Blog Comments and Brain Death

This is the kind of stupid shit we get when I open up blog comments to just anyone.  Read this, it was posted two years ago.  

The point is, they may use words like "statistical" but I doubt they know what it means.  My guess is that this could be a Russian troll or an American Republican.  In the latter case, they are just being stupid.  In the former case it is sad that American counter intelligence has failed to protect us.

One Republican Strategy for Containing Kamala and Defeating Democracy

Since Kamala Harris is doing well against her opponent, the convicted felon and known abuser of women, Republicans have been working on strategies in case Trump loses the election and can not steal it, as they are certainly planning to do.

My summary of at least one of their strategies is as follows:

First win a majority in the Senate.  With the resignation of Senator Manchin they believe they have a good chance of either winning a 50-50 position or even a 51-49 position.  If they do the latter, they can tie up any legislation and control senate investigations.  According to a survey prediction by thehill.com, the Republicans are favored to win the Senate.

Second, win a majority in the House.  Again, they are favored to win the House of Representatives.

Third, they overwhelmingly control the Supreme Court which has demonstrate a willingness to violate any standard of law or precedence to support extreme Republican positions.

With these three things, or even two of them, the Republicans are confident they can "contain" Kamala Harris and defeat any attempt to improve the country or act in the nation's interest.  Then they can use this to go for the presidency in 2028.

Therefore, although defeating Trump is obviously the highest priority, winning the House and the Senate are essential if we are to do more than just prevent Trump from destroying the country.  We need both houses in order to move the country forward.  And even then, the nation must deal with the right wing and lawless former Supreme Court, something the Democrats, at least, have proven unwilling to do so far.

Republican zombie horde attempting to climb the Statue of Liberty

Anarchy, Oligarchy and Tyranny c/o The Financial Times

The Financial Times has a good article on the failure of the American Republic using analogies to the Greek political science terms of anarchy vs oligarchy vs tyranny.  You can read the entire article here (although it may be behind a paywall).

https://www.ft.com/content/a7eea0af-bf9f-4635-812b-271c30620e72

Here are two paragraphs that I thought were entertaining:

The anarchy can seem fun, at least for a while. With some luck, chaos can bring political fruit. At a convention, where one spectacle soon displaces the next, these different guises of democratic collapse can give one another cover. The strongman act of Trump and Vance distracts from their blatant dependence on the wealthy. Their threat to deport migrants shrouds the reality that none of the relevant oligarchs was born in the US, that Trump married two migrants and that Vance married the daughter of migrants.

In practice, though, the Republicans’ anti-republic is contradictory. The different variants of repression can be equally celebrated so long as they are all directed against an imagined enemy. But the plan to fire tens of thousands of civil servants (anarchy) would get in the way of deporting millions of people (tyranny). As the billionaires claim power ever more openly (oligarchy), they put pressure on the aspiring authoritarians who are supposed to be the strongmen (tyranny). The people who want a strongman don’t want him to be a puppet. Signs of strain were certainly evident at the convention. 

Image courtesy of MidJourney

Is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution Real?

A recent editorial by Turley in thehill.com argues that of course the 14th amendment is not relevant or in current use.  I dont expect Republicans to agree with me on much, but I dont appreciate it when they insult my intelligence.  And this has larger implications.

I wonder if I am just being overly precious about what is standard debating / rhetorical technique. I find it offensive that a republican that has been so very adament about "original intent" and "every word is precious in the constitution" would then with a straight face say "oh, that 14th amendment, ha ha, they werent serious". When in fact they were very serious, the clause is to our amazement completely relevant to the current situation. But these are republicans which means that they have no credibility when it comes to actually defending and supporting this country (see two impeachment fails to convict, there will never be a better case for impeachment in our lifetimes). The conclusion I reached long ago is that it does not matter what arguments a Republican makes, they arent serious, they are just lying to steal the money. Well, OK, nobody's perfect, but this is a very dangerous situation and this kind of glib bullshit reinforces the belief that the Republican party is the enemy of this country and must be removed from any critical political and judicial position. There is no point in compromising with these people. They are literally the enemy just as much as, for example, Vlad Putin is.

A corollary of this is that whenever a "democrat" says "bipartisan", I think "traitor". There is no point in compromising with fascists, they are just stalling for advantage.

Trump, Rape, Republicans, Ethics

 

Which is worse: having a candidate who is a known rapist or failing to act on that knowledge and disqualify the miscreant?  

I was not really aware that Trump is a serial rapist and abuser of women until recently.  I thought he was just an entitled jerk who said stupid things when the microphone was on ("grab them by the pussy").  But no, there are no less than 26 women who have brought complaints against him and the things they complain about is not an off-color comment in the work place. I suppose we should give him credit for being honest about his abuse, i.e. he literally meant "grab them by the pussy" but it makes me very unhappy.

