marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-09-11 11:54 pm

Welcome to the new 'Welfare queen': the 'EITC Queen'

I can't imagine how else they'll sell the base on auditing everyone eligible for the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) except to tell them:

"There they are, cruising 'round in their Cadillacs with those heavy Gucci bags back to their McMansions to rest on their big, fancy couches with their 104 inch, 4000K TVs blasting away in their faces, eating some crab legs. Meanwhile, hard-working people like YOU are just scraping by!"

I could see this as the thing that makes the plug-and-play "base" stomp and howl and chant, "Lock 'em up!" at Trumpanado's next barnstorming. Of course, half the people at the rally would have be locked up, too, but whatever; never let facts get in the way of a good hate-in, is what I say.


Before anyone asks, it rained for about 14 hours. We're at a slight elevation so it wasn't too bad. Wind held steady between "blowing branches off trees" and "knocking them over" (including one down the road that took our power out around 6:30am, so at least it wasn't like we were in the pitch black dark while debris made terrifying landings on the roof all night). I jammed earplugs in and slept through most of it, because I didn't want to know.

I made my own ice blocks using gallon ziploc bags the day before, and today we found a store with some ice, then the power cut back on a few hours later, so food loss was pretty minimal.

The hardest part was not knowing: as of 9pm last night Irma was supposed to hit as a Cat 3 or 4, so I was fairly anxious, even apologizing to Bowie, who's even more terrified of debris hitting the roof than I am, which by then it already was.

But Irma was downgraded via push notification to a tropical storm shortly thereafter. I could not believe my eyes, so I spent another hour checking my radar app, my news app, NOAA, weather.gov, the latest on the Post, the Times and the local news, then, satisfied this was probably not End Times In My Neighborhood, just tried to get some sleep.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-09-08 03:00 am
Entry tags:

Hell to the...

She called herself a master negotiator and "worth the trouble" when the Democratic Party tried with all its might to pitch her overboard, preferably head-first.

Boy-howdy, she wasn't kidding. She stood her ground and so she stayed. She did it again this week, and in doing so saved the day (the week, the month, the year, and possibly all of 2018).

Nancy Pelosi, hell to the...

YES!!! An MSN poll shows 65 percent currently approve of Trump accepting the Democratic proposal to avoid federal government shutdown
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-09-05 04:25 am
Entry tags:

Fact check! Trump malicious to Jimmy Carter: 'unproven'

We have our own fake news, you know. It's just not as profitable* as the other side's. :/

*Because our fake news is/has always been such a crashing bore. All the gonzo Hunter S. Thompsoning is going on exclusively for the right.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-09-04 11:38 pm
Entry tags:

Prediction Edition

It's do that or drink. You're welcome to flip a coin to help me decide which in the future.


  • China remains defiant and disrespectful to the US
  • Trump ends trade with China* (maybe not so much other nations, and def not with his precious Rossia) sometime this week
  • Russia sides with North Korea, whether we drop trade with Russia or not
  • North Korea lobs something at us by Wednesday
  • Irma hits US mainland by Sunday - or else harmlessly breaks up at sea
  • As I write this, I predict it's dark out on the East Coast

*Too bad we didn't have infrastructure in place years ago, at the ready as we speak, to drop trade with China. Building it after the fact will be like playing catch-up for the next 20 years, all while prices fast approach something like banana republic of Venezuela inflationary levels. But China takes most of our manufacturing and many of our blue collar jobs, tons of our money, chips away at the well-being of millions of our people and give us almost nothing in return (the 900,000 jobs the media frantically panics about us losing are surely mostly tied up in poorly paying port and trucking jobs with fantastically horrible conditions), not even assurance of protection from a little stain the size of Pennsylvania.

The thing with North Korea is if we hit them we take South Korea out - if somehow we precision target the North and don't hit the South, if any useful part of the North is left standing then they'll use it to take out the South - and S. Korea has no nukes to threaten or actually go after the North with, just to spare us the fucking agony. That's because our policy has been completely bereft of rhyme or reason in that we prohibit the South - our long-term ally - from even possessing nukes, while the North is all like BOMBS AWAY MOTHERFUCKERS. Doesn't make much sense.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-30 04:01 am
Entry tags:

“Historic.” “Biggest ever.” “Epic.”

While Texans were fleeing, losing their homes, workplaces and lives, Trump "actually suggested that he’d timed the announcement of his pardon of Joe Arpaio to coincide with the storm’s arrival" because he figured more people were watching the news than normally would be on a Friday night.

Which proves nothing trumps Trump's race card - not even members of his own constituency drowning, flooding out and dying while he merrily, quite contentedly plays, pleased as punch not just with his own timing, but also with the wholly repugnant nature of his announcement.

“In the middle of a hurricane, even though it was a Friday evening, I assumed the ratings would be far higher than they would be normally,” he said. Thousands of Texans were losing their homes. Some had died. And Trump, per usual, was measuring his audience.

[...]

“Historic.” “Biggest ever.” “Epic.” That was Trump on Harvey.

“Historic.” “Massive.” “The likes of which the world has never seen.” That was Trump on his election victory.

The next day he held a (likely paid) rally at the storm site, same as the (likely paid) rally he held to announce his cursed run for office. There, he had choice words for the newly flooded, injured, homeless, jobless and mourning-the-dead voters awaiting him with the adoration bordering on near-rapture we've come to expect:

"What a crowd! What a turnout!"

In other words, maybe God's played a little joke on us.

