People just get weirder and weirder... (NSFW-L)

  And I can't, for the life of me, figure out why.  I'm fairly sure that DSM-5 is an incomplete work, and I've read through the library copy.

  I can't find the psychopathology that would result in the rampant self-loathing that I see from people who cling like oysters to Leftist ideology (idiocy?  For all of the education they're supposed to have, and as intellectual as they try to present themselves, they don't seem to be very bright - once they start talking.)

  Case in point (read through this link before continuing): http://rightwingnews.com/race/professor-i-chose-not-to-have-children-because-they-would-be-white/ (and yes, you're reading the text of that link correctly...)

  Um.  Holy shit!  Anyhow, I found her in the UPenn directory, she's apparently an "Exchange Instructor," according to her email addy: micallis@exchange.upenn.edu.  Full name: Allison S. Michael.

  In return for the "Open Letter" she'd put up (originally at Huffington Post, but it's been getting spread about quite a bit...) I've decided to return with this:

-----     SNIP     -----

Professor Michael -
  I am curious about something.  At what point in your life did you decide to have such self-loathing over simply having light-coloured skin?  When did simply being caucasian become a crime?

  Being white myself, I am quite curious about this.  I have yet to see why having "white" skin is an issue, why it should make us any better or any worse than anyone else.

  Then again, I prefer to judge others by their actions, by the content of their heart and of their mind - not by the colour of their skin.  I have friends of all colours.  I served in the Air Force with people of all colours.  I have dated ethnic women - and had quite happy relationships.

  I have never once felt "white guilt" or "white pride" - nor do I "happen to be white."  Mum's white, dad's white, what else could I be?  It would be more of a surprise if I were to "happen to be Asian," I'd think.  It's more of a surprise that I "happen to be" over six feet tall - since height doesn't normally run in my line.  Makes me a throwback, you see.

  But, I'm not writing so much to talk about me.  I'm curious about you.  There had to be some sort of "defining incident" that was the genesis of all of this self-loathing and "white guilt" that you feel - and feel so much that you even transfer it to your progenitors and refuse to reproduce as a result!  That is an amazing transference of guilt, by far the most extreme case I have ever seen!

  Moreover, you want to transfer your guilt onto the entire population of the Earth that is Caucasian - which, to me, speaks more to arrogance on your part.  You think we should ALL feel guilty, over something that ended in this country 150 years ago, and there is NO-ONE alive that was directly affected by slavery.

  And, if you want to talk about guilt, why are you not handing out a share to the Negroes themselves?  Couldn't buy if no-one was selling - that's just basic market forces.  I've said the same thing to Black people who have been talking positively of "reparations for Slavery" - don't just go after the United States.  English and Dutch ships brought slaves over here, and Negroes were /sold/ /into/ /slavery/ by OTHER NEGROES.

  Where is the "Black guilt"?  Where are the reparations coming from West Africa - where the slaves were originally sold?  Let's look at the /whole/ picture here - not just one corner.

  Moving on - what do you meen by "whites to feel adequately guilty"?  What is "adequately guilty"?  I feel no guilt, because I have done nothing wrong.  I treat everyone equally, with the basic respect that one human being owes another, until something happens to indicate that I should offer more or less.  I have no responsibility for inequality between ethnotypes, because I did not do anything to create or perpetuate any inequity or disparity.  I instead work to create /equality/, and that is something that /nobody/ should feel any guilt over.

  Feeling guilt is non-productive.  Your "white guilt" and rampant self-loathing are useless feelings, will not accomplish anything, and will likely turn into paralyzing depression if you allow them to continue.  After all this time, I honestly don't know how you manage to get out of bed in the morning - all this guilt must be psychologically crippling for you!

  As to what Caucasians have done throughout history?  I wasn't present for history.  I assume no responsibility for anything that happened before 1977 - 1972 at the earliest (I was born mid-1972.)  How couldI feel guilt for anything that happened 200 years before I was born?  Is that not a ridiculous thing to be thinking?

  Or, do you intend to attack me for being "white without shame" - instead of answering my questions and beginning to analyse the cause of your self-loathing and probable depression. 

