy, I relish those moments when the Democrats, despite all their posturing and pontificating, fall for the same shit that Republicans are known for. I really enjoy not being of either party so I can have righteous indignation of both parties. What a hypocrite!

Turned out like 90% of the post office conspiracy was just harmless stuff like routine maintenance of machines and boxes. As much as I shit on the NYT or WaPo, they at least take their job seriously so they will issue retractions and corrections (on the back page), while Breitbart and Fox are mostly professional trolls and shit stirrers.

And as much as I shit on the federal government, the USPS is one of the things I think they do pretty well. I've been a long time supporter of the USPS. Their offices are usually understaffed by people who don't really care and are only their for the pension, but the carriers generally do a very good job. I almost never lose mail (though I've had it stolen before) and their rates are very reasonable. I think if Congress would get out of their way, they could make it even better. One of the few programs I have faith in.

According to a UCB professor, in the 1970s there were 70-80 murders of civilians by cops per year in NYC. Today that number is 7-8. As I posted a few days ago - the facts point to a situation which is better than ever by actual factual measures and yet we complain about it more than ever. Please explain. Why is there a lag between reality and reaction? Is it that we're victims of our societal successes? If I beat my wife every night she's going to get used to it and not complain about it when I do it. It's just the norm. But if I only beat her once a month then she's more likely to complain.

Our history essentially did an Excel style find and replace for black and replaced it with poor. I think this is obvious and drives a lot of the race conversation, but what gets lost in there is that black often means poor, but that poor doesn't always mean black; and, further, that poor is often worse than black. Of course some will point out that you can't hide being black as if that is the biggest issue. Being able to hide the fact that you have a shitty place to live doesn't make it all that much better. It's a bit like the conversation I had once with a black co-worker about being gay. She thought being black was so much worse, but I pointed out that your black mom would never reject you for being black, but that's not always true if you're gay. It's just different...stop trying to win the oppression olympics.

We now track the race of people shot by police. Why aren't we tracking their income status? I'd be willing to wager that you're more likely to be shot by a cop if you're poor than if you're black. This is another area where the media has control. They could choose to highlight any aspect of a shooting that they want. They could focus on the gender divide (though it doesn't support an oppression narrative) or they could focus on the class divide, but they choose race. I wish they would focus on the abuse of power narrative more. It's a more universal message and would probably help bring change more - in part because it's bipartisan. Liberals would continue to support reform and small government/Libertarian types would also support it.

9/18/20 (20:22)

RBG died today. Bad day for the country, but I can't help but think that there's one person who could have prevented this. A brilliant person who could have done a selfless thing which would have helped us all at this time. Unfortunately, RBG did not retire four years ago...she decided to continue working despite her many health problems and the likely outcome of the Republicans keeping the Senate. Honestly a very odd thing for a very smart and seemingly selfless person to do...to continue working at age 83 when your health means so much to the future of the country. I would love to know what her thought process was.

The reality, though, is that she's gone now and so Trump will get another pick and the Republican senate will support whomever he picks. Even if the swing votes (Romney, Collins, and Murkowsky) don't back Trump's pick, Pence will break the tie. Hopefully we get someone like Roberts who seems bad-ish at first, but doesn't turn out so bad in the long run. Kennedy didn't turn out as bad as many thought. He was also smart enough to retire while alive under a Republican president/senate to extend his legacy in a way.

Republicans tend toward ill-liberal policies more than Democrats, but damn if they aren't more wise when it comes to getting what it is they want. Democrats are the party of academics and the intelligentsia, but they sure do act idiotically.

Biden looks really out of it and is appears to be borderline senile at this point. If you haven't seen this then it probably means you're not paying attention outside of the liberal news outlets. One more sign of the times I guess. We have a borderline senile guy against a crazy narcissist. When voting for the senile guy is the clear choice, you're basically fucked.

There are so many problems these days it's hard to keep up. One of them is the wildfire situation on the west coast. Oregon is getting hit hard. CA is getting hit hard. Global warming is likely part of that, but management has to be looked at as well. It's a very odd cultural response that I see often...people blame not necessarily the biggest issue or the issue they have the most control over...they blame some other thing that is out of their control and often maybe the 5th or 10th biggest contributor to whatever failure it is they're talking about. A few examples come to mind: Hillary blaming Comey's letter for her 2016 loss. Democrats blaming voter suppression for everything when we can't even turn out 60% of the voters. Gore supporters blaming Nader for his 2000 loss. BLM blaming cops for black people dying...Often when I see this it's like a smoker blaming the wildfires for his lung cancer. I mean, yeah, it technically is part of the problem, but there's a much bigger issue to consider and it's one you have complete control over. RBG could have avoided this whole thing if she had retired, she didn't and now we have to live with the consequences. Had Clinton won it would have been marginally better, but we'd still be at the whim of the Republican senate...hoping for a couple swing votes to get a narrow appointee.

Take care of your own business before blaming everyone else for your problems. I guess that about sums up my thoughts, but we have a culture that looks to blame others for our own poor choices. One manifestation of this is the sue-happy society we have.

Been listening to audio books lately instead of doing podcasts. Knocked off Animal Farm, 1984, and Brave New World this week. BNW wasn't great overall, but I understand why it has withstood the test of time. Animal Farm is great and I remembered very little of it from having read it many years ago. 1984 had a bit too much of Orwell preaching, but was good. Reminded me of Clockwork Orange at the end. Best part was actually the love story aspect.

One of the great things about these books, but especially AF is that they really nail the academic elite. These books came from a time when all the academics were planning wars and the books point out the folly of those who think they know so much more than the average person. In AF, in particular, there are several times when the elites talk down to the idiot masses about how they don't understand things. "You probably don't remember correctly" and "you would know this if you could read," etc.

The Right seems to be pushing a few things this election so far: sleepy Joe Biden, unrest in Democratic cities, and anti-nutjob SJW cultural stuff. They have a point on all three counts, but anyone who is pushing this stuff in support of Trump is in cuckoo territory. I have to believe that the majority of the voters will see through Trump and understand that the guy is an unmitigated disaster. If he was able to get a few big things done then perhaps Americans would have looked past his nutjob antics, overturning cultural norms, mental instability, lack of contact with reality, etc. But I don't see enough that he can point to at this point. Here are the accomplishments I see at this point: First Step Act. Tax cuts. Two Supreme Court justices so far. Israel-UAE peace agreement. There are plenty of economic indicators that were also looking very good like black unemployment, stock market, overall unemployment, etc., but those are mostly trashed at this point because of COVID. Maybe the COVID unemployment checks is an accomplishment, but not one I'd brag about if I were him. So, not much there overall. He hasn't done much on China. North Korea peace deal may end up being good news, but I'm still unpersuaded at this point.

So, a couple bipartisan good things with the First Step Act and the Israel peace agreement. The SCOTUS justices are bad if you think like me. The tax cuts are nice, but uneven. Overall, a lot of drama and bullshit for not much. My hope with him was that we were going to get a good dose of crazy, but he was going to crazy his way into maybe two really big really good changes that couldn't have been done without someone crazy. I think that same sort of hope is what got him elected. I'd like to think that Americans have enough street smarts and bullshit detection capability to understand that he hasn't gotten it done so he'll lose in November...assuming Biden stays away from a camera long enough to not say more dumb shit.

After Bush it seemed like the Left was pretty motivated. That's what activated moveon.org and a bunch of other Left leaning orgs. But that energy seems to be held by very few. Obama won big and turnout was about 60%. Two years later and it was just under 40%. I mean this is another example of Democrats blaming others for their problems and not taking care of their own shit. Had they turned out for Obama in 2010 like they did in 2008 then we'd be in a different world right now. 30%+ decrease. Obama was pissed, and rightfully so. If Democrats had won in 2010 then they could have gerrymandered districts for themselves for the last 10 years. They could have done something better with Obamacare. They could have taken on other issues. The downside would have been they couldn't blame Mitch for all their failings, so I guess that would be a bummer.

You have a friend who has a good heart, but always has drama in his life. He can't be bothered to show up to work half the time. He makes friends with all the wrong people. He always blames others for his problems. This is basically the Democrats.

I haven't heard the saying "when the going gets tough, the tough get going" in a long time. For some reason I have memories of hearing it a lot when I was younger. Is this a concept people are familiar with anymore? It seems to me that we have some tough times so we better get used to it. Wish we had more Depression era folks still alive to give us their wisdom.

I have heard a lot about mansplaining, manspreading, microaggressions, etc. So maybe that's this generation's response to the going getting tough.

Nader is still with us and it's probably as good a time as any to praise him, rather than waiting for him to die. He's one of the great Americans of all-time. They tried to corrupt him, they tried to get dirt on him, but he's always been true to helping the common man and speaking real truth to power. He's a true non-partisan patriot and when we lose him, it will be a great loss. Probably the best human to run for president. Jimmy Carter and Corey Booker are also in the conversation.

Burke had this idea that part of conservatism is respecting the generations before you. "Contract of Eternal Society" basically said that we should not only think about living for the future, or with future generations in mind, but also with respect for those before us. In today's society this idea is being completely obliterated by the Left and SJW types. Pretty much everyone in history is subject to revisionism and is put on trial under today's standards. This is why we're seeing talk about Mount Rushmore, monuments, statues, etc. No one is sacred. No one is safe. I think Burke would say that not only should we take into account the future with things like global warming, but we should also respect that which was given to us by those before us. We shouldn't judge and rejudge every generation before us on a "wokeness" scale that is ever changing.

Also listened to Hillbilly Elegy recently. Pretty good book. Was popular for a while when people wanted to understand why people would vote for Trump. I found it more interesting because I see a lot of similarities between the Hillbilly honor culture and Black American culture. Hillbillies say to each other that they're getting too big for their britches if someone is doing really well and threatening to leave. In Black culture they say you're acting white. Lots of people (One.Be.Lo, for example) talk about Black culture as a bucket full of crabs - where they grab the crabs that try to get out. Lot of similarities throughout the book and it hopefully got a few people to realize that whites aren't a monolith. Of course that seems to be even less understood today than ever, so it doesn't appear as though he changed enough minds with his book.

One of the things I've gotten pretty good at because of my job is keeping people busy, getting things done efficiently, managing people, etc. I often see the streets full of garbage and things that need repair throughout the city. I also often see homeless people. When I see idle hands I want to keep them busy. I'm a strong believer in the saying "idle hands are the devil's playground." Busy people just seem to stay out of trouble more. It's a truism of life. So, I'd love to have a city-run program to get the homeless to work. However, I'm sure there are several hurdles to this. The unions would complain immediately because they're being underbid. The city lawyers would complain because it would be difficult to get insurance, documentation, etc. for a population that is ever-changing, under-documented, etc. So, the nice idea of getting a dump truck and some tools into the hands of some homeless people would probably never happen because of the friction caused by city bureaucracy. This is one more illustration of how bureaucracy hinders progress and large organizations struggle to be nimble. One more illustration of why I don't trust large organizations and why I've become more and more focused on smaller power centers and the power of the individual.

The last thing the Right has been pushing is the unrest in Democratic cities. This isn't good TV, that's for sure. When you have ongoing protests and then also rioting, assaults, murders, etc. occurring alongside these protests it looks really bad. At first I think it was easier to make a distinction between the protesters and the looters/rioters, but that distinction becomes more difficult to make as it continues...whether the distinction exists or not. Not sure what the answer is other than to stop protesting.

Gotta get all these people back to work, though. This is a classic idle hands situation. Too many people sitting around with nothing better to do than to stir shit up or piss and moan.

I do have to comment on the divide between perception and reality. I've commented on this before. I'm a believer in Truth, but I've also pointed out that it seems to matter very little these days....perception is more important than reality. For BLM, for example, never in our country's rocky history have Black people had it better and yet their mistreatment is the subject of protests like only once or twice before (depending how you categorize the civil war and rank the 60s to today). The point being that, objectively speaking, Black people have greater freedoms, outcomes, political and culture clout, etc. than ever before in this country, and yet this is where we are. It's a strange situation. The same is true for many SJW complaints about Trans rights, etc. I'm sure a smart person could explain this to me, but I haven't heard it yet. Mostly what I hear is about how bad everyone has it....which is true in some ways, but the odd part to me is that it's better than ever and yet this is when the complaints are at their height.

Last time I talked about the leading question problem in reporting. Another one is the vague descriptions problem. NYT recently said that Biden raised $300 million and that "much of the money was from small donors." How much? You know how much, but you're refusing to say. They know it's enough to say it's "much" so why don't they take an extra 4 syllables to say "76% (or whatever the number is) of the money was from small donors." They do this all the time. Good reporters, bad reporters. NPR, NYT, etc. They all are guilty of this fundamental failure to be precise when possible. Instead they editorialize by saying "much." How about you let me decide if the percentage is much? Or, better yet, you can give me the number and give me something to compare it to so I can make an even more informed decision on whether or not "much" of the money was from small donors. This is one small example, but they all do it and they do it very frequently if you care to notice. Most probably don't and so they are subtly being led to whatever conclusion the editors want.

SJWs: "silence is violence." also SJWs "speech is violence." The Left really has to get these nuts under control before they taint the movement like the religious nuts taint the Right.

I think immigrants and native born people each have a responsibility. Natives should welcome new people to their neighborhoods and help immigrants fit in, feel welcomed, etc. Immigrants need to make an effort to learn the local ways and assimilate. I think a certain kind of woke person reading that last part would be aghast, and yet they would probably totally agree if I described the immigrants as whites moving into a Black neighborhood (aka gentrifiers). It's the responsibility of white people moving into black neighborhoods to understand what the locals do and don't like. They should learn to fit in with the local customs. "When in Rome" is good "When in 1940s Germany" is not so good, so there are limits. But if it's good for white gentrifiers, then it's also good for Latin American immigrants moving to a new place. Natives should be welcoming and helpful. Immigrants should be eager to fit in and assimilate while maybe bringing something from their culture to the natives. Instead the anti-gentrification people see it as a battle against the white immigrants just as the racists see Mexicans in their neighborhood as a battle. Two sides of the same coin.

9/4/20 (16:51)

What's the deal with so many protesters standing in front of moving vehicles? Is this a victimization strategy or something?

8/23/20 (11:39)

Is it inevitable that you end up mentally unstable when you're a celebrity for a long enough time? Sure seems like it.

8/22/20 (08:13)

Sort of alluded to Hillel the Elder yesterday...here's a couple from him. "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" and the Golden Rule that he came up with is "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Back to the core principles issue. No need to reinvent the wheel when Gandhi did a pretty good job already with his seven social sins:

Wealth without work.

Pleasure without conscience.

Knowledge without character.

Commerce without morality.

Science without humanity.

Religion without sacrifice.

Politics without principle.

Michael Moore got into a bit of trouble because he apparently produced a documentary about global warming which leans heavily on the idea that the only way to solve global warming is through population control. I'm not totally sure what the problem is. I guess it's a strategic complaint because if you show how big the problem is then people won't feel empowered to make even small changes. But when you talk to hardcore global warming people it essentially always comes down to the issue of there being too many people. The US contributes about 15% of the total global greenhouse emissions, which is about half of what China puts out. Getting a Tesla isn't helping any. If everyone in the Southwest moved to the Pacific Northwest, where you don't need A/C as much, it still wouldn't do anything, despite A/C being a huge contributor to greenhouse gases. I haven't seen the documentary, but pointing out that population is the biggest issue seems to be factually true, even if it's not great to hear.

