This week, California's governor (Newsom) went out and did a public event to talk over his acquisition of 100 FEMA trailers which are being brought into the Oakland area, for the homeless crowd. Cost to the state? It appears the acquisition is near zero, but whatever installation or placement charges come up....it's on California's tab (figure $150,000 to $200,000).
I sat and pondered over this.
For those old enough to remember Hurricane Katrina.....FEMA trailers were the original solution there, with thousands bought. Then, came this issue of mold and funny plastic scent.
These FEMA trailers are typically a cheaper RV trailer 'pick', costing around $12,000 to $15,000 and big enough for a max of four people (really, to be honest, two is the max you ought to force into the trailer).
Living in one full-time? They might last four to six years, before you start to complain about leaks, structural issues, etc. But throw the idea of giving it to a doper, or some paranoid schizophrenic guy? It'll either be destroyed in three years, or turn into some kind of hazardous waste 'zone' (requiring $10k of state money to dispose of it in some massive way).
Looking over this, I just have this idea that it's going to be an interesting 'reality-type' show. Oakland is stuck....they have to find some vacant lot, and run power and water to thirty-odd RV trailer, parked on some rough gravel. A couple of benches will be put up, with a cheapo water fountain, and a dumpster for hypodermic needles. Once a week, an ambulance will pull up and pick some dead overdosed guy.....with the city bringing a new resident to the empty trailer.
It's just a solution that will beg for new and fresher problems.
Sunday, 19 January 2020
The 'Losers' From this Impeachment?
About a month from now.....you and I could sit down in a pub, and put a pitcher of beer on the table....to discuss the aftermath of the impeachment. The losers?
1. Hunter Biden. The guy was never qualified to be on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company.
2. Whichever idiot dreamed up the Ukrainian 'gift-money' for natural gas development. We may never know which idiot it was, but it'll be readily apparent that the money just went into a dark pit, and disappeared.
3. Joe Biden. All they have to do is run the video that Joe says he screwed the Ukrainian prosecutor, and then leave the 'message' at that. Joe does his own damage, and can't really go and explain the situation....if he's not invited.
4. Nancy Pelosi. For all the talk and chatter....what she delivered was a marginalized impeachment package, and utterly dependent upon the Ukrainian threat by President Trump.
5. Shifty and his team. After they've been 'corrected' around the 40th time by either McConnell or Justice Roberts....their enthusiasm will start to dry up.
6. The news media. Maybe they can keep people pumped-up for the first week....but I suspect at the conclusion of the second week....around one-third of viewers will have turned off the TV, and simply limited themselves to a nightly 8-minute update. Changing opinions for voters? No....basically nothing will have changed, and that will be the shocker at the conclusion.
7. Warren and Sanders. Basically, in the heat of the build-up for the Iowa Caucus....both are going to sit in DC, and waste three weeks of time there. Their campaign is finished.
So the only gainers? Bloomberg and Mayor Pete. That's it.
1. Hunter Biden. The guy was never qualified to be on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company.
2. Whichever idiot dreamed up the Ukrainian 'gift-money' for natural gas development. We may never know which idiot it was, but it'll be readily apparent that the money just went into a dark pit, and disappeared.
3. Joe Biden. All they have to do is run the video that Joe says he screwed the Ukrainian prosecutor, and then leave the 'message' at that. Joe does his own damage, and can't really go and explain the situation....if he's not invited.
4. Nancy Pelosi. For all the talk and chatter....what she delivered was a marginalized impeachment package, and utterly dependent upon the Ukrainian threat by President Trump.
5. Shifty and his team. After they've been 'corrected' around the 40th time by either McConnell or Justice Roberts....their enthusiasm will start to dry up.
6. The news media. Maybe they can keep people pumped-up for the first week....but I suspect at the conclusion of the second week....around one-third of viewers will have turned off the TV, and simply limited themselves to a nightly 8-minute update. Changing opinions for voters? No....basically nothing will have changed, and that will be the shocker at the conclusion.
7. Warren and Sanders. Basically, in the heat of the build-up for the Iowa Caucus....both are going to sit in DC, and waste three weeks of time there. Their campaign is finished.
So the only gainers? Bloomberg and Mayor Pete. That's it.
Thursday, 16 January 2020
Odds On Favorite? Joe?
If you go around the Vegas betting crowd, the current betting scene is that Joe Biden will be the nominee from the convention and primary period.
I was kinda shocked reading over the whole story. Conventional wisdom says that Joe Biden might be significantly 'hurt' if the impeachment occurs and he gets a call to be a witness. But maybe they can avoid that....end the impeachment, and life goes on.
