Discussing r/hermancainaward

 So, there's a subreddit out there known as the Herman Cain Awards. Basically, it's the Darwin awards, but for COVID denialists who kick the bucket due to their own ignorance. Named after Herman Cain, the republican ex politician who died from COVID after dying its effects. 

Essentially, people who are COVID denialists and start posting anti vax stuff on their social media, who then contract COVID and die, have their posts screenshotted and posted on reddit for all to enjoy. It makes sense, and in my opinion it's kind of entertaining, but lately it's come under fire for a variety of reasons.

First of all, people start getting all uppity about "celebrating death". And how the people who post on there must be monsters to make fun of people who got the virus and died. To comment on this, uh, it's not really celebrating. It's more just looking at how stupid these people are, and how they died from their own stupidity. As the saying goes, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, and why shouldn't people grab the popcorn when these ignorant people who are holding society back do themselves in? Quite frankly, virtually no one who is posted on there isn't posted on there because they dug their own grave. And honestly, I don't think anyone literally celebrates them dying. It's more morbid gallows humor than anything. If anything, I just see it as a waste. 95% of these people would've lived statistically if they got the shot, but they didn't. The subreddit itself is very pro vaccine, and if anything, it's heartbreaking. In between people digging their own graves, there were also posts on there from front line medical workers going on about how crazy this crisis is. And it is. It's heartbreaking. Most of these deaths could have been avoided. And if anything I think most people hope they're a stern warning to others. And honestly, there have been posters on there who were anti vax and got their vaccine because of that subreddit. So it's not all bad, and the sub actually has a lot of positive purposes. Like, if anything, it's an important part of vaccine advocacy in my opinion. A sort of "scared straight" program for anti vaxxers. Will it reach everyone? no. But it does help more than it hurts.

Now, more recently the sub has come under fire for different reasons. Mostly due to the fact that the posts aren't censored when they're posted. Identifiable information is included, and this has led to doxxing and harassment incidents. This is wrong. I believe in a point and laugh nature of these subreddits. It's fine to look at stupid crap people said that later got them into hot water, it's another to harass the people involved. That said, I believe the reddit admins are taking proper and necessary action toward the sub on that front. Some have argued this undermines the legitimacy of the posts as people might think they're faked, but let's be honest, people have a right to privacy, and i can see the ethical issues with posting peoples' personal social media posts on reddit for all to see, for whatever reason. This applies to more political subs too. It's been a long standard policy with subs like crap(insert group)say and enough(insertgroup)spam that the identifiable information is stripped out of posts to stop harassment. That's fair, and I can see how that goes against the policy of reddit. However, I still believe the sub serves a valid purpose and should exist, and I personally think a lot of people need to chill. 

We've lost nearly 700,000 people to this disease in the US as of me writing this, and past the first 400-500k, most of those deaths were arguably avoidable. And heck half of those first 400-500k were arguably avoidable too given Trump's mismanagement and downplaying of the virus. We live in a country where people don't socially distance, they don't wear masks, they don't take vaccines, and they act so high and mighty for it, claiming it's their freedom. And then they die, sometimes taking others with them as the process as, hello? This is a contagious disease and the vaccine isn't foolproof. It's almost like these people are naturally selecting themselves out of the gene pool by acting like this. And we're giving them a sort of "darwin award" for it. By the way, the darwin awards aren't new, why are the herman cain awards suddenly under fire when people have been watching people stupidly kill themselves for decades now?

I mean, generally speaking I see why reddit admins are forcing a rule change, but other than that, I don't see the controversy. We're not causing these peoples' deaths, if anything we've been trying to prevent them for the past two years and people just don't listen. We're genuinely frustrated by this. Why not have some gallows humor on the subject? People just get obnoxiously self righteous for no reason I think. 

Honestly, I'm just gonna end this with how I end every article about COVID and vaccines. By telling you, SERIOUSLY, GET THE SHOT. I don't want you to be given a herman cain award here. Getting awarded for this is not a good thing. And dying of COVID, according to the nurses on that subreddit, is terrifying. Really, do yourself a favor. Get the shot. There's no tricks. I want you to live.

Just a little factoid for those who keep repeating this statistic...

 When people keep pointing out that COVID19 has a 99% survival rate, they're kind of ignoring that there's 329 million people in the US. And that 1% of that is 3.29 million people. That's literally like having over a thousand 9/11s. And we invaded two countries over that, violated civil liberties, and people today still circlejerk about how that "united" the country. While I don't want that kind of unity again, as it's creepily authoritarian and did a lot of good, imagine if people had just enough civic virtue to get a vaccine or wear masks. 

But yeah, 3 million people, often in excess of what we already have per year from other causes. Kind of hits different in that context, doesn't it? Not including how many people survive COVID but it screws up their body so much they have complications for years. It's not very nice to catch it, and thankfully it's now mostly preventable, if only you people would take a couple needles in your arm. Get the shot.

No Bernie, Biden hasn't embraced the left

 So, I pointed out the Starmer-Bernie exchange in another article, and what I think about the UK's political system, but this time, I want to focus on Bernie's response. Bernie basically responded to Starmer that Biden has embraced the left and Starmer should do.

Bernie...no. Look, I've pointed this out before, but Bernie Sanders needs to STOP simping for the Biden administration. It makes him look weak and pathetic. Is this what your legacy is, Bernie? A milquetoast infrastructure bill that is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise? I'm sorry, but I'm not thrilled with the Biden administration's ideas of progress. He was watered down in the primaries, watered down in the general election, his proposals are often even more watered down on issues like healthcare, and while he offered some decent proposals like the child tax credit, free childcare, and 2 year free college, he has failed on so many other things and a lot of those things are subject to assault from the most moderate sellout rotating villain type congresspeople and senators. 

Biden is a joke. I'm sorry, he is. I mean, he's done a couple good things, but only a couple. He's nowhere near as progressive as I am, and as I said I'm to the right of most socialist types. I'm sorry, but this is getting old and it really is a shame to see the democrats massacre him and his legacy like this. I'm deeply disappointed in Sanders as of late. I even respect AOC more, who is subject to the left's ire right now. At least when she obviously "sells out" its quite clear she's being blackmailed and she's doing it in tears. There's a real person there who knows this is wrong and is being forced to do something against her will by a corrupt system. Bernie is way too enthusiastic on selling Biden. 

Honestly, Yang is the future for me. The more I learn about Forward Party, the more I like. It does seem quite clear that working ithin the party is a dead end. They got to Bernie, they're getting to AOC, and now they're singing their tune. It's disgusting. I'm just done with the democratic party. 

Taking down "Universal Basic Services"

 Okay, so, this is a topic I see come up quite often among both craplibs and socialists, with it being a seeming favorite of socialists in particular (let's face it the welfarists aren't cool enough to support even this). Essentially, people criticize basic income, for a variety of reasons. Either basic income won't provide for peoples' needs, and giving people money just means inflation goes up and rent goes up, or people won't spend the money properly. Either way, they argue basic income won't solve the problems that it is intended to solve, and we cannot leave these problems to market based interactions. Therefore, we need to provide these services to people directly. Instead of giving people money for food, we need to give them food. Instead of giving them money for housing, we need to give them housing.

Okay, so, forgive me for being snarky, but you want to know what that sounds like? COMMUNISM! And I mean that in the pejorative way that most Americans think of when the term comes up. Look, when the average American has to describe communism and what makes it so unappealing it's this. It's essentially this all powerful leviathan of a government that controls who gets resources and what resources peole are entitled to. It robs people of their freedom. You don't get to choose where you live, the government gives you a house and that is that. You don't get to choose what you eat, the government gives you food and that is that. This opens the door to all sorts of abuse. What if you don't like the food, or the housing? Well, tough crap. That's what you're entitled to. Deal with it.

 In a more capitalist society, with welfare, it would take on a particularly cruel approach. Basic income is intended to remove the stigma of welfare. By giving people money rather than stamps or tokens to specific goods and services, it puts everyone on equal ground, there is no stigma associated with getting a UBI, because everyone gets it. Basic services would implement a two tiered system where stigma still exists, and the worst goods and services will be given to the poor in order to ensure they remain miserable in order to coerce them to work. So basic services could be used to go against indepentarian ideals in order to force them into the labor market. We already see this happen in Theresa Funiciello's book, "The Tyranny of Kindness", which describes how poor and inferior goods and services given to the poor often are. Scott Santens read some chapters of the book here, and I feel it's relevant to post it. 

Another problem is how basic services would lead to welfare traps. Say the government gives you a house. Say you get a job and want to move? Well, now you gotta move out and rely solely on your own income, recreating the problem UBS was intended to solve in the first place. You can phase out a UBI with taxes or clawback mechanisms, but what does the government do when you can start to stand on your own two feet? Give you half a house? UBS will inevitably lead to the same welfare traps that exist in welfare, and is a huge reason why it's just a bad policy. Look at how flawed the ACA's approach to healthcare is, where if you're poor you can get medicaid, and then there's a gap for people just above that who can't realistically afford insurance and healthcare, because they're not poor enough to get government aid, but too poor to actually afford it, well, that's what these kinds of schemes encourage. And this actually does discourage positive incentives to work, leaving nothing but the stick approach welfare often imposes on people.

