Why Don't You Move There, Part Duh

Whenever I mention that I like the way some other part of the country or part of the world does something, when I think they do it markedly better than we do here in Florida, USA, there's always some mook who pops up with the question "Why don't you move there".  It happens so often, with the same set of answers, that I'm tired of relitigating it every time it crops up.  Here is a list of answers, and you can pick the ones that apply. 

1. It's too far away from my family.

2. It's too far away from my friends and social network. 

3. There isn't any work for me there with my skill set.  

 4. (conditional) It's too expensive. 

5. (conditional) I don't like the weather. 

6. Fleeing is the easy way out.   Working to improve your home is the much more challenging, and much more rewarding path.  

Governor DeSantis did not have a majority.

 One of the current Republican claims is that Governor DeSantis won the 2018 gubernatorial election with, depending on who is telling the tale, 270,000 votes, or 320,000 votes.  They're wrong.  Governor DeSantis didn't even have a majority, let alone a large majority.  

The expressly nonpartisan site, Ballotpedia, tells the actual story:

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2018

The TLDR is that DeSantis didn't have a majority at all.  He won with 49.6% of the vote, so he had the largest plurality, but not a majority.  Taken as the difference between DeSantis' plurality, and the next largest, Democrat Andrew Gillum, DeSantis won by 32,463 votes.  In fact, the difference was so small that the third largest plurality, that of Reform Party candidate Darcy Richardson, was larger than the difference, at 47,140 votes.  

Any way you slice it, DeSantis' election win was a squeaker, not a landslide.  If Florida had a sane electoral system then we would have had a runoff election between DeSantis and Gillum, and voters would have had another crack at them without the alternate parties.  If we had used ranked choice voting then the outcome might have been different.  

Finally, I'll repeat my observation from the 2018 campaign: If these two mooks are the best our political parties can come up with then we're in real trouble.  

 

ACLU is wrong on 3
Alan Petrillo·Monday, October 5, 2020·Reading time: 4 minutes
4 Reads
The ACLU of Florida opposes Amendment 3, and their reasons are nonsense.
Amendment 3 proposes to enact an open primary/top 2 runoff election system in Florida. ACLU opposes it for a number of reasons, all of which are nonsense. Let’s take their reasons one at a time.


"Ballot initiative #3, misleadingly titled, “All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor and Cabinet,”... "
 
Nonsense. The title is exactly correct. All voters would get to vote in the primary, unlike the current system in which voters can only vote in primary elections for the party to which they are registered. The current system disenfranchises 3.7 Million Floridians who are registered without a party. In addition to this, 40% of new voter registrations in Florida do not have a party indicated. In the proposed reform, all voters would get to vote in the primary election regardless of party affiliation.
 
"...would have a negative impact on voters of color and effectively silence their voices."
 
I don’t see how. Voters of color would still make up the same fraction of the electorate in the same districts. In fact, California, in which this voting system has been used in the past 3 election cycles, has seen an increase minority candidates elected to office. 
 
"...In addition, it would create a "top-two" electoral system that could prevent voters in the general election from voting for members of their own party in state legislative, governor and cabinet races."
 
Sure, this is possible. It’s rare, but it’s possible. In practice what it means is that both major parties would have to nominate candidates who appeal to a broader base of voters in their districts. Which is the whole idea. 
 
"While supporters of Ballot Initiative #3 claim that this would allow more voters to participate in our democratic process, this amendment would have a negative impact on Black communities by diluting their vote in primary elections."
 
ACLU makes this claim in several places, but they have not backed it up with logic. I don’t buy it, but I’m willing to listen to their logic with an open mind. In our current gerrymandered system, black voters have been packed and cracked, and the makeup of the districts would not change, only the way people can vote. The apportionment of the districts has far more to do with the effects on Black communities than open primaries ever would. 
 
"The measure also raises First Amendment concerns by hindering political dissent..."
 
How? By allowing more people to vote in the primary? I don’t buy it. But, again, I’m willing to listen to ACLU’s logic if they choose to present any. 
 
"...and a political party's freedom of association,..."
 
How? Again, this makes no sense. The amendment says nothing about who can associate with a political party or who may not. In fact, the amendment should increase the association between parties and voters. Again, I’m willing to listen to ACLU’s logic if they present any.
 
"...as well as the ability to select its candidates..."
 
