When I refer to my conspecifics as dumbasses or the dumbasserate, I do so in a spirit of love. The realization that so many folks are so damned stupid has enabled me to be a lot more forgiving and tolerant of their foibles. They just can't do any better, bless their stupid hearts. I used to have anger issues when I expected too much of my conspecifics and found myself perpetually disappointed. Now I am much calmer and can shrug off dumbassery with a sense of pity rather than anger.
What I have come to learn is that dumbassery is not limited to the left side of the bell curve, as it is usually displayed to illustrate the normal distribution of intelligence. People of average intelligence and even people of above average intelligence up to about 120 IQ points are still dumbasses. Their ability to think abstractly is extremely limited. Humans may be the smartest species on the planet, but they aren't all that smart. You can't take Einstein, Mozart and Turing and consider them examples of humanity. They're outliers. Atypical.
Given that some 75% of humans are dumbasses, it makes sense to assume that strangers who do things that could be considered stupid or evil should be given the benefit of the doubt and regarded as stupid until proven evil. There's no sense in getting angry or frustrated because that's just the way humans are, barely sentient. You might as well be pissed off that they can't breathe underwater or fly without technological aids.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Kentuckian Gets it Just Right
Yournamehere at Death Wore a Feathered Mullet nails it, too:
http://vivalasvegass.blogspot.com/2008/08/meet-mccains-second-choice-for-vp.html
http://vivalasvegass.blogspot.com/2008/08/meet-mccains-second-choice-for-vp.html
What Schwartz Wrote
Jonathan Schwartz at This Modern World http://thismodernworld.com/4452 nails it:
"So before long, there will only be two options for the people who want to run things. First, they could organize a rational liquidation of much of the empire, which would free up enough resources to create a long-term winning coalition. Second, they could go completely bugfuck nuts, and try to maintain the empire while cutting back on all social benefits and counting on the thrills of military triumph and chialism to keep them in power. What won’t be possible is the Obama-Biden approach.
In other words, the days of a rational American empire are drawing to a close. We’ll be forced to discard either the empire part, or the rational part. And based on 10,000 years of human history, I’m guessing it’s the rational part that will go. "
"So before long, there will only be two options for the people who want to run things. First, they could organize a rational liquidation of much of the empire, which would free up enough resources to create a long-term winning coalition. Second, they could go completely bugfuck nuts, and try to maintain the empire while cutting back on all social benefits and counting on the thrills of military triumph and chialism to keep them in power. What won’t be possible is the Obama-Biden approach.
In other words, the days of a rational American empire are drawing to a close. We’ll be forced to discard either the empire part, or the rational part. And based on 10,000 years of human history, I’m guessing it’s the rational part that will go. "
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Unpredictable Stupid Women
The popular beach song "Yes, the Women are Smarter" just isn't true. Women are just as likely as men to be stupid. Half of all women are of below average intelligence. Hell, a good quarter of them are downright feebleminded. J Sidney McCain is banking on this.
The problem for McCain is that stupid women who vote might vote for reasons that a smart person, or even an average one, might not even consider. Feminists are generally a good deal smarter than nonfeminists, so they aren't going to vote for a ticket with a gender traitor like Palin on it just because she has a vagina. Hillary Clinton supporters, except the racist ones, will not be impressed by the selection of an anti-choice, nutzoid creationist with boobs who referred to Clinton as a "whiner". So McCain is left with women who also happen to be dumbasses.
Will the female dumbasserate come out for a woman just because she's a woman? Maybe. But they might just decide they don't like her because she wears glasses. She hunts, so she might be a lesbian or a tad too unladlylike. Maybe they won't like her clothes. Or they'll think she's too good looking, or not good looking enough, or all full of herself, or not full enough. We're talking wild card here. They might compare her to Mrs Biden or Mrs O'Bama or think that she's Cindy McCain's sister wife or some such thing.
Palin is a bone to the christianist nutzoid base, but they were already going to vote for him anyway. Christianist nutzoid women are already a big part of the dumbasserate. About half of them are going to balk at a woman's being VP instead of at home scrubbing the skidmarks out of her husband's briefs. This could go either way with the dumbasserate.
The problem for McCain is that stupid women who vote might vote for reasons that a smart person, or even an average one, might not even consider. Feminists are generally a good deal smarter than nonfeminists, so they aren't going to vote for a ticket with a gender traitor like Palin on it just because she has a vagina. Hillary Clinton supporters, except the racist ones, will not be impressed by the selection of an anti-choice, nutzoid creationist with boobs who referred to Clinton as a "whiner". So McCain is left with women who also happen to be dumbasses.
Will the female dumbasserate come out for a woman just because she's a woman? Maybe. But they might just decide they don't like her because she wears glasses. She hunts, so she might be a lesbian or a tad too unladlylike. Maybe they won't like her clothes. Or they'll think she's too good looking, or not good looking enough, or all full of herself, or not full enough. We're talking wild card here. They might compare her to Mrs Biden or Mrs O'Bama or think that she's Cindy McCain's sister wife or some such thing.
Palin is a bone to the christianist nutzoid base, but they were already going to vote for him anyway. Christianist nutzoid women are already a big part of the dumbasserate. About half of them are going to balk at a woman's being VP instead of at home scrubbing the skidmarks out of her husband's briefs. This could go either way with the dumbasserate.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Palin Good for McCain, if not America
Picking Sarah Palin as running mate/future wife is J Sidney McCain's way of telling the world that he is super confident that he will win in November and that he doesn't need a Veep candidate to bolster the ticket. Also, it's his way of saying his health is great. Or that he doesn't much care what happens to America after he dies.
