Category: Uncategorized

By on

Elon Musk is supposed to have raised his arm in what looks like a Nazi salute. I linked to said crime because given the context of what he was saying and how he raised his arm, I am inclined to agree with Musk. This is nothing to get our panties in a twist.

Before I delve into this further, I want to be clear I am no fan of Elon Musk (see here, here, here). As far as I can tell he is an overpaid idiot with authoritarian instincts. I don’t like the man.

On the other hand, it is ridiculous to believe that he, in a widely seen speech, would break out in a Sieg Heil at Trump’s inauguration. It is a complete waste of time to be talking about it. He says he was thanking his audience for voting for Trump. His critics say his raised arm suspiciously resembles the Nazi salute. a

As there is no way to know what is in a person’s mind, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he is that dumb, particularly after denying any Fascist inclinations for years, to suddenly give the Nazi salute because he so imbued with Nazi theology that his arm raises unconsciously a la Dr. Strangelove.

Then there is the matter that calling Trump and his gang Fascists has failed to dissuade millions from supporting him. Trump, Musk and gang have been repeatedly called Fascist to an indifferent audience. People either don’t understand Fascism or don’t care that they are Fascists but continuing to call them Fascists has had little effect on people voting for him. People have heard it a million times and have made their peace with it. Now it doesn’t mean he isn’t a Fascist, but it does mean that calling him one is pointless. Other than giving Trump opponents a strange sense of satisfaction for calling Trump out for what he is, it is screaming into the void. It is time to reach into the election handbook for a new and, hopefully, more effective trope to use against him.

Even if he was intentionally Sieg Heilling, it is hardly the best stone to throw at him. He has plausible deniability as so many people end up giving the Nazi salute that it makes the criticism uniquely irrelevant. See Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez found giving the Nazi salute. Here is Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, giving the Nazi salute. If you search long enough you can find most prominent speech givers caught in this pose. It means nothing. Let’s get him on actual policies and not the accidental position of his arm.

The bottom line here is that Musk appears to be innocent of Sieg Heilling. The media are making a big deal out of nothing. This would be OK if the press were held in high esteem but they aren’t. It amplifies an already widely held sentiment that the press will make mountains out of molehills. More importantly it isn’t changing any ones mind and this is what needs to be done. But, by all means, carry on with the same tired strategy and see where that will take us.

By on

I am finding all of this antagonism towards DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) irritating. First, let me preface this with no system organized by human beings is perfect. The system needs to be improved as you see how the system is working. DEI is no different from any other system. Let’s look at it and improve it. Make it better.

But tossing it out wholesale though is wrong. The United States has a long history of racial prejudice and this prejudice has had a deleterious effect on people of color. Racial prejudice is still with us and is still a problem.

I am White middle class man. Historically, this means I have had an advantage in my job search. Not necessarily because I am white but because people told me about jobs where they worked. When I went into apply I had a name that gives me a leg up. The hiring manager knew someone who knew me. I have been remarkably successful at getting jobs this way. I never have been out of work for long and generally have had allies already in the company showing me the ropes.

But it isn’t in the least bit fair and it works against people who don’t know someone working for the company.

The counter argument to this is that, of course, people are going to hire friends and family because someone they know is recommending them. It gives the hiring manager an additional element of confidence in this person they don’t know who is looking to work for them. But how is this getting the best person for the job? Why do recommendations from people you do know carry more weight than people you don’t know?

We all know why and we all accept it without question. The hiring manager knows the person recommending the applicant. He is a good guy and he is saying that Tom, this stranger to me, is also a good guy. Now, this other person I am looking at, is just as qualified for the job but I don’t know him and I don’t know the person recommending them. Who gets the job?

Without DEI, this type of unfairness goes unchecked. Friends and family get the jobs while qualified strangers are passed over because they are unfamiliar. The connected get hired while the unconnected don’t. Family and friends get the jobs. Now if they happen to be all White that is just a coincidence. Not all hiring managers who work this way are prejudiced but it does allow for hiring managers who are prejudiced to stack the odds against people of color. DEI allows for imperfect measurement of what your work force should look like and it forces businesses to consider this when making their hiring decisions.