See, it was simply time for Trump to hold another rally, but God's Anointed Orange just couldn't figure out where, so this time He chose the venue for him - but only after completely destroying it to ensure the maximum amount of TV coverage.

See, it all makes sense now!

Texas, you have my sympathies.

marahmarie: Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back! (Kotter)
2017-08-29 11:08 pm
Entry tags:

Go, troops! (Updated shortly after posting w/ETA)

YES!!!!

The push notification came during dinner. I glanced at it, put my phone down, got out of my chair and started whooping. I also had something to say about the walking cheese doodle, with a smile on my face while two fingers stayed up in the air.

Now, I'm not one to engage in bothsidesism, especially when the divide opens on the same side(!) but this time I have to. Mattis is openly defying Trump, and that's one of the most courageous and beautiful things I never thought I'd see. There's a lot of elation going on right now, just owing to that. But you have the parallel universe we occupy where, in fact, Mattis is not at all defying Trump - if anything, he's still following orders to the letter - so I just want to get that out there.

But! There's not going to be any study "proving" transgender people are unfit for anything - not unless Alex Jones (or some similar quack) conducts the damn study himself. So let's just wait and see...


ETA: Scavenged the news and saw the ACLU's sued over the ban, Democrats and "LBGTQ" advocates (I prefer the term LBGTQIA) are vowing to fight the ban, and opinion at The Washington Post states Congress must block the ban. Agreed!

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-25 11:05 pm
Entry tags:

Trump proves who "the base" is made up of with his latest moves (updated 8-26-17 & 9-4-17)

By how firmly he's standing on his hair helmet while federal-diaster-declared Hurricane Harvey blows through Texas to perform the care and feeding of his fringe, he shows that if this is the output Cambridge Analytica gives him, the inputs must be nothing short of well nigh primordial: today and tonight the same sprayed-on tan who believes "nice Nazis" exist pulled a hate-group-approved triple play: pardoning Arpaio, considering the cancellation of DACA (apparently he just likes to play with his food - this would hardly be the first time), and signing* a directive on the transgender military ban.


ETA, 9-4-17: When I said "likes to play with his food" I had no clue I was being that literal. But yes, I was! Jesus Christ.


Looks like he's picking up where Bannon left off on the weekend-ruining - because obviously Texas blowing apart - possibly twice - wasn't bad enough.

And ETA, next morning: The Orangado regime really does get a kick out of fucking up your Fridays (not news when Bannon admitted as much after, if I recall correctly, three weekends in a row earlier this year of sowing absolute chaos with everything from the Muslim ban to deportations).

*Fixed/updated link after posting; hat tip to [personal profile] darkoshi for finding the error.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-23 04:30 am
Entry tags:

Does a "base" not count as a "fringe" if it has an ever-dwindling membership that was kind of...

...small to begin with? How big was Pumpkinado's base at its height (and let's judge a true "base" by "strongly favorable" reviews, since "base" sort of equates to "cult")? And what's it at now?

And if it was always a minority of USians (Hillary won the popular vote, so yeah, "minority"), and if it's a minority of Trump voters - to judge by today's "strongly favorable" reviews - than is it any less of a fringe than the KKK or the Black Panthers or whomever (for purposes of this discussion, I'm limiting my definition of "fringe" not to which ideology's supported, but to how many people it can boast. By this standard, if dog lovers become few and far between enough, dog lovers become "fringe").

Asking because: Gah, why we are twisting ourselves into pretzels over what the media calls a "base" that I can only think of as a "fringe"?

Say, by the numbers, which are dismal, there were 10 people - these crazy, hotwired fiends that always seemed to want more and more of my style of...trashtalking, let's say? - and I always kowtowed, content-wise, to whatever they wanted...would that be "playing to my base" or would it be "the care and feeding of my fringe" (and possibly a sign that I've sort of lost my marbles)? I'd say the latter! Though that might actually be fun...but with just a blog to run, and not the whole country, I can kind of afford to think that way.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-23 03:50 am
Entry tags:

Pumpkinado's claim turns out to be false

Someone who routinely lies, stretches the truth, exaggerates, is too vague or inserts people, places, and conversations that were never there, or not in the context he claims is wrong about something? No way. While we're at it, let's just fact-check Tuesday. Back to alternative-alternative reality in 3,2, 1...2018!

marahmarie: So you said you wanted a cookie... (dark side)
2017-08-19 12:32 am
Entry tags:

COME TO THE DARK SIDE STEVE WE HAVE COOKIES!!!

Darkness Is Good is gone, though no one seems able to figure how that came to be: 1,040,000 Google results pronounce HE'S FIRED while 1,360,000 Google results suggest he resigned - twice (the first time effective Aug. 14th, but in the uproar over Charlottesville I guess he forgot to take himself out the door, though it sounds like once things calmed down Kelly reminded him to pack his bags).

Though my title invites him to switch sides and come swing from the branches with us, we're more likely to collectively win Powerball tomorrow night - without buying tickets - than for him to switch sides, so yeah, surely I jest. Anyhow, he claims he's not racist and Orangado likes to echo him on that for whatever reason (they'd poll better as avowed and even belligerent "racists" with their be-all, end-all base, don'tcha think?) but with the mouth on him he's got, he can go pound sand.

He who indirectly brought an entire right-wing, white nationalist so-called "news" agency into the Oval Office - along with the first program to ever essentially automate a president's tweets, speeches, news conferences and rally notes - surely won't be too sorely missed, and while I'll let bygones be bygones, I won't forget his every-weekend mayhem-wrecking of earlier this year, and neither will the liquor store where I get the vodka I started drinking because of it.

