Stidmatt

Last month i went to a funeral for a dear friend of mine. They were shot by the police because they were having a schizophrenic episode. They should still be alive.

As I scrolled through my Instagram feed this morning the first thing I saw was a video of a 32 year old high school teacher being tazed to death. His crime? He had a car accident and needed medical attention.

Neither of these should have happened. We need to defund the police. Free transit reduces opportunities for people with disabilities and people of color to be murdered. We need first responders to events like these to be social well trained workers who are focused on the actual need, not soldiers with little education. Police shootings are avoidable. You just remove the police from the majority of what they are used for.

I’m tired of hearing crying parents because their child was shot. I’m tired of watching people be killed. It’s evil. It violates the basic principles of human decency. It is wrong.

Republicans complain about how we have an “open border” and how Biden needs to “deport thousands of illegals” among other things. This nonsense is going to increase in the lead-up to next year’s presidential election and is going to become nauseating.

The reality is that the history of the drug war started in 1971 when Republican Richard Nixon was in office, and the drug war over the last 52 years has completely failed to reduce trade in drugs, instead only reducing the tools we have to track down violent criminal gangs which destabilized entire countries.

Today a triangle trade exists, where the United States sells guns to Mexico, Mexican cartels transport drugs up to the United States, and drugs are produced throughout Latin America from Colombia up to the United States. Guns are very easy to acquire in certain US states, like Texas, and the consequences are felt across the continent.

The violence created by the criminal drug cartels then convinces people to move to the United States to work, which is where the calls to just send people back to Mexico (and other countries) come into play.

But simply sending people back without dealing with the problem is not going to solve the problem.

For 20 years the United States has used deportation as its only weapon against the drug cartels. It is the least effective tool we have, and it doesn’t deter immigration from Latin America to the United States. It is like trying to cut down a tree with a herring. To quote King Arthur, “it cannot be done.”

What we can do is sever two legs of the triangle trade in full, which we have complete control over.

The first thing is we can decriminalize drug use and make it so people can get medical treatment without fear of incarceration. This will reduce the demand for drugs, pushing down the price, and reducing the benefits of being engaged in the drug trade. This will bankrupt many drug cartels, which are businesses. Reducing the revenue of drug cartels is the most effective strategy. This is an economic war and we need to use economic tools.

After reducing the imports of drugs to the United States by reducing demand, we need to then cut down on the exports of firearms to Mexico. The way we do this is to require everyone who purchases a gun in the United States to have a license, pay for insurance, and be a citizen of the United States before they are allowed to own a gun. This will significantly reduce the ability of drug cartels to purchase guns in the United States, and it won’t be as easy for them to fight back against Mexican authorities.

We need to see the drug trade as an economic war, not a military-based war. Military-based solutions have been tried for half a century and they have failed. It is time for the United States to reduce drug trade using economic tools, which will actually work.

I love deadlines, I love the whooshing sound they make as they pass by

This is by far my favorite quote by Douglas Adams and is probably one of the best pieces of advice for life, politics, and finances I have ever heard.

When you have a goal of something you want to do, like “I want to buy a house soon” it is better to go start the process now, instead of waiting for it to fall in your lap. Things never fall in your lap. When you see something that needs to be done, you need to just do it.

If you are planning a good policy to solve an important problem, the sooner that policy can be implemented in practice, the better. If given a choice between “We will be 100% carbon neutral by 2050, though we don’t know how we will do it” and “we will start putting a price on carbon today which will reduce emissions today and on into the future” it is very clear which policy is better.

Similar to this quote by Douglas Adams is the importance of making SMART targets. Goals need to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely.

Let’s score several policy ideas by these SMART targets

• 100% carbon neutral by 2050 (a popular goal): 24/50
  • Specific: Doesn’t state how much to reduce carbon emissions in 2023, 2/10.
  • Measurable: Same problem: 2/10.
  • Achievable: Definitely. 10/10
  • Relevant: Yes, we need to do it. 10/10
  • Timely: The timeline is too long. 0/10.
• Carbon tax which will increase annually at a specified rate to reduce emissions, with adjustments if emissions do not match annual targets. (Basically Initiative 732) 50/50
  • Specific: Yes, it is very clear how much the tax will be every year which directly determines emission decline: 10/10
  • Measurable: Yes, we know how much the tax will be every year, and we can measure our progress every year. 10/10
  • Achievable: Definitely. 10/10
  • Relevant: Definitely. 10/10
  • Timely: Yes, it has a plan which clearly states what will happen every year. 10/10.