Is it perfect? No, but neither was the system before. There is this notion that in the good old days, businesses only hired the best. Since, in the good old days, people legally could discriminate against people of color and women, it lead to a workforce dominated by White me until DEI added an element of fairness for people who did not have connections. If you remove DEI, it makes it easier for hiring managers to hire people they know over trying to be fair to those without connections. Attempting to create a more diverse work force that includes more people historically discriminated is still important and should not be abandoned because it is imperfect process.

Lastly, please stop harkening back to the good old days when people only hired the best because they didn’t. The game was rigged and the process was unfair. DEI was one way to right that particular wrong. Can it be improved? By all means, every process can be improved. DEI is no different. Eliminating it, however, will only call into question how people of color and women are being treated in a market that historically discriminated against them.

By on

A Philadelphia Eagle’s fan got banned from the Eagle’s Stadium and has lost his job for cussing out a fan from the other team.

First, call me old fashioned but I always thought it was wrong to cuss out anyone – friends, enemies, and particularly visitors from out of town. He says he was provoked. I just can’t see that anything the woman said would justify the bile that came from his mouth. In a stadium full of people of all ages from young children to little old ladies.

Then there is the matter of it being just a football game. At the last football game I attended, I found it remarkable that there are people at the stadium who are there to monitor fans’ behavior to ensure that everyone is behaving appropriately. This is gobsmacking. Grown adults being told how to behave. Even more amazing is that some of these people get angry about being asked to tone it down. They don’t see what is wrong with their behavior and have to be removed. I don’t know about you if somebody ever asked me to stop swearing because I was offending people, I would be mortified. I would have to leave in shame.

Apparently the job is necessary one as there are a lot of adults who don’t know how to behave in a crowd. It is a shame that nobody was able to stop this man from his tirade. He now has lost his job because he was cussing out people at a football game. Try and explain that one to the wife and kids.

By on

DEI is responsible for the Los Angeles fires now on going or so many conservatives believe.

I’m not sure why they believe this. There hasn’t been any evidence that women or people of color firefighters have failed during this fire. The critics keep coming back to an insanely stupid reply from a lesbian firefighter about carrying a big man out of burning building.

I mention that she is a lesbian because I think it added to the animus of the linked article. Hank Berrien, the author, made this ever so innocent statement about the firefighter’s involvement with Girl’s Fire Camps. Right. Important information. I don’t want to besmirch Berrien’s good name here but it was a gratuitous fact that had little to do with the rest of the article. What did her work with girls have to do with his point regarding DEI? Nothing, right. Lesbians. Working with children. Female children. I am not saying anything is wrong with that. Just noting this because it might interest our readers. With his little nudge he effectively lets everyone know she is both a terrible fire fighter and might possibly be a terrible person to boot.

On the other hand, the firefighter was asked a valid question and she botched her response. This hardly condemns DEI as a consideration in hiring as the LAFD is still primarily male, particularly in the fire houses. Males make up 97% of the department. How has DEI made Los Angeles less safe when the numbers reflect a mostly male fire department? All apparently strong enough to carry out a heavier man? Have there been complaints about women failing in their responsibilities? There is remarkably little evidence that there is a problem in this mostly male half white fire department.

No matter what, they focus on DEI as responsible for the catastrophe happening in Los Angeles now. Not 100 winds. Not lack of rainfall. Not unusually large amount of dried vegetation due to a really wet winter. Not that the fire ignited outside of the normal fire season. And, of course, the never mentioned climate change problem which isn’t a problem and no amount of evidence can change their minds. None of the these merit mentioning as causes.

Yet one female firefighter’s inability to give a good answer to a hypothetical question is the problem.

By on

The right wing media is spreading pernicious lies about DEI being a factor in the Los Angeles fires now burning. Forbes magazine, hardly a left wing source, found that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Some of this is based on speculation offered by Adam Carolla who when trying to apply to be a fire fighter many years agos was told that he wouldn’t be considered for 7 years because he was white man. Carolla also admits to having a 1.7 GPA which, and I am just speculating on this now, might have something to do with his long wait and the discouraging words he received at the fire house when asking for a job.

