walkitout: (Default)
Look, obviously, if the person you are hating on specifically is a woman, this is not possible. But if the person you are hating on is, oh, I don’t know the richest Not a Woman in the world, why do the women keep entering the chat?

Don’t like the way he’s reproducing? Go at him, specifically. Not at the women who are participating.

Don’t like the gamer lies? Don’t be like this guy:

https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-musklash

“Implying that the Hand of Wisdom and Action unique could be a higher level than 52 is bad enough--but there is no bigger sign of being a fake gamer girl in 2025 than not knowing how the business side of YouTube works.”

Rich dude pretends to he is awesome at playing a game he does not know how to play. Great! Go hard at that guy! But why did “fake gamer girl” become the insult to use?

Member of the walkitout first name club went hard at rich dude for fawning at Grover 2. Fine! Go hard! But don’t turn his name into a woman’s name by adding an ia at the end and mock him for “wearing a dress”.

In related directives:

Don’t hate on people by fat shaming. Fat shaming bad! Do not do it!

Don’t hate on people by suggesting that they engage in gay sex! Do not do it! Homophobia is bad!

I get that the targets of this rage pull this kind of shit all the time, and I am not going to tell anyone to take the high road. The low road is great! Hate hate hate! Mock and use the swears! I am here to support you!

Except when you gay bash, fat shame, engage in misogyny, etc. About the only good thing I have to say on this topic right now is at least no one has brought race into the picture.

Gah.

Motivation

Nov. 4th, 2024 04:00 pm
walkitout: (Default)
I’ve spent a ton of time the last few days doing summer vacation planning. That was fun. Partly, tho, it was a way to immerse myself in a bunch of details that didn’t have anything to do with what everyone is chewing their nails down to their knuckles over.

Anyway, when I was reading the Matt Levine column today, I saw a link to a Bloomberg article in opinion. It’s the one from Halloween, in which gives detailed reasons for endorsing Harris. It happened shortly after all those articles about the subscription losses WaPo experienced in the wake of its decision not to endorse anyone.

When Harris became the nominee, I was watching Healy hard to see when she would endorse (she didn’t take that long, just longer than some other Mass politicians) And I was very carefully biting my tongue to not keep pointing out about Bloomberg not endorsing when a bunch of my friends had the pitchforks out for my old boss. Apparently, it all comes down to a question of motivation.
walkitout: (Default)
We’ve had a bit of a saga going on with the future pool deck drains. If the pool were outside, it would have a pool deck that sloped away from the pool and any splash our whatever would wind up in the plants (or it would be flat, and you could hose in either direction). But inside, there can be drains. Where do the drains lead to? The health folks said, absolutely not to the septic, which is fine. The engineer assumed he could daylight it, but the plumbing inspector said nope. There were efforts to get a variance, and we got a conditional one and then everyone tried things to try to get the letter the variance was conditioned on and failed. Tuesday night, I sent an email to the lawyer. Thursday I talked to the lawyer. Today, we all gave up. Nothing worked, but Plan B (send the drains through pipes and a pump back through the pool filter) still sucked, so we’re going to slope the deck to the pool. Which I asked weeks ago why we couldn’t do that and never got a great answer.

Here is the answer.

I walked with M.

I took A. to Crossroads Cafe, but we got there a little before 6, and they said “a few minutes” then wouldn’t say boo to us for 20 minutes as we watched a bunch of people with reservations come in and be seated. It looked like we’d be seated _after_ those people wrapped up their meal, so I looked online, determined that NYAJ would seat us immediately, and we went there before that could change and had a nice dinner.

I had a delightful phone call with K. She has a horrible residual cough, however, which is a bummer.

FF was fun. Altho apparently everyone is in a snit about the WaPo not endorsing a candidate this cycle and canceling their subscriptions or threatening to, which is absolutely fine and you can cancel a subscription at any time for any reason or no reason. I don’t really understand — anyone who reads the WaPo isn’t going to be swayed by their endorsement at this point in time, and the owner of WaPo is also a person who is navigating procurements at the federal level. I, personally, would like to have an alternative source of lift, so I want that process to work. Also, I would really like a lot of federal services to move to the cloud and generally be updated, and the top three cloud providers are the Zon, the Squish and the goog. I don’t want the Squish running shit for the federal government, altho I’d be completely okay with the goog doing it, I know plenty of others would object. The response to the lift question at FF was, once again, a deep look back into the past when it was a project run by the federal government directly. Specifically, “What did we use for lift in the 60s?” was uttered. Well, that cadence won’t work for what we need now, for sure. I don’t think I would mind if the federal government was running the space program, but _they_ _don’t_ _want_ _to_. *shrug*

I do love a True Believer when they are on the team I align with, so I’m not mad or in a huff or anything. But also, I’m like, Attainable Goals, people.
walkitout: (Default)
We packed up A.’s new bento box, and the little seal things appear effective. It fits about the right amount of food, and the resulting packaging is much smaller in volume and weight and her backpack now functions much better as a result. Fingers crossed it is durable as well. Also, it is ludicrously cute, as it the insulating zipper thingie that I bought to go around it and hold the little ice packs. The outer pocket on the insulated part holds her phone and other odds and ends, so that also helped trim up the overall interior organization of the backpack.

I opened up google news today and learned things! David Cameron is now foreign secretary in the UK, and coverage said he “will become a life peer in the House of Lords in order to take on the government role.” Wikipedia tells me that, by convention, the cabinet in the UK is made up of people from Parliament. I guess since he isn’t on the one side then he has to be on the other. This is unlikely to be the beginning of a trend, but one never knows.

In unrelated news, Tim Scott has “suspended” his campaign, which weirdly almost makes sense after reading the piece in WaPo yesterday that indicated he was being backed by Ellison.
walkitout: (Default)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/12/silicon-valley-billionaire-donors-presidential-candidates/

This is kind of an amazing article in a variety of ways, but I’m posting so I don’t forget this quote and its context:

““There’s such a massive disconnect right now between caucus-goers and primary voters and the people who write the big super PAC checks,” said a political adviser to major Silicon Valley donors on the right. “We don’t care about [transgender] kids going to bathrooms. We care about dismantling the regulatory state.””

It’s not weird for there to be a money and votes disconnect. On the D side, there was a really long, bad disconnect between labor unions (money) and identity related groups (votes). It was especially bad from Reagan on, because so many union members were voting R while the union money was going to D and that is no way to win elections.

But in this case, the unnamed “political adviser” is describing “major Silicon Valley donors on the right” as being the impetus to “dismantling the regulatory state”. They are _really_ _really_ close to accomplishing this goal via SCOTUS, and it continues to be nearly invisible to most citizens. If they get rulings at SCOTUS to go the way they want, we’ll all be dealing with the aftermath and honestly, that aftermath will be Dobbsian, in that it wreaks all kinds of horrifying havoc while creating an political climate for the R side of aisle that is not at all what they are currently imagining.

I had honestly been wondering where the push to “dismantle the regulatory state” was coming from. It absolutely sounds like a Sequoia / Thiel / etc. initiative. So the next time you’re thinking someone is too smart to do something that stupid, remember this moment.

