Category Archives: Uncategorized

Walk Away from the Oligarcy

San Jose City Councilwoman Maya Esparza tells us that democracy is popular:

“I think that it’s pretty clear that people want democracy, especially right now . . . ”

If the “people want democracy”, then people need to wake up and figure out that the California Democratic Party is NOT the way to achieve functioning “democracy”.

The Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the American Independent Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party are all pretty much “traditional political parties” in that they are simply collections of people who share a more or less common philosophy on how a society should be governed.

The California Democratic Party is something VERY different. It is an oligarchy, and pretty much of a hereditary oligarchy at that. The recent leaders of the California government share a lot of genetic material: Pat Brown, Jerry Brown, the Getty Family, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom. They are all related.

People don’t just “support” the California Democratic Party; the party OWNS them, and determines their success or failure as they seek to scale the heights of California politics.

Democratic elected public officials in California DO NOT work for their voters; they work for the Democratic Party oligarchy.

Ironically, diminishing the power of political parties was a key reform that “reform governor” Hiram Johnson was trying to achieve. Somehow, the California Democratic Party escaped containment and was able to roar back to life in its virulent, corrupt glory.

One of the most promising steps that voters could take to restore true “democracy” in California would be to take down the Democratic Party oligarchy. A roadmap on how to achieve that end has been provided by the “WalkAway” movement: just walk away from the Democratic Party.

Specifically, just refuse to vote for any candidate who is a “registered Democrat” or whose political career is founded on pleasing the Sacramento Democratic Party oligarchy.

For Democrats, “walking away” doesn’t mean abandoning traditional democratic values or principles. It is simply a message to elected democratic officials to listen to democratic VOTERS instead of listening to democratic BOSSES.

Johnny Khamis and Dev Devis set the example two years ago when they “walked away” from the Republican Party. Democrat officials and voters can do the same.

“Free at last”. Free from the Sacramento oligarcy.


Partisanship and divergence

Partisanship Has Untethered Americans’ Minds From Objective Reality

Parties (“partisanship”) are only rough approximations for two differing human mindsets about how humans should provide for their basic human needs.

There are “foragers” (hunter/gatherers) and there are “producers” (farmers/herders).

Foragers are mentally and socially primitive.  They are tribal and place all their loyalty and trust in the tribal “shaman”.  The shaman talks to the spirit world and knows the answers to all the important questions.  Tribe members DON’T have to think for themselves, and in fact, thinking for oneself is disloyal to the shaman and subversive.

Producers are mentally advanced and have used their evolved brain capacity to understand the processes of nature and the orderly predictable ways that things can change over time. Producers produced surplus food, learned the logic and advantages of trade over tribal warfare, and developed the capacity to independently think in multiple dimensions to solve complex problems.

Differences between Democrats and Republicans are not based on “partisanship” but result from the evolutionary reality that one group views independent thinking as “anti-tribal” and therefore anti-social, and the other group views it as enabling individual and social prosperity and security.

The problem is not “partisanship”, it’s evolutionary divergence.

… awaiting still more moderation

Why is San Jose Inside so touchy about statues?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Here’s a statue that might be needing a good home soon.

San Jose could put in Plaza de Cesar Chavez next to the Feathered Snake monument:


Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Here’s another piece of public art that visitors to San Jose might want to admire.


Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Oh, and while visiting San Jose, visitors might want to take in the Columbus statue:,28.jpg?w=800&r=16%3A9

And the Thomas Fallon statue:



… awaiting moderation

Do “moderates” need moderating?

Why would San Jose Inside suppress a VERY MODERATE posting from the VERY MODERATE SJOutsideTheBubble?


Your comment is awaiting moderation.

> Report: Santa Clara County Could See More than 2,000 Daily COVID-19 Cases by August

Viruses spread. It’s what viruses do.

Haven’t people figured that out yet?

A virus is just a big chemical molecule that has randomly evolved so that living cells will replicate it.

Copy machines make copies of papers. Living cells make copies of viruses.

Viruses will spread through a population, from human to human, until a certain percent of the population has become immune (The “herd immunity threshold”).

Masks and social distancing ONLY affect whether the virus spreads slower or faster. But eventually, the same percent of the population will become infected and then immune.

Masks and social distancing ONLY increase the economic costs and misery of reaching the “herd immunity

I have heard that public health authorities take a dim view of people questioning their decrees and their “Emergency Orders”. They don’t like the uninformed masses raising questions about the wisdom and efficacy of social distancing or wearing masks.

But is it really subversive to the established order to say that “Masks and social distancing ONLY increase the economic costs and misery” of a virus that is going to spread anyway?

Is San Jose Inside acting as gatekeeper out of solipsistic “social conscience” or are they following the instructions of governmental authorities?

San Jose Inside leads with its chin

What was Dan Pulcrano thinking?

