Author: Tom Fitzpatrick

Life

By on

Greenland, not too long ago, was a hunk of ice that few people cared about. But then Greenland started to melt making it more feasible to exploit its natural resources and making the waterways surrounding the country more navigable. So now Trump wants it.

So even though Trump doesn’t believe in Global Warming, he wants to take advantage of the destruction Global Warming is causing. On one hand, nothing needs to be done to slow Global Warming because it isn’t happening and, even if it was, it has nothing to do with human activity. On the other hand, this vast hunk of ice that covers Greenland is disappearing, I guess for no particular reasoning, and Trump wants in on the action.

The contradictions here are mind boggling.

By on

The city of San Diego has moved from free trash service to paid trash service. This wording is a bit of a mystery as trash service was never free — it was included in our taxes. But never mind. Semantics.

Part of this process was to replace the old black trash bins with the new grey ones. This is necessary, or so we are told, in order to know how to bill customers. Environmental Services will pick up the chipped grey bins and have stopped collecting trash in the old black bins. So the thousands of black bins are no trash and being, I suppose, tossed into a trash land fill. This sounds both environmentally and economically wasteful. Perfectly good bins are now trash because the city wants to track who should have their trash picked up via the new user charge. Instead of the much more efficient system of picking up all the black trash bins on the street because everyone is a tax payer.

In order to put this new process into action, the city is confiscating the old black bins and replacing them with the new grey bins. Except we didn’t get the new grey ones, our old black ones, however, were confiscated. This leaves the question of where are we suppose to dispose of our trash.

The city, ever willing to help, has a customer support number for just such a problem. A quick call and all will be resolved. Right. This would work, I suppose, if there was anyone answering the phone. Bob tried one afternoon and after a hour plus of waiting gave up. He did manage to get in after about 40 minutes wait the next day.

So the customer service agent resolved the issue and new grey bins were delivered to our home. In your dreams. The customer service agent told Bob that their records showed that the grey bins were delivered to our home. Bob reminded the agent that he has spent a couple of hours waiting to talk to someone because there were no grey bins delivered and we have no place to dispose of our trash. She helpfully noted that Bob could go up and down the block checking the serial numbers on our neighbor’s trash bins to see who made off with our bins. That is right. We are supposed to go looking at our neighbors trash cans, find ours, and claim it. All hopefully without a confrontation with the neighbors.

Bob, of course, refused this choice and escalated the problem to a supervisor who he is hoping will return his call and get our grey bins delivered so we can dispose of our trash. Fingers crossed.

By on

I saw the following posts on Glen Reynolds Instapundit site where I learned that the capture of Maduro is not only a victory for the Trump Administration but also White men. Yes, White men are the only one’s capable of pulling off such competence needed for such a special military operation. No people of color or women involved at all so the only reason it came off without hitch was because White men were in charge of the project and White men performed all of the tasks.

This isn’t the least bit racist either because he is just pointing out the facts. There were only White men involved and the result was military success.

What a crock. There have been lots of successful military operations in the past 6,000 years. Some of them surely involved people of color.

And just in the spirit of balance, I would like to point out the many historical disasters initiated by White men — trench warfare and Viet Nam will suffice as gentle reminders that depending on White men sometimes leads to disaster.

This is, given the divisive nature of the Trump administration and criticism regarding their racial politics, oddly counter productive to what I would think is the goal of such an operation. This was a necessary action conducted for the nation and benefit all Americans. We are all in this together.

But if you are going out of your way to gloat about the performance of just White men than, yeah, great, go White men. The Venezuela Operation is all about White men.

On the other hand, if anything goes wrong later, and surely an undertaking of this size, something will go wrong. We can assign the blame for these mistakes on White men.

Sorry for the photographs. I couldn’t link to the post so I took pictures. If you want to go to Instapundit site and find these posts of January 4 around 5PM.

By on

I was talking with my brother about the Hitler/Trump comparison and I always end up in the same place. Trump just isn’t Hitler. Not even close. It is an impossible measurement. Hitler is one of the all time champion dictatorial monsters. Valid comparisons to Hitler are Stalin and Mao but Trump falls short in this competition. Way way short.