Policies need to be clear about what amount the policy will be using and when it will be using it. It cannot just have a deadline that is too far off to be able to accurately judge if you are making enough progress every year.

In your personal life, a goal could be “I want to save money for retirement” in which case the easiest thing to do is set up automatic payments every paycheck to your 401k. If you are looking for a job, set a goal for how many people you will talk to and how many applications you will send in every day. This follows the SMART strategy and doesn’t just set an arbitrary deadline which will be easy to miss.

If you go deep into British politics, before the formation of the Labour Party in 1900, there was a regular switching of prime ministers from Whigs (known as the Liberal Party after 1859, and Liberal Democrats since 1988) representing the left wing of British Politics and the Tories (known as the Conservative Party since 1834).

The first Labour Prime Minister was Ramsey MacDonald in 1923. He formed an alliance with the Liberal Party and that made him the Prime Minister. Most governments of this era were coalition governments, with the exception of Stanley Baldwin in 1935, and after two changing of the guard, this was the election that led to Winston Churchill becoming Prime Minister. In 1945 Clement Attlee won a majority of seats despite winning only 47.7% of the vote. This is going to be a theme.

1935 was the last election where a party won a majority of the vote in the United Kingdom.

At the fundamental core of democracy is the idea that if a party wins a majority of the vote, that party should be able to control government until the next election. Paired with this idea, if a party has not won a majority of the vote it should not be able to hold all of the power without being forced to negotiate with other parties.

The 1979 United Kingdom general election was a travesty that violates the very idea of Democracy. The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher won only 43.9% of the vote, but with that, they controlled a majority of the seats in parliament. The same is true in 1983, 1987, and 1992. Despite the majority of Britons consistently voting for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the British people got a conservative government for over 10 years which they did not vote for. Even if the Labour government had not won an outright majority of seats, Paddy Ashdown made it very clear that if a hung parliament had existed, he would have made a coalition government with Labour in 1997, even though it turned out this wasn’t necessary. This pact officially started in 1977 under the leadership of David Steel. All but one Liberal leader has had this strategy since the formation of the Labour Party. We will get to that scumbag later.

During the time of Tony Blair, the Labour party won a majority of the seats in each parliament despite never winning over 50% of the vote.

This changed in 2010 when David Cameron won 306 seats when he needed 326 seats in order to form a government. The Liberal Democrats never won less than 15% of the vote during the time of “New Labour” under Tony Blair.

The 2010 election is the most important in modern British politics. The Liberal Democrats had increased their vote share to 23% of the vote, consistently increasing their vote share since the early 1990s to become the kingmaker. Despite the Liberal Democrats being center-left, and the only pro-Europe party in England, they made a coalition with the hard Euroskeptic anti-immigrant right-wing Conservative Party. After their success of acquiring 23% of the vote in 2010, and creating a coalition government with the Conservatives, they won only 7.9% of the vote in 2015. The only other era where the Liberals did so poorly was during the Great Depression, after the last coalition they made with the Tories! If only one could find a trend here… Nick Clegg single-handedly destroyed the confidence of the British politic in the Liberal Democrats, turning them into a minor party. He chose Euroskeptic right winger David Cameron to be the next prime minister of the United Kingdom, the man who almost single handedly created Brexit in 2016 under his failed leadership, and has led the United Kingdom to have the weakest economy in Western Europe with the least resilient recovery from COVID. He failed the world.

Ed Milliband failed to improve Labour’s share of the vote in the 2015 election and has blamed himself for not going far enough in Labour’s manifesto in 2015. He was the last competent Labour leader.

