Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Sunday, March 3, 2024

Be Liberal in What You Accept


If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart.  If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.

Winston Churchill

You may have seen this quote floating around online.  Certainly it’s a darling of modern conservatives.  And if so great a luminary as Churchill said it ... well, then, certainly it must be true.

Except, of course, Churchill never said that. The International Churchill society points out that:

There is no record of anyone hearing Winston Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University made this comment: ‘Surely Churchill can’t have used the words attributed to him. He’d been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35!  And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?’

By “Clemmie,” Addison is referring here to Clementine, the Baroness Spencer-Churchill, a.k.a. Winston’s wife.  So I think these are pretty compelling points that attributing this quote to Churchill is just wishful thinking.

If you really want to know the convoluted origin of this quote, you can read all about it on the Quote Investigator, but basically it likely started off as this:

A boy of fifteen who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at twenty.

John Adams, 1799

which then evolved to this:

Several of my friends urged me to respond with Burke’s famous line: “Anyone who is not a republican at twenty casts doubt on the generosity of his soul; but he who, after thirty years, perseveres, casts doubt on the soundness of his mind.”

Jules Claretie (translated from the original French), 1872

Along with many, many variations along the way, and since.  Here’s my favorite of the ones QI cites:

An excited supporter burst into the private chambers of the old tiger Clemenceau one day and cried, “Your son has just joined the Communist Party.” Clemenceau regarded his visitor calmly and remarked, “Monsieur, my son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then.”

Bennet Cerf, writing about Georges Clemenceau, 1944

That one at least is clever.  The rest are all at least moderately clumsy in the phrasing, not to mention not uttered by anyone as famous as Churchill.  Although John Adams is close.  But also pay attention to what Adams is really saying here: that, by the time you’re merely twenty years old, you should have learned not to have faith in democracy.  I know we Americans have a great belief that we live in a democracy, and that we do so because of our revered founding fathers, but often we forget that irksome things like the electoral college exist precisely because those founding fathers (or at least a majority of them) felt that the common man couldn’t be expected to be informed enough to vote sensibly, so the best they could be trusted to do was to elect someone smarter than they were.  

Of course, as I wrote in my very first blog post about quotes, “really it doesn’t even matter who said it: the wisdom or truth of the words is contained within them, regardless of any external attribution.” So who cares who said it, if it’s true.

Except ...

Well, except that it’s crap.  Even confining ourselves to the fairly modern definitions of “liberal” and “conservative”—and completely ignoring the far right (MAGA, QAnon, etc)—I can quite trivially provide two counterexamples: my father was the same conversative he is today at 25, and I continue to be just as liberal as I ever was well beyond 35.  Or 45 ... hell, I’ve now moved beyond 55, even, and I continue to be, what I’m sure is to my more conservative friends, annoyingly liberal.

And, yes, I do have conservative friends.  Remember: I said we were not defining “conservative” as meaning the MAGA crowd—I’m definitely not friends with any of them.  But, using the normal definition of “political conservative” to mean small government, taxes bad, trickle-down economics good, capitalism great, unions suck, etc. ... sure, I have friends like that.  People like that can be very reasonable and even fun.  The fact that they’re wrong doesn’t make them bad people.  (I’m kidding.  Mostly.)

No, this lovely idea that liberalism is founded on idealism, which is something you really ought to have when you’re young, but you really ought to grow out of at some point, is just crap.  Doesn’t make any sense, and doesn’t bear out in reality.  The best proof of this concept that I’ve run across is in an article from Scientific American, which posits (with some interesting studies to back it up) that conservative and liberal brains are just different.  Liberals have bigger cingulate cortices, while conservatives have bigger amygdalae.  Which means, broadly speaking, that liberals are better at detecting errors and resolving conflicts, while conservatives are better at regulating emotions and evaluating threats.  Nothing wrong with either of those characteristics, of course: each are good, in different situations.  And there’s still some disagreement over which comes first:

There is also an unresolved chicken-and-egg problem:  Do brains start out processing the world differently or do they become increasingly different as our politics evolve?

But I find this whole area fascinating.  Especially because there isn’t anything black-and-white about it, which as you know appeals to my sense of balance and paradox.  Sure, conservatives are less likely to question the status quo, but that means they’re often happier because they’re more willing to accept and enjoy their circumstances.  Sure, liberals may be better at processsing contradictory information, but we’re also prone to waffling and it can take us forever to make up our minds about an issue (that one hits particularly hard for me).  And, yes, all this is a whole lot of generalization, and individuals will differ in how they approach things regardless of their overall tendencies, and obviously we can rise above our programming ... but, at least to me, it’s actually a bit comforting to think that, when a friend expresses some surprisingly conservative viewpoint, I can say to myself, oh: they’re just wired differently.  And that’s okay.

As I’ve said before, the world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed on everything.  So, while I continue to believe that my politics are the best politics, I don’t hate the other side ... hell, I don’t even dislike or distrust the other side.  But, I must once again stress: Trump supporters are not the other side.  Those are the folks who’ve gone way beyond the other side and out the door and down the road and across the field.  Even my father, bastion of conservatism that he is, is no longer a Trump supporter.  Trump gives conservatism a bad name, sadly.  And I think that Trump will likely not win in the presidential race this year precisely because more and more conservatives are realizing this.  I could be wrong about that ... but I don’t think I am.  And that’s a good thing.

I think proper conservatism deserves a reboot.  I still think they’re all wrong, of course, but it’s never great to have people in charge who all think the same way.  Diversity is important (again, ignoring those ultra-right-wingers who foam at the mouth when you talk about diversity), and, just as having diversity in the workplace makes your business more profitable (look it up if you don’t believe this; there are multiple studies which support this fact), so too is diversity of opinions in government important.  If the government were entirely run by liberals, we’d probably be in just as much trouble as we would be if it were run entirely by conservatives.  Finding the balance is what’s important ... but of course I would say that (balance and paradox again).

What I really wish is that our two political parties would both split in two.  The Republicans have become sharply divided between the MAGA crowd and the “traditional” conservatives, while the Democrats have become too crowded, and people as different as Biden and Sanders both claiming the same party feels weird.  If we had four parties, they could perhaps be led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and I think the vast majority of Americans would know exactly which quadrant of the spectrum they fall into just from that alone.  I’d love it, personally.  I would probably vote for AOC’s party the most often, but I’d vote for the Harris ticket plenty, and probably even the Cheney party every now and again.  (The less said on how I feel about the Greene-led crowd, the better.)  But we’d truly have some meaningful choices again, that’s the important bit.  And I think that would be good for our country, for our government, and for our sanity.

Sadly, I think it’s mostly just wishful thinking.  I think the two-party stranglehold on our political system is not giving up its deathgrip any time soon, and we’ll be the poorer for it.  But, as fraught with emotion as the current times are, I think we should still all remember that conservative, liberal—they’re just a difference in how we’re wired, and that’s fine.  We can still all get along, and we can still see the good in others.  And I think that’s a worthy goal.




[Today’s title is the latter half of the Robustness Principle, a.k.a. Postel’s law: be conservative in what you emit; be liberal in what you accept.  So perhaps it’s just my technogeek nature to recognize that both philosophies have value.]









Sunday, February 25, 2024

The Return of Stew-beef


I have, to my knowledge, seen nearly every episode of The Daily Show, since the very beginning.  That means I’ve not only seen what I believe to be every single episode hosted by Jon Stewart and every single episode hosted by Trevor Noah, but every episode in between and since, and even the majority of the episodes hosted by Craig Kilborn, who preceded Stewart.  It was a very different show back then, but I watched ’em all.  There’s been a lot of individual bits of various shows that I’ve disliked, but I don’t think there’s been a single show in these past 28 years that hasn’t made me laugh at least once, and most of them far more often than that.

