More black churches targeted after Charleston

Did you guys hear that 5 black churches had fires since the SC massacre? 3 are confirmed arson. So assuming it's not a one-in-a-billion coincidence, we as a nation clearly haven't put this behind us. Black people didn't do anything provocative to upset anyone since Charleston (no riots, revenge, etc.). There's no "reason" to burn churches except that racists were tired of seeing black faces and hearing about racism stuff on the media all the time. Intimidation, suppression, and fear - that is the terrorist's playbook.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/black-churches-fire_n_7681754.html

I read a black commentator write about healing after Charleston (sorry I can't find the link now). It's all well and good that whites and blacks hold hands to cry and sing together after such a tragedy. Then we return to the same society that spawned such a horrific event. America heals and achieves closure after tragedies on the white schedule. When the whites (majority) feel better and want to move on, that is what the nation does.

But what if blacks are still hurting and don't want to pretend that we're done with this? They know that they still have to live with all the same shit when the funerals are over. They know they are more likely to be murdered than whites. They know nothing has really changed after the news vans clear out. So why don't they have the right to say, "No - you don't get to have catharsis and feel normal again, because WE don't. You don't get to act like this tragedy has brought us closer together, when I am still upset with no relief in sight?" I am taking artistic license, but that is what I think he was getting at.

While the victims of SC have been exceedingly Christ-like though this tragedy, I actually wish they weren't. Don't be so nice and let the mainstream society sweep this under the rug. Keep feeling outrage and rub our face in the fact that we have a messed up country and it's unacceptable. Because as good as they are reacting and behaving now, it's not going to stop the next violent bigot (or even cop) from abusing them. Maybe a Malcolm X approach is needed (arm yourselves, or just leave America if they don't feel wanted here).

---

This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/30/bryan-stevenson-racial-tensions

Cold War 2.0

http://www.hbo.com/vice/episodes/03/36-cold-war-2-0/video/ep-314-debrief.html?autoplay=true

Vice had a special about the Ukraine crisis, and how the US/NATO and Russia are inching closer to the brink (even though we might not realize it in light of the spotty media coverage).

We know that the Russian regime is corrupt and in some cases unlawful. Probably the world would be better off without Putin. But of course they see the US exactly the same, and we have committed war crimes since the fall of the USSR too. Domestic media paint things as good vs. evil in both nations. Maybe with the facts as the impartial judge, Russia has committed more transgressions than the West, but that doesn't really matter when missiles get launched.

So how did we get here?

• After the fall of the USSR, the Russian economy was in shambles, their pride was shaken, and recently freed Warsaw Pact republics were looking towards new partnerships in Europe for prosperity and security
• Russia's aging military was about all it had going for it when Putin took power (embarrassed by the Kursk sub accident, botched hostage rescues, and troubles fighting the Chechens), and his cabinet has been aggressively spending and modernizing since the US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Surging energy prices due to the War on Terror and rise of Asia helped Russia's defense budget
• Former Soviet territories Czech, Poland, and Hungary joined NATO in 1999, and with US encouragement, 9 more nations followed suit from 2004-2009 (incl. all the Baltics)
• And with the War on Terror bringing US/Coalition forces to several Central Asian republics and Afghanistan, Russia saw itself militarily encircled
• Traditionally, the US feels that it controls the Americas and Pacific, and Russia's sphere of influence is Central Asia, but now where does Eastern Europe stand?
• Russia's influence was challenged in the Balkan wars, where Serbia was an important ally
• While Bosnia was a UN-approved mission, the Kosovo campaign was mostly driven by NATO, due to the Russian UN veto
• NATO decided to defy Russia and bomb Serbia without UN approval, which was seen as disrespectful aggression and a possible portent of future incursions into previously "hands off" nations in the Russian sphere
• The Orange Revolution in Ukraine failed (mostly driven by their terrible economy), and they legitimately returned a pro-Moscow leader (Yanukovich) to power
• Yanukovich was working to scrap a previous deal to bring Ukraine into the EU, which upset much of pro-European western Ukraine
• He eventually stepped down amidst protests, but Russia saw this as a US-backed coup, the Ukrainian civil war broke out, and Russia illegally annexed Crimea
• Putin also declared that Russia should control lands where Russian is spoken, which includes eastern Ukraine (Donetsk region) and some of the Baltics
• I won't go into the Ukraine war details here because it's complex and I don't know much, but it's clear that both powers do not want Ukraine to fall to the other side
• But as a result, NATO has tripled its troops presence in the Baltics/Arctic, and there are even US troops on the ground in western Ukraine
• Russia has amassed forces on the Ukraine border to levels not seen since WWII (and also moved nukes to their far western territory Kalingrad, which is 300 miles from Berlin)
• The US has been working on installing missile defense batteries in Eastern Europe since the Bush years (currently stalled but Obama has revise the plan to start construction in Poland in 2018)
• Both sides are posturing/provoking the other with large military exercises and unusual presence of air/sea forces in previously neutral areas

Who knows what mistakes or calculated risks could result in a scary escalation? So how to we pull back from the brink?