Some say that the Palin pick will make any criticism of O'Bama's experience ridiculous and that McCain will have to shut his gob about it. It doesn't mean that at all. McCain is going after the dumbasserate, so it doesn't matter whether his criticisms actually apply more to his own ticket than to his opponents.
Some say that the Palin pick will make any criticism of O'Bama's experience ridiculous and that McCain will have to shut his gob about it. It doesn't mean that at all. McCain is going after the dumbasserate, so it doesn't matter whether his criticisms actually apply more to his own ticket than to his opponents.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Equal Pay
Women make significantly less money than men on average even when they do the same job with the same qualifications and level of skill. This is sometimes said to be because women are liable to go off onto the "mommy track" and quit for a while to raise children. Moreover, they usually require more flexibility when they return to work as mothers because they need to be available for their kids. Why does this fall to women? Because they make significantly less money than men on average. This means that the opportunity costs for the household are lower if the woman takes on the familial responsibilities instead of the more highly compensated man. This is the Catch 22 of gender pay disparity.
If employers are concerned that their female workers might go off on the "mommy track", they could make this a lot less likely by paying females as much as or more than males. This raises her opportunity costs of parenting. If women had equal pay, we might expect to see an increase in the proportion of fathers who opt to be stay at home dads or who choose flexible jobs in order to be available for the kids.
I reckon that it's straight up douchebaggery to pay women less than men for the same job. Shame on employers who do so.
If employers are concerned that their female workers might go off on the "mommy track", they could make this a lot less likely by paying females as much as or more than males. This raises her opportunity costs of parenting. If women had equal pay, we might expect to see an increase in the proportion of fathers who opt to be stay at home dads or who choose flexible jobs in order to be available for the kids.
I reckon that it's straight up douchebaggery to pay women less than men for the same job. Shame on employers who do so.
Child Support Wants Reforming
In New York, a noncustodial parent of three children is expected to fork over 29% of his gross income for child support. With two kids, it's 25%. One kid gets 17%. On top of that, he has to pay all or a portion of medical, educational and child care expenses. This doubtless deters many men from leaving their wives no matter how horrible they have become. How can he live on what's left? Perhaps he can take up with a divorced mother who is receiving child support from her former husband so as to break even. Or he can move in with his parents or siblings. He might find that he just has to stick it out until the children leave home.
If a man falls behind in his child support, he can be jailed. There aren't many other debts that can land you in the hoosegow. Of course, it's hard to earn money to pay child support when you're in stir. I reckon the system is designed as a shake down to get men's relations to fork over money to rescue the guy.
I reckon that the child support system is completely backwards. If the father has the kids half the time or more, he still has to pay the ex. If he has them rarely, he still has to pay even though his enjoyment from the children is greatly reduced. The custodial parent gets almost all the entertainment value of the children, and the noncustodial parent foots the bill. The system acts as if children are all burden and no blessing! Why would anyone ever have kids if there's no payoff?
Given that children more than make up for their costs in joy and satisfaction and the other rewards of parenting, perhaps the custodial parent should pay the noncustodial parent compensation for the loss of the society of the children. This arrangement would enable more people to end unhappy marriages and would encourage custodial parents to share the joys of children with noncustodials. There would probably be more joint custody arrangements than we see under the current system.
But what about families where the custodial parent cannot afford to take care of the children? Then that parent shouldn't have taken on the role of custodian. That parent should have thought of that when that parent decided to reproduce with that deadbeat. Besides, everyone else shouldn't have to suffer because a few families here and there end up in trouble.
Society should not make children more of a burden than they already are as this just reduces overall fertility. The current child support scheme treats children as burdens and, in fact, makes them such. Let's get the state out of the equation and let parents freely work out the allocation of the benefits and burdens of parenting on their own.
Moreover, the current child support scheme involves an intrusive child support enforcement apparatus that costs everyone money and freedom. It is not fair that parents make the allocation of the benefits and burdens of parenting my problem by causing me to be taxed for courts and other coercive agencies. Leave me out of it, please.
If a man falls behind in his child support, he can be jailed. There aren't many other debts that can land you in the hoosegow. Of course, it's hard to earn money to pay child support when you're in stir. I reckon the system is designed as a shake down to get men's relations to fork over money to rescue the guy.
I reckon that the child support system is completely backwards. If the father has the kids half the time or more, he still has to pay the ex. If he has them rarely, he still has to pay even though his enjoyment from the children is greatly reduced. The custodial parent gets almost all the entertainment value of the children, and the noncustodial parent foots the bill. The system acts as if children are all burden and no blessing! Why would anyone ever have kids if there's no payoff?
Given that children more than make up for their costs in joy and satisfaction and the other rewards of parenting, perhaps the custodial parent should pay the noncustodial parent compensation for the loss of the society of the children. This arrangement would enable more people to end unhappy marriages and would encourage custodial parents to share the joys of children with noncustodials. There would probably be more joint custody arrangements than we see under the current system.
But what about families where the custodial parent cannot afford to take care of the children? Then that parent shouldn't have taken on the role of custodian. That parent should have thought of that when that parent decided to reproduce with that deadbeat. Besides, everyone else shouldn't have to suffer because a few families here and there end up in trouble.
