Saturday, October 13, 2018
Freedom
I grew up in the suburbs. That period between about 12 and 16 when you can't drive is hell. I wish I had a nice subway.
Friday, October 12, 2018
Men and Babies
Given the context of the impending effective overturning of Roe and the creepy online misogynists obsessed with women's "fertility" and babymaking powers that are everywhere these days... I have a question. Do you really know men who a) want children b) want children in the sense of wanting to honestly handle 50%+ of the childrearing duties c) could possibly handle being a single parent if circumstances required?
a) is easy of course. I would like progeny, take care of it my woman! b) is I think much more rare even in an aspirational sense and c) hahahahaha.
But life is complicated and weird and tragic and if you really want children, c) is always going to be a possible outcome of your 18 year commitment.
a) is easy of course. I would like progeny, take care of it my woman! b) is I think much more rare even in an aspirational sense and c) hahahahaha.
But life is complicated and weird and tragic and if you really want children, c) is always going to be a possible outcome of your 18 year commitment.
Spread The Benjamins Around
Some highly ethical PR firm in DC is currently concocting the comeback strategy for Mohammad bin Salman, which will culminate in a weepy Tom Friedman column about how his good friend temporarily lost his way, but has shown proper remorse to Tom Friedman and all is good now.
We Feel A Bit Bad About The Gulags, But The Cons Left Us With Little Choice
The reasonable "overreach" argument is something like "oh wow George Bush wanted to privatize Social Security and the backlash to that brought voters to the polls and elected a bunch of Democrats."
The conservative version - which is taken very seriously - is more like "oh wow the liberals disrespected us on Twitter so we really had no choice but to start putting babies in cages. Their fault, really, the baby cages."
The conservative version - which is taken very seriously - is more like "oh wow the liberals disrespected us on Twitter so we really had no choice but to start putting babies in cages. Their fault, really, the baby cages."
Good Guys, Bad Guys
There are reasons - probably usually gross but maybe occasionally not - that we have to be jolly old pals with some bad countries. Even gross reasons are reasons. But the degree to which the press - and no, not just the opinion pages - falls in line with official government policy about Whoever Is Good And Bad Today - is always pretty fascinating. One would think the press (and I mean the elite press like the Times and the especially the NoVa mouthpiece the Post) could at least explain these things to us. The State Department might not be able to come out and say "sure, he's a bastard, but he's our bastard" but journalists can. Instead we tend to get a good dictator/bad dictator split coverage. The good ones are our good pals, the bad ones do truly horrible and despicable human rights violations just like the good ones.
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Tucker's White Power Hour
I admit I got one wrong with Tucker Carlson. For some reason (not that it really a mattered) I thought he mostly played a jerk on TV but he wasn't that much of a jerk. Sure he was a conservative asshole - I'm not pretending he was Good - but not, you know, Nazi level bad. Better than your typical conservative asshole even before they all embraced Nazis, even.
Who knows or cares what's in his heart but wow he's bad.
Who knows or cares what's in his heart but wow he's bad.
Vote
I'm lucky. My polling place is about 200 feet away and I don't think I've ever had to wait more than 5 minutes to vote. It's easy. I doubt anyone in Philly is more than a quarter mile from their polling place, if that. We have lots of them! The stories you hear every election cycle about people lined up for an hour or more to vote are insane. There is zero reason for it to be that way. Zero good reason anyway. You can just add more polling places, more machines, whatever (I'm not going to get into the absurdity of our voting systems). I think when I lived in California I voted in someone's garage. This is not a problem without solutions, and the solutions cost negligble amounts of money.
Fuck the Celebrities, They Don't Vote For Us Anyway
One thing about being old but also extremely online is that I'm always fascinated by things that I manage to miss. The internet is piped directly into my head yet somehow I managed to miss a meme! It's oddly satisfying. It isn't that I take pride in being a clueless oldster, it's that I rarely miss any of this nonsense so when I do it's a relief.
Along those lines, I can identify one Taylor Swift song. This is not bragging. It's fascinating to me! But she's popular and the
Nazis thought she was one of them and now they are mad and conservatives feel the need to condemn her. This is funny.