  And, quite frankly, I worry for your students.  I sincerely hope you aren't teaching this in the classroom - or, if you are, you run into a student like me who will /force/ you to re-examine your beliefs and your history, and realise just what a crooked path you're on.

  As to "white privilege"?  The next person who says that within two metres of me is risking a broken nose.  If white people are so bloody privileged, why have I been homeless for the last two years?  Why am I living in a motorhome, parked behind a City library, grabbing their Wi-Fi signal, and running a generator for electricity?  If I'm so bloody privileged, why do I have to go find a source of water?

  And just /why/ am I supposed to feel guilty for the actions of people long-dead?

  I await your reply.  Both this message and your replay may be considered "open letters," please bear in mind.

-----     SNIP    -----

If I get a response from her, I'll post that here as well.

-JDK

Mega-Fines and Consumers

  I'm back!

  I know, I've been away for a bit.  Long story.  Ain't over yet.  Doesn't improve with retelling.  But, I've been up to my fat arse in alligators, and every damned one of them has wanted a bite.  Ugh.  Ain't much of my sit-upon left...

  Anyhow.  On to why I'm here...

  Howcumzit that, whenever some company does something wrong, the government fines the company for the wrongdoing?  The problem with those fines (case in point - the recent FCC fine of $100M against AT&T over their "unlimited" data plan and low data speeds) is that:
  1) The people who made the decisions aren't personally hit with anything
  2) The fines are "passed through" to the consumers, in the form of rate or price increases.

  Every time I hear about some mega-fine against some company, I groan inside.  Every time I hear someone cheering about it, I don't keep it in.  Then, I end up having to explain why I'm groaning about it.  The usual answer I get?  "Damn.  I never thought of it that way..."

  (No shit.  Most people wouldn't.  Gotta step back and look at a bigger picture...)

  Same with class-action suits.  Except we can add to the list:
  3) The only people who really "win" anything are the attorneys.  Big payday for them!  Niggardly payout for the members of the class.

  Pfizer has to pay out $150M for some pharma class action judgement?  1/3 of that is raw attorneys' fees ($50M,) a good chunk of that gets eaten up in administration ($20M or so,) and the rest filters down to the class (2-5M members,) postage out, and it's probably not a cash payout to the class anyhow.  Lawyers make bank, people get boned.

  I propose something different...

  FINES: If a "company" is to be fined due to executive decisions, then the company itself is not to be fined.  Rather, the executives responsible for the decision(s) are to be fined personally.  This means the B-, C-, E-, V-, and D- level execs are the ones on the hook for fines, they've got to cough up, and cough up HARD.  Company's consumer prices are to be fixed at present level by law, and allowed nominal increases for the following five years or so, with any increase above the amount allowed by the judgement requiring detailed technological justification (id est, a major technical upgrade became necessary, or a natural disaster made replacing a data centre necessary, or something like that.  Such justification to be filed with the governing body and posted in detail to be available for the consumers [and sent out in summary with the last bill prior to the increase.]

  To be honest, I'd rather see the Execs and/or the Board held personally liable to the tune of $100M than the company held liable for $100M - the company doesn't "make decisions," that's why it has Directors and various executives.  So, hold them up!

Discuss

JDK

Either I screwed up...

Or the blogger engine dropped the message.  Hopefully, the full copypasta will appear this time - my apologies if it shows up twice.

It doesn't seem to want to work - at least, not in "preview" mode.  If you want to see the original, feel free to email me and ask (and if the whole thing shows up, please let me know how you see it.  Blogspot may have shuffled something around while I was away...  -JDK)

-----     SNIP     -----

I am emailing you both at the same time, openly, because I would like to know where you stand on a few issues.

- I note that you are consistently running on platforms of "public safety."  Much is being made of the idea of cutbacks to the San Jose Police Department, or pension arrangements, or street officers, or whatever.  My question on this?  What do you plan to do to allow and enable people to protect themselves?  There are many of us who are quite willing and able to defend ourselves against a number of threads - but the means allowed us aren't comprehensive.  We aren't all interested in putting more officers on the beat - simply because you cannot man the SJPD enough to protect everyone.  However, those of us who are ready, willing, and able to take efforts and actions to provide for our own security, and find our efforts limited by law, are frustrated by this.  Have either of you a plan to address this idea?