Society should not make children more of a burden than they already are as this just reduces overall fertility. The current child support scheme treats children as burdens and, in fact, makes them such. Let's get the state out of the equation and let parents freely work out the allocation of the benefits and burdens of parenting on their own.
Moreover, the current child support scheme involves an intrusive child support enforcement apparatus that costs everyone money and freedom. It is not fair that parents make the allocation of the benefits and burdens of parenting my problem by causing me to be taxed for courts and other coercive agencies. Leave me out of it, please.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Undecideds
I haven't watched a single minute of the convention coverage. Why should I? I know what's going to happen. I even already know whom I'm going to vote for, if I vote. I won't watch the GOP convention, either. The only difference will be that most of the kooks will be inside the GOP convention.
If you are still undecided at this point, please don't bother to vote. You are much too stupid and are liable to hurt yourself, or worse, hurt someone else in the process. Seriously, you undecided yahoos are what's wrong with democracy in America. If coverage of the conventions is going to sway you one way or the other, please just stay home on election day. Better yet, revoke your voter registration, assuming that you had the intelligence to figure out hoe to register, and for cthulu's sake don't register if you haven't yet. Save the gas on election day. Save democracy. Select yourself out.
Too many clueless yahoos vote. Let's throw them off the rolls. Voting while stupid is voting fraud as far as I'm concerned.
If you are still undecided at this point, please don't bother to vote. You are much too stupid and are liable to hurt yourself, or worse, hurt someone else in the process. Seriously, you undecided yahoos are what's wrong with democracy in America. If coverage of the conventions is going to sway you one way or the other, please just stay home on election day. Better yet, revoke your voter registration, assuming that you had the intelligence to figure out hoe to register, and for cthulu's sake don't register if you haven't yet. Save the gas on election day. Save democracy. Select yourself out.
Too many clueless yahoos vote. Let's throw them off the rolls. Voting while stupid is voting fraud as far as I'm concerned.
The Taboo against Cannibalism isn't going to Replicate itself, Parents!
I've talked to enough parents by now to come to the conclusion that most of them neglect their responsibilities when it comes to training their offspring about cannibalism. Many of them have a very cavalier attitude about the whole thing as if their little darlings would never think of eating another human being and don't need to be taught. As if.
I reckon that the public schools, if they are good for anything, can be deployed to reinforce the "don't eat people" ethic in order to make up for parental failure. I'd put it in health class, make it low key. "See this food pyramid, class? What's not on the food pyramid. That's right, Jeffrey, people are not on the pyramid. That's because people don't eat people." Seasame Street could do one of its famous classification lessons with two food items and a human. "Two of these things belong together; two of these things are kind of the same; one of these things is not like the others. Can you guess its name? Human!"
Maybe some PSAs, as in "The More You Know". Miley Cyrus says: "Did you know that eating people is one of the main causes for kuru, a disease of the brain similar to Mad Cow? Don't eat people." Or an Afternoon Special about a cannibalistic teen who alienates everyone with his people eating ways. "We don't eat people, Simon. Period."
I'd leave it to parents to explain how eating people might actually be an option under certain narrowly defined emergency situations.
I reckon that the public schools, if they are good for anything, can be deployed to reinforce the "don't eat people" ethic in order to make up for parental failure. I'd put it in health class, make it low key. "See this food pyramid, class? What's not on the food pyramid. That's right, Jeffrey, people are not on the pyramid. That's because people don't eat people." Seasame Street could do one of its famous classification lessons with two food items and a human. "Two of these things belong together; two of these things are kind of the same; one of these things is not like the others. Can you guess its name? Human!"
Maybe some PSAs, as in "The More You Know". Miley Cyrus says: "Did you know that eating people is one of the main causes for kuru, a disease of the brain similar to Mad Cow? Don't eat people." Or an Afternoon Special about a cannibalistic teen who alienates everyone with his people eating ways. "We don't eat people, Simon. Period."
I'd leave it to parents to explain how eating people might actually be an option under certain narrowly defined emergency situations.
McCain's Response to Charges of Marital Infidelity
McCain addresses suspicions that he is a serial adulterer:
"For five and a half years, I didn't have a single woman to have sex with. All I had was my right hand. I didn't even have any pornographic literature or pin ups or anything else to prime the imagination. All I had were the guards who, if I squinted, I could imagine were women, or at least very good female impersonators. I didn't have a full scale latex model of Jenna Jameson's hindquarters and vulva to fool around with. I didn't even have a "fisherman's friend, if you know what I mean. I'm talking five and a half years of deprivation, so don't talk to me about how many sexual partners I've had or will be having."
"For five and a half years, I didn't have a single woman to have sex with. All I had was my right hand. I didn't even have any pornographic literature or pin ups or anything else to prime the imagination. All I had were the guards who, if I squinted, I could imagine were women, or at least very good female impersonators. I didn't have a full scale latex model of Jenna Jameson's hindquarters and vulva to fool around with. I didn't even have a "fisherman's friend, if you know what I mean. I'm talking five and a half years of deprivation, so don't talk to me about how many sexual partners I've had or will be having."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
I'm not Gay, Not that there'd be Anything Wrong with That
I wondered, as I downed my second scotch and soda, whether my last post made me seem like some kind of metrosexual. Then I realized that I'm overweight. Metrosexuals aren't overweight. I'm just into pampering myself, that's all. I'm selfish, not metrosexual. I needed a freaking massage, mani-pedi, haircut. I was just on a 16 hour transcontinental plane trip (LA to SLC to ATL-Newburgh, NY), I tear up my nails in the garden, and my hair was getting shaggy. So screw you judgmental pricks!
