Web
Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter
Thursday, January 21, 2021
Home Blog

The Comforting Mediocrity of Biden

0
Joe Biden

Joe Biden was inaugurated this week as the 46th president of the United States of America. Trump is gone, Biden is in. That alone is enough cause for celebration and a deep sigh of relief.

Once the honeymoon has passed, Biden will be scrutinized and critiqued by the press, the general public and the more progressive elements of his own party. Of course, there will be criticism from across the aisle, however since Republicans have demonstrated that their main focus is to oppose whatever Democrats do, it is difficult to see any of their critique as anything more than nay-saying.

Biden is a comfortable choice allowing for a push towards the “middle” of the political spectrum and away from the extremes of the previous Trump administration which represented primarily the more reactionary elements of the American public.

A Biden administration will offer the opportunity to ease divisions in the American political landscape but is unlikely to alter the landscape in significant ways.

Biden is still an establishment choice. The establishment of American politics is that its political leadership offers more fealty to large corporate donors than to the public it apparently represents. For that reason any significant change that would favor the public good over corporate profits is unlikely to be promoted.

The progressive element of the Democratic party is primarily a movement to put the public good ahead of corporate profits, which puts them in a oppositional stance to the current establishment. 

However, given the divisions in the nation and his own party, Biden has an opportunity to heal the wounds that the Trump administration exacerbated by representing primarily the elements of the political landscape that were ideological simpatico to its nationalistic, isolationist and xenophobic views.

Trump appealed to the disenchantment of those elements of the American public who felt betrayed by their political leadership. They believed that Trump populism was the answer to their pain and he was their guy. He was never their guy. Trump had only one agenda: relentlessly self-promote and profit from that promotion, while convincing a naïve populace that he was actually working for them. Clearly his ability to lie incessantly succeeded by overwhelming the press with a torrent of lies they could not process and at the same time convincing his followers that he was telling them great truths.

The fact that Trump populism was so successfully is sad commentary on the failure of political leadership to represent the electorate .  Trump could not have succeeded if there was not a significant number of Americans who felt betrayed by their political leaders. 

That fact has not changed and going forward Biden will still have to address the widespread belief, held by many, that American political leadership does not care about their circumstances and seeks only to take care of itself. 

The difficulty for Biden is that the progressive elements of the Democratic party are the most likely to convince a cynical public that politicians care about them. However, at the same time, those same progressive elements of his party have been vilified by scare tactics that reinforce the very establishment that has done so much harm to the public. How does he square that circle?

As noted, it is unlikely that much will change structurally in a Biden administration. The establishment will remain. The only hope going forward is that the comforting Biden mediocrity will make it easier for more progressive agendas to be promoted in the future.

 

 

 

“Freedom” as screamed by Mel Gibson

0
Stop Sign

I have a pet peeve about traffic lights. When forced to stop for no good reason, it’s vexing, particularly when it happens again and again down the same stretch of road. One stop can be a pleasant diversion reminding me to smell the roses, but if I have to stop more than once, I can erupt into a profane soliloquy about the ass-hat who times the signals.

For misguided reasons, I spent time away from Alberta, and when I came back, lived in Red Deer and commuted to Lacombe. There were pros and cons for moving to Lacombe, but Red Deer’s randomly timed traffic lights tipped the balance. If you’re from Edmonton, think of pulling off the Whitemud onto 149th street and day after day having to stop at every light until the Yellowhead. I’m not sure what the 149th street run is like now, but it used to be like winning the drivers lotto. Light after light as you approached intersections would magically turn green. Red Deer still has some of the worst timed lights in the free world, and added greenhouse gases likely exceed combined emissions from greater Vancouver nail salons.

After moving to Lacombe, I had years of traffic bliss, with one light between home and work. It was a straight shot, with enough distance to the light to regulate my speed so I rarely had to stop. And then it happened. Pulling out of my apartment parking lot one day there was a sign proclaiming “NEW”. Half a block away stood a brand-new stop sign. My number of potential stops on the way to work doubled overnight. Blind rage, years of therapy and short holidays in Ponoka flashed before my eyes. But fear not dear friends, you already know the rest of the story. Before long, I bought and moved into a house on the other side of the stop sign.