- The California macroeconomy, and the Silicon Valley microeconomy in particular, has been hit especially hard by the effects of the "dot-com bubble," followed by the "subprime mortgage bubble."  This has resulted in property values becoming artificially inflated by an order of magnitude - if not more.  The artificial (and wholly unnecessary) inflation in housing prices has contributed to homelessness, is driving people out of the area, and has actually trapped more than a few people IN the area (simply because they'd get raked over the coals on capital gains taxes if they sold up.  Despite having made NO improvements to their own homes, but resulting from the improvements made by neighbours.)  Have either of you a plan to address this?

- Speaking of homelessness: for a number of reasons - but most particularly artifically-inflated properly values - we seem to be leading the country in terms of relative homeless population (and probably absolute.  I haven't checked recently.)  I suppose this hits particularly close to home - as my wife and I are homeless.  Our address is essentially two license plates and a Post box!  "Moving along" is no sort of solution to homelessness, the problem needs to be FIXED, not relocated.  I believe a city in Utah had taken a novel approach - by providing housing and assistance for job placement.  Perhaps something similar can be done here?  Provide basic housing for those who are "sleeping rough," create an "RV Haven" for those of us who have motorhomes (can hook up to limited City water, shore power, and sewerage in exchange for contributing some amount of work?  While both of us are disabled, we are still willing to work part-time within our abilities; I, for instance, would be perfectly willing to perform light maintenance work, consistent with my skills, experience, and limitations.)

While I'm sure there are more issues to address, those are the three that come to mind first.  Do please note that I am posting this letter to my blog (jondkelley.blogspot.com,) as well as any replies that I get.  While I have consistently challenged the idea that the press has fostered an absolute and unlimited "right to know," I do think that this is the sort of thing that the body politic should be made aware of.

I have been a California resident since 1990, and a San Jose resident since 1997, so I've been watching things happen around here for a while.  I've seen at least a few trends that should properly be reversed, but no-one is doing anything about it.

Further, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with either - or both - of you in person, should you care to do so.

Jon D. Kelley

San Jose, CA

Questions for the Candidates...

Hello everyone!

I know I've been away for a bit - trust me, there's been a good reason for that.  Read on, and you'll see why...

With our upcoming Mayoral race, I feel there are a few questions that have NOT been addressed, but damned well SHOULD be.   Therefore, I have just sent this message to BOTH of our Mayoral candidates, and I will be sure to post any response I get from them.  Hell, if either (or both) of them take me up on the idea of discussing things, I'll have notes taken so I can relay that as well!

I know that not all of my readers are in San Jose (or that I even have that many readers in the first place.  I'm not stupid...) but I think the political process is something upon which light should be shone whenever possible - at whatever level.  So, here we go - an open letter to Dave Cortese and Sam Liccardo...

-----     SNIP     -----

I am emailing you both at the same time, openly, because I would like to know where you stand on a few issues.

- I note that you are consistently running on platforms of "public safety."  Much is being made of the idea of cutbacks to the San Jose Police Department, or pension arrangements, or street officers, or whatever.  My question on this?  What do you plan to do to allow and enable people to /protect/ /themselves/?  There are many of us who are quite willing and able to defend ourselves against a number of threats - but the means allowed us aren't comprehensive.  We aren't all interested in putting more officers on the beat - simply because you /cannot/ man the SJPD enough to protect everyone.  However, those of us who are ready, willing, and able to take efforts and actions to provide for our own security, and find out efforts limited by law, are frustrated by this.  Have either of you a plan to address this idea?

- The California macroeconomy, and the Silicon Valley microeconomy in particular, has been hit especially hard by the effects of the "dot-com bubble," followed by the "subprime mortgage bubble."  This has resulted in property values becoming artificially inflated by an order of magnitude - if not more.  The artificial (and wholly unnecessary) inflation in housing prices has contributed to homelessness, is driving people out of the area, and has actually trapped more than a few people IN the area (simply because they'd get raked over the coals on capital gains taxes if they sold up.  Despite having made NO improvements to their own homes, but resulting from the improvements made by neighbours.)  Have either of you a plan to address this?