Ed Milliband was replaced with Jeremy Corbyn… a social democrat who had some really good domestic policies, such as renationalization of the railways, and ending austerity. He improved Labour’s vote share to 40% of the vote in 2017, a 9.6% increase over their 2015 failure. But for each of his good domestic policies he is a Euroskeptic who failed to counter the bollocks arguments for Brexit, he supports the UK leaving Europe and NATO, praised Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, and opposed international intervention in the Kosovo genocide back in the 1990s. He is a highly unethical individual and it is not surprising that the majority of people in the United Kingdom saw through him like a window.

The current leader of Labour is Keir Starmer who continues to support Brexit despite the fact that it is increasing inflation and reducing wages in the country. He has failed. He will not win. He doesn’t offer a clear alternative to the failed Conservative policies on the issues that matter.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson succeeded in increasing the vote share of the Liberal Democrats back over 10% of the vote with her pro-Europe, pro-NATO, pro-human rights, anti-authoritarian platform in 2017. The English public will hopefully vote for the Liberal Democrats in the next British general election.

The Conservative Party offers austerity and Euroskepticism.

The Labour Party offers sympathy for dictators and Euroskepticism.

The Liberal Democrats are the only pro-Europe party that opposes austerity and has a strong human rights record in England today.

I may not be British, but as a trained political scientist, I implore everyone in the United Kingdom to vote for the Liberal Democrats.

If you are British and tired of voting for one vision for the last 50 years and getting another, I recommend implementing the Alternative Vote, though you should choose single transferable vote with multi-member districts, as they use in Ireland. Hopefully given the Brexit inflation and wage cut crisis you are currently undergoing this will be enough for the United Kingdom to finally implement a modern election system.

Just for good measure, let’s end with the national motto of the United Kingdom.

Nick Clegg is a cunt.

President Biden has turned his presidency around, I need to update this.