So obviously I was pretty happy to see Stewart come back to the show a couple of weeks ago.  I thought his first show back was pretty awesome: as his Apple+ show (The Problem with Jon Stewart) proved, he really hasn’t lost a step since his “retirement.” He’s still got the rhythm, and the biting commentary that’s perfectly happy to skewer public figures on both sides of the aisle.  I laughed plenty.

Both not everyone appreciated his homecoming as much as I.  There was, in fact, quite a bit of criticism, perhaps most emblematically summed up by Keith Olbermann, who tweeted:

Well after nine years away, there’s nothing else to say to the bothsidesist fraud Jon Stewart bashing Biden, except: Please make it another nine years

Of course, Olbermann has been a critic of Stewart for years, going back to saying that he’d “jumped the shark” back when Stewart (along with co-host Colbert) put on the “Rally to Restore Sanity (and/or Fear)” (which I quite enjoyed, personally).  So it shouldn’t have been news.  But, somehow it was ... perhaps boosted by similar criticism from Mary Trump, the hosts of The View, and a bunch of people described as “liberal media figures” whose names I’ve never heard in my life.  Basically, they accused him of “both-sides-ism.” Well, fair enough: as I noted above, Stewart is fond of not letting anyone off the hook, regardless of “sides.” But what did he actually say, actually?

Well, he said this:*

What’s crazy is thinking that we are the ones as voters who must silence concerns and criticisms.  It is the candidate’s job to assuage concerns, not the voter’s job not to mention them.

and this:

Look, Joe Biden isn’t Donald Trump.  He hasn’t been indicted as many times, hasn’t had as many fraudulent businesses, or been convicted in a civil trial for sexual assault, or been ordered to pay defamation, had his charities disbanded, or stiffed a shit-ton of blue-collar tradesmen he’d hired.  Should we even get to the grab the pussy stuff?  Probably not.

But the stakes of this election don’t make Donald Trump’s opponent less subject to scrutiny.  It actually makes him more subject to scrutiny.

Which ... sounds pretty reasonable to me.  I’m not sure what Olbermann and friends expected Stewart to do—was he supposed to pretend that Biden isn’t old, or that no one realizes he’s old?  I mean, The Nation expresses it better than I ever could, so I’ll just quote them:

Stewart’s segment was fundamentally pro-Biden, a shrewd use of comedy to address unease while also, as Stewart at his best always does, keeping the big political picture in mind. It’s a way to address the age issue on pro-Biden terms but still maintain the trust of independents and nonpartisan Democrats, who are the swing voters in danger of abandoning Biden or staying home.

Yep, that’s what I thought too.



__________

* If you want to follow along at home, you can watch his monologue on YouTube; my first quote starts at 15:53, and the second starts at 17:30.











Sunday, January 28, 2024

TIL: Vibecession

Many years (and a couple of jobs) ago, I was part of a weird corporate experiment that was referred to as “swim teams.” I’m not sure this was a thing except at my one company, but there is a business concept called “swimlanes” that I think might be related.  But, anyhow, what it was, was this: All the employees who were considered “squeaky wheels” were gathered up in a single room (and let me tell you, we were all looking around like, uh-oh), and were told that we were going to get assigned to one or two “swim teams,” and each team was going to work on one thing to make the business better.  That is, don’t just complain about the problems: participate in coming up with solutions.  And this was lovely, and a nice idea, and obviously it didn’t work at all.

You can probably guess why, but I’ll drill down a bit further.  One of my “swim teams” (I really can’t even type that without the air quotes) was called “employee engagement,” and it was one of the only ones—maybe the only one—where our actual CEO was on the team.  And, as she put it, the point of the team was to figure out how to get employees to treat the company as if it were their own, and not just a paycheck.  Our team came up with a number of good ideas, none of which were ever implemented.  One example: I proposed implementing financial transparency (long-time readers will recall this as cornerstone #1 of the Barefoot Philosophy).  The CEO was scandalized: let all the employees have all that sensitive financial data?  They can’t be trusted with that!  Then, a couple of weeks later, I was forced to listen to her rant on about how “employees these days” feel like they’re entitled to a job but they don’t want to work very hard for it.  And I thought to myself—very quietly, because there was no point in getting fired over a zinger—wait, you think you deserve employee engagement, but you won’t take any action that would earn that?  Who exactly is the party feeling entitled here?

But I tell you that story so I can tell you this one: I recently learned what ”vibecession” means.  It’s a topic of great interest in this political climate, with many high-level Democrats seeming to complain that people just aren’t understanding how good they’ve got it.  Unemployment is low! wages are up! the stock market is booming! interest rates on things like savings accounts are higher than they’ve been in most people’s entire lifetimes!  So why are people still complaining?  These silly consumers just need to understand what’s really going on so that they can understand how awesome the Biden presidency has been.  Hopefully they all wake up by the time the election rolls around.

But, you see, this attitude is exactly like my old CEO.  Faced with two contradictory situations—the status quo of economic indicators vs the attitudes of the common people—then obviously the status quo must be right and the people must be wrong (and also ungrateful).  I keep hearing so-called experts trying to work out how to spin the economic numbers so people will finally “get it.” What I don’t hear is anyone questioning whether it makes sense to keep using the same old numbers when they obviously don’t reflect how ordinary, non-academics are being impacted in the current economy.

They should maybe try that.  I don’t think they will, but they should probably try.  Just one man’s opinion.









Sunday, December 17, 2023

Third Party Blind

Less than two weeks ago, I was listening to Election Profit Makers, and they read a letter from a younger fan who said that they were not going to vote for Biden because of his approach toward Israel, and they wanted the hosts (David Rees and Jon Kimball) to weigh on in that situation.

At the time, I didn’t realize this was A Thing.  Sure, I’d heard that there’s a growing movement in the U.S. that thinks that the government of Israel shouldn’t be allowed—much less encouraged—to wipe the Palestinian people from the face of the Earth.  I’d even heard that this utterly radical stance was mostly held by younger people, and that they blamed Biden’s willingness to just go along with whatever Israel does (including offering them weapons to do even more of it) on his being a very old man.  After all, blind allegiance to Israel is sort of an American tradition.  Because otherwise you’re antisemitic ... right?

So, sure, I knew it was a thing, and that it was mostly a thing with younger people, but I didn’t know it was A Thing.  But apparently it is: ABC News says it is, The Guardian in the UK says it is, NPR says it is.  So I guess it is.  Apparently it’s quite popular for political experts to weigh in and say that Biden’s pro-Israel stance might seriously jeopardize his chances next year.

So what did the hosts of EPM have to say in response to their young interlocutor?

Rees: When it comes to young voters saying, “I’ll never vote for Joe Biden, this is a, this is a bridge too far (his support of Israel),” I’m like: all right.  I don’t even feel interested in trying to convince young people that they should vote for Biden because Trump would be worse.  ...  I used to totally be the third-party, protest-vote guy.  Now I am much older than I used to be, and I see electoral politics now as nothing more than harm reduction.  ...  One thing I have no interest in, and I will not support, is older voters scolding younger voters for deciding to vote with their principles, even if I happen to think, like “yeah, good luck, let’s see how that turns out, champ.” I’m not gonna ...

Kimball: Totally agree.

Rees: I’m not gonna get on a high horse and try to shame young people.  I think that’s tactically stupid, and also demeans what’s so exciting about politics when you’re younger, and, for some of us, even when you’re older.  It’s like, it is a mechanism by which you can express your idealism.  And that’s beautiful to have that.

(For the full discussion, check out Episode 237, starting at about 24:20; the quotes above kick in about 5 minutes into that discussion.)

