Category: Uncategorized

By on 1 Comment

Unless someone can provide evidence to support some criminal conspiracy was afoot, the only person who deserves blame for the murder of Charlie Kirk is Tyler Robinson who is accused of shooting him. It is important to emphasize accused because, at this point, we, and by we I mean the public, the press and the pundits, know very little to ascertain anything.

This, of course, doesn’t stop anyone from speculating. There is all this finger pointing. The shooter was Trans. The shooter was left wing. The shooter was a Mormon. The shooter came from a MAGA family. The shooter was a white man. All of these may be true but none of these groups bear any responsibility in the shooting.

Charlie Kirk fans want revenge. Against who exactly? Saying you don’t like someone or his politics and wishing them dead is not a crime. It is akin to someone in a fit of anger saying I could kill him. The important thing is they didn’t. It was a feeling that wasn’t put into action. There is nothing wrong with that and I don’t see the point of pursuing a vendetta against anyone who did. Poor taste isn’t a crime and, by all means, feel free to point out the bad taste but that is about all anyone should do about that.

Jimmy Kimmel eluded to some vague connection of the accused being a white man with a wink wink and nudge nudge, like this is supposed to mean something. I am a white man, Jimmy Kimmel is a white man, is he saying that white men are prone to murder? It is as ridiculous of a statement as the Texas congressman who wants to take Trans people off the street because a few of them have been involved in some highly visible crimes. We no more can take Trans people off the street than we can take White men off the street. These are meaningless bits of information that tell us absolutely nothing about what happened.

Here is a time when speculation is particularly dangerous. Charlie Kirk was a controversial figure. Some people are angry that he was murdered and others blame him for his contributions to a poisonous political environment. Pulling these meaningless facts out as if they mean something is pouring more fuel on an already burning fire. Now is a very good time to keep your mouth shut until you know more and then, and only then, punish the man who actually pulled the trigger instead of a group who might share some identification with the shooter.

By on

First it is important to know that I hate the color orange. It hurts my eyes every time I see it. So the above shirt had one strike against it to begin with. But, upon closer inspection, it just gets worse. Orange, as I have said, is a problem for me but the combination of green, white and orange is ghastly. Then the patterns are inconsistent in a way that makes the shirt look poorly put together. You have orange line running down the left side of the shirt surrounded by squares, except for the one section where the buttons are which looks like a sideways Utah and gives the appearance of being wonky and amateurish. This is a horrible looking shirt that I can only see senior golfers wearing when the nicer shirts are at the bottom of the dirty cloths basket. A definite no from me.

By on

I am going through songs that I like and trying to understand my taste. Depeche Mode keeps coming up for me as a top group and one of my favorite songs of their’s is “You Should be Higher.” It remains true to the original album version while also being better. For me, very rarely is the live version better than the album and this is one of those times. Dave Gahan is a remarkable performer, easily dancing across the stage while also singing up a storm. He is both entertaining and thoughtful.

I even liked the light show which I usually find distracting but found this one supports the song and is interesting to watch while not overwhelming the band’s performance.

The lyrics are mix of cynicism and wistful longing for something better. I particularly like the phrase “your lies are more attractive than the truth.” Truer words, given the present world situation, have never been spoken and perhaps the root of our problems.

Give it a listen.

By on

I can’t get over how often things I read on the internet are wrong. I have learned my lesson the hard way. I check everything out now because it happens so often. Even if I want it to be true, I check it out. Unless, of course, it is funny and then I pass on without further clarification.

So yesterday I read the following post in Instapundit, a conservative/libertarian site, with a bit of skepticism:

How could 1 million people march in London? That’s 10 percent of the population of central London. The number looked suspicious to me. So I checked new sources who give a significantly lower number of between 110,000 and 150,000 people. This is still a pretty large number of people but off by 850,000. I was going to write about this but decided it could wait until tomorrow.