This doesn’t mean Trump isn’t dangerous, he just fails to match Hitler.

I think the Hitler comparison comes about because Hitler’s rule was so disastrous for the entire world. A lot of people died directly and indirectly during his rampage through history. He is the worst case scenario. Hitler is meant to scare people. But because Trump isn’t nearly as bad as Hitler the comparison fails to accomplish this task and might even be counter productive.

The danger of this comparison is that people will judge the comparison as faulty and dismiss the argument.

The real problem, as my brother pointed out, is that Trump is crossing lines that are intolerable in democracy. He is arresting people and taking over countries with very thin pretexts. He is condemning people to death without trial. He thinks the president can do anything he wants. He is no longer playing by the rules of American democracy so when is it all right for people who disagree with him to stop playing by those rules.

This is a much more difficult proposition and one we need to be very careful about. Political violence is terrible because once it starts, all bets are off. Once the bodies pile up, things get pretty bloody awfully fast. I, personally, would like to avoid that if at all possible. I may be wrong but I still think we aren’t at a point to stop playing by the rules.

By on

I have been looking for an example of what is wrong with the present political system that isn’t about Donald Trump doing something outrageous. This has been a difficult task because Trump is consistently behaving outrageously. It is so frequent that I started writing the present blog minutes before I discovered Trump kidnapped the Venezuelan president and his wife. I had to stop this blog to write another blog because kidnapping a president and taking over another country is pretty big news.

I now feel comfortable to return to the less outrageous, but concerning, actions of a politician I happen to like — Nancy Pelosi. She believes there is something wrong with Donald Trump’s mental capacity related to his advanced age. I happen to agree with her. The problem I have is her diagnosis is tainted by her previous toleration of Joe Biden’s declining mental capacity while he was president. She was quite willing to foist a declining senior citizen who also happened to be a Democrat on us until it became obvious to the general public that Biden was no longer capable of doing the job.

So thanks but no thanks for this helpful information about Trump. Her words here are meaningless because she changes her tune depending on what party the declining senior citizen is a member. The same criticism goes for all the many Republican and conservative pundits who delighted in pointing out Biden’s decline while presently ignoring the deteriorating health of Trump. How can you take seriously people who complain about putting an old man into power while simultaneously nominating a 78 year old man for president. Huh?

But Trump isn’t the same as Biden. Maybe, maybe not. The issue, however, is putting an aging person in a position of power. The health of 78 year old can change and change rapidly. It isn’t a particularly wise move particularly if you say you are concerned about an aging person in power. What makes putting a 78 year old in power in 2024 different from putting a 79 year old in power in 2020?

So talk all you want about your concerns but it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in your opinion when you selectively use arguments that are important when your party is out of power and not so important when your party is in power. It is, in fact, irritating to hear such hypocrisy roll of the tongues of leaders who expect, in return, that you take it as received wisdom. So blah blah blah right back at you.

By on

I have to give Donald Trump credit. He chooses his enemies well. Nicolas Maduro is an unpopular asshole and difficult to defend as he is probably, at least passively, involved in the drug trade. A good portion of his own people are glad to see him go which puts people who question Trump’s action in the awkward position of saying but what about the law. Yeah, well, keep talking because I don’t think it is going to matter much. This would only matter if he had fucked it up and he didn’t.

People will be outraged. Rightfully so, but it will have little effect. What is the frequent theme for television heroes? A guy who doesn’t let the rules get in the way of him doing the right thing. Over and over again. The hero, if ever, is very rarely a rule following fussbudget. The hero isn’t going to get all the right forms completed and then signed off before arresting the villain. The hero is a rule breaking rouge, a bit of a scoundrel, who figures a way to get the villain despite those annoying rules.

This isn’t a television show and Trump is no television hero. Right. That is the theory any way. The reality, I’m afraid, is somewhat different because why has everyone been glued to their televisions for the past year waiting for Trump’s next move. The Trump show keeps coming up with different ways to shock and entertain us. What will he do next?