Along those lines, I can identify one Taylor Swift song. This is not bragging. It's fascinating to me! But she's popular and the
Nazis thought she was one of them and now they are mad and conservatives feel the need to condemn her. This is funny.
Voter Fraud
I just received notice from Orange County, CA that they suspect I have moved and should let them know.
This is the type of thing Republicans have been pushing as "voter fraud" for years. Nobody (almost) bothers to tell their local election board that they moved unless wherever they re-register provides an option to do that.
This is the type of thing Republicans have been pushing as "voter fraud" for years. Nobody (almost) bothers to tell their local election board that they moved unless wherever they re-register provides an option to do that.
Fox News Always Was
I would say it's basically conventional wisdom among the DC set that Fox News is just a propaganda outlet now. But the thing is that it always was. It was less obvious before Obama because insanely critical coverage of Clinton (barely anyone watched then) and obsequious coverage of Bush was pretty much the norm. Fox took it up to 11, but it was already at 10 elsewhere. Coverage of Obama elsewhere in the media was more...normal. It was good and bad in complicated ways but not insanely one sided. But the sharp contrast with how Fox covered things made the differences impossible to ignore. Fox didn't change, though, everybody else did.
Great Moments In Foreign Policy Punditry
"When I see someone having the balls to take on the religious component, to take on the economic component, to take on the polit- with all of his flaws, ok. And with all due respect to his cousins, not a one of them would have had the balls to do that. Then I wanna invest just a little. I just wanna to stick my head up and say 'God I hope you succeed.' And when you do that the holy hell comes down on you. Okay, well, fuck that is my view." - Thomas Friedman, adviser to the world.
Suddenly It Occurs To Me That Maybe The Saudi State Is Bad?
Be the darling of the US elite foreign policy establishment and then you have to go and slaughter someone Tom Friedman knows...
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Barbacoa
I enjoyed this Chef's Table episode in part (of course) because it's in my neighborhood.
Martinez left Mexico eight years ago, fleeing an abusive husband. She hasn’t been back, or seen her family, since. Despite having married an American, she has been denied a green card, and is officially undocumented. In the process of applying for that green card, she lost her restaurant job. So she opened her own restaurant, South Philly Barbacoa, and has become an advocate for immigrants and undocumented workers. Finding home in South Philly, in sharing the lamb barbacoa her family has made for generations, is no throwaway sentiment.
What Are Newspapers For
USA Today has proudly published a piece carefully written by MY PRESIDENT which is of course full of shit. It's long been the case that in general (I cannot speak for the standards of all publications) the fact checking bar for opinion pieces is lower (in theory) than that of the news pages, and the fact checking bar for top politicians submitting pieces to those pages is lower still. In practice I would say that generally the fact checking bar for conservatives is lower than that for liberals and the fact checking bar for LEFTISTS on the rare occasion they are published requires a 30 person review committee from Britannica, Snopes, Nobel, and the National Review, but that's just me being unbalanced.
Why do this?
Why do this?
Tuesday, October 09, 2018
Sorry Everybody
People were mean to Susan Collins, the most popular woman in America, and now the Democrats are going to lose in November. Those are the rules.
LALALALALALALALA I Can't Hear You
You don't have to drive across country (like Larry) to grasp the idea that maybe people have some attachment to the communities where their families are (maybe even only because their families are there!), even if there isn't an Apple store nearby. And "broadened opportunities" to most hu-mans doesn't mean "MOVE TO BOSTON OR NEW YORK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE."
Usually I mock the whole COASTAL ELITISTS DON'T GET FLYOVER COUNTRY stuff because most people I know (correction: all people I know) have ventured out into the provinces once or twice. And then along comes Larry...
Usually I mock the whole COASTAL ELITISTS DON'T GET FLYOVER COUNTRY stuff because most people I know (correction: all people I know) have ventured out into the provinces once or twice. And then along comes Larry...
It's The Enthusiasm That's Scary
Even I was surprised when miserable failure George W. Bush's polls dropped down to the magic 27% level. Absent economic catastrophe, I don't really expect any president's approval numbers to fall below 35% ever again. Similarly, absent some rally around the flag event, I don't expect them to go above 55%. Republicans are going to like Republicans and Democrats are going to like Democrats, and while there's a bit of wiggle room, we're basically not going to get a super popular or super unpopular president.
