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.

By on

Quentin Tarantino bad mouthing Paul Dano bothered me for some reason. Tarantino has every right to criticize someone’s work. It is part of the risk artist takes. Critical feedback is a gauge of how effective the artist is so I am not opposed to criticism per se. Tarantino’s criticism, however, was unnecessarily mean spirited. He sounded like he wanted to hurt Dano more than let a colleague know how to improve his work.

More worrisome is this has become the environment we live in. I disagree with you has become more than a difference in opinion or taste. If I didn’t like your performance, you didn’t get it wrong, you are a bad actor. Or a stupid person. Or an evil person. The press eggs this on because it loves a disagreement and have a gleeful willingness to spread the absolute worst thoughts that people have to their readers and viewers. So if a famous person burns another famous person, you can bet your house that there will be a reporter sticking a microphone into the burn victim’s face asking for his response. Retaliation is inevitable.

I wish I was above it all but, I have to confess, I am right in there slinging mud with the best of them. I try to be conscious about it but I fail. Almost all of the time, I fail. A simple a thing as a Trump supporter with a misspelled protest sign is enough for me to forward to Facebook and Instagram so everyone can see how Trump supporter’s are so dumb. I am laughing at one person’s mistake and implying that all Trump supporters are the same which means they all potentially are bad spellers. Uneducated and stupid, right?

The problem is that in a few minutes, I will receive a post from a someone showing a misspelled sign from a left winger. Am I supposed to make the same sweeping assumption about all left wingers based on the one left winger who can’t spell? Of course not. It is just one person’s mistake. The question, for me, then what was I hoping people would think when I sent the post about the bad spelling Trump supporters? It was unfair of me to provide this false depiction of Trump supporters.

Making fun of people is all a lot of fun when you are speaking with people who agree with you but, in the social media world we live in, we no longer have this luxury. Everyone, including the people we are making fun of, can read your thoughts and know what you really think of them. People rarely change their minds if you are calling them stupid. Yet we keep calling each other stupid. Quite loudly at that. How then can we expect people to listen?

By on 2 Comments

I don’t know why I never realized this before now but butter is absolutely the best addition a person can make to any food. The best. It can make a stale piece of bread taste delicious. Maybe there can be too much butter but I seriously doubt it. I have never had that experience. Too much pepper yes, too much salt, an emphatic yes. But butter never. Even if I don’t like the taste of something, or I think I won’t like it, I can be persuaded to try it if this thing is slathered in butter. So I have tried snails and oysters but the only reason I even attempted a taste was because of the butter.

This is an irrefutable truth.

By on

I admit I haven’t been paying much attention to the news lately but U.S. troops took over a Venezuelan oil tanker today. I am so confused.

So Putin can invade the Ukraine and act like an all around asshole, killing Ukrainian civilians this way and that, and this isn’t worth one American life while the Venezuela government, who, at worst, may be complicit in the illegal drug trade, is getting direct American military intervention.

There simply is no sense of proportion here. Putin, a nuclear armed, political opponent murdering, kleptocrat supreme, war mongering dictator has to be given at least a small bit of the country he invaded unsuccessfully to whet his appetite while Venezuela can’t even ship a legal product, oil, because it is propping up a Latin American dictatorship who, as far as I know, has made no threats against the United States or any other country for the matter.

And people in the news are talking about a shooting war with Venezuela. A fucking war with Venezuela. Over illegal drug shipments? The world’s foremost military power is going to go toe-to-toe with a military lightweight over little more than a nuisance.

I am pretty certain the reason Trump is taking action against Venezuelan oil tankers is he thinks he can win. Taking on a much weaker nation doesn’t make you look like a tough guy (see Putin and the Ukraine for further information about this). It does make you look like a bully. And it runs the risk, particularly if things don’t go according to plan, of making the U.S.A. military look bad or ineffective (see Putin and the Ukraine).

The thing is you don’t risk your reputation on something that doesn’t really matter and I’m pretty sure the Venezuelan drug trade is secondary, at best, to U.S.A.’s larger interests. But, yeah, ok, let’s invade Venezuela. Go get them boys. I certainly feel a lot safer.

By on

So I wanted to buy a book.

I avoid Amazon because I find Jeff Bezos business practices suspect, to say the least, but I needed to buy the book quickly and didn’t have it in me to try something new and Amazon is easy which is long way to go to say I had to buy a book from the horrible Jeff Bezos.