And I identified with what David is saying there.  First of all because I have totally been the person voting for a third party, and second of all because I’m much older now than I used to be, and also when he says that trying to shame people into not voting for third parties demeans everyone’s idealism, young or old.  Beacuse, here’s my dirty secret: I still vote for third parties (sometimes), even now that I’m old.  Now, as I’ve pointed out, I live in California, so I have a luxury that many Americans do not: the Democratic candidate for President will win my state, regardless of how I vote.  Therefore, I’m free to vote for the person whose stated opinions and policies most align with my own.  Sometimes that’s the Democrat, it theoretically might be a Republican—while I have voted for Republicans before for other offices, there’s never been a Presidential candidate who’s impressed me sufficiently to get my vote—or it might be a different party entirely, and I don’t give a flying shit if that’s a Green party candidate, a Libertarian party candidate, or just a raw independent.  Your “party affiliation” is just a box next to your name.  It means nothing to me, especially these days, when people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema can claim to be Democrats, and the Republican party still (mostly) encompasses people like Liz Cheny and Adam Kinzinger (I could actually see myself voting for that guy for President, depending on the opponents).  What matters is what you (claim to) stand for, and how well your actions match your rhetoric.  If that stuff comes closer to what I want to see than any other candidate, then I don’t care if you’re a member of the Monster Raving Loony party: you get my vote.

But, as I say, I have the luxury of living in California where I actually can vote my conscience and still know that it won’t end up screwing the country.  I used to live in Virginia, where the margin of victory for the Republicans was frequently less than 10 points; I did (sometimes) vote third-party there, but then again I was younger.  If I still lived there today, would I still be so bold as to vote for whoever is the best candidate?  Or would I succumb to the “truth” that you may only vote for the better candidate?

What amuses me most about David Rees’ statement (which so strongly resonated with me and which I found most eminently reasonable), was that I was watching an episode of Democracy Docket with Brian Tyler Cohen and Marc Elias less than a week later, and Elias said this in response to a question from BTC about third parties:

So I, I just got to speak directly to your audience, because I imagine your audience is a lot of good Democrats, but also people who have very high standards for their elected officials.  And let me just tell you something: if you think voting for Jill Stein is doing anything other than electing Donald Trump, you are wrong.  If you vote for Jill Stein you’re voting for Donald Trump. If you vote for Bobby Kennedy you are voting for Donald Trump.  If you vote for the No Labels candidate, whoever he or she is ... if you vote for the No Labels candidate you are voting for Donald Trump.  And I’ll tell you one more thing: if you sit at home, because you’re disappointed, or you sit at home because you think your vote doesn’t matter, or you sit at home for whatever reason, and you don’t vote, you’re helping elect Donald Trump.  So you know I’m tired of the people who are saying ... you know, “I’m gonna have a protest, or I’m gonna sit out ...”.  If you don’t participate in this election, and enthusiastically drag your friends, your neighbors, your family, drag ’em to the polls, make sure they’re registered, drag ’em to the polls and make sure they vote, then you are you are feeding into what Donald Trump wants for this country, which is a dictatorship.

(Again, if you want to follow along, this was the 12/11 episode, and the question and answer happens at about 8:10.)

And, if you don’t know who Marc Elias is, he’s sort of the epitome of what David Rees was talking about when he said “older voters scolding younger voters for deciding to vote with their principles”: he’s a balding, old white guy (not quite as old as I am, according to Wikipedia, but damned close), he’s a lawyer, and just listen to what he’s saying there.  “If you don’t vote for my political party, your vote worse than doesn’t count: it counts for the bad guy.” If a salesman was telling you, if you don’t buy their product, it’s the same as giving your money to burglars so they can come take your stuff, you’d roll your eyes at them.  If a realtor told you that, if you didn’t buy this house, you’re just giving permission to people to come knock your current house down, you’d probably look for another realtor.  But, when it comes to politics, we not only don’t think twice about this sort of rhetoric, we expect it.  Worse, we believe it.  And, regardless of whether it’s true or not, our belief makes it true.

Here’s a simple example: two Democrat groups (Third Way and MoveOn) have issued a statement about the potential new “No Labels” party.  An article says:

Third Way and MoveOn followed up Tuesday by asking the staffers to convince their bosses to publicly denounce the effort.

“We, the undersigned elected officials, recognizing the urgent and unique threat to democracy in the form of right-wing extremism on the ballot in 2024, call on No Labels to halt their irresponsible efforts to launch a third-party candidacy,” reads the statement for the lawmakers’ signatures.

“Their candidate cannot win, but they can and would serve as a spoiler that could return someone like Donald Trump to office. I therefore commit to opposing a No Labels third-party ticket in 2024 for the good of the country.”

Now, I’m not saying voting for the (potential) No Labels candidate is a good idea—I’ll have to make that determination when we’re closer to the actual election, but I will say that so far I’m unimpressed with any of the names being floated—but just look at this statement.  This is what oligopolies do: a small handful of companies in a space very aggressively lobby their customers against considering any possible competition.  You may think the Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on anything these days, but they absolutely agree that they don’t want any more players on the field.  You get to pick one of these two, and yes they’re both shitty, but that’s just the way it is and no one can change it so you might as well get used to it.

Definitely don’t look over there.  Yes, the UK has nearly a dozen major parties, 5 of which have 10 or more representatives in Parliament; Japan has the same, only with six parties holding 10 or more members of the National Diet; Germany has 8 parties with 10 more members in the Bundestag and closer to two dozen in total; France has only 5 major parties, but every single one has more than 60 members in their Parliament.  But pay no attention to those countries.  Just pick one of these two shitty options.  It’s your duty to do that.  And also not to question it.

Look, it’s perfectly acceptable for you to do the electoral calculus and come to the conclusion that, if you don’t vote for Biden, you’re throwing your vote away (or, worse, that you’re effectively voting for Trump).  That’s a lovely thing for any individual “you” to do.  But don’t think it’s okay to try to shove that down everyone else’s throat.  And maybe also think about whether it’s okay to just accept that blindly and not believe it can ever change.

While researching this blog post, I came across this article from The Nation.  Now, The Nation is, admittedly, a pretty liberal news outlet, and it should be read with the understanding of that bias going in.  But this article (which you really should read in its entirety) makes some pretty compelling points, which I will quote here.

The astute reader will note that I’ve been comparing Trump to Biden as if this will be the choice facing American voters next fall. But this is a false choice—a false binary that I subscribe to, but that many young voters do not.  ...

...  Many young people felt pressured into voting for him in 2020 because of the unique threat to democratic self-government posed by Trump. That threat is no less real in 2024, but this time around, Biden’s foreign policy is giving young voters a moral stance to pin their dissatisfaction to. And many voters of color who already viewed voting for Biden as merely a harm-mitigation strategy are wondering how the guy who ran against white supremacy now lets his team smear protesters who call for peace as equivalent to the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.

Responding to these valid moral criticisms with “Well, I hope you like it when Trump deports your family and takes away your voting rights” might feel like a cutting retort, but it’s actually a schoolyard bully’s threat masquerading as a political position.  ...

...  But just know that your use of Trump as a threat is not convincing them. The people saying they won’t vote for Biden know that Trump would be worse. They’re saying Biden should be better.

Perhaps the primary difference between Marc Elias and the author of this piece, Elie Mystal, is that Mystal is not an old white man.  He’s not necessarily a young man either, but being a person of color perhaps gives him a much better perspective to see how this “strategy” is becoming tiresome.  The Democrats tell us that democracy is at stake ... just like they told us the last time, and the time before that.  Even if they’re right—and I’m certainly not saying they’re wrong—they need new material.  And they need to stop using it as an excuse to muscle out any other party that tries to horn in on their territory.









Sunday, October 15, 2023

I thought Jared Kushner was going to fix this ...

When the WGA went on strike earlier this year, I was miffed for an entirely selfish reason: I get almost all of my news from places that employ writers, like The Daily Show and Steven Colbert on The Late Show.  Just as when the coronavirus first hit, I was abruptly plunged into a news-free zone.  As I noted back then:

Sure, I could sit around and watch CNN or something along those lines, but I gotta tell you: I spent a long time doing that right after 9/11, and all I got for it was way more stressed and not particularly more well-informed.  In fact, study after study has shown that “fake news” shows such as The Daily Show produce more well-informed viewers than almost any other outlet.  So right now I’m losing not only my major source of news about the world, but also the coping mechanism I was using to deal with the stress of said news: being able to laugh at it.