Later in the article, there is a mention of “The Boyd Institute”, which right now is a substack shell with a list of initiatives and nothing else (the initiatives are hilarious: AUKUS, asteroid mining and cleaning up space debris, along with something about “natural resources intelligence”, which I’m a little unsure what that means). Meanwhile, there are other groups with Boyd as part of their name that are very much Not The Boyd Institute. The WaPo piece ends by mentioning this thing and quotes the founder:

““Right now, the GOP is all clickbait,” Giesea said. “On one level, these guys are anti-woke. But there’s a recognition starting that you can choke on anti-woke — that it’s a distraction from solving real problems.””

I sincerely doubt that Giesea thinks that the “real problems” are space debris and asteroid mining. Or even AUKUS (can’t speak to the “natural resources intelligence”). I’ll probably be searching my blog years from now because I half remember something mentioned in a dark money scandal involving a “non-partisan” thinktank.

Clusters

Nov. 12th, 2023 12:09 pm
walkitout: (Default)
I’ve been listening to a lot of two different podcasts with Michael Hobbes as a co-host: If Books Could Kill and Maintenance Phase. Over the course of listening to these podcasts — and largely because the hosts really make this point explicit over and over and over again — the absolutely _non randomness_ of the Awful has become quite clear to me.

I was not ignorant of the non-randomness of the Awful. I mean, I’ve had a series of systems over the years designed to help me remember the Awful, so that when the Awful I know about already shows up endorsing a new flavor of Awful, I know enough to go, Ruh Roh. I used to have a list of romance authors who, if they endorsed another romance author, would completely put me off even trying that author. They had some other traits in common, including a notable one that gave me a warning about what to expect from the Twilight series even before I knew anything else about it. I kept a book — I’ve forgotten the name of it now, it has been a couple decades — about the diet industry around purely because its index of Awful was so comprehensive that whenever someone showed up with some new shocking take on something diet / nutrition related, I could reliably check them in the index and go, yep, knew they were rotten. I had a Common Courage Press book that I bought a couple dozen copies of and gave to all my friends one year, because it was such a useful expose on the connections between a bunch of brands of conservative political awful that were not at the time super obvious.

So when I was over at WaPo today and saw an opinion piece about how people shouldn’t be fired because they are jerks — which honestly, why not. I mean, a lot of the economy is “at will” employment. Firing people for being jerks seems utterly reasonable to me. I know that “jerk” used to have some socioeconomic nuance to it that make it a pretty elitist insult, but those nuances died off before half the population of our country was even born. Now, we just mean, awful person, difficult to be around, makes you feel miserable, hard to coordinate work with. Why _wouldn’t_ you fire someone for being a jerk? I get that the article suggests But It Was Being Awful in His Personal Life That Got Him Fired, but it wasn’t really in his personal life, now was it, if it was on Twitter and attached to the same account he uses in the course of his job. And honestly, it’s not super hard to find plenty of evidence going back years that the person who was fired definitely prides himself on his cantankerousness.

The article hit the usual high points: the open letter against cancel culture type of thing. But when I looked up the author of the piece, the rest of the cluster sprang clearly into focus: libertarians, transphobes, people who push the lab-leak theory and generally platform misinformation from the usual suspects.

It’s completely fine to fire jerks. And if you are a jerk who gets fired, and you have a defender at the WaPo like this, definitely rethink your life choices.

I don’t think anyone needs to hate on the WaPo for publishing this — I’m reasonably certain that they put it up there as a little heads up to the readership: Don’t Ever Trust This Person Or Anyone They Like or Any of Their Preferred Venues for Publishing Thinkpieces. At least, that’s how I read it. However, I’ll be keeping an eye out, because there is some grey area. It’s good to make your readers aware that there’s some nutballery out there. It’s a whole other thing to fucking platform it.

If despite all this vague, you are sitting around thinking, but sometimes I’m a jerk at work, well, I definitely was too. I routinely expected to get fired for it, and I would have apologized on my way out the door if I ever _was_ fired for it. If you are sitting around thinking, man, I am sometimes a jerk at work, then you are more likely to be in the normal envelope of people trying to get along and occasionally failing, than in that rarefied territory of People Arguing in Court and/or the Newspaper about whether you should be fired for being a jerk.

I did poke around a bit at that case with the police officer who got an ADA judgment for being fired and having ADHD, which was overturned on appeal. I feel it’s important to at least acknowledge here that people in charge of creating an environment for people to work together to accomplish goals are constantly having to balance understanding that sometimes people really fucking lose their shit and people should not be subjected to a hostile work environment. _I am actually super aware of all this_, because I’ve got two children with IEPs and also, I am me. I know that at times, I can be, all by myself, super traumatizing to the people around me.

But again: I routinely expected to be fired. And honestly, I’ve been dumped and been more or less civilized about the process. If my family decided I was just too difficult to be around, _I would respect that_. Firing people for being jerks, divorcing or dumping people for being jerks, reducing or cutting social or familial ties with people for being jerks — all totally, absolutely, and completely fine.

Trying to simultaneously be a libertarian _and_ stop people from doing any of these things is a weird take.
walkitout: (Default)
I was drinking tea and dropped in on newsmedia and FB this morning. My friend A. had posted a link to this article at WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/09/house-modernization-committee-bipartisan-collaboration-lessons/

I had no idea any of that was going on, and was encouraged by it [ETA: but see below](I find everything out months and years late, it turns out), _and also_ it refers to the Rotary 4 Way Test. Which despite decades of reading including a lot of business advice and self-help _and knowing Rotarians_ and pretty sure having attended at least one Rotarian function and having found Rotarians to be annoyingly Christian, individualistic in orientation and Republican as voters, _had never heard of the 4 Way Test_.

It is, obviously, in wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four-Way_Test

If you can read that and _not_ see a really odd but valid perspective on Buddhism, well, you’re not me. Which is fine! Anyway. This is a good lens! I will be experimenting with it.

ETA: OK, here’s the “see below”.

I had not read the entire article yet when I posted this initially, and by the end of the article, I was saying things that if I’d been in public and overheard or if I posted them here, I’d probably be in a whole lot of trouble, because free speech protection is extensive but not _that_ extensive.

Timmons is talking like some of the Republicans who Hillary Clinton worked with used to talk. And Clinton got into a ton of trouble electorally for being willing to talk to people. So fundamentally, if you tell me that a bunch of white guys, _led by someone from Tacoma_, got together and decided to apply Rotarian techniques to getting along better and were really _happy_ that they could get so much accomplished _but in the end couldn’t even get these things done_:

“Others, including a recommendation to create more bipartisan gathering spaces and a particularly clever one to allow dual sponsorship of bills across the aisle, have gone nowhere — so far.”

