blueollie

Toxic Activism and shortsightedness: Feminists and Southern Senators

This tweet (generated when a Congressional candidate body slammed a reporter) got me thinking:

IN THIS CASE, I was wrong in my assumption that a reporter barged in on a private event to pester the candidate with questions. Yes, reporters should be allowed to ask tough questions at public events. But candidates, along with everyone else, have the right to have “invitation only” events at private locations.

If that sounds wrong, ask yourself this: what if a scientist was holding a question and answer period with, say, science media and scientists at some science conference, and some creationist “reporter” from, say, Newsmax barges in uninvited and starts to pester him with stupid creationist questions …under the guise of “getting at the truth”. is that ok? Or is it ok for security to professionally remove the “journalist” from that location? (humanely, of course..I am NOT defending “body slamming”).

And do activists have the “right” to barge in and interrupt? Is THIS ok? (starts at 15 seconds)

To me, it is not.

This takes me back to when some feminist “activists” did an 11 hour sit in at the Ladies Home Journal. Now the magazine is a private entity and they had every right to remove those doing the sit in, though the activists correctly predicted that they wouldn’t do that due to negative publicity. NOW the magazine probably would kick them out. But never mind that.

During this sit in, there WAS an assault (book calls it “attempted assault” but the video I saw shows her jumping on the standing man)

(from here)

Via: The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town, Nostalgia for the Bygone Days of Family Feuding, Rebecca Meade

So, some time ago, I pointed this out to some lefties and I got “good for her!” “Way to go”. Assault is fine..when “your” side does it. At least, a non-zero percentage of people think that way. And that is nothing new. Remember what happened in the United States Senate?

On May 22, 1856, the “world’s greatest deliberative body” became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate’s entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a “noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator.” Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator’s stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking “a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean,” added Sumner, “the harlot, Slavery.”

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

From Wikipedia:

Conversely, Brooks was praised by Southern newspapers. The Richmond Enquirer editorialized that Sumner should be caned “every morning”, praising the attack as “good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences” and denounced “these vulgar abolitionists in the Senate” who “have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission.” Southerners sent Brooks hundreds of new canes in endorsement of his assault. One was inscribed “Hit him again.”[32]

As much as I’d love to tar conservatives as being stupid, evil people…I’ll reluctantly admit that this is really more of a reflection of the dark side of humanity which exists in a variety of social and political circles.

May 27, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political | Leave a comment

Reporters Trump and behavior

Last night, I responded to a Yglesias tweet about the Montana candidate who ended up physically attacking a reporter. I had read the campaign statement and was under the impression that the reporter had crashed a private event.

Yes, I know, physical violence is wrong but I still believe that reporters don’t have license to go where ever they want.
So I said “Bad overreaction, but that the reporter went onto private property, uninvited. Reporters need to respect boundaries.” which, predictably, lead to some responses, many of which were emotional and dumb.
I used the block function a couple of times.

BUT, I ended up talking to some cool people too and gained a couple of more “non-public” people to follow.

But this brings me back to reporters. I still remember this:

Yes, a private function has a right to exclude people. If this seems harsh, remember that the same rules apply if, say, a NewsMax or Fox “reporter” tried to crash and disrupt a press conference devoted to science to interject completely inappropriate questions and remarks.

But speaking of behavior, get a load of this:

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867758571882258432/video/1

This man is emotionally unfit for the office.

May 25, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Forget about Impeaching Trump…for now.

If you read my twitter feed, some are under the impression that Trump will be removed from office. Nate Silver does a very detailed analysis and concludes:

All that work … and I’m still not going to give you a precise number for how likely Trump is to lose his job. That’s because this is a thought experiment and not a mathematical model. I do think I owe you a range, however. I’m pretty sure I’d sell Trump-leaves-office-early stock (whether because of removal from office or other reasons) at even money (50 percent), and I’m pretty sure I’d buy it at 3-to-1 against (25 percent). I could be convinced by almost any number within that range.

The easiest-to-imagine scenario for Trump being removed is if Republicans get clobbered in the midterms after two years of trying to defend Trump, the Republican agenda is in shambles, Democrats begin impeachment proceedings in early 2019, and just enough Republicans decide that Pence (or some fresh face with no ties to the Trump White House) gives them a better shot to avoid total annihilation in 2020.

In some sense, then, the most important indicators of Trump’s impeachment odds are the ones you’d always use to monitor the political environment: presidential approval ratings, the generic congressional ballot and (if taken with appropriate grains of salt) special election results. What makes this time a little different is that if Republicans think the ship is sinking, impeachment may give them an opportunity to throw their president overboard first.