On "the first program to ever automate a president's tweets, speeches, news conferences and rally notes", thank Bannon for working with - and for Trump being funded by - billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah. Cambridge Analytica does more damage to the Republican electorate - as low-information, conspiracy-embracing, false-danger-sensing and Faux Noize-prone as it is - than they could do to themselves.

And Bannon used it - this is my personal belief - to shape and script Trump's every public engagement, no matter how big or small. The general gist of his words was given to him daily by Bannon, after he distilled CA's results down into bullet points which he fed to Trump along with his well-done steaks and McDonald's.

That's my theory. But I have a strong hunch - beyond a hunch, I'd say I'm almost certain - that it's so, after Bannon's last words on that (and trust me, they were on that): "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over". Does he say why? No. Does he drop hints? Sure. Try this (emphasis mine): "[...] that presidency is over. It'll be something else. And there'll be all kinds of fights, and there'll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over" and: ""There's about to be a jailbreak of these moderate guys on the Hill" — a stream of Republican dissent, which could become a flood."

When "asked what the turning point was" he blamed moderate Republicans, but the truth is without the messaging Cambridge Analytica gave him to advise Trump with, to keep the dude "on point" with his base, Trump will be like a little boy who can't find his way back home for the lost puppy he keeps chasing after in the woods.

To see why, you need only know how Cambridge Analytica works*: it uses deep data mining and polls social media for "likes" (the ubiquitous "thumbs-up"), then matches those data points against a "predictive personality model" to find its preferred targets. Right now it prefers right-leaning targets, but it could just as easily be programmed to prefer leftists or florists or Jehovah's Witnesses. As it finds new targets, it learns what each of them wants to see, watch, read and think about, then carefully spoons them more of the same, after tailoring it to their specific interests down to the most granular level. Think a bespoke Facebook or bespoke Twitter.

Which is how just one right-winger browsing Facebook might see video of a man arrested for flying a kite over, say, his state's (Democratic) governor's mansion last week that none of his Facebook friends will ever see because he in particular has shown a strong passion for kites, a strong dislike of Democrats, and happens to live in the same state where the criminal kite-flying occurred.

What CA does is reinforce each target's existing beliefs with more of the same until their thought processes are impossible to budge...almost like learning by rote. The end result is you take the base you want, shape it into the one you find the easiest to handle with the least amount of massaging, then use what you receive from the echo chamber you've created to target it even more repeatedly from within the Oval Office, on Twitter and Facebook, at rallies and pressers, or wherever. It's a brilliant, though insidiously awful, product.

And I'm making it sort of easy to grasp (I've read between 5-10 hours worth of articles over the last year in order to distill it down this much) but the sausage-making that goes into Cambridge Analytica is actually crazy-complicated, though suffice it to say, it works. It works almost too well. It's a form of AI which Mercer money - basically endless - has built into one of the best content and message-tailoring platforms on Earth.

Without it - assuming Bannon used it to influence Trump as much as I suspect he did, and that he pulled it for use in the Oval Office shortly before he was canned or resigned - Orangado will indeed soon be up the proverbial creek without his most precise, content-targeting paddle. But just as he said of Bannon: "We'll see what happens!"

*: Updated this paragraph shortly after posting to describe a bit better how Cambridge Analytica works.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-17 01:45 am
Entry tags:

Conservatives must stand by silently to finish the destruction of the poor and middle class

Poor conservatives, they've got it so tough: they just want to finish ruining life for Poors and the already-gutted middle class but the chief citrus fruit juggler just keeps getting in the way.

Hell they care about some neo-Nazi/KKK fluff, they've got healthcare to eviscerate, taxes to delete for the rich, a minimum wage to abolish, and an environment to finish fucking up, and you wanna talk to them about white nationalism when the hell they care. They are white nationalism. Enough said.

Stepping back into my usual form (I'm about to lose it again, so no worries) you all know how I've hammered on and on and on and on and and on in post after post how Trump voters are just one big, closeted pile of slithering, slimy, silent majority racists? And how at least a few of you, how many times now, inwardly clucked to yourselves that I'm wrong and this could not possibly be the case because like, white people want low taxes, too, so how exactly does that make somebody a fucking racist again?

Fine. Like the head orange peeler, I'm feeling a bit on edge tonight myself, so let's go:

A HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted after the Charlottesville unrest (but before Mr Trump's Tuesday press conference) could also give clues as to why conservatives are taking pause. Fully 77% of Trump voters think the president "did enough" to condemn white nationalist violence in Charlottesville. Two-thirds of them had no problem with the president's delay in mentioning neo-Nazis and white supremacists by name.

Perhaps most remarkably, 48% of Trump voters think the Charlottesville white nationalists either "have a point" (37%) or were "mostly right" (11%). And 68% of Trump voters see "a lot of discrimination" against white people in the US.

Let's look at this again: "Fully 77% of Trump voters think the president "did enough"" to condemn white nationalist violence. So almost 80% of the citrus-eating electorate thinks saying both sides are to blame was like him getting on his knees in contrition for what haters of all stripes think they should do in his name. In other words, they just don't care.

And two-thirds (66%) thought it was fine he waited two days to get tired of Ivanka berating him over the nasty thing he said over the weekend, so to appease her, since they can't (but he definitely wishes they could) do the nasty, he read from a dry and meaningless statement that he didn't write, didn't think over beforehand, and didn't give one flying leap about - not to judge by his brain-dead delivery of it on Monday that - while condemning neo-Nazis and KKK because Ivanka and Jared are probably about ready to flee the country, still failed to condemn the very hate rally ringleaders responsible for what happened.

