Friday, May 26, 2017

Landrieu Should Be For Legalizing Marijuana

The odd thing about the cynical thought process that I am having with trying to account for Mayor Landrieu's actions is that I keep coming up with things that are technically good to do for the city overall. But he is a Democrat, and is likely to lose to a black candidate, as happened to his family before...

... Unless white Democrats have learned something from the recent elections...

Which leads me to something he ought to be spending some serious political capital on- legalizing marijuana in Louisiana.

To recap, it seems to me he got rid of the Confederate statues in an attempt to consolidate his power. His primary weakness is competition from a black candidate who could mobilize a black populace that can overwhelm the white populace, should they be bothered to vote. He's done something black mayors never got round to doing, and he's not really appealing to blacks, but to white Democrats.

He needs more white Democrats. He and the governor need more money flowing into the state. Colorado and other states have established marijuana businesses that have a problem- banks are trying to stay on the right side of the U.S. government by discriminating against these businesses. So they've got a lot of cash reserves sitting around...

New Orleans would be an ideal investment for these businesses- especially if Louisiana politicians got their heads out of their asses and facilitated it.

And, again, old Landrieu can turn New Orleans into a white democrat Shangri-La.

I don't know if he thinks this way, but if he did think about New Orleans as a family possession, then at least some of the things he would do would actually be good, because he'd be thinking as a owner, not as a bureaucrat who is only going to have access to the cookie jar for a limited time. Of course, trying to pack a city full of people who are going to vote for you and your family seems a little harder than just being a straightforward aristocrat, but I suppose one has to work with what one has got.

#Update: Googling Landrieu and Marijuana yields evidence that he's certainly decriminalized it within the city. Unfortunately for him, he's got to get the state to go along if he wants the out of state investments to find their way here.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Perhaps There Are Limited 'Fixes' With Bureaucrats

I was thinking that my brother had told me a story that bolsters my idea that Landrieu's actions don't have much to do with his stated intentions. To recap, he's trying to maintain his position as mayor. Probably not trying to step up in the state, because then he'd run into a lot of people who didn't like his actions.

But anyway, my brother's wife wants to be closer to family, so he's got an eye out for real estate, even though he isn't necessarily seriously considering New Orleans proper. He heard of someone renovating some house in the ninth ward, and then the city assessor stepped in and valued the place astronomically- so, basically, you've got to be some rich 白左 idiot to live in the ninth ward now. So, this is not the sort of thing that is helpful to the remaining black population in New Orleans.

It isn't really that helpful to the city either, even if you were to take a very different view and think about trading populations until you had a lot of producers. The rich 白左 are into the local movement, so you also have to bring some poorer folk- less ideological, more industrious. But if they can't pay ninth ward taxes...

That made me think about this- what if bureaucrats were rewarded for every business 'under their care' running in the city? Right now, presumably, an inspector may get more kudos for shutting someone down rather than working with them to keep them running. But, if you want the city to prosper, you want more businesses running. In fact, with what's coming in terms of automation, a smart politician should be actively rewarding any business person willing to put up with employees. And any business willing to have a brick and mortar location in your jurisdiction.

If there is a physical location, and there are employees, then there will be more of a local economy.

Maybe Kombucha Isn't Good

One of the many confusing things about life for me is to be, on the one hand apparently healthy, and yet on the other suffering an unknown ailment.
Going to bed at night brings this up especially, because that is often when the pain in my side is most noticeable, and I wonder what the hell it might be.

And yet I still keep living, and keep myself generally more healthy than the folks around me.

And I used to be worse off in some ways- for quite a while I had to stop eating beef and pork because I would become nauseated after eating it and would experience various other effects, none of them fun.

And then there was the sensitivity to sulfur, which is still there to some extent, but no where near as bad- I can pretty much eat stuff that used to make me sick before; but I do need to be careful. i realized this recently when I tried brocoli sprouts, which is becoming the fad for it's alleged life extending properties. Well, the active ingredient is sulforaphane. It might make me live for ever, but it would be an intolerable forever.

But the beef, pork, chocolate, wine, etc...

Seems like I can handle them again and I wondered why.

From time to time On the No Agenda Show, John C. Dvorak will say contrary stuff. He says kombucha is bad for you, and that the leading apple cider vinegar brand in America has some bad bacteria in it. He also occasionally mentions that he and/or his wife will come out with a vinegar book, but it is a running joke that Dvorak never gets around to publishing the books he talks about writing.

But anyway, I used to drink kombucha. In fact, kombucha, along with that vinegar, correlates strongly with my gut health deteriorating. I got 'healthy' I lost weight, and I was also in and out of the health food store really often, and I'd get one of these fermented products on a regular basis. In fact, I once was making kombucha at home.

Then I stopped drinking kombucha. At some point I tried beef again, and it seems like I can eat it without detriment. I say seems because I still suffer pain and I can't tell whether or not the beef makes it worse. I recently had pork too, and it seems okay too.

Perhaps some of the kombucha bacteria is not good for humans, and when it gets in the gut, it screws things up. It would make sense- this would be the sort of thing the doctors couldn't see on x-ray.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Statue Removal In New Orleans And What It Really Means

I guess most folks must be unaware that New Orleans city politics has been mostly black for a really long time. The current mayor has Katrina to thank for his ability to get elected- both some demographic changes and some folks got taken out on corruption charges. So an old white democrat family temporarily got its old haunt back.

The political calculus is this- do what various black governments of New Orleans never did in the hopes of keeping black competitors at bay. Additionally, this probably plays well with the white left in the city.

Various black mayors, as well as countless councilmen, have talked about this stuff, but in the end, they knew these historical monuments were actually important to the value of the city. Or maybe they just didn't care enough. In either case, the statue removal only makes sense as yet another selfish and self interested grab by the house of Landrieu.

