Author: Tom Fitzpatrick

Life

By on

The present Republican party loves love fighting each other, if not more, than they like fighting Democrats. The recent Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene dustup was shockingly unnecessary and brutally public. If I understand this correctly, Greene called Boebert a bitch and, not under her breath, out loud so Boebert could hear her. There were some extra adjectives dangling before the actual word bitch but I am on a roll here and don’t want to lose my momentum so I am not going to stop and look them up, suffice it to say they weren’t very nice and Boebert got pissed about it.

On the other hand, was it a faux pas worthy of kicking Greene out of the Freedom Caucus. Boebert and Greene agree about almost everything, what is a little name calling among friends? This is really nothing, right? Not something to make a public scene about. Why put their party in a bad light over something so petty? But apparently I am wrong. Petty as it appears to be, the two battlers are making this public. I don’t know about you but I would be mortified if everyone in my office knew I was arguing with a coworker about being called a bitch. I would have to quit from the embarrassment.

This is, I think we can all agree, small potatoes. There are other arguments going on as well. The Never Trumps like George Will, the Bushes, Liz Cheney, who are basically in ideological agreement with the Republican Agenda, they just hate Trump are also battling with the Trump Republicans. The Trumpies like to imply that the Never Trumps are somehow not real Conservative Republicans because they are critical of Trump. Loyalty to Trump is now the baseline that Trump requires from all Republicans. This means that the Never Trump Republicans will continue to hate Trump from afar as Trump will not go away. In a normal political party this is where the party elders might come in and tell everyone to play nice. Except that the party elders are all almost universally despised by the Trump Republicans. So, even if they did try to bring peace, it isn’t going to matter.

At this point, Republican Party brawling is a pretty reliable expectation, kind of like Saturday night boxing. So I thought I was inured to this petty but vicious infighting until I read this column by Robert Zimmerman. He is mad at Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz. Zimmerman sounds really far right wing, but not that much further right than Cruz, a senator that only the Reddist of Republicans could love. Cruz was apparently too accommodating with the Democratic Majority when dealing with a matter in the senate. That Cruz is in the minority and his hands were tied is irrelevant. He should have made a scene. I am certain Cruz was perfectly willing to make a scene when he sees potential gain but he does have to space them out to make them more effective. If he were to make a scene every day, he might be mistaken for Marjorie Taylor Greene and nobody wants that distinction.

The funny thing, at least I find it amusing, is that this destructive political infighting used to be the province of Democrats. All of these Republicans trying to pick up the mantle of Reagan forget that he was comfortable with a party that included a lot of different factions. Reagan was remarkably adept at keeping all these sometimes contentious factions in the same boat and, for the most part, rowing in the same direction. His 11th Commandment was thy will not speak ill of a fellow Republican. And, speaking as someone who didn’t like his politics, this was no mean feat. Reagan, if you will recall, also won elections with landslide margins. Trump can’t say that and will never be able to. He is poison to half of the electorate.

Don’t get me wrong. Personally, nothing makes me happier than Republicans on a suicide mission. But it is stunning to hear their lack of self awareness when talking about RINOs (Republican in Name Only) here and RINOs there and then complaining about election rigging. RINOs do vote. Their complaints might be more believable if they didn’t spend so much time bad mouthing their own party members.. Theoretically, in order to win elections, you have to add members to your party to achieve a majority and not chase members away. The sad truth that Republicans can’t face is that Trump doesn’t give a damn about the Republican Party. He cares only about Donald Trump and if he has to destroy fellow Republicans to get what he wants, he will happily do so. I don’t think you can say the same thing about Ronald Reagan and there, my friends, is the difference between a landslide and a close election.

By on

When I finished reading Peachy Keenan “Everyone is gay, can you blame them?” I got a sinking feeling it my stomach. Keenan was using satire to describe what she sees as a problem with modern academia. She is trying to explain why 40 % of the student body of Brown calls themselves Bisexual/Gay/Trans. She says being Gay or Trans is the in thing to be right now and thus the only way to get ahead, particularly in a weird Ivy League school such at Brown, is to say you are gay or, if you really want to grab power, get a sexual reassignment surgery.

