I wouldn't say that I "hate" vegans, but I do find the notion of being a vegan (as opposed to vegetarian) monumentally stupid. The issue is that there is no such thing as vegan in the real world. I suppose that if you got your 5 acres properly planted and maintained the ecosystem in some ideal fashion you could avoid eating any product of animal labors or whatever they're calling it, but even then, probably not!
First note: a vegitarian diet generally kills lots of animals. Not for eating, but just because farming of many plant products kills lots of small animals. Sure, they aren't deliberately killed, and they weren't kept in captivity, but the act of producing a loaf of bread will also produce dead animals.
The specific issue with veganism is that you aren't supposed to even use animals as a labor input to your food (e.g. no honey), but there is approaching zero farming that does not use animal input. Specifically pollination. Much pollination in this country is from honey bees that are kept (farmed) and moved around to polinate fields. Without pollination, no food (well, a lot less).
The fact is that being humane to animals does not require even a vegetarian diet, but if you don't want to eat the flesh of animals, I get that (and you're probably healthier than me), but to extend that to full veganism is, from a logical perspective, stupid. If you don't like cheese and eggs (or honey or dairy more generally, or wear leather or...) that's fine, but calling that a separate diet from "vegetarian" is a level of smug that is both unnecessary and inappropriate. You are certainly profiting from the work of animals, and your diet does result in the death of animals. So vegetarian is a diet choice. Vegan is really just a smug "lifestyle" choice.
Monday, November 12, 2018
Friday, September 28, 2018
Future Failure
Not sure what's going to happen, either with the supreme court [monster] nominee nor with elections this fall, but I do know that, if Democrats gain power in the house and senate, and they don't impeach Kavanaugh (assuming he'll still be confirmed), then they will have failed miserably. They won't likely have the votes to remove him, but if they allow that horrible human to get a free pass (again, assuming he's confirmed) then it is going to further erode what trust Americans (particularly women) still have that there is anyone in Washington that actually gives a damn about them.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Bicycles!
I really don't get the visceral reaction [many] drivers have to bicyclists and bike lanes. They're great, though they could and should be much better. More people bicycling to work means fewer cars on the road so remaining drivers have less traffic to contend with, and unlike the typical bike lanes we see, [parking] protected bike lanes dramatically increase safety (perceived and real) and therefore make it much more likely people who can will bicycle instead of drive.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Nice Speech, Why Didn't You Do Something?
You know, when you were President yourself?
Obama is a hard person to dislike, and gods know he gives a great speech, but right now, reading through it (I didn't watch/listen) I mostly keep being reminded of how a lot of this is his fault. Not because of the nonsense the right has vomited up about him and socialism and "Most Liberal President Evah(TM)" but because, despite the obvious craziness of the right (and the GOP in general) in this country he worked so fucking hard to try to meet them in "the middle" on policy grounds, to make them happy in the hope that they would come sidle over to him on some grand bargain. The ACA is one example (and probably not the best since it's not clear anything better could have passed...though wouldn't it have been great if he'd tried?).
The foreclosure crisis (shovel money at banks, fuck homeowners who were lied to by said banks), immigration (deport lots of people), militarism (we're not in Afghanistan anymore are we...oh, wait), and more are areas where he just was not good, and not because his hands were tied by congress but because he chose to be.
Dreamers notwithstanding he was bad on immigration, Trump is worse, but if Obama had actually been good (or at least better) then Trump wouldn't have had the infrastructure to be worse (and it's pretty fucking apparent that without preexisting infrastructure he's too incompetent to do a damned thing).
Additionally, he was in charge of the DOJ when there were investigations into both Hillary (for something stupid) and Trump (for something that was maybe stupid but only until he won the election, though there's likely a lot of legitimate illegal activity there too...just not as consequential to the country). We heard about one of those investigations, during the campaigning, a lot...and the other? Not so much, or really, at all. The FBI doesn't answer to congress, it answers to the President, yet Comey (a Republican) was doing the GOP congresscritters bidding...whether or not he knew it. Comey was not good, but he was Obama's pick, and Obama could have picked someone better.
I could go on, but it's been gone over before. The ability of Obama to give a great speech shouldn't hide the fact that he could have been a much better president, and if he had, we maybe wouldn't have ended up with the clusterfuck we have now.
Obama is a hard person to dislike, and gods know he gives a great speech, but right now, reading through it (I didn't watch/listen) I mostly keep being reminded of how a lot of this is his fault. Not because of the nonsense the right has vomited up about him and socialism and "Most Liberal President Evah(TM)" but because, despite the obvious craziness of the right (and the GOP in general) in this country he worked so fucking hard to try to meet them in "the middle" on policy grounds, to make them happy in the hope that they would come sidle over to him on some grand bargain. The ACA is one example (and probably not the best since it's not clear anything better could have passed...though wouldn't it have been great if he'd tried?).