To my surprise, today Instapundit is reporting 3,000,000 marchers:

So I checked newspapers and the Independent is still using the 110,000 to 150,000 number. Which sounds about right. Think about 3,000,000 people in the streets around Whitehall. It was difficult enough to get 150,000 in there much less 3,000,000.

What bothers me is that the actual number, which is quite impressive, isn’t good enough. Why lie about it? And why lie with such a patently unbelievable numbers. And if you will lie about this, what else will you lie about? It undermines anything you have to say to me because if you lie to me once I can guarantee I will be checking you out every single time you try to use numbers to convince me.

By on

A few months back I read an advice columnist on Slate that shook me. I wanted to say something about but what exactly I wanted to say was still coalescing. The shooting of Charlie Kirk reminded of this column and what I wanted to say.

A bride had asked a friend to wear a piece of clothing that would piss off the bride’s MAGA loving in-laws. At the time, I thought why would anyone want to deliberately piss off their new in-laws and his family. On her wedding day no less. The bride said that the new in-laws were constantly disrespecting her and her fiance never supported her.

First, and most importantly, this marriage sounds doomed and not because of politics either. This woman expects support from her man and isn’t getting it. So pissing off his family is going to change this how? If he doesn’t support you now, while he is still in the wooing stage of the relationship, what makes her think he is going to get better at it after a brawl at her wedding. He has shown his character and she is on her own with his relatives.

Then, there is a big difference between people bringing up their politics independently of your prompting and you waving a red cape at them and expecting them to sit quietly while you taunt them. Maybe you would get along better with your MAGA loving in-laws if you didn’t try to piss them off. I know it is a stretch but maybe give it a try.

I have a strategy that works every time I am with people whose politics I disagree with. I avoid politics altogether. We can chat endlessly about the weather, sports, movies, children, and so forth as long as we tip toe around politics. Which is a surprisingly easy strategy and almost always successful. If politics does come up, I have found saying something like “I don’t think we agree on politics so maybe lets not talk about it” works well to defuse the situation. I have found people, on the whole, prefer civil conversations as opposed to knock out drag out quarrels over Donald Trump.

Which brings me to Charlie Kirk. So many people want to both acknowledge the wrongness of his assassination and still make a point about how horrible a person he was. You really don’t have to say he was horrible person. It is irrelevant to the present situation. All you need to say is nobody should be shot for what they say and I am sorry his family has to suffer through this. Then do the easiest thing of all keep your God Damn mouth shut.

There is a time for political quarrels. This isn’t the time. You may have a lot to say about Charlie Kirk’s politics. It will keep and you can raise it again when the time arises.

By on

Sometimes when people on social media reach the end of their patience with people they disagree with and they want to cease seeing their disagreeable posts, they will announce that any person who holds such horrible beliefs should unfriend them as they can no longer tolerate such nonsense. This is hardly an effective way to accomplish this and it makes you fair game for further noxious posts.

The best way to handle this, at least in my mind, is to unfriend them and be done with it. They will probably never realize you’ve unfriended them and you no longer have to be bothered with their noxious posts. It is an easy way to achieve social peace without having a showdown.

Unfortunately some people feel there must be a showdown. I am telling you I am no longer putting up with you and your asshole beliefs so do me a favor and unfriend me. Just speaking as someone who, from time to time, will send out annoying posts, don’t ask me to do your dirty work. Annoying your political opponents is part of the fun. If I know I am annoying you, I am certainly going to keep you as a friend in order to annoy you some more. Posting your displeasure with me, just announces I am being effective with my posting.

By on

No matter how much I want to blame Donald Trump for being the problem, he isn’t. He is a symptom of a problem. The problem with our system is that the system is the problem.

All this whining about gerrymandering is missing the point. Trump isn’t bad because he has decided to gerrymander. The system is bad because either party can gerrymander. And that is what is happening. Trump asked for 5 Congressional districts in Texas. So, California retaliates. Missouri is now retaliating because California retaliated against Texas. And round and round she goes. The problem is that either party can gerrymander. The whole strategy of both parties is to reduce the number of competitive congressional districts through gerrymandering.

