Bail Blowback

I love how stupid the left can get. This time, we're talking about California eliminating "bail" from the criminal justice system. Oh my God is this hilarious. Observe.

For those who don't know, which is probably our readers in California, "bail" is an ancient aspect of the criminal justice system which lets people get out of jail before they are tried if they agree to put up collateral against their failure to appear at trial. Here's the thing: bail serves several purposes. First, it is a means for the state to allow people to get out of jail until they face trial, which in about 98% of cases never happens anyways. It lets the state do this because the person is required to put up collateral which they will not want to lose by running away. That is like a guarantee of good behavior. (Bail is set according to the financial ability of the person to pay to make sure that rich and poor have a similar incentive to show up.) Without it, letting people out pre-trial becomes much more risky.

What's more, most people only post a small portion of the bail, which they obtain from a bail agency. This also means that a separate, private sector "judge" looks at the person and decides if they are a reasonable risk worth lending the money too. If they agree, they pay the bail and the person posts only collateral, like the deed to a house. Think of it like a check on judges being too easy on criminals. Moreover, if the person does run away, then this private agency will chase them down and bring them back. That means the state doesn't need to watch them or hunt them down. See how bail helps?

But then, the left is the left and they have decided that bail must be racist because more peeps of color end up in jail (ignore that they commit more crimes), more peeps of color aren't offered bail (ignore that they commit worse crimes), and poor people obviously can't afford bail because they are poor (ignore the income test used to set the amount of bail or the fact bail money is almost always borrowed). Ignore the fact too that if you show up, you get your money back, so by obeying the law, bail is not harmful... it is, to the contrary, helpful. Ignore all that though. Bail is racist and must be purged like a statue from the past.

So a group of leftist activists have been pushing for the elimination of bail. California, being one f*cked up state, is where they've all settled and with the Democrats controlling everything, they just passed a bill to ban bail. Hurray! Here's the catch though: unless you are irrational (more in a moment) you need to replace bail with some system that decides who gets to walk free before trial and who doesn't. What California decided was to impose the logical requirement that judges would make this decision now based purely on a risk assessment -- are you a danger to others, are you a flight risk, etc.

The left freaked out.

See, California's liberal judges are racists who like to lock up peeps of color and poor people. By eliminating bail, California is now letting these racist judges decide who needs to be locked up just on their assessment of "who is scary." That of course means more peeps of color and more poor people will be locked up. And without bail to set them free, they will languish in jail. Damn those rich white people who got us to eliminate bail, which now twists the system in their favor and against peeps of color and the poor!! Those tricky racists!

I swear that if modern liberals ran the underground railroad, the final stop would have been a slave market in Atlanta.

(And just wait until people stop showing up for trial because they have nothing to lose and all those poor peeps of color get prison sentences from default judgments, and until California needs to start sending racist white cops to hunt these people down all across the country because there's no longer a bounty hunter industry in California. That won't happen to middle class whites because, uh, racism!)

Anyways, half the left turned against the bill in the end because getting rid of bail like this would be racist (who knew there could be consequences?). But part of the left didn't because bail is racist and they are making a statement by killing it -- a statement that they want more poor people and peeps of color locked up, apparently! (Who knew there could be consequences?)

So what exactly did the first group (who actually started the ball rolling on this) want? It turns out, they don't care about bail at all. They want incarceration eliminated (yep, no prisons) and they saw the elimination of bail as the first step in that direction. I told you they weren't rational.

What we have here is true irony. In the hopes of eliminating prison, the California left tried to destroy bail because they thought it was racist. They succeeded. But in succeeding, they will end up locking up more peeps of color and poor people because liberal California judges are racists and bail was the way poor people and peeps of color managed to escape the clutches of those racists. Tell me that's not worth a laugh!

Even funnier is how often this happens. Liberal "ideas" seem to be designed to do the most harm to the most vulnerable people in the shortest amount of time. Hence, most need to be fixed almost immediately once liberals finally discover what everyone else already knew -- that the thing "nobody could have foreseen" did indeed happen. But of course, then they try to fix their mistakes with more liberal "ideas" which only make the problems even worse. It's like deciding to punch bigger and bigger holes in the bottom of a sinking boat to let the flooding waters back out... and then being shocked when even more water starts coming in each new hole! "Who could have seen that happening?! Somebody do something!"

If we're lucky, California will push the button and shut down their jails. The ensuing chaos will be fun to watch as they play out John Carpenter's Escape from New York. Let's just hope they all know to kill each other in the right racial and gender proportions when that happens.

Some Thoughts On The McCain Circus

Here are some thoughts on John McCain. They're kind of mixed.