If you give this stuff to everyone regardless of income okay that solves that problem, but now we're back to the government telling everyone what they can and can't consume again. And having two systems could be wasteful as well. Why should you buy your own food if you don't like the government's food? Should you get a tax refund if you don't take the government's food? Gee, wanna know what that sounds like? A UBI in a way. So why not just give people UBI? It's just a stupid, complex, bureaucratic system.

Now, to be fair, I'm not an ideologue on this subject. I feel like capitalists and socialists all get in their respective camps and fail to see nuance. You have individualist capitalists who believe the market is the solution to everything and therefore everything must be privatized. This is harmful. There are industries that are fundamentally broken when subject to a for profit market model. Healthcare, education, and childcare are a few of these. I don't support market everything. I obviously support some level of "universal basic services" for all, but generally speaking only for industries that are broken and face market failures. Housing is a tricky one since I obviously don't believe in it being a "universal basic service", but I also understand it's a market failure and a tricky subject.

On the flip side, you got people who don't believe in capitalism, or markets at all, and believe they're categorically bad and that socialism is a categorical good. These guys are just as naive and stupid in my opinion. I don't believe we should have some sort of centralized command economy where the government determines what everyone gets. Government suffers from the economic calculation problem for one, and for two, a government that powerful can easily be corrupted. I mean, our current government is corrupted and I don't trust their motives half the time anyway. I support some government run services, but I try to thread the needle in a way where I'm collectivist where I need to be while still supporting individualism and freedom. It's the essence of being  a left libertarian.

That said, I'm going to have to say I'm a hard no on "universal basic services". We should have a UBI along side a handful of universal services like medicare for all, free college, and universal childcare. That's the best approach. A command economy is just as bad or worse than privatized everything. Using facts rather than pure ideology is a better way to approach this subject. 

Discussing Germany's election results

 Another thing that the neolibs and centrist democrats are being smarmy about is the German election results. Basically, a lot of the snarkiness comes from the failure of "Die Linke", or "the left", which is Germany's far left borderline communist party. They like to link that stuff to Sanders supporters and people to the left of them, and just...no. 

Before I begin let me remind people of my views. While there was a short phase on this blog I was somewhat curious about socialism, I've generally speaking always had a leery skepticism of it due to my conservative days and pragmatic, policy oriented nature. The thing is, while I am open to market socialism, I don't think it's the end all of politics, and the more hardcore anti capitalist versions that want to abolish markets come off as scary. Still, I recognize there are many degrees of politics between neoliberals and literal communists, and theres many shades of politics that exist between those extremes. And that's kind of the point of this article, to discuss the results, the parties that won and lost, and explain where they are on the spectrum. So let's begin.

Social democratic party (SPD)

The big winners were the SPD, which is the social democratic party. And looking at what they're for, they're basically a mainstream social democratic party that I would describe as being to the democrats' left. It was originally a Marxist party, but then it moderated over time and is split between keynesian social democrats (think FDR), and more moderate people who might be more in line with democrats. Still, the left wing influences on the policy within the party are apparent, and tend to be for a generous welfare state, economic regulation, and all that jazz. Honestly, while I could see myself voting for the SPD, I can't imagine many neolibs circlejerking about Die Linke losing would.

Who would they vote for? Well, that's easy, the second largest faction in the new government.

CSU/CDU

This is a coalition of the Christian democratic union and the Christian social union of Bavaria. Essentially this is an economically center right party. On social issues, they are somewhat conservative, but they are also fairly pro EU, so there are some differences between say, the conservative party in the UK. Essentially, this is what I would compare democrats/neoliberal to. Angela Merkel, for those familiar with her politics, is from this party. And I want to emphasize, this is the mainstream CONSERVATIVE party. Democrats in the US are literally moderate right wingers in Europe. But yeah, they are the second largest party in Germany combined, and represent a formidable coalition. While the SPD got 26% of the vote, these guys got 24%, so they're no slouches.

The greens

Yes, the freaking GREEN PARTY is the third largest party in Germany with 15% of the vote. We should have an idea already what the greens are about as they seem to exist in every western country in some form. The German version seems to focus primarily on social justice activism and environmentalism. They seem a bit more moderate than the US's green party on economics, but they're still solidly liberal it seems. 

Free Democratic Party (FDP)

These guys won 12% of the vote and are essentially right libertarians/"classical liberals". Essentially they are laissez faire on economics, but on social issues are extremely progressive. See how powerful even the libertarian party could be if we didn't have the two party system in America.

Alternative for Germany (AFG)

Do you want to *cough* Make Germany Great Again? AFG is a far right conservative party that is a mixture of tea partyism and Trumpism. Said to have associated with neo-nazis. Basically, this is the republican party in the US these days. They got 10% support. See how weak the GOP could be if we had a multiparty system in America.

Die Linke

This is the party the neolibs are laughing about imploding. These guys are a full on democratic socialist party. Their coalition ranges from communists to social democrats and tend to be a catch all for the far left of the political spectrum. They only got 5% of the vote, and apparently had a lot of their voters leave for other parties, including the AFG for some reason. So they didn't really have a strong voter base in the first place.

Analysis

There are other parties, but they're relatively minor and didn't win many seats or get substantive parts of the vote. Looking at Germany's political system, they have a healthy variety of choices. And given that variety, there's a lot of overlap and competing for various demographics. Social democrats are the biggest faction, with a moderate right wing party being the second party. Hardcore right, and left wing politics have support, but it's small. Most vote for more moderate parties, and they probably make people happy. 

I mean just to comment on Die Linke losing, I don't see much of a point in supporting them. They attract all the left wing extremists, but apparently don't seem to have much that meaningfully differentiates them from the more mainstream SPD. And I'd imagine unless you are hardcore on "socialism" and "communism' and far leftism, you really wouldn't have much of a reason to support such a party.

I mean, if I were voting in the German elections and had to choose between the 6 parties, I'd most likely vote SPD, given the greens don't explicitly support UBI. It just fits my politics best. But, in America, I'd easily take Bernie over the craplibs in the democratic party, who sound like conservatives from Merkel's Christian Democratic Union to me. Because that's how screwed our political spectrum is in America. It's an election between the CDU/CSU and the AFG. That's how screwed we are. The only reason Bernie as a democratic socialst has the support he does as a democratic socialist is because socdems and anyone between that center right mentality and the far left have nowhere to go and are forced to choose. I always say Bernie supporters and Biden supporters shouldn't even be in the same party, and in the German system, there's at least one, if not two degrees of separation between those extremes.

To be honest though, given Germany DOES have such a wide variety of parties, including relatively minor parties, my ideal party actually would be one of those. Being Yang Gang, I'd actually be supporting the Basic Income Alliance as my first choice, with SPD being my second more mainstream choice. Gotta support that basic income, and in a more European system where they're actually further left in the first place I'd be more comfortable voting my ideals than even in America (keep in mind despite democrats acting like I'm an ideologue I actually compromise a lot to get some progress). 

But yeah, it's always fun watching neolibs circlejerk about the left losing, when they don't seem to realize in European countries their ideologies and policies more closely resemble center right parties than anything on the left. I'm "far left" in America, but if I were in Europe I'd actually only be center left.

Discussing Keir Starmer's comments on Bernie Sanders

 So, Kier Starmer, head of the British labor party, was recently asked why he doesn't embrace the left in his own party. As we know from previous analyses into British politics, the left tends to...have issues. There was Corbyn, he was considered "too far left", it was claimed this cost them votes, and a lot of people have been trying to push the democrats in a more moderate direction a la democrats in the US. Really, a lot of democrats like to do this whole CENTRISM WINS thing where they think they're "the model" for the "the left" to follow, and its sickening. Anyway, when asked why they don't embrace their left, they said "Bernie Sanders". Allow me to laugh. And then Bernie shot back, basically saying that we have a moderate who has embraced the left in the form of Joe Biden. And Sanders' Biden simping once again makes me wanna puke. 

Okay, look, I looked at British politics before. And here's my impression of it. The conservative party, which has an overwhelming majority, is very moderate compared to American policy. Johnson's policies look kind of similar to what Biden campaigned on. They even use the same slogan, "build back better." While Biden has admittedly shifted a little further left due to pressure from Sanders, all in all, they're not much different on economics. And given Biden's border policy, I'm beginning to wonder how different they are on immigration either, as Johnson is basically just a more sane version of Trump on that front. 

The left wing party in Europe is crazy far left. Labor is basically a lot like the most die hard greens. They tend to have very strong marxist influences, and make Bernie look like a moderate. And it seems like their voter base generally speaking likes them that way. Do you think that there haven't been more moderate parties between the two over the years? I mean there is the liberal democratic party, and pretty much no one votes for them. A problem a lot of moderate parties have, especially in non FPTP systems, is they cant maintain their coalition. Democrats do it because we have a two party system and people have to either vote for democrats or get nothing. I don't believe a lot of people truly LIKE the democrats. They tolerate them, because they have nowhere else to go (which is why I'm leaning toward third parties like the greens and the forward party). But in Europe? That crap doesn't fly. People tend to vote more for what they want and don;'t need to compromise as much. And parties like the libdems end up alienating their voter bases after a while, which is why people are split either between the conservative party or the labor party.

