Month: August 2025

By on

Every time there is a mass shooting I have this momentary reflexive fear that the killer might be someone who I agree with politically because partisans will say that the problem is the politics of the person and not say something more directly responsible like guns. It matters why the person doing the shooting, did it. But, it doesn’t matter. All mass shootings are bad and the killer’s reasons are irrelevant. You can’t ban white men or trans people for the matter.

No one reason can explain every mass shooter’s motives. The shooter’s politics changes from instance to instance. The killings, however, continue. Of course, the recent shooting at the Minnesota Catholic school have charged partisans up and the problem is either white men or trans men depending on the political agenda of the writer.

Unfortunately, these identifications are unhelpful in helping prevent future mass shootings because the vast majority of white men and trans people aren’t going to shoot Catholic school children praying in church. In fact, 99.9999% of these people will never shoot children at any point whatsoever. So what makes this small number of people break, take up a gun and shoot strangers for no good reason?

The availability of guns is part of the problem. There is very little that can be done here as there is constitutional protection to carry arms, it is difficult to change the Constitution and there isn’t enough public support to even bother. So Gun Laws will not change. Any solution that calls for this is doomed to failure — at least right now. By all means, continue to bang your head against this wall but you are only going to get a bloody head.

These leaves us with addressing the mental health element which is another part of the problem. People who want to kill small children, for whatever reason, are mentally ill. There is no question in my mind and I think most people would agree with that. The question then becomes how do we stop crazy people from using their guns?

The most difficult hurdle to clear would be an acceptance that people need to submit to mental health assessments — particularly young people who are more susceptible to this type of behavior. This also involves a more restrictive take on mental health. Right now most people would say that going for a mental health check up is an option and not a requirement. You are free to be a crazy person — no matter that you are living on public sidewalks, no matter that you are a schizophrenic carry an AK47. Until you are actually hurt someone, you are free to be as crazy as you wish.

Personal rights and public safety are difficult issues to balance. I would argue because we have constitutional protection for gun rights than the government has a responsibility to assess a person’s psychological ability to responsibly carry them. It becomes a health issue instead of a gun rights issue. Every year of high school, every student needs to take a psychological evaluation. Not only could this help with mass shootings but also may help address homelessness, drug addiction and array of other social problem before they become serious problems.

If mental illness is the cause of school shootings then what is the mental health solution? So far the political class seems mired in pointless struggles about gun control and finger pointing at the the other side’s toxic politics neither of which is likely to change. What if we determine that good mental health is a personal responsibility and if we, as a country, can get early intervention with this very small number of people willing to shoot down small children we can address this without affecting anyone’s right to bear arms?

But you don’t have a right to be a crazy person — whether that manifests as shooting up a school or sleeping on public sidewalks.

By on

The raid on John Bolton’s house is more than a little worrisome. To start with, Bolton is a Republican who, at least on paper, agrees with Trump on most of the issues. He actually served in Trump’s first term as president. But Bolton disagrees with Trump and he personally seems to hate Trump. These type of disagreements, at least in the past, were a part of the big tent parties. You occasionally disagreed with each other. But Trump must have 100% allegiance to him.

So, if you won’t keep your mouth shut willingly, Trump is going to scare you into submission. Trump is using intimidation to stop his opponents from speaking. There is a big difference between calling a person stupid and opening a Department of Justice Investigation into a person’s activities.

If Bolton has nothing to hide what is he worried about? If only it was that easy. Investigations require lawyers to gather evidence to support your case. This, of course, means you have to have money in the bank to take on a Trump investigation. You have to take time out of your life to appear in court. So, even if you are found innocent, you lose time and money to Trump’s petty harassment. There might be people who would risk irritating Trump, but there also are people who will decide to keep their mouths shut instead.

It certainly seems to have shut down any criticism from anyone in the Republican party. Any Republican who disagrees with Trump is silenced — either by keeping their mouth shuts or through making their lives so miserable they quit or are pushed out in primaries. There is only Trump and what Trump says goes.

The deafening silence of party elders is baffling. I am talking about you Mitch McConnell (83 years of age) and you Chuck Grassley (91years of age). Here are two old men without a political future. Their political futures, and let’s face it their personal futures, have a very limited time line. They have nothing to lose. Why not raise a little Hell on your way out? What are they saving their gravitas for? Future power.

Trump’s behavior is so blatantly corrupt now that it is beyond shocking. He is selling presidential pardons. He owns stock in companies the government is doing business with. He openly shakes down business leaders for their spare change. He threatens anyone who crosses him with investigation. What line does Trump have to cross before these men speak up? There is very little power in nodding your head in agreement to everything Trump says. Yet they still continue to quietly nod.