But the demographics have only been arrested, not reversed. And he will inevitably lose to a black candidate, unless he loses to a much less likely white uprising. Probably most of the whites in New Orleans are 白左, so they are happy. But they will also be happy with a photogenic black candidate...

And, as Hilary would notice if she could stop deluding herself, the blacks didn't turn out for her, so I doubt many of them are going to turn out for Landrieu.

I haven't paid too much attention to his policies, but given that I am already skeptical of his motives, I need to keep an eye out for policies that would encourage the demographics to flow in a direction that is beneficial to him- that is more 白左. He could technically even go for more diversity (as long as the ethnic populations remained too small to field a candidate against him), but he would need to encourage blacks to move away from the city. And to do that without ruining his narrative will require a sociopathy I cannot fathom.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Why Access Should Not Be The Overarching Moral Question

It is often assumed there are only two sides of an argument, or that only one argument is to be had.

We are beyond actually arguing about the value of central planning and collectivism.

One of the reasons we are beyond this point is that the winners in modernity- the bureaucrats- actually have different morals.

Most of our morals were formed when the primary form of government was basically private. The king owned the realm. He expected to rule over that realm based on the fact he owned it.

As an owner, two questions arise. The question of integrity of the the thing owned- maintenance, care, not letting it be destroyed, invaded, etc... And the question of keeping the thing own- i.e. you don't want anyone stealing your stuff.

Via these two impulses, an understanding of private property is born, and it is one even libertarians can recognize. Believe it or not, libertarianism is a mostly aristocratic mindset that has been rather naively applied to everyone. But we know not everyone is an owner, nor does everyone have the skill set necessary to own. There's been a lot of giving, and a lot of what's given has suffered a collapse of integrity, and the 'disadvantaged' are no better off.

Once the bureaucrats were free of the constraints of ownership however, a different morality began to assert itself. The basis of bureaucrat power is not ownership, but access. In the beginning, the idea is mostly access for themselves- i.e., they want to be able to access your resources in order to do whatever it is they think they should do, but eventually, their policies degrade to access for everyone. The intellectual socialists are long gone, replaced by zombie socialists, who mindlessly pursue what is obviously a terminal state. The cancer cells, can't, apparently, tell that they are killing their host.

Not only does theft become normalized, but integrity of whatever it is we are talking about begins to degrade. Nations, education, healthcare, etc... How many people can distinguish between an insurance product and products one would actually use to keep known recurring costs down?

Hypothetically, one could have administrators who would not lose ownership morality. Of course, ownership morality would have to be taught to them, and then they could run some of these things people seem to want to exist as a collective project. The internal metric of what the institution and/or product/service is supposed to be would keep integrity high. Access would be important, but subject to realities. As of this writing, my state is well over a billion in debt, the politicians are trying to tax us more, and yet they still insist on spending money to send people unfit for college to college. Meanwhile, since they've been sending stupid people to college for years, the colleges are no longer fit to handle the fifteen percent or so of higher IQ people who do actually need a whole different level of stimulus to get where they need to be. And, then most of those with intelligence end up leaving.

We end up bereft of decent education and intelligent leadership thanks to this impulse to make access paramount. It is, perhaps, more dangerous than impulse to centralized planning. Smart people can learn from their mistakes, and from logic, and there are plenty of astute observations as to how decentralization, experimentation, and iteration work.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Errors in Time and Space

The universe is compromised of all that is. What is not in the universe? Nothing.

People have trouble conceptualizing nothing. We tend to think of empty space when we think of nothing. But if there is truly nothing, then there is no space either. Complete nothingness cannot be experienced.

Then various people want to go on about the nature of reality, and they don't really understand the meaning of the word universe, and they come up with the term multiverse, and, well, it can't be so. This is not to say whatever they are struggling to say is not true. A multiverse can't be so linguistically- that is, the language is defeating them. If whatever it is that they are referring to when they say 'multiverse' exists, then it exists within the universe.

Whatever is is inside of the universe, so calling a class of existing things multiverses seems likely to cause misunderstanding.

This is highly similar to the reality of now. What is, is now. The past and future are not, and do not have the quality of existence. Nor do they have the quality of space, which 'time travel' movies indicate we are inclined to imagine. The things that will be are not yet. And the things that were can only be said to exist if we check the now and see they are indeed still here.

I see two sources, or two temptations that lead us to get these things wrong. The first is uncertainty. Lending the past and future the luster of existence helps us feel less uncertain. The second is the modern anti-metaphysical bent, blurring reality a bit helps one to avoid disorienting questions.

Friday, May 19, 2017


Originally got it from xenosystems.

I like it. I think we could put the circle around it, and slash through it, and have a global logo.

I like it because the ones who really matter are unbelievably white. Connecticut white. Napa Valley white. The little enclave of exclusivity where they proclaim a universal brotherhood, but don't practice it at all. I think it actually bothers them that they are white.

It bothers me that they are left. They would likely be high up in the hierarchy anyway, but they want to pretend there isn't one, so that they can absolve themselves of their responsibilities. Absolve themselves too of the moral imperatives that their forefathers placed on them.

The morality of the bureaucrat is different from the morality of an owner. You can make a legitimate case that taxes are now theft, for the government certainly does not treat the land it claims charge of, nor the people in it, as owned assets which need to be continued and improved for posterity. But in the old days, when the skill of ownership was mostly selected for, taxes could be perceived as rents. Someone is going to own. I want more owners, but clearly there will be some with the skill set, and some without.

Inequality is bound to happen. So are scientifically observable biological phenomenon, like lighter skin among the ruling classes. Who knows, maybe they have long memories and have been afraid since the French Revolution, so they've been posing ever since.