Now, is the labor party too far left for the majority? Perhaps. But I don't see triangulation as helping. I've heard nothing but negativity toward Starmer, and believe that he's just causing labor to become more unpopular. Here's the thing. Anyone who isn't really on board with labor is gonna vote conservative anyway. And it seems like labor is shedding a lot of its older, rural, working class voters, in a similar trend to what's happening in America. A lot of people in the older generations are for Brexit, labor is kind muddying the waters in terms of what it's for, and it just isn't in a good position. I don't necessarily have answers here for the labor party. If they shift center, they'll likely lose more voters, and I don't see them picking anything up. As much as centrist dems in the US love to tout triangulation and moderation, I really don't believe that stuff is popular with anyone outside of a handful of people. Most people just seem to like what Johnson is selling. And until the conservatives lose their popularity, which they probably will with enough time, I don't believe the left can make a come back there. I'm just trying to discourage people from blaming the left on this front. No one likes a crappy compromise party. Crappy compromise parties don't get voters if people don't like what they're selling. If crappy compromise parties were popular, the liberal democrats would probably do a better job. And if anything, the conservatives are the crappy compromise party. They're moderate. They're the right side of the overton window and they're basically just to Biden's right. Isn't that a much more healthy dynamic than America where tea party and Trump whackos control one party and the other is controlled by moderates everyone hates? I'd rather have the UK's political spectrum than ours any day, and that's another thing centrists in America don't understand. Outside of their sacred cow social issues, most centrist dems in the US would probably be conservative voters in the UK, or be part of that tiny sliver of voters that actually votes libdem.

The US strategy only works because the democrats have enough institutional power to force themselves on everyone and enough propaganda machines to bully people into supporting them. If we had a UK type system, I bet the country's two parties would split into 4+ overnight. You would probably have a labor style party led by Bernie Sanders, a more moderate libdem party run by Biden, a Trump/Tea party party, and probably another conservative party madeup of moderate conservatives. And you might even see a Yang type party. So, five or more. And for all we know Biden might still win because that would also allow a German style CSU/CDU coalition (more on that in the next article). But, in that world, the republicans would lose a lot of right wing voters, and the democrats would lose the left and gain the center. And I bet over time power would shift between the various factions. 

The fact is, the American political system as it exists is held together primarily by the two party system, and this can't be replicated elsewhere. And if the democrats were to succeed in a multi party system, it would be simply because they end up with a coalition similar to the CONSERVATIVE European parties. Again, Johnson isnt fundamentally much different from Biden. And for the record, CSU/CDU in Germany are the RIGHT wing parties. More on that in the next article since I feel like I gotta teach the neolibs a thing or two there too.

Discussing the claim "if you believe humans don't deserve food by default, you're a victim of economic propaganda"

 So, on a forum I frequent, this phase came up, and I felt like it was worth discussing. This is going to be odd given my worldview, but I honestly kind of dispute this. 

Here's the thing. The perspective of anti work comes from a position of relative privilege, in terms of societal development. The idea that everyone has to work is based on the mindset of economic scarcity, essentially that there is not enough resources to go around, and therefore everyone needs to work to earn their keep. This has been demonstrably true for most of human history. In hunter gatherer societies, they didn't just give people food willy nilly. Most had to work for it in some form. And in agricultural societies up until the 1800s or so when capitalism and the industrial revolution became a thing, people had to work to plant crops and feed people. Most worked in agriculture and lived hard lives doing so. And it made sense that if you didn't, that you would probably starve. To encourage people to work in such conditions, they had to withhold food from them if they wouldn't. otherwise there wouldn't be enough and people would starve anyway. And if someone is going to starve, then it should be the people who don't contribute. Makes sense, doesn't it?

The problem is, modern society is so far beyond this living standard in the industrialized world that it is ridiculous. We have a society of gross excess. The problem is often finding enough work, let alone enough useful work for people to do. Seriously, we don't have a stuff crisis, minus some COVID related supply chain issues. We have a jobs crisis. We have all of this wealth, but it's all poorly distributed, in part because we insist people must work to earn their keep, which floods the market with cheap labor, which means wealth gets siphoned to the top. It's absurd. Our economic model is absurd. It's based in scarcity, but we've evolved beyond the level of scarcity where this philosophy makes sense.

And I think that's the real tragedy of the above phrase that this article is about. It's not necessarily that believing that humans don't deserve food by default is a victim of propaganda. I believe that's a natural position to take and arguing the opposite is actually the claim that needs to be justified. Which is why I spend so much time on it on this blog. My observations of society as it exists are that this mentality is woefully outdated and harmful. But that's the problem with the phrase. The real problem with not believing that people don't deserve food by default is they are victim to outdated scarcity thinking, without understanding how plentiful basic needs are, how poorly they're distributed, and how absurd it is that we insist on creating more work rather than challenging our long held traditions on the subject.

Maybe this is propaganda. After all, the propagandists frame this in a way that this is the natural order of things. But they're not really wrong. It kind of is. It's modern society that is an aberration. But I don't believe its insidious, or a problem with capitalism or whatever. Most socialists even seem to still preach the gospels of scarcity and work. Most people are united in these doctrines whether on the left or right. Really, we don't understand how wealthy we are. You kind of need to be educated in that subject. And I guess that's why I dedicate so much time to figuring out the logistics of accomplishing a post work society. Because I believe that we should evolve beyond work. But we must evolve beyond it as we are able. We shouldn't buy into wishful thinking or write off all criticism as just propaganda. Most people are literally uninformed and still operate on a scarcity level. And this applies not just to capitalists, but socialists too.

The Gabby Petito media coverage is stupid

 Okay, to flip back in the other direction after criticizing the black political community for making everything about them, I want to briefly discuss the Gabby petito thing. Gabby Petito was a 22 year old white girl who was a youtuber and did vlogs about "van life". She was murdered brutally, potentially by her fiance, and now the media is going nuts turning it into the next 24/7 thing. Now, I want to emphasize first and foremost that the murder is horrendous, and I hope whomever did it is brought to justice, and I'm not trying to downplay the severity of the events here.

However, what I am going to criticize, as are many progressives in more left wing circles, is the disproportionate media coverage that this has generated. This story does NOT deserve the insane amount of coverage that it got, and it is, quite frankly, a bit racist that it is covered like this.

Let me explain, murders happen all over the country. This one was bad and horrifying, but so are, well, all of them. And we don't really talk about them often. You know about a half mile from my house some teenager was shot in the head and presumably died? Not going to link to the story as I don't want to give away my exact location, but suffice to say, yeah, that happened. Murders happen all the time. I had a friend in high school who was murdered going to a New Years party back then. I had a dude in my church whose brother was murdered walking home from his job in broad daylight. Now, admittedly, I live in a ghetto. And this sort of thing happens all the time. But that's the thing. it gets like one day of media coverage on the local news and then is promptly forgotten about. Many of these people are POC, and quite frankly, no one cares. "Eh, gangbangers killing each other again, what you gonna do?" Except not all of these people are gangbangers. My friend certainly wasn't. Neither was the dude whose brother attended my church. But that's how people perceive it. But, when the story appeals more to uh...suburban white america and hits a little close to home, OMG WHAT A TRAGEDY, SHE HAD HER WHOLE LIFE AHEAD OF HER! It's always the suburban white girl who ends up plastered on national media coverage for weeks at a time. Rarely is it a POC, or someone who lives in a rough area. I just find it annoying. Honestly, I wish these kinds of cases werent covered more than necessary. it's just tear jerking stuff. I'd rather my news be full of political discourse and issues of substance. Not this. Some people might think I'm a jerk for this, but a lot of people probably agree with me too, reading the temperature in the room among progressives on the internet.

When critical race theory commits seppuku: BLM rejects vaccine mandate

 So, I had another version of this post that I deleted, but I kind of wrote it when I was half asleep and I felt like my tone was a bit harsh, so rewriting it. It's no surprise that over the years my relations with the black political community have been strained. Quite frankly, I see it as mostly their own doing, which is why I kind of went for the throat with my original post. I just get frustrated after a while with this stuff, and with the state of discourse in America. This kind of stuff should not be happening. it's stupid that it is, and it's stupid that we have to seriously entertain this stuff.

The source of this specific controversy surrounds the fact that BLM New York recently pushed back against vaccine mandates, claiming that they are racist. The black community has been very slow in getting the vaccine, and as it turns out, a huge reason why is because they simply don't trust white people to give them medicine, due to past horror stories involving that stuff like the Tuskegee syphillis experiments. While I will be the first to admit our prior treatment to African Americans has been harmful, at some point I have to roll my eyes and say "come on man".

Really, I'm just getting to the point I'm losing sympathy for the black community and its issues. My sympathy on these issues is like a rubber band, you can stretch it a little and you can convince me to support your cause, stretch it a little more and maybe I'll still support it. but that elasticity has limits, and eventually you just get too stupid with stuff and the rubber band will either snap or bounce back to its original position. That's kind of where I'm at with black politics these days. 

