Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by smltwnrckr

  1. Libertarians winning an election would be a lot like SJSU winning a football conference championship.
  2. Just watched the Gaetz speech. House gonna House. There may be no greater kind of dipshit than a low rent congressman.
  3. I was gonna make a post about how we should ease up on the trumpet true believers on here. I still feel that way, but this is a total garbage take. Trump won 4 years ago, and there were way more people in DC protesting after he won. How many Capitol buildings were stormed? If Buden lost, youbthink he'd be pulling this shit? No, this is on Trump. I'm glad some of even his most ardent followers are finally drawing a line. But stop it with the nonsense that antifa would have stormed the Capitol with Biden egging them on. And let's not pretend they wouldnt have all been shot by the police.
  4. Flying the flag of a treasonous rebellion against the union while you storm the capitol. Cool stuff right there.
  5. First time we've seen this sort of thing in the Capitol since 1814?
  6. This is wild shit. I wonder what the body count would look like if those were BLM protesters storming the cap. building.
  7. mitch being a pissy bitch even when he tries to finally do the right thing. LOL.
  8. Man, I love all these power points on debt ceilings that I was promised after trump lost.
  9. I've been saying a version of this from the beginning. He makes liberals and brown people who make weird food sad. Beginning, middle, end.
  10. I think a lot of it had to do with American History being taught in schools after WW2 through the lens of American triumphalism... America kicked a lot of ass in past wars, and capitalism rules. That and diseases are a pretty hard thing to teach in K-12 history. Really the only one that gets any significant play in k-12 history books is the Black Plague. Otherwise, it's wars and nations being founded and major technological advances, with some trade routes and some important legislation. I didn't start really reading about diseases and sickness in American history until I really started digging down into environmental history as a graduate student. I don't know if this will change that... I have a feeling that we're going to see a swift recovery in 2021, at least cultural recovery, and a reversion back to normal with a major commission that will make recommendations that future administrations and local and state governments will ignore. And then we'll have another one of these in 50 to 100 years, and if it does more damage to children the world will be lit on fire.
  11. I mean, historians already have an analogue packaged nicely 100 years earlier. Anything with data for both pandemics to compare, and there will be no shortage of scholarship in about 20 years.
  12. I've been ignoring COVID posts and even coverage for a short while... largely because I just get so frustrated with all of it. But this, this right here, is what I've been effing talking about from the beginning. Yes, there was the inevitable politicization that came with a narcissistic and divisive president who actively works to turn every singe issue into a referendum on himself, and thus a partisan issue. But there was also the inevitable faulty implementation of a policy and regulatory response (based largely on abstinence on certain behaviors) by public health administrators and public officials who ultimately see themselves as the arbiters of proper human behavior. And who see themselves as the ones who decide what is "essential" and what is not. And inevitable moralizing that came after it, tsk tsking people for doing the things that people want to do not just for economic reasons but because they are the things that define the effing human experience... like being around family for meaningful rituals the literally make up what culture +++++ing IS. This is what is so frustrating, these two things going on at the same time. And they feed each other. And what do we get? We get all of our local playgrounds taped up and chained up again like crime scenes, when local playgrounds clearly are not the problem when it comes to spread and can be used safely with some basic guidelines, and state edicts telling me who I can or can't spend Christmas with while at the same time Walmart ad campaigns show us how they're "here for you" and Carl's Jr. breakfast is ready to go. This is off. Its all +++++ing off. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/tis-the-season-for-shame-and-judgment/617335/ Some excerpts... but I recommend a full read. Not too long. When a public-health approach isn’t producing the desired outcome, it’s time to try something different. Instead of yelling even louder about Christmas than about Thanksgiving, government officials, health professionals, and ordinary Americans alike might try this: Stop all the chastising. Remember that the public is fraying. And consider the possibility that when huge numbers of people indicate through their actions that seeing loved ones in person is nonnegotiable, they need practical ways to reduce risk that go beyond “Just say no.” Anger at people who are flouting public-health guidelines is understandable, not least for exhausted health-care workers and those who are especially vulnerable to infection. But many long months into this pandemic, people are at their wits’ end: economically depleted, socially isolated, and disgruntled about—and in some cases genuinely baffled by—the arbitrariness of some of the restrictions on their daily lives. And if the HIV epidemic has revealed anything, it’s that shaming does little to deter risky behavior. Instead, it perpetuates stigma, which drives behavior underground and hinders prevention efforts. Americans have been told during this pandemic that taking any risks, no matter how carefully calculated, is a sign of bad character—so it’s no surprise when people are reluctant to notify others whom they may have exposed or engage with contact tracers. **** As cases surged in the fall, elected officials blamed the trend on misbehavior at private social gatherings. Restaurants, stores, and other workplaces aren’t the problem, the talking point goes; people just need to behave better everywhere else—in parks, playgrounds, and their own homes. But the resulting message to the public has been nonsensical. Through their policies, states are telling Americans that dining