• The problem with military buildups is that the other side can't be sure if they are defensive or not
• We in the West would probably find it ridiculous that Russians think that NATO wants to attack them, but can you really blame them?
• The US/EU sanctions on Russia due to their Ukraine actions is seen as economic warfare (even though the plunging Ruble is mostly due to oil than our sanctions)
• They saw how the US/UK ignored dissenting opinions, brutally invaded and occupied Iraq, and set up new bases all over the world like imperialists
• If the US wants to be the sole superpower, obviously they need to knock down Russia a notch or two (or cage them like we do with Iran)
• But Russia also wants to seize the opportunity of a militarily distracted/weakened US in order to increase its influence and security position - maybe back to the USSR days where they were feared by all
• NATO can't just sit idly by when Crimea falls and Russia is lying about its troops and weapons pouring into Donetsk, so they feel the need to send forces east to show they mean business and deter further Russian aggression
• Barring a risky nuclear ultimatum, both sides will not back down at present course (and will match actions tit-for-tat), so a different strategy is needed
• There are no "madmen" in this situation, and both sides are acting perfectly rationally - just like the Cuban Missile Crisis. But that is the scary part: when escalation to war is the rational move (not to mention what freak accidents or irrational moves could occur), we have to change the rules of the game before it's too late.
• A stalemate and huge buildup of forces on the border is not a sustainable solution either, because a bunch of anxious troops and one false move could make things quickly unravel. We have to demilitarize Eastern Europe, and hopefully permanently.
• Why did NATO accept the Baltics and other former Warsaw Pact nations into their club? Those armies are tiny - what did NATO have to gain defensively at the risk of provoking Russia? That land is very valuable from an offensive standpoint, which is why Russia took it so seriously.
• They should be free to join the EU for prosperity and non-military cooperation, but NATO is a military org with only one purpose - a hedge against Russian invasion of WESTERN Europe (kind of irrelevant since the UK and France have nukes)
• We can kindly "expel" those nations from NATO (compensate them economically), withdraw all forces (incl. any missile defense plans), and declare those nations an unaligned buffer zone - but sign a treaty with Russia that any incursions from either side will be met with force
• That way we remove pretense that Russia uses to justify its actions against a perceived NATO threat, and if Russia does try to muscle into Eastern Europe again, they must do so fully aware that they're ushering in WWIII
• Russia should reciprocate by withdrawing from Crimea
• We just have to let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as they may; the losing power has to respect the rights of the victorious side in the name of world peace
• I'm not saying any of this is easy, and some people will get screwed, but it gives a better chance to avoid nuclear war than the status quo

Taking down the Confederate flag

This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/finding-roots-dylann-roofs-radical-violence/

I wish the guests would have hit harder. Yes, white (men) feel under attack these days - but they should have said that those feelings are utterly baseless and not grounded in fact. Or if some whites are having a harder go these days, it is not due to gains by minorities (and there certainly isn't a minority conspiracy for "payback" against whites - even if it's quite deserved). If they don't outright dismiss these lies, then people will continue to believe them (like how the GOP injects doubt into the global warming issue). You can't give Holocaust deniers and Holocaust historians equal respect just to maintain a "fair debate". Bill Maher said that denying the existence of racism (and accusing others of race-baiting) is a form of racism in itself, and I think that's correct. Some on the right would rather attribute Roof's actions to "hatred of Christianity" instead of hatred of blacks. Speaking of that - to those who don't think the SC massacre (and our reaction to it) was racial, what if a synagogue or a meeting of (white) Wall St. execs was attacked by a black power extremist? If America's response would have been different (and it definitely would have), then that shows bias.

IMO, the debate about the Dixie flag is a red herring. I understand that its presence evokes powerful emotions on both sides, but it's a distraction from the core issue. Fighting over symbols is often a fruitless distraction. We can't change the past (nor its icons) and it's better if we accept it and move on. I suppose it's understandable for Southern folks to feel pride about their roots and the "War for Southern Independence." But they also have to acknowledge that some aspects of their society/regime were evil - and the consequences on blacks persist today. They can acknowledge and find a better path forward like Germany, or they can stick their heads in the sand like Japan and Turkey. I would also hope that African-Americans can see past the flag and not let it consume disproportionate attention. They have more important battles to fight.

---

But unlike Germany the can't kick the flag.  Pride in the south is pride in a flag that was raised because they wanted to keep their slaves.  I get having southern pride but it would be unbelievable to have german pride and use the swastika as your symbol.  And the racist roots of the flag have major events that occurred WAY more recently that WW2 so it just strikes me as incredibly odd that anyone is fighting for this flag.

And i don't think the right answer to white men feeling under attack is to say "your problems aren't real" or anything of that nature.  And ultimately the poor white people of this country are cajoled into feeling this way to keep the powers that be in place.  Gun rights, anti poverty measures, anti voting measures, a lot of that stuff relies on poor white people voting against their interests and to do that they bring up the specter of the great "other" who for pretty much all of America's history has been blacks.  Sometimes we use brown people now-a-days but the tactic is the same.  So we should understand that they feel a certain way and be riled up that it wasn't an accident.

---

Re: the flag - I am not well-versed in 1800's US history, but maybe the Union went too easy on the South after the Civil War. I am sure DC just wanted order and unity again, so they permitted the South to cling to their Confederate heroes and imagery. This was before the advent of hate crimes and war crimes, so it's not like any Southern leaders were prosecuted for their atrocities against blacks. And let's remember that most of America was still fairly racist, even if the South was "more racist." So there may not have been much motivation to chastise the South for clinging to racist icons until post-Civil Rights era (plus they were Constitutionally protected).

Let's also remember that many white-power groups display Nazi symbols to this day. It may be outlawed in parts of Europe, but they make slight mods to the swastika and still march in the streets. And lord knows what they say behind closed doors. This is Greece's Golden Dawn (and there are many other examples):

And this is the Klan of course:

As Obama said, fighting racism doesn't end with making the N-word impolite to say in public. You still have to discourage racist thought when no one is looking; it's a matter of values. It might be a moral victory to take down the Dixie flag and Robert E. Lee statues, but we haven't gained much if the proponents of those icons still feel defiant and bigoted in their core.