The foreclosure crisis (shovel money at banks, fuck homeowners who were lied to by said banks), immigration (deport lots of people), militarism (we're not in Afghanistan anymore are we...oh, wait), and more are areas where he just was not good, and not because his hands were tied by congress but because he chose to be.
Dreamers notwithstanding he was bad on immigration, Trump is worse, but if Obama had actually been good (or at least better) then Trump wouldn't have had the infrastructure to be worse (and it's pretty fucking apparent that without preexisting infrastructure he's too incompetent to do a damned thing).
Additionally, he was in charge of the DOJ when there were investigations into both Hillary (for something stupid) and Trump (for something that was maybe stupid but only until he won the election, though there's likely a lot of legitimate illegal activity there too...just not as consequential to the country). We heard about one of those investigations, during the campaigning, a lot...and the other? Not so much, or really, at all. The FBI doesn't answer to congress, it answers to the President, yet Comey (a Republican) was doing the GOP congresscritters bidding...whether or not he knew it. Comey was not good, but he was Obama's pick, and Obama could have picked someone better.
I could go on, but it's been gone over before. The ability of Obama to give a great speech shouldn't hide the fact that he could have been a much better president, and if he had, we maybe wouldn't have ended up with the clusterfuck we have now.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Taint
I'm really still not sure how the disaster that is Trump will shake out, but considering the (known, obvious) corruption, and his (very well known) tendency to pick sycophants over competent individuals seems like it's going to lead to some long-term problem for Republicans. Not the least of which is: how can any [judicial] nominee put forward by this president be considered legitimate? Anything that Trump touches is tainted by Trump. This maybe a problem for everyone if he manages to do something good, but so far that doesn't seem to be a concern.
Note: this is not entirely unlike Obama related things--particularly the ACA--but since Obama wasn't (isn't) a corrupt imbecile the "Obama taint" is really only something total fucking morons buy into.
Also, yes, this works the other way too, lots of people felt Obama could do no wrong, even when he did (drone strikes, foreclosure crisis), and as per the link above, plenty of idiots think Trump is doing great...mostly because he pisses off the right people.
Note: this is not entirely unlike Obama related things--particularly the ACA--but since Obama wasn't (isn't) a corrupt imbecile the "Obama taint" is really only something total fucking morons buy into.
Also, yes, this works the other way too, lots of people felt Obama could do no wrong, even when he did (drone strikes, foreclosure crisis), and as per the link above, plenty of idiots think Trump is doing great...mostly because he pisses off the right people.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
That's One Way to Put It
I find the real estate briefs in the local paper to be a bit odd. It's clearly written by industry insiders (i.e. realtors, and realty companies) and in part it's just odd copy, but there is a bit of "news" at the tail end of it and in particular this line:
Millennials aren’t in the same hurry as previous generations to start a family and build wealth.Again, I know that who this is written by and for is probably not actually interested in cause and effect, but it's not that they aren't in a hurry, it's that milliennials ain't got no money because all our economic growth gets ate by the rich and old(er upper middle class white folks). Houses and family are not cheap, but they've effectively become luxury items for people under 30 (and maybe under 35) in our current version of America.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Nutjob
I'd be really happy if Elon Musk spun off (and sold off) Tesla auto as an independent company, without him at the helm. He's always been a bit nutty, but between the growing pains that could probably be solved by someone [group] from a high volume large item manufacturing company (like any mass market auto maker, or large truck manufacturer, or even frickin lawnmowers or refrigerators), and his increasingly detached-from-reality public persona (boring company, hyperloop) and now we've got possible fraud. He's a good "idea person" but probably shouldn't be in charge of a very large company.
Tuesday, August 07, 2018
Big Houses
I'm not a fan of the McMansion, and, consequently, a big fan of mcmansionhell and Kate Wagner. One of the big problems with these houses is just the size for size sake. My house is 2000 sq ft. (respectable but still large), has 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bath, kitchen, one living room, dining "room". I've been in houses that were twice that size but had the same room breakdown (often with a 2nd living room). That's twice as much space but no more functionality, and tends to lead to just weird useless spaces. Do you need 600 sq ft for a master bedroom? 400 for a master bath? How about a formal "living room" that's really just decorative?