- Speaking of homelessness: for a number of reasons - but most particularly artifically-inflated properly values - we seem to be leading the country in terms of relative homeless population (and probably absolute.  I haven't checked recently.)  I suppose this hits particularly close to home - as my wife and I are homeless.  Our address is essentially two license plates and a Post box!  "Moving along" is no sort of solution to homelessness, the problem needs to be FIXED, not relocated.  I believe a city in Utah had taken a novel approach - by providing housing and assistance for job placement.  Perhaps something similar can be done here?  Provide basic housing for those who are "sleeping rough," create an "RV Haven" for those of us who have motorhomes (can hook up to limited City water, shore power, and sewerage in exchange for contributing some amount of work?  While both of us are disabled, we are still willing to work part-time within our abilities; I, for instance, would be perfectly willing to perform light maintenance work, consistent with my skills, experience, and limitations.)

While I'm sure there are more issues to address, those are the three that come to mind first.  Do please note that I am posting this letter to my blog (jondkelley.blogspot.com,) as well as any replies that I get.  While I have consistently challenged the idea that the press has fostered an absolute and unlimited "right to know," I do think that this is the sort of thing that the body politic should be made aware of.

I have been a California resident since 1990, and a San Jose resident since 1997, so I've been watching things happen around here for a while.  I've seen at least a few trends that should properly be reversed, but no-one is doing anything about it.

Further, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with either - or both - of you in person, should you care to do so.

Jon D. Kelley

San Jose, CA

-----     SNIP     -----

Hopefully, I get answers from these men.

Political contributions...

Okeh.

Could someone please tell me how political parties generate their public donor lists?

I have been registered NPA since 1990 (I've never agreed with either major party.  The Republicans are closest to what I think, but they're too centrist for my liking.  I'm too damned far to the Right for the Libertarians!  Tiny government, basic functions only, minimal tax bite, and why are we paying the bastards at all - let alone as much as we do?)

But, the Democrats keep pestering me for $3 at a time.  Probably twice a week.  Over & over again.

I have NEVER donated to the Democrats.  I don't plan to donate to the Democrats.  The last Democrat I can think of that would have gotten my vote was JFK - at least he believed in protecting the nation, not selling it out or selling out the people (Obama, you listening?  Pelosi?  Feinstein?  Boxer?  Lofgren?  You're not following your Oaths!  STOP IT.)

So, why to the Democrats keep pestering me?  Why can't they get the message?  I'm not going to donate to them.  I'm probably NEVER going to donate to them - they're so far to the Left these days that they'd trip over Stalin's grave if they made a centrist move!

I don't really want the job.  I wouldn't spend the first four years campaigning for a second four years.  I figure if I do a good job, you'll tell me - or you can hold my second term in reserve.