Re: angry white people - yeah I wasn't suggesting that we should dismiss their problems/hardships, but they need to understand that it is not the fault of minorities. Many bigoted mass shooters like Roof are paranoid narcissists - they think that others are out to get them because they are superior. It's a terrible mindset (incited by some third parties) and should be discouraged/corrected.

If anyone can be justified in feeling under attack and wanting to rise up, it's black/brown people. But for the most part they know they can't, because society may not side with them and law enforcement would not stand for it. Yet we condone anti-gov't (mostly white) militias and questionable Southern pride groups.

---

Honestly, I'm amazed at how responsive Southern state leaders have been re: the flag.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/24/417162233/alabama-governor-orders-removal-of-confederate-flags-from-capitol

You'd think that times like this would make people dig in and stick to their pride/ideals. But maybe the sheer horror of the act (and a smart political calculus) convinced them that it's just not worth it to keep fighting modernity.

I bet a lot of right wing media is pissed, but some folks have changed their minds:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/22/the-southern-avenger-repents-i-was-wrong-about-the-confederate-flag.html 

---

The secret is you can still be a bigot without a flag.  And there will be no problem finding the people to vote for who agree with you.  Lots of opportunity to ask for their views with codewords like voter fraud protection, welfware waste, etc etc.

The Confederate flag is easier to get rid of than guns, they probably think if they concede on that they’ll show they can “change.”

---

Thx, guys. Yeah Bill Maher said that guns kill people, but flags don't kill people. Though I think that neglects the fact that symbols can be powerful motivators. A flag can inspire people to hate more, which then leads to the desire to use a gun.

Change is a funny issue - I thought that hardcore conservatives want to show that they are in fact totally resistant to change and proud of it. I bet we will see a lot of that in the GOP primaries - who can be the most proud and inflexible? But then again, this is not 2012 and the GOP is even talking about wealth inequality these days. But I really think they haven't done anything substantial to court minorities. I guess they are clinging to their old (and failed) strategy of mobilizing the base. Good luck with this field of hacks - who of them can energize and inspire John Q. Voter?

If I had to, I probably would pick Graham except for his ultra-aggressive foreign policy approach.  

---

I'm glad you guys raised the Nazi comparison. Has that been discussed in the media? Both flags - among others - are symbols of evil and a mindset that their are superior and inferior races.  Both should be banned from state grounds and memorials. In a free society, we can't ban these symbols outright but we can - and should - call people and institutions out when they use them under the guise of praising people with strong moral convictions and enlightened values of a bygone era. Somehow people are nostalgic about an era where the traditional, native, good, naturally superior, white people owned black people and could savagely beat and kill them without facing any justice because it was their innate right based on their race? 

Yes there is racism is Europe and, sadly, in many other parts of the world. There will always be sympathizers and groups who would like to go back to the "good old days"  where they were treated with the "respect" they deserve. 

What angers and frustrates me is that most Americans seem to fail to recognize the similarity between southern sympathizers and other evil groups. Honestly, I don't see the difference between southern and Nazi sympathizers; but I get the impression that the media and the corporate culture doesn't. 

It wasn't until this heinous incident that Walmart and other businesses "realized" that the confederate flag was offensive and a symbol of hatred? It wasn't until last week that the Governor of South Carolina and other governors and state politicians realized that the flag and other confederate memorials were an inspiration to racists and extremely hurtful and offensive to African Americans? 

---

To take a cynical view, I think Walmart and those others stores decided that the scales finally tipped in favor of PR controversy avoidance/respect for their minority customers vs. sales/pleasing their Dixie customers (like how car companies decide to issue a recall only when the cost of suits/damages > cost of recall). I think some companies decided to stop carrying guns & ammo after mass shooting events.

I suppose it's natural that people don't want to feel like they come from a bad/evil heritage. We are proud creatures. The Germans have been exceedingly contrite after WWII, giving huge reparations to Israel (quietly), enacting anti-hate laws, and setting up a lot of domestic education/memorials. But not so for the US. Didn't Obama get flak from the right for "apologizing for America" too much? Maybe Romney said that. Well, the truth is that we have plenty to apologize and repay for (if we actually care about the values we profess), but we haven't because America is exceptional and awesome. Except for:

• No reparations for slavery, only a tacit declaration that the system was "wrong" (and then there were Tuskegee, Jim Crow, lynchings, war on drugs, etc.)
• Very few reparations and acknowledgement for Native Americans - who suffered war crimes/genocide and we were no better than Cortez/Columbus really (and we can them savages?)
• Promising citizenship and pay for Filipinos who fought for our side vs. Japan in WWII, then totally reneging (and doing the same damn thing with many Iraqis and Afghans who helped us)
• And then there were all the times that we unlawfully and immorally wrecked another people's land
• The list goes on and on...

Empires are not built with kindness and honorable behavior. I think progressive Americans can be open and honest about our "evil" past, for lack of a better word. Growing up in the US edu system, and despite being a crazy leftist, it even gives me pause to call the US evil. But the facts don't change. So I think some in the South haven't reached that point of clarity and reason yet, and likely never will, even if the flag is banned (which we can't do).

I wonder if our leaders/media even ask the South - how do you feel about slavery and the Confederacy? They refused to attribute race/guns to the SC shooting, and I think they would hesitate to speak negatively about Dixie. They prefer to remember those times as if it was "Gone with the Wind," or R.E. Lee charging gallantly into battle against the evil Union oppressors. So actually the guys trying to free your slaves were the evil ones.