Somehow in the process of buying the Kindle book, I also bought the audio book. I didn’t want the audio book. I tried to return it. After about 15 minutes of fruitless reads of the “Help” pages. I surrendered. I would to talk to Customer Service. It took me a good few minutes to find the Customer Service phone number but I finally found the hidden icon. I was immediately informed that it would when be a half hour wait to actually talk to someone and they kindly informed that there were other avenues to get help for my problem. Do you really want to wait a half hour on hold when Chat can help you right now.

I tried Chat. I told Chat I wanted to return an audio book. Amazon had a drop down box for accidental purchase which means accidental purchases of audio books is a frequent problem. Now, I want to pause my rant to point out something this should be a red flag to whoever is in charge of their system that there is a problem with people accidentally purchasing audio books. If it happens so often that they have an actual drop down box for it means it happens a lot. But I am pretty sure that the accidental purchase of unwanted products is a benefit not a feature of their system. How much money does Amazon earn from accidental purchases from people who don’t realize they have accidentally purchases something. What a wonderful source of passive income for the company.

Anyway, I was cracking away with the Chat function when Chat told me I could only return an audio book if I paid with a credit card which was mystifying because I had paid with a credit card. Since Chat was convinced that Chat had resolved the problem Chat wouldn’t let me talk any longer about my problem. Whenever I tried to return to the subject of my accidental purchase, Chat reminded me that Chat couldn’t help because I needed to have purchased with a credit card. The matter was resolved as far as Chat was concerned. I am assuming Chat’s reluctance to discuss the matter any further was because Chat was an AI robot and not an actual person. I couldn’t change Chat’s mind because Chat didn’t have a mind to change.

I decided to wait for phone operator. It took about 20 minutes, so less than the half hour mentioned at the beginning of the call. I spoke to Mohamed who took all of one minute to resolve my problem. ONE MINUTE, I tell you. He also let me in on why I couldn’t get a refund from Chat because I needed to belong to some Audio Club to get the refund. This might explain why the system wouldn’t let me use the normal refund process. I wasn’t supposed to get one because I didn’t belong to the Audio Club. The system just lumped my accidental purchase under a general category of not buying with a credit card because that happened a lot more.

I was bothered that I shouldn’t get a refund for my accidental purchase. It was an accident after all. In a conversation that resembled a comedy show routine, Mohamed said that only club members could return audio materials but I reminded him that I accidentally purchased the audio item. Mohamed then said and that was why he was refunding my money. He just wanted me to know that, in the future, I couldn’t return audio materials. But what if I accidentally purchase it, well then Mohamed said he would refund. Which begs the question why not just use the regular Amazon return system instead of forcing me to call them and explain that I accidentally purchased an audio book.

Never mind, I am pretty sure that Mohamed didn’t understand the policy either. He was doing his job, and quite well I might add. Someone up the food chain wants customers to know that if they accidentally purchase an Audio book they aren’t supposed to get a refund unless they belong to the Audio Club. Mohamed ticked that box. He didn’t understand the policy any better than I did so he couldn’t explain the policy to me. He followed his company script and that was all that mattered.

There are several reasons for me to be irritated with this customer service encounter:

  1. A human being resolved my problem quickly and efficiently. The Chat robot and help pages were time consuming and utterly useless.
  2. Making it difficult to talk to an actual human being is unhelpful. The company is actively thwarting good customer service by giving a show of alternates that aren’t as good. I tried for a good 15 minutes to use the help pages and then tried for another 10 minutes with Chat. Neither could help me, a person could.
  3. I spent a good 45 minutes to get $5.44 back when a human being could have help me almost instantaneously. How is routing customers to ineffective tools and wasting your customer’s time helpful.
  4. I am starting to believe that this is all an intentional way for Amazon to get passive income. How many people give up trying to get a refund? Indeed I thought several times is this worth my time to get back a paltry $5.44. There were so many impediments in my way. First, I didn’t realize I had bought the audio book, then I couldn’t return it through normal return process, the “Help” pages were no help at all, Chat couldn’t help me and I had to wait 20 minutes to get a customer service agent. I am certain that there are people who would have given up and ka-ching and extra $5.44 in Jeff Bezos pockets.
  5. Why aren’t more human beings hired for customer service? Jeff Bezos is a billionaire numerous times over. Real live human beings are better customer service than all the self-help bull shit put in our way. They just are. So why not have the customer service phone prominently displayed on every page and properly staffed so a customer doesn’t have to wait long to get help.
  6. Also, and this over everything else think might matter to someone like Bezos, the whole process made me hate Amazon all the more. Yes, I will use Amazon under duress but I am willing to pay more to stop him from getting any more of money that is absolutely necessary.

Rant complete.