And I’ve seen credible arguments that…Trump could well end up getting reelected in 2020! (yeah, I know…it is a Salon article, but this article strikes me as being credible).

Trump’s approval, while dismal for a new president, isn’t at historic lows (though low FOR THIS POINT in an administration). The Real Clear Politics approval average is just under 40 percent. His Gallup poll approval is at 37 percent. But it is at 84 percent among Republicans.

That might seem hard to believe, but remember that lots of Republicans do not trust the New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN. This is what they are seeing:

They are much more likely to be up in arms about what some obscure liberal arts professor said than about serious issues like this one:

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.

Things like Trump’s embarrassing mathematical error in his new budget (he double counted the projected offsets to his proposed 2 trillion dollar tax cuts) will be seen as, at worst, “liberal lies” and, at best, the “he said, she said” part of partisan politics.

If that sounds incredible, well, we are not behind their propaganda wall.

Many of us simply do not associate with many (if any) Trump supporters; we are hearing different things than they are. Note how “clumpy” this precinct level map is; Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million votes, but, on an individual level, we are likely to interact mostly with those who see eye to eye with us. Yes, I live in a county (Peoria, IL) that barely went for Clinton; my Congressional District (IL-17) elected Cheri Bustos (Democrat) but was carried by Trump (barely); Obama won it by 17 points in 2012. (2016 by Congressional District, by County)

So, I have to disagree with her here:

Interviews with Trump supporters are the only way I come to grips with, well, how delusional the Republican rank and file is.

And these are the people who vote for all of those Republicans in Congress. And now, Trump has big money behind him (tax cuts).

But between now and 2020 lie the 2018 midterms and those are huge; the President’s party usually loses seats.

But that means flipping some “swing districts” and IN SUCH DISTRICTS, “impeachment” does not play well there.

So, I’d like us to focus on winning at least one chamber (maybe two?) in 2018, and would settle for a legislative stalemate between now and then.

Realpolitik.

Workout notes
5 treadmill miles; slow warm up (2 miles just over 22 minutes; 5.2 going up .1 every .5 miles) then 3 miles of .25 faster, .25 walk (3.7 mph); .25 segments were 6.7, 6.9, 7.0 (two reps at each level). Just enough to get sweaty (197.5 before, 194.3 after).

May 23, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, republicans, republicans politics, running, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Higher Education, “speaking the truth to power”, “unpleasant truths”, etc.

This walkout by a few dozen students at the University of Notre Dame graduation ceremony got me to thinking about higher education. The students complained about VP Pence’s stance on immigrants (which goes against the mainstream of what current Catholic teaching is) and on homosexuality (where he is mostly consistent with Catholic doctrine, though some parishes are indeed gay couple friendly).

And I wonder: why go to school whose Church goes against your values?

Yes, these days, at least in certain fields, it appears to be chic to attack “false narratives”. But, lost in this is that the professors *should* be teaching their students actual facts and knowledge! How can one “speak the truth to power” if one doesn’t really know “the truth” to begin with?

On the flip side, while I agree with this sentiment, in theory:

Often, “unpleasant truths” turn out to be “widely held, but factually incorrect opinions” deemed as “common sense”. Again, to speak the truth means to know the truth.

Example: yes, in the US, different “races” have different mean IQ scores. That is indisputable but many do not acknowledge that or even know it.

And yes, intellectual ability is inherited genetically (example: nothing I could do could turn me into Steve Hawking). So, those might be “the unpleasant facts”.

But to learn the truth, one should also realize that the genes merely put an upper bound on intelligence; how close one comes to attaining that upper bound depends on many things (e. g. not consuming lead as a kid, mother not taking drugs while carrying the kid, early childhood education, etc.). And group mean IQ is far from unchangeable; note the case of East/West Germany where the IQs between the two countries diverged under communist rule and started to converge again after reunification! THAT is also part of the truth. To deny environmental factors is to be intellectually dishonest.

May 22, 2017 Posted by | social/political | Leave a comment

My own “triggers” (of knee jerk responses)

I’ve often chuckled about “trigger warnings” and snowflakey things in academia. But I have my own “triggers” which, well, set off an illogical knee jerk reaction in me. NO, I don’t need to be “warned” or protected from them. An NO, this is not the same as what is meant by the way the word is usually used (say, a war veteran being told that a science demonstration will have a loud “boom”).

1. Buzz words. When I am deciding if I want to click on the link to read an article, I look at the headline and the words. And yeah, there are certain words and phrases that trigger a “scroll past” or “look elsewhere” reaction in me.