Democracies occasionally put bad people in power. It is inevitable. They aren’t, however, the real problem, it is the people who keep their mouths’ shut hoping to hold onto what little power they have when any real power they had is long gone. They are powerless intimidated people who would rather give Trump what he wants than take him to task.

By on

The problem with the present party system is that both parties nominate people that some party members don’t like. Republicans are locked into only Trump supported candidates while ignoring any candidates who might hold differing opinions. The Democrats are a quibbling bowl of mush. The candidate is either a party stalwart who the partly elders foist on the members as the only electable candidate (See Joe Biden) or a left wing ideologue (See Bernie Sanders) who would have trouble winning a state that wasn’t located on either coast.

In almost 50 year of voting I have rarely ever voted for the person in the general election who I voted for in the primary. It’s almost always my second or third or even fourth choice. I am a party man so whoever gets the Democratic nomination almost always gets my sometimes less than enthusiastic vote. But I think they should know that it was less than enthusiastic.

I am not sure if it would change things but it might be helpful to know how genuinely popular the candidate is. Polls might point to this but actual voting would be confirmation of the weakness of the person and is the only accurate way to get this information.

So when you voted instead of seeing:

  1. Jenny Jones Republican
  2. John Smith Democrat

You would get an additional drop down box for each candidate:

  1. I am voting for candidate who I think will be a great President.
  2. I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

The candidate would get the vote for either option but if a candidate got a lot of I am voting for the lesser of two evils votes it might (might is the key word here) remind the candidate that yes they did win a lot of votes but that a lot of his voters are doing so as a last resort. I imagine a candidate who won and got 70% lesser of two evils might behave differently than a candidate who wins and gets a 10% lesser of two evils.

By on

I managed people who held low level jobs and limited opportunities for advancement. They are, by and large, an unmotivated bunch. They did their work adequately and left on time. They weren’t there for more than a paycheck. Good for them, I say.

One of the things my managers frequently tasked me with is how to motivate these people. And before I could say more money they then added the painful restriction without offering them more money. More money was always the hitch. The companies wanted to motivate the employees without paying them more. Needless to say, nothing we ever came up with worked.

The problem here is that the highly compensated people who run companies have convinced themselves that more money only works to motivate high level people. Low level people want something else. I attended seminars where I was told countless times that employees actually want other things than more money. They want respect. They want autonomy. They want acknowledgment. Notice that all of these things are free for the company. They are also vague and difficult to deliver for the direct managers. How much autonomy can you give to a person who has a highly structured job with expectations of coming in on budget and on time? If you didn’t deliver, you were encouraged to do better; if you did well, you got a pat on the back.

The budget for employee incentives were such that it was easiest to reward the group instead of the individual. So Donut Fridays and elegant Christmas parties were thought of enticements which never delivered the expected punch. I actually had one employee ask if instead of going to the Christmas party could she instead have the percentage we paid on a per person catering charge in cash. She would rather have the 29.99 than spend time at the party. I had to explain to her that this was a group incentive and her choice was the party or nothing. She, obviously, was being facetious but her point was made — the company was giving her something she didn’t want.

Even more ironical is that when I relayed this information to my boss, she completely understood. This to me, speaks volumes, about corporate culture — everybody knows this won’t work, but since we can’t give more money individually we are stuck we these group benefits that nobody cares about and won’t deliver. In other words, everyone knows these actions are doomed to failure from the start but continue doing them because nobody has a better idea.

I worked for a company that diligently surveyed their employees on how they felt about work. A neutral company took the survey, the results tallied and delivered to the employees. Every year the areas where my department scored lowest would be our focus to improve for the next survey. Except, of course, low pay. Everyone knew we couldn’t change that so low pay was a problem when the first survey was taken and low pay was a problem on the last survey I was there for. I am betting, with almost 100 % chance that I am right and after being away for six years, low pay is still one of the lowest scoring areas for my department.

The higher ups, convinced by seminars they attended where they were told that higher pay is not the major concern for employees, made us middle managers attend these same seminars so that we too can understand that higher pay was not the reason people worked. We learned how to encourage employees, how to discipline employees, how to reward them without giving them any money and, of course, nobody was convinced.

What is so baffling to me is this resistance to giving more money when the higher ups know the way to get people to work harder is to give them more money. This is, after all, the argument for giving rich people more money. We want them to work hard right? These people are the innovators, the entrepreneurs, and the risk takers. They have to be rewarded. If you take away their money, they won’t work very hard. But if you give them money — will the sky is the limit.