Anyway, a quick glance at the graduating class of 2024 proves Carolla wrong. There are a good number of white men in the group. In fact, if you look at the racial breakdown of Los Angeles Fire Department in 2018, Whites are a much larger portion of the fire department than their percentage in Los Angeles population — 49% Whites in Fire Department, 29% whites in Los Angeles and women make up barely 3% of the department with minority women making up less than 1%. So a department made up of 97% men which is important because one of the chief problems conservative critics have is the physical strength needed to fight fire. Men have more than women. There seems to be more than enough men out there working on the fire.

The unspoken subtext here is that somehow non-whites and women aren’t up to the job. Based on what evidence? Is there data that minorities and women are not performing their job? And if so, what are the problems and how do white men doing the same job compare? If someone graduates from the Fire Academy, doesn’t it mean they past the tests required by the LAFD to adequately perform their job? The critics keep returning to the lesbian women who lead the department. Where exactly have these women failed? Somehow the implication is that since DEI has been considered as a part of the hiring process that standards have somehow diminished. It isn’t like the good old days when only white men were running the LAFD.

But, of course, the good old days were not getting the best people available. They were limiting their search to white men and discriminated against people of color and women. How is this better? It is only when discrimination became an issue that women and people of color got a chance to become a fireman. The good old days. You know when Blacks need not apply for jobs they wanted. You didn’t have to consider women at all because they were the weaker sex. You know those good old days when discrimination was OK.

No one wants to hear about past discrimination when DEI is making it impossible for white men to advance now. Right. The thing is if Blacks and Latinos were given a chance 50 or so years ago to join the force DEI wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. The problem is they were discriminated against and, because of that past discrimination, women and people of color are rightfully suspicious of their ability to be treated fairly. So ultimately DEI is the direct result of bad faith hiring from white men in the first place.

By all means, blame the Los Angeles Fires on DEI putting incompetents on the front line. I am sure it will encourage those brave people fighting the fires to give their all to put them out. Really, it is shitty way, particularly in the absence of evidence, to treat people who are putting their lives on the line.

By on

Yesterday I reported on a terrible fashion trend in men’s underwear and I am seeing more even more outlandish ones today:

It looks like the man is wearing a very large diaper and a too small bra. And the zipper. What purpose could it have but make dressing up in it even more difficult? What in God’s name were they thinking? Why would any self respecting man think that rambling into their bedroom with this on would spark a romantic tryst is beyond me.

This has so much wrong with it I don’t now where to begin. It is aesthetically unpleasing, impractical to wear and it looks terribly uncomfortable. A definite no from me.

By on 1 Comment

A few backs I reported that my spider, who very cleverly incorporated the light cord on our porch into her web, is missing. I looked at the light cord the other day and saw this:

She is back. Or one of her daughters is. Although she has irritated me a little because I now have to stand on my tippy toes to reach the cord but it is a small price to pay to work with such a creative animal.

By on

So Donald Trump is having a party to celebrate his Inauguration. Good for him. He also wants somebody else to pay for it. Unsurprisingly billionaires are ponying up millions for this little shindig. New York Times reports he has $200 hundred million. I suppose tossing a million dollars into Trump’s party is the price of doing business. It, hopefully, keeps Trump from hassling them for the next four years.

On the other hand, it fails to convince me that they need less taxation. These men can give millions for a party. They are obviously not terribly worried about the cost. Indeed, I suspect it might be less expensive to pay a million dollars to Trump than pay actual taxes. and this is precisely why the very rich need to be taxed more.

By on

Lucian Truscott IV proposes the most bizarre reason yet for the Democrats loss in last year’s election. His idea is that too many of the potential Democratic voters were high on legal marijuana. Yes. You heard it right. As a legal marijuana smoker, I can only reply one way. For Christ’s fucking sake, man, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for that one.

His opinion, which he himself concedes is based in speculation and no data whatsoever, sees millions of potential voters emotionally deadened to the prospect of an authoritarian takeover of their government just failed to vote. They just weren’t scared enough to vote because they were floating on feel good marijuana.