Among those: “how scientists find that The Bible was right about….” or “privilege”, “patriarchy”, “deep state”, “misogyny”, “cultural appropriation” etc.

What gets me skeptical are titles such as “What if everything you knew about X is wrong”, or “what you don’t know about Y”.

2. People themselves. I admit this (to my shame): when I see a person about my age (or within a few years) who is obese and moving with great difficulty, I feel an automatic contempt. That, of course, is illogical as I know nothing about the history of the person (e. g., they could have had a stroke, injury, heart attack or other unfortunate physical problem) and the fact that I haven’t as yet is mostly due to genetics and good luck more than anything else. I’ve done nothing to merit “good luck” though I do practice decent health and lifestyle habits. Still, those “healthy habits” only tilt the odds in your favor; there are NO guarantees.

So I try to use my mind to get past that. But I can see where the concept of a “cursed person” comes from and why ancient people might ascribe such a condition to having angered a deity, spirit or whatever.

Workout notes; thunderstorm (which cancelled a baseball game) so I did 4 miles of “running” on my home treadmill in 46 minutes.

May 20, 2017 Posted by | Personal Issues, running, social/political | Leave a comment

Removal of Trump from office: yes, there is a downside

First of all, I have no training in law; I do not know (for sure) whether Trump did anything impeachable or not. It appears to me that he violated his oath of office in at least 3 areas: violation of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice (trying to hinder the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion with Russia during the election) and his grotesquely reckless giving “beyond top secret” information to Russia (though he DOES have the power to do so).

I have read that while the Constitution says “High crimes and misdemeanors” as the standard,

Fifth, this may well be a violation of the President’s oath of office. Questions of criminality aside, we turn to the far more significant issues: If the President gave this information away through carelessness or neglect, he has arguably breached his oath of office. As Quinta and Ben have elaborated on in some detail, in taking the oath President Trump swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of President.

Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute. If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.

And yes, I find this convincing.

The downside: the biggest one for me is that if Trump leaves office before his term is up (whatever reason) then:

1. He is going to be replaced by a conservative, and almost certainly, one with a lot more political skill. That is, the Republicans will still control both chambers of Congress and the executive AND have someone who is better situated in getting their agenda passed.

2. The replacement will have a good shot at reelection and

3. The Republicans in Congress can play the “we placed patriotism over party” card and probably better positioned to retain their seats.

So there are political minefields here. BUT, right now, I am worried about disaster and would trade Trump for some conservative who is more emotionally stable and rational, even if it hurts us politically.

I still see impeachment as a longshot though:

And yet, outside the inner circle of Republicans with access to the commander-in-chief, Trump’s popularity remains respectable, even solid. The conservative base is largely unaware of the constant revelations of Trump’s gross incompetence, or has been trained to ignore them as propaganda emanating from the administration’s enemies in the deep state or the liberal media. In red America, Trump remains a hero at best, and a competent, normal president at worst.

Recognizing competence is not a strength of red America. Remember that Trump was elected by people who see Trump as themselves, had they been born into money. And many of them probably sincerely believe that THEY could do a competent job as president.

Workout notes weights, 2 mile run, 3 mile walk.
weights: rotator cuff, 5 x 10 pull ups, incline presses: 10 x 135, 7 x 150, 3 x 160 (strict hips), military: 20 x 50 dumbbell (seated, supported), 2 sets of 10 x 45, rows: Hammer: 3 sets of 10 x 200. headstand.

run: 20 minutes (2.08) 10:38 mile 1, 19:16 mile 2 (6.7 at 8 minutes then up by .1 ever .25 miles)
walk: 5K Bradley Park course (easy)

May 17, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social, running, social/political, walking, weight training | | Leave a comment

Why talking to “the opposition” is so unpleasant ….

Ok, I read this vox article which tries to makes this a “both sides” type of thing:

If you ever thought, “You couldn’t pay me to listen to Sean Hannity / Rachael Maddow / insert any television pundit you violently disagree with here” — you are not alone.

A study, recently published in the Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, essentially tested this very question.

Two hundred participants were presented with two options. They could either read and answer questions about an opinion they agreed with — the topic was same-sex marriage — or read the opposing viewpoint.

Here’s the catch: If the participants chose to read the opinion they agreed with, they were entered into a raffle pool to earn $7. If they selected to read opposing opinion, they had a chance to win $10.

You’d think everyone would want to win more money, right?