Well, I’m not encouraged at all. OK, I am encouraged. We are still headed _directly_ for a really, really, really big, damaging encounter that a lot of people will have to reckon with. You know, sort of like what happened in that Dominion case that Dominion finally allowed Fox to escape from in exchange for admitting what they had done and paying a helluva lot of money. That kind of damaging encounter lies in our Congressional future still, and will keep happening, in much the same way that Dominion’s cases against other individuals continue to roll forward. The temporary modernization committee has indeed demonstrated that the people we elect to Congress are capable of getting stuff done when they have frameworks for working together. Sure. However, we _don’t_ have frameworks for working together _on purpose_. One side of this partisan debate absolutely opposes going forward with changes that have been happening in our country (notably, where people live, and how many people are in this country) for a hundred years. And also, by the way, oppose an even longer timeline of changes regarding who is counted as a (whole) person. Timmons is described as having a recurrent nightmare until he had a hard conversation with his republican colleagues.

There’s a _type_ of person who can’t sleep until they have a hard conversation with someone. And all I can say about that is, what kind of conversations do you normally have with people? If it takes a recurring nightmare to get you to say something _to your own team_, I find your lack of authenticity deeply uncomfortable to be around.

ETAYA:

Having said all that, I have in my own head a timeline of how change ripples out through a group of people. There are some weirdos — sometimes including me — who try a totally new thing because It’s Shiny or it holds out hope of mitigating a long-standing problem or whatever. Depending on how that goes, and what those people say to their friends — OFTEN including me — a bigger group of people will give it a go. The first group, driven by shiny and/or intractable problems in their lives (or problems with obvious solutions that they are not willing to pursue yet or whatever), has already moved onto the Next New Thing. If that second rank sheep — frequently me! — likes the results they are getting, they’ll enjoy an increased differential success in life compared to people who have NOT adopted the new thing. Their friends — and people who fucking hate their guts and want what they have — will be the next to adopt the change. And so on as the change ripples through society, moving from Gadget to Fad to Trend to Normal to Earnest Young People Try to Convince Stodgy Olds to Middle Aged People Try to Convince the Entrenched to WTF is Wrong With You, You Yokel Start Wearing Shoes Already. We are at Middled Aged People Try to Convince the Entrenched. WTF is Wrong With You You Yokel is next.

I watched a TRMS and 3 and a fraction Alex Wagner’s last night to catch up on what I didn’t watch while on vacation, and Jordan Klepper said something he attributed to Adam Kinzinger about how orange guy will lose adherents when he’s on stage and has pooped his pants.

Now, I’ll definitely understand if you laughed, because honestly, pooping is always hilarious when it is not you having the eliminatory issues. And _I am really okay with targeting orange guy this way if it’s a quote from a Republican_. And also, laughing at medical issues is not cool. Laughing at things that happen when you are old is not cool. If there’s disability involved, not cool. I won’t be starting to watch Klepper and/or the Daily Show. And also! We are at Middle Aged People Trying to Convince the Entrenched, shading into WTF Is Wrong With You You Yokel.
walkitout: (Default)
I’ve been thinking a lot about the Mansion Tax, the 60 day directive in LA. I’ve also been thinking a lot about bubbles, net worth calculations, wealth distributions, income, etc.

There has been a lot of chewing on economic trends in society over the decades, and a lot of ideas about how to even things out a bit more, in what is obviously a very not equal distribution of resources. People have thoughts about wealth taxes, but of course they are uncollectible, and have all kinds of problems. Obviously, bubbles really suck, but if you don’t allow people to enjoy the fruits of innovation, you won’t have any and other people will and you will be outcompeted. There’s a whole lot of Yeah That Won’t Work.

And yet.

What we are seeing over the last few weeks / months are really interesting trends. Inflation transfers money from retirees / rentiers to those who have jobs with cost of living adjustments / pay rises. It also reduces indebtedness, in its own way, a wealth transfer. A much bigger wealth transfer than any wealth tax plus redistribution scheme is ever likely to imagine. The collapse of a variety of bubbles — crypto, meme stocks, blah blah — and the near total shutdown of the housing market has also closed down a bunch of things that were causing a variety of people to feel very, very wealthy. They don’t feel wealthy now. Some of them are being extradited.

We _want_ more housing. But maybe we don’t want all the housing to always go to the most expensive housing. What Bass and the Mansion Tax are trying to get started is a pipeline of money to encourage producing housing for the masses. We really need that, if we want to deal with homelessness. When wealthy people are competing with people with high incomes to buy all the really nice housing that can possibly be produced, there _is_ trickle down to the masses. But probably not enough. We are way behind. I don’t think the Mansion Tax and the 60 day directive are going to be enough. However, one reason why developers shied away from affordable housing is because the red tape is brutal. If there isn’t a competing alternative that can be built instead, and the red tape is less brutal, maybe a slow shift begins.

I don’t know how Biden thinks about the economy, but in general, Democrats think about raising the floor (increasing the minimum wage and improving conditions for workers in general), raising the median (increasing the size of the middle class) and generally evening things, usually through tax and redistribute.

In the post-WW2 era, we produced an enormous amount of new housing stock in suburbs as part of white flight, which meant that within cities, there was reduction of density in old housing stock. We took advantage of that situation to reduce the amount of lower quality housing stock. Over and over again. We sort of took for granted that there would always be an excess of new, higher quality housing stock replacing the older housing stock, so we could just legislate out of existence the old and crappy stuff and there would still be plenty. A variety of trends (de-institutionalization, among others) disrupted that. And by 2008, we kinda just quit making any new housing stock. That’s turned around, but there is pent up demand in the form of delayed housing formation, and also a lot of the older housing stock is not where the jobs are (altho that has further evolved in recent years).

Left alone, residential construction will tend to optimize for profit : build houses where things aren’t that regulated, and where there is money to buy them. That tends to increase sprawl, and it tends to be Sun Belt. But there are limits, and we have been running up against them in the form of traffic congestion in Sun Belt sprawl and in the form of Not Enough Housing Units in coastal cities.

National political parties tend to not get particularly involved in any of this, which is entirely understandable. Also, I’m not sure they can stay out of it any longer.
walkitout: (Default)
I keep looking for something aimed at helping with social / friends hanging out conversation spiraled a bit in a bad way type conflict NOT the kind of social conflict that requires direct action, lobbying representatives, participating in political campaigns, etc. I’m not finding what I am looking for, but I’m learning a lot anyway.

https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/implement/provide-information-enhance-skills/conflict-resolution/main

Reading things like this in 2022, it’s just incredible. It’s a little archive of the worst parts of the past, and what we did to try to survive.

“ Speak about yourself, not the other party. In the textbook example, you might say, "I feel angry to know that my children are reading this old-fashioned textbook," rather than, "How could you choose such a racist book?"”

Because, you know, absolutely not okay back then to suggest that something was racist.

“In conflict resolution, the best solution is the solution that is best for both sides. Of course, that's not always possible to find, but you should use all your resources to solve your conflict as smoothly as you can.”

It _sounds_ _so_ _reasonable_, doesn’t it? It’s totally fucking wrong. I mean, think about it. If you are in conflict with a mosquito, do you want a solution that is best for both sides? No, you want to smash the mosquito and then clean up any residual blood smear. If you are in conflict with a person who is trying to force you to drive him to the Capitol to engage in a coup, do you want what is best for that person? If you are wrapping up a transaction at the ATM and someone approaches you with a weapon and demands money from you, do you want what is best for both sides?