Ranking of American Presidents

1. Lyndon Baines Johnson is ranked as the greatest president in history because of his efforts in combating poverty, his willingness to lead the country with his bully pulpit, he created Medicare, Medicaid, and the Peace Corps. The Higher Education Act of 1965 continues to expand access to college for tens of millions of Americans a year, and to top it all of he signed 3 separate civil rights acts. Just one of these laws I am mentioning would easily earn him the top spot on his list individually. He did all of them. His Great Society lifted millions out of poverty and fundamentally shifted the social contract of the United States, making us the most powerful country in the world. No other president comes close to his astonishing human rights record. Vietnam escalated under his presidency but he did everything in his power to end the conflict despite Richard Nixon undermining his negotiation efforts. I do not rank presidents lower for factors out of their control. He had the ability to get people to do what had to be done. His biggest blunder was not letting Americans know that Nixon was committing treason. He always respected human rights.
2. Abraham Lincoln – for his effort in keeping the United States together and the Emancipation Proclamation. He respected the constitution with the suspension of Habeas Corpus. He didn’t free slaves in the North which makes him rank lower than LBJ.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt – For his efforts and success in setting a strong foundation for the 20th-century economy. Banking regulation kept the economy relatively stable for half a century until it was repealed, especially compared to before his Presidency. He created the WPA. The massive expansion of electricity to millions of households. He fought Nazis. He is demoted from first place because he was responsible for the incarceration of thousands of Japanese Americans.
4. John Fitzgerald Kennedy – For his efforts towards science and combating poverty, and the second-best human rights record in our history after his successor, but blundering foreign policy escalated the cold war. He set the stage for LBJ’s legislative accomplishments.
5. Barack Obama – The Affordable Care Act is his signature accomplishment. He ended the Iraq war, didn’t start new wars but didn’t lose any either, improved education, and environmental regulation, harming Social security benefits which bought OASI more time, passed historic financial regulation, and was the second most progressive social issues president in history, opened travel to Cuba, gay marriage, and campaigned for free community college.
6. John Quincy Adams – For his economic wisdom, respect for Native Americans, establishing colleges, abolitionism, and expanding infrastructure. He was 100 years ahead of his time with the policies he signed into law.
7. Benjamin Harrison – For his advocacy of civil rights, signing of important civil rights bills, and reformation of the civil service.
8. Dwight David Eisenhower – For his diplomacy, protection of the economy, and prophetic farewell speech. He set in motion the careers of Nixon and other high-ranking Republicans who would later harm America, which is why he ranks lower.
9. Harry Truman – For his continuation of building the foundation for the 20th century his predecessor built. He is ranked lower for his dropping of the bombs. He helped escalate the Cold War, but that’s a complicated issue.
10. Joe Biden – He passed a stimulus at the beginning of his presidency, but didn’t enforce rules to end the pandemic, which became worse over his first year. Lost Afghanistan to the terrorists which led to it becoming the least free and most tyrannical place in the world. Infrastructure privatization under BIF. In 2022 he passed major legislation on climate change, codified same-sex marriage, rejoined the Paris agreement, and stood with our democratic allies in solidarity with Ukraine. If it wasn’t for the Afghanistan withdrawal, he would be in the top 5.
11. George Washington – for his formation of treaties and respect for Native Americans. He ranks lower for signing the Fugitive Slave Act. He set standards and norms for the Presidency which made our country successful. He was masterful in his navigation of foreign relations which protected the United States from foreign invasion for our first 20 years.
12. Warren G. Harding – for supporting the 8-hour work day, child labor laws, opposition to lynching, and good neighbor policy
13. Thomas Jefferson – For his exploration of the American west, preserving trade in the Mediterranean, and diplomacy, ranks lower because of slavery.
14. Ulysses S. Grant – For his continuation of Reconstruction and supporting equal rights. Corruption was rife in his cabinet.
15. Theodore Roosevelt – For his valiant efforts in preserving America’s treasures and national parks, he is ranked lower for his interventions in Latin America.
16. William McKinley – He advocated human rights at home and abroad. His high tariffs weakened America.
17. Martin Van Buren – his cowardice in face of anti-Mormonism which he opposed demotes him, he kept peace with Mexico, advocated free trade, and opposed slavery
18. Zachary Taylor – He attempted to set up the Western states as free states, despite being a slaveholder.
19. Chester Alan Arthur – For his signing of the Pendleton Act which put rules against favors, he opposed Mormon polygamy (bad), opposed racism against the Chinese (good), and favored better relations with Native Americans.
20. James Madison – he opposed the national bank which hurt our economy, he started the War of 1812 and protected Native American treaty rights.
21. James Earl Carter – for his strong efforts towards peace around the world and attempts to gain energy independence for America. However, he signed the establishment of the NSA.
22. James Monroe – He started the Seminole Wars, did the Missouri compromise meaning each slave state had to be matched with a free state, his expansionist Monroe doctrine,
23. John Adams – His largest accomplishment was the Alien and Sedition Acts
24. Bill Clinton – he passed no great laws and he signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, DOMA, and DADT, and failed to pass meaningful health care reform. But he balanced the budget and didn’t hurt Medicare, which prevents him from falling further. He was led by pollsters and didn’t lead, he followed.
25. James K. Polk – He was extremely expansionist, was a slaveholder, and exacerbated tensions increasing the odds of war.
26. Woodrow Wilson – For his breaking his promise on World War I, anti-German sentiment, and his support of the League of Nations keeps him from falling further.
27. Gerald Ford – environmental regulations, strengthened AMTRAK, but he pardoned Nixon which set in motion future Republican extremism and set a precedent that the President is above the law.
28. Grover Cleveland – He was racist, opposed labor rights, and was an imperialist
29. Herbert Hoover – He was obsessed with the deficit, created protectionist policies, and had a limited response to the great depression.
30. Calvin Coolidge – His small-government rhetoric and lack of leadership made his Presidency unsuccessful albeit popular. He is totally insignificant.
31. William Howard Taft – He attacked President Roosevelt’s environmental policy
32. Richard Nixon – EPA, improved relations with China, set up AMTRAK and worked against the Vietnam peace agreement which was treason. He entered the office and destroyed the economy with a deflationary monetary policy.
33. John Tyler – His refusal to form a national bank in the face of an economic collapse drove America further into depression.
34. Franklin Pierce – His unsuccessful compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska Act set the stage for the Civil War.
35. Rutherford B. Hayes – He ended Reconstruction
36. Andrew Johnson – He opposed Reconstruction.
37. Millard Fillmore – He passed the Fugitive Slave Act
38. James Buchanan – His unwillingness to use his power to keep the Union together led us into civil war.
39. Andrew Jackson – His deportation of Native Americans, and his fiscal policy which crashed the economy make him one of the least successful presidents we will ever have.
40. George H.W. Bush – For vetoing every good bill that came his way and using the United States military for his personal financial benefit (an oilman used the US military to defend a major oil exporter with dreadful human rights, I’m sure there is no conflict of interest.) He was corrupt to the core.
41. Ronald Reagan – For negotiating with terrorists to hold Americans hostage until he was President, selling arms to Nicaraguan terrorists, attack on Grenada, and deregulation of the financial sector. As soon as he entered office he destroyed the economy with a deflationary economic policy. His negotiations with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan betrayed America, making his administration a literal state sponsor of terrorism. He created the highest inflation rate since World War II and the highest unemployment from 1950 to 2019. Utter disaster.
42. Donald Trump – Made America’s tax code more regressive, had constant racist rhetoric, first President to restrict American travel to another country in decades, a trade war with China, and shut down the government because Democrats won’t give him everything he wants. He paused student loan payments, the only good thing out of his terrible presidency. Most of his policies except his tax code were done through an executive order, so
43. George W. Bush – He attacked Iraq, and destabilized the financial markets, the PATRIOT ACT, No Child Left Behind Act, and the Real ID Act meant that he made a negative impact on America’s liberty, prosperity, and standing in the world for a longer period of time than any other President in American history. All of his major bills are still law to this very day.

