Dewey Decimal System
And now they've come after Dewey.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Drunken Epiphany
The reason none of the Democrats can beat Trump is that there isn't a single one you'd enjoy getting a drink with. Think about it. If you ran across these folks at a cocktail party, you'd run the other way. Say what you will about Bill Clinton (maybe a rapist) and Barak Obama (maybe feckless as a leader), if they were at the bar, you'd want to chit chat with them. Am I wrong?
Joe Biden. I'd be awful afraid of long winded one-sided conversations.
Kamala Harris. I can think of few things less pleasant than hanging with KH.
Pete Buttigieg. Snooze.
Cory Booker. I'd be checking my emails.
Bernie. Fun for a few minutes. And then very very old.
Elizabeth Warren. Would feel like you were talking to the school principal.
Tulsi Gabbard. Close, but ultimately, isn't she just kinda weird?
Beto. Good from far but far from good.
Castro. Ugh. As enjoyable as a head cold.
Yang. Nice guy...maybe...smart...okay...I need to go to the bathroom.
Point is this. On the debate stage, the only person who'd actually be fun to hang with is Marianne Williamson and if you want to understand the appeal of AOC...let's be real...she'd be fun to shoot the shit with. Everyone else. I'd choose Netflix.
The reason none of the Democrats can beat Trump is that there isn't a single one you'd enjoy getting a drink with. Think about it. If you ran across these folks at a cocktail party, you'd run the other way. Say what you will about Bill Clinton (maybe a rapist) and Barak Obama (maybe feckless as a leader), if they were at the bar, you'd want to chit chat with them. Am I wrong?
Joe Biden. I'd be awful afraid of long winded one-sided conversations.
Kamala Harris. I can think of few things less pleasant than hanging with KH.
Pete Buttigieg. Snooze.
Cory Booker. I'd be checking my emails.
Bernie. Fun for a few minutes. And then very very old.
Elizabeth Warren. Would feel like you were talking to the school principal.
Tulsi Gabbard. Close, but ultimately, isn't she just kinda weird?
Beto. Good from far but far from good.
Castro. Ugh. As enjoyable as a head cold.
Yang. Nice guy...maybe...smart...okay...I need to go to the bathroom.
Point is this. On the debate stage, the only person who'd actually be fun to hang with is Marianne Williamson and if you want to understand the appeal of AOC...let's be real...she'd be fun to shoot the shit with. Everyone else. I'd choose Netflix.
Friday, June 28, 2019
Brief Thoughts On Democratic Candidates
Kamala Harris. She seemed to capture the spotlight and be "on brand" for what the Democratic Party has become. That said, I really, really do not like her at all. She comes across as a joyless scold and completely cynical. She is also backwards looking in the worst way, assuming a mantle of victimhood about her days of being bussed to school in liberal Berkeley California as if she grew up in the South. Please.
Joe Biden. Seems old.
Pete Buttigieg. Too young and without any significant political or business accomplishment as far as I can tell. Maybe is smart and maybe has some good positions, but his most attractive traits are: served in military, gay, rhodes scholar -- all things done in his 20s or before.
Bernie. Comes across as energetic and genuine and clearly makes his points against big business, but I don't agree with his solutions and nor do a vast number of Americans.
Marianne Williamson. Did an incredible job of making herself visible. Seems like she practices Wicca. Kinda like her being in the mix. Would bet my entire live savings she won't become President.
Hickenlooper. I don't think so.
Swalwell. Seems like he's running for Pres in order to get a job.
Gillabrand. I had never heard her speak before and only knew her by reputation. I actually thought she got her POV across well: she's an advocate for women. And I found her more likable than I imagined. I prefer her to Harris because I don't think she is a completely joyless cynic. She seemed to have both broad ideas and elegant solutions for them. I'm not sure her about her priorities or whether those solutions are realistic or legal (ie public funded elections).
Bennet. Somewhat unremarkable, almost like a bad VP candidate.
Yang. Poor guy got ignored. Seems to be his own guy. Like that he's got ideas, even though I don't think they have any chance of gaining traction.
Kamala Harris. She seemed to capture the spotlight and be "on brand" for what the Democratic Party has become. That said, I really, really do not like her at all. She comes across as a joyless scold and completely cynical. She is also backwards looking in the worst way, assuming a mantle of victimhood about her days of being bussed to school in liberal Berkeley California as if she grew up in the South. Please.
Joe Biden. Seems old.
Pete Buttigieg. Too young and without any significant political or business accomplishment as far as I can tell. Maybe is smart and maybe has some good positions, but his most attractive traits are: served in military, gay, rhodes scholar -- all things done in his 20s or before.
Bernie. Comes across as energetic and genuine and clearly makes his points against big business, but I don't agree with his solutions and nor do a vast number of Americans.
