I sat and watched an interview yesterday, and in the midst of this....a 'Scholar' came up for Whiteness Studies. Yes, she actually was some holding a degree of some type.....over Whiteness Studies.
I reflected upon the degree, and just sat there for twenty minutes....trying to contemplate where four to six years of college, and this degree (likely costing $100,000)....would lead onto. Basically, if you didn't get a job with some college, you are 'toast'. There's just not any business operations out there, or operations sector....that ask for people with 'Whiteness Studies degrees'.
Folks getting 'Blackness Studies degrees'? Probably. Latino Studies degrees? I guess.
The problem I see is that it really eliminates the path ahead in life for real work, and real value attached to the degree.
Thursday, 7 March 2019
The Pejorative 'Gimmick'
Pejorative is not a word that most people use, and it's usually drawn up by a PhD-level guy who wants to have a hour-long lecture.....talking about something fairly negative.
The meaning? It's often built to be a concept of disparagement.....a negative view of something. You could even draw upon this as a slur against someone or a cause.
A criticism? Yes, to the ninth-degree.
It's where you view something and have decided to go full-board.....go as negative as possible....to influence the people in front of you.
Words that fit into pejorative ways?
Example: Do-Gooder, typically meaning you've taken a position simply to look good, and it was more for public recognition, than logic.
Example: Cuckservative, typically meaning you do some things in the name of pretending to be a conservative, but for the most part.....are not a conservative.
Example: Cave-people, typically meaning a person who hates changes in their local area or region.
Example: Jobsworth, typically a person who uses rules to prevent people from accomplishing things.
Example: Fundie, typically a person who is on the far end of religion, and lives their life to 100-percent within the rules of the religion, and it bothers them when others fail to 'see the light'.
The meaning? It's often built to be a concept of disparagement.....a negative view of something. You could even draw upon this as a slur against someone or a cause.
A criticism? Yes, to the ninth-degree.
It's where you view something and have decided to go full-board.....go as negative as possible....to influence the people in front of you.
Words that fit into pejorative ways?
Example: Do-Gooder, typically meaning you've taken a position simply to look good, and it was more for public recognition, than logic.
Example: Cuckservative, typically meaning you do some things in the name of pretending to be a conservative, but for the most part.....are not a conservative.
Example: Cave-people, typically meaning a person who hates changes in their local area or region.
Example: Jobsworth, typically a person who uses rules to prevent people from accomplishing things.
Example: Fundie, typically a person who is on the far end of religion, and lives their life to 100-percent within the rules of the religion, and it bothers them when others fail to 'see the light'.
A Security Clearance Story
For several weeks, I've been watching this news media hype over Trump's daughter and son-in-laws top secret clearance, for their DC job, and tried to grasp what there is of significance in the story.
Prior to the 1990s, you could have filled out the paperwork (maybe 12 pages), and some security specialist could have wrapped up your clearance in roughly three-to-four months. The time-consumer (if there was one).....you had to list three people to 'vouch' for you. Amusingly enough.....the field agent guy could go to the three listed for 'vouching' or just skip them entirely and find three totally different people who knew you. Two or three weeks after that guy signed off....the rest of the paperwork finished up, and it was good for five years.
At some point in the early 1990s....some folks determined that the system wasn't working well enough and added more points onto it....basically making this a six-month process. By the late 1990s, another group got into this, and determined that the new process wasn't through enough, and now it was getting up to an entire year. Part of the blame for this was simply a lack of field agents, and perception that people were getting into serious financial issues (which should hinder your clearance). Another item....more spouses coming up into the scene....who weren't US citizens (particularly in the 1990s, with Russian wives now showing up, married to US military guys).
At some point, a guy I worked with....had sat there and counted his submission and the weeks required.....with the final sign-off of a update (not a new clearance), and this had reached 19 months.
The folks who travel extensively? Here's the odd thing about doing clearance updates (every five years). The audit people want a complete list of all foreign travel. As long as you stayed in the US....you were safe. The folks who traveled to ten to fifteen foreign locations over that five year period (like a four-day trip to Cancun, or a 7-day trip to Paris)? It's not a difficult thing, but the audit guy wants your dates for the trip. So you find yourself going back to calendar and trying to recall ten trips over the past five years and trying to line the dates correctly up. If you were the daughter of Trump? I'd take a guess that just on international travel.....she's got a list of forty places that she's been to in the past five years. For that poor audit guy trying to assess things or look for some type of corruption or spy stuff? A list of forty international trips is going to freak you out. That alone....probably would add three months onto the whole process.