I have no idea precisely why the press does all the tautological "people who like Trump like Trump" stories, but it isn't surprising that his approval numbers are around 40%. My point is in this era basically any president can have approval numbers around 40%. It didn't make Obama particularly unpopular (as he was portrayed) and it certainly doesn't make Trump particularly popular (as the focus on his fans portrays him).
That Trump is inspiring the worst people to be emboldened, and that the mainstream press helps to embolden them, is what's scary. Not that 40% approve.
I have no idea precisely why the press does all the tautological "people who like Trump like Trump" stories, but it isn't surprising that his approval numbers are around 40%. My point is in this era basically any president can have approval numbers around 40%. It didn't make Obama particularly unpopular (as he was portrayed) and it certainly doesn't make Trump particularly popular (as the focus on his fans portrays him).
That Trump is inspiring the worst people to be emboldened, and that the mainstream press helps to embolden them, is what's scary. Not that 40% approve.
FALL FUNDRAISING FUNSTRAVAGNZA CONTINUES
Nearing its end. Help keep my blogs mighty and strong!
Thanks to all.
Thanks to all.
The Dumb Of All Fears
If you're rich you can install whatever dumb security system you want with your couch quarters and not have it affect your life much, but things like "panic rooms" and sleeping with weapons under your pillow betray a degree of genuine anxiety. What must it be like to be stupid rich and feel unsafe in your little resort enclave? I'd say find a new place for your weekend/summer home, but I don't think money can buy you peace, anywhere, if you see life this way. Europe's out, of course, because of all the no go zones.
I live in an urban hellhole and I find safety concerns hilarious. Stranger danger just isn't that common.
I live in an urban hellhole and I find safety concerns hilarious. Stranger danger just isn't that common.
Clock Is Ticking
Promised milestones come and go regularly, but a big one in the self-driving car universe has been that Waymo is going to actually set up real, if limited, taxi service by the end of this year.
I don't believe it will happen, but I could be wrong!
I really don't get how people don't see the autonomous vehicles aren't some hard puzzle to be solved, but instead a "if we can do that we can await skynet's activation" level thing. Sure the technology works surprisingly well. It's neat! But to be actually useful...And self-driving cabs are the hardest version of that!
Waymo, Google's self-driving car project, is planning to launch a driverless taxi service in the Phoenix area in the next three months. It won't be a pilot project or a publicity stunt, either. Waymo is planning to launch a public, commercial service—without anyone in the driver's seat.
I don't believe it will happen, but I could be wrong!
I really don't get how people don't see the autonomous vehicles aren't some hard puzzle to be solved, but instead a "if we can do that we can await skynet's activation" level thing. Sure the technology works surprisingly well. It's neat! But to be actually useful...And self-driving cabs are the hardest version of that!
Monday, October 08, 2018
The Smart Thing To Do Is Vote For The Child Molester
What would it take for you to vote for a Republican for, say, senator? Or be so disgusted with the alternative that you just wouldn't vote?
Probably the answer to that question depends on how likely it is that a single race can impact control, but these days the House, at least, is almost always up for grabs and obviously at the moment the Senate is too.
But really does it matter how "bad" a congressional candidate is as long as he mostly votes the "right" way? Sure it feels gross to reward bad people, but is that more important than whatever policy agenda they'll help to implement?
With realignment and Dems basically being Dems and Republicans basically being Republicans, at least in national offices, the so-called character issues, which drive much news coverage of elections, really don't matter all that much. Frankly, only sucker voters are swayed by them in most cases. I don't blame people for voting for Roy Moore, over and above blaming them for being conservative assholes generally. If you're a Republican you want Republicans to control the Senate.
This is much less true of executive positions than legislative ones, but not entirely untrue of them either.
The press prefers to cover "character" issues, even if they don't cover them well, because it's somehow less partisan, but, really, policy's the thing.
I'd hope the bad guys don't make it through the primary and the really bad guys somehow get removed from the ballot by the party if possible, but what would make me vote for Pat Toomey, really?