Some people have too many dollars and not enough sense. I came up with that the other day. I'm 100% sure that someone else has made that same observation/pun, but I was happy with myself for a minute.

15 of the 16 years that Babe Ruth was in the league he was either #1 or #2 in the AL for HRs.

There are more conservatives in CA than there are people all the states except CA, NY, FL, and TX.

Sometimes it's fun to look through government websites to look at data. Here's some info on SNAP benefits (food stamps) spending. Some interesting notes...the biggest gap between people who aren't on food stamps and people who are on food stamps is the they use food stamps to buy baby food at 3x the rate as those who aren't on food stamps. People on food stamps also buy more meat, more sweetened beverages, more frozen foods, more prepared food, less vegetables, and less fruit. Overall, in looking at the data provided, it appears as though people on food stamps don't eat as well. More meat is probably good, but they're making worse decisions in most of the other categories listed relative to those who aren't on food stamps. You could easily say that this is because they are poor and don't know any better, but the "don't know any better" reason is less and less of an excuse everyday. The vast majority of people have internet acces. And, while nutritional information is often muddled with lots of misinformation, there aren't any dieticians or nutritionists, no diets or meal plans, that emphasize sugary drinks and frozen foods over vegetables and fruits.The government could easily fix this problem if it wanted, but I'm sure the sugar lobby would push back real quick if the government wanted to put sodas in the restricted from food stamps category like alcohol is.

Apparently 2/3 of workers are making more than they were before COVID, as a result of the bigger unemployment checks. I believe I heard this on Planet Money or Indicator podcast, can't recall. Will these people be saving their money and using it wisely after the money runs out? Guess we'll see.

In the 1940s (not sure if it's still true) Russians used a non-conforming railroad track, so it made trade more difficult with Europe. On the other hand, it also severely limited the Nazis' ability to move farther into Russia during WW2. This single decision to have a different size railroad track could very well have been a major key to the defeat of the Nazis. 1. The Eastern front was a major time and resources suck for the Nazis. 2. A big part of this was timing and logistics. In their first push on the Eastern front most analysts thought they would take Russia fairly quickly. Apparently American analysts gave the Russians the best chances of stopping the Nazis and even they only estimated several weeks before the Nazis would have Moscow. Instead, winter came, the Russians fought like crazy, and the Nazis were never able to make it work - in large part due to the logistics of battle. Feeding and clothing as many as 2 million men, supplying thousands of tanks, etc....it was all drastically slowed by the uniquely vast Russian landscape and inability to use their railroads with any efficiency. Sometimes going your own way can be hugely beneficial. Diversity can certainly provide strength.

Never get in a war with the Russians. They lost 20 million people in that war and I don't think they would have ever stopped. What did the Russians do when Napoleon was about to take Moscow? They burnt it down. It's the number one country I wouldn't want to have to fight. They don't fuck around.

What is the purpose of school? I think you have to ask this question before you choose any policy in the education space. Now seems like the time when we should be asking these questions since we're in the habit of questioning and overturning everything already. I think it's first and foremost about being a productive member of society. The renaissance man theory of education is nice, but I think this comes from peole who spend a lot of time in academics and probably read a lot and value education for its own sake quite a bit. I also think it's divorced from the reality of at least 50% of the population. This theory of education seems wholly divorced from the reality of the working stiff who rings up your groceries or fixes your house. I live amongst these people. I work with them. I am one of them in many ways. In many ways I like this sort of person more than the sort of person who reads philosophy every night before bed. However, this sort of person just frankly doesn't need a vast exposure to Vonnegut and Hemingway. They don't need to know how to calculate moles or understand what the mitochondria does. They don't need to learn about factorials or the Federalist papers. Everyone should have basically the same education through middle school and it should include some exposure to basic science and literature, etc., but it should focus on basic math, reading, writing, social skills, and physical education. In high school is where I think we go the most wrong because we double down on all those things with the assumption that everyone's goal is to get into college and do more liberal arts education. Unless you are highly competent or interested in particular areas of science, math, literature, etc. it should probably focus much more on getting you ready for your post graduation life. For most people, this means something other than college. You should be getting vocational training, soft skills lessons, basic human rights education (what are your rights when a cop pulls you over? what are your rights as a renter or employee?) home economics (not just the kind for the ladies - it should include basic financial skills like how to make a budget, how to plan for retirement, avoiding debt, how to be a good consumer - buyer beware, etc.). This is a far better system than what we have now which is forcing a square peg into a round hole.

I had a young guy work for me the other day. He never graduated high school and he works part time in a warehouse. He's not terribly bright, but he wants to be helpful and seems like a happy enough guy. I don't know his specific situation, but I just can't imagine him learning about 16th century English literature and Biology and shit. It was boring for me, and I'm a curious person. His disposition just isn't the same and yet we make everyone do the same b.s. curriculum while not relating it to them at all. Then we wonder why they drop out and feel bad about themselves. This kid should have had the opportunity to have a supervised work study program where he was working in a warehouse at 16 learning how to operate a forklift and pallet jack. Learning about inventory control and safety. Learning how to show up for work and not be on his phone all day. Trying out construction on a job site where they want to teach at least a little bit every day instead of one where you're just there to hold stuff and sweep the floors. The schools would work out the insurance portion, the business gets free labor, but the business has to also commit to some instruction. At the very least the student gets contacts, experience, and has tried something out in the real world. We can do all these things and make better people for the future, but we choose to stick with the b.s. curriculum we have. And it's not even about money. Utah spends the 3rd least per pupil in the country and is generally ranked in the top ten. CA spends more per pupil than TX, but TX is routinely much higher than CA (K-12).

I kinda touched on the religous aspect of the race debate yesterday. Here's Morgan Freeman saying something similar. Some food for thought anyway. The Larry Elder bit is from Dave Rubin, so take it with a grain of salt.

I looked into Dave Rubin for a while. Listened to his interviews. He has good guests from time to time. Overall, though, he's a Larry King type at best and an idiot at worst. I suspect he's just in it for the money and does the whole "I'm from the left thing" because he found a captive audience and it's making him money.

A Teen Vogue writer tweeted "While we're working to abolish the police, we must also work to dismantle what the police were put here to protect: property." Teen Vogue has been a pretty politically vocal the last few years apparently and I noticed this tweet somewhere. Easy to write them off because it's just Teen Vogue, but they do have a lot of influence on the next generation so it's worth engaging the ideas in a tweet like that. I guess it ties into what I was writing yesterday about when you should allow the Feds in. If the Feds had come in to protect the property of the rich Black community in Tulsa that would have been welcomed by everyone, perhaps most vociferously by Teen Vogue. However, in today's climate the protection of property is seen as a bad thing. I'm not sure how you square that circle. It just doesn't make any consistent logical sense that you want property and lives protected in one case and not the other. Let's not forget what property and money generally represent: labor. There are rent seekers who may acquire property through other means, but this is the .1% we're talking about. In 99%+ of the cases money and property are acquired through labor of the body and/or mind. I'm not sure how you seek to dismantle the idea of property without getting into a sketchy territory of taking labor from people.

Someone who has been getting some traction lately is Richard Rorty. I looked into him in my college days, but don't know enough about him. Broadly speaking I think he is a pragmatic post modernist insofar as the only real truth is that which is useful. Capital "t" Truth, and knowledge of it, probably isn't obtainable and isn't all that useful. If a thing is useful, then it is true enough. I think this is also at the crux of the JBP and Sam Harris debate about Truth. I'm more of a Truth guy (like Harris) than I am a truth guy like Rorty and JBP. At least as far as I understand their arguments. But it seems like Rorty's ideas are appropiate for this age where everyone has their own "truth." Alternative facts abound on the Right and "lived truth" is the "truth" of the Left. You're never going to talk someone out of their interpretation of their experience. As (Groucho) Marx said "who are you going to believe - me or your own eyes?"

There was some controversy over the Cam Newton contract. Richard Sherman called it ridiculous and disgusting, for example. My understanding is that he's getting $1 million/year minimum (up to $7.5 million with incentives) with the Patriots. Sherman pointed out that Newton is a former MVP. I'll point out that he has a career rating of 86.1 which places him below the median for starters. He's also 31 years old. Coming off a season where he only played two games because of injury. He's won 6 games in the last two seasons. His MVP year was by far his best season. 2015 was actually the last time he was in the top half of the league in rating. And there's definitely a precedent for taking a paycut to play for the Patriots, who are perennial contenders. I think the key here is that it's highly skewed towards the incentives. If he does well then he could get as much as $7.5 million and that would be a good salary for him. If he's a bust, then the Patriots took a shot on an older middle of the pack guy for $1 million.

I wrote yesterday that some of our principles might need to take a backseat right now. So, maybe Chauvin isn't legally culpable for first degree murder of Floyd. Maybe that's the legal definition and normally we should care about that (I do), but it's also possible that right now it's more important that our #1 goal be to restore accountability - or at least the appearance there of. This is where Rorty comes into play in some way. Maybe the Truth is that Chauvin didn't seek to murder Floyd. Looking at the entirety of the video it doesn't appear as though Chauvin came over there to murder Floyd. Maybe the Truth is that 1st degree murder is for a pre-planned event. But maybe it's true enough right now that Chauvin is a piece of shit who didn't care about Floyd's life and we need to restore some sense of accountability. Maybe Chauvin isn't such a bad sacrificial lamb? I don't think a lot of people are making a cold analysis like this, but that appears to be what's happening in the minds of people. I don't like any of it, but we have a legit accountability crisis in this country and we need to focus on that before almost anything else.

There are two platitudes that are bandied about often: "the true measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members" - Gandhi and "Your actions speak so loudly, I can not hear what you are saying." (shortened to: "actions speak louder than words") - Emerson. What happens when you combine those two and look at the state of affairs in SF? For a long time I identified as of the Left and agreed about how crazy the cognitive dissonance was on the Right. But isn't this a clear cut example of cognitive dissonance on the Left? I suspect that most people in SF agree with the two quotes above and yet they think SF is a great city. Not to parrot Trump, but it's a shithole. Salt Lake City put homeless people in housing. Oakland is at least attempting to get temporary shelters while also encouraging (some) development. SF needs to get it together.

A big problem I see in the media is a small thing. They ask leading questions constantly. Almost always the interview goes like this: "so when you were mugged that must have felt really scary." "yes, it was very scary..." Instead of asking "how did getting mugged make you feel?" 60 minutes is infamous for doing this in order to get an interviewee to repeat whatever phrase it is they are leading with. I guess it's a marketing scheme so they can get a sound bite. John Oliver had a bit about it here. But it's much more ubiquitous than just 60 minutes. Basically every reporter does this same shit and it's highly annoying. Don't guess what a person is going to say or how they feel or what their conclusion is. Your job as a reporter is to get them to give you information from their brain. I don't love the Weeds podcast, but they have a question they end the podcast with which is good reporting: "what's a question that we didn't ask that we should have asked?" That's open ended reporting and there should be more of that. You're a reporter, not a fucking sculptor. They are the story, not you. But this is the age we live in...

Why didn't Trump win the other times he ran? Medium is the message. Marshall McLuhan had this idea that the medium through which a message is carried is more important than the message itself. I think about this more and more these days. We've seen a gradual move away from long form conveyance of ideas. From print to radio and TV and then 24 hour cable and now Twitter capped at 240 characters. Trump is perfect for this age and it's part of the reason he didn't win in any of his other attempts. We're living in a different age now economically, etc. Hillary was an awful candidate. But it's also important that we have the attention span of mice and he carries a simple message that fits the dominant medium of the day.

Sleep Now in the Fire video from RATM is as relevant today as ever. Check it out starting here for a bit of a premonition.

Another example (maybe an extreme one) of some of our principles taking a backseat...Katha Pollitt said she would vote for Biden even "if he boiled babies and ate them." She said this in response to the creepy Joe and rape allegations surrounding Biden. So, there's a very real example of someone who has decided that getting rid of Trump is more important than anything else. Maybe we're in survival mode. Maybe we're the Russians selling body parts to get through the winter. I don't think we're there, but some do.

8/21/20 (18:32)

More facts about the George Floyd case are coming out. Now it appears as though he had Meth and Fentanyl in his system. I viewed the unedited body camera footage and it's clear right away that he wasn't acting normally. Maybe it was nerves because he was in trouble, maybe it was because he had apparently been shot before (this is what he says when the cops come to his car), maybe he's just a strange guy who is prone to overreacting. Looking at the bodycam footage it looks like a lot of arrests I've seen. Cops are more aggressive than you'd like to see, they don't take time to slow things down or explain the situation, Floyd doesn't comply with their instructions on many occasions, etc. He's crying almost the entire time. He says he's claustrophobic and doesn't want to get in the car. He's falling down while walking. He keeps refusing to get into the car. They spend a bunch of time trying to get him in the car and he keeps refusing. While he's in the car and they're trying to push him fully inside, he says a few times that he can't breathe. Of course he says this later as he's just about to die also. Then he comes out the other side of the car and says he's going to lay on the ground. Another minute later is when they decide to take him to the ground and that's pretty much when the original video you've probably seen begins. Watching it is so depressing because in so many of these cases you know how it turns out, but you also see that it didn't have to go that way. It's amazing how much goes wrong in so many police interactions...and I've watched quite a few.

When it's time to have a talk with my kids about cops I'm going to say that most of them are good people who want to help, but you never know what you're going to get. Don't talk more than you need to. Ask for a lawyer whether you've done something wrong or not. Comply with their instructions. If you follow these instructions then 90%+ of the bad cop interactions that we hear about never would have gone south the way they did. You can't control other people so do your best to avoid trouble. Obviously, on a societal level we'd like the cops to do a better job.

The prosecution I think is going for 2nd and 3rd degree murder. I think this is going to be a tough hill to climb from a legal standpoint. Having now see the full context of the incident, I don't see 2nd degree murder here. 3rd degree makes a lot more sense, and the people who want 1st degree murder just simply don't understand the law or the facts of the case. Ultimately I think that Chauvin will probably be found guilty of something big and go to jail for a long time. People seem to want accountability and, even if 2nd degree murder isn't appropriate, they might go for it just to prove a point. Not sure how it will hold up on appeal and I'm not sure how it works over there. The fact that he said he couldn't breathe when he was in the car I think could be a sticking point for a juror. This stuff is never as clear cut as it seems at first.

So there's a lot of talk about the defunding of the police still. I don't think you solve any problems by getting rid of the police. I do see that firefighters and police are a very high percentage of most local budgets, and that's an issue. Both get high pensions and there's a lot of gaming of the system that goes along with that (pension spiking). We need to find a way to get more from the same amount of money, but the trade off there is that those are good middle class jobs for people who don't need a college education. The left generally likes to see these types of jobs paid well and they are favorable towards unions. However, we have a situation with police where those principles are in conflict. Unions are too powerful keeping bad cops and bad teachers employed. Pensions pay too much. Defined benefit programs are horrible and many cities/states have moved to defined contribution systems, so at least that's good. But if you look at the average city most of the highest paid individuals are fire and police chiefs and they get mid-6 figure salaries. It's just way too much money.

So, in this way, maybe there can be not a defunding, but a move towards budget cuts. You don't need union employees who cost the city 6 figures with benefits answering calls about a noisy neighbor or doing clerical work. It's up to each city to do it, however, so it's going to be a very long process.