Marianne Williamson. Did an incredible job of making herself visible. Seems like she practices Wicca. Kinda like her being in the mix. Would bet my entire live savings she won't become President.
Hickenlooper. I don't think so.
Swalwell. Seems like he's running for Pres in order to get a job.
Gillabrand. I had never heard her speak before and only knew her by reputation. I actually thought she got her POV across well: she's an advocate for women. And I found her more likable than I imagined. I prefer her to Harris because I don't think she is a completely joyless cynic. She seemed to have both broad ideas and elegant solutions for them. I'm not sure her about her priorities or whether those solutions are realistic or legal (ie public funded elections).
Bennet. Somewhat unremarkable, almost like a bad VP candidate.
Yang. Poor guy got ignored. Seems to be his own guy. Like that he's got ideas, even though I don't think they have any chance of gaining traction.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
More On Debate...
...didn't watch all, of course, but what Dems fail to account for in demonizing large companies is that many Dems actually work for these companies, want to work for these companies, buy these companies products, and are mostly happy with these companies. That's why they are companies!
The way the problem ought to be articulated is that sometimes the incentives of these companies are misaligned with the public interest. Not only is this more true than reducing all problems to the issue of greed - but also frames the problem towards a workable solution.
Same with this student loan ridiculousness. The students loan crisis is the result of a well intended government policy that created perverse incentives. To pay off loans is a cheap, short sighted solution that will only incentivize more of the very problem we are trying to solve.
A way to approach the student loan problem:
a) Recognize IT IS A PROBLEM.
b) Recognize part of the "fault" lies with people taking on too much debt in an irresponsible manner. Parents and college students are adults and bear responsibility for their own actions.
c) Recognize the colleges bear responsibility for their escalating costs and have chosen to raise costs because people are willing to finance through government sponsored debt.
d) Recognize the government is complicit in the debt crisis by subsidizing loans.
e) Recognize part of the problem is our employment system / ie employers who use college degrees as a screen to weed out candidates.
I think the solution will require attacking the problem on multiple fronts in a "blitzkrieg" method.
1) Incentive companies to abandon college degrees as a screen for jobs that don't actually require a college degree and incentivize "apprenticeship" programs.
2) Put colleges partially on the hook for any and all student loan defaults of their students.
3) Create incentives akin to matching 401k contributions to paying back loans (better than simply writing folks a check).
4) Cap loan amounts students can take. You hear about these extreme cases where students are 100K or more in debt. It's crazy. If it costs that much, go to a different college.
That's just a start.
...didn't watch all, of course, but what Dems fail to account for in demonizing large companies is that many Dems actually work for these companies, want to work for these companies, buy these companies products, and are mostly happy with these companies. That's why they are companies!
The way the problem ought to be articulated is that sometimes the incentives of these companies are misaligned with the public interest. Not only is this more true than reducing all problems to the issue of greed - but also frames the problem towards a workable solution.
Same with this student loan ridiculousness. The students loan crisis is the result of a well intended government policy that created perverse incentives. To pay off loans is a cheap, short sighted solution that will only incentivize more of the very problem we are trying to solve.
A way to approach the student loan problem:
a) Recognize IT IS A PROBLEM.
b) Recognize part of the "fault" lies with people taking on too much debt in an irresponsible manner. Parents and college students are adults and bear responsibility for their own actions.
c) Recognize the colleges bear responsibility for their escalating costs and have chosen to raise costs because people are willing to finance through government sponsored debt.
d) Recognize the government is complicit in the debt crisis by subsidizing loans.
e) Recognize part of the problem is our employment system / ie employers who use college degrees as a screen to weed out candidates.
I think the solution will require attacking the problem on multiple fronts in a "blitzkrieg" method.
1) Incentive companies to abandon college degrees as a screen for jobs that don't actually require a college degree and incentivize "apprenticeship" programs.
2) Put colleges partially on the hook for any and all student loan defaults of their students.
3) Create incentives akin to matching 401k contributions to paying back loans (better than simply writing folks a check).
4) Cap loan amounts students can take. You hear about these extreme cases where students are 100K or more in debt. It's crazy. If it costs that much, go to a different college.
That's just a start.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
I Wish
You could bottle Cory Booker's expression when Beto launches into a Spanish answer to a question that wasn't asked.
Elizabeth Warren saying Latinx was an unwelcome sign. I don't know any hispanic folks who self refer to themselves as Latinx, so to hear Elizabeth Warren doing it strikes me as phony, only slightly less than going around calling herself Native American.
As I'm listening to this debate, it seems to me there is consensus amongst the Democrats that everyone in the country - esp women - should get free healthcare and free higher education and all the "big companies" are evil and the cause of our woes.