That said, There are a lot of old houses around me that are 3000 - 6000 sq ft. Many were built smaller and expanded over the years, but there are plenty of old houses that are quite large. They don't feel as monstrous and stupidly overbuilt as modern mcmansions, however, and while I'm not entirely sure why, I've a couple ideas. (Note: the 10000+ sq ft realm for older actual mansions is a different category...almost all modern "homes" in that size range are just more ridiculous versions of the smaller 4k sq ft mcmansions)
First is these older houses, unless they've been updated almost always have more closed off interior spaces (i.e. separate rooms) with normal height ceilings--up to 10' but often 8-9. The necessary connecting hallways in this configuration add square feet, but don't feel as useless as the foyer of an open concept modern house. Often a big block of the square footage is from a finished attic and/or basement, which may serve the same purpose of a second living area, but by not being on the main floor they don't seem as superfluous. The other reason is that the architectural design and layout don't seem forced. These houses are mostly boxes with fairly simple/straightforward/purpose-driven roofs, facades, and lines. There just aren't as many weird not-spaces as you find in modern mcmansions. (They also tend to have one car, and on rare occasion 2-car garages that are either detached, or basement, or behind the main house...garages--specifically the garage doors--are, in general, not attractive features on houses.)
This doesn't mean all these large, old houses are without wasted space, but they often don't feel as gross as their modern equivalents.
That said, There are a lot of old houses around me that are 3000 - 6000 sq ft. Many were built smaller and expanded over the years, but there are plenty of old houses that are quite large. They don't feel as monstrous and stupidly overbuilt as modern mcmansions, however, and while I'm not entirely sure why, I've a couple ideas. (Note: the 10000+ sq ft realm for older actual mansions is a different category...almost all modern "homes" in that size range are just more ridiculous versions of the smaller 4k sq ft mcmansions)
First is these older houses, unless they've been updated almost always have more closed off interior spaces (i.e. separate rooms) with normal height ceilings--up to 10' but often 8-9. The necessary connecting hallways in this configuration add square feet, but don't feel as useless as the foyer of an open concept modern house. Often a big block of the square footage is from a finished attic and/or basement, which may serve the same purpose of a second living area, but by not being on the main floor they don't seem as superfluous. The other reason is that the architectural design and layout don't seem forced. These houses are mostly boxes with fairly simple/straightforward/purpose-driven roofs, facades, and lines. There just aren't as many weird not-spaces as you find in modern mcmansions. (They also tend to have one car, and on rare occasion 2-car garages that are either detached, or basement, or behind the main house...garages--specifically the garage doors--are, in general, not attractive features on houses.)
This doesn't mean all these large, old houses are without wasted space, but they often don't feel as gross as their modern equivalents.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
"Our Revolution" Mess
I'm very not surprised that "Our Revolution" is a bit of a mess. The Sanders campaign was a bit of an odd duck. In advance of the 2016 primaries the Democratic party (DNC) effectively cleared the field for Clinton. There was some token opposition, either there to nudge the party or to get a platform for themselves for future [potential] runs or whatever, but the script was basically that Hillary would be the nominee. Bernie really had no obvious chance, but the problem is that lots of Democrats have not been very happy with the party (or the Clintons) and Sanders was a way for them to give the finger to the establishment (not unlike Trump, though in a more aware-of-reality way).
Bernie probably would not have been as successful if the DNC hadn't tried to make Hillary the nominee in advance of anyone actually voting. The very nature of the coalition that supported Bernie is a bit of a mess, and so trying to form a group out of that is, at best, going to be a challenge. There are a handful of things that kinda unite them (Medicare for all, maybe free college, probably more generous social security...) but they got a boost from the large number of anti-[Hillary] Clinton people that exist within the Democratic party. To the extent that those people are anti-Clinton because of her positions (Iraq war vote, big business/bank support) they probably fit well into a post 2016 progressive activist group, but even in the Democratic party a lot of anti-Clinton is really irrational anti-Hillary Clinton, in a similar vein to the Republican anti-Clinton idiocy.
Without Hillary Clinton on the ballot, even with the DCCC being horrible, there's not as much anger to harness for primary battles as there was in 2016--there's a LOT of anger, but it's pretty much all directed against President Fucking Moron.
Bernie probably would not have been as successful if the DNC hadn't tried to make Hillary the nominee in advance of anyone actually voting. The very nature of the coalition that supported Bernie is a bit of a mess, and so trying to form a group out of that is, at best, going to be a challenge. There are a handful of things that kinda unite them (Medicare for all, maybe free college, probably more generous social security...) but they got a boost from the large number of anti-[Hillary] Clinton people that exist within the Democratic party. To the extent that those people are anti-Clinton because of her positions (Iraq war vote, big business/bank support) they probably fit well into a post 2016 progressive activist group, but even in the Democratic party a lot of anti-Clinton is really irrational anti-Hillary Clinton, in a similar vein to the Republican anti-Clinton idiocy.
Without Hillary Clinton on the ballot, even with the DCCC being horrible, there's not as much anger to harness for primary battles as there was in 2016--there's a LOT of anger, but it's pretty much all directed against President Fucking Moron.
There's a Word for That
Hmm...an article at Vox from a "conservative who cares about climate change". There's a word that describes that person: a Democrat.