Maybe there is a giggle or grin here. There is also something more worrisome and insidious — Gay and Trans people have power and you better bow down to them in order to get ahead. This is false. Most gays are not in a position of power. Most college students are still heterosexual with little evidence that this is changing. There is no reason to be worried about the Brown survey. Gays do not want to make your children gay. Gays do not want your children changing their gender. The problem with satire is there are people who get it and people who don’t. There is the danger that the ones who don’t will believe that Gays are all powerful and need to be stopped. Once you have a culprit, then the humorless can remove the culprit from power.

By on 2 Comments

A Cervical Cancer society in the UK recently made a suggestion, and it was a suggestion and not a command, to medical professionals to use the term bonus hole or front hole instead of vagina when talking to trans patients. It isn’t going to happen. One, if someone said bonus hole to me I wouldn’t have a clue what they are talking about. My mind drifted to golf for some reason but it did not go to vagina. There is also a perfectly good word already in use for vagina that would be vagina. I am not sure why it is offensive to Trans people and I am not sure why it needs to change.

But what about Trans people’s feelings? I doubt that many Trans people actually are offended by the use of the word vagina. Has anyone ever checked into this? Or are Trans activists, with nothing better to do with their time, imagining offenses where no offense is being taken. The Trans community would be better served by activists who can explain why Trans people might need medical treatment, how they are not forcing these medical options on Trans people, and helping parents make the necessary decisions regarding their children’s future. Until then, Trans Activists are acting as if they have won the day and that they are in a position to direct people’s language. They are not. Trans activists are going to lose while also alienating potential supporters of Trans rights which is something I would think they would like to avoid.

Then there is the argument that if it is important for people to be comfortable and to use language that supports this comfort, what about all the people who prefer vagina to bonus hole? Aren’t they people too? Last year, Bette Midler got entangled in another controversy because she objected to replacing the word woman with birthing people or menstruators. She wants to be called a women and I am betting that there are billions of other women who have the same preference. Billions, mind you, while Trans people being offended by the word woman is how big a group — I am guessing hundreds, maybe thousands at best. And to make it even more confusing, what about Trans women who want to be called women? Can they use women? Language is around to make life simpler. Menstruator and Bonus Hole makes life more complicated so are doomed for failure.

So in summation, this society is recommending replacing a perfectly useful and widely understood word like vagina to a different word nobody knows so nobody will understand it when used in order to prevent offending a very small group within society who may not even be offended by vagina in the first place. There is a better use for people’s energies than this losing battle.

By on

Tommy Tuberville, Republican Senator from Alabama, flubbed a question about white Nationalism the other day. Since nobody admits to making a mistake any more, he has chosen to double down on the mistake. Which probably will turn out all right because his voters don’t give a damn about the topic. On the other hand, an admission he goofed would certainly save the rest of the Republican party running around having to say White Nationalists are indeed racists and we don’t know what Tommy Tuberville is talking about here but we can guarantee you he isn’t racist.

Which is understandably disturbing to those of us who do know what White Nationalism is all about. So, what exactly does he think when hanging out with these friends he just disagrees with but they themselves are really good people when they spew this racist poison. What is a Senator to do? For Tuberville, it is just a simple difference of opinion, requiring nothing more than an oh shucks you crazy guys, I can’t believe you still think that is true.

He either is an idiot, which could be the answer, but I really want to give Tuberville the benefit of the doubt here, he is, after all, a US Senator, so he must raise, if ever so slightly, above being characterized as an idiot. This leaves he doesn’t give a damn what people think as, to some extent, he is OK with White Nationalism. This seems closer to the truth as I can’t believe that a Republican US Senator would not be prepared for such a softball question. His internal danger warning must have been screaming DANGER, DANGER THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION SENATOR.

Instead of taking the easy way and finesse the question to a meaningless but agreeable mush of words, Tuberville, knowingly stumbled into the controversy that followed. Nobody, even his White Nationalist friends, would have condemned him had he responded with some benign blather about all races are equal under the law and he judges each person as an individual and not by their race. Since he decided to engage in a conversation about White Nationalism, it suggests he holds a more nuanced understanding of White Nationalism and he is putting his toe in the water to see how receptive the American public was to this position.