You could bottle Cory Booker's expression when Beto launches into a Spanish answer to a question that wasn't asked.
Elizabeth Warren saying Latinx was an unwelcome sign. I don't know any hispanic folks who self refer to themselves as Latinx, so to hear Elizabeth Warren doing it strikes me as phony, only slightly less than going around calling herself Native American.
As I'm listening to this debate, it seems to me there is consensus amongst the Democrats that everyone in the country - esp women - should get free healthcare and free higher education and all the "big companies" are evil and the cause of our woes.
Fascists
The students at Bowling Green who insist on removing Lillian Gish's name from the theater.
Here's how you know they're fascists -- no one -- literally, no one -- talks about Lillian Gish. She is of no significance to the current culture whatsoever. And yet, they've targeted her. This is insanity and purely about the exercise of power and the attempt to seize control over institutions and minds.
So there's all these people out there who want to imagine themselves brave by standing up to the evil government of the USA and the evil corporations and all the racists, etc. But of course, they aren't brave at all -- this is the trend! They are not punished for their positions as Civil Rights protestors were. They are not put in the crosshairs of the British Authorities as the Colonialists were. They are rewarded and celebrated. See Ava Duvernay, a basically incompetent filmmaker celebrated only for her self-branding as a race-crusader.
The fascists are right here showing their colors and the response by all these "brave" people is the same response from all the sheep throughout history: silence.
The students at Bowling Green who insist on removing Lillian Gish's name from the theater.
Here's how you know they're fascists -- no one -- literally, no one -- talks about Lillian Gish. She is of no significance to the current culture whatsoever. And yet, they've targeted her. This is insanity and purely about the exercise of power and the attempt to seize control over institutions and minds.
So there's all these people out there who want to imagine themselves brave by standing up to the evil government of the USA and the evil corporations and all the racists, etc. But of course, they aren't brave at all -- this is the trend! They are not punished for their positions as Civil Rights protestors were. They are not put in the crosshairs of the British Authorities as the Colonialists were. They are rewarded and celebrated. See Ava Duvernay, a basically incompetent filmmaker celebrated only for her self-branding as a race-crusader.
The fascists are right here showing their colors and the response by all these "brave" people is the same response from all the sheep throughout history: silence.
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
23 Million Views
For "When They See Us." Netflix should be required disclose how many of those viewers were sleeping.
For "When They See Us." Netflix should be required disclose how many of those viewers were sleeping.
Monday, June 24, 2019
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
All You Need To Know
San Francisco bans e-cigarettes. This is the 21st century version of Monsanto creating both the disease and the cure. San Fran / Silicon Valley is where the e-cig is created, then banned within the same borders, and happily exported to the rest of the world. So many layers of dysfunction.
San Francisco bans e-cigarettes. This is the 21st century version of Monsanto creating both the disease and the cure. San Fran / Silicon Valley is where the e-cig is created, then banned within the same borders, and happily exported to the rest of the world. So many layers of dysfunction.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Logging
Film: Booksmart
I am an idiot for being suckered by the trailer. Booksmart is an objectively bad movie. Bad, as in, the story is poorly told. All the major "turns" of the story are false and driven by the sense the story must change direction and not by any emotional logic. The basic visual storytelling tries to hide a "style" behind what amounts to illiteracy. It's like a reading a book with grammar mistakes.
What can be said in favor of the the movie is the casting. It's good. Two main girls have chemistry. Side characters are vivid as well and many are given nice moments. Some standalone scenes and even sequences are pretty good - particularly towards the end. But as a whole, I would not recommend the film to anyone with somewhat decent taste in movies.
There are other major sins. The lesbian storyline(s) have zero sexual chemistry. None. And in doing so, reveals something about the intentions behind the marketing and making of the movie. It's overly concerned with being a female-empowerment, LGBT empowerment, a Girls-can-make-Superbad too kind of film, and swaps any soul that might've been for being "woke."
Go watch Fleabag instead. Or Superbad. Or Sideways. Or shit, even Riverdale.
Film: Booksmart
I am an idiot for being suckered by the trailer. Booksmart is an objectively bad movie. Bad, as in, the story is poorly told. All the major "turns" of the story are false and driven by the sense the story must change direction and not by any emotional logic. The basic visual storytelling tries to hide a "style" behind what amounts to illiteracy. It's like a reading a book with grammar mistakes.
What can be said in favor of the the movie is the casting. It's good. Two main girls have chemistry. Side characters are vivid as well and many are given nice moments. Some standalone scenes and even sequences are pretty good - particularly towards the end. But as a whole, I would not recommend the film to anyone with somewhat decent taste in movies.