We have a lot of abused women, we have a Republican party that could not be honest or ethical to save their life, we have a jerk who became president of this country because the electorate supported a known rapist, a justice system that couldn't commit justice in even an extreme case, and a news media that could not be bothered to remind people that Trump is a rapist.  

Its extremely clear that our system of government is failing the people and that we have a lot of citizens who are either severely deluded or so blinded by their lust for power that they are willing to ignore the clearest evidence.

Its so boring.

Here is a good article from The New Yorker that goes over the abuse of women in more detail.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women

How to Understand Republican Arguments

draft

I have an approach to help understand and interpret something a Republican says in favor or against some proposition.  For example, a Republican might say that abortion should be decided by the states.  Or a Republican might in a few months say that abortion should be decided by the federal government and not by the states.  And these are the same Republicans so it can be confusing.  I have a technique that helps me understand such things and I want to share it with you.

 

Remember in the following that "all models are wrong but some are useful".  In other words, I am not suggesting that Republicans are lying pieces of garbage.  I am saying that they appear to be lying pieces of garbage for the purposes of predicting future behavior.

 

The technique is as follows.  When a Republican makes an argument such as "abortion should be decide by the states", what they are really saying is "We want to outlaw abortion and we will say any damn thing we want to attain that goal. Then when it is convenient to say something else to attain that goal, that is what we will, without hesitation, do.  We are shameless and powermad and there is no point in arguing with us because you are just wasting your time.  We dont believe our arguments either".

The Democrats, being endlessly naive and weak, fall for this trick over and over again.  Dear Democrats: please grow up.  Stop falling for this trick, it makes you look stupid and it does us (remember us? the little people?) no good.

Hungarians and Republicans are United on Voting Rights

Draft

 

The last thing our republicans want are fair elections or majority rule.  No wonder they love Orban, the neo-fascist leader of Hungary.  They want to be just like him when they grow up.

 

 

The Gun Nuts Shall Prevail, Oh Yes

draft

I can just hear the morons, the Republicans, say "Now is not the time to discuss gun restrictions" and all the nuts screaming "2nd Amendment!!!" How long will we permit Americans to be murdered by the gun nuts? This is America, a failed state, where democracy is destroyed and where the Republicans advocate the violent overthrow of the government, so we may never have elementary gun laws. Too bad. 

Filibuster Did Not Apply to Republican Tax Bill

draft


Why is it only the Democrats who have to be on their knees and beg the Republicans to please, please, please let them pass a bill. I checked and the Republican Tax bill which gave money to their rich friends and destroyed the deficit (remember: it was going to pay for itself by increased GNP, ha ha ha ha ha) was passed 51 to 49. So obviously its bullshit and they should just pass the stimulus 51 - 50 (with VP Harris) and move on to the next.

[Ha so the answer is that this was a reconsiliation, which seems weird to me, but there it is]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/01/us/politics/senate-tax-bill-vote.html

Poor America that Cant Count Votes

draft

So when they said we might not know for a week, they werent joking and the jokes on me because I thought they were. 

 

And will people stop railing on the Republicans for failing to rein in their moron president? The Republicans are traitors who hate democracy (see for example, impeachment, Kavanaugh and Barrett). They showed their real colors long ago. And the Americans who voted for them did too. Get used to it, you are in a war between those who believe in Democracy and those who dont. Pretty funny.

Remembering Those who Betrayed America

It can be very difficult to remember later the details of events like we are experiencing.  So I will from time to time write about these events/things/whatever even though I have nothing too profound to say about them.

One artifact of this collapse of the American government is that whenever something happens, there is some seemingly sane person who writes an editorial saying the most ridiculous things, but saying them with a straight face.  These editorials masquerade as news and are published straight faced in Politico, the Hill, the Wall Street Journal, Lawfareblog.

And they say things like this.  "The Russians didnt help Trump.  Obama betrayed us to the Russians, not Trump.  There are no grounds for the House to request anything from Trump. Mueller totally exonerated Trump."  

All of these things are lies, and they know it.  Why do they do it?  Here is one theory.  They are demonstrating loyalty so they can be appointed as a Federal Judge and then maybe the Supreme Court.  

It worked for Kavanaugh.

Real Clear Politics, Republicans and Georgia

draft

According to Real Clear Politics (a Republican news aggregator), Stacey Abrams hurt Georgia business because of "sour grapes" after a lost election.

You see, this is why Republicans are evil.  There is no thought in their twisted little minds that Kemp did not win the election, that Kemp is a racist who stole the election.

Are the Republicans really that stupid?  No.  They are just lying to steal the money, always have been, always will.

Lock him up. Lock Kemp up, period.