During this year’s stoppage, I found some new outlets, mostly on YouTube, where creators are not writing for the AMPTP, so the strike allowed them to continue.  Most of them, however, were not nearly amusing enough.  I’ve grown somewhat fond of Brian Tyler Cohen, for instance, but there’s no denying that he’s not only a radical liberal (which I don’t mind so much), but also a staunch Democrat (which I’m far less tolerant of).  Generally speaking, the Democrats are not nearly as liberal/progressive as I’d like, and they fuck up just as badly as the Republicans (case in point: Bob Menendez).  Then there are the “dirtbag left” and their less extreme offshoots, who will happily—even gleefully—attack Democrats, but traffic more in manufactured outrage than incisive and funny commentary.  About the only truly postive find during this long dry spell was Some More News, who are not so much current news like Colbert and whoever ends up being the next Trevor Noah, but more like John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight: deep dives into an single problematic situation, trying to use humor to explore the nuances of the story that traditional news outlets (even the “fake” news ones) just don’t have time to cover.

But now the strike is over, and Colbert is back, Meyers is back, Oliver is back, and The Daily Show will be back tomorrow night.  And just in time for the most violent flare-up between Israel and Palestine in decades; by the time it’s over—and I’m being optimistic just in assuming it will eventually be over—it will almost certainly jettison the “almost” from that description.  This is the type of thing that it is very difficult to inject even a modicum of humor into, but one of the reasons I truly respect these folks is that they always find a way: you can’t make jokes about the tragedy itself, of course, but you can make jokes about the idiots talking about the tragedy, or trying to “manage” it.  You can point out hypocrisies and people being greedy and foolish.  They figured out a way to do it about 9/11 (eventually), and they figured out a way to do it about the pandemic.  And, I have to say: I’m a bit disappointed by the lack of even trying that I’m seeing from my usual outlets.  That probably sounds a bit crass, like I’m complaining that this humanitarian crisis, where thousands are being killed, isn’t funny enough for me.  But that’s not what I mean to imply.  I’m more disappointed in how this is the line that my comedic news idols are afraid to cross.  A world-wide pandemic that killed 7 million people?  Sure, we can find a way to make jokes about that.  The Middle East?  Fuck that, man: I’m not touching that.

I think the main source of the problem is, perhaps more than any other hot-button issue in the United States—perhaps more even than abortion, or gun rights—there are reflexive reactions to stating a position on either side.  If you refuse to say you stand with Israel, well then of course you’re supporting terrorists.  And, if you do say you stand with Israel, then you’re supporting apartheid at the best and genocide at the worst.  Best just not to take a side.  Except ...

Except I reject this false dichotomy.  I do not stand with Israel, nor do I stand with Hamas (or any of the other Paletinian terrorist groups-du-jour).  I stand with the innocent civilians.

Numbers are hard to pin down, but the United Nations says that “More than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, the majority of whom were civilians, were reportedly killed ...” and that ”... at least 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, including older persons and 290 children ...” ABC News reports that “In Israel, at least 1,300 people have been killed ...” and that “Palestinian authorities said at least 2,329 people have been killed ...” Would it really be so controversial to posit that killing innocent civilians is bad, regardless of which side is doing it?

This conflict has been going on so long that people don’t even bother going back to its beginning in their lists any more: the United Nations lists casualties only going back as far as 2008; Wikpedia’s list of military operations headed “Gaza-Israel conflict” only goes back to 2006 (and has 21 entries in those 18 years).  But, trying to extrapolate from Wikipedia’s timeline, I think there have been more than 50 incidents just in my lifetimethe first of which started when I was 7 months old—ranging from plane hijackings to full-on wars.  And I was only trying to count incidents in which multiple innocent bystanders were killed: I skipped all the assasinations of military and political figures by both sides.  Also, once it became clear I was going to hit 50 (easily), I actually quit counting, because it was just so goddamned depressing.  The Israelis and the Palestinians have bcome the Hatfields and McCoys of our lifetimes, except if the Hatfields and McCoys were wiping out huge swaths of the West Virginia population.

And I understand the issues of conflating the state of Israel with the Jewish people, but I don’t think it’s antisemitic to criticize the government of Israel.  If it were, there would quite a few antisemitc Jews these days: Jon Stewart has done some of this, not to mention there’s an entire organization of Jews for whom it is the raison d’être.  But it’s harder for non-Jewish people (such as myself) to do so.  In fact, there are, bizarrely, actual laws in 35 states (including my own) saying that you’re not allowed to boycott Israel in protest of its policies.  You know where it’s not illegal to protest Israel?  Israel.  Many Israeli newspapers have been extremely critical of Netanyahu in particular, which is only sensible: in a democracy, people are supposed to be critical of their governments.  They are supposed to hold them accountable.  There are no laws in the US about not being able to protest the US government (probably), but it’s okay to make it illegal to protest other countries’ governments?  It’s just surreal.

Meanwhile the Palestinians have the opposite problem: too often the face of their people is a group like Hamas (or Hezbollah, or Fatah, or the PLO, or ...), which everybody condemns, and rightfully so.  But condemning a terrorist group that operates in a country is not the same as condemning the people of that country, and expressing support for the people is not the same as expressing support for the terrorist group.  Netanyahu has said that “the enemy will pay an unprecedented price”; does that mean that Hamas will pay this price?  Because it sure seems like it’s the Palestinian people paying it right now.  If the Israelis wanted to hunt down every single Hamas soldier who participated in this henious attack on their country, who would speak out against them?  But bombing innocent civilians back to the stone age because of the actions of some madmen who claim to speak for them?  Does that really seem “justified”?

So I would like to take the (hopefully!) uncontroversial stance that people in both Israel and Palestine have the right to live their lives without fear of being shot, kidnapped, or bombed.  I dunno ... that just seems like common sense—and common decency—to me.



Even More News, the current news discussion podcast from the Some More News folks that I mentioned way back at the beginning of this post, had an almost entirely humor-free discussion of the current situation in Israel and Palestine that you could check out for more in depth discussion.  The episode of Some More News that they reference is actually two years old at this point, but (as Cody says) it’s eerily relevant to today’s news, so you should probably watch that.  The older video does lean more towards the Palestine side, but the recent podcast is more balanced.  And all the information is good regardless.









Sunday, April 16, 2023

The Fox May Grow Grey, but Never Good

Many moons ago, I would often tell people that I didn’t think that Rush Limbaugh believed the things he said.  “This guy,” I would tell anyone who asked, “is just performing for the audience.  Oh, he might believe something he’s saying every once in a while, but it’s almost accidental: believing or not believing is completely irrelevant for him.  He makes a lot of money with this act, and he will literally say anything for the money.”

Now, Rush’s popularity faded, and eventually he died, and younger folks today might not even remember who he was.  But the sad thing is that there was always someone coming along behind him, trotting out the same old act—some even priding themselves on taking it further—saying the same old bullshit, and making the same old bank.  First Bill O’Reilly, who has himself come and gone by this point, then Glen Beck (gone but trying to stage a comeback, I’ve heard), Alex Jones (fading fast), Sean Hannity (still around), and current star pupil Tucker Carlson.  Not to imply that right-wing douchebaggery is only a man’s game, of course—folks like Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro are fighting to break that glass ceiling, for some reason—but it’s mostly been the men, hogging the spotlight, as men are wont to do.  But the point is, there’s always been someone, and usually several someones.  And, for every single one of them, I’ve said, repeatedly, I think it’s all an act.  I don’t believe for one second that any of those motherfuckers believed a single word of the shit they were spewing, except maybe by accident.  Many of them are very well educated, and it’s quite simply not logical to believe they’re that stupid.  ‘Cause, you know, they’ve said some stupid shit.  Limbaugh once said that “firsthand smoke takes 50 years to kill people, if it does” (he, of course, died of lung cancer).  Jones once said “the majority of frogs in most areas of the United States are now gay.” Megyn Kelly (who is not Laura Ingraham, but is a credible imitation) once said “Santa just is white.” Not only do I not believe that any of these people believe what they’re saying, I think they’re engaged in a competition to see who can say the most ridiculous bullshit and make it sound credible.  I imagine a Victorian-style English gentlemen’s club where Hannity, wearing a long walrus moustahce, is slapping Kelly on the back and saying, “oh, good one Megyn! ‘Santa just is white’ ... bally good show, eh wot wot?”