No. […]

Frimer also tested people’s knowledge of the opposing side. Largely, the partisans were unfamiliar with their viewpoints. So it’s not the case that people are avoiding learning about the other side because they’re already familiar. What’s going on here is “motivated ignorance,” as Matt Motyl, one of the study co-authors calls it.

The last paragraph: I’d love to see how this study measured that. Here is why: at least on Facebook, I really DO know what the other side is going to say, at least the yahoos and sad sacks that I see. Now, I’d LOVE to see what an intelligent, informed conservative thinks, but I rarely see such conservatives on social media. I just see a collection of dummies or those who, while smart enough to have professional success, use all of their thinking power “on the job” and give little effort to understanding the facts behind the issues of the day; what you get from them is basically “knee jerk, bumper sticker” quality stuff, sans the spelling and grammatical errors.

So, I am not interested when they try to tell me that the Bible is a reliable guide to science (or history, or much anything else for that matter, save perhaps some insight to what people of that time thought). I am not interested in hearing that Obama was Muslim born in Kenya or that Benghazi or Fast and Furious was an impeachable offense, or that the ACA was a government takeover of our health care system.

These imbeciles might KNOW what we should do in Korea, but don’t even know where it is!

But truth be told, there are liberals I’d rather not talk to either. These are the type that scream about “cultural appropriation“, safe spaces, trigger warnings and the like.

Yeah, most of us (myself included) are mistaken about a lot of things, but the subset of intellectual average (or worse) people who are SURE that they are right and sanctimonious to the point where their positions are dogma are the worst ones to deal with, and I’d rather not engage with them on my free time.

May 16, 2017 Posted by | social/political | Leave a comment

Critiquing Trump: big deals, usual critiques and silliness

Yes, this is a big deal. In a meeting with Russian officials, Trump blurted out highly sensitive information, which we now know was obtained from Israel.

Yes, this is a big deal. Not only might this get a source killed, it might make Israel less likely to share stuff with us, and it might make our own intelligence people less likely to tell POTUS what they know.

But even worse (if that is possible), is that our Republican political leadership is unwilling to do anything about it, since they feel that they can get their precious tax cuts if DJT remains in office with at least a little bit of credibility.

Paul Krugman has a good tweetstorm on that topic:

But will this matter to the rank and file Republican? Sadly: probably not, or at least “not much”; they will see this as the usual “back and forth” that goes on with any president.

I remember that I went through something like this at the governor level: yes, I voted for Blagojevich a second time. Yes, I heard the dissension but around here, and I even backed his primary opponent to the point of giving him money. And the Republicans lie and overblow things so much that I didn’t believe them, at least at first. Then I began to have doubts, but was told by one “sort of party insider” that people were angry at him because they didn’t get the expected patronage.

It turns out that the Republicans were actually telling the truth!!! That is one vote that I wish I had back.

Happily, the Democratic legislature did the right thing and impeached him.

So what to make of Trump? Note, I am limiting myself to stuff he does AFTER becoming president; Russian interference in our election (along with possible collusion) is a different matter.

First there is the silly stuff. I don’t care how he likes his steak, how many scoops of ice cream he has, that he is fat, or that he doesn’t have a dog.

Then there is the usual partisan stuff, when he does Republican things, I am not going to like them. But elections do have consequences. I’ll speak my mind but this is the normal partisan push-back.

Next: any President has to make decisions and those will be critiqued. An example of this was Trump’s decision to bomb that Syrian airfield. I saw that as a rather futile gesture that really had no impact but I can see many Presidents doing this. But these decisions will always attract scrutiny. And some of what he tries won’t work out. Yes, Obama had a few policy misses too, but these were hardly “unfit for office” stuff, no matter how much the morons on Facebook and Twitter scream.

Then there is the “he isn’t behaving in a Presidential manner” stuff. I think that this is important, but not to the degree “we have reason to remove this man from office” important. I do not like the way he criticizes private citizens; I think that he sets a very poor example in this area. No president in my memory did anything like this. This is ugly, but, well, a large minority of people (not even a plurality!) voted for this or at least did not see it as disqualifying.

Finally, there is the “unfit for office” stuff: these are his sneering at the emoluments clause (profiting from his office), his nepotism and now, this impulsive giving out highly sensitive intelligence because he wants to show off, and his attempts to interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation. Yes, I see Trump as unfit for office.

May 16, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, republicans, republicans politics, social/political | | Leave a comment

We will always talk past one another

Interesting. I see things like this:

Or read articles like this one (about conflating affordable health care with personal responsibility)

Or even articles like this one (saying that our growing economic inequality is making us more and more like a 3’rd world country).