I recall my Idiot Brother in Law remarking one day as we pushed a perambulator in Central Park whether folks would mistake us for a gay couple with a baby (the wives were on a carriage ride). I didn't thinks so. At the time, we were both fatties. A five year bender helped him get lean. I'm still overweight and unlikely to be mistaken for gay.
Back in the day when I was scrawny, I had many a comical "I thought you were gay" episode. I never was, although there would be nothing wrong if I were. I was just skinny and had pretty good taste in clothing and was a tolerant soul. I lived on cigarettes and coffee. I was hetero, though. I still am, or at least I think I would be if I still had sex (married 25 years, you know).
At one point, I was very concerned that I was pinging on the gaydar of so many people. What was I doing or saying that made so many gay guys come on to me? I was flattered, mind you, but I just wondered what the hell gave them the idea I was gay. Which I'm not. But which would be OK if I were. One former professor planted a big wet one right on my lips and was surprised that I did not respond as favorably as he expected. Others confided in me, came out to me, on the basis that they believed I was also gay. Which, as I've indicated, I am not. I was just skinny and mostly dateless. I was a nerd, not gay! I was in a couple of plays in high school, for crying out loud, but I was definitely not a drama fag.
I have always been open and affirming as to homosexuality. But I have never been gay. Did I mention that already? I have had gay friends, I have worked with people with AIDS as a volunteer, and I have always advocated for the rights of gay folks. I am gay-sympathetic, and I was so long before and in a place where it was not cool to be. I had black friends and have always been sympathetic to and fond of black people, but that does not make me black. As far as I know, nobody has ever mistaken me for a black person.
My own gaydar is very ineffective. I get a lot of false positives.
I recall my Idiot Brother in Law remarking one day as we pushed a perambulator in Central Park whether folks would mistake us for a gay couple with a baby (the wives were on a carriage ride). I didn't thinks so. At the time, we were both fatties. A five year bender helped him get lean. I'm still overweight and unlikely to be mistaken for gay.
Back in the day when I was scrawny, I had many a comical "I thought you were gay" episode. I never was, although there would be nothing wrong if I were. I was just skinny and had pretty good taste in clothing and was a tolerant soul. I lived on cigarettes and coffee. I was hetero, though. I still am, or at least I think I would be if I still had sex (married 25 years, you know).
At one point, I was very concerned that I was pinging on the gaydar of so many people. What was I doing or saying that made so many gay guys come on to me? I was flattered, mind you, but I just wondered what the hell gave them the idea I was gay. Which I'm not. But which would be OK if I were. One former professor planted a big wet one right on my lips and was surprised that I did not respond as favorably as he expected. Others confided in me, came out to me, on the basis that they believed I was also gay. Which, as I've indicated, I am not. I was just skinny and mostly dateless. I was a nerd, not gay! I was in a couple of plays in high school, for crying out loud, but I was definitely not a drama fag.
I have always been open and affirming as to homosexuality. But I have never been gay. Did I mention that already? I have had gay friends, I have worked with people with AIDS as a volunteer, and I have always advocated for the rights of gay folks. I am gay-sympathetic, and I was so long before and in a place where it was not cool to be. I had black friends and have always been sympathetic to and fond of black people, but that does not make me black. As far as I know, nobody has ever mistaken me for a black person.
My own gaydar is very ineffective. I get a lot of false positives.
A Me Day
Today I did almost nothing productive, so far. I went to the doctor first thing and got an EKG and a PFT. The first was good, the latter not so much. My cholesterol was lower than ever.
Then I went to the drug store and dropped off my scrips. I got corned beef hash and eggs at the diner in the strip mall by the strip mall next to the strip mall that the drug store is in. Hopewell Junction is a conglomerate of strip malls, not exactly a quaint New England hamlet. Then I picked up my meds and went home. I played on line sudoku mega until it was time for my massage (I did walk the dogs in the interim) in Kent at the strip mall that appears to constitute the town as far as I can tell.
I had a nice chat with Mrs Vache Folle's yoga instructor while I waited for my masseur to get done with his previous client. She tried to talk me into some yoga classes and assured me that there are classes just for spazzes like me, although she called them something else. She let me know, and I chalk it up to her observations about my likely body fat index, that two holistic nutritional counselors are coming on board next week.
The massage was terrific as usual. Then I got a spa pedicure in the Korean nail salon downstairs and a manicure. I splurged and got the callous treatment and the super duper foot and calf/shin massage. Then I got a haircut. It was nigh on 4:00 when I got home. I mowed for 10 minutes and then browsed the blogosphere. I am debating whether to putter in the garden or just start drinking.
I could do with more days like this. I wonder if I can get a facial in Hopewell Junction or Kent.
Then I went to the drug store and dropped off my scrips. I got corned beef hash and eggs at the diner in the strip mall by the strip mall next to the strip mall that the drug store is in. Hopewell Junction is a conglomerate of strip malls, not exactly a quaint New England hamlet. Then I picked up my meds and went home. I played on line sudoku mega until it was time for my massage (I did walk the dogs in the interim) in Kent at the strip mall that appears to constitute the town as far as I can tell.
