Is This Satire?

I read this piece by Matt Yglesias at Vox and I really can't tell if it's supposed to be read seriously or not.  No commentary on it, just a question to the void...

For Me? Because "Vegan" Isn't a Real Thing.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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. 

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).

Deep Thought

There are 2 kinds of people: 

1. People who know Trump is a "fucking moron", and 
2. Fucking morons.

Needing "Leaders" is a Problem

Ignoring my many disagreements with French toward the end of this pretty good interview he's talking about a solution and he says:

...I think leadership really, really matters. I think what's needed now is compelling, bold leadership to help repair a rotting political infrastructure...

I'm not sure that he really understands the problem.  Donald Trump is, for all his many faults, "compelling, bold leadership."  He compelled a truckload of mostly [politically] uncaring people to get to the polls for the Republican primary.  He compelled people in states that were considered locks for Dems, who had voted for Obama, to switch to vote for a "Republican" and he is so bold that he not only commits sexual assault but then brags about it.

The problem, fwiw, is that the GOP leadership has, for decades, cultivated their supporters to be particularly stupid.  It's pretty much the only way to win elections when the platform your party stands for boils down to "tax cuts for rich people and whatever the moral outrage of the day is so we can keep the plebes in line/distracted".

The health care thing is the perfect example.  The complaints from the GOP is that people have to spend too much for crappy coverage, but their "fix" is to cut taxes for rich people and make it so that everyone else will have to spend more for worse coverage or go uncovered.

Yea, No, He's Also Deeply Stupid

It's probably mostly meaningless but this is a really stupid article.  I take it's meaning, but really, even the fundamentally incurious moron who now occupies the oval office doesn't know "nothing" he just doesn't know the things that are relevant to his position.  He knows how to bully, and how to shame and cajole people into doing what he wants, and how to manipulate the press, but the line that is adopted in the article is like saying dogs are smart because they eat when they're hungry.  So fucking what?  Following a logical path isn't a sign of intelligence, or understanding, and applying those adjectives to a person who is primarily exhibiting a very base instinct for self preservation (and a complimentary instinct to illicit praise from others of himself) and whose instinct works to get those things (mostly because he was given lots of money when young) isn't, well, smart.

Good Take, Odd Title

More and more appearance for Hillary Clinton and apparently more people piling on.  I really like Ezra's take though I think the title is a bit odd.  It sounds like he's going to go and talk about how good a candidate she was, and he really doesn't.

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, but that was mostly through no fault of her own.  There were two big fuck-ups that tarnished her badly for me: her vote for the Iraq war and her paid speeches to Wall Street bankers.  Those were only relevant in the primary.  She was a flawed candidate for the general election, not because of those things, but because of years of anti-Clinton (and specifically anti-Hillary Clinton) bullshit that Republicans had been flinging.  None of it was true, but enough stuck in the minds of many voters that one of the more honest politicians we have was regularly rated as less trustworthy than the most dishonest hack we've ever seen.  That isn't her fault, but that should have been a very obvious issue for everyone (including her) going into the election.

There is a weird notion among Democrats that being right and good and competent count for something in a general election.  They should, I agree, but after Reagan and Dubbya and now Trump it should be really fucking clear that being right and good and competent don't count for much.  That's a problem, but it's one that all Democrats should understand well, but quite a few clearly fucking don't.

Of Course They're Incompetent

Here's a scenario for you:

You are someone who specializes in [pretty much anything] and there is a position in the White House staff to provide advice and help implement policy regarding the thing you specialize in.  You are asked to take said position.  It is the Trump White House.

Normaly the answer to something like this is not simple, but there's a good chance it would be "Yes!" That last line though is a kicker.  The problem is that Trump is a know-nothing man child who may listen to you while you are in the room but you've got at best a 50/50 chance that your informed suggestion will get implemented, a chance that goes down dramatically if anyone else talks to him between the time you did and the time that said suggestion gets implemented.  The chance approaches zero if any of a small handful of people are opposed.  In the end, whether you get fired, resign or just toil on fruitlessly, you will be forever tarnished as "that person who worked for the Trump administration."

So the answer becomes easy: NO!   The fact is that, almost by definition, anyone who accepts a position in this White House or from this president is inherently unqualified and incompetent.  His supreme court pick is already tarnished by virtue of the fact that it should have been filled a year earlier, but it was Trump that put forth the nomination.  Justice lobster is sure to have asterisks by his name throughout history.

This all brings me back to the beginning of an article Digby quotes extensively from here (article is NYT which I will try my best to never link directly again):

Mr. Trump’s appetite for chaos, coupled with his disregard for the self-protective conventions of the presidency, have left his staff confused and squabbling. And his own mood, according to two advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity, has become sour and dark, turning against most of his aides — even his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — and describing them in a fury as “incompetent,” according to one of those advisers.

Emphasis mine.  No competent aids would accept a position, and in the unlikely event one did (because she really thought she could make a difference) Donald would end up firing her because a competent person would end up disagreeing with president man-child on pretty much everything.

I Kinda Figured

It seemed somewhat obvious to me that lots of Trump voters would end up surprised/upset at Trump doing something that he said he would do.  I mostly figured it would be when the AHCA kicked lots of them off their insurance or led to increases in health care costs that they won't be able to afford, but that it's immigration related seems somehow more appropriate.

I certainly feel bad for the man who was deported, but his own wife voted for Trump!  A lot of this is shit that will have next to no impact on my life, but I wasn't too stupid to get it.  The talk about deporting "bad hombres" was obviously talking about deporting people whether or not they were "bad hombres" in reality.  This is largely because Obama was already deporting crap tons of people and the "bad hombre" segment was already covered.  The only way to deport more would be to kick out hard working, tax paying, America loving immigrants, probably breaking up families in the process, and that's exactly what is happening.

So on the one hand: I am sorry, and no family should have to go through that.  On the other: you stupid fucking people should have fucking thought about the election with something more advanced than your lizard brains.

The Horrible, it Burns!

It seems that Republicans don't actually want the pile of shit that is the ACHA to pass but no one wants to be blamed for it failing.  The Senate Republicans, if they were smart (some actually are) would bring the the House passed bill for a vote as is, vote it down dramatically, and then blame the House for handing them a pile of shit to vote for, pushing it back to them to fix.  Not looking like they'll do that but that would be their best move.

"No Labels" Is A Label

So far as Republicans go, the ones that sign on to the whole "No Labels" gibberish are better than those that don't.  So far as Democrats go, the ones that sign on are even better Republicans than the Republicans that do, but not actually good Democrats.  The problem is that "No Labels" is a label and based on what those who associate with it have said they want that label is basically "Republicans but not total assholes".

They tend to [say they] believe in cutting [business] taxes and cutting social welfare programs (including Social Security, though they are more circumspect about that). They also support science research and its conclusions, they don't think gay people are the devil, and mostly they don't believe that the brown folks are going to destroy our way of life (well, not the Hispanic brown people, they do want to kill them some Middle-Eastern brown people but even then they are more selective).