● I am not a fan of talk radio. It is irrational, sells a sense of false purity, and accepts no responsibility. It is the worst kind of self-righteous Monday Morning Quarterbacking. So this isn't about McCain not hitting some level of purity that I claim for myself... "he ain't no reel 'merican!" No. What bothered me about McCain was his disloyalty. His instincts were always to smear his own side at the outset of any argument and then to do his best to undermine any strategy adopted by his own side. I remember his career from when Reagan took office until his death the other day, and that was his MO in every instance. It wasn't enough to disagree. He needed to sabotage. It wasn't in the name of principle either. It was like pathological disloyalty.

I have no problems with Susan Collins from Maine, for example, because she was always moderate by principle. She stands by her beliefs and you know what that will mean. At some point, she will also always try to work out a deal where everybody gets a little something. I don't like her ideology, but she represents it fairly and I can respect it as an ally. I never had the same feelings with McCain, who seemed to revel in tearing apart his own people. In fact, I can't tell you a single principle the man stood for except helping the Democrats beat the Republicans.

● The media is loving McCain right now. But if you pay attention, the only thing they really love about him is that he was the Republican who confirmed to Democrats that all other Republicans are everything evil the Democrats claim. And let me point out, I remember his (erratic) run for President. The same media who now praises him smeared him with all the usual leftist smears -- racist, sexist, ist-ist, etc. The media should not be getting a free ride to pretend they were ever fair about him. He was a tool to them, that was it. He was their "useful idiot", a term Stalin used to describe Western intellectuals who repeated his lies without question. Don't believe the tears.

● Trump is being petty. Yep. But let's be honest. So is the McCain clan. McCain's last words are attacks on Trump and other conservatives. His people didn't even invite Sarah Palin, a truly petty break of protocol.

● Finally, on the veterans who are upset that Trump has acted like a jerk, I love our military, but I am not a blind supporter. There are good people and bad people in the military like in any other field. Just because someone is a soldier does not make them noble or divine. It's what we do that defines us, not what we are. And while many soldiers are amazing, not all are. I know that's often not a popular opinion in Talk Radio land, but it's an honest one and it's a correct one.

So on McCain, I do respect what he went through as a soldier and I respect how he handled himself. Talk radio has often spread rumors about him to smear his service and I find that despicable. I don't believe he acted in any way that wasn't truly honorable and above and beyond. The guy was a hero. Period.

That said though, that does not grant him a get-out-of-jail card for life. But that is how his service often seemed to be used. When he got into trouble, he often went back to the "I was a POW" thing to try to make criticism somehow improper. I don't accept that as legitimate. And don't get me wrong, McCain is not alone. A lot of veterans try this. Joe Biden waves his dead wife as a shield. Leftist shooting victims use their wounds the same way. People who claim to have been molested as kids, raped, or "victims" of some sort of -ism do the same thing. The thing is, there is no immunity from criticism and it bothers me when people think they can invent that. You may have walked on water and saved leprous children when you were young, but if you're an assh*le later in life, you're an ass, and the fact you were once great doesn't give you the right to shut down debate about your later conduct.

Those are my thoughts. The man was a hero, but a bad Senator and a worse ally. I don't wish him ill, but I won't canonize him either just because of his death.

A Blue Wave? No.

The left keeps talking about a Blue Wave taking out the GOP and giving them the House. I simply don’t buy it. In fact, all the evidence I see suggests an election with little change. Consider this.

Trump’s approval rating has been sitting at 48% for weeks now, through any number of scandals. The left points to this as proof that Trump is below 50%, but at the same time, this is somewhere around 7% higher than it was when he won. Moreover, it suggests a hardening of support, not a lessening of support.

Next, a CBS pollster, which means he’s no friend of conservatism, worries that the Democrats will not win the House. He notes that the level of support is remarkably solid/unchanged in the races they look at. What’s more, he notes that the Democratic strategy relies on them turning out two groups who historically haven’t voted in midterms: young women and youths. GOP support, older whites, is solid and intends to turn out.

Further, on the turnout point, I’ve observed before that while the Democrats are sort of winning the turnout numbers in the primaries, (1) there are reasons for this, and (2) they have yet to turn out anything more than average turnout. In other words, it’s not like they normally turn out Y-thousand people but this time turned out 1.5Y-thousand people. To the contrary, in most cases, they didn’t even turn out anywhere near their recent record turnouts. So the enthusiasm isn’t there, nor is there evidence of new voters appearing.

In terms of the reasons Democratic numbers are up in the primary, consider that Democratic primaries tend to be disputed whereas Republican incumbents don’t need to turn out to win. Also, the Democrats are going through a civil war, with progressives/socialists versus “moderates.” So again, they have more reason to turn out in the primaries... but this does NOT carry over into the general election.

On the idea of attracting women, there are a couple problems:

(1) Single women don’t turn out as well as other groups.

(2) Liberal women are currently largely demoralized by the collapse of all these supposed women’s movements. The Women’s Anti-Trump March died the moment they dropped their signs and headed to Starbucks. The #metoo Movement (which never left Hollywood) has imploded into a total route with their leaders now engaging in open hypocrisy and turning on each other, and all the progress feminists had made being undone by due process. In fact, almost every man who faced any punishment is essentially back in business. The “Year of the Woman” remains a dud – the only “women” who matter are Pelosi, Warren, Waters and Hillary, a group of ancient, out-of-touch, dementia ridden losers. Even the cute, inspiring socialist chick turned out to be a moron whose politics are the kiss of death. There isn’t even a platform to draw women in.