Exactly. So why should regular employees be treated differently? It is a blindness to the very economic tenets that Business so enthusiastically embraces. But by all means, continue with the Pizza Parties and Donut Fridays. I am sure one day that it will eventually work.

By on

Donald Trump was upset about the Smithsonian’s failure to talk about the good parts of slavery. There are good parts of slavery? Who knew. I am greatly interested in hearing more. I am sure he will be forthcoming with more details sometime in the future.

Trump may have had a point about the information in Smithsonian displays but it was lost when he started to talk about the good parts of slavery. Because Trump has a reputation of never apologizing and never backing down, there will be no apology which puts his supporters in the awkward position of defending Trump’s ridiculous statement when the only sane response is Trump is wrong and he never should have said something so stupid.

A good portion of the Conservative side has taken the best option available to them — they are ignoring the statement completely. Anyone who tries to defend him looks like an idiot and no one dares contradict the notoriously vengeful Trump so silence is about the best option a sane person would have.

Why Trump and Conservatives feel that American History has to always paint the country in a positive light is baffling. History is about human beings doing things. Human beings, some of the time, are going to do the wrong thing. It is inevitable. And it is a good lesson for children. Even people who do good things can sometimes believe and do terrible things. Children need to know this. How do you expect them to navigate life in this rough and tumble world if they believe Americans only do good?

Facts are facts. Slavery existed in the United States at one time. How do you explain American History without talking about it? The Civil War was all about slavery no matter how hard people try to make it about State’s Rights. This fails when looking at what people living at the time say. All the historical evidence points to slavery as the cause of the war. It wasn’t tariffs, agricultural policy, industrial policy, or any one of a million different issues that states might disagree about — it was about slavery.

Well, then, a lot of Southerners opposed slavery but they felt compelled to support their state, friends and family who did. So where exactly do you stop supporting your friends and family when they have bad ideas? I don’t really want slaves but all my friends and family have slaves so, in order that they don’t feel awkward, I am going to fight a bloody civil war so they know I really like them. These people are actually worse than the people who believed slavery was acceptable. It is the old mother’s adage if everyone was jumping off the Empire State Building, would you? Give me a break.

The Civil War is over with. It is no longer relevant to a modern discussion of civil rights. Now, I happen to disagree with this but say I give it to Trump’s defenders in this debate. The Smithsonian’s displays are about the Civil War. They are trying to explain what happened in 1860 and not how we live now. In order to understand America in the 1860’s, slavery has to be discussed and, if it is discussed honestly, the evils of slavery come up from time to time — it is unavoidable.

Some slave owners were nice to their slaves. Oh come on, really. They may have been nice people but they still believed it was OK to own people, to sell people, and to retrieve people if they ran away. That is your definition of nice? There is little evidence that this niceness was apparent to the slaves. If the slave owners were so nice why did they have to have laws returning runaway slaves? Why would anyone want to leave paradise on the plantation?

The slaves were fed and housed. Big Whoop. Prisoners are fed and housed. Hostages are fed and housed. This is basic human behavior. Nothing particularly special or nice about. If you are going to buy someone, force them to live somewhere and tell them they can’t leave — you better damn well feed and house them.

Why people try to make the South out to be the good guys in this scenario is beyond me. They were wrong about everything and I mean everything. There is nothing redeeming about the South’s position on slavery. It was wrong for them to have slaves and it was wrong for them to start a war about it. Trying to make lemonade out of this tainted basket of lemons is impossible. So, for God’s sakes, stop it.

By on

Given Trump’s record of fucking up almost everything he touches, I never gave it much thought but now with all of this back and forth with Putin and Zelenskyy in the past few days, it has occurred to me that a complete idiot like Trump might bring peace the Ukraine. What if Trump can come up with some manageable scenario where Putin can exit the Ukraine gracefully while Zelenskyy can limit his land losses to Russia. Right now, it is highly unlikely but still possible nonetheless.

Trump doesn’t know a lot about the Ukraine or Russia and isn’t looking to learn much. Oddly this puts him in a position of having few preconceived notions about how things will turn out. He is a blank slate. He just wants peace so he can snag a Nobel Peace Prize and if he has to force two warring parties to make peace then that is what he will try to do. Since he also has an inflated sense of his abilities, he might be so oblivious to the reality of these two enemies that he might also suggests something crazy enough to work.