I had a nice chat with Mrs Vache Folle's yoga instructor while I waited for my masseur to get done with his previous client. She tried to talk me into some yoga classes and assured me that there are classes just for spazzes like me, although she called them something else. She let me know, and I chalk it up to her observations about my likely body fat index, that two holistic nutritional counselors are coming on board next week.
The massage was terrific as usual. Then I got a spa pedicure in the Korean nail salon downstairs and a manicure. I splurged and got the callous treatment and the super duper foot and calf/shin massage. Then I got a haircut. It was nigh on 4:00 when I got home. I mowed for 10 minutes and then browsed the blogosphere. I am debating whether to putter in the garden or just start drinking.
I could do with more days like this. I wonder if I can get a facial in Hopewell Junction or Kent.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Upper Middle Class Revolutionaries
Gramsci, among others, was taken with the mystery of why peasants and proles often supported the ruling elites instead of following their own class interests. The answer is, of course, that peasants and proles are just as apt to be dumbasses as anyone else. The smartest peasants and proles, given the opportunity, are liable to join the ruling elites or serve them in their own individual interests. And in the absence of opportunity, smart peasants and proles aren't going to have much influence. Very few smart peasants and proles will join the intelligentsia of the peasant/prole movement, and the P/Ps will have to make do with well intentioned academics from other classes who don't know the first thing about actual peasants or proles.
I did some research on class in America and was surprised, appalled actually, to find that I am considered "Upper Middle Class". I don't feel UMC, but I live in a dual earner household that fits the definition (over $100K/year income). I live in a high cost, high tax area, but even taking that into account I am UMC. What the hell does this mean? Do I have to vote Republican? I'm in debt up to my eyeballs, for crying out loud and can't survive with much of an interruption in earning power by me or my working spouse. On the wealth scale, I am way below median. We're both professionals with the usual bourgeois sensibilities and tastes, but we both have solid working class roots and relate to working class people more than to the ruling elites.
I reckon that the class system based on income is not as meaningful as sociologists seem to think. I'll admit that NASCAR's appeal is a mystery to me and that I have no paintings on velvet in my home, but I still live more or less check to check. I have to work for a living. More accurately, both Mrs Vache Volle and I have to work for a living. Our vacations are a little more exotic than our working class kindred are used to and our reading list is a bit more Booker Prize than Oprah, but in essentials we are the same as our blue collar relatives. If the bottom 95% would join together against the top 5% who rule over us, we'd all be better off. The top 5% are not morally superior to us or otherwise fit to rule us.
Anyway, when the revolution comes, no need to trundle me and Mrs VF to the guillotine. We're with you.
I did some research on class in America and was surprised, appalled actually, to find that I am considered "Upper Middle Class". I don't feel UMC, but I live in a dual earner household that fits the definition (over $100K/year income). I live in a high cost, high tax area, but even taking that into account I am UMC. What the hell does this mean? Do I have to vote Republican? I'm in debt up to my eyeballs, for crying out loud and can't survive with much of an interruption in earning power by me or my working spouse. On the wealth scale, I am way below median. We're both professionals with the usual bourgeois sensibilities and tastes, but we both have solid working class roots and relate to working class people more than to the ruling elites.
I reckon that the class system based on income is not as meaningful as sociologists seem to think. I'll admit that NASCAR's appeal is a mystery to me and that I have no paintings on velvet in my home, but I still live more or less check to check. I have to work for a living. More accurately, both Mrs Vache Volle and I have to work for a living. Our vacations are a little more exotic than our working class kindred are used to and our reading list is a bit more Booker Prize than Oprah, but in essentials we are the same as our blue collar relatives. If the bottom 95% would join together against the top 5% who rule over us, we'd all be better off. The top 5% are not morally superior to us or otherwise fit to rule us.
Anyway, when the revolution comes, no need to trundle me and Mrs VF to the guillotine. We're with you.
Moving to the Mainstream
How can libertarianism ever become part of the "mainstream"? Mainstream Libertarians http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com/ have hit on the perfect solution: redefine libertarianism so that it is indistinguishable from regular old authoritarian "republicanism". Any resemblance to the movement that treasures liberty is entirely coincidental.
McCain to Tap Clinton for VP
Evidently, McCain is not going to tap Mel Gibson for Veep as I suggested some months ago. Some reckon that he'll choose Holy Joe from CT to make himself look bipartisan. I predict that he will name Hillary Clinton as his running mate. You read it here first.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Waiting Until the Children Are Dead
When is it appropriate for married people who hate each other to stay together for the children? That's a call each couple has to make on its own, but there are some considerations that should be taken into account.
The children will adapt to just about any structure that the divorcing parents set up, and there is no basis in fact for assertions that the usual range of changes will damage and traumatize them. Abandonment by a parent will be hurtful and ought to be avoided, but otherwise the new arrangements will have no deleterious impact on the kids. Most assertions about maintaining a status quo are really thinly disguised rationalizations for keeping the adults in their comfort zones.
The primary issue that most coupes will face is that moving from one to two households will have a huge financial impact. They may not be able to afford to split up and will need to stick it out until they have rearranged their lives in a way that makes it possible to split without too much of a fall in their standards of living. For example, waiting until all the kids are in school full days might be necessary. That will reduce child care costs for the custodial parent and permit her to keep a better job. If the kids are nearing the age of majority, the parents may as well stick it out until the kids grow up. They are going to need all their money for educational expenses.