When life hands you stop signs, don’t let them take your freedom. Recognize and exercise your options to accept or move to where they don’t bug you.

Horse Racing – If you’re not winning your losing

0
Horse Racing Lacombe

For harness racing, do you prefer a half or a full mile track? Sure, a full mile is faster but for crowds in grandstands or along the rail, a half or 5/8ths track gives fans added opportunity to cheer horses as they thunder by the half. The sound of hooves, horses breathing, and drivers urging combine with a frantic search for your horse and a mid-race high…where hope is still possible. This is not a sport where everyone gets a ribbon. The horse you’ve invested $2 in is a hard-core license to cheer for one above all others, lasting about 2 minutes before a purge of mixed emotions. Jubilations and cheering for your horse and driver, or darkened comments about uncalled fouls or a driver’s missed opportunity as a horseshoe salesman.

My family had horses, and as a kid instead of holidays we spent summers on the circuit from Edmonton to Calgary then Regina and Saskatoon. Our stops often included the fair for free, as most horsemen’s trailers and campers were inside the fence. The horse kids ran as packs with allegiance to your siblings first, then pseudo-siblings and kids of families who only had one horse. Then you had enemies, typically newbies who moved in from other circuits or city kids living close by who claimed the turf when the horses were away. For those who were too young to be a groom, summer activities included attending races, getting your picture taken if you won, learning how to shoot pool, smoking cigar and cigarette butts, sorting through stacks of thrown away betting slips, pitching nickels, and putting years of elementary school education to use by trying to read a race program.

Memories of my life as a track-rat hadn’t stirred until a few years ago when the Track on 2 opened just outside of Lacombe. I’ve enjoyed going to races, re-learning how to read a program, and sharing my inability to pick horses with my adulthood friends. It’s been fun seeing driver and stable names I recognize, but my oak was split to the core when I read the name of a pseudo-sibling, who was now a trainer/driver/owner. Surprisingly, the first memory that surfaced had nothing to do with horse racing. It was a lunch I’d been absorbed into with his family on a bright sunny day. We sat at a table outside their trailer, with about a 7-8 squeezed in and room for me made at the end. His Mom was afoot bustling to make sure all were served beef stew, fresh bread and butter. I’d never eaten cold butter on fresh bread before, as my folks had converted to heart-healthy margarine. Once I started eating, I couldn’t stop and gradually heads down the table turned to watch as they finished and I kept eating. A few snickers built to a crescendo of laughter as I ate the last piece of bread. Little did I know my full belly would be pressed into a diamond in my memory. Who knows, maybe it is better to appreciate the half than winning or losing the whole race.

Passing of a legend

0

It’s been a couple years now, and it’s still hard to believe. The A1 Restaurant closed and we’re left to mourn the loss of it’s legendary ginger beef. A dish not easily prepared, and more difficult to master. Sweet, salty, spicy, crispy and chewy…but not tough.

My first memory of the eatery in the heart of Lacombe, then known as the A1 Café, was dropping in for lunch with my Dad and brother in the early 70’s. It was an old school café with the counter running the length of the building. It was crowded and we got counter seats. We decided what we wanted, then Dad decided what we’d have. My brother and I got hot hamburger sandwiches served with fries and ice water. Dad apparently wasn’t hungry, as all he got was coffee. We knifed and forked our way through the gravy soaked sandwiches while swatting Dad’s hand away from our fries and giggling. It was a fun lunch until Dad paid the bill with a handful of carefully counted change, and we got back to to the car. Dad had forgotten his wallet, couldn’t afford a third lunch and it was decades before it was funny again.