I'm sorry, but this is stupid, and this is where I kind of felt like my tone was harsh in my last post, but I believe sooner or later, the black community needs to get over it and stop making themselves to be a victim on literally everything. I get it, systemic racism exists, and blacks have been horribly mistreated in the past, but it's getting to the point the black political community's existence is based in this narrative of being prejudiced and distrustful toward whites and mainstream institutions, sometimes dangerously so. At some point, it just gets to the point it gets old, and I'm quickly reaching that point.

Look, the Tuskegee experiments happened 50-90 years ago. And this vaccine is readily available to everyone. Millions of people have gotten it, including whites. I've gotten it and can attest to its safety. Worst I got from it was a day feeling like I had the flu, which was really just my immune system fighting the vaccine, which is what it's supposed to do. There's no insidious using blacks as guinea pigs. As a matter of fact when the vaccine was rolling out I remember people were calling that racist because whites were getting it first and how POC should be bumped up to the front of the line instead. Which, just inflamed me as well, since it seems stupid, and honestly, I dont wanna be pushed back in the name of some politically correct BS. I mean, it's just everything revolves around them, and poor them, and we need to drop what we're doing to sympathize with them, and if you don't, you're racist. 

I mean give me a break. 

It's the same thing with the democratic party politics, and this issue is a huge reason I'm on board with leaving the democratic party. The amount of hostility I've seen people like Sanders, Yang, and their supporters get from the black community is ridiculous. It was said Bernie lost in 2016 because of the black vote. Never mind the fact Bernie had an incredibly progressive platform, and Hillary had a much more questionable record on African American issues like the crime bill. And then Bernie came back in 2020, explicitly tried to reach out to them, and many of them still went Biden. TO be fair black voters aren't a monolith and there are overriding factors like geography and age that played a role in this, but still, I notice that a lot of black voters have a tendency to wrap themselves up in narratives and make everything about them often at the expense of everyone else's issues. 

They seem particularly hostile toward social democratic type progressives like Bernie and Yang, claiming social democracy doesn't help them because new dealers in the past screwed them because that coalition was explicitly racist. Once again I'm mistrusted and progress needs to be held back because of 50+ year old grudges.

Look, I'm not defending my ancestors here. And honestly, I'd be a lot more sympathetic on these issues if my rubber band wasnt being stretched to the breaking point. But, I'm really starting to think this victimhood complex is holding the country back. On coronavirus, we should be striving to eradicate the disease, and we shouldn't be entertaining narratives of the mandate being racist. I'm really getting to the point of saying screw your feelings on that issue. Everyone able bodied should have to get the shot, period, end of story. I don't care about white right libertarians and trumpers screaming about muh freedom, nor do I care about whether this is 'racist". No. We have a pandemic, people are dying, get the shot. 

And it's the same on democratic party politics. As long as the black community votes against its own economic interests (or alternatively votes specifically for a form of liberal politics that is about empowering themselves at the expense of others or without helping fix systemic issues that impact us all), progress isn't gonna be made. Maybe blacks might make glacially slow incremental progress for themselves, but within a largely unjust right wing neoliberal capitalist regime that screws us all. I want true freedom, and true systemic solutions, and that means universalism. I'm sick of having to entertain the idea of, for example, forgiving black student loans being a sign of progress, but forgiving white ones being racist. Give me a break.

Honestly, if these guys keep dragging their feet on progress, I'm done. I mean in principle, I'll support them 8-9 times out of 10, but if they're gonna act distrustful toward me to the point that they sabotage me and my issues, well, maybe things will end up going the other way too. After all, I'm willing to work with anyone who works with me on my top issues. And that includes white ex Trumpers. Just saying. You wanna avoid the mistakes of the past? Then let the past go. You wanna cause history to repeat itself? Well, don't learn from the past, after all those who don't learn from it are destined to repeat it.

This is why I say that critical race theory is committing seppuku here. It makes sense on some academic level. Are mandates racist? That makes a nice academic discussion in the classroom, but once it hits the real world, it sounds stupid, and can actually be dangerously harmful. After a while, all of this stuff starts sounding like a parody of itself, and it starts quite frankly backfiring on itself, and hurting its own cause. I want to emphasize this, black political activists, you're hurting your own cause. You are turning people off from your brand of politics. You're pushing things too far, causing white support to backfire on you. There's a lot of situations in the recent past that I've been quite sympathetic to the black community on. I agree with the general aim of black lives matter. I believe what happened to George Floyd and Breonna Taylor was messed up. I believe that Colin Kapernick should've been able to keep his job in the NFL while expressing his political views. I'm a principled guy, and I can support a lot of black causes inherently. But then somewhere along the way the stuff goes from principled to stupid. I've seen BLM supporters criticize cops for shooting people who run at them with weapons like knives and guns. And then there's the vaccine mandate being racist. Somewhere along the way this stuff goes too far, causing would be supporters to then backlash on the movement. These movements literally commit seppuku after a while. Because they start out with the best of ideas and intentions but then get so stupid they end up losing all of their credibility and support. It's just the SJW way I guess. And this is why I've soured on SJW style politics over the years. I went from being a rather quiet ally to an open critic. My views haven't really changed that much on the actual issues. I just end up getting tired of doing the socially performative theater of supporting that stuff only to get stabbed in the back again and again for not being pure enough. No. Enough's enough. This is stupid, and I'm calling it like it is.

AOC selling out on iron dome? A quick investigation into the matter

 So, I woke up today to AOC being absolutely slammed by progressive forums for "selling out" on the issue of giving additional defense aid to Israel. As we know, the progressive community has made this a purity test as of late, and a lot of parties are flopping on it. Yang got ripped to shreds over supporting Israel in his mayoral run and now it's AOC's turn.

Apparently, the controversy comes from her changing her initial no vote to present. She supposedly originally she voted no on it straight up, but then Pelosi said something to her, she looked like she was on the verge of crying, and switched to a "present" vote.

This seems to be a moment of Pelosi potentially blackmailing AOC. She was going to vote along with her principles, but she instead took the more neutral "present" vote. Of course the actual context isn't known. It's been floated that maybe she backed down because she's being redistricted into a district with more Jewish constituents, who wouldn't want her to take a strong stance against it. Still, it's quite clear she is against it so I'm not sure how present changes any more. You wanna know what I see when people vote present on issues I care about like medicare for all. basically, they're voting no, but don't want to be on the record of voting no, so they essentially abstain instead. And I generally treat present votes as "no" votes in a sense. So to see her do this is the same kind of politically correct weasel way of voting no fake progressives often use against progressive legislation when they don't want to be on the record for their stance. 

That said I can't say this is selling out. It seems to be a weasely way of voting no, but it's not like she voted yes. AOC did comment on the matter on her twitter, but largely avoided the subject of why she didn't just vote no. Something is up that she can't talk about, but we don't know what.

Okay, look, here's my take on this. This is what happens when progressives try to work within the democratic party. The party basically either kicks you out, or corrupts you over time. You're not allowed to vote on principle, and if you do the weight of the establishment will come down on you and you'll be sabotaged and thrown out of office. It will be like what happened when Nina Turner tried to go against the establishment. In politics, you either seem to die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.

I don't fault AOC for what she does. I believe she's trying her best to navigate this hostile environment while keeping her ideals intact, but she does need to sometimes make questionable moves in order to maintain her seat. You can criticize her all day, even she seems to understand people are going to be disappointed in her on this, but she probably had something leveraged against her where she couldn't.

Don't judge AOC too harshly. or Bernie for that matter. Yeah, I know I came down hard on bernie too. But really, this is why I'm thinking we need Yang's third party. Im watching these people try to change the democrats from the inside and it's not working, the democrats are changing them more than they're changing the democrats. In order to really maintain independence and clarity of vision and ideals, people need to operate outside of the party, because the party seems to foist all kinds of bad options of people that they're forced to take or else be seen as not a team player. It's a lot like going up against a boss in capitalism, you can't unless you have enough organized labor to strike. Individual people can't do much. You need an organized effort against the system in order to leverage it. It's just how it is.

Maybe in 10-20 years progressives will have more power. I would like to believe that but given the democrats increasing reliance on white suburban moderates as an intentional political strategy, it seems like the name of the game is deny progressives a real voice in government. That said, we need to abandon the democrats and form our own party or parties through which to leverage the change we want. Huge reason I'm so gung ho on the forward party idea.

More on Yang's upcoming third party, the "Forward Party"

 So, more details are leaking out about this up and coming third party Andrew Yang is planning. Apparently, in line with his book called "Forward", it's the "Forward Party". It will be based on the six principles listed below:

"Ranked-choice voting and open primaries."

"Fact-based governance."

"Human-centered capitalism."

"Effective and modern-day government."

"Universal Basic Income."

"Grace and Tolerance."