Couples should keep in mind that they had kids for their own amusement and that arrangements after divorce should allow for both parents to get their money's worth of entertainment value from their offspring. Don't turn the kids into a burden. Noncustodial fathers often find that their relationships with their children become way more fun after divorce because they don't have to deal with the kids every day. They often start to spend quality time with their children for the first time after divorce when the mother isn't around to interfere with bonding and good times.
Custodial mothers often find that their children are much less entertaining once they have taken on even more of the burdens of parenting with no increase in benefits, but it is difficult to reason with divorcing mothers and to get them to understand that restricting the father's access to the children is akin to throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. If he is demanding more access, he doesn't mean it and is usually trying to get concessions in some other area, as in finances. He doesn't want to spend any more time with the kids than he has to. Think, woman, at how little interaction he had with them when you were living together! It was like pulling teeth to get him to do anything with the kids or to help with their care. Now he wants to be Super Dad? Try and get him to take the kids at least half the time. Hell, threaten to give him full custody and take occasional visitation yourself. Call his bluff. Worst case scenario? You're free!
Anyway, don't stay with the harpy or asshole as the case may be because someone told you that having both of you in the same household matters to the kids. It doesn't. If you can afford it, split up. It's worth it, and you won't hate your kids for forcing you to stay with someone you can no longer abide.
Finally, consider that staying together for the kids is often a vehicle for the spouse who does not want the divorce to hang onto the hope of reconciliation or to hang onto circumstances that he is comfortable with. He's not going to change, not for long anyway. And he's going to spend the time whining and begging and guilting and undermining you. You think you're in hell now? This won't be doing the kids any good, either. It won't do them any harm, but it won't be helping them, and you'll be going through all that crap for no good reason.
In conclusion, the only good reason to stay together for the kids is if you can't afford to split up.
The children will adapt to just about any structure that the divorcing parents set up, and there is no basis in fact for assertions that the usual range of changes will damage and traumatize them. Abandonment by a parent will be hurtful and ought to be avoided, but otherwise the new arrangements will have no deleterious impact on the kids. Most assertions about maintaining a status quo are really thinly disguised rationalizations for keeping the adults in their comfort zones.
The primary issue that most coupes will face is that moving from one to two households will have a huge financial impact. They may not be able to afford to split up and will need to stick it out until they have rearranged their lives in a way that makes it possible to split without too much of a fall in their standards of living. For example, waiting until all the kids are in school full days might be necessary. That will reduce child care costs for the custodial parent and permit her to keep a better job. If the kids are nearing the age of majority, the parents may as well stick it out until the kids grow up. They are going to need all their money for educational expenses.
Couples should keep in mind that they had kids for their own amusement and that arrangements after divorce should allow for both parents to get their money's worth of entertainment value from their offspring. Don't turn the kids into a burden. Noncustodial fathers often find that their relationships with their children become way more fun after divorce because they don't have to deal with the kids every day. They often start to spend quality time with their children for the first time after divorce when the mother isn't around to interfere with bonding and good times.
Custodial mothers often find that their children are much less entertaining once they have taken on even more of the burdens of parenting with no increase in benefits, but it is difficult to reason with divorcing mothers and to get them to understand that restricting the father's access to the children is akin to throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. If he is demanding more access, he doesn't mean it and is usually trying to get concessions in some other area, as in finances. He doesn't want to spend any more time with the kids than he has to. Think, woman, at how little interaction he had with them when you were living together! It was like pulling teeth to get him to do anything with the kids or to help with their care. Now he wants to be Super Dad? Try and get him to take the kids at least half the time. Hell, threaten to give him full custody and take occasional visitation yourself. Call his bluff. Worst case scenario? You're free!
Anyway, don't stay with the harpy or asshole as the case may be because someone told you that having both of you in the same household matters to the kids. It doesn't. If you can afford it, split up. It's worth it, and you won't hate your kids for forcing you to stay with someone you can no longer abide.
Finally, consider that staying together for the kids is often a vehicle for the spouse who does not want the divorce to hang onto the hope of reconciliation or to hang onto circumstances that he is comfortable with. He's not going to change, not for long anyway. And he's going to spend the time whining and begging and guilting and undermining you. You think you're in hell now? This won't be doing the kids any good, either. It won't do them any harm, but it won't be helping them, and you'll be going through all that crap for no good reason.
In conclusion, the only good reason to stay together for the kids is if you can't afford to split up.
Why I Follow Politics
A conspecific asked me the other day why, given my cynicism about the political system, I follow politics and take and interest in it. I reckon it's a form of entertainment for me, a spectator sport. Just as I know that the success or failure of my favorite baseball team is really meaningless to me, I might still find amusement in following the team closely through the season and expressing opinions about what they have done right and wrong, personnel matters and what have you. I don't own any stock in the team. I won't gain or lose anything if the team succeeds or fails. But it can still be fun. That's how I see politics. I don't really have any influence, and the outcome probably won't make a hell of a lot of difference to me in the end. I'm not going to get an ambassadorship or a seat on the federal bench (although I have learned that I am overqualified for the post of Attorney General).