Unless we go on an education blitz, this false narrative will persist. We commemorate the ends of the World Wars, why not remember the end of the Civil War (costliest US war in terms of lives and domestic damage) and have a national dialogue about the causes and teachings? We have the Holocaust Museum in DC, why don't we have the US racism and war crimes museums too? I know there are some black history museums here and there, but maybe the public doesn't think it applies to everyone - it's for the blacks to learn about their heritage, right? Well it's a shared heritage, and if we don't confront it, the bad/evil ideas will linger. Like M said, the flag is only part of the problem - we really need to get Americans to stop maintaining the beliefs that the flag represents.

GOP candidate cowardice after the SC shooting

This was pretty nauseating but expected from the pathetic field of 2016 GOP candidates: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/19/415747034/predictably-democrats-republicans-dont-agree-on-charleston-causes-solutions?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150619

In contrast to the president, not a single one of them called the SC shooting terrorism, nor mentioned race or guns, even though the alleged shooter himself cited hatred of blacks as a motive, and Roof's friend said that he was so concerned after hearing a racist rant that he hid his Glock for a while. And let's remember, the Columbine shooters were supposedly into Nazism, and used the n-word before killing one black student.

They collectively said, "let's not rush to blame and policy changes; gov't is not the solution." That's peculiar for several reasons:

• After OKC, USS Cole, and 9/11, the GOP sure was rushing to blame some Muslims (without any evidence) and use the strong arm of gov't to fight terrorism overseas.
• When it's whites killing blacks (esp. if the shooter is a cop), "let's wait till we get all the facts." When it's blacks behaving badly - or the media portraying as such (looting/riots after Katrina or Ferguson), then "look at how American values are crumbling, and it's the liberals' fault".

Just putting it out there: these mass shooters seem to have a similar profile - weird-looking skinny white male loners. If we are racially profiling people from the Mideast-South Asia as potential terrorists, and giving them more airport security attention, then why aren't we profiling weird white boys and making it harder for them to possess a gun? The data show that cops are obviously profiling blacks for drugs and other crimes, so why is that OK for minorities but not for whites?


And just to comment on the terrorism issue: the FBI lists heavily-armed right-wing anti-gov't groups as the #2 US terror threat behind Islamists. I think it's a safe bet that many of these groups may not hold minorities in great esteem either.

---

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/19/8811535/charleston-shooting-daily-show

ISIS executes an American journalist on video, and the western world launches a bombing campaign on 2 nations. A slow bleed of domestic gun-toting bigots/psychopaths killing innocent Americans every few months, and our gov't response is nil.

Race and America

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-downtown-charleston-south-carolina-031543897.html

We don't yet know the motives of the shooter (only that he is a 21-year-old white male who is still at large in SC). But authorities are labeling this as a hate crime. I know that one incident does not make a trend, but could this be a signal of growing white backlash against "Black Lives Matter" and other efforts to expose racial injustice?

I worry about white people (esp. men) who feel economically marginalized and dignity-attacked by national events since the recession. The worst thing would be a white-power militant backlash like some of the right-wing European parties that rapidly gained prominence during the Euro crisis.

Of course the hardships and insults that some whites feel in America may be real, but the culprits are obviously not minorities. But the true culprits are really good at concealment/propaganda and letting media deflect attention away from them. All you hear from FNC is that Christianity, white people (men), "US values", guns/cops, and conservatism are under attack. But the data show that evangelical Christianity is as strong as ever (despite declines in all other forms of Christianity), whites still have huge advantages in terms of incarceration rates, income, life expectancy, and most other socioeconomic metrics. Also, 3X more hate crimes are perpetrated against blacks than whites, even though blacks are only 12% of the US.

Obviously many whites are having more struggles in America. If they are ignorant, it's fairly easy to persuade them to blame immigrants, gays, liberals, etc. Much of Rush, Fox, etc.'s airtime is devoted to this. So are they actually the race-baiters who motivate some angry whites to attack minorities? Blood could be on their hands (like the Gabby Giffords shooting, etc.).

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/12/01/fox-guest-we-will-see-more-white-americans-unde/201727
http://www.newshounds.us/to_bill_o_reilly_white_christians_are_under_attack_but_not_african_americans_actually_killed_by_the_police_041615
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/charles-blow-woe-of-white-men-again.html

---

Also, did you hear about this Supreme Court ruling (TX did not violate the 1st Amend. by prohibiting a Southern group from making a custom license plate with the Dixie flag) where Thomas was the difference maker, siding with the liberals for the first time? If I can assume that his decision was motivated by his race and his deeper understanding of US racial history, is this an indictment that the Court is biased by personal background? I know we are all biased by our backgrounds, but the Court is supposed to be fair and just and blind, right?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/confederate-flag-plates-lack-support-supreme-court

----

This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/finding-roots-dylann-roofs-radical-violence/

I wish the guests would have hit harder. Yes, white (men) feel under attack these days - but they should have said that those feelings are utterly baseless and not grounded in fact. Or if some whites are having a harder go these days, it is not due to gains by minorities (and there certainly isn't a minority conspiracy for "payback" against whites - even if it's quite deserved). If they don't outright dismiss these lies, then people will continue to believe them (like how the GOP injects doubt into the global warming issue). You can't give Holocaust deniers and Holocaust historians equal respect just to maintain a "fair debate". Bill Maher said that denying the existence of racism (and accusing others of race-baiting) is a form of racism in itself, and I think that's correct. Some on the right would rather attribute Roof's actions to "hatred of Christianity" instead of hatred of blacks. Speaking of that - to those who don't think the SC massacre (and our reaction to it) was racial, what if a synagogue or a meeting of (white) Wall St. execs was attacked by a black power extremist? If America's response would have been different (and it definitely would have), then that shows bias.

