On Elite College Admissions

The college admissions offices at several elite institutions were rocked, shocked, and supinely mocked this week as the FBI revealed a widespread conspiracy involving over 50 rich parents buying their children's way into college. To which I say: meh.

Obviously this is something that shouldn't happen. It's unfair to the kids that actually earned their way into Georgetown and USC, when the student sitting next to them had someone else take their SAT exam and the rowing coach was bought off to 'recruit' them (just kidding, these kids aren't actually going to class - they'll buy their grades just like they bought their acceptance letters). Then again, life isn't fair.

I'm not saying life shouldn't be fair, it's just that it's not. Donald Trump probably shouldn't have been able to attend an Ivy League university, but a massive donation from Fred Trump coincidentally preceded his son's transfer from Fordham to UPenn. Because that's how the ultra rich have always done it. You buy a building, and secure posterity's ability to also attend such schools.

The big problem is that these people didn't have Fred Trump money, so they couldn't engage in honest graft and had to resort to smaller, under the table bribes. These remain a no-no in today's society - institutions may be bought openly, but it's a scandal if it's done in private. Sorry if I don't see much more than semantics.

You know what's also unfair? That these kids had every opportunity to get into great private schools in the first place. They grew up in homes absent food insecurity, so there was no distraction caused by hunger in elementary school. Their classrooms were well-staffed with excellent teachers and full of students with similarly successful and likely educated parents. They had every opportunity to learn and had access to the resources that would boost their chances of college admittance. And, when they were accepted to college, they could go because their parents had the money to pay the tuition.

There may be a scandal in this story, but the anger is probably misplaced. Everyone hates these parents for doing what a bunch of other people would do if given the chance. They just don't have the chance.

(insert final rant about economic mobility or something because why not)

(follow rant with some weird defense of capitalism, because apparently we don't believe in capitalism in 2019?)

(poorly formed conclusion)

I Feel Bad for Steve King

All he did was get in trouble for the same thing he's been allowed to do for years.

Three Baskets of Voters

Someone said there were two, but really it's three.

1. The Ignorant
Probably the most respectable of the three, honestly. Politics are confusing, puppies on Instagram are more entertaining, and it's all just so frustrating that throwing up your hands turning your attention to ESPN or Buzzfeed is the more satisfying action. Can't say I blame you.

2. The Dumb
Dumb isn't the right word, but it's easy to throw around. Lacking in critical thinking is the apt descriptor. Sheer inability to look at X and understand the correlation with Y. Inability is the crux of it - refusal is linked to #3.

3. The Nihilist.
This is the most tribalisc of the three. The tribe just wants to win. Facts don't matter. Codes of ethics, logic, and reason don't apply. Blinders are donned in the event of malfeasance by members of the tribe, and spotlights shown on the most minor slights of the other tribe. Lies are willfully concocted and accepted, because winning is the thing that matters. Everything else is a double standard waiting to be constructed.

The three may overlap - often they do. But these are the three. Ignorant, dumb, and nihilistic.

When it Comes to Disaster Aid, be a Good Person

As the Houston, Texas area  continues to be inundated with what may surpass 50 inches of rainfall, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people are being forced from their homes with nowhere to turn. The devastation will be tremendous. Hurricane Harvey may be the costliest natural disaster in US history. And in response, if you're a policymaker, you should be a good person.

We're not a bunch of libertarians, there's a role for the government to play in rebuilding, and it should. And although it wasn't budgeted for, there's no reason to hurt someone else in order to provide the relief that people will need.

Would people actually do that? It's hard to believe, and assuredly they're few and far between, but I heard some would be inclined to do so. Obviously such shitty people are lost to the footnotes of history, but at one time they commanded enough power to prevent assistance to other people in need. Like I heard a story about some asshole who held relief funds for Katrina victims hostage because he said that they would become a "catastrophe of debt for our children and grandchildren." One of his solutions was to cut Social Security and Medicare to fund assistance. He was actually willing to accept zero assistance package if it wasn't tied to cuts to Social Security benefits! Now, obviously someone this inane is so obscure I couldn't figure out the bastard's name, but I found a photo:

Or take for example a more recent natural disaster that was a little closer to me in Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The second most devastating hurricane in US history, it caused $71.4 billion in property damage. 50 people died in New York, in addition to the loss of life in other states on the Atlantic seaboard. Over ten percent of the State was without power, and over 100,000 residences were destroyed.

Once again, only a very minute minority of politicians (errr, the majority of Republicans in the House) opposed direct assistance without strings. They did exist, however. Rumor is that a different asshole voted for flood insurance program relief in 2008 when his area of the country was hit, but defended his no vote in 2013 by saying the flood insurance program didn't work (one works for geese, not ganders). Couldn't find this man's name either, but also dug up his photo:

I'd also like to note that not everyone who voted against the Hurricane Sandy was being an asshole. For instance, one man voted against it because he thought 66% of the package was for unrelated spending. It was recently clarified that this was not the case - 2/3 of the spending was not in the form of immediate assistance but rather long-term rebuilding. His office recently clarified that he simply didn't understand how the bill works. See, he's not asshole, he's just a fucking idiot! Once again, wasn't able to find his name:

My point isn't to point out the rank hypocrisy. It's really not. We understand. These men are hypocrites. They're not good people. Need proof? Track the moral courage they've displayed over the last year playing sycophants to their leader. Just be better than them. Help the people of Houston. Don't muddy the aid package. 

Ok, my point is a little bit about pointing out hypocrisy. But see how they're treated now!? Don't be a Mike Pence, nobody wants to be that guy!

How A Small Man Got His Way With Cuba

It was announced this morning that Trump will be revisiting the new approach to Cuba that was rolled out at the end of the Obama administration. While complicated, the new rules governing the relationship between U.S. and Cuba boil down to this: expanded markets and belief in development theory.

At least they did. Everything is about to blow up because a small man named Marco Rubio who needs to placate a constituency stroked the ego of a man who couldn't give two shits about Cuban relations, but the small man said that the man with small hands had hands that weren't so small after all, so everything is ok.