If a neighbor’s dog bites your kid, do you want what is best for the dog? For the neighbor?

It is _great_ that this chapter recognizes the existence of power differentials, and recognizes that it is not always possible to find a solution that is best for both sides. It is _unfortunate_ that this chapter frames conflict as binary; usually, it is more complicated than two sides. But it is _offensive_ that there is so little in this chapter that explicitly frames the tactics it presents as, hey, sorry, reality bites but we have to do this. There is _nothing_ here to say, oh, and by the way, once you no longer _have_ to do it this way, you _definitely should not_. You are dealing with a bunch of people with power, who are _NOT_ looking out for you, so in order to get anything, you have to find some way for you AND them to win.

Once you have power, you probably should put a lot less energy into helping the bad guys keep winning. You should use your power to sap the effectiveness of the people you are in conflict with. That’s what they always did to you. Make _them_ put in the effort to find the creative solutions that work for both / everyone. You have better things to do.

ETA:

KU is located in Lawrence. Lawrence in Kansas is named after Lawrence in Massachusetts because abolitionists from Massachusetts _went to Kansas_ to bring the fight against slavery there. There were battles there long before the Civil War.

The wikipedia entry on Lawrence goes into some detail. It is absolutely relevant and absolutely worth reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence%2C_Kansas
walkitout: (Default)
Am I having relationship conflict? Sure. I have relationships, so conflict happens. Nothing particularly different or worse/bad is happening in any of my core relationships. Don’t think this is about me, specifically.

It _is_, of course, about me, because this is my space to work through ideas and try to understand … stuff.

I was raised in a JW family (my grandfather had converted before my father was born, back in the 1920s or so, even before they’d settled on the JW name). My younger sister left in her teens. I left when I was 25, which is unusually late for someone to leave while young, and unusually early for someone to leave after a long period of time in the cult. If you are thinking, is it really a cult? They refer to being a member as being “In the Truth” and they call the people in charge “The Governing Body” and the group as a whole as “The Organization”. I think that makes it _fairly clear_. It’s a cult.

Once I left, I did not bounce back. Again, this is very unusual for any long term member with extensive family still in the cult. You don’t get to keep those family relationships when you exit. The only relationship they will have with you is attempts to get you to return. This is not an exaggeration. There is plenty of readily accessible JW material (you can go to their website) that describes that this is the policy, and how it is implemented. Again, it’s a cult. Again, it makes it hard to leave and stay gone. Humans generally want to maintain connections to their friends and family of long-standing, so ending that all at once is hard. And anyone who has been in for a long time does not have strong relationships with outsiders _because the group also bans that_. It’s a cult.

While I was a member, I was told over and over and over again in my interactions with outsiders (generally answering their questions about the cult I was then a member of) that I was the most reasonable JW / person in a cult that they had ever met. I never quite knew what to make of this? Until recently, I would have assumed that fundamentally this was a result of my autism. And it may well be. However, I got to thinking about structures for managing relationship conflict last night, and I now think there is something else entirely going on. Probably autism related — because ME! But it isn’t inherent to the autism.

While I was a sincere member (because for a long time, I was — the last five years, not so much, but for a long time I was a sincere member), I maintained an independent conscience. Not as a child, of course, but, let’s call it high school on. On specific issues where I felt the Organization’s position was completely unsupportable by scripture, I actually would argue with men holding positions within The Organization. (I didn’t lose, and if you have any understanding of cults, this is all by itself somewhat incredible and difficult to believe. Also, it is true. They were very afraid of me by the end of this process, a fact which I did not fully appreciate for a few years, but have realized for a long time now.)

I did not go out of my way to say, “I’m a JW” or anything like that. However, I did state things that I could or could not do, as they came up. “I do not celebrate Christmas” wasn’t a thing I volunteered, but provided by way of explaining my non-participation in a holiday party. I was happy to explain _why_ JW’s don’t celebrate Christmas (still willing to do that!) _when asked_. When the other person wanted to drop it, I fucking dropped it. This is probably why people thought I was reasonable. It was because I could provide the complete basis for the belief / proscription / requirement, on demand, in a coherent format, and then stop. That is _not_ the easiest thing in the world to learn how to do.

Evangelicals _in general_ including JWs typically lack the _and then stop_ capability. Honestly, they’re usually pretty shitty on the “complete basis for …” part, and rarely good at the “in a coherent format”. They generally _don’t_ give the actual basis for their belief, which is that they are a member of a family / group that requires them to believe the thing. They frequently don’t realize that the actual basis for their belief is their group membership. When you are arguing about a belief or value that a person is required to hold to maintain membership in good standing in the group that contains all of the people that are important to them, you are not arguing about the belief or the value. You are actually arguing about whether or not the person is willing to break with everyone they care about over an idea. And they probably aren’t, no matter how reprehensible or risible the idea is. Interestingly, this is exactly what slows people down in terms of _joining_ a cult in a lapse of judgment. The cult makes it clear they are going to have to give up all their important relationships — and the important relationships will often make it clear that if they join the cult, that connection is over. It’s tough to get someone with satisfying relationships to make that leap.

Flip side, someone who _does not_ have satisfying relationships is pretty easy to get to sign up by offering them the appearance and possibly even the reality of satisfying relationships. Join us, and you’ll have structured, free activities to fill your non-work hours, a sense of meaning, the satisfaction of looking forward to 99% of humanity being offed sometime in the next little bit by god so you can enjoy living forever on a paradise earth (nothing like a little genocidal fantasy revenge to take the edge off of loneliness and shame!).

As much as I would like to say that I left because I disapprove of genocide, even as a fantasy (I do! Now. I didn’t then. My bad.), that’s not why I left. I _left_ because The Organization asserted that it was influenced by Jehovah, sort of nudged along in a management sense, to get the bad humans out of The Organization, and the door-to-door ministry would ensure that we would present the opportunity to everyone thus making it possible for any good humans not in The Organization to find their way to Eternal Life in Paradise on Earth. Any mere human organization couldn’t offer this, and the world was all under Satan’s influence, so being In the Truth was the only safe place, and even if there seemed to be someone bad, that’d all be found out in good time, don’t worry about it. I left because it was really impossible to believe this. Remember: my grandfather converted, and I read. A Lot. It was really clear that The Organization was largely composed of criminals, and most people who were not cult members were basically decent human beings. And largely is not some sort of 51% of the people broke the speed limit occasionally. The list of _people I knew_ committing felonies and remaining in good standing was kind of astonishing. There was an even longer list of people I knew committing felonies and going to prison for them (and I don’t mean COs who didn’t want to serve when drafted during Viet Nam), who were in good standing despite internal reports of what they had done, and they were only booted out after it became a public legal matter.

Some years ago, I tried to read a book that was written by a Law Professor colleague of a family member. The book was about private law, and what public law can maybe learn from it. It’s a terrible book, which was really apparent when the events surrounding the Great Organic Peanut shortage were described in a way that asserted that kosher regulation in that situation was helpful, when in fact, that is the opposite of true. Kosher failures were present, documented and being discussed but no meaningful action to mitigate the problems was taken and no removal of certification occurred. Remember: people _died_ from the PCA nonsense. Private law is not great. Public law has issues, for sure. But we are not going to be fixing those issues by reference to retrograde religious organizations.