In summary, we can rank our presidents into several basic bins:

The Great 9:

These are the Presidents who didn’t own slavery, improved human rights, and presided over strong economies. They made America great, and are the presidents who have made America the strongest country in the world. Lyndon Johnson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, Obama, JQ Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Eisenhower, and Truman. It’s hard not to respect these Presidents for their service to our country.

Strong but flawed:

These presidents made America better, but not without serious flaws. Biden, Washington, Harding, Jefferson, Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, McKinley, Van Buren, Taylor, Arthur, Madison, Carter, Monroe, and John Adams.

Flawed presidents:

These Presidents had serious flaws which negated the good they did, but didn’t make things worse. Clinton, Polk, Wilson, Ford, Cleveland, Hoover, Coolidge, and Taft.

Crooks:

These Presidents made America weaker on the world stage and harmed either human rights or our economy: Nixon, Tyler, Pierce, Hayes, Andrew Johnson, Fillmore,

The irredeemable:

These Presidents were the worst Presidents we had, wither few if any accomplishments. These are the presidents who set the clock back: Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, George H.W. Bush, Reagan, Trump, George W. Bush

Brightline is stating that they will be able to expand service to Orlando next year. This will be the first time the rail operator has extended service outside of the Greater Miami Area. Libertarians and Republicans are looking at Brightline as a clear lesson of how the government is inefficient, bureaucratic, and messy, and how Florida under their savior Ron Desantis is going to show America how those dirty commies in California have everything backward with their high-speed rail fail.

Brightline today is nothing more than a commuter railroad in the Greater Miami Area. Let’s compare it to the statist Caltrain in the Socialist Republic of California to show how much better Brightline is than the despotic people’s line of Caltrain. Let us show the idiotic Californians how the future is of free markets and how free markets bring freedom!

Well, that’s what right-wing libertarians would like you to think. If we actually look at the reality on the ground, it is quite different from what has been portrayed so far.

Here are the facts about Brightline:

• Brightline has raised over a billion dollars in bonds from investors to improve the railroad to Orlando.
• Even before the pandemic, Brightline failed to meet its expectations for ridership on its high-demand route.

Here’s another interesting fact. Advocates of Brightline point out that the railroad cost $3 billion to build 46 miles of track between West Palm Beach and Miami. (CTPost) For comparison, California HSR has a $23.4 billion budget, which is going to build 520 miles of track. (Wikipedia)

I am unable to find solid data on Brightline’s operating statements. I would think that if they were profitable they would make that public in order to drive their bond rates down… but that’s just me.

Here is a summary table comparing Brightline to Caltrain and California HSR with the most up to date information I am able to find:

Draw your own conclusions.