My truck was burglarized the other day while in front of my house. This is a common occurrence in this city. I've had so many things stolen at this point that I've lost count. I've lived in Oakland for 13+ years and had tools, coins, ipod, bike, mail, car seat, etc. stolen many times. Probably averages out to once very 6-8 months at this point. The worst was in SF when I lost $12,000 in one night. This time they got me for about $1,500. This is life in the bay area. Best place in the world. Cops don't do anything because they're too busy dealing with whatever proverbial fire they're putting out at the time. In SF (and to a lesser extent in Oakland) people do crack and heroin in broad daylight. If you go through the Tenderloin it's a genuine surprise if you don't see people doing drugs. Literal shit on the street is a very common occurrence and costs the city millions a year. Meanwhile, during a housing crisis, there's a concerted effort to minimize housing development. That link is the least of it and I have first hand experience with the ways SF in particular doesn't want to make it easy to develop more housing. Or do business in general, it turns out. SF is worst in country for ease of doing business, employing workers, and ease of starting a business. They say if you can make it in NYC, then you can make it anywhere. I think SF is trying to take that crown.

Anyway, the reason for all that is to point out that the cops, around here at least, have a lot to do. The crime stats that we see should be considered a floor. The represent the very least amount of crime that exists...it can only go up from there. I've stopped reporting the burglaries and I know many others have done the same. I have a Ring camera for the jobsite so I can see what other Ring owners nearby are reporting. It's basically the same shit every day. "My house was burglarized, my packages were stolen, etc." "Someone wearing a hoodie or mask stole this or that and nothing happened." It's open season. Same shit on NextDoor. It would be a good study for some grad student to look at crime rates over time and compare them to reports on NextDoor, etc. There's got to be some way of tracking unreported crime better than we currently do.

Let's say I can make $500 on a good day of work. $1,500 worth of tools stolen represents, at the very least, 3 days of hard work that's been stolen by someone. When you total it all up, I've had probably close to $20k worth of stuff stolen from me since I've lived here. Not to mention the "fire inspection fees" which are over $400. The excessive vehicle ticketing. The business taxes which, oddly, tax you on GROSS revenue, not NET revenue. Then you pile on the usual (and acceptable) federal and state taxes which take another 30% or more since I'm both employer and employee of myself. So, $20k stolen...how many hours did I have to work to make that much money to have it evaporate?

Does anyone care about the murder rate increasing by 50% in NYC last month?

Biden campaign so far is doing a pretty good job of keeping him out of the media. Bit of a bump now for the convention, but they should keep him out of the media as much as possible from here on out. It should be Trump vs. the idea of Biden. If they do that, then Biden wins. I do expect some B.S. October surprise. This is something people speculate about a lot. That and false flag operations and Marshal Law and all sorts of shit that the left and right have both talked about, but really doesn't happen much, if at all, in real life. But, with Trump, these are actual possibilities. A vaccine announcement in late October would be very feasible. Beyond his attempts to make things seem better than they are, he could also try to rig the election with suppression, etc. I'm less concerned about his specific ability to do this. It would require a lot of help on the local level. Of course none of this is an issue if 40% of the electorate that doesn't turn out decides to care for once in their life.

Beyond all that, the threat I'm most concerned about is that it's very likely that, no matter the results, the losing side will complain that the results weren't real....and their respective media outlets will present this claim as fact. NYT and WaPo will be all over it if Trump wins. Breitbart and Fox will be all over it if Biden wins. The loss of trust in our institutions has been ongoing and has now bled over to the electoral system. This is very troubling. People don't trust the media, academia, cops, politicians, elections, etc.

Just a reminder that this may be the best commercial of all-time.

Not that it matters, but there was this little dust up with Hillary about Tulsi Gabbard. Hillary essentially called her a Russian asset. It was pretty nutty. The Democratic response to Tulsi is pretty odd to me overall. She's a woman of color, she's pretty much a party liner on most of the issues, she's served in the military, and yet Hillary and others seem to really have had a problem with her. Weird situation.

We're getting a lesson on Black Swan events as outlined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There are just too many people in the world. Things that are one in a billion events happen several times every day and there are thousands of these documented on Youtube and elsewhere (look up "never tell me the odds"). On a societal level we're going to see this stuff happen more and more as well. Pandemics lining up with a George Floyd/Chauvin run-in while Trump is president. Perfect storm events are going to be more and more plentiful. Society needs more and more safeties built in to avoid negative consequences from these kinds of things, but it doesn't seem like we're doing a good job of that right now.

The trouble is that I really don't see how we dig our way out of this right now. Some of our principles and ideas of moral hazard are going to have to take a back seat to more important things while we rebuild. California is basically a failed state at this point and this is supposed to be one of the best states in the country. 10 years ago I thought it was. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the answers. Look at the places where one party is in charge and you see major problems. Meanwhile, each side thinks they have a much better solution than the other. Incapable of seeing their own failures. If both sides understood that they need a bit of the other side's approach in order to make the situation better then we could get to a better place, but neither side seems humble enough to admit that they may be wrong. Neither side wants to give the other side a political win.

Lately I've become much more of a libertarian/anarchist. Not that I want to defund the police or have chaos. But I see massive failures on the part of the government and all other societal institutions and have become pretty jaded and cynical about their ability to do any heavy lifting when it comes to repairing the societal damage we're seeing manifested. Again, I don't subscribe to the CHAZ/CHOP approach, but I understand its motivation. But, just as the Trump election was a bad response to a real problem, so is the CHAZ/CHOP model a deeply flawed response to another real problem. Again, leftists failed in their experiment, just as conservatives failed in electing Trump. There's a symmetry to all this.

What I mean by becoming more of a libertarian/anarchist is that I believe in the ability of individuals more than in the ability of governments and institutions right now. This is a problem because I think a healthy society needs properly functioning institutions and can't rely on individuals just "doing the right thing" for a society to run well, but I just don't see any powerful/core institutions that are consistently doing the right thing.

Something I keep coming back to is this idea of a problem tree. Relatedly, a core principles list.

Problem tree looks like this: police violence is caused by poor training which is caused by lack of money which is caused by selfishness. or it could be police violence is caused by racism. bad politicians is caused by poor voter turnout ---> lack of civic duty ---> bad parenting

It can go a thousand different ways and the problem tree is clearly multivariate (unless you're a simple thinker like the person who says everything is caused by race [looking at you David Duke, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coates])...but the goal would be to get to the core...3-5 root causes. Unfortunately usually when I go down the road to counting up all the problems and tracing each one to its root I get to things like "human nature." When it comes to things that we can actually change it seems like bad education and bad parenting tend to come up a lot. I should probably write out a bunch of these and actually try to figure out where I land on the 3-5.

Core principles would be kind of the same, but in reverse. What are the 3-5 one liner ideals that, if you can teach a person early on, will make the world a better place? Things like the golden rule which used to be treat others as you would like to be treated and then changed to treat others how they would like to be treated.

Why are businesses closing earlier? It's ostensibly about COVID, but why? What's the argument for reduced hours? If a person needs to go to Home Depot or the grocery store or whatever then they're going to go. Reducing the number of hours just increases the density of consumers at a given time. If anything, they should increase hours to decrease density.

Another failure of CA/Oakland has been the education system of late. I've discussed this here before since OUSD is a fucking joke, but it's gotten even worse with COVID. Online instruction only at this point. 30 minutes a day. One in kindergarten and one in 2nd grade, at a new school because the old school was closed because OUSD is total shit. And the best they can do is 30 minutes online? Supposedly the teachers are close to an agreement with OUSD that will increase instruction to 4 hours. There's so much wrong with this. Again, the unions are a big source of the problem. Why are teachers any different from doctors, grocery clerks, bankers, etc.? They want to be taken seriously and be seen as essential, but they want to stay home. I've been working basically every day since this all started. I go to supply houses, customers' homes, home depot, the dump, etc. I meet with contractors and employees, etc. Teachers can't go to school and meet with probably the same number of students? Why can't some classes be conducted outside? Each school has its own challenges and each grade level as well. But the status quo is unacceptable.

According to the NYT podcast here are a couple of the requests of the teachers' union before they will return to work: upgrade ventilation systems and no new cases for 14 days. I don't remember the other demands they had because it doesn't matter. These two effectively signal that they're not serious about returning to work. Those two requests require two things: the eradication of COVID and billions spent on HVAC repairs. These requests are a joke, but maybe they're just taking a page from the Trump playbook. Best case, it's like going to your boss and asking for a million bucks a year when you really only want a 10% raise. Worst case, the teachers' union doesn't want teachers returning to schools until there's a vaccine and we spend $20 billion (131k schools x $150k/school) on HVAC upgrades to existing schools. Good luck with all that.

Once again...an argument for a more individual approach and a retreat from institutions. These failures from government and unions and education lead me to conclude that we're better off doing community teaching where families take kids one day a week and rotate amongst each other. The good kind of DIY anarchism that is part of the punk movement, for example. Individuals have a lot of power if they decide to use it. With the internet, we're more able than ever to learn the skills we need and connect with each other. If we get it together, we need the government and teachers unions less than we have in generations. Just leaves me wondering what I'm paying taxes for. A police force that allows me to lose $20k in property in a few years? An education system that closes schools and can only muster 30 minutes of instruction a day?

Definitely seeing an exodus from SF lately, and I wouldn't doubt it if CA ended up losing people as well. Maybe that's all for the better. Too many people here anyway. But if we lose good people as a result of poor governance then that's not going to be helpful.

Somewhat refreshing to see Kamala Harris referred to as biracial. For several years, it has been an odd thing to see liberals enforcing the "one drop" rule more assiduously than the right. It used to be the racist right that said one drop of black blood made you black, but, since at least Obama, it was the left that was more quick to apply that rule to people like Obama, who is as much white as he is black. Even before the 2010 census when he said he identified as black, the media was almost always referring to him as black, as opposed to as biracial. I guess with Kamala they don't want to deny her other half since it's Asian, so it's not really a fair comparison. I would think that the one drop rule, being a negative vestige of a racist past, would be eschewed by liberals, yet they seem to perpetuate it as much as anyone.

What's the argument for calling someone black instead of, the more accurate descriptor, biracial? If there's a rule that the media agrees to - for example, they ask the person how they identify first and then run with that - then that would make sense. But I'm not aware of such a rule. It appears as though it's just a blatant enforcement/inversion of the one drop rule - referring to the person as black when biracial. Instead of it being meant as derogatory, though, it's a signaling of their virtue.

There's a big backlash lately against those in power and hierarchy and power structures in general because of the current inequality. I get all that, but, as always, it seems that some of it goes too far to the point where people are just angry at the idea of hierarchy of any kind. Ezra Klein talks about power structures and their ability to survive no matter what. Firstly, who's to say that hierarchy and inequality isn't just a natural state? It certainly appears to be the fact - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just is what it is. We can't, and shouldn't, seek to level things out just to make them even. He often talks about how difficult equality of opportunity is...."equality of outcome is much easier" he says. Just because it's more difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Equality of outcome is among the worst things a society can impose on its people. I don't think he's thought this through very well at all.

Secondly, people in the top quintile go in and out of that all the time. The extremely rich 0.1% of people are immune to downward income bracket mobility, but the upper quintile isn't. So, if we're talking about the .1% then fine. But if you're talking about hierarchy within the 99.9% then I probably disagree with Klein.

Obama economy that made this inequality, by the way. You can't sing his praises and talk about the longest growth in US history and then say you hate all the inequality. He gets the praise and the blame. Not sure why people never point that out. It's the very same people who love his economy who also talk about the evil 1%. Why the disconnect within the same brain?

The Harper's Letter has been getting some good press. It's about time this hit the mainstream. The IDW types have been banging on this door for a few years now. Hopefully this the beginning of the slowing of the pendulum which has gone too far in the direction of "cancel culture." There's about a 50% chance you didn't even know about this debate, but it's a real issue now that Twitter is bleeding out into the real world and people are losing their jobs for saying marginally dumb things. It spilled over to the Vox types and they blew a blood vessel over it...as they are wont to do. These puritanical types are doomed to failure. There's just no purity test strong enough to prove your purity and righteousness.

All this culture stuff that we're seeing lately is a lot like a religion. With the White Fragility stuff the first step is to admit that you're a sinner. We're all racist sinners. Next comes the purity tests from Ibram X. Kendi and others. The original sin is brought to you by the 1619 Project and its dubious claims that the US fought Britain over our right to keep slaves (this glaring misreading of history didn't keep the 1619 Project from getting a Pulitzer, somehow, though.).

The Tulsa race massacre have been in the public consciousness more because of the Watchmen HBO show. One thing I heard is that people were disappointed that the feds didn't come in to stop it...and rightly so. I have to wonder, though, where people draw the line on federal troops coming into cities to restore order. We're seeing the very same people who are aghast about Tulsa (which happened 100 years ago), defending the locals' rights in cases like Portland and Seattle where you could argue that innocent people and their property are no longer subject to the rule of law. Shouldn't the feds step in here as well? If you spent your whole life starting a business that gets shut down by the CHOP or is affected by the daily Portland protests, wouldn't that be a violation of your rights? Does the motivation behind the unrest trigger the federal response or only the result?

7/27/20 (20:49)

Business is a bit slow for the first time since I started. I also have two people working for me, so the bar is at a different place, but still. Looks like things could be rough for a while. Gold prices are high. Economy is fake. G is spending money like it doesn't mean anything. Can't play this game forever.

Some special people.

7/14/20 (20:21)

My dad wrote Zoe a little note and sent it in the mail in response to one she sent him. Merritt was a bit upset and said she wanted a note and then asked what a note was. Zoe said "it's like a text, but it's on paper." Then she flipped open a book that had a picture of a guy writing on an old scroll and said "this is what a note looked like in B.C. times." Cute kids.

6/19/20 (21:09)

Another unintended consequences story: In the UK they had a train derail. Turns out the trains or the tracks weren't being properly inspected and there was a stress fracture that led to the accident which led to the deaths of half a dozen people (can't recall exact number). So, the government decided to reduce the speed allowed on the train to reduce the likelihood of another accident and the fatality of an accident, should one happen. Meanwhile they inspected all the trains and rails for a few months. During this time of decreased speeds people started driving more often because they didn't want to wait for the slow trains. More driving led to more driving deaths. Turns out that the new policy of slowing the trains to avoid train deaths led to more auto accidents and approx. 5 extra deaths and 75 injuries. Oops.

Story in Oakland about some "nooses" hanging in the park. I'll link the story, but the long and short of it is that they were just ropes that a black guy put up there for exercising. The mayor's response to this? "Intentions do not matter, these are extremely serious acts. They have no place in our city at any time, but especially not this time." So, the mayor has officially lost her mind at this point. This is what happens during these kinds of times. People lose their minds. Rational thought isn't exactly a high priority for most people most of the time, but when you have COVID and BLM protests then people just lose it to the point that a black guy helping put up exercise ropes can still be seen as a noose and the intentions of the rope being there doesn't matter at all.

There's a conclusion that I'm very reluctant to make, but I've found it to be true and I think Maya Angelou actually found this out far before me, and she almost makes it sound reasonable. The conclusion is that feelings matter far more than facts. Tina Turner embodies this. Trump embodies this. Angelou's quote is "I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." She's right; unfortunately.

The media (MSM) coverage of basically any science topic is total garbage. Won't really get into it, but it should be self-evident by now. This is yet another reason why they are worse for the country than Trump could ever be.

There are several studies that are finding a vitamin D deficit could be contributing to COVID deaths. Of course this would help explain white it seems to affect blacks more than whites.