The thing that has piqued my interest most of all over the last few years is the incompetence, corruption, criminality and venality of the GOP. When GW Bush was handed the 2000 election by the douchebags on the Supreme Court, I was appalled that so many of my countrymen were such dupes. In 2004, when fraud in Ohio and elsewhere delivered the election to Bush in a squeaker, I came to realize that a huge number of my countrymen were complete dumbasses. They weren't even dupes. They knew GW Bush was a criminal and voted for him anyway. If Americans do not punish the GOP at the polls, I may not be able to travel abroad any longer out of total shame. I'm already making all kinds of excuses. "You have to understand that we are poorly educated and that our media is run by entertainers. And we allow even the stupidest people to vote. I am not a dumbass myself, you must believe me."
In a way, I blame the Democrats. I am convinced that they really believe that ordinary Americans are the salt of the earth and can be reasoned with. They also clung over long to the idea that the GOP was really trying to do what they thought was right for the country. Note to Democrats: the people are dumbasses who vote with their sphincters, not their brains. Stop trying to reason with them and start duping them. Lie as much as you need to. And the GOP hates America.
The thing that has piqued my interest most of all over the last few years is the incompetence, corruption, criminality and venality of the GOP. When GW Bush was handed the 2000 election by the douchebags on the Supreme Court, I was appalled that so many of my countrymen were such dupes. In 2004, when fraud in Ohio and elsewhere delivered the election to Bush in a squeaker, I came to realize that a huge number of my countrymen were complete dumbasses. They weren't even dupes. They knew GW Bush was a criminal and voted for him anyway. If Americans do not punish the GOP at the polls, I may not be able to travel abroad any longer out of total shame. I'm already making all kinds of excuses. "You have to understand that we are poorly educated and that our media is run by entertainers. And we allow even the stupidest people to vote. I am not a dumbass myself, you must believe me."
In a way, I blame the Democrats. I am convinced that they really believe that ordinary Americans are the salt of the earth and can be reasoned with. They also clung over long to the idea that the GOP was really trying to do what they thought was right for the country. Note to Democrats: the people are dumbasses who vote with their sphincters, not their brains. Stop trying to reason with them and start duping them. Lie as much as you need to. And the GOP hates America.
I Understand the Biden Pick
When I got the e-mail from the O'Bama campaign that O'Bama had chosen Senator Biden, I was surprised. I had been betting on Senator Clinton. But after some thought, I have come to consider it a good decision. Senator Clinton might have energized the nutzoid GOP base that so far has shown little enthusiasm for Senator McCain. They might have mobilized to vote against Clinton when they would not have done so to vote for McCain. Then again, those people are going to vote for whomever their leaders tell them, and I bet they'll get behind McCain in the end. He's their best hope for an early Armageddon after all.
Senator Biden has a sharp tongue that will enable him to counterattack the right wing slime machine in a way that O'Bama can't afford to while he's trying to look presidential. Biden knows a lot about foreign affairs and can speak to those issues with authority whereas McCain and his probable Veep Romney cannot (because they're ignoramuses). And Biden has a background just as tragic as McCain's. His wife and baby were killed in a car accident. He commuted from Delaware every day to be with his sons who had survived. He embodies family values, although he doesn't make a lot of political hay out of it. He didn't get filthy rich during his Senate career and has working class roots. By all accounts, he knows how to connect with working class people. And he's a white dude.
Senator Biden has a sharp tongue that will enable him to counterattack the right wing slime machine in a way that O'Bama can't afford to while he's trying to look presidential. Biden knows a lot about foreign affairs and can speak to those issues with authority whereas McCain and his probable Veep Romney cannot (because they're ignoramuses). And Biden has a background just as tragic as McCain's. His wife and baby were killed in a car accident. He commuted from Delaware every day to be with his sons who had survived. He embodies family values, although he doesn't make a lot of political hay out of it. He didn't get filthy rich during his Senate career and has working class roots. By all accounts, he knows how to connect with working class people. And he's a white dude.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Being Pitiful is not a Qulaification for the Presidency
I'm getting tired of ranting about Songbird, but he just pisses me off so much that I have to get it out of my system. The POW card can only be played so often before it really starts to sound like whining (which it fundamentally is). I'm reminded of the Widow Starkadder in "Cold Comfort Farm" who relied on her lament that she had seen "something nasty in the woodshed" a half century earlier to put down all criticism or dissent in the household. That's McCain in spades. "Wah, wah, wah. I was a POW. I was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques that seemed like torture when applied to me but are perfectly OK for the US government to use on other people."
What is it about having been a POW that is supposed to insulate you from any criticism or suspicion? Is it that we are supposed to take so much pity on you that we refrain from wounding your delicate feelings? If so, are you really emotionally up to the task of presidenting? Or is that you showed endurance and courage by not completely going bananas because of the experience? If so, why don't we just take the detainees at Gitmo and let each of them be president in turn and dispense with these annoying elections?
I keep trying to wrap my mind around the reasoning. You surrender to the enemy and are detained; therefore, you no longer have the capacity to lie, cheat or be wrong about anything ever again. I suppose there are no former POWs with criminal records or who are registered sex offenders or who are junkies or who made any boneheaded decisions after their confinement. By Golly, those detainees at Gitmo are going to be pretty useful now that the US has purged them of the capacity to sin or err.
Or is it that we reckon that your confinement damaged you so much that we have to cut you a lot of slack to compensate for your suffering? Go ahead and cheat on your wife. We understand what a rough time you had. You're ethically challenged as hell? Of course, you are, poor old thing. Those Vietnamense beat the ethics right out of you. I still don't get why I should vote for you for president, though. Being pitiable is just not enough.