And, for all the decades that I’ve been saying this, people have been telling me I’m full of shit.

Not just conservatives, mind you.  Most liberals also seem convinced that these folks are true believers, which of course is more dangerous.  Though ... is it?  Would it be more dangerous if someone truly believed the hate they were shoveling, or if they were cynically manipulating people into a hate they couldn’t be bothered to feel?  Perhaps an academic question.  Point being, I’ve been ridiculed for having this view just about every time, by just about everybody, from just about every point on the political spectrum.  I’d like to say that I kept saying, “just wait: one day you’ll see.” But, the truth is, I didn’t actually hold out much hope of this.

Oh, I’ve had some glimmers of hope along the way.  In 2017, Alex Jones was involved in a vicious custody battle; his wife, unsurprisingly, said she didn’t want her kids being raised by someone who routinely made homophobic comments and indulged in outlandish conspiracy theories.  Jones’ lawyer claimed: “He’s playing a character.  He is a performance artist.” Kinda sounds like what I’ve been saying for years, right?  But of course people said he was just saying those things to get out of legal trouble (which was probably true).  In late 2016, Glenn Beck did an interview with Samantha Bee of Full Frontal wherein he said: “As a guy who has done damage, I don’t want to do any more damage. I know what I did. I helped divide.” Sure sounds like he not only wasn’t drinking his own Kool-Aid, but had rather come to regret ever selling the stuff.  Still, people said that Sam Bee and her people had edited the interview to show the narrative they wanted to show (which, also, was probably true).

But now, my friends, I have achieved total vindication, thanks to Dominion Voting Systems, and their more than one billion dollar lawsuit against Fox News.  See, because what we’re learning now is not what Fox News people are saying in court; no, what we’re learing now is things they said, to each other, in private, which is now evidence in court.  And I don’t think anyone believes that the court is editing the information to fit a narrative ... in fact, if anything, Fox is the one doing the editing.  Just this week, the judge in the case sanctioned Fox News for withholding evidence.  Plus, as law professor RonNell Andersen Jones pointed out in an interview with Jon Stewart, there’s still a lot of information that is redacted in the court filings.  The stuff that we know about is the stuff that “either they thought that they could let it go or ... they lost in an effort to redact it.”

So what do the texts and other messages say?  By now you’ve likely heard the worst of them.  Tucker Carlson describing Trump as “a demonic force, a destroyer” and writing of the ex-president’s lawyer “Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her”; Ingraham replying “Sidney is a complete nut”; Hannity saying of Giuliani “Rudy is acting like an insane person” and calling Powell a “fucking lunatic.” Not only do the messages show that the on-air personalities didn’t buy the bullshit they were peddling; they also tell us exactly why: it’s all about the money.  When the New York Post asked Trump to stop claiming the election was stolen, they started losing readers; Rupert Murdoch (owner of both the Post and Fox News) messaged the Post’s chief executive “Getting creamed by CNN!” When a Fox reporter tweeted that “there is no evidence” of voter machine defect or fraud, Carlson texted Hannity “Please get her fired.  Seriously what the fuck?  Actually shocked.  It needs to stop immediately, like tonight.  It’s measurably hurting the company.  The stock price is down.” None of this is controversial.  None of this disputed.  None of this is paraphrased or edited in any way.  All of it has been reported multiple times by reputable outlets (the links I’ve included above range from ABC News to the Guardian in the UK to Rolling Stone magazine), and they’re direct quotes from court evidence.  And this, as Andersen Jones points out, is what they couldn’t get suppressed.  There’s like a lot worse out there waiting to be unredacted.

But, hey: this is sufficient for me.  This, I think, proves my point to a T.  These idiots don’t believe what they’re saying.  What’s worse, they don’t care how much damage it does, as long as they keep making money.  At the end of the day, that’s really all it’s about.  So is it more dangerous that they might all be true believers?  I’m not sure.  I think the truth might be even more dangerous than that: that they are all cynical, performative, money-grubbing assholes who care more about lining their pockets than they do about the state of our democracy.  They are, in many ways, the ultimate expression of late-stage capitalism: fuck ’em all, let the world burn, as long as I get my nut.  That’s plenty scary enough for me.



[A side note on today’s title.  Wiktionary refers to it merely as a “proverb,” and says it basically means the same as “a leopard cannot change its spots.” Now, if you ask the Internet, it will gleefully tell you that this saying derives from Benjamin Franklin, and one source (which I refuse to link to) even has the balls to source it as being from Poor Richard Improved.  But, see, here’s the thing: the entire works of Mr. Franklin are available on Project Gutenberg, including Franklin’s Way to Wealth; or, “Poor Richard Improved", and the only thing it says about foxes is that “the sleeping fox catches no poultry.” In fact, after some diligent searching, I have concluded with a decent degree of confidence that Franklin never said any such thing.  So, you know ... don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.  If you want more musings on quotes, I got you covered.]









Sunday, February 6, 2022

Isolation Report, Week #100

It’s been 100 weeks since the start of the pandemic for me.  It may be a bit more or a bit less for you, but it’s probably right around the same ballpark.  Perhaps some might argue that this isn’t the same pandemic—maybe they count each “wave” or new variant as a separate one, or perhaps there are even some people that think it’s basically over now.  I’m guessing those people are the minority though.  I can tell you that it’s been 100 weeks since I’ve seen a single one of my coworkers though ... and I think that qualifies my blog post title as less than hyperbolic.

There was a time late last year when some of the folks from my old office got together to work at one of those shared workspaces (WeWork, if you’re familiar).  At least one other person and I said perhaps we’d hold out a bit longer.  Then omicron hit, and even WeWork was off the table.

Things are better in some ways: don’t get me wrong.  I no longer have to wait in line to get into the grocery store, for instance.  Every food place in my city delivers now ... but of course that’s because all the ones that don’t have gone out of business.  Even for the places where you still have to physically go there (like Target), most of them will let you order online, they’ll bag it up in the store, and bring it out to your car.  I suppose that’s more convenient, in many ways.  I have way fewer meeting to attend at work, I suppose ... but now I’m floundering, trying to look for positives.

I was never a hugely social person.  I don’t particularly care for being alone, but I also don’t like strangers.  This is probably why I spent so many years living with roommates: there’s always someone else around, and it’s always someone you know, at least a little.  The idea of going out shopping and it being a fun thing has always seemed mildly insane to me.  I sort of dug amusement parks and ski vacations and beach trips, but really only if I could go with a group of friends or family.  And I find I don’t really miss them all that much now.

But I do worry that, lacking any reason to go out any more, perhaps I’ll just stay in my house for the rest of my life.  I mean, I go out to the grocery store (although it’s only biweekly instead of weekly now), and occasionally to the chiropractor if I’m feeling particularly inflexible, but that’s about it.  The last time I had to buy gas was December 20th; the last time I had to go to the ATM was November 13th.  There are many satisfying things about having more time to myself to do things, and certainly it’s great to have more time to spend with my kids, but ...

Of course, even if things were to get different, I don’t know how well I’d do.  I’ve gained so much weight at this point that I only have one pair of pants that even fit any more.  The thought of getting on a plane, or sleeping in a bed other than my own, seems ... unpleasant.  The less I’m around people, the less I want to be around people.

