RIP DMX

Not much for rap on this channel, but we make exceptions where it counts. DMX giving short feedback on some of his hits is great entertainment. His music may not be your jam, but listening to him speak about it is a different thing. 

DMX seemed like an interesting guy, and based on public reaction he was as authentic as it gets. 

Best album title of any album, ever, will always be: It's Dark and Hell is Hot. I will accept no arguments on this point. 

Shogun by James Clavell: Don't Bother

I do not understand why people love this book so much. It is long-winded, difficult to follow, full of flat and empty characters. It works well as a gateway into a small part of the history and culture of feudal Japan. 

The author shifts perspectives to give you a first-person view of many of the characters thoughts and feelings, but reading interminable passages about religious enmity between seventeenth century ideologues (or more accurately: reading what a 1950's era white guy's notion of what that would be) gets really old, and after I while I just didn't care any more. The author's willingness to describe the details of court intrigue stretched this novel to over 1000 pages, but by the end of it not very much actually happens. Famously, he put the big final battle in a two paragraph epilogue. On the evidence it must be easier to write about how people went hunting again, or whatever. 

If you can buy into the mythology of the white man that all who come into contact with hold in awe because of his power, then this might be for you. He's always in the right place at the right time, ends up with the most beautiful women, and - for real I am not making this up, because it comes up several times in the novel - he has a huge dick. What's not to like? 

Two stars, since the detail and scale of the novel was great.  Aside from that, meh. 

RIP to Part of Life's Rich Pageant

If McDonalds closes a 'store' then you know that either times are tough or the place is hell on earth, because their profit model is pretty much bulletproof. 

Desus and Mero share some very good advice here about why not to fuck with people that are working late. Related: Never piss off the people that cook your food or make your drinks. Ever. 

E-bikes Are As Dangerous As Motorcycles

 There has been an explosion of ebikes on the paths and roadways since the pandemic kicked off roughly 10 months ago here in the states. (Yes it technically arrived a year ago but the ineffective US response and related lockdowns did not start until March.) 

There has been a corresponding increase in the number of crashes and general fuckery on the bike paths as people with no practice and no idea throw themselves into situations for which they are not prepared. 

Riding a bicycle is like riding a motorcycle or driving a car in that almost anyone can learn how to do it. It takes a bit of practice but the fundamentals are surprisingly easy to master. It is less easy to be a good rider, pilot, or driver, and that is where we (literally) run into problems. 

In bicycle terms, e-bikes are very fast, easily capable of speeds that are out of reach for all but the most committed lycra-wearing cosplayer. Speed and inexperience are a dangerous combination, and it is very common on e-bikes. 

Similarly dangerous is the rider that is not very good at riding a bicycle. They lack confidence, and like motorcyclists they are prone to low-speed tipovers, target fixation, running wide in corners, and generally putting other riders at risk. 

Best thing for it is to take your e-bike riding seriously, and practice stopping, turning, and panic stops in empty areas BEFORE you take to a busy street or crowded bike path. Keep other people in mind and everyone will be safer, including you. 

2020 Was Hit or Miss

How was your year? Mine was mixed. 

2021 might be more of the same. We will see. 

Two Posts In Two Days

So much content! 

This was too good not to share. 

The Wayback Machine, Photo Edition

I loathe having my picture taken. I did not sit for a senior portrait in high school, so none exists. Decades later I avoid the camera as aggressively as ever. One of the many reasons I quit facebook was that it was impossible to keep people from posting and tagging photographs of me without my consent. (Facebook sort of added consent, but you are very much at the mercy of whoever posts the photos. No thanks.) 

All of which brings me to this 1993ish time machine: shirt and jeans both two sizes too big, surrounded by my relatives. These guys were described as my 'cousins', but that was shorthand. To this day I am not sure of our exact blood relationship. Their mother was my grandmother's cousin's daughter, I think? That's my best guess. Their mom was very kind to me when I was a kid; I still make chocolate chip cookies using her two-spoon drop cookie method. 

The guys pictured here were also very kind to me as I was growing up. After I got old enough to be able to have more adult conversations they gave me jobs so I could earn some walking around money, let me crash at their house when I needed place to stay, let me borrow their car when I needed a ride, talked to me about how to handle adolescence, allowed me to come to their grown up parties and awkwardly wander around, and generally made room for me to grow up in ways that are necessary but difficult/impossible for parents to enable. I was very lucky to have them in my life. They were more like brothers to me than anything else, so I am very glad that this photo exists. 

The funniest thing about this photo (aside from the overall look itself) is that this is exactly how I remember all three of these guys. I got older, but they stayed the same age in my memory. Of course that is not accurate, and they are all nearly 30 years older now, but I will always remember them at this age, in this way. 

Thanks for reading. 