 Now, I'm going to be honest, I am HYPED. As you guys can tell, based on my trajectory over the course of the past year, I'm just done. I believe we have tried to work with the democratic party and that it's a losing strategy. Essentially what happens is this. The neolibs control the core of the party, they control the machinery, they control the media, and to some extent they control the voters, many of whom are, to be blunt, relatively low information. So, they basically push their centrist brand, talk down progressives, win by default, and then turn around and lecture us about how we don't get it and how wonderful they are. And then tell us we have to support them or else. Well, at the risk of violating the 6th principle on that list (I'll be coming back to them), screw them. Like, really. I'm just so beyond done. I'm to the point I want nothing to do with these guys and I'm starting to believe the democrats cant be reformed from within. The progressive movement is getting increasingly fragmented as a result of trying, between half of them being coopted by the party like Bernie, and the other half becoming increasingly unhinged as they run to the other extreme. last I looked a lot of Bernie or Busters are pushing Ivermectin to own the libs while screaming everyone but them is a sell out. *shudders* Clearly some middle ground is needed, and as over the past year I've shifted hardcore back toward the Yang camp as it's an expression of my most authentic self and reflects what change I want to see as a country, I am overjoyed to see Yang actually gets it enough to make his own party.

Now, to discuss the principles above. I'll do this quick but I want to focus on them.

Ranked choice voting and open primaries- This would solve the biggest problems in our political system. A huge reason the democrats are so toxic is because they control the field. They are the lesser evil and can bully people into voting for them. They largely run on closed primaries, leading to primary races kind of self selecting toward people who like democrats. These are the perfect solutions for fixing the system. Also, getting money out of politics, but this dude know thats already.

Fact based governance- This is nebulous. But it sounds good on the surface. See what I did with the question of transgenderism yesterday. What did I do to decide where I stood? I looked at the facts. At various points in my life, I've examined most if not all issues that way and made decisions based on what I saw as facts. Now, to be fair I dont think its possible to be purely fact based without any ideology at all, but there's something to be said of people being so wrapped up in their ideology that they ignore reality. Look at conservative Christians, for instance. Those guys are the definition of "my ideology conflicts with reality so I'll reject reality". It's scary. So yes, this is good but it could use more elaboration.

Human centered capitalism- We already know what this is, it's a centerpiece of his 2020 campaign and largely represents my ideology, and has represented it since before he came up with the term. 

Effective and modern day government- This is very buzzwordy like fact based governance. What's considered fact based? What's effective and modern day? This dude probably has entire sections of his book on this that I look forward to reading about, but yeah, I need to know more before I see what he means. Either way, on the surface, I agree. I definitely like effective solutions and that's why I'm not a democrat. Always pick the worst way to do something then act like you should be grateful for it.

Universal basic income- Yeah this should be a centerpiece, along with medicare for all, and dude, yeah, speaking to the choir here.

Grace and tolerance- Uh, this is where I tend to have issues. THis might be a me thing, and I recognize it as a personal flaw, but I definitely have a tendency to burn bridges at times. I've even strained relations with parts of the UBI community as of late because Im so awful on this point. The fact is, I just don't like taking crap off of people. And given how toxic the online debating sphere can be, I tend to just be the dude who tells it like it is and when dealing with smarmy and insufferable people will tell them to screw off. I make no apologies for this. It's just how I am, and if you don't like it, well, bite me. I understand Yang himself and given his personality type, he's a lot less confrontational, and the yang gang tries not to be as obnoxiously pushy as say, the neolibs or the bernie bros on stuff, but sometimes, to combat these other factions, you NEED some elements of that. This might be a worthwhile political calculation for him to make, but I'd prefer to keep my shoot from the hip loose cannon approach at times. You kinda need that on the front lines when you're dealing with people you deem to be literal morons or bad faith actors. But agree to disagree. 

Now, to read on, in this above article, which quotes part's of Yang's book:

"The dysfunction is going to kill us," Yang writes. "Worse, there's no reason to think that it will change. The two sides will be trapped in a war that both sides win—they will still be hovering in one of the most affluent areas in the country trading power—but the people will lose."

Yang argues that the "duopoly" of America's two party political system is unsustainable, and that politic ans are ill equipped to deal with the shifting technological landscape amid the rise of artificial intelligence and other dynamics accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We are witnessing a cascade of crises, from a pandemic to a punitive economy to police brutality to the selling of our attention and digital data to the highest bidders. Our democratic institutions are faltering right and left, and our systems are not designed for speed or significant change," Yang explains in the book's introduction. "Trust is fading ... Our political system is a fixed duopoly that will want to move slowly, if at all."

Beyond making his pitch for a viable third party — something that has eluded scores of activists throughout the course of American history — Yang seeks to diagnose what he sees as the biggest long term structural problems facing the nation.

"Our leaders are rewarded based not on solving problems but on accruing resources and retaining office," he writes. "Media companies have their own set of incentives that lead them to operate on a different wavelength from most of the American people. Local news is dying. And social media is driving our everyday discourse and our mental health to volatile extremes. These are all crises, and they are all linked in ways we will unpack in the pages ahead."

 Yes! He gets it! He understand the two parties are vying for the support of the affluent, while the rest of the people languish in rot. it's why I turned my back on the democrats. As a Pennsylvanian, it can be summed up in a single sentence "for every working class voter we lose, we'll pick up two moderate republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia". Yep, abandon normal every day people for the most affluent 20% of the country, why don't you? That's what they're doing here. And in someone who lives in one of the poorest, most messed up areas of said state, I just saw this as untenable. The democrats abandoned us, and therefore, we must abandon them. 

And yeah, the two parties don't want to address the problems, they wanna ignore the problems, shame you for paying attention to the problems, and purity test you on other programs that sell well with specific demographic groups while alienating others, like mine. The democrats made a calculated decision to abandon my vote, and man, i'm pissed. So pissed, idk how to be graceful to them any more, which is why I tend to run afoul of his 6th principle at times. 

This isn't a new problem. As I said when I went back over America's history, America tends to be glacially slow in addressing problems within the two party system, with wide swaths of the 1800s and early 1900s being periods I'd just avoid the two party duopoly and vote third party. And obviously, the problems need to be addressed eventually, but they'd rather let them sit for 50 years until the rot gets so bad they're forced to address them because the country is on the verge of revolt and civil war if they don't. That's not a good way to run the country. I'm sorry, it's not. And I get very angry about this, as you can tell. Because I live it. I see the poverty on the streets. I see how high rent is, and how low wages are. How we sell our souls for 40+ hours a week for a relative pittance, just enough to keep us on the treadmill for the rest of our lives. I see how dysfunctional and screwed my area of Pennsylvania is, and how mainstream politics aren't gonna do crap to touch this. But hey, good luck appealing to rich frickers outside of Philly I guess. 

Honestly, I feel like this anger is actually why Trump is so popular in some circles. Many like him because they're conservative and he ran as a conservative, but I think in more purple areas like Pennsylvania, it comes down to populist appeal, a feeling of abandonment among the "elites" in society, and how their only outlet for expressing their anger and frustration over their plight is to throw a brick through America's window in the form of a Donald Trump presidency. I mean I dont think Trump actually has that much support here. It's just that the democrats have so little too. In areas like mine, I just believe that we hate everyone politically, and just go back and forth between lesser evils. We vote in democrats to fix the messes of republicans, get tired of them as they're worthless centrists who dont do anything, then the GOP gets fired up and gets their guy in, who ends up making things worse, and we vote for centrist dems just to get them out, and get bored with them. That, to me, sums up PA politics in a nutshell. 

And yeah, I just believe there is a lot of disaffection and malaise around here. Most people I know held their nose for Biden, but I do mean they held their nose. Almost no one I know likes Biden. They just hate Trump. And in 2016, they didn't like Hillary either. We're all more driven by voting out what we hate more than voting in what we want. it's a cycle, and I'm glad to see Yang try to change it.

Now, will yang be successful? Well, if you mean will he win, probably not, it's an extreme long shot given how much power those two parties wield over politics and the media, etc. But does that mean he shouldn't try? No. I'm looking forward to Yang's third party, and will likely be a day 1 supporter. Because let's be honest, I'm just done with the democrats. I can't handle supporting this party any more. I just can't. They're so out of touch with what I'm for. Sure they're better than the republicans, but that's an awfully low bar. Yang, on the other hand, is a way closer match to what I support. I would like to see more progressive Bernie like policies at times out of Yang on issues like healthcare and education, but still, yang's core is similar to what I've wanted in the first place. And I'll be happy to support that. Keep in mind progressives don't really hit the right notes on UBI either. 

The fact is, I'd rather go down with a third party that can't win, while standing true to what I believe in, than "win" with a major party that basically abandons, ignores, and then antagonizes me. And while I dont believe Yang can win, if he can achieve any level of cultural impact through this, or "steal" enough votes to force the two parties to bend to his agenda, that's a win in my book. That's what  we should be aspiring to. 

That said, good chance I'll be a day 1 supporter, if they'll have me and my loose cannon attitude. I'm not the most graceful person in the world but as a disaffected UBI supporter who hates the two party duopoly this seems like the place to be.

Why a black (or a woman) James Bond is a stupid idea

 So, full disclosure, I'm a James Bond FANBOY. Like, autistic obsession level fanboyism here. Maybe not as much now, but when I was a teenager, I had to watch every single movie, and know every single thing about the franchise. I would buy those big 40th anniversary DVD collections back around 2002-2004ish after Die Another Day came out and watch the movies obsessively. I've seen all of the official Bond movies no less than 3-5 times (seeing some of the Craig ones a bit less but still watching them quite a bit), with the older ones seen well over 10-20 times each. So yeah, fanboy. Strong opinions here. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, with Daniel Craig finishing up his last film, and with that going to theaters soon, there's a lot of buzz surrounding who the next James Bond should be. And a name that has been floated around regularly is Idris Elba, a black guy. Uh...why? I've also heard people saying maybe the next James Bond should be a woman. Uh...seriously? What the actual fudge? 