Two words for Dan Pulcrano:

“Nick Sandman”

“CNN Settles Lawsuit With Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann”

– – – – –

“Case of the Covington kids is a perfect example of media bias”

– – – – – –

“In an ABC7 interview a couple days after the incident, the mother, Mireya Mora, said she believed the assault on her baby boy was racially motivated.”

Based on what?

– – – – – –

“Column: L. Lin Wood, libel attorney for Nicholas Sandmann and Richard Jewell, gives out a warning to the media”

– – – – – –

Dan Pulcrano: meet L. Lin Wood.

Environmentalists and the “Affordable Housing” bond measure.

I’m not often in the political company of self-described “environmentalists”. I consider myself a “conservationist”.

It’s probably not something that most modern people have given much thought to, but “conservation” is really a logical corollary of capitalism. “Conservation” is a constraint on human behavior that humans impose on themselves.

“Environmentalism”, in contrast, is not about human thought or human responsibility. It is about human intrusion and human illegitimacy. Humans screw things up. Humans are incompatible with nature. Humans don’t belong. Humans should just go away.

So awful are humans in the eyes of radical ecologists that there is even a “voluntary” movement for human self-extinction.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

The basis of the angst for human existence lies largely in Malthusian fears of “overpopulation”, and the profligate, irresponsible consumption of earth’s resources by human beings. And the historic experience of human societies with overcrowding, disease, starvation — particularly in urban settings — have provided a rational basis for those fears.

Anthropologists have observed that in primitive times — before the mastery of herding and agriculture — the human population of the planet was perhaps 25 million people, limited by the MINIMUM food supply available to humans. As the food supplied varied between abundance and scarcity, the human population expanded and contracted. But the years of scarcity defined an overall limit to the “sustainable” human population of the planet.

The inventions and facilities of modernity — particularly herding and agriculture — have allowed human populations to exceed the natural limits of food supply, and supplies of other resources such as land and climate. But environmentalists ask if it is ultimately wise to create too much artificial expansion of human habitat which will at some point become “unsustainable”.

Modern principles of technology and of governance have allowed us to increase human populations beyond the numbers that would be naturally sustainable for any given location. But at some point, should those who care for the environment say: “Enough is enough! It’s not wise to fool Mother Nature”?

The fundamental question is: “We know how to support a larger population, at least temporarily, but SHOULD we support a larger population that is ultimately NOT sustainable in the long term”?

Measure A subsidizes housing for socially and economically fragile people and allows them to exist in an environmental niche where the forces of nature and availability of economic resources would NOT normally allow them to exist. The justification for this subsidy is NOT that it provides SUSTAINABLE living conditions for people. It is NOT that it is good for the environment. The justification is ONLY that it will skew election results in a direction desired by certain political actors over the short term, a direction that will extend and continue the subsidies for UNSUSTAINABLE living.

The justification is the essence of circular logic: the subsidies are justified because it will give people an incentive to vote for politicians who will continue the subsidies.

It CAN be argued that providing subsidized housing for a population that is incapable of obtaining of producing sufficient resources for its own sustenance is a BURDEN on the environment, because it leads to localized overpopulation, overcrowding, and over consumption of common resources like air, water, and waste disposal.

The continuing bay area housing shortage is a manifestation of UNSUSTAINABLE OVERCONSUMPTION of housing. The solution to the housing shortage is NOT to subsidize more UNSUSTAINABLE OVER CONSUMPTION, it is to STOP UNSUSTAINABLE OVERCONSUMPTION.

Those who were given EMPTY and DECEPTIVE promises for “affordable” housing by politicians should learn to DISTRUST the politicians who made the promises. And then thye should address their housing needs by seeking housing arrangements that are suitable to their needs and means and sustainable for the community and the environment.

Is “racist” a slur?

Jennifer Wadsworth, gatekeeper for the San Jose Inside blog, has approved the use of the term “racist” for civil discourse, citing that it is merely a “character/behavior assessment”. The full article and thread can be found here.

No, that’s not a violation because it’s not a slur. Calling someone a racist is a character/behavior assessment. Calling someone an offensive term by virtue of their identity, some unchangeable part of who they are? Now that would rise to the level of a slur and a violation of our comments policy.


Jennifer provides two tests for a slur: “Calling someone an offensive term . . .

  1. by virtue of their identity,
  2. some unchangeable part of who they are”

Regarding the first test, if a person’s “identity” is as a “non-racist”, then doesn’t calling them “racist” constitute a slur? Simple logic.

But the second test is problematic, not because of the explicit statement of the test, but because of the cunning duplicity of the attribute being tested: “racism”.

In the argot of progressives, “racism” is a “dog whistle”.

Dogwhistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.

“Racism” means one thing to the general population: “antipathy toward a person or a group of people because of their race.”

But “racism” has a crucially different meaning to “progressives” and their peers in the progressive subculture. Embedded in the progressive notion of “racism” is a qualifier of WHO can be a racist. Only people with “power” can be racist.  Blacks and minorities, do NOT have power.  Therefore, blacks and minorities cannot be “racist”.  In American society, ONLY whites have power, and therefore, ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST.