I remembered the story after moving to Lacombe years later and the A1 was suggested for lunch. After a quick ride downtown three hungry lads marched through the first door to the right, up a couple steps to a second door with a bell. Most of the lunch counter was gone except near the front with the cash register. The tables, chairs and most everything looked original, except for two large round tables near the front decorated with explanations of the Chinese zodiac trapped under glass. A seven act play to be repeated several times in years to come was about to begin. Act 1: The greeting, the seating, the offer of buffet or a la cart and drink order. Act 2: the wait for drinks and instructions to proceed, or sprint to the lineup before round-tablers descended. Act 3: the first assault, a sampling of all to determine what to come back for and then trying to remember where we sat. Act 4: realizing you’d taken to much, and heeding warnings to finish all or be charged double. Act 5: quashing the urge to rest and digest and be first over the top for a second assault. Act 6: picking and choosing before taking only ginger beef, cherry jello, and vanilla stuffed cookies. Act 7: arguing whose turn it was to pay, skirting past the loser at the till for a breath of fresh air, and then arguing if it was really necessary to drop by the drivers house to let his dog out to pee.

Hearty appetites turned to blubber. We couldn’t sustain the assault. Apparently our army of three couldn’t save the A1 amidst influx of trendy eateries and resistance to modernize. The memory of your ginger beef will forever resonate on our tongues as will the sight of the black felt written bright yellow sign in your front window: Buffet $12.95 without tip or beverage.

Tales from Lacombe

0

I’ve been in Lacombe for about 25 years and have yet to fully explore its offerings.

I lived in an apartment initially, first a one bedroom on the second floor with neighbours above, below, across the hall and on one side. On the other side, a set of stairs off my bedroom, which played a squeaky tune throughout the night, particularly the end of the month.

My plan was to be uncomfortable enough to move and buy a house when I had the chance. As it turned out, I had a plan B without really knowing it until a few years later when I signed a lease for the two bedroom unit on the other side of the stairs. Alas, I had a quiet bedroom, and a level of comfort making my dream of home ownership added rationalizations away. But as rent checks went out with nothing in return, my fiscal self said hey, it’s time.

The search was on. I checked ads, contacted a few realtors, went to one showing after another. I didn’t know what I wanted, but when I walked in for a showing brimming with expectations, I’d find out what I didn’t want.

Most problems were design flaws such as a long narrow master bedroom, basement dungeons, or standing on the balcony of a perfect place with a backyard fenced on five sides half covering discarded appliances and cars. After picking through what Lacombe had to offer, I decided to explore options to build.

I reached out to Red Deer, where I grew up, and a family friend in the realty and housing business. He dropped by and we were headed out the door to check out a development, when he showed me a new listing that would be on the way. It was everything I didn’t know I wanted. After an offer and counter offer it was mine.

As it turned out, I didn’t have to get to know all my neighbours. When surveying my new garden, and dreaming of crops to come, a familiar face crossed the alley to shake hands. A golf buddy of golf buddies. One degree of separation in my family of Lacombe Golf and Country Club members. We exchanged obligatory lies and he gave me the lowdown on the other neighbours, and I told him it was my first place and I would be signing the mortgage in the morning.

They say after marriage, buying a house, your first house, is one of the most stressful events in adulthood. When I rolled up to the bank, I had to will my limbs to move. Checking in for my appointment at the bank, the teller’s reply echoed in my head and my inner voice said there’s no shame in running.

I sat for a moment to run through my options, and before deciding heard “the manager will see you now”. I glanced at the manager’s doorway, and standing there with a big fat smile was my friend of a friend, and my new friend from across the alley with pen in hand to sign up for 25 years of easy payments.

The Trump Legacy

0

As the Trump presidency limps towards its’ final day, it may be time to ponder what Trump will leave behind when he finally packs his bags and is whisked out of the Whitehouse back to his private life.

The Trump epoch has been characterized by an extreme polarization of left and right. This is most evident in many elections for federal offices being decided by the narrowest of margins. The recent runoff elections held in Georgia for two seats in the Senate, provided razor thin margins of victory for the two democrats who were elected. In the presidential election of November 2020, President-elect Joe Biden received a total of 81 million votes, however Trump was a close second at 74 million votes. It is evident that no matter who wins, there will be a large group who feel disenfranchised by the results.

