Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

We aren't strictly a Socialist country yet, but we are trending hard in that direction. We are currently a capitalist country that is using the massive abundance that Capitalism miraculously provides to fund a massive and constantly growing welfare state. At some point, the Golden Goose is going to collapse from exhaustion.

[iam416]

Changing the Constitutional structure is very much not in the cards, politically. For now. There will be no Court packing. I don't even think they can pack the Senate, though that's much closer. However, that statement is only true for now and the immediate future. 5-10 years from now? I really can't say. I used to be very set that they couldn't do it. But, the genius of the Left is that they've taken their generally less popular issues (economic "socialism") and packaged it around "systemic racism" which, whether or not it's popular, is strong enough to silence opposition -- most importantly, opposition WITHIN the party. Ds can and do push back on some economic issues, but race issues? No.

So, you have, IMO, the real Left -- the AOC Left -- being able to punch way above their actual weight with the combined cudgel of systemic racism + social media + corporate fear. Ds just aren't going to push back on that. The only question is whether purple suburb frogs are able to generate a spine before they're boiled.

[iam416]

We aren't strictly a Socialist country yet, but we are trending hard in that direction. We are currently a capitalist country that is using the massive abundance that Capitalism miraculously provides to fund a massive and constantly growing welfare state. At some point, the Golden Goose is going to collapse from exhaustion.

We're not strictly a capitalist country either given that we do regulate markets and such. Otherwise, you are correct, though, again, the rate we're moving left is probably the biggest debatable point amongst left/right. Folks on the Left claim there's nothing to see here. Folks on the Right scream warn of Venezuela soon. As between you and me, we probably disagree marginally on the rate with you think it's happening (and is politically able to happen) faster than I. But that disagreement is more on the margins than fundamental.

[Hannibal]

We are in a weird situation where the government is outsourcing socialism and big government to Corporate America. Corporate America is the new Big Government. Technically, it's free enterprise, but there is no legitimate competition or choice in many cases now. Corporate America provides you with your paycheck and your health care, and they fire you if you speak out against the orthodoxy of the day, or they ban you from society by denying essential services to you. It's more or less China's social credit score system, but done in a way that Libertarians go along with it, because it's OK if Big Bank and Big Airline do it.

It's fucking brilliant, to be honest. One of the most ingenious society subversion moves of all time was The Left somehow taking over Madison Avenue and Wall Street institutions and then pressuring all of Corporate America into being centers of wokeness.

[UMStan White]

Jesus Geezer. What a blowhard! (I thought you were dead)

[Hannibal]

2BACF5E7-7725-4D48-BC50-AA18491894AB.jpeg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Lengthy thread but worth the read. The Maricopa County Supervisors (the majority of whom are Republicans) speak out against the accusations being made by the AZ Audit people, starting with the accusation that they "deleted" data.

Jack Sellers, the Republican Chair of the Board, said they will refuse to comply with any more Senate subpoenas. The people they hired to "audit" the vote are using taxpayer money to "play auditor" in his words.

[iam416]

It’s not worth the read because it’s an utterly for show issue.

[iam416]

This is for Hannibal by his beloved hero and noted anti-PDJTer -- Kevin Williamson! https://www.nationalreview.com/the-t...dubon-society/

It's on institutional capture and relates, I think, Hannibal's points re corporate capture, though, he waives away corporations because their primary fidelity is to shareholders -- by law. So, I think what's in the article re various not-for-profit organizations and universities and newspapers is obviously correct. What's interesting is the extent to which it applies to corporations. And, I think we have to almost break those into categories, too -- those with virtual monopoly power -- like FB, Twitter, Amazon, Apple -- and those that are more market driven. I think it's clear the former are captured and that's going to lead to government intervention at some point.

The latter -- like Coke, Delta, etc (and their reaction to the utter fucking lies re Georgia voting) are more interesting. For example, Coke has backed off the ledge considerably. That, to me, is the most interesting thought point. How suspect to Woke capture are real, market-driven companies beholdent to shareholders? I suspect (or, possible, just hope) that pushback will slow the capture. However, I think it's probably worth viewing even that two ways -- first, what does the company do outwardly? and second what does it do inwardly to enforce conformist thought. I have very little hope for the latter.