A thrilling last hundred days before the election? No. I would review the scene, and that final campaign period....suggesting that it'll be 75-percent of the thrill factor from the 2016 election....which was bad enough already for Hillary Clinton to lose.
Who would be Joe's VP? I'm predicting Stacey Abrams (of Georgia fame).
Improving over the Hillary action of 2016? No. I'd give a minimum of thirty states over to Trump....maybe even taking two of the Hillary-win states over as well (New Hampshire and Nevada).
I was kinda shocked reading over the whole story. Conventional wisdom says that Joe Biden might be significantly 'hurt' if the impeachment occurs and he gets a call to be a witness. But maybe they can avoid that....end the impeachment, and life goes on.
A thrilling last hundred days before the election? No. I would review the scene, and that final campaign period....suggesting that it'll be 75-percent of the thrill factor from the 2016 election....which was bad enough already for Hillary Clinton to lose.
Who would be Joe's VP? I'm predicting Stacey Abrams (of Georgia fame).
Improving over the Hillary action of 2016? No. I'd give a minimum of thirty states over to Trump....maybe even taking two of the Hillary-win states over as well (New Hampshire and Nevada).
Wednesday, 15 January 2020
After Watching Last Night's Democratic Debate
Altogether, I probably viewed around 35 to 40 minutes of it. I'll make three observations:
1. Moderator-wise, it was probably the worst 'team' that I've seen yet in the past twelve months. It simply convinces me of dumping moderators entirely.
2. I thought at some point, Bernie Sanders really took some heavy hits, and might be fairly damaged at this point. The idea of Bernie taking at least eight win-states in the primary season? I suspect that idea is gone.
3. Boredom. Maybe it's the number of these debates performed so far, but on the boredom scale.....this was a perfect '10'.
1. Moderator-wise, it was probably the worst 'team' that I've seen yet in the past twelve months. It simply convinces me of dumping moderators entirely.
2. I thought at some point, Bernie Sanders really took some heavy hits, and might be fairly damaged at this point. The idea of Bernie taking at least eight win-states in the primary season? I suspect that idea is gone.
3. Boredom. Maybe it's the number of these debates performed so far, but on the boredom scale.....this was a perfect '10'.
Sunday, 12 January 2020
The Better and Worse of Candidates For Trump
If you added up the five key political figures at this point (Mayor Pete, Joe Biden, Bloomberg, Senator Warren, and Bernie Sanders), I would rate them in this fashion against Trump.
1. Bernie Sanders. By far, the one that would be purely capitalism versus socialism, and I would suggest that Trump might be able to hustle up forty-five states on the 'win' side.
2. Senator Warren. Virtually everything she wants to talk about....has a price-tag attached. So taxes would have to rise. On the advertising front for October, she'd make it pretty easy for Trump to get 30 to 35 states.
3. Mayor Pete. Trump would basically talk non-stop over Mayor Pete's resume. Again, I'd give Trump the call for 30 to 35 states.
4. Joe Biden. Joe has the resume, and can appeal to working-class voters. Joe's problem is age, and sometimes suggesting things that are a bit crazy. In a debate, Joe is Joe's worst nightmare. Trump would face a Hillary-like force and probably only win 30 to 32 states.
5. Finally, Bloomberg. Bloomberg would not appeal to the Bernie-socialism voters, or the Senator Warren crowd. Bloomberg's past behavior with women, and paying them off...would be dragged out. All things considered....I think Bloomberg could take Florida, and make this a 29-state win for Trump....meaning it'd be a lot closer but Trump would likely still win.
1. Bernie Sanders. By far, the one that would be purely capitalism versus socialism, and I would suggest that Trump might be able to hustle up forty-five states on the 'win' side.
2. Senator Warren. Virtually everything she wants to talk about....has a price-tag attached. So taxes would have to rise. On the advertising front for October, she'd make it pretty easy for Trump to get 30 to 35 states.
3. Mayor Pete. Trump would basically talk non-stop over Mayor Pete's resume. Again, I'd give Trump the call for 30 to 35 states.
4. Joe Biden. Joe has the resume, and can appeal to working-class voters. Joe's problem is age, and sometimes suggesting things that are a bit crazy. In a debate, Joe is Joe's worst nightmare. Trump would face a Hillary-like force and probably only win 30 to 32 states.