On the other hand I've also seen studies that have found that COVID affects people with blood type A more than blood type O. My quick research finds that blacks are more likely than whites (by a good deal) to have blood type O than blood type A. So, maybe the vitamin D and blood type issues cancel each other out a bit? Lots of interesting things to look into as we get deeper into this thing.

When Arnie was governor he prepared for a pandemic with mobile hospitals, extra masks, etc. Jerry Brown cut funding to these programs when he was governor. On the other hand, Brown also saved money for a rainy day fund and helped get our financial house in order. However, though I love Jerry Brown, I have to point out that I strongly suspect the media would have pilloried Brown had he been an unpopular Republican like they are doing to Trump. Fair is far, no?

There's a lot of discussion on the far left about "whiteness" and how evil it is. Don't fret, though, because "whiteness" isn't the same as being white. "Whiteness" is somehow all the bad things that white people do/have done in a single word, but it has nothing to do with being white. If you can understand that then you're smarter than I am. Or maybe just more willing to bend over backwards? It's nutty stuff, but these are the times we're in. Maybe call it something other than "whiteness" if you don't want to include all white people?

Mea Culpa on this one, though, when I was 20 or so I actually came to this same conclusion myself after reading Malcolm X's autobiography. I concluded that white people were evil since they committed most of the worst atrocities in history, so I jokingly decided to call anything bad "white." So, I guess I'm just reaping what I sowed 20 years ago.

In American blacks are much more a culture than a race. Denzel is basically saying the same thing here, so hopefully this doesn't offend. In the US blacks are also much more monolithic than whites. Music, religion, politics...all are more monolithic in black households than in whites. I'm going a bit out on a limb, but I think it's probably accurate to say that most blacks have in common a few musicians, more so than white households. For whites I don't even know what 3 musicians you could pick that white households would say they have in common as being on the "Mt. Rushmore" of music. Bealtes, Eagles, Elvis? But I think, for whites, music probably varies with class. A lower class white person probably likes Elvis, Johnny Cash, Garth Brooks, Hank Williams, Eagles...An upper class white person might be more likely to list Mozart or Sinatra. Maybe middle class would be Beatles, Nirvana, U2 or something. For blacks I'm guessing there would be more agreement on a narrower group, something like: Michael Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Whitney Houston. But maybe music isn't the greatest example...

I'm guessing religion would be even more so. I know that 83% of blacks consider themselves very religious (61% for whites). Further, 79% of blacks are Christian (70% for whites).

Even more extreme is politics. Obama got anywhere from 95-99% of the black vote. In 2016 Trump got only 8% of the black vote. For comparison, after talking about building a wall and deporting immigrants, he still got 29% of the hispanic vote.

In these ways and others, it appears to me as though blacks are much more of a monolith than whites in the US. They are bound together by a common culture more so than any group other than maybe Native Americans. I'm guessing it has to do with how they've historically been treated. Segregation, etc. leading to what it can only possibly lead to - a separate culture and a common experience. What's yet to be seen is how long it will take for all that to unwind.

Is there anything that Trump could do to get more than 10% of the black vote? In 2016 he got 8%...I think it's safe to say he'd get less than that if the election were today. If he approved reparations for immediate pay out - checks sent out before November - what effect (if any) would that have on the black vote? If he selected a black running mate would that effect his share of the black vote? Wish I could get the answers to these unanswerable questions.

Look up Unit 731.

Maybe America seems awful because we live here and hear about all the shitty things the country has done? Maybe it seems awful because we were #1 in the world for a long time and #1 always does the shittiest things?

This is a somewhat famous photo of a Congolese man whose daughter didn't meet the rubber quota under Leo II of Belgium's reign. As a result of her non-performance his 5 year old daughter's hand and foot were cut off and given to him.

6/18/20 (16:15)

Thinking more about the cop problems we have. One issue with the no chokehold rule would be unintended consequences of cops using their baton or gun more often to subdue people. A chokehold is potentially a relatively safe manuever (with proper training), whereas a baton and gun are pretty much always bad. This could be an example of a well-intentioned reform going really wrong so I don't know that I support it anymore (6 days later).

The Rayshard Brooks case really bugs me the more I think about it. There are just so many places it could have turned out differently. A black woman calls the cops to report that he's blocking the drive thru line at wendy's. If she were white then she'd be called Drivethru Debbie and she'd be the ire of the internet. Cops show up and are very respectful of him and he's very respectful of them. One thing I didn't know is that he was on probation and that probably is what led to him making the bad decision to fight the officiers. They could have driven him to his sister's home. He could have not punched them, grabbed the taser, fired the taser at them. They could have not shot him. The whole this is just tragic and unnecessary. It would be interesting to poll people and see where they thought things really went wrong. For me, it's when he decided to physically fight two cops. For someone else maybe it was when the cops decided to arrest him instead of giving him a break.

The daily NYT podcast did a good job covering the story and one of the people pointed out that 30 people a day die from drunk driving...put another way, 8 days of drunk driving deaths is equal to all the black people killed by cops in a year. Alcohol really is shitty.

6/15/20 (21:19)

Orthorexia is a new one to me. Look it up. First world problems.

Making six figures and can't make ends meet. This is life I guess.

We need to have a legitimate and efficient path to citizenship. Along with that we need to actually enforce the border and not offer amnesty every other generation. Our system now sucks. Look at the policies of Australia or Canada if you start getting the feeling that we're too exclusionary. If we don't take it seriously then the Right wins. Lack of enforcement just gives them ammo.

Heard of the big 3 dealership law in Michigan? Prohibits competition from other car makers. Recently Tesla was sort of able to get around it, but it's a half measure at best. This is the kind of cronyism that hampers economic growth and competition. This one is on the Democrats protecting their pet industry in MI.

Be critical inwardly. Appreciate outwardly.

Clothes are 8% of global warming. A lot of this is the result of fast fashion. Apparently the average garment is worn only seven times before being tossed. That's beyond pathetic.

We need to be a lot more skeptical of what the media and others tell us. Even if we assume they're doing their best to be fair and look at an issue from all sides (they often don't), it's still very likely they are only paying lip service or not really understanding alternative points of view. Skepticism is good. Cynicism isn't.

Men are more likely to be CEOs and you hear a lot about that if you're the kind of person who reads the NYT and WaPo regularly. But for some reason they almost never bring gender into the conversation when they talk about suicide, military deaths, homelessness, prison population, etc. Why is that? Are we interested in gender roles and inequalities or are we only interested in a certain kind of inequality? Is there any chance that the risk taking, obsession, and moral "flexibility" that so often characterizes men could have positive and negative effects? We know that CEOs are more likely to be psychopaths (about 20%). They probably are more likely to not care about the feelings of others, are more ruthless in hiring and firing, care less about family/work balance, are more likely to be obsessive, etc. These aren't necessarily great attributes if you were choosing them for your child, but they can have certain advantages for CEO types. Of course they can also have negative consequences...especially the risk taking attribute which helps explain the greater likelihood of men to inhabit the ends of the spectrum more than women - more CEOS, but more homeless.

Heard a story a while back and a woman said "I just never thought that the federal government could be the cause of my downfall." She didn't pay attention to anything in history class.

Barbara Ehrenreich called the gratitude movement a right wing plot. Haha. How jaded do you have to be to come up with this shit?

Conservatives are defense and liberals are offense. Need them both to win the game.

"Great minds think alike." I used to think that was a good saying. Now I think it's a horrible cautionary tale. I fucking hope that great minds don't think alike. Groupthink is horrible.

Trans article in Atlantic a while back.

Reminder that Muhammad Ali didn't like interracial marriage. "Playboy: You're beginning to sound like a carbon copy of a white racist. Let's get it out front: Do you believe that lynching is the answer to interracial sex? Ali: A black man should be killed if he's messing with a white woman. And white men have always done that. They lynched niggers for even looking at a white woman; they'd call it reckless eyeballing and bring out the rope. Raping, patting, mischief, abusing, showing our women disrespect—a man should die for that. And not just white men—black men, too. We will kill you, and the brothers who don't kill you will get their behinds whipped and probably get killed themselves if they let it happen and don't do nothin' about it. Tell it to the President—he ain't gonna do nothin' about it. Tell it to the FBI: We'll kill anybody who tries to mess around with our women. Ain't nobody gonna bother them."

Is his statue coming down next? We need to apply this logic equally. We need to contend with all facts, not just the convenient ones.

Going through my list of webpage topics which explains the randomness here.

Republicans are often blamed (rightly) for not wanting government to work well, but Democrats are seemingly fine with a poorly function government as well. They didn't support the gas tax unless it came with Trump rolling back some of his tax cuts. Both parties will bring up unrelated things all the time and hold up common sense, common ground legislation in the process.

If someone wants to do the leg work on this I'm interested in knowing how many Republican women ran and lost in 2018. Also good to know how many R women lost to D men and how many D women lost to R women. Would just be interesting to know. AZ1 - D man beat R woman. AZ2 - D woman beat R woman. NM2 - D woman beat R woman. FL5 - D man beat R woman. VA10 D woman beat R woman. MD6 D man beat R woman. MA2 D man beat R woman. VT D man beat R woman. CA16 D man beat R woman. UT4 D man beat R woman. KY3 D man beat R woman.

Anyway, the point is that if you want more women in office you could vote for Republicans in all those cases (and more).

It's funny to hear smart media types still contending with "how to cover Trump." This is straight out of the "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten" book. Bullies get ignored. Don't feed the trolls. Since he's the president you have to cover some of what he does, but you do it briefly and in a perfunctory manner and then move on to other stories. Sometimes these super smart people get all twisted like Hamlet and can't figure out what to do. This is where the average field worker has a leg up. The people know bullshit when they see it. I still believe in the wisdom of the average working class person. It's the same thing with the MMT story. They say some smart sounding shit about taxes not being for government spending, and next thing you know they're trying to convince you that you can get something for nothing. It's like that scene in Office Space where Peter is explaining to Jennifer Aniston's character how his software scam works. He goes into this complex spiel and Aniston sees right through it immediately - because it's obviously stealing. He can justify it all he wants, but it's theft and she gets it. I love that scene. I love the way she's sipping on her soda so innocently playing up how innocent she is, yet she cuts through his b.s. immediately. This is the perfect example of the common person's wisdom being greater than that of the intelligentsia. Brilliant.

Is the jaded and paranoid view that many cops have unfounded? If I saw dead bodies weekly and had to intervene when some dude is beating up his girlfriend again or respond to calls of grown men punching kids in the face or gangbangers killing each other in the streets or 100 small thefts every day...would I have a good view of humanity and society? Wouldn't I grow a little jaded and paranoid that someone is going to do some dumb shit when I try to arrest them? Wouldn't that increase in the current climate when it's open season on cops? And is it much different for a black man in an inner city who hears about his friends getting roughed up and harassed regularly? Who sees all this crime that goes unsolved?

Cops are like the people who screen shit on the internet so we don't have to see child porn or pictures of murdered people all over the place.

Not sure how it is where you live, but around here the law is mostly a suggestion. People drive on the wrong side of the road regularly. Dumping in the street happens everyday. Petty theft and burglaries happen every day. Porch pirates, car break-ins, etc. are every day occurrences. Squaters get national coverage as if they're protesters. Since I've been in the bay area I've averaged more than one break in or theft per year. Bike, tools, tools, tools, tools, ipod, car seat, mail, loose change, etc. Too many to count at this point. Then there's the municipal theft. A fire re-inspection (5 minutes) cost $400. Thankfully we're pretty good at policing speech and inappropriate movies like GWTW still. Wait, what?

Late to bring this up, but I found it funny that the #1 podcaster in the world endorsed Sanders and then the next week he got an "unexplainable" bump in the polls. The media was legitimately confused by what happened. "Why is he surging now?" It's remarkable how the media doesn't think about the influence of podcasting. Joe Rogan gets about 200 million downloads a month. Fox News gets like 2.4 million viewers and all anyone ever talks about is the influence of Fox News on society. These people are fucking dense and out of touch.

I think the electability issue has got to be seen as a media construct by now. Supposed experts deciding who has a chance to win as if they know anything anymore. Decisions are made by the many now. Look at Trump who had no chance according to most of the experts. BLM has no leader. Populism is alive and well. The people decide who can be elected. When they don't like democracy they call it populism. When more people realize that we don't need the parties to decide for us anymore then we'll be ready for some real change. Unfortunately the duopoly is going to hold on to its power for as long as possible.

Iowa really biffed the primary. If the Democrats want to be taken seriously they need to show a proof of concept somewhere. You can't go to an investor and say I can build a great super computer please give me a bunch of money. They want to see you build a decent computer first. You have to show some proof that you are capable of delivering what you promise. You have to prove that your idea can work in some smaller setting before taking it to the big leagues. Yet, when you look at Democrat strongholds, you see a lot of failures like Chicago, Detroit, SF, NYC, CA, etc. These are run by Democrats and yet the people they supposedly care about (poor, homeless, minorities) are all in shit condition. Housing isn't affordable. Education has fallen off a cliff. Democrats complain about GA elections, but they couldn't run a caucus election in Iowa where it's been done dozens of times before. It just looks really bad for the brand when you can't roll out an Obamacare website or run an election.

David Pakman talked about Hillary blaming Bernie supporters for her loss. His supporter were attacking her, encouraging third party votes, etc. Then she said nobody likes Bernie. Is it just me or is she coming off as really bitter since she lost? How many excuses has she come up with for her loss in 2016 at this point? Hard to keep track.

Should IA and NH be first to vote? More white, more rural. OTOH, a small state going first balances out the fact that every time we have an election we get a fucking NYC mayor on the ballot. I understand the history. I understand Jimmy Carter coming up the ranks because of the small states. I don't know that it applies anymore. Plus IA sucks and caucuses are stupid. Time for change, but it's up the the parties.

There's an episode of the Impact (good podcast) about an experiment in Kalamazoo where they gave some people free tuition to see if those people would go onto college and then succeed. Basically to evaluate the effectiveness of a free tuition program. What they found is that people who got free tuition didn't do all that well. They dropped out at higher rates, etc. They looked at the people who dropped out even after getting free tuition and found that they had other obstacles in life that caused them to drop out. They tell touching stories of individuals who dropped out after getting pregnant (not sure how that happened, still trying to figure it out) or have to take care of their parents or whatever other shit life throws at you. Of course the podcast is more liberally minded so the lesson they took from this is that you can't just give free tuition you also need to give support for people going to school. Free childcare, healthcare, abortions, counseling, etc.

The lesson I took from it is that people complain about the cost of tuition as if it's the biggest hurdle, but it's not. The biggest hurdle is life toughness (grit) and resourcefulness. If you're running a race with hurdles you need to learn to jump. Instead they think the answer is to remove all the hurdles. They're probably right. Can't teach toughness. Better to hold everyone's hand every step of the way. Big brother needs to pick up the slack since parents don't do anything anymore.

Again it seems each side is blind to the other. Republicans are blind when it comes to why blacks might think they are second class citizens. They look around dumbfounded trying to figure it out. Conversely, Democrats look at Republicans and wonder why they might feel like victims. Christianity is derided by academics, Obama laughs at Trump at the white house correspondence dinner, Bill Maher's entire audience laughs at Ann Coulter when she says Trump will win...These kinds of moments give them a rallying cry. "Look at these liberal elites laughing at us and not taking us seriously...let's show them."