(3) Add to this that the Religious Right has been strangely silent and Trump has stopped saying sexist things, and there just isn’t a motivator for young, single women to turn out.

(4) Also, despite talk of women turning against Trump, the gender gap doesn’t support this. The Washington Post poll has a gender gap of 10%. This is supposed to be evidence that Trump is unusually bad with women. But Reagan’s gender gap was 6%, Bush Sr. gender gap was 15%. W Bush’s gap was 7%. Moreover, if we believe the polls, Trump’s gap against Hillary was supposed to be 18% in 2016, but really turned out to be 12%. So a 10% gap means he’s improved and is just about the same as Reagan and W Bush. (Romney was 11%.) Keep in mind too, all of this is after the full-court press to create a women’s movement and make it unacceptable for women to support him.

On the idea of attracting youth voters, there are a couple problems with that too:

(1) Youth never vote.

(2) Youth turnout has been disappointing throughout the primaries.

(3) I’ve been watching groups like these Florida kids and David Hogg. He’s a real turd who will turn off a lot more people than he wins over. But even more importantly, despite all the good wishes the left could offer and a professional team that rivals any campaign, these kids have managed nothing. They have turned out no one. What’s more, they aren’t even trying to help the Democrats. Hogg and the others are running around arguing for some sort of youth uprising to get rid of “old ass parents” and the such. Beyond this, there is no issue to turn out youths. They didn’t even turn out to support the socialist chick... they’ve all but abandoned Bernie too because he’s old, rich and too timid.

The youth “movement” is more of a young communist movement and it has failed to show any evidence whatsoever that it’s inspired any youth to turn out.

What’s more, the issues the left is running on are failing to excite anyone: a $15 minimum wage does not attract low-level professionals, it offends them... proponents of Medicare for all have been getting whacked in the primaries and need to explain the $32 trillion cost... “we can put a woman in charge” didn’t work for Hillary, and won’t work when there is no woman to rally around... Trump’s environmental policies “aren’t as bad as I expected” (an Al Gore quote) doesn’t scare people... peace with North Korea kind of neuters the “he’s dangerous” line... his Supreme Court pick seems really normal. And so on. None of this turns out new people.

Add all this up and I see no evidence of a Blue Wave. The Democrats haven’t increased their turnout beyond normal levels. Their plan requires them to turn out people who are politically lazy, demoralized by the failure of their naive idealism, and generally want others to “do something” for them. Add in that Trump’s support seems solid and seems to grow stronger as the left attacks. Finally, incumbents have huge advantages, including gerrymandering. All that suggests there's just no blue wave coming.

Thoughts?

Trump's Going To Be Impeached! Oh My!

The left is running wild right now because their fantasy of impeaching Trump seems to them like it's coming true now that Manafort has been "convicted" and Cohen has entered a plea deal. It's not. It might one day, but not from this. Here are my thoughts.

Let's start with this. Impeachment only happens if enough members of the House choose to make it happen. In the modern 50/50 world, I don't see that happening even if the Democrats win the House, unless they somehow win a blowout. What's more, the Democrats seem to be learning that impeachment would be a political disaster for them, just as the impeachment of Clinton stained the GOP for a generation of voters. So I don't see it happening no matter what.

Anyways, putting that aside, let's consider the recent events.

The left thinks that the conviction of Manafort means that a conviction of Trump is inevitable. After all, he was Trump's campaign manager and therefore his guilt must be Trump's guilt, right? (Statement would not apply if Trump and Manafort were Democrats). The answer is no. Mueller's probe is about whether or not Trump engaged in illegal contact with Russia before the election. But Manafort was convicted of tax fraud entirely unrelated to the election. Said differently, Manafort's conviction has zero bearing on Trump or the claims against Trump. The "value" in Manafort's conviction is that Mueller hopes Manafort will now turn on Trump and trade a confession implicating Trump for a lenient sentence. Manafort, however, has shown zero willingness to do this, both before and after the conviction, and will likely be pardoned by Trump after his re-election after his appeals have run out. So he won't turn on Trump... if there even is something to turn about.

All this conviction really does is provide Mueller some insulation for the moment to the claim that he is wasting everyone's time.

That brings us to Cohen. Cohen is a circus and it's not clear what he will say as part of his plea deal. So there is that caveat. He could be like Omarosa and just start pulling stuff out of his *ss, but nothing Cohen says has any credibility and he would be a nightmare witness to rely upon. A case built around him is not a case you try.