I've Been Busy

Long time between posts. I had some things happen. Personal health issues, family issues, and work was busy. 

Personal health can be summarized in one line: chronic back pain is a bummer. 

Not interested in getting into all the details of family issues and work stuff in this forum. I will share that I had to travel to St. Thomas to bury my uncle two weeks ago. He died suddenly, but it should not have been unexpected. I say 'should', because I was not prepared for it. I will write more about what my uncle meant to me later, maybe. I was the only family member that went to sort out his personal effects and take care of his funeral arrangements, which should tell you something about how close we were. 

My uncle was a weather geek, a political wonk, and a sports geek. I will maybe write more about that later too. 

PSA: if you do not have a legal will that also designates an executor, please make one. Do not put it off. The last thing you would want when your friends and loved ones are grieving is to make their lives more difficult because you did not spend 30 minutes filling out some simple paperwork. Do not do that to your family or partner or friends or people that cared about you. 

The Buddha Was Not a Big Shopper: Your Phone is a Dissatisfaction Engine

People are finally coming around to the idea that Big Tech in general, and social media in particular, is not good for you. This is a welcome shift in opinion. You can read books about it, you can watch documentaries about it, or you can just wake the fuck up and stop looking at your phone. You've got some options, is what I'm saying. 

Facebook is the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company of the twenty first century: they know exactly what they are doing, they are in business to make money, and they do not care about any negative externalities related to their efforts to increase shareholder value. 

Increased self-harm and depression among pre-teens? Oh well. Destabilizing democracy with misinformation campaigns funded and directed by foreign powers? lol "We are not responsible for the content of our platform, we are just the platform." Propagating bizarre conspiracy theories and harmful medical misinformation? That's just the cost of doing business. Driving 'engagement' at the cost of your mental health? That's on you, because it is up to you to limit your exposure to the toxic morass of social media. 

Facebook makes money by selling your attention to advertisers. In this they copied Google, because Google had already achieved wild success in 'monetizing' your attention. In order for Facebook to sell your attention they must first get your attention, and then keep it. It turns out that getting and keeping your attention is not very difficult. It also turns out that the most effective way to get and keep your attention is to generate an emotional response, such as outrage, anger, or frustration. You do not put your phone down if you read or watch something that is wrong; instead you think about it, you comment on it, and you share your comment, you engage with it. 

It may be useful here to ask what the true goal of advertising is. What are advertisers trying to do, and what are they trying to get you to feel? Advertisers are trying to get you to spend something, usually money, but maybe also time, or attention, or all three of those things. How are advertisers trying to make you feel? Are they trying to make you feel happy, content, satisfied, fulfilled? No. Their intention is to do the opposite of those things, because happy / content / satisfied / fulfilled people do not buy things. (Buddha was not a big shopper.) 

Consider then that Facebook is an advertising platform masquerading as a 'social' platform, and that the function of advertising is to make you feel dissatisfied, to make you feel unfulfilled, to make you feel incomplete. It is literally a massive dissatisfaction engine that is designed and built to print money. No wonder people are unhappy. 

Facebook is a net positive for many people's bank accounts, but a net negative for the world. 

RJR Tobacco knew that their products were addictive, knew they were harmful, knew they were giving people cancer. They took no action until the Federal government got involved. Facebook is doing all the same things: creating hugely addictive products, marketing them to children, giving people attention cancer, all in the name of profit. Only tech companies get this type of free pass to poison their users. You should demand better. And you should delete your Facebook account today. 

Jacob Blake and Kyle Rittenhouse: Two Names You Never Should Have Had to Hear

Blake and Rittenhouse are being celebrated in their respective communities, Blake as a martyr because he got shot during an arrest, and Rittenhouse as a hero, because he shot three people (killing two) during protests related to Blake's shooting. 

Both of these things are bad and wrong. 

I do not think that Blake deserved to get shot. I have read a lot of coverage in the NYT and the Atlantic and there is a common reference to the fact that he got shot 7 times in the back, with no mention of the actions leading up to it, and what he was doing when he got shot. If you turn your back on an officer holding a gun and reach into your car then expect the officer to shoot you, wherever he can, and as many times as he wants. Blake fully understood this, and while there has been much mention that he was 'protecting his kids', that was not in evidence in the video. What I saw was a frustrated man acting irrationally. Why was he frustrated? Probably because the system is unfair, and because he knew he had an outstanding warrant, and because he knew he was going to get flushed through the system, lose his job, deal with drama with his partner / spouse, and so on. A grim prospect. 