The left is usually seen as the pro-science wing, but they're complicit in anti-science attitudes as well. I've given examples before, but the most recent one is the fat positivity movement. There was a woman on the local NPR station a while back who said that heart disease and diabetes being associated with being overweight was a myth and that there's no evidence of those things. The entire program was about being proud of being fat and then she busts out this clearly false assertion and the host just glided right over it so as to not ruffle any feathers of the guest who is on her team. It's amazing the shit you can say once you establish that you're on the same team as the person interviewing you.

They have studies backing this up. They find people who are D or R and then have them identify some arguments as good or bad. When the person thinks the argument is being made by someone in their same party then they are much more likely to agree with the argument - even if the researchers wrongly assign the party to a given argument. So, you'll have Democrats saying the anti-abortion argument is good just because they think another Democrat wrote it. The fact that the author is on their team makes their brain shut off, basically.

The 1619 project is another example of this. People are so mesmerized that they don't think at all about the fact that she's (Nikole Hannah-Jones) saying the Civil War wasn't primarily about ending slavery. And they don't bat an eye when she asserts that the Revolutionary War was about the US wanting to keep slaves. Of course when Republicans (wrongly) claim that the Civil war was about states' rights instead of slavery, the very same people are writing fact check essays the next day.

If race and gender are only social constructs then why is it a problem that so much scientific research is conducted largely on white men?

Speaking of anti-science left...it's pretty hilarious that the protests get a pass on the COVID stuff. Stay 6 feet apart doesn't matter so much anymore. And some people actually claim that police homicide is more of a threat to their well-being than COVID. 2019 murders by cops roughly 1,000. COVID deaths so far 151,000. Yeah, math checks out, I totally agree with them.

US and UK both have about 2.8 hospital beds per thousand people. Obviously universal healthcare isn't a panacea. UK still has a higher death rate due to COVID than we do. The real test is to see where every country is until the vaccine comes along. I suspect Sweden will actually have better immunity despite (or because of) their high death numbers currently. We'll see how it pans out in the long term. There's actually a 1974 law that limits the number of hospital beds. Good job government.

Can't have an ideal without a judge.

Why does the media continually use whatever metric will make the US look the worst when it comes to COVID? They'll discuss total cases or total deaths instead of deaths per million population. Even the NYT podcast talked about total cases in China early on as if it were a real number. They knew that China wasn't even counting cases in Wuhan for a while.

Will SAT scores decrease during COVID because cheating won't be possible?

Worst US estimates were saying 5.8 million dead.

Is it more acceptable in polite society to allow a 15 year old girl to get breast implants or to allow a 15 year old boy to get implants (because he wants to be a girl)? What does that say about polite society?

Every crisis leads to more government. It's a one way ratchet.

Sean McElwee sort of like kind of can't talk like normally. Can't even like sort of listen to him.

Mainstream said that it was hubris that led to the US acting slowly on COVID. Again, why do they look for the worst possible interpretation? The much more obvious reason for the US acting slowly is that we didn't act quickly in the past and it never hurt us. SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, Ebola, H1N1...none of those got out of control. All of them were hyped. None of them caused some huge response on our part. To me, it looks like what we normally did and it didn't work this time. CDC made their own test like always, but this time the test was bad.

Sign language interpreters are part of a performance now. They show people that we care about the less fortunate (and they occasionally provide some entertainment) more than they actually provide a service. If you're watching a press conference on TV then you can get closed captioning. If it's live then it's legit, but otherwise it seems like it's for show more than anything else.

Serious concerns over the sanctity of the elections. We could have an even bigger problem in November when this thing gets contested (both sides will do it).

Democrats should be going after Trumps strengths. Attack strengths, not weaknesses. Dems won't ever learn.

One thing you learn about kids by being a parent is that they'll try every excuse in the book to get out of work or difficult things. They'll cry or complain about x, y, and z. Shitty grown ups are the same. I don't want excuses. The world will provide a lot of excuses if you let it. Empower people to do well for themselves and then hold them to that standard. Don't let people get away with excuses or else they'll keep using them.

Sometimes I'll tell Zoe she did something wrong and she'll come back with "I didn't try to." To which I reply "Try not to." There's a difference between not trying to do something and it happens and actively trying not to do a thing. She's not trying to have a messy room, it just happens as she's playing or whatever. What she needs to do is to try not to have a messy room. Be proactive in life and your outcomes will be better than if you passively sit back and see what comes your way.

Got through a lot, it's late.

6/14/20 (21:05)

Then here's the Atlanta video of Rayshard Brooks being killed. This one is much more borderline than Floyd or some others. The law that gets you a DUI for sleeping in your car while drunk is pretty dumb in my opinion. But the problem with selective enforcement of laws is that the cops will inevitably get in trouble for that because they'll enforce it unfairly for women and whites or black officers may do it unfairly for blacks. So the predominant thinking seems to be to just enforce the law and let the prosecutors sort it out. Lawmakers make the laws, cops enforce them, prosecutors figure out how aggressively they'll go after a suspect and then a judge has some sentencing discretion (except in the cases where there are mandatory minimums). They try to be peaceful with the guy, but he fights them. They try to taser him, but he steals it from them and then runs away. Then one of them shoots him. One could argue that since he was turning back to fire the taser at the cop he was threatening them. There was also a line of cars at the drive thru and maybe the Brooks was going to carjack one of them and once he's in a car who knows who he decides to hit or whatever. I think cops generally want to keep the situation under control and a loose canon and felon (which he definitely is at this point) running through the streets isn't at all a situation under control. Brooks was solely responsible for it getting to this point, so the cops would likely say.

Reading things from his point of view he was drunk so he was making bad decisions. Yes, he fought the cops, but he wasn't threatening anyone's life so he shouldn't have been shot. He was stopped for a DUI so it shouldn't have gotten to where it got.

As someone who is increasingly mistrusting of government power and increasingly thinking that government is worthless in all ways, I think they shouldn't have killed a guy who was running away. But I also recognize that it was a fluid situation with a lot of variables (lots of bystanders, a known person who doesn't mind breaking the law to the extent that he will punch and fire a taser at a cop, a fleeing felon, etc.). You mess with the bull and you get the horns. I'm ambivalent. Michael Brown is a similar situation where he was reaching for a weapon when he was shot.

What's the answer here and where does this end? The rules of engagement need to be clear, consistent, enforced, and widely agreed upon. If the standard is that the life of the cops or bystanders is at risk is the only acceptable time for drawing your weapon then any deviation from that needs to lead to firing. In this case it looks like the cop was fired so that's probably a good step. It's a rough sentence for him if you're putting yourself in his shoes, but it is what it is. His brain didn't make the shift from fighting for his life to "okay the guy is running away now" quickly enough and so he's paying the price. That's just the price he has to pay for being an example. Part of me feels bad for him, but I also think that restoring accountability is more important so tough luck for him.

I think we have to be really strict about it from now on. You lose your job if the shooting isn't clear cut. You may not get a criminal charge, but you lose your job. Along with that comes mandatory body cameras on the federal level. And you can't turn it off just because you feel like it. There's gotta be a "I'm taking a dump" button on there somehow, but otherwise you get written up any time you turn off your camera.

I also think the "8 can't wait" stuff makes sense. Ban chokeholds. Require de-escalation. Require warning before shooting. Require exhaust all alternatives before shooting. Duty to intervene if you see your fellow cops doing dumb shit. Ban shooting at moving vehicles. Require use of force continuum. Require comprehensive reporting. These all make pretty good sense to me.

In the Brooks scenario I think they mostly did all of these. They didn't choke him. The entire interaction took about 40 minutes wherein it appears they were not escalating at all. Not sure if he warned before shooting because there's no audio, but they did warn they were going to tase him. They did go up the use of force continuum. I think where they failed is in exhausting all alternatives before shooting. They could have just let the guy go. And if Brooks jacked a car from someone and ran someone over then so be it? He's faster than they are. Stronger than they are. Taser didn't work and he took one of them. They were running out of options. I think cops are just going to have to take one of the team for a while. Tough luck. Get a different job if you don't like it. I don't know.

More stats: Police: Fatal injuries in 2017: 12.9 per 100,000 workers

First-line supervisors of construction trades: Fatal injuries in 2017: 17.4 per 100,000 workers

Heard a make-up ad on a podcast I was listening to the other day. A woman came on and made the following proclamation: "finding the right shade of foundation is harder than ever." I guess it's just advertising, but this is blatantly false. It's got to be the best time in the history of the world to find the right shade of foundation. Race awareness is at an all-time high. Availability of products is at an all-time high. Affordability is at an all-time high. Our race issues are bad enough as they are, we don't need makeup ads trying to capitalize on them also. JFC.

Gone With the Wind isn't available on HBO max anymore. Adjusted for inflation this is the most popular film of all time. Having seen quite a few films in my life I can reliably say that GWTW isn't even close to the most "problematic" of them. Perhaps because it's very popular and also "problematic" they decided to get rid of access to it? If they can take away GWTW then they can take away anything. It's a bit of history. It's a great epic. It's not on my personal 100 films, but it's an important film despite some antiquated thinking. I just don't see why they would stop there? It's one of the most important films of all-time and it's not as bad as a lot of others. If there are others that are worse and less important then surely they will get the axe next, right? Or is this just some sort of statement? "This is an important movie and it has some problems so we're going to knock it down a peg to show how woke we are." I don't know what to make of these things. There's either some sort of weird message like the one I posit, or very inconsistent thinking. Maybe they're secretly racist and they just don't want you to see Hattie McDaniel - who was the first black person to win an Oscar.

Marge Schott is another person in the news. She's the racist former owner of the Reds. Or maybe she's the former racist former owner of the Reds. Is she always racist even if she's dead? Anyway, they want to take her name off building she helped fund. Maybe her name on these buildings is a reminder that you don't need to be a perfect person to do good things? Or maybe she's just a dumb racist bitch who needs to be wiped from history. I'm not dying on that hill. Go ahead and do whatever you want.

On second thought I'll dip my toe back in for a quick second...What's worse, killing innocent people or being a racist like Schott? "The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: ï¿½Turns out Iï¿½m really good at killing people. Didnï¿½t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.ï¿½" source. Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet, I guess.

Latest information I could find said that Kaepernick wanted $20 million to come back to play football. source. source. Now that's in a different league so I don't know what he's asking for in the NFL. It was also a year ago so maybe his salary request has changed. I would like to know what he wants, but I haven't been able to find that out. At this point he's definitely not a starter so he'll have to be willing to take backup money. That's likely to be in the $2-5 million range. We'll see if something gets worked out. If you do sign the guy you have to know that you're basically married to him. You can't let him go unless you trade him, he retires, or he throws 3 INTs a game for a season. So the calculation has to be that the positive press or football skill is going to be good enough that it offsets the constant questions about him, the veteran minimum salary, and being married to him. If you only have 2 decent QBs then maybe you're in the market for a third. Ravens sound like a good fit from what I've heard.

I think it's basically everyone's goal to some day be old. Right? We would like to be young at heart, but we all want to be old in the future. And yet there is still well-documented age-ism. Now, what do you think are the chances we'll ever get rid of any other kind of -ism? If we all want to be old some day and yet we still don't hire older people for jobs what hope is there for whatever other outgroup we create? Women will hire women, men will hire men, whites will hire whites, etc. We're fucked.

There's a concept that's big on the left these days - punching up vs. punching down. It's posited that punching up (attacking those in power) is always okay and punching down (attacking those with less power) is always bad. So, a black person has pretty much free rein when it comes to attacking white culture or white people, but not vice versa because of the power dynamic. Personally I don't buy into this idea even if it sounds kinda good at first. One flaw you can see is with anti-semitism. Jews are seen as of higher power since they are often running businesses, banks, lawyers, etc. They're often considered part of the ruling class so, by the punching up rule, it's okay to attack them. A more recent example is of the attack on white women. It's an example of punching up because a certain type of white woman is constantly giving black people a hard time for being black. They call this white woman a "Karen" or "Becky" or a number of other names. Permit Patty, BBQ Becky, etc. This is all in the name of punching up and calling out these entitled white women. Of course this is totally okay because they're punching up. But, if you're a white woman, don't fret you're not at the bottom of the hierarchy - you can always call out white guys and punch up that way.

It's an interesting dynamic we find ourselves in these days. In some ways and in some circles, the lower you are on the social hierarchy the higher you are on the oppressed person hierarchy - and that has a power of its own. You are allowed free rein to punch up and criticize whomever you want without blowback from polite society. Conversely, those with the most power in society (straight white guys) are least able to comment because they are necessarily always punching down - a big no no in polite society.

Podcast on the Karen stuff. I've grown less and less interested in On The Media over the years, but I force myself to listen to them for the alternate perspective. I'd probably be a happier person if I only listened to people I agree with 90% of the time, but I refuse to do that.

Intentions matter, but so do results. Steven Chu had a great idea when he was Secretary of Energy under Obama. We should all have white roofs so we would reflect heat back into the atmosphere. He's a really smart guy and I guess he did the math and it saved a lot (for a little bit of effort) from a global warming perspective. But here's the problem - a single person can't know everything. An epidemiologist knows how to stop a virus, but they don't know about human psychology or the effects on the economy and how those unemployment numbers effect deaths. Chu knows a lot about science, but he's not a building scientist. So he doesn't know that in some climates (like the southwest) white roofs can actually cause condensation at night time. This condensation causes rot which then means you need to rip up everything and redo it. So, it's a nice idea and it's a good thing everyone didn't follow his advice. I wasn't aware of this problem until recently and it was brought up on one of the building science podcasts I listen to totally unrelated to Chu's recommendation. Obviously he didn't know about it before going on interviews to recommend it as a low hanging fruit approach to combat global warming.

Another good intentions gone wrong example under Obama is the Ban the Box movement. I was actually wrong about this one as well. I was on board with the idea of banning the box that people sometimes have on job applications asking if you've been convicted of a crime in the past. The idea is that getting rid of the box would mean more ex-cons could get jobs if they weren't required to advertise their criminal record. Sounds well-intentioned and innocuous, right? So Obama went with a ban the box initiative for federal job applications. Unfortunately it had the opposite effect because people ended up using race as a proxy for criminality and hired whites more than blacks. "We found that on average across the U.S., in places that ban the box, employment fell by 5 percent for young black men who didnï¿½t have a college degree and by 3 percent for young Hispanic men who didnï¿½t have a college degree." oops. source.

Blacks are about 2.5-3 times as likely to be killed by a cop as a white person. They are also about 2.5-3 times as likely to be poor. They also commit about 3 times as many homicides per capita as whites. The more I look into the isolated issue of cops killing black men, the less I think it's about racism.

Here's a repeat of a podcast about implicit bias. I didn't listen to it again, but the thing I remember sticking out was that the female cop who killed the black guy wasn't worried about the fact that the guy was black, she was threatened by him because he was a big man. The bias seems obviously to be about gender in this instance. I'm not sure why we can't analyze these things a little more carefully and see that the largest bias in the criminal justice system is very clearly anti-man. There's also an anti-black bias in sentencing, but you're better off being a woman in every instance than being a man of any race. If we're talking about cops killing citizens, for example, about 95% of the victims of police homicide are men.

It's also interesting to hear that black and latino cops actually shoot blacks and latinos at a higher rate than whites. I think the Harvard study found that as well, but here's another that found no anti-black bias from whites. So it doesn't look like race of the cops is the driving issue here - it's cops and their relationship to the power and the public. "They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers." It appears as though the cops doing the killing are the ones who are in bad neighborhoods.