Nonsense. The amendment says nothing about how political parties may select their candidates. In practice, currently the political parties have little say over how candidates get on the ballot. All politicians have to do is declare their party affiliation when they register for the ballot. The parties may support them, endorse them, or not at their discretion.
 
...and messaging."
 
This one is true. The parties will have to broaden their message to appeal to a wider section of the electorate instead of just their base. That’s the whole idea. Closed primaries brought us to the point that the extremists of the major parties have taken over, and resulted in the situation we find ourselves in, in which the two major parties might as well exist in different universes. As it is now, if an office holder chooses to reach across the aisle and negotiate with officials on the other side then that person will face a primary challenge in the next election from a more extremist candidate. This is the situation which has brought us to 21 years of single party rule.
 
 
3William Bishop, Jon Singer and 1 other
10 Comments
Like
CommentShareSave
Comments
• 

  William Bishop I love reading your opinion.
  My question...
  
  Since only the top two move forward to the General.....isn’t it possible to have two candidates from the same party?
• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo William Bishop : It is possible but it is rare. It has happened in a couple of races in California. The answer is that all the parties need to nominate candidates who appeal to a broader range of the electorate in their districts as a whole, not just their party base. Which is entirely the point. If we can start getting politicians to agree on consensus goals and only disagree on the details then that can't be a bad thing.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo you may have just changed my mind.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo William Bishop : I would prefer ranked choice voting, but 3 is the next best thing, and easier to administrate.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo I must admit, I also question ACLU's goals. Among other things, 3 would tend to reduce the ability of ACLU and groups like them to influence elections, which they no doubt see as an existential threat.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo
  I don’t see anything wrong with that. Everyone needs to vote (and persuade others to vote) in a direction that benefits themselves.
  
  That’s called reality.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo ACLU still has not responded to my contact requesting they justify their opinion statements.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo
  😂😂😂
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Alan Petrillo William Bishop : I have closer contact with the representatives from the Tampa Bay chapter of ACLU. I'll poke them on it.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 4d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo
  Very cool.
  I’m interested in how it turns out!

31 Consensus Goals

 

·Thursday, October 1, 2020· 

Reading time: 2 minutes

 

Physicist, SF writer, and all around smart guy, Dr. David Brin identified a list of 31 consensus goals which Democrats, the far left, centrists, and even some moderate Republicans can agree to. Keep in mind, we can’t accomplish any of them unless we win an election. Think about that before you cast a vote for a spoiler.

 

Electoral reform: end gerrymandering, rigged voting machines, voter suppression and other cheats,

 

Election money transparency and steps toward reducing the political dominance of cash,

 

Restore our alliances and fair trade,

 

Deter acts of war (cyber/electoral/trade etc.) against our nation/institutions,

 

End "supply side" vampirism by the aristocracy we rebelled against in 1776,

 

Infrastructure, paid for by ending supply side voodoo,

 

DACA,

 

Children out of cages, refugees given safe places to live and process,

 

Whistleblower protections and rewards for those revealing corruption and blackmail; plus a ten year limit 

on non-disclosure agreements,

 

Attack international banking secrecy, shell company games, hidden ownership, money laundering,

 

A Marshall Plan for Central America. Hold their corrupt elites accountable,

 

Medicare for all children (a start, so popular the GOP can’t dare refuse),

 

Climate action – vigorous first steps,

 

Restore science, R&D and technological leadership as national strengths,

 

Protect women’s autonomy, credibility and command over their own bodies,

 

Consumer protection, empower the Consumer Financial Protection Board.

 

At least allow student debt refinancing. Analyze and start doing much more.

 

Restore the postal savings bank for the un-banked,

 

Basic, efficient, universal background checks,

 

Basic-level Net Neutrality for consumers,

 

A revised-throttled War Powers Act and limit presidential emergency powers,

 

Civil Service protection,

 

Reject racism, gender-phobia, Nazism etc. as evils while calming all sanctimonies,

 

Restore respect for things called facts. Support professions that use them,

 

Restore rebuttal rules on “news” channels,

 

Emoluments supervision. Audit the cheating, money-laundering oligarchy,

 

Ease out of the damned drug war (at least don’t impede states),

 

Anti-trust breakup of monopoly/duopolies,

 

Allow pharma renegotiation and stop the tricks that stymie generics,

 

Restore some of the social contract set up by the FDR-loving "Greatest Generation" (GG).