And seeing other people on television is definitely not helping.  I really can’t believe there are still people protesting wearing masks.  But also I can’t believe there are still no consequences for not wearing a mask.  To me it feels analogous to seatbelts: people protested wearing seatbelts for a long time too, but eventually they got fined enough that they shut the fuck up about it.  I’m personally in favor of letting all people that want to not get vaccinated and not wear a mask do whatever they like: they just have to sign a waiver that says that they won’t get any hospital treatment once they get COVID.  If that’s too harsh for you, I would also support an alternate plan where such people have separate hospitals—all the health care workers who don’t believe in vaccination could go work there.  See? it’s a free-market solution.

I’m also somewhat at a loss as to how to feel about our current political situation here in the US.  The Republicans seem to have given up entirely pretending that they care about democracy: they just blatantly say nowadays that they’re restricting voting rights so that they can win.  Our former President is back, saying insane things (as usual).  Personally, I think that when “people who did crimes with me” is a large enough demographic that it’s worth appealing to, that ought to indicate a flaw somewhere, but I think those days may be gone for good.  And as to why someone like Kyrsten Sinema would defend an obvious tool of racism like the modern filibuster ... I think I’m in good company in being completely in the dark on that one.  I’m not sure anyone knows—hell, I’m not sure she knows.  (In Joe Manchin’s case, I suspect the answer is just good, old-fashioned racism.)  It’s a whole lot of what-the-fuckery.

In our house, we were all fully vaccinated, for a hot minute.  Now, of course, you’re not considered fully vaccinated unless you’ve gotten a booster shot, so we have to start all over again.  Appointments have been made.  But, even then: I feel like there’s just going to be another booster required eventually, and then another, and then another.  I’m of half a mind to just wait around until I can get ’em all in one go.  There’s really no hurry as far as I’m concerned.  I hardly ever leave the house any more.  I’m not really much at risk at this point.

So, 100 weeks in, some stuff is different; many things are the same.  The future is ... not bright, surely; not hopeless, exactly; not really anything other than inevitable.  It shall be what it shall be.  I know many folks out there are happy to go back to eating at restaurants on a regular basis, or happy to go back to the movies on a regular basis—some have even done so already.  But I don’t think I’m ready for that, and I don’t know how much I miss it.  I miss eating out for lunch with my colleagues, and going to museums with my kids, and our annual Heroscape tourney.  But we’re doing okay.  And we’ll survive.  And, perhaps one day, we’ll get back to being around other people.

One day.









Sunday, November 28, 2021

Research and (Personal) Development

It seems as though it’s become fashionable to make fun of people who say they want to “do their own research.” Every late night host that I watch has done this bit, and I’m sure you’ve heard people doing it on television, online, around the Thanksgiving table ... probably pretty much everywhere.  This bugs me a bit.  I understand why people do it: they’re trying to combat a lot of ignorance and misinformation out there regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, and sometimes it requires extreme measures.  But I still think this is the wrong approach, for a few reasons.

First of all, it’s completely making fun of people for the wrong thing.  I’m not actually opposed to making fun of people who are still claiming they’re going to do their own research on the vaccine.  But don’t make fun of them for wanting to do the research ... make fun them for taking so damned long.  It’s been a fucking YEAR people!  Look, I’m one of the people who said they wanted to do their own research, so, you know what I did?  I did my own fucking research.  It didn’t actually take that long.  The information is out there, easily available, and it comes from multiple sources so you can cross-check accuracy.  At the end of my research, guess what I discovered?  That the vaccines might not be perfect, but they’re WAY better than the alternative.  So I completed my research and then I went out and got vaccinated.  Now it’s a year later and anyone who’s still claiming they’re going to do their own research is full of shit.

Now, there’s also a contingency of folks out there who are pointing out that making fun of people is not really going to change anyone’s mind.  Oddly enough, pointing out to people how stupid they are doesn’t immediately make them want to listen to what else you have to say ... go figure.  While I’m sensitive to this line of reasoning, I also think that it’s probably too late to try to change the minds of folks like these.  And I suspect all those late night hosts have come to the same conclusion.  Still, even though I appreciate this, and I also make fun of those people (if for a slightly different reason), I do have to admit that there’s a certain amount of self-indulgence going on here.  A certain amount of wink wink, nudge nudge, it sure is fun to share a joke with another superior human being about how superior we are to those other inferior human beings, eh?  There are probably better ways to expend the effort.

But the biggest reason that it bugs me to make fun of people for wanting to do their own research is that it seems like it’s sending a very weird message ... a message that’s exactly the opposite of what we really should be sending.  The people who want to do their own research are the ones who don’t want to believe everything they hear on TV, after all.  So, I guess the message that Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah are trying to send me is, just shut up and believe whatever I tell you ... ?  But, see, that’s exactly what got the idiots into trouble in the first place: just blindly believing what some idiot on Fox “News” told them.  So I don’t really think encouraging blind trust in whoever is “smart” enough to get their own TV show is really the message we want to put out into the universe.

It’s a weird feature of the echo chamber that most of us live in these days that we are constantly bombarded by people saying “don’t believe what that idiot told you just because they’re on TV!” and then they expect us to believe them when they say that for exactly that reason.  And what’s weirder is that we do, for the most part.  And what is perhaps the weirdest (and saddest) of all is that we perceive absolutely no irony in this cycle that we’re locked into.

I see a weird parallel with the Republican party’s current trajectory.  See, I’ve long said that the number one threat to our democracy is gerrymandering.  The use of judicious gerrymandering makes it so that Republicans don’t have to appeal to Democratic voters (nor Democrats to Republican voters): the majority of Congressional districts are “safe” ones, where there is essentially zero chance of the other party winning.  The only thing these politicians have to worry about is being “primaried”—that is, being beaten by another member of their own party during the primary.  This has a tendency to push the Republican districts to the far right and the Democratic districts to the far left ... even though neither extreme actually represents the majority of the voters.  This is absolutely a problem with the Democrats too, but the reason I think it’s a bigger problem on the Republican side is that (as I mentioned in one of my isolation reports) the Republicans are not only no longer the majority party in our country, they’re not even #2: there are now more independent voters than Republicans.  So I find the Republican use of this machinery even more offensive, because they’re using it to enforce minority rule—literally subverting democracy.

And recently I heard someone on television pointing this out and saying that it really needed to be addressed.  Except that person wasn’t a Democrat.  It was Chris Christie, a prominent Republican, and one of the few who is currently unafraid to oppose Trump (and actually ran against the man in 2016, although he certainly did spend a fair amount of time kissing his butt in the interim).  I found it weird at first to hear my opinions coming out of the mouth of someone whose party would almost surely suffer if the ideas were implemented, but then it occurred to me that perhaps this man recognizes the echo chamber trap too.  Perhaps the irony that we’re all so bad at perceiving is not lost on him.  I mean, maybe he also believes that drawing the district lines in an unbiased way would be good for democracy.  I mean, that’s not how I thought Republicans were supposed to think ... but then that’s just my echo chamber talking.

I’m glad that Noah (and, to a lesser extent, Colbert) are really making an effort to get more people who are opposed to their point of view on the show.  I always thought Jon Stewart was the best at this: the delicate dance of “I’m going to force you to come out and say that you really believe the bullshit you’ve been spouting, or else categorically deny it” without descending into mean-spiritedness.  I don’t know that Colbert has the knack, as much as I adore the man for his other qualities.  Noah has potential, but I really think he’s just now starting to flex.  It’s not like there’s been more Republicans on The Daily Show recently than Democrats, but certainly more than there used to be: Kristen Soltis Anderson, Dan Crenshaw, and the aforementioned Chris Christie, all in the past month.  I look forward to seeing more discussions like those.  Maybe more breaking out of our respective echo chambers is exactly what we need.









Sunday, July 25, 2021

Where That Rank Smell Is Really Coming From

Here’s another topic I’ve been hearing a lot about and I have a strong opinion on.  We’re hearing this type of thing in lots of places, but I’ll just highlight one.  This is from the quite excellent podcast Election Profit Makers:*

David: This New York City mayor election isn’t going to be over for months, by the way.  I just want to put that out there—with the ranked-choice voting and everything, it’s going to be such a mess.  They’re not going to know who the mayor is until, like, Christmas Eve, I bet.
Starlee: Really?
John: There’s going to be lots of ways.
David: I think it’s going to take at least a month.  That’s my prediction.
Starlee: I still don’t understand it, the ranked-choice voting stuff.