5. Finally, Bloomberg. Bloomberg would not appeal to the Bernie-socialism voters, or the Senator Warren crowd. Bloomberg's past behavior with women, and paying them off...would be dragged out. All things considered....I think Bloomberg could take Florida, and make this a 29-state win for Trump....meaning it'd be a lot closer but Trump would likely still win.
Saturday, 11 January 2020
Crazy
"People experiencing mental health problems are more likely to be delusional.
People who are delusional are more likely to be experiencing mental health problems."
I saw this quote today, and it's stuck in my mind for the past couple of hours.
Around the mid-70s to mid-90, I could probably walk around for an entire day, and run into one single person who had some type of behavioral problems. Today? I'd take a guess that in an average week....I'll bump into twenty-odd people with either stress-related issues, delusional problems, or just drugged-up situations.
You see it in airports, grocery stores, and subway stations. You see it with young people and old folks. You see it while waiting in line at McDonalds.
It kinda makes me wonder.....what transpired after the 1990s....to trigger this level of crazy behavior?
People who are delusional are more likely to be experiencing mental health problems."
I saw this quote today, and it's stuck in my mind for the past couple of hours.
Around the mid-70s to mid-90, I could probably walk around for an entire day, and run into one single person who had some type of behavioral problems. Today? I'd take a guess that in an average week....I'll bump into twenty-odd people with either stress-related issues, delusional problems, or just drugged-up situations.
You see it in airports, grocery stores, and subway stations. You see it with young people and old folks. You see it while waiting in line at McDonalds.
It kinda makes me wonder.....what transpired after the 1990s....to trigger this level of crazy behavior?
Wednesday, 8 January 2020
Time Magazine Story
Time magazine, which I really haven't purchased or read through much over the past twenty years (probably fewer than three times....mostly via airline flights where it was reading material)....has gotten itself into a bit of amusement today.
Somehow, the magazine decided that they really needed to go and explain significance of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani's killing....in kid-talk.
Yes, it was an entire article designed for parents....to sit down and talk over the incident with their 8-year old to 12-year old kid.
Yes, it was designed in some way to be a guide.
The first problem to this is that they (the Time staff) assume that young kids watch the news. Out of a hundred 10-year old kids....I might go and suggest that twenty percent might watch some news (more so for local news than national news), and the rest might catch their news via social media, or concentrate more on Hollywood or Kanye West-type news.
Then you assume that the kid asks dad right away....where is Iran, and dad is at a loss to find it on a map.
Then you come to the issue of good guy versus bad guy. Dad will sit there for a minute, then explain it's like Breaking Bad....where Walter White was really both a good guy and bad guy. The kid will ask....isn't this like wrestling....where a bad guy turns good guy, and eventually reverts back to bad guy status? Dad will suggest it's more like the Iron Sheik of the 1980s/1990s. Junior will come back and ask if the 'Foreign Legion' (Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff) were mostly bad guys, and dad will study that for a minute....to respond 'yes'. But he'll add....they were such good bad-guys.
Finally, you come to the question...will the kid take the position of President Trump? That's probably what worries these Time magazine journalists the most.
This brings me to the final bit of pondering....is it possible that virtually all news is designed for 10-year old kids, and we adults are treated in the same way?
Somehow, the magazine decided that they really needed to go and explain significance of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani's killing....in kid-talk.
Yes, it was an entire article designed for parents....to sit down and talk over the incident with their 8-year old to 12-year old kid.
Yes, it was designed in some way to be a guide.
The first problem to this is that they (the Time staff) assume that young kids watch the news. Out of a hundred 10-year old kids....I might go and suggest that twenty percent might watch some news (more so for local news than national news), and the rest might catch their news via social media, or concentrate more on Hollywood or Kanye West-type news.
Then you assume that the kid asks dad right away....where is Iran, and dad is at a loss to find it on a map.
Then you come to the issue of good guy versus bad guy. Dad will sit there for a minute, then explain it's like Breaking Bad....where Walter White was really both a good guy and bad guy. The kid will ask....isn't this like wrestling....where a bad guy turns good guy, and eventually reverts back to bad guy status? Dad will suggest it's more like the Iron Sheik of the 1980s/1990s. Junior will come back and ask if the 'Foreign Legion' (Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff) were mostly bad guys, and dad will study that for a minute....to respond 'yes'. But he'll add....they were such good bad-guys.
Finally, you come to the question...will the kid take the position of President Trump? That's probably what worries these Time magazine journalists the most.
This brings me to the final bit of pondering....is it possible that virtually all news is designed for 10-year old kids, and we adults are treated in the same way?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)