References:

• https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/business/2020/01/20/brightline-passenger-counts-revenue-remain-well-below-companyrsquos-own-projections/112219668/
• https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Getting-There-First-profitable-passenger-12627172.php
• Wikipedia
• www.caltrain.com
• www.gobrightline.com

It is interesting how the US will extend visas to NATO allies, violate human rights in our immigration prisons, and perform warrantless wiretaps, arguing that they keep this country safe, despite no evidence these actions keep us safe, and some evidence they actually make us less safe…

But we absolutely refuse to mandate vaccines in school, claiming otherwise our freedoms would be violated (but not when it comes to warrantless wiretaps) even though the evidence is excruciatingly clear that vaccines save lives.

Wikipedia is definitely the most useful reference material ever created by people. It is the first and only encyclopedia to have truly global contributions, and I believe it is one of the greatest inventions in history.

That being said, there are people who want to trim it down because they want it to focus on things that they deem to be important. This starts looking silly on the surface and just looks sillier and sillier as we go down. I have a few ideas to refine Wikipedia policies to make it more robust and a stronger encyclopedia.

First of all, let’s talk about problems with the current deletionist policy:

“Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time“

This policy basically says that people shouldn’t be connected to a single event but multiple events. For example:

1. Guy Fawkes
2. John Wilkes Booth
3. Charles Guiteau
4. Leon Czolgosz
5. Lee Harvey Oswald

These individuals should have their Wikipedia pages removed according to this official policy because they are only notable for single events in history. A sufficiently significant period of time is clearly a very poor indicator of if a person is notable. This policy is so misguided that even Wikipedia doesn’t follow its own deletionist guidelines because these 5 pages exist.

The basic requirement of independent third-party sources is a requirement for every sentence of the encyclopedia and needs to be kept.

Many of the notability guidelines directly conflict with the “sufficient period of time” rule. The sufficient period of time rule should be discarded.

Almost any guideline for deletion is going to have exceptions, so here is an idea for a proposal that will allow people like Lee Harvey Oswald to have Wikipedia pages but prevent people from using Wikipedia pages to create their own personal biographies without any notes.

1. If an article is not an orphan, it cannot be deleted unless 10 independent active users with over 100 edits agree.
2. If over 10 independent registered users have edited a Wikipedia page, it cannot be deleted.
3. If an article has had an edit in the previous year, it cannot be deleted.
4. If an article has a link from at least 20 other pages, it cannot be deleted. If all of its links were created by one user, this policy doesn’t apply, and it should be deleted immediately.

So, if you have a random article about a person with no significant impact on history, no one has edited it in over a year and is linked to by any other page, go ahead and delete it. But if the page has links from other pages, and it is regularly edited by multiple users, keep it in the encyclopedia.

This retention policy is fair and flexible and will work across any topic.

Wikipedia naming policy

Wikipedia should have a clear policy for how to name articles.

For example, if we were to only use the proper name as the title of articles, the following articles should be renamed:

• The Commonwealth of Canada
• The United States of America
• The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (and most biographical articles should be named this way)
• Dihydrogen monoxide

Sounds a bit silly, right? So a more reasonable naming policy should be to use the name which is already most commonly used in existing writing about a topic. Use only the first and last names of politicians generally, except when publications use their middle names. For basically any article pending a renaming, people considering a renaming should PROVE that another term is the more commonly used compared to what is currently used among scholarly or newspaper articles.

That being said, if an article is found to use names that are inherently biased to make the user doubt the existence of a topic (such as if one were to rename climate change “Global Warming Hoax”) even when an event is proven to exist in the article of the text, such a renaming should not occur. Moving articles to be labeled a “conspiracy theory” or a “hoax” should only be done when there is no sufficient proof an event actually occurred. If scholarly articles which refer to the topic do not refer to it as a conspiracy theory, neither should Wikipedia. The only things which should be labeled as a conspiracy theory should be things like the flat earth conspiracy, vaccine-autism connection conspiracy theory, and other ideas which are spread by people who wear tin foil hats.

On this, I agree with Wikipedia’s official naming policy full-heartedly and believe it should continue to be enforced by admins.

If we had taxed millionaires over the last 40 years a wealth tax wouldn’t be on the table.

The number of people who need public assistance wouldn’t be so dire if we had properly funded services which raise people out of poverty to the point where they don’t need public assistance over the last 40 years.