Once I was out, I did what I could to exploit loopholes in communication and contact to maintain family relationships. Functionally, I was responsive to requests for assistance and very proactive in offering assistance in dealing with transportation to medical appointments and similar (my mother never got a driver’s license. There was some implausible story about her hitting a dog, but I think this is really because she was undocumented). I did finally end this limited contact after repeated abuse that led me to go No Contact with my mother, and to set fairly clear terms for any ongoing contact with my father. The abuse was not physical in nature. When I stopped being a JW, I knew — because I had seen it all happen with my younger sister’s exit from The Organization — that my mother would remove all evidence of my existence from the walls of the house. I had not, however, anticipated how far she was prepared to take that. She squirreled away everything, and sorted through it repeatedly over the years, so once I left, she started going through her extensive stash and asking me to come over and “pick up my things”. “My things” included my baby book, and various childhood art projects, which I was mostly happy to have back. But they also included her copies of the candid photos from my first wedding (I’d long since destroyed mine), and _every single Happy Anniversary Card_ I’d given my parents that was not also signed by either of my older siblings.

Fine, but she handed them to my younger sibling, who was visiting with her then husband and stepchildren, and asked her to hand them off to me. I really feel like if you are going to hand a bomb of that nature to someone, you shouldn’t be _that_ surprised to have it lobbed right back at you. The grenade tossed back down the hall is an absolute cliche of war movies.

Remarkably, once I was No Contact with my mother, I kinda felt like I might want to have children of my own. Go figure.

I tell this long story for a variety of reasons. First, I probably _ought_ to write it down somewhere; it’s probably interesting and might help other people make sense of things they have experienced or watched someone else go through or heard about or whatever. Second, and more relevantly, this is a _very high degree of relationship conflict_.

There are higher degrees! Nobody died (well, fortunately, my mother did eventually die, but that’s totally unrelated to this story. She is out of her misery, and so are the rest of us). Nobody had to go to the hospital. The police were not involved. But for number of involved persons, and the length of time that this particular relationship conflict has extended over — there are updates that I haven’t included; this is a many-decades long conflict, and when I say I know The Organization is (or at least was — maybe they’ve forgotten!) afraid of me, I’m not precisely exaggerating. I’m not proud of everything I did at the height of the conflict, but I’m not exactly ashamed either.

(ETA: I will mention that while the police and medical professionals were not involved in any of the events with my parents, my exit from The Organization was prompted by my decision to get a divorce from my then-husband, and the end of that relationship _did_ involve police and medical professionals and an order for protection.)

Third, and probably most importantly, I can _now_ see embedded in these events a meaning that was not apparent to me at the time, or for decades thereafter as I repeated, many, many times, a very particular pattern.

I have a _very_ well defined structure for managing relationship conflict. Here it is:

Notice the conflict. Identify the boundaries of the conflict clearly, and the nature of it. Accept the elements of the conflict that are not-remediable, after putting in good faith efforts to mitigate / remediate / persuade / convince. Sometimes, I find that my position is Incorrect and I adopt the position of the other parties, and the conflict is over. Occasionally, the reverse is true. Ideally, we both meet in a new, better position. But if none of these happen, just _knowing_ exactly what the conflict is is the first element of my structure.

Reduce active conflict, by agreeing to steer clear of the conflict boundaries. As needed, reduce the amount of contact with the other person or persons, until the remaining contact is tolerable to everyone. That might require reducing contact to zero.

Make it as clear as possible that, if the other person’s position changes materially, the relationship can be further modified. “My door is always open.” “Your choices have led to …” My daughter calls this, “Make them dump you”. I actually don’t totally agree with either the Make Them Dump You policy as a policy, or my daughter’s characterization of what I do as a Make Them Dump You policy, but her perspective seems worth including here because it’s entirely possible she sees this more clearly than I do.

I think that this above structure for managing relationship conflict is _why_ people used to tell me that I was the most reasonable JW they’d ever met / said other admiring things about how handled an unpleasant interaction at work / in a social setting / etc.

I want to be super clear about a couple things. I am _not_ advocating for this. Don’t do it. It’s actually not a good way to live your life. You might think about moments where you wish you had called someone out for their *ist joke or comment, or where you wish you had NOT called someone out for their *ist joke or comment, and where everything got heated and there was shouting and so forth. Let me tell you, when you identify the *ist joke or comment as a conflict element and then relentlessly manage it as I describe above, the pain goes on for a lot longer. I am a “rip the bandage off” sort of person in a lot of ways, but not in this area. When I experience values conflict with someone, I will tell them _and then we will talk about it a lot_. That’s not better.

I do not know how I can be more clear about this. _Being reasonable and patient is a total crock of shit._ People will admire you for your restraint and _they will continue merrily on in their wickedness_. You’re better off with the heated exchange. You’ll get clarity, and there will be a nice, sharp moment that everyone can point to and go, that’s where it ended. And it will have ended. Maybe it will restart. Maybe it won’t. But it will not be just fucking dragging on.

I don’t think anyone has read this far. This is a thing that I do, and I am telling you: don’t do it. Don’t advocate for it. Don’t aspire to it. It wasn’t just avoidance and denial that got our country to where it is right now. It was a lot of people like me, who thought that we could figure out a way to accomplish goals together.

We have been wrong. We need to put that down and actually do what we should have done a long time ago. Pass the ERA. Reform SCOTUS, so that it once more has one justice per district, and they actually _oversee their district_. Reform SCOTUS so that it handles most cases that rise to that level as individual judges or panels, not en banc. Get rid of the filibuster. Pass voting rights legislation. Revisit the failed reapportionment of 1920, and return our country to _truly_ representative democracy. We have a super complicated mechanism for deciding what is going to happen that _does not require us all to agree_. We should update it, and make use of it. Extensively.

I’m going to wrap up with this link:

https://www.vilendrerlaw.com/five-main-causes-conflict-mediation-can-resolve/

It’s a great taxonomy. I’m not opposed to mediation. But sometimes, you really, really, really need to stop.
walkitout: (Default)
It wasn’t a surprise, and it was very, very similar to the leak, but today, the Supreme Court chose Evil, and put in motion the murder of pregnant persons. And possibly civil war.

I did get to talk to people who I love dearly today, and that helped, because having the love and support of friends always does. Also, I did FF, and R. went to a show.
walkitout: (Default)
So far, the names “Niall Ferguson” and “Ian Bremmer” have both appeared with strongly positive adjectives associated with them. Not an awesome sign.

Again, this is a book the basic idea of which — use real world constraints for making predictions in a geopolitical context — I completely agree with, and that I really want to like.

For clarity: NOT the same book I was reading. I’m done with that one.

“When the COVID-19 market selloff began in February 2020, I was in Miami at a gathering of top macro minds in the industry. Few there expected policymakers to react to the pandemic as dramatically as they did: with unlimited credit lines to businesses, massive quantitative easy (QE) programs, and even “helicopter money” — deficit-financed cash handouts to the public. The consensus at the event was that … Pelosi would play politics and delay the stimulus to hurt President Trump in the election.”