IMO, the debate about the Dixie flag is a red herring. I understand that its presence evokes powerful emotions on both sides, but it's a distraction from the core issue. Fighting over symbols is often a fruitless distraction. We can't change the past (nor its icons) and it's better if we accept it and move on. I suppose it's understandable for Southern folks to feel pride about their roots and the "War for Southern Independence." But they also have to acknowledge that some aspects of their society/regime were evil - and the consequences on blacks persist today. They can acknowledge and find a better path forward like Germany, or they can stick their heads in the sand like Japan and Turkey. I would also hope that African-Americans can see past the flag and not let it consume disproportionate attention. They have more important battles to fight.

How media unfairly report police killings, race, and crime

This was a good "On the Media" program about police killings and implicit bias in the media.

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/on-the-media-2015-06-05/

• It's a sad reality that the Guardian and Washington Post have decided to compile a public database of police killings, as no one in our gov't is willing to do the same.
• 
  
• Why do the media and law enforcement describe incidents as "officer involved shootings?" It sounds like the cop just innocently happened to be there when there was a shooting, when in actuality they pulled the trigger and deliberately killed someone. Fortunately the term is falling out of favor after the recent high-profile killings. A large # of killings by officers occurred as an unarmed victim was fleeing, yet ROE states that cops can only use deadly force when their lives are threatened. So what gives? With no video or unreliable witnesses, all a cop has to say is that the fleeing suspect reached for something or made an aggressive gesture. Then in the investigation, it's a peace officer's testimony vs. a dead man (who maybe had a rap sheet). No wonder there are few indictments.
• 
  
• In Harvard's implicit association test, even black subjects associated black faces with negative words. Maybe it's an effect of biased media crime coverage influencing America to think black = threat. Like compare the coverage of the Baltimore protests (mostly black folks) and the Texas biker gang fight (mostly whites/Latinos). The MSM would suggest that all hell broke loose in BAL, but it was a minor skirmish in TX. For sure BAL got out of hand at times, but there were no deaths. Whereas there were many shots fired and 9 deaths in TX. But America was more outraged over BAL. Why does this happen? Maybe it's for ratings (stoking fear), acting on their own prejudices, or to "give the people what they want". The vast majority of violent crime is black-on-black and white-on-white, and usually male victims. But the media oversample and preferentially report on black-on-white crimes, especially if the victim is a woman. This leads white people to assume an "under siege" victim mentality, and favor harsher punishments on criminals and more heavy-handed police tactics.

The utter failure of the Red Cross and other aid orgs in Haiti

Vice and ProPublica did some recent investigations of US aid to Haiti after the quake, and unfortunately you can probably guess what they found. It was literally like the Iraq War in terms of incompetence, mismanagement, hubris, CYA, and outright lies. I am done with the US Red Cross.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNM4kEUEcp8

Generous Americans gave the US Red Cross $500MM for Haiti relief. They outraised all other charities, probably due to marketing and brand. They promised that they would build thousands of permanent homes (with water and sanitation) for Haitians, and even "new communities". So far, they have built SIX (yes 1-2-3-4-5-6) new homes, and are getting ready to pull out. At least Bush eventually got Saddam.

The problem is that the RC is good at distributing temporary disaster aid (like post-Katrina water and tents), but knows nothing about reconstruction. Yet they gladly took our money and promised that they would get it done. Well, land rights and building logistics in Haiti is a Third World disaster as you can imagine, so the RC contracted with third parties. Except doing that requires higher mgmt fees on donations up to 33%. For scale, good charities have mgmt margins of like 5%. So millions of dollars went poof, and those orgs paid bureaucrats to try to get houses built, but never broke ground. For the few shovel-ready projects, they were delayed by red tape from HQ, and many people resigned out of frustration.

All the while, RC PR maintains that they did an awesome job and saved Haiti. They said they gave 4.5MM Haitians shelter, which is pretty impossible considering that is the entire urban pop. of Haiti (and only Port-au-Prince was affected). I have no idea how they got their #s. We know that there are inept, unmotivated people at every workplace. And unfortunately charity orgs are no different, despite their inspirational missions. RC leaders in DC treated Haiti like a 9-5 job, and it wasn't their ass if they didn't deliver. What about hiring local Haitian experts to manage the projects instead? It's their country and they had more innate motivation. Unfortunately there were HR delays and even overt prejudice against Haitian applications and hires. Mr. Big Boss Know-It-All American had to call the shots. I really hope Nepal doesn't turn out like this.

There are opportunists and carpetbaggers after every disaster/war, but I naively didn't expect them to have a red cross on their arms. But the truth is that they are no better than an occupying army, or USAID, or Halliburton.

----

Like, who can you trust? Charity Navigator supposedly rates nonprofits. They rate the ARC as 3 out of 4 stars, with a 10% overhead ratio (90% of donations go to "programs"). That is pretty good, if we can trust their accounting.

But unfortunately, people have been trying to exploit others' generosity/sympathy since the advent of money. What level of hell is reserved for those scum? I can almost tolerate the Nigerian oil scammers and Wolf of Wall Street types, as they are preying on people's greed. But how can you lie to profit from goodwill?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1903#.VXBesecmz9k

Also, F John Paulson for donating $400MM to Harvard Engineering. That's like doing volunteer work for the House of Saud. Literally he could have done much more good if he just gave the money away on a street corner in Boston. But that really wasn't a donation, it was more like a purchase of legacy and boasting to his peers.

http://www.republishan.com/e/7151433366795166/For-the-love-of-God-rich-people-stop-giving-Harvard-money

How women's education is contributing to income inequality

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Of course it's been overall good for society that women have gotten more education and income since WWII, but there are consequences. I couldn't find the Economist article, but they had a chart showing marriage preferences for 1960s America. Men were more likely to marry women of similar education status (which correlates to income), but there was a decent level of "mixed education" households - maybe due to childhood sweethearts, family-encouraged marriages, etc.