No, no one understands it apparently, and comedians are having a field day making fun of how crazy and messy and silly it all is.  The Daily Show did a whole segment on it, and that’s just the longest parade of jibes I’ve been subjected to in the past couple of months.  The message is constant and clear: this a terrible idea that we should all laugh at.  And I certainly listen to what my media overlords tell me to do.

Well, most of the time.  Because this happens to be an area that I have some personal knowledge of.  You see, I used to work on electronic voting systems.  Back in those days, we called it “instant-runoff voting,” but it’s the same system.  Not only is it trivial to understand, but it’s actually quite good for our democracy.  Hasan Minhaj puts it best in this episode of Patriot Act (I encourage you to watch the whole thing, but this quote occurs at around 13:12):

Winner-take-all creates two-party systems.  You can’t afford to waste your vote, so you stop voting for candidates who reflect your values, and you start voting for ones you think can win.  But when everybody does that, we end up with just two huge mega-parties, even though 57% of Americans want a third party.  Think about the way we treat people who vote third party.  You’d be like, “Dennis, who’d you vote for?” and he’s like “Gary Johnson.” And we’re like “Dennis! what the fuck are you doing, man?” We treat them like they just left a baby in a hot car.  We’re like “what were you thinking?!?”

In fact, I constantly vote for third-party candidates, but that’s primarily because I refuse to let the two-party system win.  “Doing the math” and avoidng third-party candidates is what allows the Democrats and the Republicans to maintain their stranglehold on our political system.  And you can call that a “conspiracy theory” if you like, as long as you acknowledge that this “conspiracy” is an open secret that is enabled every election by millions and millions of people.  So my innate stubborn streak demands that I give the middle finger to all that shit.  But, to be fair, I also have the luxury of living in a state where my second choice always wins, so it doesn’t matter who single-little-old-me votes for.  If I lived in a more contentious location—a “battleground” state, as the media likes to call them—would I still have the courage of my convictions?  I don’t know.  On the one hand, I can tell you that I have voted third-party before when I lived in Virginia, and the winner there was never a foregone conclusion.  But, on the other hand, I can also tell you that the thought of voting for anyone other than Biden in the last election anywhere other than a solidly-blue state makes me very anxious.  So, I honestly don’t know.

But IRV (or, going by its new name, “ranked-choice voting” or RCV) solves all that.  With this system, if your #1 choice doesn’t have a chance in hell, that’s fine: your vote for the #2 choice still matters.  So I really don’t get why the media heaps all this derision on the whole concept.  (Of course, I never understood why the media heaped all their derision on Bernie Sanders either.  I mean, I understood why the Democratic Party did, and certainly some of that bled over into the media coverage, but you would think at some point someone would have to have the guts to stand up and say “hey, the idea that no one should have to die because they can’t afford health insurance is not a crazy idea that we should be laughing at” ... but that never happened.  Colbert couldn’t do it, Poundstone couldn’t do it, Kimmel and Fallon and Meyers couldn’t do it, and they’re all pretty famously liberal icons.  Trevor Noah came the closest, but I suspect that he’s about as anti-Democrat as he is anti-Republican: presumably due to his South African perspective.  Of course, Minhaj posits that anti-Bernie sentiment is also due to the winner-take-all system—back that video above up to about 12:18.  In this view, the media is just desperately piling onto Bernie because plurality rule combined with, shall we say, creative redistricting means that Bernie can’t possibly win, and therefore we all need to get behind the blandest possible candidate.  But I digress.**)

The concept that IRV/RCV is complex for the person voting is just mind-boggling to me.  What’s your favorite food?  Okay, now what’s your second-favorite?  In other words, if you couldn’t have your first favorite—it’s not on the menu, or maybe the restaurant just ran out of it that night—what do you pick then?  This is so intrinsic to our human existence that explaining it is belaboring the point.  It’s like if I were to try to “explain” to you how to walk.  I might have to go into a lot of details about how your joints move, and how the myriad of bones in your ankles fit together just so, and the flexing of the muscles in the soles of your feet, and how you maintain your balance, and meanwhile you’ve already walked across the room and back five or six times.  You just know how, because it’s a thing you’ve been doing since you were first able to communicate with your parents—most likely before you could even properly talk.  No, you can’t have that thing that you’re trying to grab with your cute little baby fist.  Take this instead.

We could make a stronger argument that it’s complex at the other end, the part where you figure out who won.  But, the first thing to note is, you the voter don’t have to understand that part.  You vote, and then the winner gets announced.  Forget any ranked-choice anything: how much do you understand about voting “the old way”?  Do you know how write-ins work?  Do you know what a contested ballot is?  Do you know the technical details of how the votes are tallied?  Sadly, these things are getting more and more media attention as voting becomes more and more contentious, but I’ll still posit that most of you don’t know those things, and even if you think you do because you saw a news story about it, you probably still don’t, because the news story was likely wrong.  Also, it doesn’t matter whether you know the things or not: the winner is who the winner is, and, unless you’re one of the few people who has a political or legal connection to those election results, your knowledge or lack thereof makes exactly zero difference.

But let’s say we want transparency in our democracy, because transparency is always good, and so we want to understand how the results work even though we don’t have to.  Okay, fine: here it is.  You count everyone’s #1 votes.  Their #2 choices and #3 and so forth mean absolute squat.  You only look at the #1’s.  Does the person with the most votes have a majority (that is, more than 50% of the vote)?  If so, you’re done.  If not, all votes for the person with the least votes are eliminated.  If anyone picked that person as their #1, then their #2 is now their #1, and so forth—every choice just moves up a slot.  Now start over: count all the #1’s, other picks don’t count, does the candidate with the most votes have a majority?  Keep doing that till someone wins.  The end.

This is not a complex process.  If I wanted to adopt a less conversational tone, I could have used fewer words, but, even so, it’s pretty short.  IRV/RCV is about as “complex” as a baking recipe: there may be a lot of steps, and you have to do every step just so, but there’s nothing particularly difficult to grasp here.  It’s not calculus, or physics, or computer science.  Hell, I would consider most sports to be more complex than this stuff: try explaining to someone how basketball works in as few words as I just used.  Can’t be done, unless you leave out a lot of relevant details (i.e. the difference between a two-point shot and a three-pointer, or how fouls work).  There’s no details left out of the above explanation.  That’s literally all there is to it.

So what about this question about how long it takes to figure out the winner?  Well, first we should note that that, despite David Rees’ dire predictions, it did not take “months” for the winner of the New York City mayoral primary to be announced.  In fact, it took exactly two weeks (the primary voting closed on June 22 and the final results were announced on July 6).  And I would argue that it only took that long because the board of elections had a pretty major fuck-up in that time.  But suppose you think that even two weeks is too long to have to wait.  After all, we live in a culture that demands everything be faster: we want it all and we want it now.  One of my favorite observations on our modern world comes from science populist James Gleick’s book Faster:

Federal Express sold its services for “when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.” In the world before FedEx, when “it” could not absolutely, positively be there overnight, it rarely had to.  Now that it can, it must.

This is becoming more and more problematic with elections, because we’ve never known the results right away.  There’s a reason why “Dewey Defeats Truman” is one of the most famous photographs of the 20th century.  It’s supposed to be a cautionary tale about how our obsessive need for speed can lead us into false conclusions.  But somehow it’s become a meme about how newsapapers are stupid, and then we go back to throwing fits when we can’t find out who won the presidential election for a whopping 3½ days.  And the weird part is, most of this blowback is because of the rejection of electronic voting.  One of the major benefits of electronic voting was that we could get the results faster.  So most locations implmented that, and then people got used to getting results almost instantaneously.  And then there was this big backlash against electronic voting—and I’ll have to defer my opinions on how baffling that is for another post—so a lot of locations went back to counting things by hand, and now shit takes a long time again.  I think we just have to learn to deal with it.  Or else get over this completely overblown fear of electronic voting, because I can tell you from actual personal experience that a computer does not take months nor even days to calculate the winner of an IRV/RCV election: it takes seconds.  But, as I say, that’s a different post: the point is, if we want to believe that counting by hand is more secure, then we just have to accept that it’ll take longer, and that has little to do with whether we’re using ranked-choice systems or not.