The good news for the country was there was enough blowback to make Republicans tell Tuberville he was wrong and Tuberville kind of sort of backed down just a smidge on what he meant. It is still concerning that a Republican Senator clings to a racist belief system and is a little confused on why people are getting all worked when he expresses his opinion. There is a persistent group within the Republican Party attacking democracy as we have understood it for the past 50 years. The heart of their argument is defining who is worthy to be considered a full citizen. They worry that certain groups are not the right people to be considered citizens. They worry about illegal aliens giving birth to American citizens. They worry about softhearted woman voters. They worry about poorer citizens exercising their right to vote, and they question the ability of urban counties run by Black officials to count votes fairly.

Their real worry is these groups don’t vote Republican and hence are making their party’s electoral survival more difficult. Any party that has only won the popular vote once in the last six presidential elections has every reason to worry about this too. Making their arguments more palatable to the American voter, however. might be a better strategy to pursue than changing the makeup of the American citizenry.

By on

Elon Musk thinks that the collapse of babies being born is a bigger concern than global warming. He is not alone. Many Conservative and Libertarian men share this concern. China, the second heaviest populated country, and until just a short time ago, the heaviest populated country in the world, has begun a population reversal. So what? Well, given all the present data, China will suffer a population collapse do to this reversal. Again, so what? China is also a country that many of these same men ascribe as the author of many of the evils in the present world, isn’t that a good thing. No, you see, the problem plagues much of Southern Europe (Spain, Italy and Bulgaria) and Eastern Asia (Japan and South Korea). The West is beginning to lose population as well.

I am still unmoved. Well, then think about the economy which depends upon consumers buying products, you idiot. If there are less consumers, there are less customers for the products business is selling. So that’s the real problem money. I should have guessed. The worry is that the combined problem of an overburdened social security system and the lack of new customers will undermine Western economies.

This is irritating for a number of reasons. Predictions based on present data is quite often wrong which is, again, something that these Conservative men should understand. They are constantly making this same claim when discussing Global Warming. Sometimes these predictions just don’t pan out. For example, many demographers in the 1940s were predicting a low population growth in the USA for the 1950’s based on the low birth rates of the 1930’s, instead they got a Baby Boom. The explanation is simple. Parents of the 1930’s were reacting to the Depression, while parents of the 1950’s were reacting to the post-World War II economic boom. People make different decisions when their circumstances change.

If women knew it was an essential for the continuation of civilization as we know it, then they might be prone to having children, until then I think a few less people being born might be something to give a little time to get used to and see what happens. Perhaps, the ever ingenious human being will come up with an alternate way to live other than consumer consumption of mostly useless products for an endlessly expanding population.

Instead of thinking about these new possibilities, these free thinkers are slyly going after abortion and birth control. David Strom, pro-life writer, recently gloried that more babies are being born in Texas population since the reversal of Roe v Wade. So then he celebrates the birth of 10,000 babies while ignoring the women who gave birth to these babies. At best this is a morally ambiguous achievement. A woman is being forced into having a baby against her will, a reasonable person might also show some sympathy for the women put in this position. He doesn’t. Furthermore, the Roe decision also has emboldened anti-birth control advocates to step up their efforts to make birth control more difficult to obtain. Yes, and, also they are going after a women’s right to vote. The real goal here is obvious — keeping women barefoot, pregnant and powerless.

With all these efforts to make women mothers, you would think that the Republicans would try to make motherhood more attractive. They aren’t. A good example of this penchant for stopping government involved in anything even if it would help potential mothers is a recent development in Idaho where the Republican dominated legislature there decided to stop tracking maternal health mortality program. There isn’t enough money and, besides, the government should be involved in learning more about public health problems. Right. Message received.

So, to summarize, the world needs more babies. Women aren’t stepping up and having them. Governments need to make it more difficult to obtain abortions and birth-control in order to make this happen. And, no, the Government isn’t going to help women with their health or any of the many expenses a baby might cause her. Well, then, how fucking urgent can it be?