So, first off, what? I mean, I know that’s what Republicans consistently do, and I do understand that the writer was hanging out with a bunch of Republicans. But that is actually a bonkers degree of projection.

Author appears to default he/his when referred to a generic / gender unspecified person, but I’m not sure it is intentional, as there is at least one instance of “him or her” in the text.

!!!

“They were already primed to respond with extraordinary measures by the paradigm shifts of the last decade, particularly shifts away from the Washington Consensus. Fiscal prudence? Who cares? The US had already blown the budget deficit …”

OK, so, that’s not going anywhere useful.

The author of this book is, at a minimum, Not Old. Maybe he’s middle-aged. Maybe he still qualifies as “young”. What do I know. However, all the decision makers in February 2020 were Not Young, and mostly they weren’t even Middle-Aged any more. And they were elected disproportionately by people who are also Not Old. An absolutely crystal clear characteristic of Covid and its predecessor analogous-diseases (and let’s not lose track of just how terrifying SARS was, altho clearly the author here has lost track of exactly that) is that they are disproportionately lethal to The Olds. Covid may or may not have ever been that serious for the author; it sure as hell was to the people making the decision at the time.

This is surprisingly bad in-the-weeds political analysis. I’m not here for his political analysis. But still, this is surprisingly bad. It’s Ferguson and Bremmer type bad, tho, so I guess we’ll see where it goes.

“The quarter-century between 1985 and 2010 was a great time to be an investor. With geopolitics and politics on autopilot, running a business or a portfolio became routine, iterative and mathematical. The Goldilocks Era allowed for the professionalization of the investment industry in unprecedented ways.”

A _lot_ of _massive_ bankruptcies happened during that time frame. 1987 happened in that time frame. The Great Recession happened in that time frame. Waves of technological innovation created brand new industrial sectors and absolutely annihilated others. But sure, yeah, “running a business” was “routine, iterative and mathematical”.

“The reason policymakers [did this thing the author and his fellow conference attendees were not expecting] … had little to do with the nature of the crisis.”

Side comment: I have very little respect for people who set up shop to give advice on geopolitics. They tend to be a little different from academia engaging in the same forecasting / advice / commentary, but neither group looks very good over time. (Forecasting is hard, so people only do it if they are young enough to not really grasp how bad they are going to be at it and/or they _really_ believe in what they are peddling.) All that said, I did not have it in my head who had founded Stratfor, so I just looked that up in wikipedia, and then I looked up their book _The Coming War with Japan_. I remember 1991 pretty vividly, and so I _get_ why they thought that was plausible but wow did that not age well at all. Also, absolutely amazing that people take Stratfor seriously at all with that in the background. (ETA: It’s also possible people engage in this nonsense because they are that desperate to make a living and this is best suited to their personality / skill set / etc.)

There are some really great bits in this book. There’s a really good description of what’s wrong with hiring people who used to be in government, that wraps up with some high quality smack talk.

“Instead of a mosaic of intelligence, the investor quite often gets an over-the-hill technocrat looking to cash out … at best giving them useful background on a particular issue, at worst regurgitating Wall Street Journal and Financial Times op-eds.”

Big ups for that summary. It is Correct.

HOWEVER!

From a footnote: “A popular misconception is that the 1973 oil shock caused the stagflationary environment of the 1970s. This is not true. Commodity prices ex-oil were already on the rise well before the Yom Kippur War, signifying that inflation was coming one way or another.”

Oil production in the US and other outside-the-middle-east oil producers peaked earlier, and fragility was increasing in the system as a result. That earlier peaking production is what caused stagflation, in conjunction with the extremely expensive Viet Nam war, which impacted labor as well. It’s not that the footnote is wrong, it’s just that it’s not right. At. All.

ETA Still More, but this may be the last of it! I’m finally into what is a constraint vs. What is a preference specific examples.

““Vladimir Putin wants to Recreate the Soviet Union”: The most obvious example of the fundamental attribution error in the last decade is the prevalent analysis of President Vladimir Putin’s strategic thinking. The flawed argument is that since coming to power in 1999, the Russian president, enamored of the Soviet Union, has wanted to recreate the communist empire. Evidence for this argument: the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the subsequent interference in domestic affairs of former Soviet states. The Baltic states must, by this analysis, “be next.” 25”

The footnote goes to a 2014 article.

“Even if Putin’s nostalgia motivated Moscow’s policies, Russia faces numerous constraints. Its symbiotic economic relationship with Europe is a major constraint. While most pundits see Moscow dominating that relationship, it is actually Berlin that has Russia by the … pipelines. [… is in the original.] With at least 80% of Russian natural gas exports headed for the EU in 2019 — and about half of that going to Germany alone — it would be economic suicide to turn off the tap to Europe. 26”

26 goes to a footnote that elaborates on Putin in 2014 making a deal with China and noting the interdependencies.

“Another subtler constraint is the state of Russia’s military. While much improved since the 1990s, Russia’s military does not have the capability necessary for the massive power projection required to maintain the borders of a vast empire. It barely had the capacity to interven in Donbas, where Ukrainian troops held Moscow’s mercenaries and unofficial volunteers in check. Ukraine has one of the least equipped and motivated militaries in Europe.”

LET US CONTEMPLATE THAT ANALYSIS AND CONSIDER SOME DATES! SHALL WE?

Publication date: October 2020. The introduction refers to covid.

Ahhhhhh.

I think we are done here, right?
walkitout: (Default)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/08/stacey-abrams-abortion/

I find her evolution super relatable — I was raised a JW, and so until I left at 25, I was still repeating the party line. For the last few years, I was _also_ articulating that I thought it was completely ridiculous to treat being gay or having an abortion as anything more serious than having sex with someone you were not married to (or engaging in oral sex at all, for example, which was also against JW doctrine — or, for that matter, masturbating). Once I wasn’t a JW, it was a very, very easy switch for me to become fully pro-choice, as the next stage of my personal political evolution was in an anarcho-socialist direction (I’m mostly over that now. Mostly.).

Obviously, I want fair elections, and I don’t want anyone to have to work especially hard to vote — I want vote by mail, early voting, lots of polling locations, whatever works for the people served by those options. I hate gerrymandering, and I believe we benefit as a group when all people’s preferences are expressed fully. In the last few years, however, it has become abundantly clear to me that we are not going to have a democracy at all, unless we have a lot more protection for voters. I knew the Supreme Court should not have eroded or reversed earlier legislation, but we’ve sure had plenty of evidence in support of that position recently.

It is with great joy that I feel the connection articulated between a woman’s right to choose and voting rights. We have to have both. We cannot have one without the other.
walkitout: (Default)
I’ve been noticing that a lot of people are kinda all over the place emotionally when thinking about the near future. I am not excluding myself from this — I keep trying to find interesting and important things to think about that are not what everyone is currently obsessed with, but instead of _avoiding_ thinking about overwrought possibilities, I find random new things to become overwrought about. So, the war in Ukraine got me thinking about logistics. I spent a bunch of time recently thinking about property insurance and wind risk during hurricane season. I learned that dogs could sniff out electronics, wondered how that worked, discovered TPPO, and was somewhat appalled at the relentless lack of any kind of meaningful research into how that might be a bad thing, given we’re busily dumping it into groundwater and it is persistent. I mean, that’s a bad pattern we’ve had with some other forever chemicals.