Trump has been at his worse when he plays on these divisions to pump up his own popularity among the groups who represent his most ardent supporters. By vilifying his opposition rather than engaging in reasonable debate, he has added fuel to this dangerous fire.

Having pitted American against American he has become an ally of enemies of the United States who would happily see American democracy torn asunder by internal discord, amplified to the point of insurrection, by his selfish and careless antics. This has been most evident in his “Stop the Steal” campaign which has demonstrated his reckless disregard for the principles and institutions of democracy, neither of which he appears to understand in any substantive way.

Trump has characterized the press as “the enemy of the people”. While it is fair to critique the press, a broad brush dismissal of the press is reckless and has pushed his loyal followers to alternative media which are often little more than propagandists, dedicated to campaigns of misinformation. Attacks on the press have served to divide the country by promoting “alternative facts” that are cooked up to promote a highly skewed view of reality. The toxic environment created by Trump and those who propagandize his lies, facilitated the recent storming of the Capitol by insurrectionists, firm in their conviction, that such an action was justified.

It if fair to argue that Trump did not create the divisions he amplified. He did not create the left/right divide. He did not create the economic pain of the middle class he played on during his election campaign. He did not invent racism, bigotry or misogyny. All of these ills were already present in the American landscape and Trump has successfully amplified them for his personal benefit through a cynical and deliberate strategy.

Since Trump’s strategy has always been a “me first” approach while convincing his followers he cares about their needs, it is fair to enquire about his character. What is it about him that is appealing to the large numbers who support him?

Answering that question may reveal some of the most deeply toxic aspects of the current American condition. The Trump phenomenon cannot exist and flourish without an environment that feeds it. Why did America choose an authoritarian populist at this time? What are the values and views that promote such a choice?

Some questions this inquiry brings up are unsettling.

  • How did bullyism come to be seen as strength?
  • How did the attack on the “other” come to be seen as promoting America?
  • When did lies become truth?
  • How did unhinged sociopathy come to be seen as strong leadership?
  • When did dividing the country against itself come to mean making it great again?
  • What happened to acting out of principle, rather than relentless self-promotion?

None of that is pretty or attractive, yet that is the personal legacy of Trump. Characteristics of Trump that we would find reprehensible in our children are lauded by his supporters. He has normalized egregious behavior. The press has become so numbed by his relentless torrent of lies and misrepresentations, they can barely keep up and have failed to parse what is going on in any depth.

The concern going forward, is that Trump has perhaps set the table for someone far worse and more slick than he, who can bend a gullible public to their will, leading to a truly catastrophic future for America.

Trump has not healed America, he has taken their wounds, laid them bare and deepened them. That is his horrible legacy.

Covid 19 Revelations (updated Jan/21)

0

The covid 19 pandemic has create an opportunity to ask ourselves:

“What has this crisis revealed about how healthcare systems and governments approach human health and are the current approaches optimal and sustainable?”

Most of us have willingly complied with the current social distancing and other measures to reduce the impacts of covid 19 while we wait patiently for a “silver bullet” that can take out covid 19. I would suggest this is only feasible if we believe this a one off. If we were told this kind of approach will be the standard which will continue again and again as each new pandemic rolls through our population, would we be willing to continue the current solution paradigm?

Unfortunately our current healthcare paradigm is based on the belief that attacking disease should be the primary modality for optimizing human health. I do not want to suggest that we abandon the notion of opposing disease, but I am suggesting that perhaps our fundamental focus should be on optimizing human health (including immunity).  

Additionally, I am not arguing that we embrace the so-called “conspiracy theories” about hidden agendas around the current pandemic. There are a number of these and they are primarily based on disinformation and misunderstandings on how to interpret data related to the covid 19 pandemic.