The boycotts from major sports teams seem misguided to me because I do not see an alternative outcome based on Blake's actions. Were the officers supposed to let Blake get something out of his car? Should they have let him get in his car and drive away? Should they let him walk away? They had already attempted to detain him and tased him; he resisted arrest, and then he went for his car, and then he got shot. This is not a vicious act of malignant racism or bad policing. Should they have attempted to subdue him before he got into his car? Supposedly they did so with a taser. Should they subdued him with physical force by piling on him and cuffing him? Maybe, but then we would be reading articles about the severity of their response and use of force. Should Blake have just sat back down on the curb when the cops pulled their guns and told him to sit down? Obviously yes. 

The problem with Blake as a martyr is that he escalated his altercation with the cops. I agree that cops can be (and frequently are) power-mad shitheads that treat people terribly. I was treated roughly by cops a few times in college and learned that contrary to what you may see on TV, you have no rights when you are dealing with a cop. They can do whatever they want and you can take it, or you can get beaten up or worse. I saw it in person and experienced it myself, and I was a white kid. This has not changed since I was a kid, and I expect that it is many, many times worse if you live in a crime-riddled community or a low-income community. Police act with impunity because they are effectively immune to prosecution and retribution. 

The guy that shot Blake should have done more to detain him before he got to his car, so that was a failure. Once Blake went for his car then the officer did exactly what any other officer would have done: Your car is a deadly weapon, and just trying to get into the driver's seat is reason enough for them to shoot you, never mind what you may have inside the car. 

The root problem here, aside from systemic racism and inequality in Blake's and many other communities, is guns. Because America has so many guns, the cops also have to have guns. Every interaction with a police officer is potentially lethal. It's a travesty. 

Speaking of too many guns in America, we have that idiot kid Rittenhouse and his enabler mom. That kid wants to leg-hump police officers and definitely watched way too much Fox News. And then he ended up armed at a protest to protect a car dealership? You can open carry in Wisconsin, so anyone can just walk around with a gun as long as it is out in the open. Rittenhouse was very poorly trained but entirely too well armed, which is a recipe for disaster. The police were overwhelmed, and they are far too lenient with the armed vigilantes that show up to 'protect' other people. Again, the problem is guns and escalation. Why was Rittenhouse allowed to have a gun (he is only 17) and wave it around at unarmed protestors? Why were the protestors allowed to set fires and vandalize property? Why did Rittenhouse even think he was necessary? Why do the police tolerate or tacitly endorse these vigilante nutjobs? 

The law in CA is that if you are a civilian you are only legally allowed to shoot someone if you or someone you love is in mortal danger. You cannot shoot someone over property, such as if they are vandalizing your car. Looters muddy the waters a bit, because they might be stealing essential goods during a disaster, but in general if someone is just stealing something you are not allowed to shoot them under any circumstances except if you or someone else's life is in mortal danger. Arsonists are more easily justified, but you still have to prove mortal danger in court later. Not sure what the laws are in Wisconsin, but if Rittenhouse gets an all white jury and he can reasonably claim to have feared for his life then he will be acquitted of the murder charges. He still has the weapons charges, and whatever else they can pin on him, but murder? Not likely. (One of the people he shot was reportedly also armed, which Rittenhouse was unlikely to have known but will figure prominently in his defense.) 

All of it is a huge, stupid, preventable mess. The solutions are obvious but the system is broken. Trump is actively making it worse. Fox News is actively making it worse. People that demonstrate in support of Jacob Blake are actively making it worse. Facebook is allowing Russia to actively make it worse. No idea what is next, but it all helps Trumps chances in November. 

Common People

This is one of my favorite jams. 

Maybe it's not for you. Maybe the tempo change (90 BPM at the start, finishing at 160(!!) BPM) is too much. Maybe you don't like dancing. Maybe you don't like the lyrics. Maybe you don't like britpop. Maybe you're tone deaf. Maybe it isn't good. 

But maybe not. I'll see what I can do. 

(Apologies for the four minute radio version - the 6 minute version on soundcloud is blocked.) 

Step Into the Wayback Machine: Tracking Treasure Down by Gabriel and Dresden ft Molly Bancroft

Was going to spend another 1000 words explicating on another of the infinite examples of idiocy in the wider world but the blog tells me I've been doing that for almost 15 years and it does not seem to have made a difference (so far). 

Instead here is a good old-school trance anthem. I heard again recently and remembered how much I liked it. I am giving you the radio edit, because you don't need 3 mins of intro and outro, you just need the highlights. 

Enjoy. 

Both, or Neither

Browsing the paper this morning and the New York Times announced that they will be capitalizing 'Black' when referring to Black people, but they will not be capitalizing 'White' when doing the same. 

As I tut-tutted about it my girlfriend said, 'are you having a tough morning, White man?', which was funny and accurate. How very middle-aged White man to be frowning at some news in the morning paper. 

And yet, here we are. 