It's SJWism. SJWism seems to treat franchises like James Bond as like a glass ceiling. Like James Bond breaking the color or gender or sexuality barrier is some sort of political accomplishment that tells young people of those various characteristics that they can do anything. It just turns into this stupid political correctness circlejerk, and it's like ugh.

Meanwhile, us Bond fanboys, tend to be far more straight laced. We don't want a black dude as bond, or a woman, or whatever. It's stupid. I mean, James Bond is an established character, he's a white dude. He's always been played by a white dude. He should always be played by a white dude. To be honest, I remember how controversial Daniel Craig was in the first place, and let's go back to the mid 2000s real quick to discuss how things were within the fandom back then. 

Honestly, replacing Brosnan was a very controversial move. Most of us LIKED Brosnan. Sure some "old timers" acted like he was a pretty boy who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, but most people through Brosnan was a good Bond. And being introduced to the series with Goldeneye, along with many other people in my age group, we kinda saw Brosnan the way older generations saw Connery. Like this dude WAS James Bond to us. We didn't want him gone. We were wondering, as we got into 2005-2006, why it was taking so long to make another movie after Die Another Day and why the series was taking so long to put something out. The only time we had a glut like this was between 1989 and 1995 between Dalton's lukewarm takes and Brosnan's debut. What was up? And it seemed like Brosnan was willing to continue at the time, so what gives?

And then let's not forget how people lost their crap over James Bond being BLONDE. Like, all of the actors up to this point had dark hair. Moore's was a bit more brown but generally Bond had dark brown to black hair. All of the actors minus Moore had this color. And now we were making some BLONDE dude James Bond? Really, most fanboys at the time didn't want Craig. We wondered what the producers were doing at the time.

But, then Casino Royale came out, and while Craig's performance was rough around the edges, they essentially rebooted the series. And those flaws were justifiable. Honestly, Craig, under normal circumstances, wouldn't be a great Bond actor. He lacked the sophistication Bond normally has. But, again, they kinda rebooted the series and made Bond a new 00 agent with the story arc being a story of how he became that guy, so these changes could be overlooked. And Craig's Bond has grown through the years, learning the lessons he needed to make him the character we enjoyed in previous outings. 

That's all well and good. I mean, I kind of have to say, in retrospect, it wasn't the end of the world. They actually did take the series in a successful direction rebooting it and making it grittier and more down to earth, and I have to say that it worked. But seriously, given the amount of criticism that even Craig got, and how he basically had to earn his way to achieving parity with the other Bond actors in the eyes of the community, why the heck would we want to push a black or female James Bond in order to push some weird politically correct thing of achieving the first of something or something.

Seriously, our fandoms are not your glass ceiling. Cut that crap out. This is basically what would be, if the shoe was on the other foot, cultural appropriation.

This isn't to say that i have anything against black people or secret agents starring in their own movies. I'm not even against MI6 in the Bond universe having black or female agents who are not casted as 007 or James Bond. Seriously have fun. But when you wanna change an established fandom's canon in order to shove a politically correct agenda down everyone's throats, yeah, that's a problem.

I feel like this is one of the reason nerds end up becoming socially conservative. We saw it with Gamergate, and the ghostbusters reboot, and Battlefield 5, you always have these SJWs trying to push agendas in peoples' fandoms, and then the fandoms getting pissed off. And then the SJWs getting self righteous and portraying us as sexist misogynistic dinosaurs (to make a Goldeneye reference) for not wanting change, when their change sucks, etc.

Seriously, I wish SJWs would stay out of media and stop trying to force their ideals in peoples' fandoms. It's really stupid and annoying. Make your own crap. If it's entertaining I'll watch and play it. Just keep your crap out of old franchises. Even if they have dated standards like James Bond, mmkay? Not everything has to conform to 2021 far left social standards, ya know? These guys liken themselves as the new moral police and it kinda pisses me off after a while.

Discussing immigration and the whole whipping Haitians thing

 So, as some may already know, the border patrol was caught whipping Haitian refugees on camera. *sigh*, does anyone want to remind me who is president again? This is something I would expect to happen under Trump. Oh wait, it's Biden? Wow. Snarky sidenote to the neolibs, never EVER speak to me about kids in cages again.

Seriously, this video is about 1 step away from the border patrols having exaggerated southern accents screaming "here (repeat racial slur 3 times)". Seriously, what the actual fudge? One of them said that "this is why your country is ****". Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Under a democratic administration? Wow.

That guy should be fired immediately. I know there's a lot of systemic racism in policing, and I know that a lot of would be racist tough guys literally get into the job specifically to hassle minorities, and I could see that happening here. Give this guy some authority and suddenly he's treading on poor migrants. There should be zero tolerance toward stuff like that. Totally unprofessional. Reminds me of a comic book bad guy in terms of levels of racism there. Should be fired yesterday.

I mean, I'm gonna be honest. I'm not super pro open borders. I don't even have solid answers for what I would like to happen here. I kind of believe in most cases that people trying to come in illegally should be turned back. And I know that sometimes the sausage making of that process isn't always pleasant. But could we have a bit less "Deliverance" in our border enforcement policy, PLEASE? I mean again this is just one step from going back to the 1870s with the KKK riding around on horseback acting...pretty similar to this. We should at least try to treat migrants, you know, humanely and in a not racist way. I'm not saying we should let everyone in, I admit we need some form of border enforcement because I don't believe open borders is compatible with my vision of a social safety net. But come on we can do better than...this. 

Even then, given these are refugees some would argue, on sound legal ground if I might add, that they should be let in. And let's be honest, I'm not super duper like ANTI immigrant, I mean my default position on this stuff is people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't harm others, so I have nothing against people coming in given the reasons most seem against immigration, again, my entire stance is based on preserving my economic ideology. So take that as you will. Obviously I'm not xenophobic or against all immigration, I mean you can twist my arm with reason and facts to convince me in individual circumstances to be for letting people in. It's not a firm position of mine. So, I don't know. At the very minimum, I feel like how Biden is handling this situation is very poor and democrats are like the worst of both worlds. Trumpian foreign policy while somehow convincing themselves and others of their perceived moral superiority over the Trumpers in an insufferable way. Yeah, like your crap doesn't stink. For as "racist" as I get accused of being, yeah, you guys are way more racist than I am, just saying.

Discussing transgenderism and children

 So, this is a bit of an odd topic for me to cover, due to my dislike for delving into social justice issues that much, but I kind of felt like I needed to address this one, due to discussions recently I've been having with others. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and misunderstandings around this issue, and not being super informed on the nuances of it myself, I decided to nip it in the bud.

For reference, my perspective on transgenderism is a libertarian one. I don't really care. It doesn't affect me, if it's something you're into, cool, but it's not my cup of tea. I don't care what you identify as, I don't care about pronouns, you can be an attack helicopter and make buzzing noises in the bedroom for all I care. I just don't care. Do what you want. That's my attitude. I don't want to stop you. If you believe your life would be better changing your gender and getting reassignment surgery, go for it. It isn't my life, and I don't believe conservative views regarding sexuality should get in your way. 

However, a topic of contention that those who seem more...conservative on this issue than I am, seems to focus on, is one of children. The argument goes that children don't know what they want. I mean, one of my friends says they identified as a cat for two weeks when they were 8, it doesn't mean they should've turned into a cat. Which is, fair. Children are fickle. Children sometimes need more authoritarian guidance to set them on the right path. They can't just do whatever they want because they lack the judgment to do so. That's perfectly fair and fine. However, we've also had these kinds of discussions with homosexuality as little as 10-20 years ago, and I remember all the horror stories that came from that in terms of gay conversion camps and ignorant parents trying to brainwash their children into being straight, when no, they're not gonna be straight, forcing them to be straight is harmful, and that's how they are, and that's how they live their lives. Obviously we don't want socially conservative parents forcing their right wing views on their kids either and telling them they are not what they are and blah blah blah. Which is why I'm generally sympathetic to the trans community. I take the logic used with that, apply it to transgenderism, and am like, yeah, maybe these people should be able to do what they want.

But, you might say, transgenderism is different, because they want to change their genders. And that requires hormone treatments and surgeries, blah blah blah. What if it is a phase? What if they don't regret it? Being scientifically minded, I want to focus on just that, the science. What is the science on transgenderism among minors?

First, let's look at the DSM5 clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children, which includes:

Children are typically diagnosed with gender dysphoria if they have experienced significant distress for at least six months and at least six of the following:

• strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that they are the other gender
• strong preference for wearing clothes typical of the opposite gender
• strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
• strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
• strong preference for playmates of the other gender
• strong rejection of toys, games and activities typical of their assigned gender
• strong dislike of their sexual anatomy
• strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match their experienced gender

Gender dysphoria of childhood is not a surgical diagnosis. It is a medical diagnosis that does not require treatment, other than possibly individual or family therapy, until a child reaches puberty. Gender dysphoria is typically diagnosed by a therapist or other mental health professional.