It is far more likely that there has been too much inside the box thinking based on the belief that the fundamental purpose of a healthcare system is to attack disease rather than promote wellness. This is not a conspiracy theory but a recognition of an ideological bias that drives our current approach to health. Ideologies are very often invisible because they are so pervasive and fundamental. The covid 19 pandemic has delivered an external shock which has pulled back the curtain to make the invisible, visible.

We are currently witnessing how helpless the current healthcare paradigm is at dealing with covid 19 and how unsustainable this approach is going forward. If this is the case, what do we do about it?

The answer is not an easy one, since we will need to rethink and then retool all of our approaches to healthcare. 

This will also require a change in how governments fund healthcare systems. A great deal of healthcare funding is provided for hunting for disease (diagnostics) and then treating it when we find it. There is very little funding provided for optimizing wellness. 

To be clear, I am not talking about mindlessly cutting public funding for healthcare and moving towards more privatization of healthcare. This is not a reasonable solution since it disenfranchises those who are in greatest need. 

Is it possible if we invested more heavily in optimizing health, there might be less disease to be discovered and treated? In other words, is there an economic case for reducing the treatment of disease by optimizing the health of a particular population, and thereby reducing overall healthcare costs?

Have we built a healthcare system in which the rewards (funding) are dependent on more disease rather than more health? If this is true, have we built a system that unfortunately sees disease as a benefactor since it delivers the benefits to healthcare providers? Let me be clear, I do not wish to vilify healthcare providers, they have little choice within the current system on what can be offered if they wish to make a living.

Covid 19 has shown us that you are far more likely to be susceptible to disease if you have:

  • A compromised immune system
  • Underlying health conditions (high on the list is obesity and diabetes)
  • Nutritional deficiencies (vitamin D is hugely important)
  • Elderly and in an institution

Can we imagine a healthcare system  that addresses the underlying conditions rather than waits for something bad to happen (eg. a pandemic) and then tries to  bolt the door to save lives?

My purpose in writing this document is to initiate a rational debate around healthcare that goes beyond just reacting to the current pandemic. 

Is it possible we can imagine and build a new healthcare system?

In an odd way the covid 19 pandemic has given us an opportunity to ask and hopefully find answers to questions that lead to a better future.

There are no simple answers, but if we can reimagine a healthcare system that actively promotes the health of people, as its’ primary mandate, we would be heading in the right direction. This approach will require a long term vision for healthcare which moves its primary focus to optimizing health and quality of life. Not an easy path, but clearly necessary.

Addendum: January / 2021

In the early stages of the current pandemic, we did not know precisely which demographics were most in danger from Covid 19. Now we know. Our long term care facilities have become killing grounds for covid-19. Additionally, those who are over the age of 65 but not in an institution constitute the second largest demographic at risk.

We have also learned how to treat covid more effectively since March/2020. Therapies are better and more effective and there is some hope that vaccines will provide wide immunity by the end of summer 2021.

So what now?

Given what we now know, do global lockdowns and restrictions make sense? In the early days of the pandemic, the answer was yes. However, now that we have more data and more expertise at treatment, do the restrictions on demographics that are only at minimal risk make sense? The only way we can rationalize such restrictions is to claim it reduces the impacts on vulnerable populations.

Would it be better to marshal more resources (i.e. dollars) to protect vulnerable demographics and support them with services that would facilitate isolation and support their mental/emotional states as well? How could we promote the health of vulnerable demographics? As an aside, this is a question that is rarely asked due to the current emphasis on assaulting or hiding from disease.

Currently a lot of money is being expended to allow minimally at risk people to stay home and to provide funding for businesses to be shuttered or to operate at very low capacities. Does that broad brush approach constitute an optimal response to the pandemic, given our current state of knowledge? Again, the answer can only be that it reduces impact on vulnerable demographics. Is it possible the mass input of resources into the current approach has reduced the resources available to the most vulnerable and is therefore sub-optimal at reducing hospitalizations and saving lives?