But this is an illegal operation, done without congressional authorization, against a head of a legally elected government. But but but and blah blah blah.

To be clear, I don’t support this in any way. I am saying that the outrage will be limited to the people who already hate the man. I doubt very much that anyone else will have their minds changed about him particularly when a Trump controlled Venezuelan government floods the energy markets with cheap oil. I hope I am wrong and the world will come to their senses and turn on Trump. Right now, I doubt it.

By on

Glen Reynolds, Conservative/Libertarian pundit, had a meltdown about Jacob Savage’s The Lost Generation. Reynolds missed a lot of Savage’s point as did many other conservatives (see my previous post). Indeed Savage says he was an ordinary talent and he holds no grudges against the women and people of color who got the jobs he failed to get. It was bad luck for him that he was born during a time that more aggressive measures to right previous wrongs were being taken. He, unfortunately, didn’t make the cut.

Reynolds thinks that a whole generation was hollowed out because some white men didn’t get the jobs. While personally disappointing to some, Reynolds, in no way, proves the generational disaster he contends occurred. White men didn’t get all the jobs but somebody else did. So how was a whole generation hollowed out because some members of that generation didn’t get the jobs. The jobs were filled. People performed the tasks. TV shows were produced. History 101 taught to students. The only difference is the more of these jobs were done by women and people of color. How is this a disaster?

Reynolds unspoken contention is that the best people aren’t performing the tasks. Does Reynolds mean that when white men aren’t over represented in employment statistics, then the best people aren’t getting the jobs. For example, a piece of data that Reynolds refers to from Savage’s article points to a significant decline in white men presently in jobs in television writing. Yes, there was a significant decline in white males in these jobs but, then, what about the other piece of the data Savage writes about, and Reynolds ignores — the over representation of white males in these positions in the past. He doesn’t seem the least bit bothered that there was a deliberate exclusion of women and people of color from these positions that favored white men.

Also, these jobs are prestige jobs. An awful lot of people are vying for them and an awful lot of people are disappointed when they fail to get them. Even in the good old days when white men were over represented. Even today, an awful lot of women and people of color aren’t getting these prestige jobs. A lot of very talented people have to dust themselves off and find a different path. This has been going on since the founding of the Republic. Not everyone gets their dream job. Why Reynolds thinks this is such a national disaster is unclear. The only thing that Reynolds keeps yammering on about is that a white man didn’t get the job and white men are somehow always the best candidates for the job — even, say, jobs writing about a Black Woman on a television show.

This is a personal disappointment that most people will survive not a societal disaster. Since women and people of color now have a chance to get these jobs, there is even more competition for these coveted jobs. And this is a good thing. We are hearing from people who never had a voice and are now able to express it.

But what about the meritocracy? Give me a fucking break. By all means, lets work for a better process but the world isn’t coming to an end because for a very short time in the history of the country, we are, after all, talking about ten years here, white men have had more trouble getting jobs in the studio and academia. The DEI model is under attack and is likely to be replaced with a different model. Let us hope it is fairer. But it will not be perfect and things like family connections and money will still help people who have these advantages to get jobs that more talented people should get. There is no meritocracy solution that will stop this. So the next time Reynolds cries about the absence of meritocratic values in making decisions, he knows what orifice he can stick his whining ass.

By on 1 Comment

The Conservative Press is agog at Jacob Savage’s the Lost Generation. Savage details the trials and tribulations of White men trying to break into Academia or Cultural positions right now. It is all DEI and racial discrimination. I am afraid they are emphasizing only one aspect of his argument while downplaying and missing some of his more salient points. They are going on about how lesser candidates who are women or people of color are getting the jobs that should rightfully being going to White men. This was not Savage’s point at all.

Savage points out that this problem exists for young white men and not older white men. Older White men already have their jobs in Academia and in Cultural institutions while younger White men are vying for open positions. The problem for younger White men is that these positions, in the past, skewed disproportionately to White men. This past discrimination worked against women and people of color. So if you presently have a staff of 10 and 7 of them are white men, what happens when a position becomes available and your institution is interested in diversity. The young white men are at a disadvantage. Not because of women and people of color but because the institution already has too many white men.