Is it really some five-star news media story? No. It's marginally a two-star story at best.
Prior to the 1990s, you could have filled out the paperwork (maybe 12 pages), and some security specialist could have wrapped up your clearance in roughly three-to-four months. The time-consumer (if there was one).....you had to list three people to 'vouch' for you. Amusingly enough.....the field agent guy could go to the three listed for 'vouching' or just skip them entirely and find three totally different people who knew you. Two or three weeks after that guy signed off....the rest of the paperwork finished up, and it was good for five years.
At some point in the early 1990s....some folks determined that the system wasn't working well enough and added more points onto it....basically making this a six-month process. By the late 1990s, another group got into this, and determined that the new process wasn't through enough, and now it was getting up to an entire year. Part of the blame for this was simply a lack of field agents, and perception that people were getting into serious financial issues (which should hinder your clearance). Another item....more spouses coming up into the scene....who weren't US citizens (particularly in the 1990s, with Russian wives now showing up, married to US military guys).
At some point, a guy I worked with....had sat there and counted his submission and the weeks required.....with the final sign-off of a update (not a new clearance), and this had reached 19 months.
The folks who travel extensively? Here's the odd thing about doing clearance updates (every five years). The audit people want a complete list of all foreign travel. As long as you stayed in the US....you were safe. The folks who traveled to ten to fifteen foreign locations over that five year period (like a four-day trip to Cancun, or a 7-day trip to Paris)? It's not a difficult thing, but the audit guy wants your dates for the trip. So you find yourself going back to calendar and trying to recall ten trips over the past five years and trying to line the dates correctly up. If you were the daughter of Trump? I'd take a guess that just on international travel.....she's got a list of forty places that she's been to in the past five years. For that poor audit guy trying to assess things or look for some type of corruption or spy stuff? A list of forty international trips is going to freak you out. That alone....probably would add three months onto the whole process.
Is it really some five-star news media story? No. It's marginally a two-star story at best.
Wednesday, 6 March 2019
A Drive in a E-car
So this morning, my wife and I did a 45-minute in a Audi E-Tron (their new battery car).....which is basically a Q-3 mid-size SUV. I will make five observations over the experience.
1. It is remarkably quiet. In fact, other than a hum when you first take off, there is no noise inside of this vehicle.
For a guy who'd grown up on a farm, and driven a 1960s farm truck that produced enough noise that you couldn't hear anything within the cab itself.....this was a remarkable vehicle.
2. The E-Tron does not offer real side mirrors. What you get on each side.....a camera-like device which brings an image to mini-TVs by the driver and passenger. Just my guess, but each camera is probably in the range of 150 Euro ($200), and each TV set is probably near the same pricing. This was NOT optional, and it was a major negative to me. I could imagine keeping the car for ten years and having to replace the camera and TVs at least once each....maybe more.
3. In front of you, there is no gas gauge. There's a 'counter' which says you have 300 kms left, and as each minute goes by.....you are heavily focused on the counter. In case you got down to 25 km's left? Well....you'd have to 'refill', and you could be talking about six hours (in a normal charge).
4. The vehicle has some kind of 'smart-package' which connects to the GPS, and basically tells you where battery charging stations are located. But if you were three hours away from home, and needed to recharge it.....you could be talking about a four to six hour period, where you'd be mostly guzzling cocktails or sleeping.
5. Finally, there is a setting menu within the vehicle where you could tell it to downsize the 'take-off' from high-intensity (using more battery power), to extremely low-intensity (meaning you added another bunch of kilometers to the potential), but you had slow take-off and go. In essence, you gave up on 0-to-60 take-offs and were accepting a fairly slow pace.
Pricing? Close to $90,000. The curious thing for me....with a pretty solid body and quality steel....you could reach a point in 15 years where you replaced the two electric motors on the front wheels, and just continued.....meaning you could squeeze 30 years of life out of the vehicle (batteries would be a totally different case, you'd probably have to get new batteries every five years). And here's the thing....if you had some mechanical skills.....each of these miniature electrical motors could be swapped out by you, in your garage....in probably 90 minutes. You'd just take the old broke motor and toss it in the garbage can.