Unfortunately many government leaders have desperately degenerated into verbal brow beatings of irresponsible behaviour rather than looking at how well their own pandemic response has worked. Perhaps they need to re-evaluate their approach rather than continue with the same regime which may have been the only option early in the pandemic, but now could be re-configured to be more effective based on current information.

Names for Stuff

0
Edmonton Settlers

As you know, dear readers, I am a keen observer of culture and cultural shifts, when I am not busy hanging out with my hommies.

I have heard rumours that the Washington Redskins football team will be changing their name to make it less offensive. How about the Washington Wingnuts?

In other news, the Edmonton Eskimos football club has finally decided to rebrand their organization as “The Edmonton Settlers”. They also considered:

  • The Edmonton Crackers
  • The Edmonton Honkies
  • The Edmonton Gringos

They finally settled on the “Edmonton Settlers” since it is more in line with their current and historical naming conventions.

Go Settlers!

Freedom of Speech and Social Media

0

There has been a lot of discussion lately in social media on the topic of freedom of speech. Oddly enough this seems to happen absent a definition of what freedom of speech is. There is a broad assumption that everyone already knows what freedom of speech is and what an abrogation of freedom of speech looks like. Having reviewed some of the social media discussions on this topic, it seems most don’t not know precisely what freedom of speech is, so let us begin with a definition.

Freedom of speech is a guarantee made by governments to its citizens that they will not use state power to muzzle expression or opinion. Note that not all governments offer such guarantees. In the US, this guarantee is provided by the first amendment to their constitution. This amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. In Canada, these rights are outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The takeaway here is that freedom of speech, along with other rights and freedoms, is a guarantee provided by the state to limit the use of state power in ways that would abrogate the freedoms of its citizens.

Freedom of speech however, is not unlimited. When speech is used to intentionally cause harms it can be censured. This is a tightrope which the state must walk to ensure only the most egregious violations are acted against. The oft quoted example is an individual falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre to intentionally induce panic and possible injury.

There are other examples when speech is censured, but these are related to defamation, which may result in civil proceedings in a court of law. While these are technically not state actions, lawsuits are mediated by state courts to determine if the speech in question has produced damages which could result in a state enforced remedy (i.e. money changes hands).

The guarantee of freedom of speech allows citizens to criticize their government or members thereof without fear of reprisal.

There is no guarantee that those who wish to express their opinions will be given a platform to do so.

There is currently a self-proclaimed free speech advocate by the name of Brian Rose who operates a Youtube channel named “London Real”. Youtube has removed some of the content from the London Real channel, prompting Mr. Rose to claim his freedom of speech has been violated.

Let’s dig a little deeper here.

Mr. Rose often invokes Alex Jones in his discussions around freedom of speech. Alex Jones had a Youtube channel which has been expunged, but for many years, he had a successful supplement sales business which benefited significantly from the notoriety created by his Youtube channel.

Jones pioneered a method of business promotion which was very successful. His various websites and his Youtube channel provided content which was highly controversial and featured so called “conspiracy theories”. As an aside, the term “conspiracy theory” is pretty much meaningless, but seems to be widely used to describe a narrative that diverges from the commonly accepted narrative of a particular event.

The important point here is that Jones, provided controversial content to drive his supplement business. The more outrageous and controversial the content, the better, since it created a good deal of reaction and buzz. This approach is based on the notion that there is no such thing as “bad publicity”. For Jones, it did not matter why they were talking about him, all that mattered is they were talking about him. His wild personal antics also served to create more attention for him, which in turn drove sales of his supplements.

This business promotion method also creates a cadre of loyal followers who believe they are somehow participating in a counter-culture or anti-establishment movement and standing up for (among other things), freedom of speech. Which of course makes them the perfect demographic to sell products or services to, since they are already sympatico.

Unfortunately for Jones, he pushed the controversy button a little too hard and got his Youtube channel permanently removed. By the way, Youtube does not offer a guarantee of freedom of speech on their platform. Youtube, like other social media platforms, operates under an agreement with their users referred to as “Terms of Service”. Violation of these terms of service can result in banning of content or deletion of a Youtube account.