And often, my conservative friends and I agree on the facts. Seriously. The issues are:

1. Ok, who is to blame for this? Yes, that is an important question (*) thought that might sound strange.

2. Ok, what is the best way forward toward resolving this problem?

It appears to me that, in general, conservatives assign more agency to the individual. For example: are people behaving responsibly, or are they, say, just going around and making women pregnant without having any means of supporting a kid? Yes, that DOES happen:

Among low-income, unwed parents, having children with more than one partner is now the norm. One long-running study found that in nearly 60 percent of the unwed couples who had a baby, at least one parent already had a child with another partner.

Note: this article is from a “bleeding heart” perspective; it goes on to attempt to absolve such “fathers” of their behavior.

Poor health? It is undeniably true that, at least statistically speaking, much of our poor health comes from terrible habits (overeating smoking, etc.).

So, our conservative friends tend to trace many of our social problems to defects in human behavior rather than as something that society bears direct responsibility for.

And you know what? I don’t see our conservative friends as being completely wrong or as being crazy.

Why do I remain a liberal? For one, there is evidence that demand side economics works (stimulation at the bottom of the economy indeed trickles up) and well planned public aid at the bottom of the economy can reduce the chances of ending up on it later in life.

Another reason is that, statistically speaking, pathological social behavior tends to follow poverty rather than be the cause of it. Some evidence for this theory: look at what has happened within some previously non-poor groups.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that I think that people don’t have agency or bear some personal responsibility. I still exercise and carry out my professional duties, and my degrees were not handed to me. I worked for them (while enjoying, yes, taxpayer funded subsidies which I want others to have access to as well).

But those born in harsh socio-economic circumstances have a much, much smaller margin of error and effort only goes so far.

Think of it this way: I could probably improve my running my losing, say, 30 lbs. and running more and running harder. But there is NOTHING I could do to become competitive. My effort can move the needle, but only so much.

And it is my opinion that those born into the bottom can only escape with an enormous amount of effort, and those who do are probably those with an almost an outlier amount of talent.
Of course, it happens, but right now, it is my opinion that it is, for structural reasons, an event whose probably is too low to be considered “fair and just”.

Sure, some who have no excuse fail anyway. There will always some of these. And given a level playing field, some will always do a whole lot better than others. I accept that.
But I don’t see the playing field as being level.

(*) if you disagree that “blame” is not important, ask yourself this: two people need a new liver to be able to live. One is a typical person who got an unfortunate disease. Another is someone who suffered internal injuries while they were attempting a robbery. Who gets priority?

workout notes: weights then an easy 3 mile walk outside (too pretty not to)
rotator cuff, pull ups (5 sets of 10), bench press: 10 x 135, 4 x 185, 8 x 170 (empty gym, no spotters..had to stay conservative), incline: 10 x 135, military: 20 x 50 dumbbell, seated, supported, 2 sets of 10 x 45 standing, rows: 3 sets of 10 x 200 Hammer machine.
Abs: 2 sets of 12 twist crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts, 10 moving bridges. Headstand (relatively easy today).
And goblet squats (between upper body stuff): 5 x (25, 25, 45, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70). These ARE getting easier.

May 15, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political, walking, weight training | Leave a comment

Liberal: ok, you are angry. But guess what: No. One. Cares.

Ok, maybe this isn’t exactly accurate. If you live in a Congressional district that is represented by a Democrat or if your Senators (or one of them) are Democrats..they might, especially if they have a primary election to worry about.

And yeah, I understand venting to friends; I do that all of the time. And your friends and loved ones probably care.

But Republicans do not care at all…or wait…they might even delight in your anger.

But think about it: in general, the world cares about you to the extent that it can get something out of you.

Yeah, you might be able to, say, jam things up by blocking a highway..but wow, that worked didn’t it? Those primary/election Trump protests worked really well didn’t they? BLM disruptions? Great..now we have a neo-confederate as an Attorney General. How is THAT for improving things?

Bottom line: if you are one of those who doesn’t have money to spend, why should a company care about you or what you think?
If you aren’t someone’s boss: why would they care about what you think?

So go ahead an rant your heart out.

But if you have nothing worth having to offer, no one (aside from a few loved ones and friends) is going to care what you think.

If we don’t win Congress (or at least one chamber in 2018)…or at least drive Trump to quit the presidency….all for nothing.

Workout notes: easy 5K in West Peoria before a loooooong graduation ceremony. Ugh. At least there is the ballgame tonight.

May 13, 2017 Posted by | politics/social, running, social/political | | Leave a comment