More fundamentally though, Cohen seems to be an entirely different issue. What he's pleading to is making an illegal payoff to a porn star to keep her from blabbing her claim that she and Trump bumped uglies... very uglies. (The payoffs are supposedly illegal because Cohen used campaign money to make them.) This may sound salacious, but it has no baring on the Mueller case. If Mueller tried to bring a case against Trump for this, I suspect Trump's attorneys could get it dismissed for being beyond the scope of Mueller's authority.

So while the left loves these convictions and has convinced themselves this is the end of Satan, the reality is that these likely mean nothing at all.

Glass Houses And All That

Two interesting developments this weekend for the nearly-dead #metoo movement. Both look pretty ugly.

The first involves a prominent feminist professor from New York named Avital Ronnell. Ronnell, a lesbian, is world renown for her views and what not, but has now been suspended for the year by NYU after a gay male student name Nimrod Reitman (seriously) accused her of sexually harassing him. She attempted to defend herself by basically saying, "Hey, we're gay and gay people harass each other. It's gay culture."

Just the fact that a woman has been accused of harassment flies in the face of the #metoo movement which relies on the idea that only men are bad. Making matters worse, the woman is a lesbian, another subset who are deemed beyond reproach. What makes this worst of all, however, is her defense which not only calls out gay people as somehow different from heterosexuals as they apparently normally engage in conduct the #metoo movement deems inappropriate, but then suggests that such conduct is acceptable in the workplace when done by the right people. That's not good optics at all, especially as this was a professor imposing it on a student.

However, what happened with Ronnell is nothing compared to the news that one of the prime leaders of the #metoo movement, Asia Argento, has now been revealed to have paid a young man $380,000 to settle a claim that she harassed him when he was underage and then ruined his film career. In other words, this woman who has become one of the faces of the #metoo movement, and has expertly exploited the suicide of her boyfriend Anthony Bordain, did exactly what she has accused Harvey Weinstein of doing. Whoops. This is a disgrace for the #metoo movement and a Godsend for Weinstein.

As for Weinstein, he's doing what I predicted. He's releasing tons of emails and letters from the women who claim he raped them in which they praise him and talk about how much they love him even years later and what parts they want from him. He's going to win and humiliate/expose a lot of famous actresses on the way.

In a precursor to the headstone on this moribund movement, dopehead Lindsey Lohan called these women "weak" a few weeks ago for not reporting their supposed rapes. While she retracted this under pressure -- after all, she still wants to work in the field -- her comment strikes me very much as the final judgment which will be laid upon the #metoo movement: "You should have done something." I'm sure these women will whine "that's blaming the victim," but that's pretty much what more responsible people have been saying all along.

The Ultimate Wrong

There is a story in the news that just makes me sick. This guy... this creature in Frederick, Colorado who killed his family. He killed his wife and his two daughters.

The daughters in particular bother me. They were cute, seemingly happy little girls aged three and four, and he killed them. I can't imagine a worse violation of trust. It makes me want to cry, honestly. There is no one in the universe these two little girls looked to more for protection than him. He was their father. He was supposed to put down his own life, if need be, to keep them safe. And he killed them.

We have two girls who can be major pains in the ass, but that doesn't change how much we love them. We want the world for them. We want them to be safe, happy and fulfilled. We would do anything we can to make that happen, and we would do anything to protect them. When I think about what this guy did, it's just shocking. I truly cannot understand how any father could ever kill his own child.

I'm sure this piece of shit has his excuses and will come up with reasons, but there is no reason. This is beyond inexcusable. This is a crime against all that is good about humanity, and he needs to pay an equal price. It won't help the little girls, but it needs to be.

I guess, I'm not sure what the point to this article is except that I'm so sick of the things I keep seeing people do. I look at the news and I see people killing each other for no reason whatsoever. I see horrific crimes being common place. I see so much hate, even from normal people. These girls are dead... people are buried under a bridge in Italy... fire is destroying the American West... and the left doesn't care... our political class doesn't care... our media doesn't care. They're giddily spewing hate at the most ridiculous things. Gee, so Fox used the wrong picture in a segment on Aretha Franklin and that's worth hating, but not this fucker in Colorado? Fake news, faker outrage, lies and hate, but not a thought to the real crimes. There is something wrong with our world.

Sorry to be a downer, but this one really bothers me.

Showing America the Love

The Democrats really have lost touch with reality.

Americans think America is special. You see this in everything we do, the things in which we take pride, and even our advertisements. We generally like each other, respect the achievements of the past, and love what this country stands for. There is a sense of pride and community in America. Not so much with the Democrats.

● Remember when Michelle Obama said she could "finally" be proud of America when Barrack was nominated? Nothing about us made you proud, huh? Nothing except somehow electing your lazy ass husband?

● This week, Andrew Cuomo twice said that America "was never that great." Speak for New York, jerk.

● Hillary just praised some kid for kneeling when the national anthem was playing and said, "Keep up the good work." Being disloyal and hating America is good work?

Stupid.