By on

I want to recommend a movie called Under the Silver Lake without steering you wrong. First, it isn’t Citizen Kane. There are some real problems with the movie particularly the bone headed treatment of woman — almost all the women are good looking eye candy scantily clad, topless or nude. They are primarily there to please the male gaze. The plot is convoluted, possibly non-existent which is weird because there seems to be a plot that is always moving but not necessarily forward and perhaps not side to side or backwards either. It is way too long. The movie is clearly aimed at young men with thwarted artistic ambitions — a very limited audience indeed. The lead character, played by Andrew Garfield, is kind of creepy even though he is, for lack of a better word, the hero of the movie.

Despite all of this, I did enjoy the movie and am thinking about days after seeing it. So there is something there. I am just not sure how to describe in such a way that anybody would understand. The movie is definitely not for everyone but I, for one, kept thinking this is an interesting enough ride for me to stay on board. There is no need for spoiler alerts because there is too much going on for anyone to connect the dots to a cohesive plot even if you have seen the movie.

It comes as close as I have ever seen of capturing the offbeat weirdness that is LA. A weirdness that is both sinister and oddly cheerful. Everyone is a performance artist and a member of a secret conspiracy whether they want to be or not. David Robert Mitchell, the director, is fan of Alfred Hitchcock and this movie is definitely a homage to him. There are hints of other old movies throughout the film.

The plot sort of is this: the hero is completely distracted from the very real possibility of being evicted from his apartment to investigate instead the disappearance of a woman he met just once. Because no one can explain where she is, he becomes enmeshed in probably unrelated conspiracies from a nut who seems completely rational at times but has an answer for the hero’s every question which makes him sound believable even though you know he is crazy. There are adolescent hooligans keying cars, gurus, nuclear fallout shelters, comic book shops, parties that absolutely anybody can walk into if they have the right cookie, secret codes that lead to maps found on the back of cereal boxes, blind folded journeys through Griffin Park lead by a homeless man wearing a paper crown, and a naked women wearing an owl mask who could be a notorious murderer. Do you get it?

It’s funny, sad and frequently unbelievably artificial while also being genuinely LA.

By on

Our refrigerator, after 23 years of faithful service, died the other day.

Needing a replacement, Bob immediately found a new one. It’s a complicated and boring story but the crux of the matter is we can’t install the new one until we can detach our old one from the water system. A plumber has to do this and he needs a part. The installer said he can return when we know a date when this is completed. Bob has confirmed a date for the plumber.

All we need now is for the delivery people to come hook up the water for the new refrigerator and take the old one. The delivery man gave us a phone number and email address where we could contact them. Bob tried via email. No response. Bob then tried to call customer service. The recorded message informed him that he would wait an hour a customer service agent would answer. Thinking it had something to do with customer service being short staffed due to the 4th of July Holiday, he decided to wait until after the holiday. He called today very early in the day, and, received the same hour wait for an agent message. Customer Service doesn’t have enough agents when you start the day an hour behind. Given that we have heard nothing via email, I am willing to bet that no one is responding to emails and that our best bet is to wait an hour to speak with someone.

I recently had a similar experience while renting a car. We had to wait an hour and half in a line of more than 30 people to see a rental agent. There were two at the desk. Once we got our contract we went into another line to get our car. This desk had one person. We waited for 30 minutes in that line. At first, I thought a bunch of planes must have landed thus causing the long lines, but the line never got smaller, it had, in fact, got larger.

Of course, it isn’t the company’s fault. There aren’t enough good employees to do the job. They claim to be trying, but really are they? Management is always blaming labor for the lack of good employees. I invite you to look at this in a different way. Companies’ can’t find workers who are will do the job at the wage you are offering. They might have better luck if they paid more money.

Indeed, this is the way the market is supposed to operate. If something becomes more expansive to deliver, say oil for the sake of argument, then the market price goes up. So, when there is war in the Middle East or hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico preventing the refining of oil, everyone accepts that prices of oil will go up. This is what we are told anyway.

Then doesn’t the same theory applies to wages. If it is difficult to find employees at a certain wage, then you need to raise the wage until you can acquire the number and quality of employees where you can deliver the product or service you are selling. American business is, for some reason, resistant to learning this simple straightforward lesson of Capitalism. If forced to choose between higher wages or delivering bad service, they will choose bad service every time in hopes that if they hold out long enough, the labor market will change in their favor.