[Da Geezer]

Jesus Geezer. What a blowhard! (I thought you were dead)

You are always welcome to defend your public-sector union fetish, or court-packing, or critical race theory, (or anthropogenic global warming if you are bent on discussing religion).

Better to discuss our shared culpability for SDS or the Port Huron Declaration. This is where the campus craziness started. For the younger readers:

The Port Huron Statement argued that because "the civil rights and peace and student movements are too poor and socially slighted, and the labor movement too quiescent", it should rally support and strengthen itself by looking to universities, which benefit from their "permanent position of social influence" and being "the only mainstream institution that is open to participation by individuals of nearly any viewpoint". However, it stated that this "will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty" who "must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy", ally with groups outside the university, integrate "major public issues into the curriculum", "make debate and controversy". In short, "They must consciously build a base for their assault upon the loci of power."^[7]

[Jeff Buchanan]

Definite pandemic patterns by country (and that's how the data is collected, studied and reported on) seem to be emerging. One of them is, duhhh, vaccines work. Get them into arms. I'll get to that.

The other is a bit more nuanced. It is how quickly and effectively can health care systems intervene and provide care for CLI - in the collective although it fundamentally is determined by single Dr./Patient interactions.

An example: "Babies dying in Brazil at unprecedented rates. Doctors are baffled." They shouldn't be. I suspect they aren't. As usual the press is. Young people, previously considered to be less likely to get sick, have become target hosts as the number of adults get sick, recover and and have conferred immunity. This makes sense. In countries with effective vaccine roll-out programs that have inoculated a lot of citizens and decent health care infrastructure, early intervention and treatment, routinely takes place. Brazil, by reputation, has terrible HC infrastructure that leaves newly infected infants and youngsters without early intervention and treatment. Respiratory illness proceeds and results in death. This is particularly true with infants who have fragile respiratory systems to begin with - a simple virus like RSV, untreated with basic, supportive care, kills. We already know this. COVID has a very similar pathogenesis to RSV.

Its sad that this is happening in Brazil but the problem should not be extrapolated to, say, the EU, North America or elsewhere where decent healthcare infrastructure is present. Instead of whining about vaccine equity, the WHO, among other agencies that do AID work, like the UN, should be laser focused on programs to build HC infrastructure in places that don't have it. As a side note, there are African nations that do exceedingly well in providing good HC for their citizens with few resources. So, it's not like you have to replicate an enormously costly US HC system in those countries. The point is, while the WHO blames "rich" countries for not sharing vaccines they stock piled, this is a strawman argument that fails to shine a light on "poor" countries who are poor out of sheer government incompetence and corruption.

On vaccines: frankly, the problem isn't not enough vaccines, it's failed distribution and grossly mismanaged PH programs. India is a classic example. What the pandemic has exposed is the gigantic failure of some governments to be prepared, to invest in, healthcare infrastructure. Sure, some high levels of disease burden, like Brazil's can be attributed to COVID politics but it goes beyond just that as I point out above in Brazil and India. Because so many places have shitty PH programs and the means to insure public or private access, the SARS2 pandemic is going to continue to afflict these places and indirectly the rest of the world. India, for example, a shit-hole to begin with has now become a brew pot of SARS2 variants.

What I'd like to see as part of a global problem solving effort is fingering China for starting this whole thing and holding them accountable for global solutions. They've got plenty of money and expertise in HC system organization, right? They brag about how wonderful Communism is in that regard all the time. Show me the money!

[iam416]

The WaPo publishes an "ANALYSIS" piece asserting that Israel's "Iron Dome" perpetuates the Israel-Hamas conflict. To cut directly to the chase -- if more Jews died from Hamas attacks then it'd force Israel into a political solution more rapidly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/14/israels-iron-dome-defense-system-protects-israeli-lives-it-also-perpetuates-israel-gaza-conflict/

[Dr. Strangelove]

This is for Hannibal by his beloved hero and noted anti-PDJTer -- Kevin Williamson! https://www.nationalreview.com/the-t...dubon-society/

It's on institutional capture and relates, I think, Hannibal's points re corporate capture, though, he waives away corporations because their primary fidelity is to shareholders -- by law. So, I think what's in the article re various not-for-profit organizations and universities and newspapers is obviously correct. What's interesting is the extent to which it applies to corporations. And, I think we have to almost break those into categories, too -- those with virtual monopoly power -- like FB, Twitter, Amazon, Apple -- and those that are more market driven. I think it's clear the former are captured and that's going to lead to government intervention at some point.