I am more than a little dubious that this will happen but, unlike almost everyone else on Earth, expect the unexpected with Trump. I mean I never thought he would President and look how that turned out.

By on

One of the historical debates I remember in school was why did so many German Jews stay when they could see what Hitler was doing. Wasn’t the coming Holocaust obvious to them? Of course, anyone living after post-World War II know this but how could someone living at the time know it. No one until World War II could imagine such a horror as happening. Now, however, the world remembers the Holocaust as an example of how things can go terribly wrong with Facism and Nationalism. So much so that it taints every reference to Facism/Nationalism. People could end in concentration camps if this goes on much longer. Unlikely but still has to be seriously considered given our knowledge of history.

I am thinking about this now because friends recently discussed leaving the country because of Donald Trump. I am not talking about Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O’Donnell either. People I know. And my first thoughts were why on Earth would they leave the country. Things just aren’t that bad. But, because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, I have to question myself — what if I am wrong?

The key to getting out is to leave before it gets too bad. It is best to leave while you can still get your money out and other countries are accepting political refugees, before the madness turns from you are a terrible person to you are so terrible that deserves to die. So, because I am Gay and stand very near to people Trump hates, I need to assess the situation. There must be some sweet spot between leaving too soon and leaving too late. Right now I still have a great deal of hope and I am not particularly worried.

I just can’t imagine my neighbors sitting idly by while I get sent to a concentration camp. Even the ones that voted for Trump would raise the alarm and, so far, I think I am right. Every Trump outrage has been met with some resistance and, while under tremendous strain, Democratic institutions are functioning as they should. It doesn’t mean that this won’t change.

Trump is arresting immigrants and shipping them off to foreign country jails without due process. There are people who argue that potential immigrants don’t deserve due process because they aren’t citizens and therefore are denied the Constitutional
Rights Americans have to prevent autocratic rule breaking. The vast majority of Republicans seems to be willing to go along with this in order to stay in power. So we have a bully with a strong authoritarian streak we need to keep our eyes on.

Right now this all seems manageable but I continue to have this nagging feeling of what if I am wrong. The problem with Trump isn’t the man but his voters. I honestly can see what people see in him. All I see is a buffoon, a clown unworthy of his office. I didn’t think he would be elected president and yet he was which means I am missing something really important about his voters.

I clearly don’t understand them, their grievances or their anger. This is what scares me then. Maybe I am so out of touch that I am misunderstanding all the signals which are telling me to leave. Again, I don’t think so but it is a gamble on my part which makes me think I might end up like the German Jews who staid because they thought things would get better. Am I blinding myself to the obvious and keeping my sunny disposition about the future here in America because I can’t see what everyone else is seeing? Does this mean I will end up on a train car to Auschwitz?

By on

My book club read Ernest Hemingways’ The Sun Also Rises this month. It was a book I loved when I was 20. The vivid descriptions of Paris and Spain, everyone drinking way too much and never seeming to work, it all seemed wonderful. It’s funny how 40 years later I see something that I missed on my first reading.

There is still much to like but I was only a few pages in when Hemingway’s casual bigotry began to grate on me. He uses the N word to describe a drummer in a jazz band. And not in using the N word was important for understanding the character way, but in trying to let you know that the drummer was black way.

Robert Cohn is a Jewish character. Hemingway uses a lot of Jewish stereotypes to convey his personality. Jake Barnes, the hero of his story, complains about the number of words he uses in a telegram in order to save money. Or how Cohn has this superior Jewish attitude. None of the other characters seem to like him. There are various reasons other than being Jewish that create this animus toward Cohn but an important and frequently mentioned problem for his friends was that Cohn was simply being Jewish.

Oh, you have to forgive Hemingway. He was just a man of his time. That is the way everyone talked back then. It doesn’t make him a bad person. No, it doesn’t but it certainly make him a racist. So then, it becomes an important factor in discussing his writing.

This is a big problem I have when examining history and literature before the Civil Rights Era. Modern readers are supposed to forgive racism as unimportant because everyone back then was racist. It is meaningless to the story. This is very much the attitude people take when an old person slips into making racist’s statements. They are old. They grew up before they knew it was wrong.

But, saying the N Word, has always been wrong. If Hemingway had used colored or Negro, I could forgive him because they were acceptable terms to describe Black people in the 1920’s. But the N word wasn’t supposed to be used in polite company even in the 1920’s. That Hemingway used it matters greatly.