In the 21st Century, dual-income households and "assortative mating" has gotten much more common. Now men with HS education almost exclusively marry women of similar status, and same goes for college or grad-school educated men. I guess it makes sense, as the modern American youth is likely to meet his or her mate at school or on the job (or through online dating sites that try to match demos). And of course there are intellectual, geographic, and class compatibility issues that make it less likely for a highly educated person to marry a poorly educated one. But this is resulting in either very rich or very poor households, and it's less likely that a lower-income family can "pull a Cinderella" and increase their wealth/quality of life through marriage.

Of course I'm not blaming women for any of this. Apart from love, I think most of us would recognize the benefits of marrying a more educated/wealthy mate. So professionals marry professionals, and blue collar/service workers marry the same. When controlling for other factors, assortative mating caused the Gini coefficient (inequality metric where 1 = perfect inequality and 0 = no inequality) to rise from 0.34 to 0.43 (+26%) over 1960-2005 in this Pew study's data.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, or if anything should be done. But the IMF and others said that income inequality is the root cause of many structural social problems. Wealthy couples tend to live in better neighborhoods with better schools. Their kids will have health, safety, social, and intellectual advantages vs. lower-income children. They will succeed in college and career, and likely marry a similarly successful person. But all this suggests that overall social mobility is on the decline in the US, with no signs of improvement.

Surprisingly, the GOP presidential candidates have spoken a lot about inequality/pressure on the middle class/American Dream so far. But it's likely lip-service, as they still want to gut social services and cut taxes for the "job creators". Obama and other Democrats have also talked a lot about the minimum wage, workplace sexism, and the unfair playing field. I wonder how much of an issue it will be in 2016, and if we can do anything about the "Great Divide".

Memorial Day reminder

As our leaders, media, and propagandists try to guilt trip us into remembering and appreciating veterans this season (they bled so we can BBQ - which is just a silly claim all around), let's also remember how stupid some of our leaders were in getting us into and mismanaging certain wars. Many paid the ultimate price for the mistakes of a few. Each year when the president lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, they should also burn a past leader in effigy (plenty to choose from: Nixon, Bush, Cheney, Westmoreland, Custer, MacArthur, etc.).

In the vain pursuit of glory, power, legacy, etc., they eagerly put pen to paper (with little care about consequences and how to care for the wounded after the war), and changed the fates of millions of families - usually for the worse. At least in the olden days, the "best and brightest" would offer their sons to the military as noblesse oblige and expectations of their class. But with the advent of industrialized warfare where anyone could be killed suddenly (and en masse) by flying hot metal, all that changed. And with global capitalism, the powerful could grow their empires commercially, making physical conquest (and all its risks) obsolete. The 1% sent their kids to the Ivy League as the future champions of industry/politics, and the poor did the fighting and dying instead.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201505051000

"My younger brother, a Vietnam vet, recently died. He was haunted to the end by memories of what he witnessed in the war and of "well-meaning" friends and relatives who called him a baby killer when he returned.
Now, my grandson is fighting to recover from PTSD, hearing loss, and memories of what he witnessed during 3 tours in Iraq.
Will it never end?"

The MOVE bombing and police militarization/misconduct

Have you heard of the MOVE bombing in Philly in 1985? US gov't forces actually dropped a bomb on US civilians on US soil.

MOVE was a Panthers/Rasta-esque militant black group. They armed themselves and built a makeshift fortified compound in a residential part of West Philly. I don't know the group's history, but they probably came about in response to decades of abuse, racism, and neglect by the police and other city authorities. MOVE members allegedly killed a cop in 1978, thereby increasing hostilities.

I'm not sure what transpired in 1985, but it got to a point where the mayor (Wilson Goode, a black man) and police chief gave the OK to forcibly disarm and disband MOVE. About 500 cops descended on the compound vs. about 6 MOVE members who were barricaded inside. Like Waco, they had an ultimatum to give themselves up. Instead they opened fire on the cops, and the police returned the favor with about 10K rounds into the building. They discharged so much lead all day that they needed to call the police academy to get more ammo.

But the MOVE members remained behind their defenses. Eventually the city approved the police to drop an IED from a helicopter above the MOVE building, in the hope of creating a hole that the cops could use to enter the compound. Not making this up. The IED was some sort of gasoline/incendiary device, because it created a huge fire that eventually consumed 61 homes and 11 lives (5 kids). Only 2 people got out of the compound alive. Bystanders compared it to Vietnam. No one was fired or convicted over the decision.

And why have we not heard of this until now? There was no social media in the 1980s, and the MSM didn't want to discuss ugly race issues, police misconduct, and urban unrest (until Rodney King - which was captured on tape). This stuff can't happen in America, right? But the incident did motivate US cops to become more martial. They found that they were rendered ineffective by dug-in suspects, so that likely led to more powers for SWAT like armored vehicles with battering rams (and then 9/11-Iraq took that to another level, as we've seen in Ferguson).

---

Where was the effort at negotiations and deescalation? Is violence their only tool in the kit? Of course community policing and outreach aims to preempt such conflicts, but this was pre Rodney King.

Cops sometime remind me of Marty McFly - if you challenge their manhood, they will react very stupidly. MOVE attacked them, so now they need to be taught a lesson, regardless of the costs to the community. This is especially bad when they are authorized to use deadly force, often with little accountability.

---

Please watch the movie.  I believe it's very even handed since most of the news coverage was very biased toward the police.  MOVE, as a group, did not attack them.  This was collective punishment.  The police under Frank Rizzo's watch were notoriously racist. Philadelphia PD are still notoriously racist. 