There are other major sins. The lesbian storyline(s) have zero sexual chemistry. None. And in doing so, reveals something about the intentions behind the marketing and making of the movie. It's overly concerned with being a female-empowerment, LGBT empowerment, a Girls-can-make-Superbad too kind of film, and swaps any soul that might've been for being "woke."
Go watch Fleabag instead. Or Superbad. Or Sideways. Or shit, even Riverdale.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Ugh
Jemele Hill defends the women's world cup team for scoring 13 goals and celebrating after 9.
Jemele Hill defends the women's world cup team for scoring 13 goals and celebrating after 9.
The shameful part is that how the U.S. women’s soccer team celebrated on the field will cause more of a stir than whether the players are paid fairly. Despite having won three World Cup titles, earned four Olympic gold medals, and generated millions of dollars more in revenue than the men in 2015, the women sometimes earn 38 percent of what the men earn per game.If the women want equal pay, they should try marking Mbappe and see how it goes. The reality is they probably play at level of D3 college guys, so the other way to look at it is that they're lucky to be making any money at all.
Saturday, June 08, 2019
Suspicious
You ought to grow suspicious of your ideological beliefs if the solutions to what you believe are the most pressuring problems involve general immiseration.
Here's CurbedLA touting the benefits of recession to the housing market.
Income inequality would greatly be diminished with a massive stock market fall.
And global warming could be solved by the majority of the worlds 7 billion people returning to poverty level conditions or dying off more rapidly.
Just saying, careful what you wish for.
You ought to grow suspicious of your ideological beliefs if the solutions to what you believe are the most pressuring problems involve general immiseration.
Here's CurbedLA touting the benefits of recession to the housing market.
Income inequality would greatly be diminished with a massive stock market fall.
And global warming could be solved by the majority of the worlds 7 billion people returning to poverty level conditions or dying off more rapidly.
Just saying, careful what you wish for.
Wednesday, June 05, 2019
Fake News
The story about Americans being unable to come up with $400 emergency expense is wrong.
It's actually not just wrong -- it's a lie. Because the folks promoting the story have an agenda and promote the story with the intention of misleading.
The story about Americans being unable to come up with $400 emergency expense is wrong.
It's actually not just wrong -- it's a lie. Because the folks promoting the story have an agenda and promote the story with the intention of misleading.
Tuesday, June 04, 2019
I'd Like To Sit This One Out
Chinese audience prefers pale skin actors.
I wish we could put the Chinese Communists in the ring against the "Woke" and just have a Mountain vs. Viper duel and deal with only the winner.
Chinese audience prefers pale skin actors.
I wish we could put the Chinese Communists in the ring against the "Woke" and just have a Mountain vs. Viper duel and deal with only the winner.
Monday, June 03, 2019
I Kind Like Clarence Thomas
An article on him.
“People who will get very upset if someone said all blacks look alike are really comfortable saying all blacks ought to think alike,” Justice Thomas said.
“If you said that blacks should not be allowed to go a library, you’d be against that,” he said. “If you said that blacks couldn’t read certain books in the library, you would say that’s wrong.”
“But now we are so comfortable saying that blacks can’t hold some of the ideas in some of the books in the library,” Justice Thomas said. “That’s absurd.”He's not wrong.
Sunday, June 02, 2019
Wokeness is Language
Word usage at NY Times.
The argument against wokeness is an argument about how the woke are changing language to suit their political end goals. The argument for wokeness is that people are finally "awakening" to the horrors of what are around them. See the plot of GET OUT. And it's the most subtle form of delusional thinking we have going today, ranking above 9/11 Truthers, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and those who believe in Astrology.
Word usage at NY Times.
The argument against wokeness is an argument about how the woke are changing language to suit their political end goals. The argument for wokeness is that people are finally "awakening" to the horrors of what are around them. See the plot of GET OUT. And it's the most subtle form of delusional thinking we have going today, ranking above 9/11 Truthers, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and those who believe in Astrology.
Saturday, June 01, 2019
And Who Is To Blame Now
Democrats control a supermajority in California. The state is solid blue, electorally. And yet, we're in the midst of a haves vs have nots crisis in housing, and opted to do NOTHING about it.
Can't blame Trump for this one.
It's almost like the Dems want the boost in ego one gets by pretending to care for those less fortunate, without actually doing anything to care for the less fortunate. Is it incompetence? Hypocrisy? Greed?
All of the above?
Democrats control a supermajority in California. The state is solid blue, electorally. And yet, we're in the midst of a haves vs have nots crisis in housing, and opted to do NOTHING about it.
Can't blame Trump for this one.
It's almost like the Dems want the boost in ego one gets by pretending to care for those less fortunate, without actually doing anything to care for the less fortunate. Is it incompetence? Hypocrisy? Greed?
All of the above?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)