Schadenfreude is Dead

Yet another casualty of the Trump administration, schadenfreude has died in its sleep. There will be no pleasure taken from its passing. Schadenfreude will be buried next to irony in a private ceremony.

Since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic, I've struggled to not be political in my postings and sharings on Facebook and elsewhere.

Partly because I'm trying to survive and remain positive.

Partly because I'm tired. I've been blogging and shouting and warning here since 2001, including a multi-year "Carnival of the Decline of American Democracy." I've also been ranting on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube off-and-on since before any of them became popular. In 1996 I ran as a protest candidate for Mayor of Sacramento. I've attended hundreds - maybe thousands - of marches, sit-ins, rallies, and whatever else you've got since the 1970s. Making noise about politics is what I do. Or did. I'm tired.

Partly because of the noise. Once everybody else started blogging and vlogging and tweeting and sharing every meme they could get their cursor on, it was no longer necessary. I didn't have to nudge people to be active, the "Like" system did it for me. At least, it did for a while, except:

Partly because of the gaslighting. I'm tired of fighting against an algorithm that says one person's off-the-cuff, illogical opinion is equal to another person's well-reasoned, factually proven information. (Or greater than it, if it gets enough Likes.)

And, to a large part, as much as I loathe Donald Trump, I actually wanted, and hoped for, the moment to make the man, and to witness some actual leadership from the White House. I so wanted, and as an American citizen, needed to be proven wrong about Trump.

But these last few days made me give up on that as well.

A couple of days ago, the "good" Trump dutifully read off the notes that he supported the individual state Governors in their decision of when to remove restrictions and shelter-in-place orders, and gave a set of criteria to help them in their decisions (an abridged version of the guidelines issued by California Governor Gavin Newsom days earlier).

Then, hours later, the real Trump got on Twitter and told his followers to LIBERATE Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia. And the LIBERATE! message spread, and armed protestors violated the social distancing protocols and have taken to the streets in cities nationwide, in close proximity to each other, to demand an end to the state trying to save their lives. Because: fuck science. Because their president told them to.

Yes, there are some on "my side" who are posting things like, "Good, it'll kill off the morons, and leave the smart folks alone." But they're missing a bit of the science as well. COVID-19 just looks for a host to travel with. It doesn't care where it lands or who they voted for.

These LIBERATORS will bring it to the market. They'll bring it to their families. They'll bring it to their neighbors. And they'll bring it to our over-crowded hospitals. And people will die who did not go to LIBERATE their state capital.

So, no. I cannot take pleasure in their risking their health or their life. And not just because it risks my own. But because I don't want any unneccessary deaths. Even these stupid, ridiculous assholes.

I don't need them to die just to prove me right.

Logic is dead. Irony is dead. And now schadenfreude is dead. All casualties of Trump's assault on science, facts, and the American people. Isn't that enough?

Anyway, I made a little meme of my own:

Generosity Causes Homelessness

Here's the story: A driver tries to give a disabled person a few bucks at an intersection, one dollar falls to the ground, and the driver is given a $344 ticket for littering.

What the ...? Well, you see, in Columbus, Ohio, it's illegal to give money to a panhandler.

Um, okay, but the ticket was for littering? Well, you see, the penalty for littering is higher than the penalty for giving to a panhandler, so they're prosecuting him for the "greater crime." All for giving a few bucks to a disabled panhandler.

This is your tax dollars at work. Not at work, trying to help a disabled adult whose only income is from panhandling. No, that would be foolhardy, and would only encourage people to be disabled and destitute. No, this is your tax dollars hard at work punishing those naive fools who help out their fellow man.

Anti-panhandling laws (and anti-"camping" laws, and loitering laws, and...) arise out of the notion that if you make life inhospitable to the homeless and destitute, that they will, at best, suddenly be able to get a job and move inside, or, at the least, move on to another locality.

In Columbus, however, they've taken the next step. It's no longer enough to punish the poor for being poor, they've taken it upon themselves to punish decent citizens who take pity upon their fellow man, and therefor encourage them to be disabled and broke.

In some ways, this does make sense: it's easier to collect a fine from the guy with a job than from the guy on the street. But this is also their public policy, they obviously believe that it's that driver's fault that the guy in the wheelchair is a beggar.

Clearly, the good people of Columbus have discovered and gone after the root cause of poverty: Generosity. If we would only stop caring about the less fortunate among us, life would be wonderful, and our streets would be clean and safe.

Thank you, Columbus, for leading the way to a sweeter smelling, less caring America!

Why the Wrong Person Always Gets the Job

I have many good, smart, capable friends right now who are looking for work, and finding nothing. Other friends who, like myself, are self-employed, are having trouble lining up new clients and customers and we're finding our businesses faltering. And now I know who to blame: Stupid People.

Over the long weekend I read an article that introduced me to the "Dunning-Kruger Effect," a cognitive bias in which an ignorant person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their own incompetence prevents them from realizing how wrong they are. Basically, "ignorance begets confidence."

The opposite is also true: Those who are truly skilled or knowledgeable in any given area, knowing enough to know that they can't know everything, will tend to be more modest about their abilities compared to the bombast of the dullard.

The article I was reading was talking about the Dunning-Kruger Effect in relation to politics, and certain pundits who prey on the ignorance of their followers for political gain. But in thinking about the article, I realized it applies to all sorts of situations, including employment.

Who stands out during job interviews? Who does the recruiter remember? Is it the guy who calmly and honestly says, "I believe I can do it, and if there's anything else I need to learn, I'll do my best to learn it." Or is it the guy who proudly boasts, "I'm the best! I could have written the book on how to do this job!"

Nine times out of ten, it's the second guy, the self-deluded moron, who gets hired, and through the same process gets promoted over the years, over all the truly competent co-workers. And now, they're the ones at the top, screwing up the entire economy.

So, if you're looking for work right now, and you're lucky enough to get a job interview, and the interviewer asks you, "Why have you been out of work for so long?" Look that son-of-a-bitch right in the eye and with all the confidence you can muster say, "Because of stupid bastards like you!"

You may not get the job, but at least you'll know why.

(NOTE: Some might ask, isn't this really just another way of describing the Peter Principle? Not quite... The Peter Principle explains how, should a competent person be lucky enough to get a job, he or she will be promoted to their level of incompetence.  The Dunning-Kruger Effect explains why the competent person probably won't even be hired in the first place.)