SPOILER ALERT:

At one point, a little boy (between 3 and 5, I think) crawls out of the house as it fills with smoke.  He falls and one of the cops wanted to run and help the little boy.  The other cops told him not to do it that it was a trap.  the man's better nature got to him and he ran to save the little child.  That cop ended up losing his job in the Philadelphia PD within months after that incident.  The police wanted to leave the boy to die.  The punishment for death of one of theirs was collective-all MOVE family had to die, women and children.  Ramona Africa, the sole adult survivor of this brutal attack, was put in jail after losing her entire family.  If someone shot back from the house,(and, I'm not sure if there's any evidence of that)  was it Ramona? 

Thoughts about the Mayweather Pacquiao super fight

Guys, I am no expert but I watch more boxing than most folks sounding off on the internet now. Re: all the hating that Manny should have won and the fight was boring...

The judges got it right. This is BOXING, not FIGHTING. Boxing is actually more like the board game go. You win when you land more clean shots than the other guy. It's not about flailing wildly to wow the fans. Pacman threw a lot, but they missed badly or were blocked by FMJ. That counts for nothing. It's like soccer - do teams try to score all the time and put their defense at risk? No, they hold onto a lead when they have it, pick their spots, and feel out the opponent looking for weaknesses. 1-0 is no worse than 5-4. It's not a video game.

From a boxing skills standpoint - Manny was terrible last night. The guys he destroyed before were bums (Algieri, Margarito, Rios, Hatton, etc.) who just made him look good because they played to his strengths. Real boxers like Morales and Marquez gave him fits (and 2 losses, could have been 3). Manny is still a great boxer, but he can't beat someone with the smarts, reach, and few weaknesses like FMJ.

"Running" is essential to smart boxing - footwork wins matches, not punching. Only an idiot would just stand there toe-to-toe and trade blows (like that moron Margarito when he fought Pacman). You stick and move, like what Ali said. It's not rocket science. It also frustrates opponents and makes them take chances that you can exploit. Maybe it's not what the fans want to see, but then they should watch MMA.

And clenching , while technically not legal, is just part of the sport. Why would you let your opponent get off inside shots against you, when you can just grab his arms instead and get a breather? If you do it too much, you'll lose a point, but it's better than getting hurt. You don't get to have a 20-year boxing career by getting hit all the time. 

---


Hyped up boxing is like the Super Bowl - a majority of viewers don't know much about the sport and may have unrealistic expectations. Esp. for boxing - it's likely that 75%+ of the FMJ-Pac viewers had not watched a boxing match in the last 6 months, nor could even name 5 former opponents of each fighter (much less understand their styles and tactics).

A "great fight" can be due to action or drama, even if it lacks stars (see the Provodnikov-Bradley brawl, and of course the fights between Mickey Ward and Gatti). Or a great fight can be between 2 superstars, regardless of the content/outcome (Pac-De La Hoya was a major fight that actually sucked because it was so one-sided). I think FMJ-Pac was the latter. It was never going to be like a Rocky film, and even the swindler Arum and the morons at ESPN weren't promising that. But a lot of folks paid for the possible chance to see Floyd get loss #1, and maybe get messed up (the haters have been waiting decades to see that). Pac seemed as good of a candidate as any to deliver that, even if he was still a 2:1 dog.

A Floyd fight consists of: control the distance/pace, land from distance, block/dodge/move a lot, and clench if you get in trouble. The other top defensive great boxer in history, Pernell Whitaker, is the same. If people wanted to see something else, then they should have passed on this event.

However, Floyd is known to respond to the style of his opponent. So the blame for the "boringness" lies with Pac. Maybe due to his shoulder injury, overconfidence, age, or whatever - Manny wasn't as active (throwing like 40 punches/round when he really needed to throw 70-100 to pressure Floyd). If Manny was more active, he would have hit Floyd more, and would have opened himself up to Floyd's counters. That is probably more what the people wanted to see (the Floyd-Maidana 1st fight proves that he can trade damage and be exciting). But Manny and Roach's game plan was not like that, so they get the blame. Why would Floyd voluntarily try to go after a guy who is known to be a very dangerous, aggressive puncher, when he knows that he can beat him in a "Floyd-style" fight? That approach is what got Manny KO'ed by Marquez, and Floyd is smarter than that. A win is a win, and a painless win is even better.

Personally I thought it was an entertaining fight, but I'm biased and I appreciate Floyd's style. And there's always a chance that Manny will land the KO shot, so that keeps people at the edge of their seats. But he didn't, yet it seems everyone is blaming Floyd for the fight's disappointment.

More police killings of black men

This stuff is literally happening EVERY WEEK in the US. Imagine if minority people were killing a white millionaire (or a cute Jonbenet Ramsey-ish white baby girl) every week - what would the public and gov't reaction be? All people are created equal with the same unalienable rights under the Constitution and our creator, right?