Is this unfair? Yes, absolutely. But how can you achieve two varied goals — a diversified work force and being absolutely fair to everyone. Conservatives say that diversity shouldn’t be considered a factor at all. The only thing that matters is who is the better candidate. Well, that would be nice but how exactly does the best candidate always get the job?

For example, Savage discusses the hiring of television writers. How does one determine who is a better writer? Particularly if one of your goals is to broaden the stories you tell to include more stories about women and people of color. Who better to tell these tales than women and people of color? White men can, of course, write women characters but then I am betting than women can write even better women characters. So, then, who is the best candidate for the job? The man or the woman?

How does one determine the best candidate in Academia? Is it teaching? Is it research? Or is it the old tried and true old boy network where connections with the people who make the decisions help you get the job? Why should groups who have been discriminated in the past, trust that you are hiring the best candidate? The word of the person making the decision? After how many white men are hired does one question the process? Five? Ten? Twenty? Never. And after twenty or so white men are hired and discrimination is determined, what happens to all of those candidates that were overlooked? Tough luck.

By the way, there isn’t only one perfect person for the job. Indeed this is rarely true. The difficult decision comes generally because there are several people who could do the job well. This is particularly true with jobs that everybody wants. Jobs in Academia and Culture have always had stiff competition. They carry salary, prestige, and power. In the past, a lot of white men vied with other white men for these positions. And a lot of white men were disappointed. Now the competition has expanded to include women and people of color. This means that the competition is fierce and there is even a bigger chance of not getting your dream job. Savage writes at the end of his essay: “The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”

The sad story is that talented White men are used to getting the job and they aren’t anymore. Their expectation did not match the reality of our present world. It is a difficult lesson to learn but life, as we are constantly being reminded, is unfair. Is it fair that some parents can afford private tutors for their children who may have fallen a step behind in class while poor parents with a child in the same situation can not? Is it fair that some schools are direct conduits to Ivy League Universities while other schools are not? Is it fair that some parents make a significant donation to a university which gets their children into an elite university while a poorer parent with an equally gifted child can not? Is it fair that some children are well fed when they arrive at school and poorer children are not?

I could go on but you get the point. Life is unfair in a lot of different ways. Why this particular unfairness is so important while other unfairnesses can be ignored is informative of the motives of the people complaining right now. I mean if the unfairness in the education a person receives throughout their life can be equalized as best we can then we wouldn’t have to discussing the unfair treatment of White men now. It wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would believe that everybody had a fair chance from the start. But we aren’t talking about the differences in education that people receive, are we? I wonder why?

We do not live in a perfect world. There are plenty of bigoted people in important position making employment decisions. Processes devised to protect groups who have suffered discrimination in the past skew the process against the people who did not suffer discrimination in the past. So maybe we look at how to do the process better as we learn more. But, please, please don’t talk to me about the loss of our meritocracy. Because it is bull shit and you know it is bull shit. We never had one and we never will. All we can do is continue to work at making it better. And we will never ever succeed.

By on

For those people, on both sides of the political divide (think Rob Reiner and Charlie Kirk), who feel the need to respond to the murder of someone you personally hated and you passionately disagreed with, try silence. I know this is difficult to understand in a world where we believe that people are waiting for our every word but it is true. You actually can choose to say nothing at all.

I realize that famous people are often asked to respond in situations like this but that doesn’t mean your response is required. This is particularly important when you don’t like the person in question. If you must say something, try: I need to gather my thoughts about this and will be issuing a statement soon. Then, for God’s sake, come up with a polite neutral statement that is vetted by a hundred or so people before releasing it to the public.

Let’s try to avoid: He was a son of a bitch and I am happy he drowned in a pool of blood. Yes, you may feel that way but you can wait a few weeks, or better still months, before actually saying it. But, please, please wait until the wound is a little less fresh. No one looks good gloating over a murdered body.