This isn’t even worth consideration — not even worth a maybe and lets look into this further. This is bullshit with a capital B. It is just a way to avoid looking at the bigger problem that large swaths of the Democratic Party establishment are out of touch with regular voters. Hell, they are out of touch with their own voters.

I hang with a primarily liberal Democratic group and I don’t know anyone who cares about proper pronoun use or support sex change operations for children. Republicans managed to attach these really suspect ideas onto the Democratic brand. The Democratic Establishment did relatively little to change this perception. Instead of Hell no this isn’t what we are about, they downplayed the importance of the issues saying that the vast majority of voters don’t care about these issues as they only affect a small number of Americans. Not talking about an issue that is unpopular to the general population is a terrible response to the question. It is as good as admitting that these issues were indeed important to the Democratic Party but are too toxic to talk about.

If people in my liberal circles aren’t particularly worried about proper pronouns and child sex change operations, then I am pretty certain that people who have less liberal inclinations are baffled. This awkward non-response left a lot of people asking why are we talking about transexuals in the schools in the first place. Parents would much prefer children learning what a pronoun is before learning which is their child’s preferred pronoun. These aren’t issues that will capture the imaginations of mainstream voters.

Say like the homeless overrunning the streets of our cities. I happen to agree that this is a bigger problem and isn’t easily solved. It also sounds like an excuse to do absolutely nothing. Well, then, if you can’t do anything to resolve the problem, then why wouldn’t people opt for someone, no matter how awful he is, who seems willing to take on the problem. Liberal government has to perform with the resources it has and perform well. Right now the perception is that government is failing to deal with the homeless problem and, I am afraid, this perception is right.

A lot of this caution is due to concern about the rights of homeless people. Middle class people vote, the homeless do not. Political parties have to deal with reality in order to get elected. This means addressing the concerns of this larger electorate is an important step in winning elections. When people have homeless people camping out on their streets and government says we are unable to help you because the homeless have rights, well what the hell can you do then? Shrugging your shoulders in despair is hardly a motivating call to action.

In the meantime, by all means, go after the non-voting marijuana smokers if you must. But, I think a better use of our resources would be to learn how to deliver better government services to the people who vote. All I know is that after reading all Truscott’s bullshit, I need to smoke me a joint.

By on

I recently wrote about the murder of Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare CEO. People who I respect were arguing that the people really don’t have much power over healthcare executives and that, given the political climate, weren’t likely to see any changes. This forced Luigi Mangione into action. His frustration with the system gave him no other choice. I wanted to respond to these arguments but I couldn’t quite get my ideas straight about what I wanted to say. The massacre in New Orleans have clarified things for me.

The killer in New Orleans’s probably felt similar to Luigi Mangione, that nobody was listening to what he had to say and, in order to change that, he took extreme action to bring attention to his cause. Since US government is part of the problem, then all Americans are legitimate targets until the US government changes their policy.

Now I don’t believe that to be true and I am betting the most other Americans agree with me. The problem then becomes why is it all right to kill Thompson and not the party goers on Bourbon Street. It becomes a matter of splitting hairs. Thompson definitely held more power over his company than the average American has over government decisions. A terrorist, however, might argue Americans have the power to vote for their leaders. If they are going to vote for the leaders who oppose their cause, then they deserve to die until Americans change to a more ISIS friendly government.

If frustration with the system is a legitimate reason to massacre people then who is to say your frustration is better than my frustration. It is wrong to stay silent when the people dying are disagreeable people. Disagreeable people deserve due process and fair trials because we, as a people, have to know that we there is justice in the process and we are not just going after people we don’t like. Letting lone assassins make that decision is insanity because you are then are opening up political violence option to everyone, including people you disagree with, and who then will kill people you like.

The election of Trump was an incredibly disappointing result but then there is another election coming and, depending on how things go, the political climate could change. At least, this is the way forward I would like to pursue. Call me bourgeois but I much prefer the chaotic and slow machinery of democratic institutions than political violence. I can’t give up on it just yet. It worries me that so many people seem willing to let murder slide as long as the victim is perceived as a legitimate target because someone might decide that you are a legitimate target. Just ask the families who lost a loved one on Bourbon Street.