There was just enough to make Ivanka smile again. No more, no less. Just enough.

But that's cool: 66% of those low-information and truth-aversive enough to vote for him thought waiting two days to make an appease-the-left fake offering was great, because why should he have to pander to fuckin' libruls anyhow? How's Murca gonna be great again if we gotta kiss the asses of every fucking ___ and ___ and _____ and ___ in this country every time we just wanna exercise our free rights to speech? See, Bessy, that's why we gotta keep our guns at hand, you know Bummer almost took 'em away before those FEMA camps he was runnin' got shut down...yeah, woman, that's right - coulda been us, that's what I'm sayin'... *swigs beer*

He also quite glaringly failed to condemn himself for making such a brooding atmosphere of hate possible, an atmosphere that would've receded back into the shadows where it fucking belongs had he simply not had a victory which the entire intelligence community blames on Russian interference - not sufficient votes necessary to win - Russian interference, making him the first and only illegitimate orange drink this country's ever had.

And 48% of our Google manifesto-supporting friends think "white nationalists" - rabid non-white haters, to use the normal English term here - "have a point" or "are mostly right". About what? A monument? Violence against non-white/non-Nazi/non-KKK/non-male demonstrators? Shouting Jewish, racial, homophobic and misogynistic slurs? Did shouting slurs at people who don't look like, or have the same parts or tendencies as them prove their "point"? If so, what was it? "We hate anyone who isn't a white man", was that it? Whatever it might be, 48% of people think they agree with it. Presumably they're not all white or men, so go orange eaters, upholding the palest of patriarchies nor for any good reason, but simply because they can.

"And 68% of Trump voters see "a lot of discrimination" against white people in the US." And I'll bet about 70% of them voted for Trump! So tell me again why these motherfuckers aren't racists, and didn't vote for him simply because they are, while I stop my ears up with my fingers and sing "La la la la I'm not listening" like a two year old, because fuck you, that's why.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-10 12:36 am
Entry tags:

I stand with my LGBTQIA friends both known and unknown to me, all over the world

As a straight, cis, white girl I'm indebted to the LGBTQIA community for my ability to continue Anti-AOL when it was just starting out, when I didn't always know what to do with it or myself, because some members would drop in during my lowest moments and bolster my strength and my belief in it and make me think that I could do it. For that, I never thanked them properly or enough.

I don't know why they came to my blog: I had no visible political or other affiliations that would attract them to my cause, discussed nothing related to theirs, and on my personal blog was quite open and public about being a girly girl (I have quirks - like how I write, not to mention how I think and see the world - that make me believe I'm more androgyne than traditionally femme, but that's another story, and doesn't really matter, as I don't know if it attracted the LGBTQIA crowd to my blog or not).

But because they came to me in numbers here and there over the years and lent me their support (emails, comments, linkbacks, information, online friendships) and were there for me in a way that, to this day, most straight people are not, my gratitude was total. I don't forget kindness, and they took the time to show it to me even at my lowest points, often when absolutely no one else would.

So, though I have no offline LGBTQIA friendships, (thanks to a mostly sheltered life) and though I'm not one to bring up LGBTQIA issues too often, I have no reason not to, and often feel like I can and should do more. In the meantime, I'd like everyone to know that I will stand by the LGBTQIA community, that I consider all of you my friends and compatriots in every battle for justice and equality, and that because I believe women's rights are human rights, I don't think of what I go through as a woman without thinking of every one of you and how you often go through so much more.

In that spirit, I'd like to present a few things that are bothering me - and am hoping I'll stay more up to date in the future on sharing what's going on in the fight for LGBTQIA and women's rights.

Firstly, in the spirit of putting someone in charge of an agency who is known to hate it, who wants to dismantle it - like DeathStar Bannon (administrative state deconstructionist), Suer Polluter Pruitt (EPA disassembler) and Gun For Grizzly DeVos (public education destroyer) - now we have Bethany Kozma, an "anti-transgender activist" (gender equality gutter). I know nothing about her except her official title: "senior adviser for women's empowerment". My ass.

Anyone not empowering LGBTQIA is not empowering women. Period. I could go on about how fluid gender and sexual orientation are, not just for some but many of us, how dumb it is to make assumptions based on birth gender, current or desired appearance, admonitions in the Bible or from parents, teachers or communities, and the state-directed propaganda that is the purulence of Trump and his base, but I get why not being a scaredycat phobic bigot is in humanity's best interest, and I'm just preaching to the choir.

This regime does all it can to feed its ignorant base, as they have no quarter anywhere else, while the majority of us watch horrified as they undo the very tenets of treating each other with respect and kindness.

In the run-up to Trump's latest base-baiting, a GOP Congresswoman named Vicky Hartzler, "[f]resh off a committee hearing where she introduced (and withdrew) an amendment banning transgender people from serving in the military", was quoted as saying: "At a time when we should be focusing on the threats from North Korea, and Putin, and ISIS, we’re having to deal with a threat here at home — a domestic threat — of allowing transgenders [sic] in our service [...]".

As though filing and withdrawing her hate bill and spouting this horseshit was not enough, a month later Trump picked up where she left off by barring transgender from the military. Though he phrased his twit (yes, he actually tweeted an order) as though the ban went into effect immediately just because he'd twitted it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (after Trump claimed he'd already consulted them) denied having any knowledge of it. Then the military announced transgender individuals can still serve - at least for now - as they refuse to discharge anyone without an actual policy in place.