It seems that the Democrats just can't keep from telling us how much they despise America and how much they hate us. That's a really bad strategy for them and is something old-school Democrats knew not to do... whether they felt it or not. Unfortunately, it seems that this is what is becoming of the American left. They were never that loyal in the past and now their decades upon decades of failure seem to have made them bitter against the rest of us. Somehow, I don't think being the anti-American party is going to work.

Thoughts?

Future-Thinking

I often think about the future. "How long is this pizza going to take?!" Just kidding. I do think about the future though and the headline about an MIT computer predicting the end of civilization as we know it in 2040 gives us a good chance to make some predictions. First, let's dismiss the MIT computer.

The MIT computer program was written in the early 1970's and it predicts that based on the out-of-control rise of the earth's population, growing pollution, and the lack of new resources, mankind is doomed. And 2040 is the year of that doom, with our population becoming unsustainable and then crashing, presumably to oblivion.

The problem is, this is all BS. This is as laughable as the movie "Soylent Green" which whines about New York City and the other big cities on the Northeast coast merging into one giant city of 23 million people! It's so crowded that people are constantly touching shoulder to shoulder and everyone is starving! Oh no! But of course, their view of overcrowing is ridiculous. New York has 23.7 million people today and none of this is true. Texas is 171 million acres, so you can literally move everyone in the US onto a half-acre plot each in Texas and leave the rest of the US empty with room to spare in Texas. What's more the world's biggest (and most prosperous) cities are larger than 23 million people today... and nobody's living shoulder to shoulder or starving.

It's the same problem with the MIT computer. According to EPA date, pollution is WAY down from the 1970s. Just to give you a sense, even since 1990:

Carbon Monoxide is down 77%
Lead is down 80%
Nitrogen Dioxide is down 56%
Particulate matter in the air is down 40%
Sulfur Dioxide is down 88%

And they were already way down from the 1970's. The MIT computer seems to think these are going up. Population growth has slowed dramatically and will soon start to decline (I don't know of anywhere that has even a growth-sustaining birthrate). Food, a vital resource, has soared. The World Bank says yearly food production has grown 700% since 1961. Oil production is up 40% since 1980 despite repeated claims of reaching peak oil. Natural gas is up just over 100%. Biofuels didn't even exist in the 1970s. Solar was nothing and is today starting to become significant. We're nowhere near tapped out on Uranium. So basically, every single factor the MIT program relied upon in seeing the end of the world was wrong.

But hey, if you want to panic, feel free. The media loves a good panic.

Anyways, let's talk about the real future. It's going to be interesting... and difficult.

Here's the thing. Believe it or not, there isn't a single job that a machine can't replace. Let's start with the obvious. A vast number of jobs are already gone to things you didn't even notice, like word processors which wiped out the ranks of secretaries and typing pools. Digging and lifting machines wiped out basic labor. Let's call this Phase One of the Robotic Era, shall we? In this age, labor saving devices still operated by humans (a forklift, a word processor, a car) wiped out a vast number of menial jobs.

In Phase Two, those devices become more intelligent. Indeed, as robots get more sophisticated, they are increasingly able to take over all the physical labor jobs that used to require human dexterity and human judgment. Most things can be built by robots now. Kiosks can replace service workers... in fact, the McDonalds ones are snazzy. Soon, you will have self-driving cars wiping out truck drivers, bus drivers and cab drivers. Even surgeons are using surgical machines now. Because we don't trust them yet, most machines still need a human supervisor, but that is what the human is becoming -- a supervisor, not an operator. This is where we are now.

In Phase Three, AI will become capable enough of controlling these machines without a human supervisor. Factories and places with limited human interaction will be automated because there is no need to have a human involved. A smart AI can control the machines better than a person. This means places like banks and fast food and anything that could be run as a kiosk will become automated. Humans will be left just managing operations rather than supervising specific machines.

In Phase Four, more "intelligent" jobs will vanish. A lawyer machine with the proper algorithm and access to a legal database will give better results than all but the most creative humans. Banks, accountants will all be run by AIs, with human control limited to the very top. Think of it this way: a Board of five humans oversees the AI which runs the other AIs which manage the bank's processes and control its branches. There is no need for human involvement. In fact, I think you will find that humans become an inferior choice to using AIs at this phase because AIs have access to greater knowledge and their decisions are less subject to bias, ego or random influence.

This is when things start to go wrong. With no need for humans in most industries, there is no need for employees. In fact, the only ones needed at this point are those with the creativity to give the machines purpose. So what do you do with the rest? With no jobs, do you hand them money? Or does money go away and we enter a sort of machine-based communist era? After all, communism does work when you have enough slaves. I think at this point, you see the end of human society as we know it and the world becomes a guilded cage of welfare. What do the humans do? Well, you say, we do sports, arts, entertainment!

Only, most people can't do that even if they had all the chances in the world to do it. So I suspect most people will simply become little more than what we see in the ranks of billionaire's children today -- worthless hedonists who turn to parties, drugs and other destructive ways to pass time. Sadly, that's what human nature suggests.