 

…and finally number thirty-one… 

 

Win. Rip every branch and tool of power away from what has mutated into an international cabal of gangsters, carbon kings, casino moguls, slumlords, Wall Street parasites, petro-boyars, inheritance brats, drug kingpins, communist tyrants, “ex”-communist KGB agents and Nazis. Overwhelmingly and decisively defeat that monstrous consortium and save civilization.

Eco’s 14 Characteristics Of Fascism

 

·Saturday, August 8, 2020

 ·Reading time: 2 minutes

 

In 1995 historian and writer Umberto Eco wrote an article for the New York Review Of Books in which he expressed his thoughts on eternal Fascism, or what he calls Ur-Fascism. Eco’s original article is great reading, but it is verbose and eloquent to the point of erudition. I have tried to boil down his 14 characteristics into a concise list without falling into number 14 myself. My TLDR version is thus:

1. The cult of tradition. Even if it’s a syncretic tradition they have to create themselves out of pieces of other traditions.

2. Rejection of modernism, combined with irrationalism. Other writers have said this is a rejection of Enlightenment era ideals.

3. Action for action’s sake. “Don’t think about it just do it.” This involves a rejection of intellectuals and critical thinking.

4. Disagreement is treason.

5. Fear of difference.

6. Appeal to a frustrated lower middle class.

7. Obsession with plot. Conspiracy theories.

8. Humiliation at the hands of ostentatious wealth and force of enemies, but at the same time the idea that these enemies are weak and easily defeated.

9. Permanent warfare. Deep and continuing militarism. Pacifism is seen as trafficking with the enemy.

10. Popular elitism and contempt for the weak.

11. The cult of heroism. Everyone is educated to become a hero.

12. Machismo, and the rejection of nonstandard sexual habits, often involving entrenched misogyny, and a tendency to use weapons as phallic symbols.

13. Selective populism, or qualitative populism, usually centered on the followers of a charismatic leader. Anti-democratic.

14. Impoverished language. Simplified vocabulary and syntax. Limited language limits the tools for critical thought.

Of course, much is lost in my boil-down, so if you want to get the whole set of ideas then look up the original 1995 article on the New York Review Of Books, which is, unfortunately, behind a paywall. But there seems to be a hole in that paywall for Google on Android. 

EDIT: 

Some bright person posted another summary of Eco's 14 characteristics on Wikipedia.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

 

EDIT: 

A different schollar, Dr. Lawrence Britt, identified a somewhat different list of 14 characteristics. 

 

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

 

Secret Police Do Not Belong In America
Alan Petrillo·Sunday, July 26, 2020·Reading time: 3 minutes
14 Reads
First, let me state clearly that the riots going on in Portland and in other cities are not acceptable. Period. I understand people are fed up with police brutality, and so am I, but this is not the way to go about changing it. Rioting is counterproductive. It may make people feel better about themselves because they’re “sticking it to The Man”, but in reality the only people they’re sticking anything to are themselves.
At the same time, the federal response to the rioting is even more unacceptable. They aren’t acting like police, they are acting like an occupying force. In short, they are acting like Secret Police, and that is not acceptable in The United States Of America.
My problem isn't with federal agents protecting federal property. My problem is with their lack of accountability.

What agencies is FPS pulling agents from? We don't know because they aren't saying.

Are these agents sworn peace officers or mercenaries? We don't know because they aren't saying.

What are their rules of engagement? We don't know, because they aren't saying.

What is their justification for leaving federal property and going into the surrounding areas? We don't know because they aren't saying.

How many people have they detained? We don't know because they aren't saying.

What are their criteria for detaining someone? We don't know because they aren't saying.

What questions are they asking people who they detain? We don't know because they aren't saying.

What are they using for probable cause? We don't know because they aren't saying.

How many actual arrests have they made? We don't know because they aren't saying.

What charges have been filed against people who they have arrested? We don't know because they aren't saying.

Where have they taken people who they have arrested? We don't know because they aren't saying.

Where are the court hearings for bail? We don't know because they aren't saying.

Who has jurisdiction for prosecutions and legal proceedings? We don't know because they aren't saying.