What is it about having been a POW that is supposed to insulate you from any criticism or suspicion? Is it that we are supposed to take so much pity on you that we refrain from wounding your delicate feelings? If so, are you really emotionally up to the task of presidenting? Or is that you showed endurance and courage by not completely going bananas because of the experience? If so, why don't we just take the detainees at Gitmo and let each of them be president in turn and dispense with these annoying elections?
I keep trying to wrap my mind around the reasoning. You surrender to the enemy and are detained; therefore, you no longer have the capacity to lie, cheat or be wrong about anything ever again. I suppose there are no former POWs with criminal records or who are registered sex offenders or who are junkies or who made any boneheaded decisions after their confinement. By Golly, those detainees at Gitmo are going to be pretty useful now that the US has purged them of the capacity to sin or err.
Or is it that we reckon that your confinement damaged you so much that we have to cut you a lot of slack to compensate for your suffering? Go ahead and cheat on your wife. We understand what a rough time you had. You're ethically challenged as hell? Of course, you are, poor old thing. Those Vietnamense beat the ethics right out of you. I still don't get why I should vote for you for president, though. Being pitiable is just not enough.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Freedom is Security and Order; Disorder is Counter-Revolutionary
After the Revolution, in order to insure that anarchy, which is desirable, does not descend into chaos, which is not, it will be necessary for the Revolutionary Cadre to take steps to maintain order and security. Contrary to the Rumsfeldian view that freedom is messy, it will be a primary principle of the Revolution that Freedom is Order and that disorder, especially when it disturbs the peace, is counter-revolutionary. To enact this Principle, it will be necessary to inculcate it in the minds of every citizen from infancy and to make Order an aspect of objective reality such that it reinforces the Principle in people through practice.
To this end, it will be necessary for the Party to maintain continuous surveillance and monitoring of public activities to prevent and punish violence and disturbances of the public peace, if necessary employing force to do so. The means of doing violence must be, as far as is practicable, limited to the Party and its Safety Patrols. Safety Patrols should be ubiquitous and intolerant of disturbances and crimes. They will appear to those with Right Revolutionary Principles as Guardians of the Revolution and a bastion against authoritarian counter-revolutionaries and suproletarian criminal elements.
It will likewise be necessary to maintain a force adequate to protect the Revolution from counter-revolutionary elements abroad and to export the Revolution to such other territories as may be yearning for the Blessings of Freedom. This force will guard the borders and project the power of the Revolutionary Cadre throughout the world. No counter-revolutionary power must be permitted to attain superiority. Naturally, intelligence gathering and diplomatic efforts will have to be funded and manned.
To win the hearts and minds of youth, it will be vital to maintain a system of mandatory indoctrination centers in which young minds can be inculcated with Right Revolutionary Principles and unquestioned loyalty to the Cadre and Party. This will be costly but will reduce the costs of maintaining order over time as the Revolutionary Man and Woman are created and mature into citizens who know how to exercise freedom responsibly, that is according to Revolutionary Principles and in furtherance of Revolutionary Goals.
Of course. none of these requirements for maintaining the stateless society will be free of cost, but the Cadre and Party will limit its extractions from the citizenry to only so much of their wealth and incomes as is absolutely necessary to carry out these core functions for their benefit. Moreover, it must be the policy of the Cadre to ensure that extractions from the citizenry do not exceed what is optimal and do not provide disincentives to productivity that in turn reduce revenues for vital services and functions.
To ensure Freedom, citizens must surrender a small part of their liberty to the Cadre. They must learn to distinguish between Freedom and counter-revolutionary license.
To this end, it will be necessary for the Party to maintain continuous surveillance and monitoring of public activities to prevent and punish violence and disturbances of the public peace, if necessary employing force to do so. The means of doing violence must be, as far as is practicable, limited to the Party and its Safety Patrols. Safety Patrols should be ubiquitous and intolerant of disturbances and crimes. They will appear to those with Right Revolutionary Principles as Guardians of the Revolution and a bastion against authoritarian counter-revolutionaries and suproletarian criminal elements.
It will likewise be necessary to maintain a force adequate to protect the Revolution from counter-revolutionary elements abroad and to export the Revolution to such other territories as may be yearning for the Blessings of Freedom. This force will guard the borders and project the power of the Revolutionary Cadre throughout the world. No counter-revolutionary power must be permitted to attain superiority. Naturally, intelligence gathering and diplomatic efforts will have to be funded and manned.
To win the hearts and minds of youth, it will be vital to maintain a system of mandatory indoctrination centers in which young minds can be inculcated with Right Revolutionary Principles and unquestioned loyalty to the Cadre and Party. This will be costly but will reduce the costs of maintaining order over time as the Revolutionary Man and Woman are created and mature into citizens who know how to exercise freedom responsibly, that is according to Revolutionary Principles and in furtherance of Revolutionary Goals.
Of course. none of these requirements for maintaining the stateless society will be free of cost, but the Cadre and Party will limit its extractions from the citizenry to only so much of their wealth and incomes as is absolutely necessary to carry out these core functions for their benefit. Moreover, it must be the policy of the Cadre to ensure that extractions from the citizenry do not exceed what is optimal and do not provide disincentives to productivity that in turn reduce revenues for vital services and functions.
To ensure Freedom, citizens must surrender a small part of their liberty to the Cadre. They must learn to distinguish between Freedom and counter-revolutionary license.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)