I hope that more people will work to understand how easy ranked-choice voting is rather that just dismissing it with jokes and “commentary” that basically just boils down to “I know, right?” I think it really has the potential to change our political system for the better, and, quite honestly, it’s one of the few such things that I believe has any chance of actually being implemented.  It’s worth your time to look past the cheap shots and figure out what it can do for us as a country.



__________

* Specifically, from episode #95 (“All Hail the Harmonica Ripper”) which released on 5/25/2021 (starting at around 21:50).

** Or do I?











Sunday, April 25, 2021

Isolation Report, Week #59

This week saw a few things to give us hope.

Firstly and most crucially, the man who murdered George Floyd was found guilty.  The news told us that it was the first time in all of Minnesota’s history that a white police officer was convicted of killing a black man, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it weren’t the first instance of that in our whole country ... or at least one of the first.*  Coupled with a recent story of a black female officer who had been fired for stopping a white officer from killing a black suspect and finally won her lawsuit restoring her back pay and pension,** could this indicate things are actually changing for the better?  It’s hard to say.  Certainly we can’t say things are all better now.  Certainly we have much farther to go.  But a journey of a thousand miles, as they say, starts with a single step.  Even if all we have for now is that step, surely that’s still a good sign ... right?

As far as the actual pandemic goes, the vaccines are here, and finally it’s getting easier to get them.  In our household, there’s one appointment made, and one actual initial dose received—just earlier today, in fact.  That’s progress toward an inevitable state of full vaccination for all the humans here in the house.  Still, I wonder ... even after we’re all vaccinated, will things then be back to “normal”?  Being vaccinated, they say, doesn’t preclude you from potentially infecting others, so you still need to wear the masks.  And the virus has several new mutations: will the vaccine protect against those?  Even if you believe so, will you have enough faith in that to put yourself in a crowded space full of potential disease vectors?  Because it’s not just COVID-19, you know ... more COVIDs will come, and completely other diseases ... swine flus, avian flus, ebolas, zikas.  Maybe it’ll just be safer to stay home.  We have Amazon, and food delivery, and a biweekly veggie box.  We have five or six streaming services and a lot of videogames.  We have a decent Internet connection and no office to go back to any time in the foreseeable future.  Maybe this is the new normal.

I hope not.  But, as my mom was fond of saying when I was a kid: wish in one hand, shit in the other—see which one gets full first.  So I’ll continue to hope, but I won’t hold my breath or anything.



__________

* An article from USA Today suggests it might be the sixth.  In our 250-year history.

** This actually happened last week, but this week’s events put me in mind of it.











Sunday, February 14, 2021

Isolation Report, Week #49

[You could also read the most recent report, or even start at the beginning.]


Well, it’s a been a few weeks since I checked in on the political front, and that means it’s been long enough that the Senate performed exactly as expected and acquitted Trump of inciting the riot that stormed the Capitol and resulted in several deaths.  The majority of the Republicans, of course, had made up their minds beforehand.  If this were an actual trial, such potential jurors would have been dismissed as prejudiced ... in fact, the roots of the word “prejudiced”—meaning to “pre-judge”—are specifically referring to this type of behavior.  There were apparently only seven Republicans who were brave enough to vote to convict someone of doing something they very obviously did (on video, even!), and two of them aren’t running for re-election.  Think about what that means: for 86% of Republicans (or at least 86% of Repulican senators) care more about getting re-elected than about being honest.  Even if you’re a Republican, that should concern you.  Even if you believe Trump that the election was stolen, you can see that he did the thing he’s being accused of, right?  Hell, even if you agree that storming the Capitol was the right thing to do, and even if you believe that the Deep State government has no right at all to hold him accountable for his actions, you still understand that he incited the riot ... right?  Hell, if you were at the riot, you believe that: the Senators were shown footage of rioters chanting “We were invited by the president of the United States!” So he did it.  There isn’t much debate about that.  Senators voting to acquit are lying.  Maybe we could dream up some motives for that lie other than wanting re-election, but sometimes (as William of Occam was wont to say) the simplest explanation is the right one.

To be fair, many Republicans are concerned about this.  So much so that many prominent Republicans met to discuss the possibility of forming a new party.  They eventually rejected that idea, though, because a third party would not be successful.  Which right there ought to tell you that we have a serious problem with our system.  “We have to stay with the crazy people because the system is designed to help them remain in power” is never the position you want to be in.  And, honestly, my problem with this whole plan is partially the Democrats.  Sure, I’m absolutely a progressive and more or less a liberal, but I am not a Democrat.  I don’t want the Democrats to have too much political power and control everything from here on out any more than the more conservative among you do.  Furthermore, the Democrats are half the reason that a third party is not viable.  For all that they tear at each other’s throats, when it comes to shutting out third parties, the Democrats and the Republicans are in lockstep.  And, ironically, they will now pay the price for that decision, because having the Republicans split in two would only help the Democrats.

Ah, but enough about politics.  How’s our pandemic going?  Well, not so great, honestly.  The Mother had to go to the emergency room for severe pain about 3 weeks ago; they completely ignored her advising them that it was probably her gallbladder and said maybe she had some strained muscles in her back, shot her full of a souped up version of ibuprofen and sent her home.  She got an appointment with her doctor, who told her it was probably her gallbladder but she needed an MRI to confirm.  She got the MRI, the results said it was her gallbladder, and shd had a followup appointment with her doctor next week.  But, before that could come around, she was back in the emergency room with even more extreme pain, and this time they had the brains to work out that, hey: maybe it’s her gallbladder.  So, this past Monday, after spending the weekend in the hospital, she had an emergency gallbladder removal.  She’s fine now, and home, and recovering, albeit somewhat slowly.

Now, you may remember we have this little thing called a pandemic going on right now—it’s sort of the basis for this blog post series, in fact.  What’s it like, having to go to the hospital in the middle of the pandemic, even if for a non-pandemic-related cause?  Well, the first thing is, I can’t tell you firsthand: the farthest I ever got into the hospital was the front desk, when I went to drop off some knitting and a cell phone charging plug.  In fact, even taking her to the emergency room meant driving her, dropping her off at the door, then waiting in the parking lot until they let her in.  Yep, that’s right: when you walk up to the emergency room (at least ours), a security guard comes out, asks you what you’re in for, then makes you wait outside while they figure out what to do with you.  Once they did let her in, all I could really do was go home and wait for news.  I didn’t see her again until they wheeled her out to go home.  (And of course that was days and days later, because I dropped her off on a Friday night, and when you need “emergency” surgery on a weekend, that means you wait until Monday.  But that’s probably a whole separate rant.)

But my secondhand report is, the hospital staff is haggard.  They’ve had to see a lot of death lately, and they’re probably being pushed to their limits ... if not beyond.  I could almost forgive the original idiot doctor who misdiagnosed her with “back pain,” except for the extra $400 it’s going to cost me (that’s what it’ll cost me, mind you: it’s going to cost the insurance company much more).  But we’re lucky enough to have a hospital very close to us, and second time was the charm and she got a good doctor, and excellent nursees, and overall we’re pretty happy.  And, even though she’s still in a lot of pain from the surgery itself, the lack of a gallbladder full of gallstones (which the surgeon described as “highly inflamed”) means that she feels a lot better than she did when she went in.  So we can’t complain.  Too much.

Hopefully we’ve exhausted our drama quotient for the year (both personally and politically), and the rest of 2021 will be completely boring.  At this point, I’m looking forward to that.