In the mind of Business Managers, Labor is the whipping boy for all the failures of American Capitalism. If there are problems, it was bad employees. If budget cuts are necessary, where do you think they cut first. Cut the number of staff while trying to maintain the same workload. Cut benefits, raise deductibles on health insurance, do away with sick days. They brag about profits, they brag about price shares but rarely, if ever, do you hear them brag about paying the best wages in the industry. Which is odd because a customer might infer that by paying the best wages, your company also has the best people.

I can’t tell you how many Rah Rah end of the year speeches I’ve listened to where the corporate heads are blathering on about all the successes the company experienced — profits are up, share prices are up, efficiency is up, automation is up. They claim how they are the best in the industry for this and that. Then some brave employee broaches the subject of wages. The talking head has a ready answer. The company pays wages that are in line with the labor market. This sounds like collaboration to me. If they all know the standard wage, they can gauge their salaries appropriately. I thought this was illegal but never mind. For some reason this stops all conversation about wages.

Employees buy it. Until recently, I always did. I thought well what can I say to that — the company pays what is in line with every other company in the industry. But, wait, doesn’t the company want to be best at everything? Why wouldn’t the company want to have the best wages as well? In almost 40 years of working, I have never heard a company head brag that they offer the best wages in their industry. They may say a lot of wonderful things about their employees, they may even believe what they say but they rarely brag about the wages. they are paying. Curious that, don’t you think?

Which brings me back to the extra refrigerator clogging up our kitchen. This effects customer service. Because lower paid employees are the most likely staff to work with actual customers, this lack of good employees has a detrimental effect on a customer’s experience. If you can’t afford to pay good employees you are also ensuring that, at least some of your customers, will have a bad experience. Companies are hoping that most of this will be handled through better automation, the problem is that if any hiccups occur and a human needs to get involved, the company almost guaranteeing a bad experience. Let me tell you if I have to wait an hour when I call a customer service department, I have already had a bad experience. I have had to wait an unreasonable amount of time. By the time the poor customer service agent answers, I am fuming and ready to quarrel. So, the underpaid sap might begin to think — I don’t get paid enough to this crap.

And around and around she goes.

By on

Billionaire Elon Musk wants to limit the vote to people with children because children give parents a special interest in the future, so hence are better voters. He provides absolutely no proof that this is true other than parents have children and, because they do, they care more about the future than single people.

I am confused. When has voting ever been about the future? It is almost always about the now. Like how are we going to spend tax revenues now, how are we going to protect people from crime now, how are we going to educate people now, do we want to send troops to Afghanistan now — I could go on but you get my point. Politics is about how we live now and, though the future looms big in the background, what people in the present are actually worried about is what is going on now. Telling people that yes things are miserable now but it will payoff in thirty years for your children isn’t exactly a rousing campaign slogan for parents either.

The good news here is Musk ‘s proposal is dead upon arrival. Voting rights for women and minorities are enshrined in the U.S Constitution so that involves a constitutional amendment to change. I suppose he could introduce a Constitutional Amendment taking away the vote from single people but we all know it is a long an arduous process through 50 state legislature. Furthermore single people still can vote and, presumably would vote against the idea along with their friends that maybe parents.

Musk isn’t being serious. He is stirring the pot and it is interesting which pot he has chosen to put his spoon. Conservatives and Libertarians are going after limiting the vote. It’s not just making it difficult anymore, it is making it impossible to get your hands on a ballot in the first place. The implications are shocking, at least, shocking to me. He is saying that there are people who are more worthy of full citizenship than others and, if you want to know who he is thinking might be cut from the voting rolls, Musk has thrown is some ideas for your consideration.

But it aligns with Republican notions that if only the right people voted, that Republicans would win. And what do you know, married couples tend to vote Republican. Single men also vote Republican but less so than married people. Single women are the trouble for the Republicans and they vote overwhelming Democratic, so much so that it erases any advantage the Republicans get from the other three groups. Instead of working on changing the minds of single women, the Republicans have opted to change who can vote.