But, I'm thinking I could do a better job as President than most people since Reagan.  And, I'd like to use Executive Orders to:
- Stop "riders."  If it doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter of the bill proposed, it gets struck.  Full stop.
- Proposed bills are allowed to be fifty pages long (single-sided) or twenty-five pages long (double-sided.)  If I can't read it in five minutes, it gets kicked back for a rewrite.
- Every law proposed /will/ include a provision to redact an existing law.  This should be doable for the next 30 or 40 years before we start to notice, but it should stop the wild growth of laws.  Seriously - the body of law is like a damned field of dandelions!  Have you ever /been/ to a law library?
- This "full-time legislature" thing is going to stop.  Therefore, they don't need full-time pay, or full-time staff.  This should help bring the budget down.
- Speaking of: If the budget can't propose expenditures of 95% /or/ /less/ of projected income, it gets struck and kicked back for resubmission.  If this goal can't be met one month before the end of the Fiscal Year, ALL elected personnel forfeit their pay until the budget is submitted /and/ /approved/.  Suck it up, buttercup - if you want to get paid, you fix it so everyone knows what's going on!  (This includes Cabinet-level people.  They're not popularly elected, but they /are/ approved by Congress, and they're responsible for the budgets for their departments.)  And no, you don't get back pay once it's done - forfeited pay gets used to service the principal on the Public Debt.
- And speaking of that: The 5% gap between income and expenditures?  3% of projected income is used to service the Public Debt, the remaining 2% is banked as a "Rainy Day Fund" once Social Security and Medicare has been refunded.
- And then Social Security and Medicare are to be left /alone/ - unless it is to fund a project that either benefits the Nation /as/ /a/ /whole/ or the race /as/ /a/ /whole/.  No more pork-barrel crap.
- In fact, no special projects done for cronyism.  If I find out about it, I hope you've picked your replacement - I'm going to find a way to fire your ass!
- No retirement from elected office.  Period.  No benefits accrue.  You can get Social Security like the rest of us.
- No Cadillac health plans, either.  You get MediCare (see how fast those get fixed!)
- Peruse previous Executive Orders, rescind orders prejudicial to liberty.  This is going to require a balancing act, I'm sure - but it's necessary.
- Peruse the /Federal/ /Register/.  Did you know that if something was published in the /Register/ and unchallenged for a given time (90, 120, or 180 days - I don't recall which offhand,) it carried the /force/ /of/ /law/?  /Without/ debate or voting?  Anything that carried the force of law through publication in the /Register/ gets considered, debated openly, and (likely) rescinded.
- Also, go through USC and CFR.  With a red pen.  I'm perfectly willing to bet that fully a quarter to a third of the body of law, at the Federal level, can be rescinded out of hand without any negative social effect.

That's a good start, anyhow.

Discuss.

The difference between fact and fiction? (NSFW-L)

Fiction is still constrained by the limits of believability.

Which is why we have the phrase, "You can't make this shit up!"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html

Yes, the world has indeed gone mad - some of it just faster than others.

The "Great State of Washington" has decided, debated, voted upon, and signed into a law a measure requiring that current and future laws be rewritten in "Gender Neutral" language.

"Fisherman?"  Nope - you're a "fisher" now.
"Freshman?"  Try "First-year student."
"Penmanship?"  Gone entirely - now it's "handwriting." 

In all, they've had the time, resources, and funding to change some 40,000 words of state law (the fact that there were 40,000 words that "needed" changing - and weren't even all of the words of state law - is an issue for another discussion!)

Oh, fuck me very much.  (And it should come as no surprise that this is a Democrat measure, signed into law by a Democrat governor.)

I just can't believe this.  With the price of housing creating a new class of person - the "working homeless" - the price of petroleum blowing EVERYTHING out of proportion, the job market falling to bits around our ears, wages aren't keeping up with inflation anyhow, the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") coming in a few more months to bone us all, and everything else that fair DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, you have the time, effort, and money to piss away on THIS bullshit?

Stupid ideas like this are why I'd like to be "HMFIC of Common Sense" - my job to walk around legislative chambers with a four-foot section of 2x4, and swat anyone who comes up with a stupid idea like this in the back of his head and fine him whatever I feel necessary, in proportion to the asininity displayed (min. fine $5,000, but true "weapons-grade stupidity" may be punished by just withholding ALL of their pay and having done with it.)

It's incidents like this that make me think that elected officials should be paid according to quality and utility of work output - because then THEY would pay US for permission to work, which would help to offset the continuous budgetary deficits they keep bawling about...

Discuss.  Bear in mind that, as I was taught in school (and countless generations before me,) "In cases of mixed, indeterminate, or unknown gender; the use of the masculine pronoun shall be considered appropriate."  (This has held true in every language I've had even a passing familiarity with...)

More from Lofgren re: "Safe Schools"

Dear Mr. Kelley:

 

Thank you for your follow-up response regarding the Safe Schools Act. 

 

You're right that we certainly agree on the desired result of safe schools for our children, but, after reading your email, we do differ when it comes to our beliefs about the best method for achieving that goal.  While we may not agree entirely, I appreciate hearing your views, and I assure you that I'll keep your letter in mind as we continue to debate school safety in Congress.  

-----     SNIP     -----

Cripes.  Yes, we do differ.  Come up with a proposal that has a shot at working, and I'll listen.  I've given you a couple, but you won't.

Now tell me, which of us should be in office?

Bugger.

-JDK