This hardly seems like the forefather’s dreams of elections. Given the startling number of partisan dominated congressional districts, elections are pretty much a waste of time and money. Might as well have the party leaders of each district pick the candidate who will then go to Washington.

Gerrymander isn’t the only systematic problem with our democracy. There is the filibuster which requires a super majority in the Senate in order to make laws. The filibuster is not part of the constitution and is a Senate procedure that can be eliminated at any time by the Majority Party. We have had both Democratic and Republican Majorities in the past ten years, but neither party seems terribly interested in ending the filibuster as a simple majority would give the party in power to actually do things.

The Senate, which requires a super majority in order to pass laws, also is grossly undemocratic. Small rural states carry disproportionate power there. Every state gets two Senators. California with 37 million people gets the same number as Wyoming with little more than a half million people. This is difficult to change because a constitutional amendment would be required in order to make this happen. The idea that small rural states would give up power willingly is absurd. If I lived in a small state, I would certainly want to retain that power. So no change there is even possible.

So, because the legislative bodies are incapable of accomplishing anything and are incapable of instituting changes that would make their bodies functional, nothing gets done. It doesn’t matter who is in power.

The result then is Donald Trump. He lacks even a basic view of how government operates but he damn will has some ideas on getting things done. He does what he pleases and finds out later if it is OK and, even if it isn’t OK, he defends his right to do it. Maybe he will get away with it, maybe he won’t. The problem here is that the only way left to get things done in the USA is through near dictatorial power from the President. Trump’s lack of institutional knowledge or concern about precedent makes him the perfect executive to wield power.

Trump will be gone in 3 1/2 long years but the problem remains. It is illuminating that of the hundreds of democracies that have come into power since 1776, none of chosen to duplicate the American system and almost all emulate the British Parliamentary system where the political party who wins the election actually holds power until the next election.

Trump may be an asshole but the system is the problem and will remain the problem when he departs the White House.

By on

The big idea behind Trump and the Right’s anti-DEI stance is that race shouldn’t matter when making decision about who gets admitted into a university or gets a job. All that matters is quality.

The big idea behind Trump’s anti-immigrant stance is that the government should be able to stop any Brown person or anyone speaking Spanish to enquire about their immigration status because they might be here illegally. This strategy, just validated by the Supreme Court, doesn’t take into consideration that 19% of Americans are Latinos and 13% blacks. So over 30% of American citizens must live in fear of being stopped on the street and asked for their papers. Their papers. How American is that?

So while investigating the immigration status of a person the government can use race to stop any person they suspect as being here illegally but can’t use race when rewarding people for jobs or university placement, race is irrelevant.

Got it. But don’t tell me race doesn’t matter to you because obviously it does.

By on

Jesse Watters, Fox pundit, wants revenge for the murder of Charlie Kirk. From who exactly? We don’t know who murdered Kirk yet. The justice system, given the notoriety of the case, will probably capture a suspect and he will go to trial. That is all the revenge anyone should expect in this case.

So who is Watters angry with? The people who pointed out that Kirk may have had it coming because of the inflammatory things he said. Isn’t that Watters’ point about Kirk? Nobody deserves to be killed for what they say. So while he defends the right of someone like Kirk to say what he pleases, even if it is inflammatory, he is also calling for revenge on all Left Wingers for saying terrible things about Kirk after he was killed.

Revenge is a great but temporary feeling. It feels good right up to the point that the other guy counters with his revenge. This usually turns out bloody for everyone so everyone gets hurt and the revenge becomes endless. Is this what Watters wants? Kirk’s murderer deserves revenge, everyone else is innocent even if they said terrible things about him afterwards.

What about words? Can’t words incite someone to violence? Certainly they can. The Bible can incite some people to violence. But lets be clear, words don’t kill. People do. You can’t exact revenge on everyone who disagrees with you, particularly if they restrict their disagreement to words. Also if Watters is so worried about words inciting violence, he might want to temper the words coming out of his mouth,