Probably the answer to that question depends on how likely it is that a single race can impact control, but these days the House, at least, is almost always up for grabs and obviously at the moment the Senate is too.
But really does it matter how "bad" a congressional candidate is as long as he mostly votes the "right" way? Sure it feels gross to reward bad people, but is that more important than whatever policy agenda they'll help to implement?
With realignment and Dems basically being Dems and Republicans basically being Republicans, at least in national offices, the so-called character issues, which drive much news coverage of elections, really don't matter all that much. Frankly, only sucker voters are swayed by them in most cases. I don't blame people for voting for Roy Moore, over and above blaming them for being conservative assholes generally. If you're a Republican you want Republicans to control the Senate.
This is much less true of executive positions than legislative ones, but not entirely untrue of them either.
The press prefers to cover "character" issues, even if they don't cover them well, because it's somehow less partisan, but, really, policy's the thing.
I'd hope the bad guys don't make it through the primary and the really bad guys somehow get removed from the ballot by the party if possible, but what would make me vote for Pat Toomey, really?
Lots of People Don't Vote
And most of them aren't that annoying person you argue with on the internet who is very interested in telling you all his reasons for not voting. They just don't see a reason and/or have better things to do with their time.
Fall Fundraising Notsofunstravaganza!
Got a bit interrupted by the rather unpleasant events of the weekend. Along those lines, I'd like to think this blog will save the world but likely it won't. Your activist money is best spent elsewhere, for candidates you support, for organizations that help victims, and for more effective dogooders than I will ever be. This is your fun money, because we have so much fun here! Hours of entertainment for pennies!
Thanks to all who have contributed so far.
Thanks to all who have contributed so far.
Roundtable Project
The Sunday Show guest imbalance used to be one of my weird obsessions. I sort of gave up when the response to Media Matters after they did a couple of comprehensive studies was basically "suck it." They can always justify their main guests - the current news of the week warrants it, the majority in power of course has a bigger voice, the minority not in power deserves a bigger voice (weird how this excuse flips depending on well you know), they can't help it if every Democrat turns them down, where are all the white wimmin at, etc.
But aside from the particular news guests (senators, Cabinet members...) there is also the "news roundtable." You know, 3 or 4 guests plus the moderator chat about the week. I've long had trouble with this format, even aside from the ideological makeup of the guests, because it's never made any sense to me how supposedly "straight" journalists (objective, neutral, unbiased, whatever we call them this week) are paired up with ideological actors. Often not genuine opinion journalists, but real ideological activists.
There is also the ideological makeup of the guests. You never ever find one of these panels leaning liberally. When I write "never" I am almost not exaggerating. If you want to prove "never" is not accurate you can spend your day finding an example. You might succeed but your labors will have proven my point. A typical panel is moderator, 3 journalists, one conservative. Sometimes they mix that up with 2 journalists, one liberal, one conservative. And sometimes they surprise you with 2 journalists and 2 conservatives! More common than you think! What you never see is, say, three journalists and 1 liberal. If 2 liberals are in the same green room the streams have been crossed.
There's always a problem IDing guests. I don't want to argue about whether a supposed "straight" journalist is really a secret conservative, or similarly whether that "presidential historian" is liberal or conservative in his heart. I go by how they self-ID or what is implied by their job title. If they don't self-ID as ideological (or can't avoid it because of their job title) I'll stick them in the "neutral" category.
So, 10/7:
This Week roundtable:
ABC News Political Analyst Matthew Dowd, former New Jersey Governor and ABC News Contributor Chris Christie, Politico Congressional Reporter Rachael Bade, and Vice News Washington Bureau Chief Shawna Thomas.
2 "straight journalists," 1 former Bush republican who spends all day tweeting about the two parties have failed us, and 1` former republican governor. Given Dowd's supposed job, I'll score it 3-1-0.
Meet the Press roundtable:
Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, Danielle Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute; Kasie Hunt, Capitol Hill correspondent, and Republican strategist Al Cardenas.
1 "straight journalist," 1 neutral historian, 2 conservative activists. Score 2-2-0.
Face the Nation:
Seung Min Kim of the Washington Post. John Harris, editor-in-chief of Politico. Nancy Cordes, the chief congressional correspondent at CBS.