1. It is remarkably quiet. In fact, other than a hum when you first take off, there is no noise inside of this vehicle.
For a guy who'd grown up on a farm, and driven a 1960s farm truck that produced enough noise that you couldn't hear anything within the cab itself.....this was a remarkable vehicle.
2. The E-Tron does not offer real side mirrors. What you get on each side.....a camera-like device which brings an image to mini-TVs by the driver and passenger. Just my guess, but each camera is probably in the range of 150 Euro ($200), and each TV set is probably near the same pricing. This was NOT optional, and it was a major negative to me. I could imagine keeping the car for ten years and having to replace the camera and TVs at least once each....maybe more.
3. In front of you, there is no gas gauge. There's a 'counter' which says you have 300 kms left, and as each minute goes by.....you are heavily focused on the counter. In case you got down to 25 km's left? Well....you'd have to 'refill', and you could be talking about six hours (in a normal charge).
4. The vehicle has some kind of 'smart-package' which connects to the GPS, and basically tells you where battery charging stations are located. But if you were three hours away from home, and needed to recharge it.....you could be talking about a four to six hour period, where you'd be mostly guzzling cocktails or sleeping.
5. Finally, there is a setting menu within the vehicle where you could tell it to downsize the 'take-off' from high-intensity (using more battery power), to extremely low-intensity (meaning you added another bunch of kilometers to the potential), but you had slow take-off and go. In essence, you gave up on 0-to-60 take-offs and were accepting a fairly slow pace.
Pricing? Close to $90,000. The curious thing for me....with a pretty solid body and quality steel....you could reach a point in 15 years where you replaced the two electric motors on the front wheels, and just continued.....meaning you could squeeze 30 years of life out of the vehicle (batteries would be a totally different case, you'd probably have to get new batteries every five years). And here's the thing....if you had some mechanical skills.....each of these miniature electrical motors could be swapped out by you, in your garage....in probably 90 minutes. You'd just take the old broke motor and toss it in the garbage can.
Bloomberg Out
It wasn't a five star moment for the news media, but it's more or less wrapped up. Bloomberg won't enter the Democratic Presidential primary. Chief reasons from him? He says it's already a dense field (12-plus), and there's issue about the 'weight' of the party leaning to the left (something that he really doesn't admire or get into). So he's out.
Personally, I think his big moment should have come up in 2004....where he could have entered the race and likely out-paced John Kerry (easily). Given a race of Bush and Bloomberg, I think Bloomberg would have won. Age would have been in his favor at that point (he would have been 63 years old at that point).
Personally, I think his big moment should have come up in 2004....where he could have entered the race and likely out-paced John Kerry (easily). Given a race of Bush and Bloomberg, I think Bloomberg would have won. Age would have been in his favor at that point (he would have been 63 years old at that point).
Monday, 4 March 2019
How Trump Survives: 27 Months Now
You can go and wander through all the chatter, and hundreds of comments made weekly by journalists and intellectual types....but the essential Trump technique goes back to one formula which has never been performed before.
Instant reaction to a comment or report by the news media, and in the space of one single hour....he's formed the response, and put it via Twitter. Past Presidents of the last thirty years? They all needed to go to a support committee....discuss this at length....looking at polling data, and then find the appropriate way to respond. You could be talking about a minimum of three hours for an 'emergency' response, and maybe up to three days for a news media 'return of fire'.
Trump won't listen to the chief of staff that much, or the twenty-odd people around him....at least not to the degree that Bush, Clinton or Obama did. Trump might listen to his daughter or sons, but again....he's got an opinion in his head, and he's begging to Tweeter that to the public.
Can the Democrats find someone like this? Presently, I don't think a Trump-like character exists. Even if you brought Oprah onto the scene....she's just not the same match. Bloomberg? In a debate situation, he might be able to match up to Trump....but in a minute-by-minute Tweeter response? No....he can't deliver at that rate.
The value of the news media to the Democratic campaign? Presently, I think they've been neutralized. After Trump utters 'fake news' enough....people identify NPR, Time, Newsweek, CNN and the rest.....to some degree, as 'fake news'.