Enter Brian Rose, a much more sophisticated version of Alex Jones. Rose offers a more polished and reasoned persona which makes him more believable and of course more effective at selling his services.

Rose has refined the “Alex Jones Method” to make it much more slick, but still understands that controversy and notoriety are the central keys to making sales. Having some of his Youtube videos removed, allows him to posture as a victim who is leading the good fight for all of us and in particular his cadre of followers he has dubbed “The London Real Army”.

One has to grudgingly acknowledge that Mr. Rose’s refined Jones methodology is working very well for him and his posturing around freedom speech definitely serves to drive business sales very well.

Rose claims that Youtube acts like a “public utility” and therefore any removal of his content is tantamount to an action of state censure. Not really, Youtube is a corporation not a government and there are other video streaming services available, so it certainly is not a public utility.

Rose further claims that he is being targeted in the same way minorities are when they are denied services. This is technically not a free speech argument but an argument of discrimination. So on what basis is he being discriminated against? Is it the class of people who use free streaming services to drive their businesses? Old white guys? People who climb up on the faux soapbox of freedom of speech?

If you believe Mr. Rose has suffered at all from having a few Youtube videos yanked, you may have failed to notice how well this serves him. For Mr. Rose, it is simply one more golden opportunity to self-promote.

Compare the “suffering” of Mr. Rose to those who really have faced the oppression of state power for exercising their freedom of speech. Edward Snowden now lives in exile under threat of prosecution by the US government for his revelations on the abuses of the US military and the surveillance apparatus of the US state. Dissidents in China, Russia and Saudi Arabia face censure, arrest and detention. Mr. Rose continues to stroll around London a free man, where he opines at length about the injustices of Youtube. Nice work, if you can get it.

For those who are deeply concerned about free speech you might want to direct your time and money to those worthy of your support.

Here is a good place to start:

Why Nepotism is Good

0

Hey all, its Donnie Drunkard, once again coming straight at you from under my own kitchen table. My local bar has closed down due to this Corona virus hoax, so I got to operate from here. Fortunately the boys at the bar still deliver, so I ordered 14 cases of Old Liver Blaster and I should be good for a few days.

Ok, so today’s topic is about why nepotism is so great. In case you don’t know, nepotism means you hire your kids and relatives for jobs they aren’t qualified for, but it means you no longer have to support them… ’cause they got a job!

I love Jared Kushner, the kid looks great like he shaves with mothers milk and then spray paints his face with varathane. Really smooth man!

Ok let’s cut right to the chase. Nepotism is great. It means you can keep a close eye on your kids ’cause they are at work with you and they are making money either directly from a salary or indirectly by selling influence and access. What a great system eh?

My buddy Donald Trump has, as usual, turned this into an art form. He gets away with blatant nepotism by distracting the press so much with all the crap he says, they don’t even mention it anymore. Brilliant!

Ok, so the other day Jared jumps into a press conference so he can explain to state governors that they are on their own and not to expect handouts from the feds for essential medical equipment. After all, the feds have a really great stockpile and need to keep it for themselves. Helping the states would just deplete it, right?

See that’s nepotism at work. You have a guy who knows nothing about government, health care or any other thing that would be useful to someone who had actually been hired based on competence rather than nepotism. He just gets to say whatever he wants and he can’t be fired or even reprimanded. Awesome!

Ok think about how this can work in your own life. Hire relatives to work for you and I am sure you will see how you prosper.

Speaking of that, the picture for this post is a portrait of my nephew Billy, who I have retained to hold down the kitchen table. He does a great job!

You know I am always here for you. Think of me as that drunken uncle from your kids wedding who fell into the wedding cake and set the place on fire. Crazy, but you still love me, right?

Ok all, I will see you soon, well at least as soon as my double vision clears up!

Bye for now.

— Donnie

Humour

Editorials

Cocoscope
Facebook
RSS
Follow by Email