He knew he could get away with it. His mostly White readers wouldn’t blink an eye when they saw it and, more importantly, they would form an opinion about that character based on the use of the racial slur. It also gave readers a look into Jake’s friend – Lady Brett who was friendly with the drummer. What kind of self-respecting White woman knows a Black Jazz drummer? It helps Hemingway’s characterization of Lady Brett as a promiscuous woman. Racial slurs, then, are not neutral even in the 1920’s.

Furthermore, it isn’t harmless because everyone is doing it. If everyone is doing it then it calls into question the entire White population who either use the word or dismiss it as inconsequential. Why is everybody using it? So, if you are talking about The Sun Also Rises, it is a relevant point of discussion.

This also points to a bigger problem with how we address racism when discussing our past. A lot of people want to say racism is irrelevant to present day America because nobody would do this today. I would argue differently but let’s give them this point.

We aren’t talking about 2025. We are talking about a book written a hundred years ago when a man like Hemingway could safely use racial slurs and still be considered one of the great American writers of the 20th century. Why is that and what does this say about America during this time?

You can’t explain what was going on back then by ignoring racism. The past was far from perfect. Not everything can be tied in to nice little bow. One of those lessons might be that racism was pervasive in 1920’s America and how did this racism affect literature written during this time. But it isn’t meaningless.

By on 2 Comments

So the wizards in Silicon Valley are spending $50,000 to screen their fetuses for intelligence. They only want the best apparently and are willing to pay top dollar before going through the whole trouble of pregnancy and childbirth.

This shows a startling narrow view of intelligence — it all can be found in the genes and nothing else, say education or environment or, even, dare I say, loving parents. Who knows but I am certain that a DNA test is only part of the story.

And the data may cause more questions than answers. What if you never get a fetus that has an IQ that you want? Say you want a baby with at least a 130 IQ and you keep getting fetuses stuck in the 120 range. Do you bite the bullet and work with you 120 kid or keep trying? What if your 160 IQ fetus also has an incurable disease that will cut the baby’s life short? Possibly before they can express their genius. Or your 160 IQ fetus has genetic predisposition for alcoholism or drug addiction? Or what if your 160 IQ fetus is on the spectrum. Yes they are a genius but they an incredibly difficult time being around other people? What takes priority – the potential genius or the kid who can’t socialize with his kindergarten class.

Babies are a crap shot. You get what you get and you do the best with what you got. Spending $50,000 to comb through DNA data to find the best baby seems like an incredible waste of money to receive dubious data. Really if you can afford to throw away $50,000 on developing a perfect baby, you can afford $50,000 for better schools for everyone.

By on

One of the things I like about Slate, an on line magazine, is its advice columnists. They have a variety of subjects like finance, misbehaving children, people being assholes and sex questions. I enjoy reading and seeing whether I agree with columnist about the problem being discussed. Every so once in awhile there will be a non problem that I think why would anyone even bother writing about this extremely lame “problem.”

A reader addressed one of these non-problems to Slate’s sexual advice columnists recently and I have to admit being baffled by the reader’s concern and the columnist’s advice. The reader’s boyfriend, while asleep, vigorously touches his dick to the point of semi-erection. He never takes it to climax, he doesn’t make any demands on her, he remains asleep during the whole time and doesn’t seem to be negatively affected by the time he sleeps in this semi-aroused state. So what exactly is the problem here?

The woman is concerned that this might be a form of sexsomnia — a condition, I have to admit, I never even heard of until reading Slate’s sex column. For those of you, like me, who are new to sexsomnia, I have provided a link but I will try to summarize as best I can. A person with this condition acts out sexually during sleep – this could include attempting to have sex with a partner sharing the bed. The person who suffers from this condition is actually asleep and not faking it in order to get sex. They are genuinely asleep.

The advice columnist thought it could be a form of sexsomnia and suggested the woman have her boyfriend take a sleep study done to ascertain if this is indeed true. All I can say is WTF. Really. A sleep study to find out if he touches himself to semi-erection while sleeping? Why would anyone consent to a sleep study when he is bothering no one? The woman isn’t being harassed for sex and he isn’t complaining about the lack of sleep. How would anyone’s life benefit from a sleep study here? Yes you do have sexsomnia but it is so mild we don’t suggest you do anything about it? Or no, you don’t have sexsomnia, you dick is just getting hard because you touched it for a few seconds. It’s all perfectly normal so don’t worry about.

I would suggest the woman just go back to sleep when she finds her boyfriend in this state and to stop worrying about nothing.

On the other hand, it does keep my mind off of Donald Trump for a few minutes. So, there is that.