 Okay, so that makes a lot of sense. Children have to match six of those criteria, and they need to meet them consistently for 6 months. I would almost argue 6 months seems like a relatively small amount of time, but given it's not a surgical diagnosis and not one that requires immediate treatment, that's fair. It's not really addressed until puberty.

Speaking of which, don't transgender children put off puberty because of their diagnosis? I mean, sure. It's a lot less messy to prevent transition into puberty in the first place than do undo the changes to the body later on. Is this a problem? Maybe, it mentions that in puberty that an overwhelming majority of children desist and stick with their preferred genders, only to find out they are say, gay instead later on. But, that seems to be the reason they don't perform more invasive treatments to prepubescent children. They keep them on puberty blockers until the age of 16, after which they generally make a decision either way. And they normally seem to go for hormonal treatments before they go for reassignment surgery. That said the child has had literal years to decide what they want to do, and they are almost an adult at this point. They don't just chop off an 8 year old's outie and turn it into an innie. There's a clinical process with years of therapy involved before any of this becomes a serious option for them. That said, a lot of the concern over this process seems to be overblown.

So, after all's said and done, what now? Are they happy? Do they regret it? Horror stories of regret seems to accompany a lot of this anti trans sentiment. I mean you do something when you're young that basically radically alters your body, and maybe after all's said and done you have second thoughts. How often does this occur? Not often. The rates tend to differ depending on the source, but generally speaking the rates are around 1-11%. Although the one right wing source I posted had much higher regret rates (to be fair I don't trust right wing sources given that I've seen their crazy statistics being disproven again and again on other issues). Reasons seem to include feeling disfigured or health issues related to botched surgeries. Still, the issue is complicated, as there are often other underlying mental health issues that transitioning does not fix, and many of the issues related to regret seem to revolve around varying forms of social disapproval they receive for their choices. That said, maybe the biggest issue with stopping regret is for us to not be judgmental of their choices or try to impose our morality on them. That seems to be a big problem we have as a society toward people of alternative sexualities, genders, etc. We kind of like to impose our one size fits all "cishet" mentality on them, and this can cause self worth issues among those who are different. Not everyone is going to be normal and we should embrace diversity. Just because I don't circlejerk about this stuff and I might find SJWs insufferable with the affirming stuff, doesn't mean that I ain't a libertarian who believes people should pursue their own happiness. Unless it affects you, you probably shouldn't say anything. 

Beyond that, all things considered, where do I stand? Well, here's the thing. I believe in following the science, as well as balancing liberty with minimizing harm. I only believe in restricting activities or behavior if doing so causes harm. And often times, the benefits of the restrictions need to exceed the harm caused by them. As in, we should only cause harm by reducing liberty to prevent an even larger harm. Given the scientific rigors of the process by which transgender children are identified and treated, and given the relatively low regret rates of those who do transition, I believe that the process is scientific enough and rigorous enough to weed out most people who would otherwise regret the process. Like in many other cases, the right wing concern trolling and hand wringing over the subject seems misinformed. No one is cutting off and replacing 8 year olds' genitalia, before that is on the table a person will have likely undergone years of therapy in which they affirm that they want this done, and the vast majority of them will desist. Moreover, the regret rates of transitioning, barring the one right wing source, seems relatively low. I kind of have to go with the idea that this is a rigorous process including years of therapy with a relatively low regret rate. As in, there's sound medical science behind it and while you'll always find someone who regrets undergoing the process, the vast majority don't.

Funny how science can cut through the BS like that, huh?

Dear conservatives, there's no trick, get the freaking shot

 So recently Breitbart came out and said that liberals are killing conservatives via reverse psychology. Essentially they think that because we libs like to mandate vaccines, that we're basically tricking conservatives into not getting it because conservatives interpret everything liberals do and do the opposite. So the liberals are all getting vaccinated, and conservatives aren't getting vaccinated, and conservatives are dying from attrition via natural selection as a result.

*sigh*

Okay, look, there is no grand conspiracy here. Well, there is, but I'll explain it in a minute, using my conflict theory critique of capitalism and pandemics. But there's no pandemic here to kill conservatives.

You guys (conservatives) are the one politicizing EVERYTHING. You guys were the ones last year, when liberals wanted to shut the economy down and make people wear masks, who stormed state capitols claiming we were oppressing your rights to work. How we were imposing "communism" on you by giving you free money. I mean, dude, DUDE. I literally support government money, and people working less, and even I wouldn't MANDATE that stuff for good reason, because im libertarian enough where I want people to do what they want. But, when there's a deadly pandemic, yeah, we kinda gotta shut stuff down to avoid transmission of the disease, and flatten the curve, so hospitals arent overwhelmed with covid patients, kind of like they are right now, because you morons won't get vaccinated. 

The real deep state conspiracy, is that all along, capitalism hates shut downs. The rich hate shut downs, and shut downs compromise our typical neurotypical, extraverted way of life of working and sending kids to school while we work and growing that GDP. The real conspiracy has been trying to keep stuff open and force stuff open when it's unsafe to grow that GDP. In 2020, that debate was real, should we shut down and keep people safe, or keep things open and let people die? And of course you guys chose the psychotic answer to that question. Yeah, I remember Greg Abbott in Texas talking about sacrificing the elderly for the economy. Jesus christ people, you guys are monsters. Like full stop, I'm not even sugar coating it. If you think like this, screw you guys. 

But in 2021, the dilemma was solved. Now there's a highly effective vaccine for the deadly virus killing people. If everyone took it, it would probably eradicate the disease, kind of like how we eradicated smallpox and polio back in the day. AND YALL MOTHERFRICKERS WON'T TAKE IT!

There's no reverse psychology here. I don't do that grade school crap. And we libs are serious about this stuff. Get. The. Shot. We're trying to STOP you from offing yourselves. At this point, you're extending this pandemic, we're once again seeing hospitals overwhelmed, where now people who need care for other things can't get it because the hospitals are flooded with COVID patients, when probably 95% of these cases and deaths are completely unnecessary. Because a vaccine exists. 

The problem is with YOU. It's with YOU guys deciding to play these infantile games of "now I'm not doing it" when we're trying to help you. And I guess I KIND of get it. I mean, libs can be insufferable at times. I won't vote for them half the time because of that. I'm actually an independent at this point and while I'm closer to the democrats, I hate both sides. But that's the thing. I don't operate on such an extreme level of spite I'll let myself die from a virus just to own the libs. Will i refuse to vote for Biden or Hillary or whatever other crap candidates they try to force on me? Sure. I get that they're abrasive and insufferable and a bit too forceful. But seriously though. In this case there's nothing nefarious here. WE. ARE. TRYING. TO. HELP. YOU.

Seriously, I'm too autistic for these infantile reverse psychology games. We aspies are a brutally honest bunch, and I know that based on psychology this might not even convince you guys to get the shot because people don't like being treated as stupid. But that's kind of the thing. I'm so freaking autistic I dont care about modifying my message to pull high level psychology games on you guys to trick you into doing anything. I say what I mean and mean what I say, and I'm telling you to get the shot. I'm also calling you dumb for not getting it, and don't give a crap how offended you are over that. Because it's dumb. Haven't you guys taken high school biology or history? Jesus Christ, people.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, you right wingers like the Bible right? Okay, let's put this in Bible terms. You familiar with the ten plagues, and Moses and crap right? Okay, you know how with the 10th plague of killing all the firstborn children, how God told the Hebrews to put lambs blood above their doors so the angel of death wouldn't deep six their kids, right? Okay, well, let me put it this way, the vaccine is like lambs blood. Dont put literal lambs blood on your door, but take the vaccine, which has the same effect of causing the deadly plague to NOT KILL YOU.

Or to go further, you guys realize most of those arcane old testament rules about what to eat and what not to eat, and how about no one with imperfections or diseases were allowed near the temple were all early attempts at establishing rules to prevent diseases right? Yeah, Leviticus was basically one of the world's first attempts to establish social distancing. And while those rules seem stupid now, as we've become so much more advanced, sometimes you guys need to go back to that stuff to understand why in a modern context we libs want to do things like keep stores and schools closed if they're not essential, or why we wanna keep you unvaccinated people away from the public square, or why we should all wear pieces of cloth over your mouth. Same effect. 

Now, I don't follow the Bible as a holy text. I've been a proud ex Christian for 9 years and have no plans on ever going back to that. But I know some of you guys tend to be into that stuff, and given how I'm an ex religious conservative, yeah, maybe, just maybe, I need to use that logic to get through to you guys. Maybe, just maybe you'll understand, if I speak to you in those terms.

Like seriously, it's so obvious. if I were still conservative, I'd get the vaccine. And being on the left, I definitely get it. What's wrong with modern conservatives? I might hate the right these days, but at least when I left you guys had a set of principles. I might disagree with them, but it seems like all that went out the window with Trump. You guys were crazy before, but it was a form of craziness I could kind of understand. Now you guys just seem to be into cults of personality and believe in more misinformation than you ever did. And why the heck to evangelicals like Trump anyway? If I were conservative I'd think that dude was the freaking anti Christ or something. 