I talked to several people about what might be causing us all to worry about everything all the time. I mean, things are going really great for a lot of people right now (except for the Ukraine thing, notably), even factoring in inflation, it’s way better than things have been. Even factoring in how awful Putin is, at least there’s been a real reduction in the number of parties and leaders around the world signing on for that kind of awful enthusiastically. So, why do we seem to feel panicky and like everything is getting worse? _It’s not getting worse._ It’s either the same (climate) or getting better (covid, many, altho not all, other things).

I’ve entertained several, not incompatible theories. Waves of covid — we think it’s better, then it’s not — have trained us to be paranoid of any good news. Legitimately learned lessons (Republicans are better at messaging and somehow everything they do wrong gets blamed on Democrats) have become fatalistic feelings of doom, rather than concrete obstacles to go around, under, over or through. So many obstacles of the last couple years were really pretty … unsurmountable for many people, so it may have caused a lot of people to really reduce their sense of agency and stop believing in the possibility of change for the better. A loss of hope, if you will. I am opposed to hope, so that one doesn’t particularly bother me.

Another theory I have is that now we have the spare capacity to look at things _other than_ covid, we are trying to do everything all at once. It’s going to take a while to process it all. So in that spirit, I did what I often do when I’m overwhelmed, and I sat down and got it all out in writing (not on paper this time; in a Note — I usually resort to paper, but I didn’t have to this time, and I feel really good about that). And I looked at it. Because for each area of concern, I had identified things that were pretty likely, and things that I could do to adapt, and noted connections to other areas of concern and started to see how many of the things I was worried about were likely to cancel each other out. Any movement in the wrong direction on a lot of them was likely to be self-limiting — not fun, but the cure for high prices is … high prices. There are some things that are _so_ bad, that we really can’t risk them getting worse, but I’m giving those things the summer to develop fully. I’ve got the time, and the correct action will be much clearer once we see what goes to trial and how those trials go.

Whenever we see regulation and enforcement occur, we feel bad. Someone, somewhere, did something bad, and had to be stopped and corrective action taken and maybe punishment. Never a good feeling. People were sickened or died or money was wasted or the environment further harmed or we are shocked to learn that organizations we respected were actually doing really horrific things. We had a solid 4 years of basically no regulation and enforcement. We have to catch up. It’s going to be ugly, but it has to be done, if we want to have nice things again.

Also!!!

Turns out that the tranches that mortgages are chopped up into when sold to investors are often split up by time (years x - x+ 5, for example). Long story short, I think that the prepayment risk on the later years is probably mostly balanced out by the risk of a general rise in interest rates. That is, if you write a 30 year mortgage on a house in 1968, and you are a bank that holds the mortgages it writes, you are fucked. That thing just plummeted in value. But if you write a 30 year mortgage on a house in 2021, even if you didn’t just sell it to the GSAs, it got sliced and diced and whoever bought years 25-30 or whatever bought it at a massive discount to reflect the fact that it might get paid off early and they wouldn’t collect much at all. Now, the person who took that mortgage out might stay put with their super cheap mortgage for the whole 30 years, and while there is some amount of loss because the interest rate environment around that mortgage changes, the person who bought it at a discount may well still see an increase in value because the prepayment loss goes down a lot.

Neat!
walkitout: (Default)
John Oliver tackles a problem I actually care about and think is really important:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2019/03/11/john-oliver-explains-why-you-been-getting-more-robocalls-lately/iBHnLSXOAbzMzxFCbwah1O/story.html

Good for John! I hope his robocalls on the FCC get some action. Like, if the FCC tries to stop John, maybe John can get the judiciary in on this and force some meaningful action. I’m on the Do Not Call registry. I have NoMoRobo. Nothing works. This is insane.

Also at the Boston Globe, I did not read the anti-MMT article by Kenneth Rogoff. However, knowing that Kenneth Rogoff is opposed to MMT is perhaps the strongest argument _for_ MMT that I have yet seen.

ETA:

Oh, but wait! There’s more!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/03/11/ayanna-pressley-false-start-teen-voting/o0jVbFtLRE9RA8g0RTOOpJ/story.html

Don’t actually read that turd. It’s by some woman from the Independent Woman’s Forum, a group founded by women who supported Clarence Thomas (_yes_ _really_), is terrified that the ERA might actually pass, etc. etc. Anyway. She’s aware enough that a 16 year old probably won’t vote, but terrified that this might increase Democratic turnout.

I don’t really give a fuck, one way or the other. Letting 16 year olds vote doesn’t seem any more inherently wacky than letting anyone else vote. “Life experience” certainly doesn’t seem like a compelling argument (any more than the out-of-touch-ness of so many people older than 16 is any reason to deny them the franchise).

I have no idea what is going on at the Boston Globe. I suspect that it is now being run by an alien collective (ETA: to be abundantly clear, when I say “alien” I mean like, Red Lectroids from Planet Ten type of alien). I mean, when it was just weird articles written by Beth Teitell, that was kind of fun to speculate about why they published those. But they have truly launched today.
walkitout: (Default)
A friend recommended this to me / wanted my opinion.

Michael Lewis books are often somewhat rambling, disjointed explorations of a topic area, lacking in much of a unified thesis, much less a rhetorical structure. This is perhaps one of the best (worst?) examples of that tendency in his books.

Lewis talked to a bunch of people who worked at relatively high, non-political levels in various agencies under the Obama administration(s). Generally speaking, people in these positions have some chance of carrying over to a new administration, but no guarantee, especially when the party changes from one administration to the next. They are expected to, and often do a really great job of, preparing a transition plan and arranging to Not Lose Institutional Wisdom during these predictable transitions.

Some administrations do a really bad job at the transition. W.’s administration, for example, was quite chaotic and handled the transition poorly in general, partly because of the lawsuit and uncertainty, but also because of hostility to government embedded in Republican rhetoric and W.’s approach to things in general. However, the transition to the current administration really went unbelievably poorly, despite the Obama outgoing teams working very hard to try to make things hand off well. This isn’t really news and i don’t think it is actually controversial. Again, Republican rhetoric in opposition to big government has, in this administration, been generously admixed with a real What Can We Get For This mentality.

This book tells the backstory of several highly talented and interesting people, how they came to their positions, what they did in those positions, and how awful the transition process was, and their (legitimately) dire fears for the future safety of our country. It is alarming. Just because you create an accident prone environment, however, does not guarantee that accidents will actually happen. Sometimes, it takes a while. We’ve been lucky so far. I hope we keep being lucky. But when I see headlines about kill line speeds being increased, this book tells me what that means and why I should fear it. You might want to read this book too.
walkitout: (Default)
Not too long ago, I listened to Rachel Maddow’s “Bag Man” podcast, about the fall of Spiro “Ted” Agnew. While his fall occurred against the backdrop of Watergate, it was an unrelated scandal involving taking bribes in exchange for getting contracts from the government, and it was apparently one that started at the county level and continued up from there, following Agnew wherever he went, but continuing where he had been, and investigations into the lower levels led back to him and took him down.