So, why can't we be rational about this or anything else? I just think humans aren't that good at being rational. That coupled with a failing educational system and epidemic of bad parenting and you get what we have.

Part of this is also about the messaging. I suspect that BLM doesn't think the cops issue is the #1 issue facing blacks today. Anyone who understands any of this couldn't possibly think that. But it's a splashy issue that seems to resonate with people so they use whatever works to advance the cause. So, if we ignore the facts for a bit and try not to lose the forest for the trees, I think we have to acknowledge where blacks are as a larger issue.

How much of all this is because of recent racism vs. historical racism? What concrete things need to be done to make things fair? Do we want equality of outcome or equality of opportunity under the law?

I have very little faith in the government to run any kind of programs anymore. Government is good at writing checks and printing money that our grandkids will have to pay for (or maybe not if MMT is real), so it should probably just stick to that. Don't give government (or any large entity) more power is my motto. So, government should just pay out reparations for historical racism to blacks and native americans. If there are legal inequalities that I don't know about, then those should be remedied yesterday. DC should have representation. Small population states should be properly realigned for more proportional representation. Adopt the "8 can't wait" policies. Break up the police unions like Reagan broke up the air traffic controllers union. Wherever there is a lack of accountability we need to crack down hard on anyone to set an example that we're done with people skating by. We need to fix these fundamental issues and then we can go from there.

6/14/20 (13:09)

Another police killing video. We have to acknowledge that police training isn't doing the job. Police unions should be advocating for increased training and support.

Here's a different one with a different outcome. Enforcing kind of a dumb law and the woman makes a bad situation really bad. Lesson in a lot of these cases is to not resist the police. Cops also shouldn't power trip. Once they take it to a certain level it's like they feel they have to go all the way or else lose face. Just dumb thinking all around.

Here's a podcast series I listened to a while back which is more relevant than ever.

If the NRA cares about gun ownership then they should be putting responsible gun ownership at the forefront of their platform. Instead of lobbying for the right for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be able to get a gun, maybe they should be trying to increase training and education. I went to their website to see what their priorities seem to be and I found that they think they are under attack by politicians (several references to this including a note that SF has labeled them a terrorist organization) and they are trying to appeal to women (because their president is a woman?).

6/6/20 (10:33)

Do any of the police shooting statistics adjust for class/income? Why not?

Normally I like to uphold societal norms and order, but when there's no accountability in society (as outlined below there are many areas in which accountability has broken down) then maybe there can't be order. This is another way of saying "no justice, no peace."

This is a really good time in some ways because we're all going to be doing a lot of re-evaluating our norms and structures. Should we have police anymore? What does the alternative look like? Does it make sense to give the government as much power as we give it? Should we have a better home/work balance? Can we work from home more?

On the other hand there's a lot of resentment in society that is overflowing now. Look into the Grant Napear story for one small example. Chris Webber and others calling him a known racist, but it's all only coming out now. Same thing happened during metoo. These things are suppressed and then come out in an explosion. How can people know they shouldn't be doing things if you don't tell them? Maybe Chris Webber, as star of the Kings 20 years ago, could have told Napear that he didn't like the way he acted. Maybe he did, I don't know. But there's some responsibility on you to tell others if you don't like the way they are treating you. No one can read your mind. And if they aren't checked along the way then maybe they get worse over time. Maybe Harvey Weinstein started by making little comments and then a grope here or there and then more and more because he didn't get push back.

Another example to illustrate the point without drifting into "blame the victim territory." Listening to a podcast recently and a black guy was working on a construction crew. They went to a gas station and the guy went to get something from the mini mart. A cop stops him and starts asking him questions. Meanwhile the guy's co-worker is staying by the truck watching things going down, but not intervening in any way. The cop gives the black guy a hard time, says he was looking for a suspect, asks for his ID, throws it on the ground after realizing he's not the suspect, and let's him go. The black guy comes back to the truck and his co-worker asked what happened. In retelling the story the black guy seemed almost as mad at his co-worker as he was at the cop. He was upset because the co-worker could have come over and seen what was going on if he was interested. He should have come over and asked what was up while the cop was there to help the black guy out, but he didn't and so the black guy was upset by all that. To me there's a clear cultural divide here. The co-worker's actions were pretty much exactly what I would have done. I wouldn't want to put my nose where it doesn't belong. I don't want to butt into my co-worker's business and invade his privacy. I don't want to obstruct what a police officer is doing either. But, in the black guy's eyes, his co-worker didn't have his back. He probably values loyalty over privacy. If I were in the black guy's shoes and he came over to see what the cop was saying to me I would have been embarrassed and would have wanted him to stay in the truck.

We don't know what priorities or boundaries are until people enforce them. It's your responsibility to enforce your own boundaries.

One of my employees is a Mexican guy named Moises. He's a really good guy and it's interesting to see what his priorities are. There's an apprentice we have on the crew and Moises was telling me that he told the apprentice that the most important thing on the job is...Well, why don't you ask yourself what the most important thing to keep in mind is while working for someone. Some may think it's showing up on time. Consistency. Working hard. Asking questions if you're unsure. Being safe. Compliance. Competency. There are a hundred possible answers and many of them probably cut along cultural lines. The same goes for dealing with people. Different people value different things. You can either hang out and interact with only the people who have the same values as you (looking at you on your high horses...Germany, Denmark, Sweden, etc.) or you can establish and enforce boundaries/priorities with people as you develop a relationship. This is easier when you're co-workers and much harder when you're a random guy and a cop. BTW, for Moises the most important thing was respect.

Speaking of Germany...Trump continues to be possibly the most dovish (in actual actions) president of my lifetime. Whereas Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc. expanded, or held constant, US military sway, troops, etc. it seems as though Trump is decreasing it by pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan and now Germany. Of course, just as happened when he said he was pulling out of Afghanistan, the intelligentsia was all upset about it. Again, I really don't understand these people. My entire life polite society types have complained about the overreach of US military power, but when Trump pulls troops out they say we're abandoning the Kurds. When Trump pulls out of Germany it's seen as not being committed to Europe. He talks a horrible game in this regard, but his actual actions (all I care about with him) seem to be in the right direction. It's possible I've missed something he's done, so feel free to set the record straight. Would love to hear how these reactions to actions from Trump don't comport with the long standing rhetoric from the left about wanting to limit American imperialist spread. I, for one, am happy to have fewer troops abroad.

Finally watched the George Floyd video. Really disturbing stuff. Totally unfounded for Chauvin to do what he did and Thao wasn't helping ("this is why you don't do drugs kids"). The crowd was interesting. The main guy was right on point and calling the cops out every step of the way. Then one woman said "white people" then later "it's the white, they love messing with black people." Then a white woman comes over and demands that the cops take his pulse. The main citizen guy who keeps talking throughout the video is a hero. He did everything right. When Chauvin gets killed in prison I won't shed a tear.

6/3/20 (18:04)

MMT is modern monetary theory. It's a new economic idea that states that the federal government can print money as much as it wants as long as inflation doesn't go up too much. Currently they claim that inflation is about 2%. This is one of those times where, like a horseshoe, smart people go so far in the direction of being smart that they actually are very close to being dumb. They've convinced themselves into believing in free money. Of course a normal person understands that there are basic truths in life and that one of them is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But, hey, this is what the experts think about the economy so let's use their idiocy for some good.

It's with this and George Floyd in mind that I've come around on reparations. The CEO of BET called for $14T in reparations. I don't know how he came to that number and it doesn't matter. Let's just do it. Social Security is about $1T a year. That's about 24% of our federal budget that is spent (mostly) on old people. I'm sure it benefits whites more, even though I don't have data to back it up. So, let's scrap social security and start giving all that money (and more) to blacks and native americans. I'd say $3T a year for 5 years. It's all monopoly money anyway so we may as well do something good with it. I'm willing to give up my social security to solve a problem that should have been dealt with 150 years ago. Got a better idea? Let me know.

6/2/20 (18:30)

The US isn't doing all that well these days. Cities burning, protests, looting.

I think a big problem I personally have in understanding the world and people is that I'm overly logical. I should say before getting into some of the numbers and issues that any death is a bad death. Everyone knows this. Having recently seen two dead kids, I think I know it a little better than some others. With that said, here are some numbers to put things in factual context. People say, in the time of Trump, that facts matter. Well, here are a few...

Minneapolis Chief of Police is Medaria Arradondo. He is black. According to wikipedia he ran Internal Affairs in late 2012. Derek Chauvin (who killed George Floyd) apparently has had a history of shootings and has several complaints on his record. To his credit, Arradondo fired all four officers involved in the Floyd death. So, having a black chief of police isn't an antidote for this sort of thing. But the fact that he cracked down on them quickly is exactly the response you want to see. Accountability is key.

Total police killings by year, race, and gender:

source 1. source 2. same website has it separated by race and gender on different pages. The numbers don't add up to quite the same in each category, but they're close. Whites are about 60% of population. Blacks are about 13%.

	2017	2018	2019
Male	95.4%	94.6%	95.7%
Female	4.6%	5.4%	4.3%
Black	22.5%	20.9%	23.4%
White	46.3%	40%	36.8%
Other/Unknown	31.1%	38.9%	39.7%

So, whites are the ones who are dying more than blacks as a result of police shootings. Of course, as I state above there are also more whites, so blacks are definitely being disproportionately affected. One thing I haven't heard from literally anyone on the topic of police brutality is the gender discrepancy. If you're a woman reading this just be careful how you answer why that discrepancy might exist. Hopefully you're not saying something like "well, men commit more crimes so of course they're more likely to get involved with the police and of course police are going to be more threatened by them." Be careful where that logic takes you when you start asking the same question about why blacks are disproportionately affected by this same police violence.

One Harvard study found that there was no racial bias when situation was considered. As wikipedia puts it: "A 2015 study by Harvard professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr. found that there was no racial bias in the use of lethal police force between black and white suspects in similar situations. The study did however find that blacks and Hispanics are significantly more likely to experience non-lethal use of force.[3] A 2019 paper by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar.[42] A 2016 study published in the journal Injury Prevention concluded that African Americans, Native Americans and Latinos were more likely to be stopped by police compared to Asians and whites, but found that there was no racial bias in the likelihood of being killed or injured after being stopped.[43]"

With regards to the police brutality I think it's pretty obvious that cops are too agro on the whole. Overall, they need a cultural reset to reevaluate their place in society and their overall approach. That said, I think there's a lot lost when you just criticize them without understanding. Just as blacks are getting a lot of people understanding their circumstances now, I think the same should be done for cops. We're quick to call them heroes and put them on a pedestal with words, but that's not the same as understanding. I think understanding is more important that putting people on a pedestal of any kind. Understand that they are being asked to deal with mentally ill people on a regular basis because mental health facilities are essentially gone at this point. I've written about this before on 8/13/18. Basically we're taking the mentally ill and putting them in prison/jail now - and that means they are coming in contact with the cops on a regular basis. Cops have to deal with a drug epidemic, mentally ill people, homeless people, murders, gangs, etc. Roughly 1000 times a year a person is killed by deadly police force. That's probably about 8-900 times too many. So, again, it's a bad number and I wish it were zero, but let's now look at some facts to put those numbers into some perspective:

I looked up the causes of deaths for blacks in 2017 (first year I found, not cherry picking):

If you followed the source above for the police shooting data you'll see that in the worst year a total of 235 blacks were killed by cops. That's a lot of people. It's less that 10% of the suicide number, which is the 16th most common cause of death for blacks. Interestingly, blacks don't commit suicide very much. It's the 9th most common cause for whites. The most cited theory for this that I've heard is that whites feel like if their life sucks they can't blame anyone but themselves.

The other outliers are flu (#8 for whites, #12 for blacks) and homicide (#20 for whites, #7 for blacks). I didn't dig into the methodology to see if police killings are in homicide or not. I assume they are. 90% of all homicides of black victims was perpetrated by another black person. Intraracial violence is the norm. For whites the number is 83%. Meaning of all the whites killed in 2013 only 17% were killed by non-whites. Source. Interesting that whites are more likely to be killed by the flu, but for COVID that isn't the case. Why is that?

Back to accountability. The cops who murdered Floyd were shit canned immediately and that's a step in the right direction. Hopefully the criminal justice system finds Chauvin guilty. The others could get lesser charges. I think we have a fundamental lack of accountability in our society. The Left is up in arms about this when it comes to banks. The lack of moral hazard after 2008-9 financial collapse allowed for all the people involved in that to go right back to work (albeit with new firms) and continue their b.s. Watch the Netflix documentary The Trials of Gabriel Hernandez for another example of a lack of accountability. In that case the DA actually did something unprecedented and prosecuted (unsuccessfully) social workers who failed to heed the many warnings they received about the abuse of an 8 year old which led to his death. The Right laments the power of unions and the corresponding inability to hold shitty teachers (as an example) accountable for their performance. I think they are correct about this, but they are mute on the same issue with cops. The police union and prison officers' unions are quite strong and I'm sure some of that factors into a lack of accountability for people like Chauvin who are able to have shootings on their record and continue to be out on the street. Guys like this need to be behind a desk or (better yet) off the force altogether.

I think accountability is a huge issue in our society and I'm all for it in all sectors of our society. Looters need to be held accountable, shitty cops, shitty teachers, shitty bankers, shitty USPS employees, shitty Wal-mart employees, etc. should all be fired or locked up or otherwise punished for what they've done. I've written about this before, but here it is again: the biggest factor determining whether a person will commit a crime isn't the severity of the punishment, it's the likelihood of receiving a punishment. Cops, prosecutors, etc. need to work on increasing that number. Prosecutors are an under-rated part of our society. They carry a heavy responsibility. They should be going for smaller sentences for more people to make the point that crimes will be punished. A little anecdote about this is that I took a picture of a guy dumping in a common dumping area near our house. I sent the picture (with his license plate) and an eyewitness account to the dumping hotline contact. Didn't hear anything. Emailed again and got a phone call. Told the woman what I saw and said my wife also saw it and we'd go to court or do whatever she needed to prosecute. Didn't hear back for weeks. Emailed again. She emailed that she was working on it. Never heard back from her. The message is clear: they don't care. You can dump trash in the city of Oakland and nothing will happen. Of course people know this, which is why the streets look the way they do.

The civil unrest component of this is actually something I though was going to happen a month or two ago because of the shut down order. I guess people got checks and were busy enough that it didn't happen earlier.

Trump (as always) is at the center of this stuff and I (as always) don't think we should put him there. In this case (especially) he can do, and has done, very little. People think the president is some kind of dictator...thankfully that's not what the position is about. Police departments are a local issue. It has nothing to do with the federal government. When you get rioting then you can potentially get the Feds involved, but that hasn't happened yet (surprisingly). If you don't like the way the police are acting then you need to speak with your chief of police and mayor. Feds aren't going to get involved unless there's some kind of pattern of civil rights violations or something.

As best I can tell here are the total police killings by year: 2015 was 1,134. 2016 was 962. 2017 was 987. 2018 was 996. 2019 was 1004. I don't see much of a pattern there. Under Obama it was higher than it's ever been under Trump. I think logically and according to the data, it's safe to say that this isn't a president/Trump issue.