Moreover, sports, arts and entertainment won't offer a refuge for long because of Phase Five.

Phase Five is when AI's finally become creative enough that human input is no longer needed to give the machines purpose or let them meet unexpected challenges. This is the end for what's left of human endeavor.

Take sports. I've long wondered why women's sports almost never come near the popularity of men's sports. Is it sexism? I don't think so. I think the answer lies in the pyramid of popularity. If I had to describe the popularity of a sport (let's take soccer), it seems to flow from World Class Event (i.e. Word Cup) to best professional leagues (British, German) to best college leagues to women's leagues to local high schools to kids. What causes this? Talent. Humans seem to be drawn to the groups with the most talent. Sadly, once people start offering robot versions of sports, I think this desire to watch the best will lead to the relegation of humans to second tier and eventual hobbyist only. You could say that humans will always play in college leagues, but do you really need colleges if no one is going to have a job?

In terms of arts and entertainment, the same holds true, and I think CGI has already shown us that "fake" will have an advantage over the much more limited "real." Moreover, as AIs are developed to the point of being able to exercise creativity, they should pretty easily surpass humans in the arts. Indeed, look today and you'll see that films that could have been written by algorithms are dominating the box office and "artistic" films languish. How long this Phase takes to arrive will depend on how long it takes to write creative AIs, but it will arrive. And after that, I see little left for humans to do.

Phase One: Human Operator
Phase Two: Human Supervisor
Phase Three: Human Manager
Phase Four: Only Creative Humans Needed
Phase Five: No Human Needed

Ultimately, I'm not trying to be pessimistic. What this means is that humans will need to find other ways to shape society rather than the "work for a living" model we use today. As policy makers, people need to start considering this too.

Thoughts?

Nothing Changes

This weekend kind of proved that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

● One hundred plus newspapers all coordinated their negative commentary against Trump this weekend. Ho hum. I guess I would be more impressed if the leftist media hadn't been doing this for decades.

● I'm pretty sure there were more articles written by "sportswriters" about the handful of guys who protested the national anthem this weekend than there were articles about the actual games. Again, no surprise. As I wrote the other day, these guys have decided they want to destroy the NFL and this is predictable.

● Feminists must be freaking out. As you probably know, feminists view women as cogs in the economic machine. Income equals power, ergo all of feminism is about getting women to out-earn men so women will have more power. It's true. There isn't really a feminist policy which doesn't go back to this, right down to discouraging women to have kids and watch kids. Well, for some time now, the wage gap for Millennial women has been growing compared to women in other age groups. That's bad for feminists. Last week we got confirmation why. Every year, polling organizations ask people how much they want to earn to live the life they want to life. Millennial women came in far below Millennial men, unlike the women of other generations. In fact, it's not even close. Millennial women would be satisfied earning around $50k a year. Millennial men would be satisfied earning $104k. That's a huge difference and it reflects itself in the growing wage gap. Other generations don't have nearly as large of a gap. Poor, poor feminists. Maybe they should have passed out pussy hats?

● So leftist Chris Cuomo can tell Laura Ingraham that if she doesn't like what America is, then she should leave... and that's cool. In fact, it's hip. It's "the perfect response." Yet, when a conservative says the same thing to a liberal, it's the most hideously unAmerican thing you can say apparently. Hypocrisy, it's what passes for principle on the left.

● Why does anyone keep covering the white-trash whinings of Megan Marckle's family? Seriously, they're human trash. They should be put out of our misery, not given a soapbox upon which to lob verbal attacks. Oh, that's right, the media likes fake conflict.

● Nancy Pelosi looks to be in huge trouble. She's becoming a scapegoat on the left. She's also apparently showing signs of Alzheimers/Dementia. This could be the end for her. Look for a bloody civil war the media goes out of its way not to cover if that happens.

Prison Reform

At a time when pampered multi-millionaire professional athletes keep accusing Trump (and the rest of us) of racism, Trump has been meeting with black ministers to discuss prison/sentencing reform. This has actually been a cause of the black community and the libertarian right for some time. What's my take on prison reform? I'm definitely for it.

If it were up to me, I would do the following in this regard:

1. Get tougher on real criminals:

(a) Add 10 years to any sentence for carrying a gun.
(b) Two strikes and you're out for violent felonies.
(c) Three strikes and you're out for any felonies.

The idea is simple: a small number of career criminals commit most crimes. Lock them up and keep them away from society. Focus particularly on violent ones, but also ones who just won't stop. Give an incentive to avoid carrying guns or being violent.

2. Change the focus on stupid crimes.

(a) Drop prison sentences for most drug possession arrests. Substitute community service plus drug rehab.
(b) Switch low level drug selling charges from prison to boot camp, plus confiscation of drug profits.
(c) Make the sentences related to distribution of cocaine, crack, meth, and other more dangerous drugs the same.