3 journalists, Score 3-0-0.
Score 8 neutrals, 3 conservatives, and 0 unicorns.
If it's Sunday...
But aside from the particular news guests (senators, Cabinet members...) there is also the "news roundtable." You know, 3 or 4 guests plus the moderator chat about the week. I've long had trouble with this format, even aside from the ideological makeup of the guests, because it's never made any sense to me how supposedly "straight" journalists (objective, neutral, unbiased, whatever we call them this week) are paired up with ideological actors. Often not genuine opinion journalists, but real ideological activists.
There is also the ideological makeup of the guests. You never ever find one of these panels leaning liberally. When I write "never" I am almost not exaggerating. If you want to prove "never" is not accurate you can spend your day finding an example. You might succeed but your labors will have proven my point. A typical panel is moderator, 3 journalists, one conservative. Sometimes they mix that up with 2 journalists, one liberal, one conservative. And sometimes they surprise you with 2 journalists and 2 conservatives! More common than you think! What you never see is, say, three journalists and 1 liberal. If 2 liberals are in the same green room the streams have been crossed.
There's always a problem IDing guests. I don't want to argue about whether a supposed "straight" journalist is really a secret conservative, or similarly whether that "presidential historian" is liberal or conservative in his heart. I go by how they self-ID or what is implied by their job title. If they don't self-ID as ideological (or can't avoid it because of their job title) I'll stick them in the "neutral" category.
So, 10/7:
This Week roundtable:
ABC News Political Analyst Matthew Dowd, former New Jersey Governor and ABC News Contributor Chris Christie, Politico Congressional Reporter Rachael Bade, and Vice News Washington Bureau Chief Shawna Thomas.
2 "straight journalists," 1 former Bush republican who spends all day tweeting about the two parties have failed us, and 1` former republican governor. Given Dowd's supposed job, I'll score it 3-1-0.
Meet the Press roundtable:
Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, Danielle Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute; Kasie Hunt, Capitol Hill correspondent, and Republican strategist Al Cardenas.
1 "straight journalist," 1 neutral historian, 2 conservative activists. Score 2-2-0.
Face the Nation:
Seung Min Kim of the Washington Post. John Harris, editor-in-chief of Politico. Nancy Cordes, the chief congressional correspondent at CBS.
3 journalists, Score 3-0-0.
Score 8 neutrals, 3 conservatives, and 0 unicorns.
If it's Sunday...
Sunday, October 07, 2018
That Last Post Was Too Cheery
So have another one.
The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.
The new report, however, shows that many of those effects will come much sooner, at the 2.7-degree mark.
Sunday Night
Walked around a bit. Went to the not fancy opera. It's like not everything is horrible! Easy to pretend for a bit.
With Great Power Comes Some Minor Inconveniences
I'm not entirely sure why people choose the spotlight of politics, especially when they don't seem to be all that interested in governing (for good or evil). I don't think being in Congress - even in the Senate - is all that great a job for someone relatively wealthy who could have other jobs where people kiss your ass. But despite their best efforts - and also efforts by lickspittles in the elite press - being a public figure has its downsides, whether you are a senator or Brad Pitt. And if Brad Pitt makes a shitty movie it doesn't really impact me all that much. It'd probably be rude for me to yell at him for his subpar voice work in Megamind, but it comes with the territory.
Not precisely who I have in mind, but it's a good example.
Mr. Mayor has a convoy SUV escort to his gym in Brooklyn, daily, so he can be a man of the people by not talking to any of them.
Not precisely who I have in mind, but it's a good example.
“I’m in the middle of doing my workout: Sorry, I can’t do this now,” Mr. de Blasio says. As a member of his security detail steps in, Mr. de Blasio gets up to leave. “I’m not doing this here,” the mayor says as he walks out with his phone in hand. “I’m in the middle of a workout.”
Mr. Mayor has a convoy SUV escort to his gym in Brooklyn, daily, so he can be a man of the people by not talking to any of them.
Was Always Going To Be Bad
Is it better to stop pretending the Court is some sort of sacred institution of sacredness? I think maybe!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)