On the same day Trump issued his ban, the Justice Department, without invitation, jumped in on a private lawsuit to argue employers are allowed to fire people for being gay - threatening rights assumed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act - and the regime appointed infamous anti-gay rights activist Sam Brownback as "international religious freedom" propagandist.

Today we have news (that I didn't know of until I searched Google for the links above) that The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) are representing five active duty transgender service members in the lawsuit Doe vs. Trump, aimed at ending Trump's ban because it's unconstitutional. I hope they prevail. If the ban is indeed unconstitutional, then there's no reason why they shouldn't.

In the meantime there are lessons here, going back to what kind of person Trump apparently became in 2015 to play to his intolerant base. Because I'm a New Yorker and grew up hearing about Trump's antics, it irritates me when people say: "Oh, you should've known you can't trust Trump" on LGBTQIA issues. To us - to typical city and outer borough New Yorkers - it sounds kind of nuts, because we had him pegged as the typical showy, pro-abortion liberal who hung out with gays and celebrities, as one does, so we might have thought he was merely putting on the "conservative" act. To fit in. To win.

While one can rest assured he's not pretending - because if it ever was an act, it's become all too real, be it to play to his rotten base, for his own financial gain, to prevail in the 2020 race, to impress his beloved Putin with shows of similar "values", or whatever - after observing him in New York, many of us assumed he'd be just a little more bendy around the edges in respect to LGBTQIA issues than he's actually turned out to be.

Instead he's taken such a harsh stance against LGBTQIA that I have no doubt that without Ivanka around for him to impress, things might be worse - LGBTQIA might be more routinely persecuted; the office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment might not exist; civil rights might be completely off the table by now, so...it's not going to be easy out there, and anyone with a more upbeat prediction than that is likely just kidding themselves.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-08 02:15 am
Entry tags:

GOOGbye, asswipe!

I'm so glad to see this dude go, there are no words. Except for these words, in order of the sheer, stereoscopic brightness of my outrage:

Let's not stereotype the stereotyping, now

First paragraph: "and [I] don’t endorse using stereotypes." Last paragraph - actually a bullet point (emphasis mine): "Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

So he doesn't endorse using stereotypes though they are sooooooo accurate aren't they for real so why aren't we using them to train Google employees, already? but hey, he's gotta be politically correct, so he denies in the face of all his carefully hand-crafted evidence to the contrary that they should be used to train people, or something.

You have to consider how insidiousness the creepy-crawly, "I'm not really picking your pocket so stop yelling at me to give your wallet back"-ness of him is, and I'm only up to the first offending snippets.

He thinks stereotypes are bang-on, perfect representations of everyone he thinks fits into one, so much so that they should be used, in his opinion, to teach Google employees how to do their jobs, which to his mind, all involve ceaseless stereotyping in order to succeed. Then he claims he would never "endorse" or "advocate" the use of stereotypes, but hey wait, he just did.

Don't alienate the aliens, now

Some bullet point, way in: "Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require [SIC! Not proofreading your lousy manifesto is NOT a good example of "conscientiousness"!] for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company."

OK, where to start: Bart here has a lot to say about conservatives. He thinks they're more conscientious, a bullshit opinion which he's confused with "obedience to authoritarian dictatorships", which is "not hardly" the same thing, self-sic sic sic. The conscientiousness he so prizes is "self-reported" in most studies that have been done.

Conservatives also self-report being "less open", "less exploratory", and "less open to change"...they're crashing bores, in other words, who are literally (not just self-reported) afraid of everything.

Not the folks I'd want chatting me up at my next dinner party; maybe the ones I'd leave in the yard with "gun for grizzly" to calm dear old Betsy, cowering away inside.

Don't be evil? Heh...don't be "agreeable", now

Some paragraph, way in: "In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable [SIC!] than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women..."

One sentence at a time: "humans are generally biased towards protecting females". Obviously he's not kept up with history, be it ancient (Viking women) or current (female Israeli soldiers; women serving in the US military and fighting for combat spots even as we speak).

"this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men." Eh, uh...no. Women are "generally more cooperative and areeable" because historically speaking, if we aren't, we can be hurt emotionally, physically and economically or even killed just over not being "nice enough". But even given all that, I take offense at the idea that I should be agreeable just because I have parts the author doesn't and vice versa. It isn't part of my "just being me" job description, kthanksbai.

"We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women"....OK, yeah, because? Because men have dominated every arena of public and private life since this country started, so having programs to "protect" us - like having programs to "protect" other vulnerable people - is necessary only because of the inborn privilege men have been inoculated with for hundreds of years to confer them with immunity from competition with us.


It goes on and on - for literally ten pages - but I think I've unloaded the worst of my wrath at this point. Knowing he was fired is the least it will take to smooth over the very real damage he's caused thousands of people with his tired, low-res, 100% recycled (tell me conservatives aren't going green!) claptrap. Don't miss the part where he co-opts our "safe spaces" by calling PC culture "psychologically unsafe" because conservatives are just big, soft, supermelty snowflakes, too!

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-08-04 01:45 am
Entry tags:

Survey says...

In-house SurveySpot poll tonight asking: I think Donald Trump is...a brilliant leader (29%)| a buffoon (71%)

Bwahahahaha

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-07-13 03:33 am
Entry tags:

Oklahoma just flipped two seats from red to blue. Go....