Instant reaction to a comment or report by the news media, and in the space of one single hour....he's formed the response, and put it via Twitter. Past Presidents of the last thirty years? They all needed to go to a support committee....discuss this at length....looking at polling data, and then find the appropriate way to respond. You could be talking about a minimum of three hours for an 'emergency' response, and maybe up to three days for a news media 'return of fire'.
Trump won't listen to the chief of staff that much, or the twenty-odd people around him....at least not to the degree that Bush, Clinton or Obama did. Trump might listen to his daughter or sons, but again....he's got an opinion in his head, and he's begging to Tweeter that to the public.
Can the Democrats find someone like this? Presently, I don't think a Trump-like character exists. Even if you brought Oprah onto the scene....she's just not the same match. Bloomberg? In a debate situation, he might be able to match up to Trump....but in a minute-by-minute Tweeter response? No....he can't deliver at that rate.
The value of the news media to the Democratic campaign? Presently, I think they've been neutralized. After Trump utters 'fake news' enough....people identify NPR, Time, Newsweek, CNN and the rest.....to some degree, as 'fake news'.
The GOP Primary 2020
Right now....it's just an unannounced Trump and former Governor Bill Weld (Mass) in the running. Governor Hogan of Maryland says he might run, but there's no indication of financial backing. Same story for former Governor Kasich of Ohio.
Official word from Trump that he's in? I don't think you will hear the word until October. If he did say 'no'.....it would be hard for someone to suddenly show up and run a decent campaign in Iowa or the next three states.
How long can Weld stay in the process? My guess is that he's got enough funding to stay around until 3 March (Super-Tuesday). At that point, he'll just fade.
What this means for Trump? Well....tons of money won't be spent in the primary period, unlike 2016. That's fifty-plus million that he won't spend until after the convention. For the Democrats, that's a major pain.
Appearances? I would suggest that he doesn't do more than one single day (maybe five or six communities) of campaign efforts in Iowa. The week prior to Super-Tuesday? It's probably already on the calendar and he's likely got fifteen appearances in a single week. But after the 19 May primaries in Kentucky and Arkansas....I'd suggest that his campaign stops will dwindle down, and everything simmers until the July GOP convention in Charlotte, NC.
No debates for Trump in the spring? Correct. Again, this puts more pains upon the Democrats. Remember, they are doing six in the second half of 2019, and six in the spring of 2020. You can draw your own conclusions about the necessity of having so many of these. My humble guess is that most people will be candidated-out by October of this year and begging for relief.
Here's the real bottom line.....in terms of stress and long hours....Trump in 2020 is progressing along a path with half the aggravation and suffering of 2016. Other than this week prior to Super-Tuesday, he just won't have a lot of frustration to deal with. Whoever the Democratic candidate is? By convention-time in 2020....that person will have burned a bunch of bridges to reach their destination, and be in serious need of rest.
Official word from Trump that he's in? I don't think you will hear the word until October. If he did say 'no'.....it would be hard for someone to suddenly show up and run a decent campaign in Iowa or the next three states.
How long can Weld stay in the process? My guess is that he's got enough funding to stay around until 3 March (Super-Tuesday). At that point, he'll just fade.
What this means for Trump? Well....tons of money won't be spent in the primary period, unlike 2016. That's fifty-plus million that he won't spend until after the convention. For the Democrats, that's a major pain.
Appearances? I would suggest that he doesn't do more than one single day (maybe five or six communities) of campaign efforts in Iowa. The week prior to Super-Tuesday? It's probably already on the calendar and he's likely got fifteen appearances in a single week. But after the 19 May primaries in Kentucky and Arkansas....I'd suggest that his campaign stops will dwindle down, and everything simmers until the July GOP convention in Charlotte, NC.
No debates for Trump in the spring? Correct. Again, this puts more pains upon the Democrats. Remember, they are doing six in the second half of 2019, and six in the spring of 2020. You can draw your own conclusions about the necessity of having so many of these. My humble guess is that most people will be candidated-out by October of this year and begging for relief.
Here's the real bottom line.....in terms of stress and long hours....Trump in 2020 is progressing along a path with half the aggravation and suffering of 2016. Other than this week prior to Super-Tuesday, he just won't have a lot of frustration to deal with. Whoever the Democratic candidate is? By convention-time in 2020....that person will have burned a bunch of bridges to reach their destination, and be in serious need of rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)