Long story short, cops shouldn't be killing as many people as they do. They kill whites more than they kill blacks, but blacks are disproportionately affected. This is part of a larger cultural problem within the policing community. Police have a tough job, but it's not an excuse. We need to support cops and mentally ill more by doing something about our mental health response. Looters aren't helping anything. Mostly criminals looking for an excuse since they're out of work, bored, probably shitty people. Accountability needs to be meted out more equally or the people who feel slighted are going to fuck shit up. From a numbers standpoint, this isn't that big of an issue. But we over reacted to 9/11 and maybe we'll overreact to this. It's not the biggest issue blacks face, but it's easy because it's so obviously wrong.

Understanding eliminates fear. I think that goes with racism as well as anything else. I think it also applies to guns. All the people I've talked to who are opposed to guns know very very little about guns. They probably haven't fired them, they don't know how they work, etc. I remember being afraid of the table saw the first time I saw it. I didn't understand how it worked. I heard about kick back and fingers getting cut off, but I hadn't ever used one (this was in junior high wood shop). Now I have a healthy respect for table saws. I know their power. I know how they can be used properly and I know what not to do. With increased understanding has come a calm and even handed outlook on a tool that can inflict great damage.

30 years ago more than half the country owned a gun. Today it's down to about a third of the country. Go back far enough and that percentage was probably close to 90%. As gun ownership and gun exposure has decreased so has the interest in regulating and even banning them. To the point where now we've officially had a major party candidate who outright called for taking guns away from gun owners.

The Alt-Right has actually been right about two things over the last few years, and I think we should be alarmed by this: 1. they were right when they said liberals would try to take their guns. Beto O'Rourke campaigned on this in the Democratic Primary in 2019. 2. They were right when they said there would be race riots in the streets. I think you could potentially debate this since there's not a lot of whites attacking blacks or vise versa, but between the looting and rioting now around racial issues and the Charlottesville fiasco, I think the Alt-Right was correct enough on these two big things that I would have called them crazy for predicting a few years ago. Depressing.

5/24/20 (16:28)

More COVID complaining.

Most of the cases and deaths are in the NE, as I wrote about below. Most of the cases within CA are in the south (LA, Riverside and SD county are the only counties with more than 200 deaths). So, why do the other counties or states need to continue lockdown?

Some of you may be old enough to remember the concept of "peak oil," which was taught for a long time. I remember worrying about it when I was younger. And yet, here we are with oil futures going into the negative. Even before COVID oil prices were very low. So, when are we going to be at peak oil? I thought it had already happened. Of course the same smart people who predicted this will point out that new technologies changed things. Well, that's my point in a nutshell. New technology always changes things.

As stated before I'm quite interested in accurate predictions. I think telling the future is extremely important and very few can do it well. I like Nate Silver of 538 a lot, but, to some extent, what he does isn't all that impressive. Since they constantly revise their models to include new information, their predictions are constantly changing. I understand why this is and accept it, but I think the most impressive and useful thing is to extend that ability to tell the future out farther into the past.

It's relatively easy for someone to predict the death of a cancer patient who has started a death rattle. It's far more useful and impressive to predict a death of that same person before anyone even knows they have cancer. We need to be able to do the latter. And that's effectively what these models for a population bomb or peak oil or global warming are all attempting...long term predictions based upon nothing changing. Somewhat useful, yes, but often wrong.

With things like COVID and global warming I think the difference is that we are actually acting to fix those as a result of these models/predictions. There wasn't much as robust of a response to change the world after the population bomb prediction or after people predicted peak oil. Instead those problems have largely solved themselves through natural innovation in oil exploration and the fact that richer societies naturally reproduce at a lower rate, so as countries get more rich they reproduce less. China being the exception here with their one child policy. COVID predictions and global warming predictions could be off quite a bit as the response has been decent (global warming) to robust (COVID).

Philip Tetlock is very interesting to me as he's on the cutting edge of all this stuff. Pundit tracker seemed like a good thing at the time, but I don't think it ever got off the ground.

A brief timeline according to Wikipedia:

1/8 CDC issues public alert about coronavirus

1/9 WHO names new disease in Wuhan

1/22 First question from press to Trump about virus. He shrugs it off.

1/23 The WHO recommended that: "[A]ll countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with [the] WHO."

1/24 the U.S. Senate was briefed on the coronavirus by key health officials. U.S. Senators Richard M. Burr, Kelly Loeffler, Dianne Feinstein, and James Inhofe allegedly sold stock thereafter, prior to significant declines in the stock market. In Senator Loeffler's case, the sales began the same day as the briefing. All denied any wrongdoing, citing various reasons. Senator Burr faced calls for his resignation.

1/31 Trump administration suspended entry into the United States by any foreign nationals who had traveled to China in the past 14 days, excluding the immediate family members of American citizens or permanent residents.

2/6 57-year-old Patricia Dowd of San Jose, California became the first Covid-19 death in the United States

2/6 CDC began sending 90 of its own viral detection tests to state-run labs which discovered the tests were inadequate and viral samples had to be shipped to the Atlanta CDC lab instead.

2/22 I watch Outbreak

2/23 I watch Contagion

3/1 South Korea recommends staying indoors and to not attend events.

3/1 In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo announces the state's first reported case of COVID-19: a woman in her late 30s, who apparently contracted the virus while traveling in Iran and is self-isolating at home, in New York City.

3/2 The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that it has increased the risk level from moderate to high for people in the European Union

3/9 Italy calls for country wide quarantine and riots ensue.

3/11 is the day the NBA postponed their season. Trump announced all travel from Europe (except UK) would be banned. WHO also declared COVID a pandemic that day.

3/12 biggest single day drop in stock market since 1987.

3/13 Trump called COVID a national emergency.

3/14 North Carolina: All schools ordered to close for two weeks. Governor Roy Cooper also issued an executive order to prevent mass gathering

3/15 New York City mayor DeBlasio announces New York City public schools, the largest public school system in the country, will close starting Monday, March 16

3/16 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti ordered all bars, movie theaters, gyms and fitness centers closed, and for restaurants to limit themselves to take-out and delivery only.

3/17 SF called for shelter in place order

3/18 Oregon Governor Kat Brown issues executive order extending the closure of K–12 public schools until April 28.

3/19 California: The state has ordered the closure of all museums, malls and other all non-essential workplaces effective March 20 11:59 p.m. All 40 million citizens in the state are ordered to stay home. More than 900 state residents have been infected and 19 have died

3/23 Michigan: Governor Whitmer issued a stay-at-home order to go into effect at midnight on March 24 and last until April 13.

3/25 Stimulus bill passed.

Notice that the first death in the US was on 2/6. The first case in NY was 3/1. Cuomo, who is supposedly doing a great job, didn't exactly use the time between 2/6 and 3/1 to prepare well.

I also have to point out that Newsom is supposed to be a maverick. He took on the Feds with gay marriage when he was mayor of SF. If he was so clairvoyant on COVID why didn't he take charge earlier? Instead he closed down non-essential workplaces 6 days after Trump called COVID a national emergency. He runs the 5th largest economy in the world and he's a super genius and an amazing leader...why didn't he work with private enterprise to build more ventilators or get more masks or tests? Why didn't he work with neighboring states sooner to buy masks and testing supplies in bulk?

How is my Monday morning quarterbacking Newsom different from the Monday morning quarterbacking others do with Trump? Please explain.

It seems like February was largely squandered by the CDC. They issued a test of their own (rejecting those from other countries because that's what they've always done and it's always worked in the past), and it didn't work. This was a major blunder and setback in retrospect. Trump has never been on the ball and never will be. However, he did call COVID a national emergency before any governors did anything of substance, as far as I can tell.

This timeline is kinda interesting, though it uses cases instead of deaths and that's very limiting since cases depends more upon testing. It shows that South Korea and the US got COVID pretty close to each other and that the US actually took measures before anyone else...though, in true Trump style, it was travel restrictions that were done before anything else. He's good at restricting travel and he actually got flack for it, but, in retrospect, it was probably a good move that most won't give him credit for. He did that on 1/31. If he had been as strong in other ways and as early then we'd be in a different situation now.

5/24/20 (07:39)

I forgot perhaps the best example of someone being made for a moment and rising to the occasion and that is Slumdog Millionaire. That's actually a perfect example.

COVID is still the big news of the day. The death toll numbers are a lot less than I originally speculated, but this is because the response has been a lot more than I thought possible. So, that's good news in a way. However, the economy, mental health, etc. have suffered as a result of the extreme measures taken by most governments.

Long story short, I think we're beyond the point where we need to start allowing more people back to work. The government doesn't seem to understand choice anymore. You can inform the public and then allow them to make their own decisions based upon the curated information you give them. This assumes that you think the public is comprised of adults that are capable of making their own decisions and worthy of determining their own outcome in life. Sadly, I don't think most people in the ruling class think this is an option anymore.

I talk a lot about the elites. I use different terms for them, but they are largely all referring to the same class of people: intelligensia, polite society, ruling class, elite, influencers, etc. These are the people who are college educated. They run the government. They run business. They run the media. They determine what we're talking about in the news most days and they frame the discussions.

Originally our COVID response was about flattening the curve. That meant, at one time, to spread the infections out over time so as to not overwhelm the healthcare system. With an overwhelmed healthcare system people would die because they wouldn't have enough access to doctors, equipment, etc. Ventilators were extremely important. Cuomo asked for 30,000 ventilators from the federal government and complained when he got 400. Masks were discouraged and we were told that they wouldn't do anything. I remember one expert pointing out that the virus is smaller than the mask could filter. Those were the original instructions.

Later the story became that masks are helpful, but should be reserved for healthcare professionals. Then the story became masks are mandatory everywhere you go.

Later we found out that ventilators weren't as helpful or necessary as originally thought and people are actually getting them if needed. I don't see Cuomo asking for 30,000 ventilators anymore, for example. other examples. here. here.

These are the reasons why I have pointed out before that during emergencies you can't rely on the government. Take what they say with a grain of salt. They are saying things to calm the public, not to actually help you as an individual.

Now we're beyond flattening the curve and onto complete suppression. It's actually quite amazing and depressing to see otherwise smart people swept up into this out of fear. They haven't noticed the moving of the goal posts. They haven't looked at the actual death rate numbers from primary sources. Remember day one in essay writing when the teacher told you to use primary sources? Don't write about what the pundits say about an event, write about the actual facts of the event. In this case, the actual facts are the deaths, hospitalizations, etc. If people are scared by the actual 0.5-0.7% mortality rate then that's fine. But what people are actually scared by is some yucky pictures of sick people or stories about Tom Hanks getting COVID and Roy Horn dying. People don't know that 50% of US deaths are in the tri-state area. They don't know that 75% of deaths are those who are 65+ years old. Perhaps our responses should target these areas and populations?

Does anybody remember the stat from The Big Short wherein Brad Pitt's character is saying that for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate 40k people die? That was the kind of thinking that was prevalent when the economic crisis was the result of rich bankers. Planet Money editor Adam Davidson fact checked the movie and he said that the stat was true enough (on an episode of More or Less podcast), but couldn't be 100% verified. Where are those people now that the unemployment rate is twice what it was at the height of the Great Recession? Why aren't more people talking about the mental, emotional, and economic effects of shuttering large parts of the economy for so long? Crickets...because it's not convenient to have a nuanced conversation about COVID.

As is true with most things these days this has all now become not just politicized, but partisan. So, if you want to reopen the economy then you support Trump. If you want to rigidly reinforce social distancing and mask wearing then you're with the scientists. It's idiotic thinking that puts all this stuff into the binary, but that's where we are.

Another thing...the epidemiologists seem to be running the response to this stuff, which is nice if the only thing that matters is the virus, but it's not. Maybe economists and psychologists and other scientists should have more of a say in determining how we react. Sure, from an epidemiological point of view the best response is for everyone to stay put for as long as possible until we get a vaccine, but maybe there are other things to consider?

Lastly, we got a payment from the government for some reason. All the information I saw indicated that we weren't eligible, and yet a check came in the mail. I'm amazed by how much shitty information is out there. That, or the government fucked up an gave us money for no reason. Either way, this is a total shit show.

5/8/20 (22:41)

Yesterday was pretty rough.

Worked from home the first half of the day and then left to go to SF to hang some lights for a job Meryl got. Coasting along 580 at 80mph when things came to a sudden stop. As I looked ahead of me it was apparent that there was some kind of disturbance up ahead. I saw a few people running around on the highway and I initially thought it was some debris in the road. I worked my way through the traffic pretty quickly trying to get around it as soon as possible and as I got closer I saw that it was a pretty big crash. Must have just happened because traffic was down to a single lane and it was moving very slowly - in part because a minivan had their camera out the window taking pictures/video while slowly driving past the crash. Must have just happened and here's what I saw:

I honked at the minivan twice to move along for a few reasons. I didn't think them taking pictures was essential to anything that was going on at that point. And I also saw several guys around the car trying to open the door and wanted to get out to help. They had a large digging bar pried between the jamb and door, which was a good idea, but I also knew that I had more tools in my car that could potentially help.

I stopped ahead of the crash and went up to the car to look at what was going on. The guys there seemed to be focusing on the back door which was stuck in place and in really bad shape. The girl (about 8) was breathing and bloody. In the front seat there was a boy (10?) who wasn't moving and no one seemed to be paying attention to him. I looked at the back door and saw the door lock was still engaged with the latch. You know the kind:

And even with the solid steel pry bar (I have one at home and they are no joke) they weren't getting it unlocked. The guys there were yanking on the door 2-3 at a time and it just wasn't opening. I ran to my car, grabbed a battery, reciprocating saw, and new metal blade and ran back to cut the latch. Got through it pretty quickly and they got the girl out.

I went to the front seat and looked at the boy again. I didn't see his chest moving at all. I checked for a pulse. I pressed on his arm to see if there was any perfusion. I didn't get anything and he was really pinned in there. I went to the other side of the car and looked at him from the driver side. I saw it was going to be pretty tough to get him out. He was twisted and bent in such a horrible way. I saw his left arm was clearly broken.

Next to the car I saw what I presumed was the mother/driver on the ground. A lady was holding her head down in what appeared to be an effort to stabilize her neck. The mother was crying and I can only describe it as agony. The woman was holding her head and preventing her from getting up. She kept telling the mom not to get up. "I care about you too much to let you get up." Another woman was telling her to keep breathing.

I looked inside the minivan - it was empty.

I went back to the girl and people were doing something with her on the ground. I don't really remember what. I collected my tools since I had dumped my blades on the ground to find a fresh one meant for cutting metal. I looked up again and the cops were on site and doing CPR on the girl. I'm sad to say that this is when it first occurred to me that she probably wasn't going to make it. I remember a podcast wherein they talked to various doctors and they all pretty much agreed that they didn't want CPR performed on them because so few people make it back and it often breaks your ribs, etc. Seeing it being performed on a little girl...I can tell you it's not pretty.

I looked at the boy again and the cops were working on getting him out by cutting the seat belt. They got him out and there were EMTs on site by this time.

I stood back for a minute and realized my job was done and I was probably not being helpful anymore so I should probably leave, so that's what I did. As I did more Highway Patrol, Fire, and EMT vehicles were coming up the freeway (the wrong way, from the next exit down the line).

So, this is the first time I've seen a dead body (other than funerals). First time I've seen someone die. Turns out the kids were 8 and 13. article here. Apparently there was one more kid in the car with them. If they were anything like my kids they argued about who got to sit in the front seat or the back or behind mom or whatever. The one behind mom got to live. The one in the front probably died pretty quickly and the one in the rear passenger seat got to live for a few minutes probably not really understanding what was happening to her as strangers were trying to get her out of the car. Confused about where her mom was and what had just happened.