Oklahoma, for helping us gain at least four seats so far this year.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-07-01 04:37 am
Entry tags:

If you overdose a third time just die

The choice that's always preferred over raising taxes: three overdose strikes and you're out. Also, layoffs. Because he'll take dead bodies and heartbroken families, friends, neighbors, co-workers and communities to any living bodies moping around without a job.

Are we talking a Republican saying this (party affiliation isn't mentioned, so I don't know, but a dig through any available voter records might be in order)? Sounds about right, in that case...

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-07-01 12:31 am

White House and Justice Department purging voter rolls (updated 7-1-17 w/more issues)

Not a good look for this increasingly banana republic administration.

I also don't think that's entirely what they're up to. What I think they're also doing is compiling a list of every registered non-Republican voter. Go figure what they might do with it. Germany made some lists back in the 30s, and look how that turned out.

And if you think I'm just being paranoid, I'll indicate, much like the governor of Mississippi already has, which bridge you might go visit. The Gulf is great this time of year, lemme tell you.

My only other advice (and it's sad for being so little, so late) besides get your birth certificates, passports, and naturalization papers in order: the banana republic is looking hard at dual enrollment - amongst many, many other things - so if you're dual (or triple, or quadruple, or whatever) enrolled (in other words, if you might be on the voter rolls in more than one state) you should probably do something about it.

It's very late to say so; I'm simply hoping Kobach and his minions can't check the voter rolls that fast. While I might recall from past things I've read on him that he has some sort of automated software to look through voter rolls with *(he does; more at bottom asterisk), there might be a window (likely not more than a few days) in which you can get un-enrolled where you need to. I don't know if it'll help (you might still get purged) but if you fix what you can now, it might be proved down the road that your voting rights should be restored.

People should keep a careful eye on what comes out of this. Look out for your own registration however you can.

And not to strike fear into everyone, but the banana republic's formally requested not just any publicly available voter information, but every last bit states can or will provide (and the Justice Department will be suing states that refuse to provide it). The information requested includes information that violates our privacy (party affiliation, voting history, military status, dual citizenship, felon status - some of this in violation of the 1974 federal Privacy Act) and risks our financial security (name, address, last four digits of Social Security number).

I've seen unsourced reports that the nature of Kobach's voter record's request (which is to be completed by email, btw!) can also force states that collect such information to pass along voter's phone numbers and email addresses, and that giving any voter information to the federal government makes the information a matter of public record, but I need to check into that a bit more.

*The NYTimes, at the link above, might be referring in error to the software as "Birth Link". The best-known version of Kobach's voter registration cross-checking system is the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which Rolling Stone covered in-depth last August.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-29 09:58 am
Entry tags:

The real reason right-leaners want you to die without health insurance is...(updated 6-30-17)

From personal experience with some of them (mostly older, working class white men, but not that much older...I'm talking like 45-60 years old) I can say the whole problem, according to how they've gone out of their way to explain it to me, is they're owed whatever perks they get out of life because they work for them and you don't. I've had them tell me so with a straight face even while I was "working for it" just as hard as they were, no if, ands, or buts.

Pointing out I am (or have, or was, or will be again, depending on my situation when we had these conversations) "working for it" just as hard as they were would only lead them to point out that if I ever qualified for or used government entitlements to do anything, like not die of a tooth infection or perhaps not starve for lack of food, then I'm lifelong disqualified from ever bothering the hard-working Murcan taxpayers again.

Simple as that.

I've often wondered how when my work history gets put up against theirs, mine gets erased on the spot for having been supplemented at any point in time. I can be working, but if there's even a whiff of an EBT card on me as I walk by, I'm disqualified from having any perks of American life, like eating or not dying for lack of funds to pay in full at time of visit, so I should go quietly lie in a gutter so as not to bother hard-working folks like them who deserve better than to subsidize me.

Not only am I disqualified, but they want everyone to know they're getting robbed. Not just by me or people like me who've ever leaned on their hard-working taxpayer dollars for a single moment, but by everybody. It's classic that everyone's using them for something: Their employer's using them by overworking their bodies, minds or both for too many hours and not enough pay; their government's using them by making them pay a single dime in taxes for anyone else's existence; everything is described in terms of their financial martyrdom to others.

They keep paychecks to themselves even if their wives or SOs aren't working and have little to no other sources of income; tend to overspend on their kids, then complain the kids are taking advantage and aren't turning out as hoped; tend to overspend on themselves and not week by week, but day by day, then claim it's only because they deserve to have nice things for all the hard work they do and the upholding of the American welfare state that they're personally financing. Not you. Them.

Then they'll complain of being unable to buy groceries or their next beer or whatever, not before another payday rolls around (when it's just Tuesday) and I'll think to myself, "You said you "deserved" all this high-life horseshit; I see where it gets you" because another thing is they seem to think they're rolling in dough even if they make maybe less than (or at most) $20 an hour, yet they talk - and spend money - like the gold-plated toilet is in the bathroom right in back of the living room in their trailer with the 70-inch financed TV hanging up on the wall.

I don't know what drives them. They're usually too incoherent and/or emotionally chaotic to get to the bottom of that. I prefer it when people state their rationales calmly, clearly, sans overly-divisive emotions, but these folks can't do any of that, because their emotions carry their rationales clear out into the Twilight Zone faster than you can hope to know why. I don't know if right-leaning women act or live similarly, but even when I've known these men's spouses, they were polite enough to not quite batter me to death with their opinions - then again, I'd catch them using more bigoted language and higher-strung defenses than the men did in private conversation that did not involve, or include, me.