indoors is safe in revenue-generating situations, such as at a restaurant or formally catered event, while private holiday dinners are roundly condemned. Some communities have gone as far as banning all social interactions between people from more than one household, including outdoors. In truth, states probably can’t afford to pay businesses to stay closed, yet governors are under tremendous pressure to act. The result is a web of illogical rules that transfer the responsibility for containing the pandemic—and the blame for failing to do so—from public authorities to the individual. If elected officials are going to scold the public for their disobedience, the least they can do is practice what they preach. But one after another, they’ve been caught breaking their own rules. Governor Andrew Cuomo berated New Yorkers the week before Thanksgiving: “If you’re socially distant, and you wore a mask, and you were smart, none of this would be a problem—it’s all self-imposed.” Throwing in some fat-shaming for good measure, he added, “If you didn’t eat the cheesecake, you wouldn’t have a weight problem.” Just days later, Cuomo said his own Thanksgiving plans included getting together with his two daughters and his 89-year-old mother, plans he later canceled amid a public outcry. Maybe governors and mayors are just hypocrites, but the other possibility is that they’re human too, and that even people who understand the risks of family gatherings—and chide others for taking them—feel the powerful draw to this important part of life. Very few people want to get infected or get others sick. When people take risks, it often reflects an unmet need: for a paycheck, for social connection, for accurate information about how to protect themselves. Acknowledging and meeting people’s needs will reduce risk behavior; finger-wagging won’t. **** As the winter holidays approach and cases continue to surge across the country, people need clear and consistent messaging about the very high risks of travel and gathering. And, just like safer-sex education, guidance for this holiday season must also include nuanced information about how people can protect themselves if they travel to that Christmas dinner anyway: minimizing contacts and testing before and afterward, keeping gatherings small, driving instead of flying, masking when indoors or close to others, meeting outdoors if feasible, and increasing ventilation when outdoors isn’t an option. Giving any risk-mitigation advice might seem imprudent when the dangers of social contact are so acute, but adherence to public-health recommendations is never universal, and everyone needs access to information and tools to stay safer. **** Rather than imposing rules that neglect the realities of human behavior and then reprimanding people for breaking them, the message could be a more pragmatic and compassionate one: We understand that this is hard and that social connection is important for health, so we will support you in gathering more safely.
  13. I will. I assume it's a tough one, considering it's such an obvious answer and we are a ways off. But I really don't know, like, anything about how storage works even for my phone.
  14. Call me Buzz Killington, and carry on.
  15. I don't know much about the storage technology, I just know that individual storage is the best way to an energy policy built around individuals: I generate my own energy and use it as I see fit. I am not saying that's a good policy... just that it is the most libertarian policy. And like I said, if the Libertarian party has embraced nuclear, but through the private sector, then they are being dumb. Again, this is my understanding, but successful nuclear generation at least at this point requires capital and organizational heft that only comes from the state or from state-sponsored (and largely state-funded) monopolies. A typical private sector approach doesn't work because of the overwhelming, long-term costs up front. And while Nuclear is actually safe compared to coal, it still requires intense regulation to prevent the kinds of disasters we know can come of it. We can only do private sector space launches right now because of like 50 years of government funded space exploration (which was largely accepted and advanced due to the cold war). And you saw it with hydroelectricity in California 100 years ago, where a ton of small-time hydroelectric operations were established and then failed before the system stabilized financially under big-time corporate consolidation, state-approved monopolies and public power policies. The most successful progress in nuclear energy in the US has been for military use. State funded, at a significant cost, with no need for short-term profit. Nuclear is probably the answer. But by accepting that, we must accept that laissez faire libertarianism has its shortcomings just like socialism, corporatism, progressivism and social conservatism do.
  16. I dunno... I think the most libertarian energy policy would be to invest in storage technology, and allow each individual to utilize solar panels and individual generation to fill that storage. No more grid at all.
  17. Everything I read suggests that major embrace of Nuclear will require increased government involvement in production of energy. So the libertarians should be ambivalent about Nuclear as the answer to climate change, and a lot of them are. I agree that we should embrace Nuclear. But that also will mean a less libertarian energy policy.
  18. Like I said, 'centrist' has such a subjective definition it gets complicated. I mean, my understanding is that a large majority of people who are registered as independents are actually predictable voters for one party or the other... so they really aren't independents. I guess I'm more interested in what people think makes someone a centrist than what a centrist really is. Which means it's in my interest for people to argue about it... so why I am interrupting?
  19. Oh, and to the centrists who were mad at the libertarians for voting for Jo and thought she'd be the spoiler to give Trump the white house again, looks like a number of right-wing commentators are made at them post-election for being spoilers on the other side. https://reason.com/2020/11/30/libertarians-have-no-home-in-either-dominant-political-party/ I didn't vote for Jo for my own reasons, but am always OK with people voting their conscience.
  • Create New...