The Democratic Response

draft

I want the Democrats, my party of choice, to make some clear statements.  At this time, at this place, now, not later but now.

Here is what I want them to say.

Racism is not acceptable in America, in politics, in how we treat each other, in how we vote.  Under any circumstances, it is not acceptable.  But most of all it is not acceptable in our public officials.

The people who are nominated to be a federal judge and especially the Supreme Court must be superior ethically as well in terms of their knowledge of the law and in their judgment.  They must represent all Americans, not just the extreme right wing and religious right, no matter how much they might wish it.  The abuse of this system by the Republican right has endangered our entire system.

Republicans need to learn that crime is wrong and will not be tolerated. You want to spend a year studying an email server, lets investigate racist motivated voting suppression, obstruction of justice, money laundering and treason.

The New Flag of the Republicans

draft

I understand that the Republicans are considering running their candidates in November under the flag of Imperial Russia.  The double headed eagle is the heraldic symbol for power and empire, two of the most important guiding principles of our Republicans.

Double Headed Eagle on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-headed_eagle

The Fraud of the Originalilst

draft

By now it should be clear to everyone but the most innocent American that Republicans are just interested in power and anything out of their mouth is just a lie designed to excuse their desire to destroy democracy.   Even so, it is valuable to look at their lies one by one and expose them as such.

One of the most odd is the idea that they want justices, especially Supreme Court Justices, to be "originalists", as in, "true to the original intent of the people who wrote the Constitution".  There is something very funny about this, in a sense they may not be lying.

Recall, the original Constitution did not permit women or Black Americans, whether slaves or not, to vote.  So, do you really want an "originalist" Supreme Court Justice?  Well, they do, and in this they may, for once, be telling the truth.

FCC and a Letter to My Congressman

draft

What I like about the FCC ignoring the will of the people regard Net Neutrality is that it shows exactly what the Republicans and Trump thinks about the American people. The People can go f*ck themselves as far as they are concerned.

Here is my recent note to my congressman, Duncan Hunter.

Have you emailed your congressman today?

My Response to the Georgia Special Election of June 20, 2017

draft

The districts we have lost in special elections were always going to be long shots. But I think that the Republicans are correct to feel that they have been somewhat vindicated. Yes, they lost 20 points or so in Georgia and yes that district should not have been even close, but they did win.

Five months into the greatest disaster this country has faced since the War Between the States, and our suburban Southern friends have sent a clear message.

And the message is: racism was OK with them, we need to make sure that local police forces can control minority groups (who arent really Americans anyway), environmental concerns hurt jobs, public schools need to be defunded, the Russians are our friends whose attacks against Hillary was no big deal and gross incompetence at the top is what this country needs.

We need to murder poor women, build oil pipelines through wilderness areas (which always leak, but thats OK, I mean who the f*ck cares?), defund solar energy, defund scientists who dont do what we say, impose the harshest penalties on poor people who step out of line, and always give special tax breaks to the rich.

Trump has had significant successes. Who could not but stand up and cheer when the first thing that Gorsuch did on the Supreme Court was to go out of his way and murder a black man? Take out the revolver, put it to that black man's head and say “we don't know if you are guilty or not, but we are going to shoot you here, I am going to shoot you here because you are poor and black and that is what America stands for. “ And then Gorsuch pulled the trigger.

I don't think that they are lying to us. I think that they are sincerely interested in destroying this country. The Republicans can be proud.

The mayor of New Orleans wrote an incredibly stupid piece about the statues of Confederate leaders a month or so ago. He made claims about why destroying history was the right thing to do. It was a very Stalinist claim about who was “on the right side of history”.

So I ask my fellow Democrats, who is on the right side of history today?

Ageism in Silicon Valley:Can't We All Get Along?

This is an attempt to write about a recent incident that involved ageism, or an attitude towards ageism, that I find reprehensible. The first post on this topic was deleted because it was filled with the genuine and honest rage I felt about the situation. Hopefully this second post can narrate the incident and some thoughts i have about ageism, sexism, racism and so forth in our less-than-perfect society without expressing this anger.

But the content of this post is almost banal.  The big idea is that people disagree about issues such as what to do about ageism because they do not realize that they do not share assumptions, and given a lack of shared position on big issues, the little issues "declaring ageism bad" is not so simple.  So I am going to go over the obvious three assumptions that lie at the heart of this debate and observe that indeed not everyone agrees with them.  

The first assumption is that discrimination on the basis of some characteristic such as sex, color of skin, age, and so forth, is a bad thing. When someone is denied a job, or a membership in a society that has an important role in the community, or acceptance to a university because of age, sex, race, religion and so forth, and not on who they are as a person, then an injustice has been done. But there are many people in America who do not agree with me and think that discrimination on some of these criteria, a priori, and without consideration of the individual applicant is perfectly legitimate. There are many people believe it is right to deny someone a job because the applicant is a woman, as she might get pregnant and leave. She might, but she might not. Why not talk to her about it?