The whole operation is completely opaque, and that is not the way this is supposed to be done in the United States. Federal agents behaving like an unrestrained and unaccountable secret police is what I object to. If they have a problem with the news media controlling the narrative then maybe they should open up and be transparent about what they are doing.

Hypocrisy is what I object to. All my life the right wing has been telling me that sooner or later the federal government is going to send in unrestrained and unaccountable secret police to take away people's rights. So now, when that prophecy is coming true, when the federal government is, in fact, sending in unrestrained and unaccountable secret police to take away people's rights those same righties are cheering. THAT is what I object to!

When rioters are destroying the place then identify them, arrest them, try them, convict them, and punish them, but do it in the light of day, in a manner that befits The United States Of America, not China under the CCP, Russia under Stalin, or about a dozen other totalitarian regimes I can name off the top of my head.
Don’t get me wrong here. Peace officers keeping the peace is a good thing. But it should be done in the light of day, in a transparent manner that befits The United States Of America. Every civilized society needs police, but it is a violation of the principles of the United States of America to have Secret Police.

Have I made my position sufficiently clear?
11Jay Ashworth, Randi Lacey and 9 others
7 Comments
Like
CommentShareSave
Comments
• 

  Kevin Maclean The US is finally getting the kind of policing they've enabled in so many other countries.

  1
• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 11w
• Active Now

  Alan Petrillo Pretty much. Starting with Indonesia under Suharto, at least. At least that was the start of the involvement of the Chicago Boys.
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 11w
• 

  Kevin Maclean Alan Petrillo Any credible reporting on whether they're Eric Prince's thugs or not?
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 11w
• Active Now

  Alan Petrillo Kevin Maclean : Right now, there is a link, because FPS does hire from some of his more savory fronts, but those links are tenuous and not well proven.
• • • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 11w

  

  Write a reply...

  
  

  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
• 

  Adam Athan George Orwell?

  1
• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 10w
• Active Now

  Alan Petrillo Adam Athan : Indeed. Machiavelli as well.

  1
• • • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 10w

  

  Write a reply...

  
  

  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
• Active Now

  Alan Petrillo As a sidebar, Steven Pinker, in his book /The Better Angels Of Our Nature/ pointed out that nonviolent protests are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent protests.

Responsibility

 

·Sunday, May 17, 2020 
·Reading time: 2 minutes
 
“Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation when he is in error.”
--Andrew Jackson
 
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today”
--Abraham Lincoln
 
“Power always brings with it great responsibility.”
--Theodore Roosevelt
 
“The buck stops here.”
--Harry S. Truman
 
“The essence of leadership is giving credit for all the good things to your subordinates and taking the blame for all the bad things on yourself.”
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
“Each individual is responsible for his own actions.”
--Ronald Reagan
 
“Now what should happen when you make a mistake is this: You take your knocks, you learn your lessons, and then you move on. That’s the healthiest way to deal with a problem. You know, by the time you reach my age you’ve made plenty of mistakes. And if you’ve lived your life properly, so you learn. You put things in perspective. You pull your energies together. You change. You go forward.”
--Ronald Reagan
 
“Being responsible is an enormous privilege. It’s what marks anyone a fully grown human.”
--Barack H. Obama
 
“The price of greatness is responsibility.”
--Winston Churchill
 
“It is wrong and immoral to seek to escape the consequences of one’s actions.”
--The Mahatma Ghandi
 
“I take responsibility for nothing.”
--Donald J. Trump
Comments
• 

  Robert Humphreys "No dream is too big. No challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach." Donald Trump
  "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races". - Abraham Lincoln. The list is endless Alan and they all say boneheaded things....
•  ·
  
• Active Now

  Alan Petrillo Robert Humphreys : This one was specifically about responsibility. Yes, I know all of them have said both good things and bad things. I am aware that Lincoln was no friend to black people. I am also aware that Trump has said inspiring things as long as someone else has written them for him and he has stuck to the script. He has also said, in public and on the record, that he takes credit for everything good that happens, and no responsibility for anything bad that happens. And his followers are more than happy to let him get away with it.
• 
  
• 

  Robert Humphreys Yeah. Looking at things objectively it really has all the familiar symptoms of a parallel universe in which people live in terms of information. We have some digging out to do as these are record nasty numbers. I don’t think Biden can handle the recovery. What a pickle. Not so much a follower just being pragmatic.