These men I'm speaking of also had or have randomly volcanic tempers (the worst kind, in other words) and were usually in the throes of strongly denying being wracked by multiple addictions, so whether their other halves went along out of fear of riling them or out of a genuine shared hatred and a feeling of being put-upon and used by the rest of Murca is or was not clear.

Where I'm going with this is, I see a lot of people try to explain the cruelty of yanking people's insurance or Medicaid (or at other times, welfare or food stamps) by saying their thought process must go something like this: "I got mine, so screw you". But that's not entirely it. It's some, but not all of it.

It's more like: "I got mine - and I worked hard for it and the rest of you didn't, or wouldn't if given the chance - so screw you". I can't overstate how martyred they are over having to go to work each day, and pay taxes, and not go fuck up the rest of Murca for putting them through so much for so little, because Murca is literally (to their minds, and to a person) financed on their backs, and their backs are hurtin' so they just want to sit back and collect like "the rest of y'all do", but "you" are "sucking off" them, so they can't* (more on that at asterick).

So if you can't afford health care then that means you either aren't working (or aren't working hard enough), weren't working (or weren't working hard enough) or might not work in the future (or might not work hard enough) and you'll never work as hard as they do, because no one does, so you don't deserve it. They've paid for you long enough, and will pay for everyone like you long enough, so screw you, because they got theirs and they shouldn't have to pay for yours.

I'm mentioning this so you'll get why some working class people (and working class white men, in particular) vote and even literally think in ways that clearly work against their own interests: because their perceptions are skewed in unhealthy and even hateful ways, though they don't see it as hateful so much as they see themselves as taken advantage of by nearly everyone, and especially by the poor. Of course, their self-regard doesn't match the reality in any but the most passing of ways, but let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story, as I often told them, myself. :)

For another, I'm trying to gird people for when the Senate not only rams their Wealthcare bill through about one second past midnight July 5th (or whenever; every time I check the deadline changes again), and then all your working class neighbors erupt in cheers and threaten to wipe every last poor off the face of the Earth if they don't go and just fucking die of something already. Expect both things to occur pretty much in tandem. It's not just rich, white men who want it this way: it's some of their lower class cohorts, too.

We could get into "why" but in fact, another reason I'm posting this is for the sociological aspects of it that might be studied or looked at by others. I want to spread as much fodder as I can and this post adds a little to hopefully figuring out what makes the more cruelly right-leaning tick, though I can't explain much of that myself.

I can only tell you what I know: the few I'm acquainted with aren't thoroughly educated but seem to know everything; have mostly dead-end jobs; not only expect but often demand that their opinion be deferred to; claim they're not prejudiced but complain of every non-white, non-citizen and non-binary group "taking advantage" and "working the system"; have poor attitudes toward women, LGBTQIA, immigrants and non-whites in general; watch FOX News, rock multiple addictions, and have had either missing or exploitative and cruel fathers. Maybe the last two (multiple addictions; bad fathers) are not the norm for most right-leaning people, but either way I'm throwing it out there.

The last part (bad fathers) makes me think they grew up seeing themselves as victims, so the idea that they're being victimized by The Other somehow naturally gets woven through their lives. But with or without any benefit or perk from working, their attitude remains the same: they finance Murca, you don't, so go away.

*Oh, but yes they can. Let's check the hypocrisy of them spending their whole lives shoving anti-poor militancy down everyone's throats, then collecting whatever benefits they can when hard times come along for them. It's happened. One time I was informed of it by the person's son, who laughed because he knew just how stridently "anti-welfare state" his dad was. Though I'd known him about 15 years, still he told me to my face his "family" was helping him through his hard times. We're his "family", folks.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-27 12:54 am

Link'ems

Politics

Amazon

  • Amazon now offers reduced fee Prime membership - $5.99 per month for low income earners. "Normal" Prime membership is $99, which in theory would be $8.25 per month, but only if you paid $99 at sign-up to lock in the price, so many people actually pay what I did before "cheaper Prime" came along - $10.99 per month/$131.88 per year - the usual $99 plus a $32.88 Poor People's Poverty Tax.
  • Also check out four more ways to get Prime on the cheap.
  • Amazon ended unlimited cloud storage pretty much the same week I had to jump cloud storage services...*grinds teeth into dust*
  • For cord-cutting Prime members now there's Amazon TV (pick your poison. Yay?).
  • From the email I got, as Amazon has no explainer and Google has nothing indexed: "Now’s the perfect time to take advantage of a game-changing Prime exclusive benefit—Amazon Channels, the first truly a la carte TV service. You can create a lineup you love from over 100 channels, and only pay for the ones you want—no cable required. You get a 7-day free trial of all of our channels, and you can watch anywhere and cancel anytime."
  • About the above - I haven't signed up and will probably be unable to. I also don't know anyone who's signed up. Comcast controls most of the fiber in my area and with them it's cheaper to pay for a TV and Internet package (called the "Double Play") than to just have Internet, so that's mostly what's been stopping me. Will take reviews, though (preferably from people I already know)!