These ideas about limiting the vote are not isolated ideas either. It’s a topic that I keep seeing – particularly in Libertarian and Far Right circles. Columnist Michael Walsh proposed limiting the vote to men. He artfully never says women are incapable of rational thought but he quotes others to defend this notion. He describes how the ancient Romans felt that “women were never considered worthy of the vote. They were too emotional, too devious in their machinations, and certainly too weak to fight.” Really. Of course it is the Romans saying it, not Walsh. Really. Is it that surprising the Ancient Romans felt this way about women. Ancient Rome, you know, about two thousand years ago. Romans were also partial to slavery and viewed women as nothing more than vessels for the production of children. How much Roman wisdom does Walsh want us to incorporate into the modern American system? These attacks on the vote are also coming from all directions. The other day Seaford, Delaware tried to give the vote to non-resident business owners. This almost made it through the Delaware legislature.

This constant attack on the present franchise is worrisome. Take away the vote from women. Take away the vote from single people. Keep taking away voting rights until you get the electorate willing to vote your way. But it won’t be a functioning democracy. And what arrogance. The underlying assumption of these men is that they are more worthy than you and know what is best for you. That is if you’re single or a woman or both. Get it. I am waving my middle finger.

By on

The investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide is complete. Bad employees made bad decisions. The cameras were down, Epstein didn’t have a cell mate, Epstein collected extra sheets and his watchers decided not to watch him that night. All these errors culminated in the death of Epstein. But, despite this odd convergence of completely unrelated events, there is nothing suspicious about his death.

Let me think about this for a moment. No, sorry. I am just not buying it. Epstein, a man who could provide evidence implicating Presidents, Cabinet members, and members of Congress and who had been on suicide watch before, despite all the knowledge of his importance and his suicidal tendencies, still he manages to commit suicide on the very day that the numerous failsafe procedures designed to prevent such an action fail. It was almost like he knew this would happen. How convenient.

Two low level employees have taken the fall and that will be that. This is both unsurprising and shocking. I don’t know about you but if I was the warden tasked with keeping such an important person alive, I would pay attention to how my staff was handling the person. It would be my number one priority. I would visit Epstein’s cell every day to make sure everything was in order. I would call his watchers late at night and make them go to his cell and come back and tell me his alive. I would be consumed with worry that something terrible was going to happen to Epstein. It doesn’t appear that the warden was worried much about the performance of his lower level employees.

To pawn this off as a series of misdeeds by low level employees fucking up on their daily tasks is unbelievable. I know this to be true because I used to be a lower level employee with bosses and important projects. Concerned bosses check up on important projects. Concerned bosses put their best people on important projects. They keep tabs on what is going right and what is going wrong because they know if something goes disastrously wrong, they, and not the low level employees, will be called to account for what happened. And that manager better be able to provide an explanation.

Also, speaking as an ex-lower level employee, if my boss told me that the my most important task was ensuring that my charge is alive in the morning, I would make pretty damn sure that person was alive. I wouldn’t want to explain why Epstein had extra sheets, or no room mate, or that the camera wasn’t working.

So, if the report is true, there was a stunning lack of supervision of lower level employees. For a prison. You know one of those places that house really dangerous people and that the public needs to be protected from. That is kind of why they are there. So if low level employees can fuck up so much that the most important prisoner in the building turns up dead, I might be concerned with a little more than those low level employees. That this isn’t happening speaks volumes of what is really going on here. It is a bit sad that the best case scenario is gross incompetence up and down the food chain. The worse scenarios involve corrupt prison officials and phantom assassins are even more troubling.

Artfully hidden in these reports, at least I have not read anything about it and I would think given the media’s desire for juicy tales would be at least mentioned, is the possibility that Epstein was helped in his act – either by prison employees or by invited assassins. This would seem to be an important point to address because there was a lot of speculation about this after Epstein’s death. Not a word. He committed suicide and that is that.

That nobody believes this story goes without saying. It is an insult to the public’s intelligence. The inability for investigators to provide even a plausible answer to what happened that night reveals a shocking arrogance. They clearly don’t give a rat’s ass if we believe this report. They had to provide a report, they did it, now shut up. There also is, at least so far as I’ve read, a surprising lack of outrage from the press and elected officials which moves us into even more troubling territory. Are they complicit? Are they scared?

The whole mess is disappointing. It reeks of conspiracy and cover up something I try to avoid because it makes you sound crazy but then this report does nothing to make me feel differently.