This will reduce overcrowding in prison dramatically. It will eliminate black complaints that they are targeted in the sentencing guidelines because the drugs they use have higher minimum sentences. The introduction of boot camp gives you a chance at reform as it teaches discipline and self-respect and it breaks the "I'm tougher than anyone" mentality. The introduction of rehab gives people a chance to get off the drugs. Community service is super annoying to dope heads and is a good punishment. The idea is to fix users rather than incarcerate them, make selling less profitable, and go hard after distributors.

3. Prison reform.

(a) Everyone gets a job, learns a trade, goes to school. Reform.
(b) Separate prisoners by race and gang affiliation to avoid the need for gangs.
(c) Put prisoners in small pods of 6-8, as this makes it easier to avoid conflicts and control prisoners. The idea is to avoid assaults. Also, separate them by the nature of the crimes so you don't get serious felons teaching not-as-serious felons the tricks of the trade.
(d) Build a better network for post-prison employment.

The idea here is to keep prisoners from learning how to be better criminals. Right now, the system throws them into large racially mixed groups, which encourages them to join gangs for their protection. Some have jobs, but not many. By keeping them out of gangs and teaching them trades, there is a much higher chance that they will be useful when they leave prison and won't come back.

Thoughts?

Ohio + Midterms

Tryanmax asked my thoughts on the Ohio special election and I thought I would make a quick article out of it and the midterms/special elections so far in general.

● Ohio: The media wants to make Ohio a big anti-Trump moment. They were more sure of this when it looked like the Democrat was going to win the historically Republican district, but even now that the Republican has narrowly won, they are happily (though nervously) calling this evidence of Democratic momentum. It's not.

Special elections are about turnout. The Republican won by 101.5k to 99.8k. That's 200,000 votes. In a normal election, roughly 360,000 people vote. So it's impossible to see a trend except that the Democrats turned out better. The Democrats usually get around say 130k, so it's not like they broke some barrier either. What's more, while the media says this shows that rural and suburban whites are turning against the GOP -- because that's what the district mainly is -- the reality is that 67% of the Democratic vote came from minority and poor inner-city neighborhoods around Columbus. So, about the only thing we can conclude is that core Democratic voters were more excited - 76% turnout to 50% turnout. That's not surprising, nor do I think that carries over to a general election.

● Socialist Flameout: Every single candidate endorsed by "wunderkind" Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lost in Democratic primaries across the country last night. Coincidentally, Bernie Sanders endorsed the same people. Sadly, I don't know that this shows anything. These kinds of elections are inherently local and I think all this tells us is that the name of the guy you know is stronger than the endorsement of some outsider. I guess what it does show us is what we already knew: there's no socialist wave waiting to wash away sitting Democrats. Indeed, even Ocasio-Cortez's election involved something like 4% of the voters, so it was a fluke really. Look for this to lower the intensity on the Democratic side significantly as the far(ther) left starts to mope.

● Year Of The Woman Again: As usual, the left is declaring the annual "Year of the Woman." They are pointing to the stillborn Pussyhead March and the moribund, now-boomeranging #metoo witch hunts as evidence that women are finally finding their voices (what a cliche), and they are dreaming that this means female candidates will sweep the nation. There was even talk the other day that women might sweep away the Democratic leadership and (oh boy, this is exciting) we might finally have a female Speaker of the House (uh, so what was Nancy Pelosi?). Anyways, the reality on the ground just isn't there... as usual.

I don't have any particular numbers (itself suspicious) and I'm not going to go do the math myself at the moment, but all the women the left points to as potentially creating this supposed Year of the Woman keep losing their primaries. Even more ironically, the couple that I've seen make it through the primaries are doing so against Republican women. Right now, I would say that womanhood is irrelevant to this election cycle.

● Washington State: Washington State seems to have the left giddy. They have a California-like system where everyone runs together and the top two advance. And last night, in three districts held by Republicans, the Republicans underperformed. What's more, when you add up the Democrats and add up the Republicans, the Democrats were only a point or two below 50% Oh boy! Yeah, and that's about turn out. When the bulk of GOP voters turn out in the general election, look for those numbers to separate significantly again.

If there's an overall takeaway from last night, it's that nothing unusual is happening this year. The incumbents lack enthusiasm, a normal problem in midterms for the incumbent party. There is no socialist wave. There is no estrogen wave. A couple incumbents lose, but it's mainly due to mistakes or negligence, and it's in both parties. This is a very normal year.

More Insight Into The Sickness That Is Liberalism

I've always told you that liberalism/socialism is basically premised on spite. It thrives on the idea that others having less is as good as or better than me having more. Well, here's an interesting bit of proof of that.

This proof comes from an actress named Ruth Wilson. Wilson plays a character on the Showtime show "The Affair." She recently complained about unequal pay for the women on her show and now her character has been killed off, leading some to speculate there is a connection. That isn't what interests us though. What interests us is her original complaint.