The latter -- like Coke, Delta, etc (and their reaction to the utter fucking lies re Georgia voting) are more interesting. For example, Coke has backed off the ledge considerably. That, to me, is the most interesting thought point. How suspect to Woke capture are real, market-driven companies beholdent to shareholders? I suspect (or, possible, just hope) that pushback will slow the capture. However, I think it's probably worth viewing even that two ways -- first, what does the company do outwardly? and second what does it do inwardly to enforce conformist thought. I have very little hope for the latter.

There's a lot to think about here and it gets broader than a political discussion. because this is touching on the field of organizational behavior and whether there's a tendency of ALL organizations, corporate, govt, military, sports teams, universities, school boards, etc. to trend towards conformity over time.

Why have so many institutions turned liberal? I think there's been some "purging", definitely, but there's also self-selection on the other side too. The less control one faction has over the organization, the more contempt they tend to show for that organization. It starts to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Washington Post doesn't hire many (if any) conservatives because those people are determined to be "bad fit" troublemakers. At the same time few conservatives express a desire to work there because they don't respect the profession or the people they'd be working with.

It's a tough problem to fix but there's pretty much no way around bringing in people (no matter the institution) you may be uncomfortable with.

[Mike]

The WaPo publishes an "ANALYSIS" piece asserting that Israel's "Iron Dome" perpetuates the Israel-Hamas conflict. To cut directly to the chase -- if more Jews died from Hamas attacks then it'd force Israel into a political solution more rapidly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/14/israels-iron-dome-defense-system-protects-israeli-lives-it-also-perpetuates-israel-gaza-conflict/

Or if tenants would pay their fucking rent, they wouldn’t get evicted.

[iam416]

There's a lot to think about here and it gets broader than a political discussion. because this is touching on the field of organizational behavior and whether there's a tendency of ALL organizations, corporate, govt, military, sports teams, universities, school boards, etc. to trend towards conformity over time.

Why have so many institutions turned liberal? I think there's been some "purging", definitely, but there's also self-selection on the other side too. The less control one faction has over the organization, the more contempt they tend to show for that organization. It starts to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Washington Post doesn't hire many (if any) conservatives because those people are determined to be "bad fit" troublemakers. At the same time few conservatives express a desire to work there because they don't respect the profession or the people they'd be working with.

It's a tough problem to fix but there's pretty much no way around bringing in people (no matter the institution) you may be uncomfortable with.

I think self-selection is an aspect of it, but it's not a primary aspect. Or rather, it's not a primary aspect for the captured organizations any more. I would, instead, say that there was, at some point in time, a tipping point (produced, in part, by self-selection) where it was no longer a matter of self-selection but rather instituttional desire for homogenous thought. So, perhaps self-selection plays a role in producing the capture -- not perhaps, definitely plays a role -- but once it's captured the institution enforces the orthodoxy.

So, I'm way more sympathetic to your argument as at least a partial explanation as to why we are where we are. But, I'm not really buying it for "captured" institutions. The New Yorker, e.g., has zero interest in hiring Kevin Williamson, who is not really a :"trouble-maker." We know that. It happened.

But, again, the more interesting question, to me, is with the institutions that have yet to be captured. There ought not, e.g., be self-selection causes when it comes to working for corporations. This is where your analysis, I think, needs to accept at least some of the more uncomfortable points made by those of use "non-Woke fools." I'm not sure, e.g., why Delta would be more attractive to the Woke than Conservatives either in terms of employement or shareholders. So, that's why the corporate aspect of it is so interesting to me. And, again, I think it gets very nuanced based on the markets they're competing in, coprorate structure and then, can even be broken down into employment environment, PR moves and probably more things.