Democrats are the more liberal of the two parties, but there is a more relevant divide: Democrats are pro-fact and pro-reality. Republicans are neither. No matter what your opinion on the free market, abortion, even guns, so long as your opinion is based on reason, logic, facts, science and not bizarre fantasies about things that don't describe reality, there is one party that is a fit for you: the Democratic party. You can look at pretty much any issue and find a wide range of nuanced opinions held by Democrats (lawmakers and voters alike) and a singularly crazy opinion held by Republicans.
Gun control: Democratic opinions range from "ban all guns" to "maybe we should have some very minor gun control laws, that won't do much, but may prevent at least a couple crazy people from getting weapons they could use to kill children". Republican position: everyone should have a gun on them, probably prominently displayed, and possibly a high powered assault rifle, so they can be the hero in case a bad guy with a gun comes around!
Abortion: Democratic opinions range from "abortions for anyone, on demand, at anytime during pregnancy, and for any reason" to "abortion is wrong, but should remain legal, though making it more difficult is acceptable". Republican position: people who get abortions are murderers and people who kill abortion doctors [you know: actual murderers] are heroes, also women shouldn't be allowed to have sex whenever they want anyway, that should be for men to decide (their actual opinion range actually runs to far worse than that).
Global warming and what to do about it: Democratic opinions range from "ban drilling and fracking, and any new energy development that isn't at least carbon neutral" to "we can't stop this but should really try to slow it down and figure out how to deal with the coming crisis". Republican position: global warming is a Chinese hoax.
Capitalism vs. Socialism: are you fucking kidding me?!? Aside from Bernie Sanders (and maybe Elizabeth Warren, though I don't think I'd give you her) name one prominent Democrat that champions socialism over the free market. Republican position: say "free markets" and "small business" a lot then give tax cuts to the richest people (individuals and corporations) in a fashion that distorts free markets and does nothing for small business.
The fact is that the Democratic party has for a long time (and to the frustration of many liberals) welcomed all types of conservatives, and the Republican party for a long time and to an increasing degree has rejected all forms of reason/science/evidence/logic/facts, in favor of a tribal world view with the primary goal of winning elections so they can cut taxes of rich people.
Democrats are the more liberal of the two parties, but there is a more relevant divide: Democrats are pro-fact and pro-reality. Republicans are neither. No matter what your opinion on the free market, abortion, even guns, so long as your opinion is based on reason, logic, facts, science and not bizarre fantasies about things that don't describe reality, there is one party that is a fit for you: the Democratic party. You can look at pretty much any issue and find a wide range of nuanced opinions held by Democrats (lawmakers and voters alike) and a singularly crazy opinion held by Republicans.
Gun control: Democratic opinions range from "ban all guns" to "maybe we should have some very minor gun control laws, that won't do much, but may prevent at least a couple crazy people from getting weapons they could use to kill children". Republican position: everyone should have a gun on them, probably prominently displayed, and possibly a high powered assault rifle, so they can be the hero in case a bad guy with a gun comes around!
Abortion: Democratic opinions range from "abortions for anyone, on demand, at anytime during pregnancy, and for any reason" to "abortion is wrong, but should remain legal, though making it more difficult is acceptable". Republican position: people who get abortions are murderers and people who kill abortion doctors [you know: actual murderers] are heroes, also women shouldn't be allowed to have sex whenever they want anyway, that should be for men to decide (their actual opinion range actually runs to far worse than that).
Global warming and what to do about it: Democratic opinions range from "ban drilling and fracking, and any new energy development that isn't at least carbon neutral" to "we can't stop this but should really try to slow it down and figure out how to deal with the coming crisis". Republican position: global warming is a Chinese hoax.
Capitalism vs. Socialism: are you fucking kidding me?!? Aside from Bernie Sanders (and maybe Elizabeth Warren, though I don't think I'd give you her) name one prominent Democrat that champions socialism over the free market. Republican position: say "free markets" and "small business" a lot then give tax cuts to the richest people (individuals and corporations) in a fashion that distorts free markets and does nothing for small business.
The fact is that the Democratic party has for a long time (and to the frustration of many liberals) welcomed all types of conservatives, and the Republican party for a long time and to an increasing degree has rejected all forms of reason/science/evidence/logic/facts, in favor of a tribal world view with the primary goal of winning elections so they can cut taxes of rich people.
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
Frustration
This seems to be the way of the world, pretty much since forever. Every fucking major publication and outlet hosts right wingers and racists complaining about getting silenced (the irony is painful). I once again stumbled across Real Time when Bill Maher decided to host the Canadian idiot, and was reminded once again why I despise Bill Maher--he may be correct >75% of the time but when he's wrong it's so predictable and stupid (and often bigoted) that I have a hard time understanding why anyone actually likes him. His core is basically anti-Trump, liberal bigot, and that is an almost non-existent category of person in this country (though many who are in it are surprisingly powerful, and also white...and male).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)