After I listened to that podcast — but of course completely unrelated to that — Virginia developed a series of problems in the executive branch. First, the governor’s medical school yearbook (I did not know there was such a thing — people in the Future will likely say that about MySpace and SnapChat) was publicized because it included a picture of two white men, one in blackface and the other in Klan robes, ha ha ha, yukking it up 80s style. Goddess I do not miss the 80s. There is some back and forth about whether or not that was a picture of the governor (and, if so, which one was he? Which one would you _want_ him to be? Unanswerable questions, probably! Hopefully, anyway). As this scandal was breaking, I talked to people. People said, duh, he should resign. I was like, let’s not be hasty. Let’s make sure there isn’t a problem with the Lt. Gov. first. I mean. Agnew.

Wow, did that turn out to be prescient.

The Lt Gov then developed a little sexual aggression problem. That has since mushroomed into a rape problem involving more than one woman coming forward. I don’t know a thing about it, but I will observe that while blackface, klan robes and consent issues in an intimate context are all Bad Bad Things and no one likes to rank the Bad Bad Things, let’s just go ahead and say that having two women come forward and say that you violated them sexually is at least potentially prosecutable, whereas wearing blackface and klan robes is not. Maybe wearing blackface and/or klan robes _should_ be prosecutable (I could go either way on this one), but currently, here in the US, not prosecutable.

Now, you might go, but who is Speaker of the House, or, in this case, the Attorney General, who is apparently 3rd in line for the throne, er, Governor’s seat. Which, I might add, is still occupied, because Northam’s wife seems to actually have a pretty good handle on how all this shit works, and the governor seems to be listening to her, so I don’t think he is stepping down any time soon. No matter what Democratic Senators — white, black, male or female — might have to say about what he should do. (Any doubts I had about who is doing the decision making for the Governor were clarified when I watched him defer to his wife’s judgment about whether he should actually moonwalk during the press conference or not.)

Anyway. 3rd in line understands how this works — he _is_ Attorney General, after all, and he piped up immediately that he, too, had a blackface problem from the 80s.

Goddess I do not miss the 80s.

Larry Sabado, meanwhile, has egg all over his face for poo-poohing the idea that this was somehow all a Republican operation, because, look, it is Democrats through the top 3 levels. Ha, ha, Larry.

Meanwhile, I am gobsmacked. I mean, I was clearly right to want a hard look at the succession before continuing. And there are circumstances where you have to pitch someone, no matter how bad #2 looks (Eliot Spitzer really couldn’t stay after those revelations, despite what turned up in the news conference with his Lt Gov, soon to be Gov).

I get that everyone needs a nice steaming hot mug of outrage to get motivated these days. Don’t let that tasty, tasty outrage blind you to the consequences of your decisions.
walkitout: (Default)
There is an article in Bloomberg (paywall, maybe?) about law enforcement using FTDNA, not just GED Match, to make sense of DNA samples in a criminal investigation.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-01/major-dna-testing-company-is-sharing-genetic-data-with-the-fbi

“FamilyTreeDNA’s cooperation with the FBI more than doubles the amount of genetic data law enforcement already had access to through GEDmatch. On a case-by-case basis, the company has agreed to test DNA samples for the FBI and upload profiles to its database, allowing law enforcement to see familial matches to crime-scene samples. FamilyTreeDNA said law enforcement may not freely browse genetic data but rather has access only to the same information any user might.”

If I had a DNA sample, say, and I uploaded it to FTDNA and I said it was me and maybe filled out a bunch of information about “me”, I would get “matches”. It is not at all obvious to me how much more than this the FBI is getting. If I did this on Ancestry, and it matched me to a private tree, I’d get a little message saying, ask nicely and maybe they will share with you. Even this, normal user level of access, would be super helpful in making sense of DNA evidence in a criminal investigation.

Also, I really hope that this information can be used to resolve missing person cases and cases of unidentified bodies. Bringing resolution to victims’ loved ones is a huge accomplishment, even when one cannot identify a Bad Guy and Bring Them to Justice.

There is a lot of room in any privacy debate, never mind one involving biological samples, for well-meaning people to disagree. I, personally, am not finding this particularly concerning, because I generally feel like it is better if law enforcement gets quickly to an accurate conclusion, versus bumbling around for decades and not actually getting to anywhere useful and stressing out people of interest and causing undue distress to the victim and/or victim’s families. But I’ll also be paying attention to see what else happens.
walkitout: (Default)
I decided I finally felt good enough to go for a walk. M. had been visiting (not Saturday, but thereafter), but I had not been walking with her because I just didn’t feel up to it. But we went around the block today and it went fine.

Also, I found this:

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/saez-zucman-wealthtax-warren.pdf

This is a description of Elizabeth Warren’s proposed 2% wealth tax on households with more than $50 million in assets (tax is on the amount _above_ the $50 M threshold), and an additional 1% tax on assets above $1 billion.

The authors of this have some sort of connection to Piketty. I know, he’s a darling of the left, but I’ve read his book and I have no respect for anyone who writes crap like that. I’m really disappointed in Warren. I used to really _want_ her to run for President; now, I really don’t. I have visions of a bunch of people highly placed on the Forbes list — mostly because of their ownership of their companies — suddenly thinking it would be a really good idea to support the Republican side in the next round of elections, to avoid the risk of this thing ever coming to pass. Making the cost-benefit analysis favor supporting Republicans to that small group of people seems pretty no-brainer. I suppose the theory is that it will galvanize Democratic voters? Maybe? Maybe it is a cynical ploy, toss out this 2%/3% ultra wealthy wealth tax, and then adding more marginal tax brackets with higher rates seems downright reasonable? I don’t know.

Finally, I don’t see anything in Saez and Zucman’s analysis to account for the inevitable dodges like creating a whole bunch of revocable trusts, each less than $50 million, as a way to dodge this thing entirely. Maybe that wouldn’t work? But I bet there could be endless litigation trying to figure it out.

ETA: Just think about the impact on political donations this proposal might generate.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

If the top of the Forbes list is looking at owing a few billion a year in wealth tax, the top of that list might see a lot of much larger numbers in it, and donations might switch columns. Better galvanize a metric fuck ton of voters, to compensate for that.
walkitout: (Default)
Levine is consistently entertaining. I laugh a lot.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-15/nobody-knows-what-palantir-is-worth

“But “nearly $10,000”! For intimidating victims of a toilets-and-Bigfoots scam! It is a disgrace to the office that such a small-time crook could become attorney general. Imagine him, as the head of the U.S. Department of Justice, negotiating a billion-dollar settlement with a big bank over years of mortgage misdeeds. How could they take him seriously? “Look Mr. Whitaker I know you have done some scams in your time, but this is the big leagues; we’re not talking about threatening inventors over toilets here.” Ideally the prosecutor working on massive fraud cases wouldn’t have done any fraud at all, but if you have to have a prosecutor with a history of connection to fraud, you should at least make it a big one.”

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 07:32 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios