blueollie

When the left parodies itself…

I read a Facebook post about a lawyer who worked pro-bono on LGTQ issues who was catching heat for wearing a pussy hat…you see it isn’t inclusive enough because….some women don’t have vaginas (ok? ..lol )

And sure enough, the person writing that post wasn’t kidding.

Oh my…and we wonder why we aren’t taken seriously.

And I saw this cartoon:

Ok, surely the cartoonist is exaggerating…right?

Uh, no…

The rape claim

The patriarchy and feminine independence claim

Sometimes I really think that our dogmatic lefties are just like the Bible Beaters who drink a different flavor of Kool-aid.

So back to the women’s marches: how big of a deal are they? Well, if they inspire people to help us out on 2018 and 2020, I suppose they are a good thing.

But I see a crucial difference between these and the Tea Party marches, BESIDES this crucial difference:

The Senate is set up to give small, rural states an advantage (Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California does). And gerrymandering means that liberals can be effectively fenced up.

So, a large women’s march, even in, say, Fayetteville, Arkansas (home of the University of Arkansas) isn’t going to worry anyone.

The women’s marches are a “mostly white”, mostly educated and blue women’s movement and comprise of a statistically small group of women. And even numerically massive gatherings in Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. mean…well, not much.

Women are indeed still split along economic and educational lines.

And Alabama: 63 percent of white women voted for Moore. It was black people, not white liberals, that saved the day.

Advertisements

January 22, 2018 Posted by | Democrats, political/social, politics, social/political | , , , , | Leave a comment

“Well, I am mad”. So what?

Rant to follow:

So often I see people ranting about how angry they are about..well, this or that. And they are going to TAKE TO THE STREETS, demonstrate, march or whatever.

And…nothing changes because not enough of them show up to vote!

Today was the second “women’s march”. Yes, Trump openly taunted them:

Oh sure, he is taking credit for the economy that he inherited (his policies have had almost nothing to do with our current situation…check back in 2-3 years)

Sure, demonstrations have been PART OF a plan to shame/convince the country that it needed to change, but the successful demonstrations were coordinated with voting, legal challenges, economic pressure and the like.

In our area, there are reports that a local store took steps to prevent marchers (a small number) from parking in their lot and parked semis to discourage the marchers from going through their lot.
This store can probably get away with it; it is not popular with the sort of person that would wear a pussy hat.

But my point: to change behavior, you need to have something the other party wants, be it money or votes or whatever. Your being angry with them doesn’t change a thing.

And if you have no power over them, they don’t care. My guess is that this Republican’s approval in his district improved BECAUSE of his rudeness (and who he was rude too)

And voting…means voting for some imperfect candidates and making some compromises.

And turning your movement into something that is batshit crazy doesn’t help:

January 20, 2018 Posted by | Democrats, political/social, politics, social/political | Leave a comment

Is this what “me too” is about?

I was reading the buzz about Aziz Ansari and wondered: does #metoo include bad dates with bad sex that one later regrets? If so, I’ll change my view on the movement.

This “kiss, didn’t like it and tell” sort of reminds me of the time when Gawker humiliated Christine O’Donnell though the guy in question didn’t claim coercion.

Workout notes weights (usual pt) and 2 mile treadmill run after. Treadmill: every 3: 5.0-5.1-5.2-5.3 to 1 mile, then 6.7 to 6.8 in the final quarter.
The run was sharp but doable.

Weights: pull ups (5 sets of 10), bench press; 10 x 135, 1 x 190 (felt bad), 5 x 185, 7 x 175, incline: 10 x 135, military (dumbbell) 10 x 50, 10 x 50 (second set felt bad..needed 2 tries) 10 x 180 machine (90 each side), rows: 2 sets of 10 x 50 dumbbell single arm, 10 x 110 machine.
I was achy again.

January 15, 2018 Posted by | running, social/political, weight training | | Leave a comment

SJWs and Alt-right: two sides of the same ignorant coin?

Like many, I’ve been wondering “how did Trump ever get elected” and I’ve considered the factor that “maybe Trump was a pushback against political correctness” conjecture.

And I asked myself “what role might I have played in this”?

Now don’t get me wrong: there are a lot of people who would have supported Trump “no matter what” and it is difficult, if not impossible, to convert a conservative into a liberal. Genes are in play here.

But..does it appear that liberals, in an attempt to be “fair” to minority groups with less power, refuse to acknowledge tough truths? I had very similar questions along those lines 35-40 years ago! (yes, I can recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond)

But yes, I’ve seen justice minded liberals deny facts that they don’t like. Here is an excellent example of that (denying crime statistics)

Don’t like a statistic: say it is false and call it XXX-ist!

Another example: take the issue of race and IQ.
Fact: in the US, different racial groups score differently (e. g., Mexicans score lower than non-hispanic whites)
Fact: IQ IS relevant (albeit imperfect) in terms of measuring intelligence (yes, I know; it is a 1 dimensional measure of a complicated thing, but it is meaningful; e. g. someone with an IQ of 95 won’t be an engineer or lawyer (statistically))
Fact: intelligence, or the potential for intelligence, is heritable.

So what happens: the alt-right people improperly combine these facts to argue that, say, in a meritocracy, you’d expect Mexicans to do worse than whites (as a group). You see: as a group, Mexicans just aren’t smart enough to compete and only affirmative action, which gives unfair advantages, can make things look a bit more level.

The SJW liberals don’t like the conclusion that Mexicans are inferior so they deny one or more of the above facts! Reason: they believe that if the above facts are true (and they are), the conclusion that Mexicans are inferior would be correct!

That is, the SJWs and the alt-right agree on the logic; they don’t accept the same facts.

(disclaimer: I am Mexican and, no I don’t feel that we are inferior in any way)

The problem is not with the “facts” but on how you use the facts. To see what is going on, see this article in, of all places, The American Conservative.

TL;DR argument: the potential for intelligence is determined by genes. This is individual. Example: there is nothing anyone could have done to make me as smart as Steven Hawking. But outside forces effect gene expression (say: fetal alcohol syndrome). So if a group of people lives in worse circumstances (say, inferior nutrition, prenatal care, early childhood education), that could well show up in the group IQ measurements and that can change with time (as it did with the East German/West German example).

So, the “group mean IQ being low means that group is inferior” is not a valid conclusion.

But the denying of facts never helps.

We are seeing something like that going on with the reaction to a Steven Pinker video.

The 8 minute video is worth watching: (I got this from Jerry Coyne’s website)

I can see the the effect on bright students. They go through their educations and are either never told relevant facts, or told that these facts are wrong and believing those facts is xxx-ist. They then find out that those facts are, well, facts…and the student feels betrayed and lied to (and rightfully so).

Rule of thumb: do not rule out a hypothesis because it “fees bad”.

And by the way: the above is what I mean about “political correctness”. Political correctness is not “basic politeness”, as some claim.

By the way, read Pinker’s book Blank Slate.

January 14, 2018 Posted by | books, politics/social, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

President of sh***y people: Head Deplorable

Ok, we are getting used to this:

When the discussion turned to African nations, the people with knowledge of the conversation added, Mr. Trump asked why he would want “all these people from shithole countries,” adding that the United States should admit more people from places like Norway.

Remember, this is in a meeting with Senators and the like.

The problem: a sizable minority of people in this country probably approves of such remarks.

Sure, some countries are wealthier than others, some immigrants are better educated than others and some are smarter than others. And yes, it makes sense to have a mix of immigrants.

But this is NOT how I want my country to be represented. The President is supposed to be speaking for all of us and not just his precious “deplorables”.

Workout notes: weird. again my warm up (on the treadmill) was challenging; 1.5 miles in 19 minutes, 1 minute run, 1 walk.
Track (lane 2) 8:50 (4:26/4:24)
walk 5 more laps
3.1 mile course plus a bit more outside. (slow)

The 8:50 mile just about killed me…I am out of shape (yes, 1 week after blood donation)

January 12, 2018 Posted by | political/social, republicans, social/political | | Leave a comment

We’ll never be together but maybe we can do better?

I am sort of “out of sorts” with politics lately. Some of it is that Trump is so unhinged and incoherent at times; there are times when he doesn’t even seem to understand the policies he is advocating for.

Some of it might be my age and station in life; so little of what is in the current news affects me directly anymore. I say “directly” because some bad policy might have harmful effects that show up later (e. g. economic stimulus at the bottom of the economy tends to filter up, inaction or weak action on climate change might (probably?) will lead to terrible effects later, etc.)

And as far as discussing things with others: forget about it. It appears that those most eager to talk well, really don’t know what they are talking about. 🙂

From the current right wing:

And the stuff about Russia and possible collusion (and yes, there is something to this) will NOT be believed on the other side; they will see it as the the usual “political mudslinging” that always goes on.

And we’ve got fights on our own side as well. There is some pushback to the more extremist elements of the “me too” movement, as well as counter push backs.

Yes, I’ve seen workplace groping incidents and no one wants a return to those days (I think). And yes, the workplace should be a place for work. But aside from that, there IS a difference between socially inept attempts to flirt and sexual harassment. Yes, many women know the difference. Not all do.

I’ve had some female friends …friends who HAVE been sexually assaulted in the past…tell me that a lot of this feminist stuff “does not speak to them”.
I’d be interested to know what percentage of women have heard of “me too” and what percentage of women have heard of it but do not embrace it. I do NOT have data here.

And yes, I do wonder if political correctness (which is NOT mere politeness) has harmed us. I think that Steven Pinker is right on here (though this is simplified, as it has to be as it is only 8 minutes long)

Oh well…off to run a bit.

Last night I just KILLED it at yoga class. Ok..maybe not so much; I almost toppled over in some relatively “basic” poses. I need to practice more.

January 11, 2018 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political, yoga | , | Leave a comment

My favorite social issues/political twitter accounts (where my ideas germinate from)

Side note: last night’s championship game and unexpected chores kind of threw off my “still on vacation” schedule.

But at my watch party, politics came up and I brought up a conversation I had with a “friend of a friend”. Some conservatives are critiquing what was said at the Golden Globes and I brought up how indifferent I was to what actors/actresses say. That was not well received (at my party) but..hey…

That is politics these days: celebrity X from the liberal side says something, and celebrity Y from the conservative side says something different. And frankly, I care not at all.

If you want to understand what drives my thinking (and you might well NOT want to), I’d recommend you read Paul Krugman, Steven Pinker, Corey Booker, yes, even Barack Obama and, yes, even Hillary Clinton (though her days as a politician are long over, IMHO) and even what I’d call “the respected opposition” of David Frum, David Brooks and Mitt Romney.

Ok, one unexpected person: Kareem Jabbar (who writes columns, many which are very well thought out….he is using that UCLA degree quite well)

My political and social ideas come from sources such as these: (these do not include the sports accounts that I follow and enjoy)

Ok, I liked

But she’s blocked me (for personal reasons. And yes, you can read an account that blocked you on Twitter; just log out and you can read whatever you want).

The accounts that I troll:

January 9, 2018 Posted by | social/political | | 1 Comment

Figurehead Presidents?

Needless to say, Trump as POTUS disgusts me to no end. And at the outset I’ll say this: if Trump is the R nominee in 2020 (as I fully expect him to be) and Oprah is the D nominee, I will swallow some pink bismuth and vote for Oprah. Reason: nuclear codes; I see her as less likely to start a nuclear war than that unqualified, egocentric, walking-talking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that we have in office right now.

But the very idea that it is a realistic possibility (albeit, I hope, an improbable one) that our country will choose two TV show hosts as the nominees for the highest office in the land makes me ill.

I think that this article sums it up for me:

Indeed, the magical thinking fueling the idea of Oprah in 2020 is a worrisome sign about the state of the Democratic Party. That Ms. Winfrey could probably beat those considered likely front-runners — Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand — is testament to how demoralized and devoid of fresh political talent the post-Obama party has become.

In a way, the conversation on the left (and the anti-Trump right) around Ms. Winfrey is more troubling than the emotional immaturity and anti-intellectualism pulsing out of the red states that elected Mr. Trump. Those voters have long defined themselves in opposition to the intellectual seriousness Democrats purport to personify.

If liberals no longer pride themselves on being the adults in the room, the bulwark against the whims of the mob, our national descent into chaos will be complete. The Oprah bandwagon betrays the extent to which social causes and identities — and the tribal feelings they inspire — have come to eclipse anything resembling philosophical worldviews. American politics has become just another team sport, and if suiting up a heavy hitter like Ms. Winfrey is what it takes to get the championship ring, so be it.

The idea that the presidency should become just another prize for celebrities — even the ones with whose politics we imagine we agree — is dangerous in the extreme. If the first year of the Trump administration has made anything clear, it’s that experience, knowledge, education and political wisdom matter tremendously. Governing is something else entirely from campaigning. And perhaps, most important, celebrities do not make excellent heads of state. The presidency is not a reality show, or for that matter, a talk show.

Yep, I’ll say it: MY POLITICAL PARTY SUCKS. But the other one…OMG….

My own bias I have various biases (as do all humans) and one of mine is what I call a “competency bias”. I expect people in high offices to know what they are doing; just sharing my values and goals is not sufficient. Example: I’d agree with Jill Stein on many issues..probably more issues that I’d agree with Mitt Romney. But if those were the two nominees, I’d vote for Romney.

Via Paul Krugman:

Let’s be honest: This great nation has often been led by mediocre men, some of whom had unpleasant personalities. But they generally haven’t done too much damage, for two reasons.

First, second-rate presidents have often been surrounded by first-rate public servants. Look, for example, at a list of Treasury secretaries since the nation’s founding; while not everyone who held the office was another Alexander Hamilton, over all it’s a pretty impressive contingent — and it mattered.

There’s an ongoing debate over whether Ronald Reagan, who was given a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s five years after he left office, was already showing signs of cognitive deterioration during his second term. But with James Baker running Treasury and George Shultz running State, one didn’t have to worry about whether qualified people were making the big decisions.

Now, for me, the situation with Reagan was NOT ok; I want my POTUS to be mentally alert and fully aware of what is happening and able to make thoughtful decisions..to be in charge. Having an average figurehead who spouts the “correct slogans” is not enough for me.

January 9, 2018 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political | | Leave a comment

Trump, sleaze and a changing presidency?

I am having a belly laugh over the popularity of the Michael Wolff book Fire and Fury. No, I don’t see the book as especially credible (the author doesn’t have a reputation of accuracy and the content appears to be mostly gossip) and it is my guess that the author wrote it for the money (and it is working, though Wikileaks has published the pdf of the book online).

But:

1. Trump has not reacted well to the book and is drawing well deserved ridicule for his reactions.

2. Trump has achieved much of his political success by doing exactly what the book is doing to him! Isn’t that ironic?

What can I say…maybe that is the way the game is played these days? Figure out who your opponents are and then try to slime them with any sleaze you can make up?

There is a long term downside though. I remember when Blagojevich ran for reelection as Illinois governor. I am embarrassed to say that I voted for him. Oh, I heard the criticisms but I dismissed them as partisan sleaze …and I had no idea these criticisms, this time, were the truth! So, I’ll do my part and try to keep my criticisms principled (and yes, temperament and deportment are qualifications for the office, IMHO).

And has Trump really changed the nature of the presidency? Yes, I like thoughtful presidents (Obama, Clinton, the first Bush) but Trump appears to be a lazy figurehead who runs his mouth but runs little else.
Now some liberals are touting …Oprah??? OMFG. Yes, she certainly won’t be any worse than the conman we have in office right now..and she is rich, popular and knows the “show-biz” game inside and out.

But at this rate, we’ll find our office of the Presidency reduced to something symbolic…and this makes Congress more important than ever.

January 8, 2018 Posted by | books, politics/social, social/political | | Leave a comment

Trump: why is this acceptable?

Imagine your favorite football team was coached by someone who didn’t bother to watch film of his upcoming opponent but instead just “winged it” at gametime.

Imagine your business being run by a boss that didn’t plan ahead, didn’t put in the hours but instead just made decisions “by feel”.

Imagine a general who didn’t plan ahead, look at maps, reports, but instead just attacked by his gut instincts.

Yes, all of the above works great in action movies..but in real life?

That is what we have as President: an incompetent, lazy jackass whose work ethic wouldn’t be tolerated at the businesses of many who voted for him!

But our country is so tribal…people can’t see past “he is on my team”.

Workout notes: treadmill; started out 10 minutes at 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, then 5.4 to mile 4 (46:20) then 6.0-6.1-6.2-6.3 down to 6.1 (56:05). Then 16:33 cool down walk.

At first I was like “ok, this isn’t that bad…then I remembered that I used to WALK marathons at a faster pace than this. Oh well…but this was 2 days after blood donation.

January 6, 2018 Posted by | politics, politics/social, running, social/political | | 2 Comments