Progressives often liken “racism” to a disease, and the disease analogy is illustrative.

For example, it is universally recognized that breast cancer is a horrible disease and eradicating breast cancer is a desirable end.  But it is a fact that breast cancer is overwhelmingly a disease of women.  No one feels it necessary to deplore breast cancer in women.  It is sufficient to simply deplore breast cancer. It is understood, that it is a medical condition of women.

The  same is true of sickle cell anemia. It is not necessary to deplore “black” sickle cell anemia.  It is again understood, that it is a medical condition of blacks.

And, with exactly the same reasoning, progressives identify “racism” as a “disease” of white people.  It is not necessary for progressives to explicitly deplore “white racism”.  All racism IS “white racism”.

So Jennifer’s assertion that “racism” is a “character/behavior assessment” unconnected to “some unchangeable part of who [people] are” is sophistry.

For the general population, perhaps many people believe anyone can be a racist.

But for progressives, and more importantly, for the messages they promote to the general population, “racism” is a “character/behavior assessment” that IS connected to the “unchangeable part” of who white people are: their whiteness.

Here is a little test for Jennifer.  Go to the New York Times, CNN, or your favorite “mainstream” news source, and identify ten people whom the source identities as “racist”.  How many of those so identified are “white”? ALL?

For extra credit, find five NON-WHITE people in the mainstream media’s “news” reportage who are identified as “racist”? ANY? (Hint. “Bigot” doesn’t count. Progressives acknowledge that non-whites can be “bigots”, but not”racists”.)

“Racism” is a slur on white people.  Sophistic. Sneaky, Deceitful. Explicit, Malignant. Cunning. Passive aggressive. Premeditated.

An ugly, vicious, premeditated anti-white slur.




Good Muslims and Bad Muslims

Democrats are doing cartwheels over the HOME RUN speech of Khizr Khan at the DNC.

Muslim Soldier Back Story

The heroic and Muslim Mr. Khan is the father of a heroic and Muslim son, Humayun. who served in the U.S. Army, was killed in Iraq, and was awarded a Bronze Star. In his moment of fame before the DNC, the senior Mr. Khan pulled out a double deck of Democrat victim cards and flung them in Donald Trump’s face, to the celebratory glee of an entire convention hall full of people who hate the military, hate religious zealots, and hate people who subjugate women and throw gays off of tall buildings.

But those of us who know that any information acquired from the rostrum of the Democratic National Convention must be taken with a bit of measured scrutiny.

There are a few questions we might be interested in asking Mr. Khan at his press conference, if he had a press conference. Or, in the absence of a Khan press conference, a press conference for the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, if SHE ever had a press conference.

Questions for Khizr Khan::

  • How did the United States government know that Khizr Khan was a good Muslim and not a bad Muslim when they first admitted him to the United States?
  • Does Khizr advocate the practice of Shariah Law in the United States?
  • When Humayun Khan served with the United States Army in Iraq, did he shoot other Muslims?
  • If so, were the Muslims that Humayan Khan shot in Iraq good Muslims or bad Muslims?
  • What do Muslims think of Muslims shooting other Muslims?
  • Would Khizr Khan agree with Donald Trump that we should know which Muslims are bad Muslims and not admit them to the United States?

SCC $950 Million Affordable Housing Bond – MY ballot argument

Measure XX Ballot Argument

Measure XX is simply a property tax increase.

Measure XX is the largest property tax increase since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.

Measure XX makes Santa Clara County the owner and landlord of hundreds of millions of dollars of housing units. It allows the county to provide thousands of housing units at below market rents subsidized by taxpayers.

Low Income Residents

The low income residents in the below market units will be economically trapped in their units forever, and unlikely to ever be able move to a market rate unit. A high density housing complex with a concentrated population of low income residents unable to move is a hopeless slum, and that will be the ultimate result of this measure.

This measure should be called “the hopeless slum” initiative.


This measure purports to offer housing assistance for veterans. The needs of veterans should be addressed by the government body who required their service and who they faithfully served, the United States Federal Government. The Veterans Administration MUST be held to account and provide the services that veterans have EARNED.

Mental health services, not mental health warehouses

This measure purports to offer assistance to the “homeless”. The main issue faced by the majority of homeless is mental illness, NOT a lack of housing. Warehousing homeless in “hopeless slums” is not treating them with dignity and offering them the help that they really need. The State of California shirked its responsibility by pushing the “homeless problem” onto local communities and scrimping on health services so it could shift money to special interests.

Measure XX is a scheme by politicians who failed to solve Santa Clara County’s urgent problems. They want tax payers to pay for their failures when they should be REQUIRING the State and Federal governments to solve problems which are THEIR responsibilities with the billions of dollars we already send them.