Firefox

  • The search for Goldilocks, indeed. The author says the latest version of Firefox (54) has e10s (multi-process/multi-threaded like Chrome but a max four processes), but it does not have this. I'm using it on an x64 machine with two processors/8GB of RAM, so I can definitively say it has no e10s.
  • Before posting, I found an updated article which says (emphasis mine): "Electrolysis still isn’t on for all users. “Roughly half of Firefox’s user population is using multiple content processes, but Mozilla will be expanding the number over the next few months based on extension compatibility, accessibility support work and other factors,” a Mozilla spokesperson told VentureBeat. To check if you’re in the Electrolysis group, type “about:support” into the URL bar and check to see if it says “1/1 (Enabled by default)” under the Multiprocess Windows line item."
  • While I'm on the topic of Mozilla doing what Mozilla does, and as I made [personal profile] solarbird aware of, standard Firefox add-ons are on their way out, ostensibly to make room for the e10s that they claim exist which for many of us, still don't. People aren't exactly keen on this.
  • Without add-ons as we know them, Firefox basically turns into Opera on Webkit. And though they're killing add-ons as we know them first, a complete browser engine re-write is also on the way. "firefox why u so", indeed!

Invention

  • With this, the author proves he can turn something as ho-hum as a relatively obscure invention into an epic tale that covers everything from original sin to the rise and fall of civilizations to the sad state of mankind's eternal economic Shangri-La. He's also - did I mention this - a great writer.
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
2017-06-21 02:32 am
Entry tags:

Democratic/left-leaning myopia, ftw (updated 6-27-17 w/link)

In tonight's "myopia" series, I explain people not being able to see the forest for their own asses taking up the entire view. Another case in point: Us. Let's get our heads out of our asses and stop Republican gerrymandering (witness another House seat we should have easily won; we are screwed right through 2018, should this continue) and stop ogling Trump's supporters.

Y'all have damn short memories. I mean really damn short.

Do any of you all recall what it was like to support Bill Clinton after his first election? Any Bill supporters out there?

OK: *waves*...I was. He won with only 43% of the popular vote and the right insta-hated him. I cannot emphasize this enough: they hated him right out of the gate; he hadn't taken his first post-McDonald's jog around the White House before you could feel it in the air that they wanted him gone. You can quibble with me, but I followed Clinton's every word/move/bill/action/reaction almost as breathlessly as though he was the actual prophet selected to announce Jesus's return.

If y'all want to know why, it's because - and I've said this before - I have a strong weakness for the underdog as long as they - unlike Trump - seem honest, above-board and act well-intended enough (though having my political and social preferences also clearly helps).

Bill was the underdog, so Bill was my president, no ands, ifs, or buts. The only time I *ever* disagreed with him - for like a half a second - was after he signed off on NAFTA, and I'm still pissed about that, so yeah, I rather vehemently disagreed. But walk away? Oh hell, no. Back then I had two obsessions: the New York Knicks winning their championship that year (they got eliminated in the East Finals) and Bill Clinton becoming and staying president, and you'd easily pry either concept from my cold, dead hands before I gave them up without a fight.

Has it ever occurred to people that Trump's supporters simply feel the same way?

As a past True Believer, I can tell you you're not going to win the fight for 2018 or 2020 by winning them back, so quit it. Stop talking about their underemployed, opiate-and-Faux News-laden self-made hells on Earth. Stop interviewing them in their fucking trailers. Stop bemoaning their disappearing lung-cancer-causing mining jobs and stop doing summations of Why They Voted For Him that ignore the second most important part of why they did: mostly because they're racists - or the more well-heeled folks after big tax cuts and the hell with the rest of us - so again, mostly because they're racists.

The most important reason, though? They wanted a leader, and to their minds, they got one. Don't ask why; it's an irrational thing considering Trump is all smoke, mirrors and one too many Twitter rants. While edges of his base will peel away, the core will remain. Don't mess with it, let's just move on.

For success in 2018/2020 we need to stop finger-pointing, we need to stop ogling, we desperately need to redraw Republican-gerrymandered districts, and we need to stop being divisive. Oh, and you think that's just Faux News! Well, that's us, too. A house divided will always fall. Why are we doing this to ourselves?

  • Every time a progressive points at a Democrat and says: "not left-leaning enough" that's not only complete bullshit it's divisive.
  • Every time a Democrat blames something on "the Bernie bros" that's not only also complete bullshit it's divisive.
  • Every time Bernie gets mentioned, it's divisive. I hate to rip a page from Orangado's book here, but folks: Bernie lost; get over it.
  • Every time progressives single out publications for their hate - most recently, they went after The Washington Post for not feeling progressive enough, something I cannot forgive because it's my favorite newspaper - it's divisive.
  • Every time an (obviously) self-proclaimed "antifa" hits the streets to stand in opposition to Trumpsters, it's divisive; also, "antifa" are quite possibly just plain nuts.

If "antisoc" had hit the streets in protest every time Clinton supporters breathed in his direction they might arguably have been locked up (not to mention back then, no one would have dared. My, how times have changed). A really good argument can be made in either direction that Republicans/right-leaners/Trump in particular are fascist scumwads OR that Democrats/left-leaners/Clinton in particular are socialist scumwads. I'm entirely capable of agreeing with both arguments equally.

Did I mention I was so fucking mad about NAFTA I nearly turned Republican myself, and have considered myself "moderate" (with a few admittedly more liberal aspects) ever since? While I was never gonna give up on Bill, the entire Democratic Party could pretty much blow me at that point, and while I've recovered most of my left-leaning equilibrium since then, in some ways it still can. And I refuse to feel bad about this.

So stop being divisive, stop Republican gerrymandering, and quit with all the "why Trump's supporters support him" songs and dances. Because, nope. Really. It's not helping.