I've seen a lot people die online. I vividly remember seeing Nick Berg die online in 2004. It was jarring. But there's definitely a difference between seeing deaths online and seeing an 8 year old die.

So for the last couple days I've thought a lot about it. I wish I was there sooner. For all intents and purposes I had the key to open the door and maybe things would have been different if I had gotten there earlier. At the same time I regret being so calm. It's a double edged sword because I know some people who would just freak the fuck out if they came into that situation. On the other hand, I regret not understanding how dire of a situation it was more quickly. I remember looking for a pulse and perfusion and not getting any positive results. My reaction to this was partly to think that the boy was dead, but a bigger part of me thought I wasn't doing it right. I took a CERT class last year so I know some things, but I'm not expert enough to trust my findings.

I keep going over it in my head. I did some things right and there were other things I wish I had done.

I wish I had honked more aggressively to get to the accident more quickly and clear out the looky loos.

I wish I had acted more proactively to get the boy out.

I wish I had gotten my blood clotting sponge and applied it to the girl. I sorta doubt she died because of blood loss, but it occurred to me later that maybe that was part of it.

I wish I had gone into the "life or death" head space more quickly.

I wish I had told the other people on the scene that they did a good job trying to help.

I wish I had hugged the little girl.

On the positive side I stayed calm. I had fully charged batteries. I had brand new metal cutting blades. In those ways my preparation paid off. I properly assessed what would open the door and got it open pretty quickly. I checked on others on the site. I left when I was no longer needed.

Nothing any of us did saved any lives. A lot of people were there trying to help and none of it mattered, in a way. None of our efforts saved those lives, and that's probably the most important thing. Sure, we can all live knowing we did our best. We all know that next time someone else will probably be there to help us and maybe things will turn out differently. But, this time, none of it mattered.

One idea that really resonates with me is the idea of a person finding what they are perfect for. Relatedly, the idea of a person accumulating knowledge towards no known purpose only to some day find that they actually have the precise knowledge that is needed.

Some movies/stories with these ideas:

Wee Gillis

Signs

Karate Kid

Taken

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Die Hard

It's kind of a right person at the right time theme. In Wee Gillis it's about a kid who learns all these seemingly disparate skills only to find out that they come together perfectly for something that he happens to fall in love with (being a bag pipe player). In Karate Kid it's learning all the individual, seemingly unconnected, skills that just happen to make him great at karate. In Taken and Die Hard it's about a guy who has just the right set of skills for the moment that he finds himself in.

I've always hoped that some day all that I've done and accumulated in life will come together for a single great purpose. I think being a dad is the closest thing I've gotten to that. At some point I started looking at my collection of movies and CDs and wondering if I should get rid of them. I'll never watch them enough times to have made it worth the money. However, now my kids have a pretty well curated, free, and vast library of movies and music to explore for the next 20+ years that they will care about/have time for such things.

4/13/20 (11:10)

There's a pandemic that I've been wanting to discuss for a while now. It's the pandemic of shitty parenting. I see far too many people who weren't taught that shitty behavior isn't acceptable. Or people who were never taught the basic life lessons like there's no such thing as a free lunch, or if it's too good to be true then it's probably too good to be true, or buyer beware, or any number of aesop's fables type stuff that religion, storytelling, science, and common sense have all passed down through the generations. If people have been saying a thing for 2,000 years then maybe it's worth listening to and understanding. Maybe it's a thing that should be thought about extremely thoroughly before discarding. Maybe it's a thing that you should pass onto the next generation.

On the internet there are countless examples of people doing shitty things because they think they won't face any repercussions. Or they rent a video like the new Trolls movie and then give it a 1 star review, not because the movie was bad, but because they didn't like the price/terms of the rental. Here are a couple representative samples of such reviews (which make up the majority of the 1 star reviews [which in turn make up 28% of all the reviews of the movie]):

"Im not spending $20 only to have the video for 48 hours. Only to have my kids want to watch it again at hour mark 50. If i wanted to hear them cry about something id just make them dinner, which would be cheaper than that!"
"I understand they're charging a rental fee because it was due to be released in theaters, and now there's a virus. I have way too many young kids (3) that love trolls and can't sit quietly through anything, though. I've even got one that plays the most terrifying game of run-hide-watch-panic during every single public outing. I never would have seen this in the theater. I would, however, have paid $20, maybe even $30, to own this movie.
Renting it for $20 for a 48 hour period actually is a complete insult to parents with young fans. Why release it early at all? Way to show how incredibly greedy you can be! Especially during a time when our kids could use some new troll songs and I could use 5 minutes to make some coffee and scream into a pillow. It really is impressive."

These are people who don't understand basic concepts that are critical to a functioning society. Amazon posts the rules and prices very clearly before you rent the video. I know because I rented it. They give the price. They say how long you will have access to the video (30 days). They say how long you will have access to the video once you start playing it (48 hours). Given these three pieces of information people still find a way to be upset and feel that the world owes them even more. The problem isn't that Amazon (or the film studio - which really is in charge) is allowing access to the film for a short period of time, or that they are charging "a lot," it's that your kids are brats. Tell your kids that they will only have access for two days. Tell your kids not to be shit heads. If they are shit heads then teach them not to be shitty in the future. You don't, however, have the right to blame all the shitty behavior by you and your kids on a movie studio releasing a film online during a global pandemic. Get the fuck over yourself.

This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder about things like free healthcare for all and free college and free housing. These people will continually be unhappy and always feel like they are owed more from life.

Life is suffering. Life is difficult. "Life is nasty brutish and short." Any reprieve you get from that is a blessing. Anything you can do to shorten the suffering is great. Don't get into this head space that the world, businesses, government, others, owe you an easy, carefree life. Everyone is entitled (I use that world sparingly) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that sums it up very well. You are owed basic human respect and you should give it to others. You are owed freedom. You are owed the ability to freely pursue your own happiness as long as it doesn't impinge upon others in an undue way. But you are not entitled to a bunch of freebies or to go wherever you want or to get everything you want on your terms.

What's with people not being able to understand basic rules of an exchange? There seems to be a strong erosion of things like consent and exchange these days. If there's a complicated document like a mortgage or a TOS from some B.S. software then that's a different story because a lot of legalese hides a lot of sins, but a basic transaction like renting a movie shouldn't elicit 28% negative ratings based upon nagging kids for fuck's sake.

Two separate NPR sources have the COVID outbreak peaking in CA a month apart. Taken the same day. One is a story on NPR.org which says a peak of mid April (like all the other sources I've seen) and one is a KQED podcast covering Newsom who thinks it's going to peak in mid May. So, this guy is Mr. Science...governor of CA, big Democrat, and yet he's got a totally different story of when the peak is going to be. Where are his sources on this? If the Republicans weren't totally out to lunch as a party then this is the kind of shit that would get some play. Instead the Republicans are so clueless and stupid that you just need to be mildly stupid to compete.

It's like the anti-science people on the left with their fear of vaccines, contrails, smart meters, 5G, cell phones, etc., but they get relatively ignored because the anti-science people on the right are two times as dumb.

3/11/20 (21:36)

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 me.

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 liberties.

3/8/20 (21:43)

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 fitting.

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 you couldn't.

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.

2/7/20 (21:00)

Been catching up on a lot of webpage stuff lately. Fixing bad links and finally updated all the archives, movies list, movie reviews, best of decade, and top ten lists. Asked for a bunch of people to give me their best of the decades lists. Most didn't participate, but what I got is updated on the best of decade list.

1/16/20 (23:24)

been staying up late the last couple weeks trying to catch up on 6 years of neglect on the movie side of the webpage. reviewing movies and doing a ton of data entry to get things where they used to be. still a ton of work to do.

impeachment trial starting. basically a dog and pony show. not sure what this will accomplish. maybe it'll knock him down a peg in the eyes of the marginal voter. maybe it'll tarnish him a bit. or maybe the low information voter will hear about impeachment, see that he's still the president and then figure that it wasn't that big a deal and that the democrats were just pissed because he's trying to change washington. lots of ways it can turn out.

media is stirring shit up between warren and bernie. the media is just perpetually stirring shit.

not sure i've updated about the business lately. we're up to 3 full time skilled guys and 1 part-time office assistant. drowning in opportunity and not really sure what to pursue. development deals are the easiest from a dealing with customers perspective, but they are hard to get. quick turns for income properties are the same deal. small renovations for homeowners are fine, but require more hand holding and trouble. working in an occupied home is always more work and headache and homeowners are more picky about every little detail. handyman jobs for property management companies can be really easy money and great for fill in work when waiting on inspections, other trades, materials to arrive, etc., but don't pay the bills overall. also can be a time suck when a small job turns into a 3 visit deal, trying to find the right part, etc. plus, tenants can be worse than homeowners because they can be very picky and they're no paying so they don't care about your time. scheduling is a pain also. but, again, if you have 3 jobs lined up to change out some light bulbs, adjust a couple doors or install some smoke alarms then i could work 4 hours and get the same pay as 8, so it's a double edged sword.

more of my time is managing projects, providing supplies and tools, setting standards, coordinating, lining up more work, etc. meryl does most of the bookkeeping and invoicing.

overall happy with how things are going in that arena. i always figured that if i made $50k/year that i'd be rolling in dough. now we pay almost that much in childcare. and almost that much in our mortgage. and more than that in taxes. it's amazing how expensive living here is. of course it doesn't help when you get $13k in tools stolen.

wonder about the long run. employees come and go. i'm getting older and this is a young man's game. basically trying to make as much money as i can while i can. take care of my employees the best i can and hope they stick around. had to let ethan go because he was having so many problems and didn't seem too eager to get back to work. still hurts thinking about it. wish it had turned out differently, but you can't change people.

it's a rare thing when people change. overall, people just have a certain way of looking at life and that's how they are. short facing death, people pretty much tend to follow the rules of inertia. the success of any venture is mostly about the casting. i think kurosawa said that most of the work of making a film was in who you cast. get the right people and the rest sorts itself out.

according to a study people would rather have $17 today than $100 in a year. they would rather have $10 today than $30 in a week. found this study on the happiness lab podcast. these are objectively idiotic decisions. it's found money and people are turning away a 6x return on their money in a year or a 3x return in a week. and it's found money so it's not even like an investment where you're out the $17 or $10. these are the same people who are complaining about being broke all the time. they're the same people who can't come up with $400 in a month if they need to (study i heard on NPR). they're the same people who make six figures and couldn't come up with $500 (another article, which i can't find, but take my word for it).

in life there are things you can't control like the economy moving up or down, the things you are born to be good at, the family you're born into, etc., but most of your life is in your hands and when you're making shit decisions like foregoing a 3x or 6x return on your money...there's not much sympathy coming from me.

1/7/20 (21:17)

spent the last few nights working constantly on updating my movies webpage. i haven't updated it at all since last january so there's a lot of catching up to do.

also been working on my yearly best of lists (which i haven't done since zoe was born) and my best of the decade list (made harder since i didn't keep up on the yearly lists).

also been working on organizing the garage and getting little jobs knocked out.

also had the crew over last week and again tomorrow to help me with my deck. should be able to get most of it finished tomorrow with just the stairs and railing left to complete.

not really a new year's resolution per se, but having a few days off has helped kick start this stuff at home and the end of year/decade stuff just comes with the timing.

hopefully we'll have the deck done by the end of the month and then we can move onto the bathroom.

having the garage more organized has really been nice. finally built my worktable base and been cleaning up a lot of clutter and labeling things.

doing so many different kinds of work means i have so many different tools and materials...it all just takes up a ridiculous amount of space.

for the past year my biggest real concern with Trump has been on the Iran issue. it looks like he's really ramping this shit up and it's legitimately worrying because it'll probably be effective in rallying the votes. I'm not real hopeful that this will shake out well for us.

There's been a noticeable rise of the use of the word "y'all" in the last five years or so. I see it a lot on the internet and hear people saying it more and more. It used to be made fun of as a southern thing, but not it appears to be ubiquitous. Vern says it's gender neutral so maybe that's why it's more popular. "You all" or "you" are also gender neutral. "You guys" isn't technically, but I always considered it neutral, just like "dude" is often neutral. Times are changing I guess.

Is it possible to be a transnational person? Transgender is a thing. Transracial is sort of a thing. Can someone say that they feel like they should have been Japanese because they like anime and Japanese culture? They don't feel comfortable in their own country. Their own culture feels repulsive to them. They hate America because it bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they wish America was gone and that they lived in Japan. Should the UN allow these people citizenship to wherever they feel they truly belong? Just like many can't envision a world in 100 years where transgender people aren't accepted as their preferred gender, can you really envision a world in the future that still has borders? I await my Nobel prize.

In order to defeat Trump I think you have to attack him as a rich elitist who is out of touch with the common man. He doesn't care about the working class. Instead it seems that the Democratic party is obsessed with issues of race and gender. If they lose I think they'll have to take a hard look at the factions of the party that chose identity politics and socialist policies over common sense economic appeals to the working class. I heard recently, and I think it make sense, that Americans don't like Democrats or Republicans, but they fear the Democrats just a bit more because they are typically the ones who are doing things to the public. Whether it's 100% true or not doesn't matter so much as the appearance that the Democrats are the party of bigger government and government programs. Those things mean more taxes, more laws, more restrictions, more changes, etc. Democrats have a long way to go to reform their image. Meanwhile Republicans still have the image of less government is better. Their image should be more of a dumpster fire, but the less government thing seems to be more sticky right now.

Native born Americans seem to compare their lives to the life of the average German. Recent American immigrants compare their lives to the life of the average person living in the native country. The recent immigrant is much more thankful. The native person is much more entitled and likely to complain about all the things they don't have. Working with immigrants is a much better experience. I've worked with both kinds of people and, generally speaking, people who are new here are hard workers who want to take advantage of the opportunity the country offers. People who were born here are much more likely to whine about every little microaggression, Karen in accounting, not getting post-partum massages for free, etc. Whiny little bitches. Send more immigrants and ship some of the lazy native born people to Germany. Fine by me. My criteria for immigrants is that they work hard and respect the laws and culture that is here. Other than that I don't think I care much.

Not sure if you heard about this debate in SF, but it centers around a mural that depicts Native Americans as slaves under George Washington. I really don't understand how people are offended by this...here's what the NYT said: "But to Amy Anderson, a member of the Ahkaamaymowin band of Métis who has been a catalyst in the campaign to remove the murals, they represent American history from the colonizers perspective."" and "Virginia Marshall, president of the San Francisco Alliance of Black School Educators said Arnautoffs paintings remind her of my great-great grandfather and great-great grandmother who were beaten and hung from trees and told they were less than human. Paloma Flores, a member of the Pit-River Nation and coordinator of the schools Indian Education Program, said Arnautoffs intent no longer matters. The murals glorify the white mans role and dismiss the humanity of other people who are still alive, she said. Joely Proudfit, director of the California Indian Culture and Sovereignty Center in San Marcos, said it is not worth saving the art if one native student is triggered by that."

So that's the argument I guess, but I heard one person talking about it and found their quote to be rather funny. He said that he "knows the horrors of slavery first hand from the stories his father told him." So, it sounds like he knows the horrors of slavery second hand (at least). These aren't rational arguments. These are feelings expressed by people who are overly sensitive, but we have to take everyone seriously lest we upset them. Inmates are running the asylum when you have kids telling administrators to destroy or cover up 100 year old murals because they show George Washington as a murderer and slave owner...because THAT ISN'T WOKE ENOUGH. haha, I've seen everything now.