I am all for capitalizing Black when referring to people, but if you are going do that then it follows that you should also capitalize White. Whatever rule applies to one should also apply to another. Both are broad generalizations, and if there is a Black experience (and there very much is) then it follows directly that there is a White experience. This is not complicated or difficult to understand. 

What is difficult to understand, and where the Times blows it, is by applying different rules for what are, effectively, two sides of the same coin. (Actually different sides of a multi-faceted object, but still.) I am unconvinced by the Times arguments against capitalization. Here it is: 

We will retain lowercase treatment for “white.” While there is an obvious question of parallelism, there has been no comparable movement toward widespread adoption of a new style for “white,” and there is less of a sense that “white” describes a shared culture and history. Moreover, hate groups and white supremacists have long favored the uppercase style, which in itself is reason to avoid it.

Let's unpack this. 

'an obvious question of parallelism' - yes, the question is why do you have different rules for different people? Why do the same rules not apply to everyone? 

'there has been no comparable movement toward widespread adoption for a new style...' - this argument is debatable, and you can expect that there will be a 'movement' now that you have adopted this style. Also, the absence of a 'movement' is not itself a valid reason for discrimination, so we can put this argument in the trash where it belongs. 

'there is less of a sense that 'white' describes a shared culture and history' - Is there? This argument suggests that Black people have a shared culture and history, which they do, but that history is extremely varied at the individual level, and much of what they share (so far, in the USA) is systemic racism and exploitation by White people. White people also have extremely varied cultural history, but they do share one thing in common: they have a White experience. In fact it is very difficult (impossible, in the United States) to justify the existence of a Black experience without a White experience; you would just have 'an experience', and you would have to come up with some other way to classify people, such as by socioeconomic status. 

'hate groups and white supremacists have long favored the uppercase style' - If the Times were endorsing the ideas of the 'hate groups and white supremacists' that would indeed be reason to avoid it. But they are not; they are coming at this from a different direction. The hate groups do not own the language, but by deferring to them you empower them. This is a mistake. 

Black people deserve to be identified as such. So do Whites. The Times gets it wrong here. 

Dave Chappelle Tells the Truth

Here you go. 

Caitlin Flanagan is a Treasure

Caitlin Flanagan is your friend's mom that is low-key the most savage person you know. 

Consider this understated gem: "Say what you will about Charles Manson; he really empowered women to pursue excellence in traditionally male-dominated fields."

That mix of brutal truth and wild understatement is a hallmark of Flanagan's writing, and if you liked that, and also if you like thoughtful, intelligent reporting, then you can review much of her work over at The Atlantic. I recommend it. 

What's Wrong with America: Police and Police Unions

It is easy to look at the widespread protests at the murder of George Lloyd and wonder how we got here. 

We got here because people are dumb as shit, and that includes police officers. The problem with dumb as shit police officers is that they get to inflict excessive violence without any consequences. (They get to do a lot of other things without consequences, but the violence is the main problem right now.) 

As anyone who has ever had a dog or tried to teach a child something knows: actions must have consequences. If you allow someone to act without any consequences, then you cannot be surprised when they do something ugly, like take a shit on the floor, or throw food in your face, or, in the case of this aggressively stupid and arrogant collection of clowns at the Buffalo PD: knock a 72 year old peace activist to the ground and send him to the hospital with a brain injury. Congratulations, America! You have a police department, and a police union, that is objectively more dumb than my friend's 4 year old. 

Watch the video and tell me if you think that is good policing. According to the NYT report, the officers were 'simply following orders', per the local police union. That the local police union defends this kind of thing is part of the fucking problem! Also, it bears mentioning that if the goons are too stupid to be able to recognize that by 'simply following orders' they will hospitalize an old man who had the temerity to try and speak with them like adults then they are not qualified for the job. 

It turns out that when two of the officers were suspended, the other 55 members of this team of assholes all resigned in support. I am not a fucktard moron that works for the Buffalo PD, but even I know that mayyybe knocking a peaceful old man around is not an action I want to 'support'. 

I may have been in the minority if I did work there, because around 100 people showed up to protest the fact that the two officers were charged with assault. I guess it's cool to nearly kill someone if they try and talk to you when you have your orders? What the actual fuck is wrong with these people? Are they truly so aggressively obtuse that admitting any wrongdoing will cause them to disintegrate in a cloud of bitterness and testosterone? 

It is very easy to figure out if this kind of action is acceptable. Borrowing (again) from lessons for a four year old: put yourself in the other persons shoes. Would it be acceptable to nearly kill a peaceful old man if it were your dad, or grandfather, or you? I doubt it. 

Why are people supporting a police officer's decision to assault an old man? How do you justify that kind of action? All they had to do was put him in zip cuffs and walk him to a squad car. Instead they almost killed him. 

If you want to know why people are demonstrating across the country, look no further than the Buffalo PD. Protect and serve, indeed.