Really. I don't get you guys these days. Maybe it's because I've grown up and have gone in my own direction, but I just don't get it anymore. How can you guys be so misinformed to not get a life saving vaccine? It isn't an us problem, it's a you problem, and you guys better figure it out before the democrats turn full on conservative from all the sane people leaving your party and joining theirs. Which is, by the way, a huge reason I'm not a democrat any more either. I didn't leave the GOP to have to deal with those same conservatives years later because you guys crapped the bed so hard you're convincing all the smart people to leave your party en masse. I hate politics these days. This is why I vote third party and retreat into just focusing on UBI and M4A advocacy. It's such a crapshow these days.

I'm tired of 9/11 circlejerking and no I don't want to be that united again

 Okay, can we get this out of the way? I know I'm a few days late, but I write when I darned well feel like it, so bite me. (No really though, I do things by my own cycles). I'm seeing a lot of 9/11 circlejerking this year, with this being the 20th anniversary of the event. I've already written about 9/11 before and I don't think my opinion has changed much since then. I believe it was an event that changed us, as Americans, for the worse, and that we left a huge trail of destruction that outweighs the event itself and eroded the integrity of our own institutions in its wake. And I'm just sick and tired of dragging it out every year, and going on about poor us, we were attacked, blah blah blah.

One particular line of discussion worth addressing that seems new, in a post Trump era and all of this "political division" that the patriotic "but but our institutions" circlejerkers go on about is about how a lot of people wish we were that united again. In the aftermath of 9/11, the country was united like we rarely see. Republicans and democrats temporarily put their grievances aside and rallied around the flag, and everyone was super patriotic, and on the same page. Don't you wish we had that again? 

And I'll say it plainly. NO. 

And here's why. I'm a free thinker. I support diversity of opinion. I support freedom of speech and thought. And the kind of unity we had after 9/11 was the kind of unity that I deem harmful. It was the kind of unity that got us in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where dissenters were tarred and feathered as unpatriotic. it was the kind of unity that led to us passing the patriot act and eroding our civil liberties.  It was the kind of freedom that led to us suspending civil liberties and mistreating prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And don't get me started on the Bush revisionism. Post trump, all of the sudden George W. Bush is now rehabilitated by the democrats as one of the good guys, and acts how a president should act or something. Okay, the dude wasn't as flagrantly abusive of norms as Trump, but the dude got us into two wars, one of which under false pretenses and the other arguably didn't need to be fought, and caused all those other bad things to happen. I'm sorry, but Bush is a piece of crap, and his presidency should be seen as a legacy of what not to do in response to a national crisis. 

And no, to go back to unity. if you have the level of unity we had after 9/11, you also have some sort of authoritarianism leading to that happening in a lot of cases. Something has happened where dissent to the status quo is pushed out of the overton window. Now, in some rare cases this isn't a bad thing. During FDR for example, people were relatively unified at resolving some issues with capitalism and that led to some good things. The conditions got so bad people united for change. But for the most part, unity is inherently authoritarian, and no, I don't desire unity where 90% of americans agree on everything. Unless we reach some sort of utopia where that number is because we've all decided that every other way of doing things is bad and inferior. But even that realistically can never happen as dissent will always exist, in any system.

So no, screw unity. 

To backtrack and contradict myself, I think we can agree that maybe things should be slightly more united than we are now. I mean, we should all at least agree on things like basic facts and scientific literacy. The fact that we are in a country where half the people are refusing to take a vaccine to stop a deadly virus is a problem. But, I also don't believe in trying to force people to change their beliefs. I might believe in mandating the vaccine in various forms as a matter of public health, but I stand firm that those people who believe in not taking it should be able to express their opinions, even if I believe such opinions are bad and even if I believe in mandating it. They should be able to speak out against the mandate at least. 

Anyway, that's just my view on this whole "dont you wish the country was united?" and other similar sentiments. No, actually, no I do not. While I believe people were less ignorant, I believe that people should be free to believe what they want and disagree and express such disagreement. I don't care if people are united as I see unity as an inherently authoritarian virtue.

Am I dreaming? Andrew yang allegedly to start a third party

 So, the internet is abuzz with a rumor that Yang is about to launch a third party to complement his new book, Forward. The book is about how our institutions, as they are, are failing us, and I presume his answer is to do what I've been kind of suggesting for years, to start a third party.

Good. Good good good. And you know what? Given my own intellectual development pushing me back toward Yang over the past year, I fully support these efforts. And for me, this feels different than other third parties I've looked at before like the green party or the peoples' party. With those parties, I felt like I was compromising. Many of those parties have a progressive or socialist bend, and while I have a lot in common with them, they're not exact matches of my ideology. Yang's core platform is. Sure, there are some aspects where we diverge, but my political DNA is far more Yang Gang than it is Bernie Sanders, despite me being a huge Bernie Bro in 2016. I just used Bernie as a vehicle to be honest. I wanted change, he was the change guy, I backed him. But in reality Yang was closer to what I wanted in the first place, and given how the Yang gang has faced the same challenges in dealing with the institutional democratic party that the progressive and socialist crowds have, it makes sense they would decide to go full third party. 

The fact is, and this has been well documented on this blog, I haven't been happy with the democratic party for a while. I joined them after my "awakening" in 2012, but in reality, by ideology went straight to yang gang. By 2013 I was already researching ideas like UBI and M4A, and by 2014 I was a full on supporter of them. And by 2015, the tensions with the party started, as it seemed clear they didn't want to work with this up and coming progressive wing in their party, but still wanted their votes. In 2016, they just totally ignored the left to go all in with identity politics and centrism, and despise losing in 2016, they seemed to have learned nothing through the Trump years. And then Yang ran in 2020, he had the same problems that Bernie did, and then he ran for mayor of NYC this year, and he got crapped on even more, so now he's like "fine, third party it is". So that said, I am fully in support of his efforts here. As a matter of fact, consider me a day 1 supporter. I may not contribute financially due to not having any finances to contribute, but consider me a moral supporter of this up and coming "forward" party (or humanity first, or whatever yang calls it). 

Of course, the reaction elsewhere on the internet has been negative. It's weird how propaganda works. Most people have developed stockholm syndrome toward the democrats. Even if they hate the democrats, many still oppose this effort on the idea that a third party can never win and splits the vote and we should all vote democrat for "harm reaction" or to "feel relevant." I mean, while I have nothing wrong with people exercising their principles, i feel like this mindset is a bit too pervasive and its supporters a bit too virtue signally and self righteous. The fact is, they will attack anyone who would support such a movement and shame them, and honestly, I dont think it will ever win.

Of course, that isn't the point of a third party. it's to make a statement. The democrats have been ignoring our ideas and treating us like garbage, so we start our own party with our own ideas. The point isn't to win per se, as you would need a coalition large enough to do that, but it's to make a statement telling the larger coalitions they better take our ideas seriously or face the consequences. And it doesn't seem like it's possible to win within the current party.

I was going to maybe write some stuff on this after I got back from this vacation I was on, and I did SOME research into it for the purposes of a future article that given this revelation I'm not sure if I'll ever write, but I really don't think that progressives and yang gangers can win within the current democratic coalition. The fact is it's controlled first and foremost by centrists and neolibs, who are older, affluent, and make up a majority of the party. Then there's the idpol people. Minority groups like the black vote make up significant proportions of the democratic electorate and they seem to fall toward the establishment too. Which baffles me, given how the establishment, in my estimation, screws them too, but yeah, they seem to do their own thing, and want the entire debate on their terms, and shame anyone who isnt 100% behind them as racist. And then you have progressives, whom I see as natural allies but even they're turning on Yang because they share a political DNA closer to Bernie Sanders and "democratic socialism" than Yang's human centered capitalism. Even if we did work with progressives, they still end up in the same boat as us since they're not big enough to win over a majority of voters there given the neolibs, older voters, and minority voters all seem to vote among establishment lines for some reason. 

The fact is, we're insurgent independents running within a hostile party that doesn't want us there ideologically. And they will constantly lord over the fact, going on about how we white progressives and yang gangers just dont get it and people like moderation and  blah blah blah the black vote and yeah, it's just obnoxious. I've been thinking about these races we've had this year on vacation, with the south carolina primary this year, and yang's NYC run, and Nina Turner's run, and how the establishment won all of them, and it just seems like we have no future within the democrats. Looking at Bernie cuck himself out is a shame to see too. The fact is, a Yang gang style third party is perhaps the best way I can see my ideology being taken into the future. I don't expect it to win. Vote blue no matter who sentiment is too strong for that. But given I see us in the middle of a party realignment, it is reassuring to see a third party effort very much in line with my exact ideology positioning itself for a 2024 run. And I am glad to see Yang do what Bernie would not in pushing the ball forward. This is exactly what we need. 

That said as of this time I support this up and coming forward party and Yang running for a 2024 run. I've had it with the dems, and given how they've gone all in with Biden/Harris and a challenger isn't even in the discussion within the party, yeah, no. I see no reason why I should align with dems when I can align with someone with such a close affinity to my own politics.