In February, Wilson complained about the men on the show making more money than the women. She also complained about her opposite, Dominic West, making more than she does. She then said three very telling things. First, she admitted that she doesn't even know if West makes more than her. She said:

“I definitely get less money than a male in my situation would. Definitely.”

But then said this about how much more:

“So he definitely gets more than me. I mean, I don’t know what the figure is, but I’m sure he does.”

In other words, she has no clue. She doesn't know if he makes more or not, she just assumes he does because he's a man and in her world, she would be paid more if she were a man. So her entire world view is premised on an assumption about which she knows nothing. Very typical on the left.

Oh, and could there be a reason he gets paid more (assuming he does)? Well, yes.

“Yeah. I think so. Certainly when I signed up to that project, I would have got paid less. Then they the producers might argue, ‘Well, he’s already done a major American TV show [The Wire] so he’s already got a level.’”

But hey, they've both been on the same show now for a couple years, so none of that counts, right? Never mind that he's still got a better resume, more experience, and might have more appeal... meaning it will cost more to keep him. That thought never occurs to her. To her, they've both been doing the job, so they should get paid the same, right? I wonder if she'll feel the same when some newbie joins some future show she's been on or if she'll want what she "deserves" then? I'm guessing the same rules won't apply then.

Anyways, she wasn't done spouting off her ignorance. See, when asked why she doesn't know how much Dominic makes, she said it was hard to ask him and she blamed him for not telling her. In fact, this woman, who no doubt describes herself as "strong" said:

“It’s sort of funny. It’s quite hard to bring that up in a way. But it needs to be an open discussion and men need to help us out.”

In other words, she wants men to give her everything she's entitled too without her having to do the work of even asking questions... because that's hard. Worthless.

And then we come to the really insidious part. Up to now, she's just been a typical stupid liberal who doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, but is strident in her victimization and wants her victimizer to make it all better for her without her having to do any work to make it happen. "Somebody do something!!!" Well, now we get to what it is she actually wants. Check this out:

“I don’t want more money, I just want equal money. Which means men have to take less.”

There it is: spite. I don't really want more, I just want others to have less. This is the most illogical, pathetic, hateful crap that comes from the bottom of the human soul, and yet it seems to be the basis of socialism. You see this all the time, where it doesn't matter if it helps the whiner or not, they just want to see others brought down. You own too much, we need to take it! You are too successful, we need to stop you! You are too good in school or sports, we need to eliminate that! How does that help me? It does, but it makes me feel better. That's pure spite.

They've run tests on monkeys and found that some monkeys actually prefer to deny other monkeys treats than get their own treats, when given the option. In other words, spite is an instinct in some. We're supposed to be smarter than that as a species, but liberals aren't. They would rather that you fail than that they succeed. This dumb ape, Ruth Wilson, wants men to a make less because she thinks that would be fair. What a hateful, ignorant sh*t.

Just A Quick Thought Tonight

There's something wrong with the media. Surprise, right? I mean it though. There is something fundamentally wrong.

Here's the thing. I've been watching the sports media for some time. They suffer all the usual problems as the rest of the media -- politically biased, uneducated, stupid, monkey-see-monkey-do-ism, and smugness. But in the past couple years, I've noticed more. I've noticed that the media seems intent on destroying the thing they cover.

If there is a flaw, they not only report it, they aggrandize it. They blow it up into the proportions of a scandal. They treat it like an intentional, personal affront. If there is anyone who attacks a particular league (particularly the NFL), they treat these people as national heroes. They promote their cause, lie for them, attack those who refute or disagree, and do their best to bring as much disgrace to the league as they could. No issue is too petty for them to adopt. No issue is too minor to use to demand resignation, boycotts, and shutdowns. They are cheering for Kapernick to win his ludicrous collusion case, they want the players to go on strike, they want owners brought down for exercising the same rights they want the players to have total immunity to exercise, and they want the idea of concussions to end football itself. They want the league destroyed for moving a team to Las Vegas, where gamblers might find them! They want anyone ever accused of harassment or domestic abuse forever banned... except that it's racist when it happens. Punish the league when they do, punish them when they don't. They attack player suspensions... and the falure to take action" against bad players. They attack new safety regulations... and the NFL's failure to care about safety. Teams are racist. Logos are racist and the NFL should lose its trademark protection! And so on and so on. Any issue, no matter who worthless, becomes a cause for the destruction of some aspect of the league.

The more I watch, the more obvious it becomes that their behavior goes beyond even willful bias. It goes to the point of overt hostility, with the unstated goal being the destruction of the NFL, Major League baseball and whatever else. Why?

And I see similar behavior among a lot of the MSM in the political arena. Naturally, they want to destroy the GOP and Trump, but they seem even more hostile than that. They seem to embrace ideas that will fundamentally destroy America and American democracy. It's like they hate the rest of us and what this country is.

I'm not sure where this has come from, but I see it in today's media and growing all the time. I never saw this in the past. Something has gone very wrong.

Thoughts?