This is the central meaning of what discrimination (1) has come to mean: to choose between candidates based on a stereotype or classification that is independent of their worth as a person, or a candidate, or a potential student. Oh, he has funny hair, I dont think we should hire him. We really are uncomfortable with a Jew as member, do we really want to see him in the locker room or at our annual dinners? No we do not. Get that fucking jew out of here.

But I think, and I am sure most of my readers believe, that discrimination on the basis of sex, age, race, religion, etc is wrong. People should be judged on their individual merits and lack thereof. This is the first assumption.

The second assumption is that discrimination of this type exists in our society in important ways. If you do not believe that there is unfair discrimination then obviously you would not be predisposed to do anything to stop it. Many people I know do not believe that there is, for example, discrimination against black men by some of the “local” police forces in America. But I have lived near Los Angeles for most of my life, unfortunately, and every black person I know, mostly men, has a story to tell. They can't all be wrong. I have witnessed and heard about discrimination against women based entirely on their gender. When I hear about such discrimination, I always take it with a grain of salt until I know more, but I have no doubt that it exists and affects the lives of many people. I have no doubt it has affected my life.

Thus the second assumption is that discrimination exists in our society in important ways. In other words, this is not a theoretical concern, but a problem that exists among us right now.

The third assumption is that we, as individuals, as local governments and as the federal government, have a duty to work to end this discrimination in order to create a more fair and just society. This assumption is hotly debated among segments of our polity for many reasons. Among those reasons are those who do not hold the two assumptions above, as well as those who benefit from these discriminations in a direct and tangible way and wish to keep them. Other people who disagree do so because they have a vision of what government means and do not want government involved in this area of life and business. Still others disagree because they do not see that they as individuals have a duty to stand up to this injustice, that it is someone else's problem. And others disagree with this because they are afraid that they might be discriminated against if someone complains about it.

In summary, the assumptions are that discrimination is bad, that it exists in our society, and that we all have a duty to do something about it, both as individuals and as government.

Now we get to the specific incident. A friend of mine, who is a right-wing republican through and through, has lived off his stock-options for a decade and finds that having spent all his money he needs to get a job. He has no doubt that he will immediately get a job, at whatever company he wants, at his perceived level of worth, in spite of being out of the job market for so long. Whenever he does not get a job or might not get a job, it is someone else's fault, which it very well may be. One place he is applying is Google, which he considers an easy place for him to get a senior job, but he has one concern, and that is ageism at Google.

Well, he is right to be concerned. Famously, throughout the world, Google has earned a reputation for ageist hiring practices and career development. In an industry, technology, which already has a strong age bias, Google stands out for being explicitly and radically age biased. Or so, I read, and so I have heard. Is this a fair accusation, I have no way of knowing. In general, however, when you hear things like this as strongly as I hear them about Google, then in fact there is something to it. My guess is that the ageism exists among the lower levels mostly, in other words, when you have a senior person pitching for you, then you are ok at any age. But when you are left to the tender mercies of middle management, then indeed they are explicitly ageist. That is my guess.

Whatever is true here, whether truly there is fire to all that smoke, one dismissed person in marketing took Google to court about it. And win or lose, that is where my friend looking for a job comes in.

His model of the world is that because someone dared to oppose Google on the basis of age after being dismissed, that he, my friend, would have trouble being hired, because Google would be concerned about hiring someone over 50 in case they got sued.

Thus the cause of this ageism is not Google's egregious and world-famous policy of discrimination, but because a victim of it protested his fate.

If only the victims of the unjust world would accept being fucked, my friend is saying, it would be better for me, because then they would hire me. But if they do not hire me, it is not my fault, it is because of that asshole who got fired who sued.

My friend has no concern about the justness of this discrimination, does not even really believe it exists, and could not care less about it except as it affects him. And it only exists in his mind because someone used this anti-discrimination law and used it to unfairly sue Google.

I find this attitude appalling but there are two good things to say about.  First, it is consistent with his other beliefs.  I like consistency in matters of principle.  The second good thing is that everyone has a right to their opinion even if they disagree with me and thus are obviously wrong.

But given this diversity of opinion about something I would think would just be obvious, we, the forces of good, must work extra hard to.end discrimination in our society.  It won't happen, apparently, unless there is a mass movement to change things.

_____________________________________

Notes:

1. Discrimination used to be a word that simply meant to choose based on some criteria. It was not a bad thing, it was a neutral thing. One might discriminate between two marbles because one was a cat eye and one was not, it did indicate preference but not unfair preference.