Senior citizen volunteer sheriff tries to taze suspect in cuffs (you guessed it, an unarmed urban African American male), but kills him with his sidearm instead (a la Oscar Grant). Pleads not guilty to manslaughter and judge grants him permission to leave the country for a Bahamas vacation. I am sure a Cripp accused of manslaughter would get similar treatment. How did the geezer become a deputy participating in a sting when he should have been playing bingo at the Senior Center instead? He donated vehicles to the Tulsa Sheriff's Office and is likely rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0o4zZobZg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/21/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/

6 Baltimore cops are suspended after they put an asthmatic suspect (and yes, another unarmed urban African American male) in their van to go to the station, and when he got out, he had a major spinal injury (cause unclear, and he died in the hospital a few days later). He told police that he was having trouble breathing, but they didn't call any medical staff. Like with Darren Wilson, the cops are now the only ones alive who know what really happened. No camera in the van.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/22/401436003/former-baltimore-police-head-sees-sliver-of-hope-in-freddie-gray-case

----

Economist has some data on police use of deadly force. The FBI reports that US cops kill over 400 people a year (justifiable cases, and it is on the rise since the '90s), but it is voluntary self-reporting, so the true # is probably higher. In comparison, usually less than 50 cops are killed by gunfire/year (less than the # cops killed in vehicle incidents). Cops in Japan+UK+Germany (cumulatively about the same pop. as the US) kill less than 20 people/year.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/dontshoot

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/30/nation/la-na-nn-police-deaths-20131230

----

The BAL DA is pressing charges (murder, manslaughter) against the 6 officers who were present when Gray suffered his lethal spinal injury. She also declared that Gray's arrest was illegal.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/01/403496063/freddie-gray-update-new-speculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150501

---

Apparently, it's not just black/brown victims of police violence and stupidity. A fairly non-threatening drunk woman on St. Patrick's Day was taken into custody by BART police and taken to Santa Rita jail. There was footage of the cops slamming her to the floor (or letting her fall hard). They said that they were "guiding" her to the ground. The victim was seriously injured, and is a model so the damage to her face was significant and she is suing. But a review board cleared the officers.

http://abc7news.com/news/bart-officer-cleared-in-takedown-of-woman-at-east-bay-jail/684535/

Here are some conservative responses to the Baltimore unrest:

• Rush said the cops should be commended for the 18 times they arrested Gray in the past (for minor drug offenses) and DIDN'T KILL HIM. Yes, they deserve a medal for their restraint.
• Cruz said it's Obama's fault for inflaming racial tensions. Yeah, by being a successful half-black man who won't pretend racial injustice is over, he's more to blame than the cops that do the beating and shooting.
• A TX Congressman Flores blames Baltimore on gay marriage and the deterioration of family values.

As you can see, Baltimore is attributed to just about everything except police dysfunction and racial/economic injustice. The sad thing is, if you gave some conservatives truth serum, they would probably say that the BAL tragedy is due to the inherent faults of black people (maybe not in so many words).

The staggering social costs of gun violence in the US

This was a good interview about a Mother Jones article on the indirect costs of US gun violence: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201504300930

The author's team performed an established economic analysis to estimate the total costs of gun violence - not just the direct costs of law enf., ER visit, and justice/penal system processing, but also lost productivity and diminished quality of life from long-term disability, incarceration, and death (affecting not just the victim but their family, workplace, and community). The article estimates that of the ~30K gun murders each year, on average it costs America $500K each. Add to that the ~80K cases/year of serious injuries from guns, and the total price tag is over $200B/year. That is 1/3 the value of Apple's stock, and more than US medicine spends on obesity each year. It's freaking huge.

But we're not talking about this because the NRA and others make the data so hard to access. And if people do try to study it (like the CDC and Harvard School of Public Health and Obama's recent nominee for Sgn. General), the gun lobby paints them as gun-control activists with a political agenda. Conservatives want to cut waste and spending left and right (social programs, research, etc.), but somehow the military and guns are exempt?

BTW - the study also found a correlation between states with weak gun laws and higher gun violence costs per capita (LA, WY are the worst, while HI and MA are some of the best - also with stricter gun laws). It's a no-brainer to us, but the 2nd Amendment crowd clings to the myth that more guns make you safer. They might also argue - what about the economic savings from all the crimes prevented by conscientious citizens with guns? Well there's just no data to support that claim, if it's even true (which is doubtful). You're much more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one than prevent a crime with your gun.

----

This is pretty heartbreaking stuff about the effects of violence on Oakland's youth:

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/29/violence-causes-ripple-effects-for-thousands-of-oakland-students

For a kid who turned 18 this year in Oakland, he or she lived through 111 kids getting killed in that city, not to mention the trauma that caused for everyone else. At least Alameda County is deploying more mental health resources for them now - but really this is an issue that no kid should have to deal with. Especially if they're under 10, children often can't deal with the difficult emotions generated from experiencing violence, so their ability to learn is impaired and they may lash out in negative ways.

----

NPR did a story based on this article and the most persuasive outcome, to me, was that there needs to be science and data applied to this stuff.  One of the guests was talking about the idea that if you even ask for data you are anti gun.  That there is this all or nothing approach.  Why wouldn't the dates show all the loves being saved if guns are great?  Couldn't we also find that, for example, people with lots of gun training have better outcomes related to fun violence?  It seems weird to assume data can only be anti gun.

----

Agreed. I guess it's like climate change and cop racism issues - if one side of the argument is confident in their position, they should have no problems whatsoever with full data transparency. When you are "trying to hide something" and suppressing info, that is a tell-tale sign that your argument has a problem. Actually if those folks really love gun rights and "freedom", then they should welcome data transparency to help improve gun use and gun culture in America (like a majority of NRA members favor better background checks, but NRA leaders don't). Or do they think that everything is OK? Don't they know that the most successful (legit) companies and gov'ts in the last 50 years are obsessed with data to help them succeed and improve?

Bottom line, the gun industry/lobby's only goal is to sell more product. Gun ownership in the US (as % of households) is on a huge decline since WWII, partly driven by urbanization, less interest in hunting, and I would like to believe social progress. But the # of guns in circulation may have gone up, so someone is buying them. There are fewer gun owners now, but they own more guns (and more deadly ones) per capita. Police departments upgrade their guns more frequently, and lord knows where their used guns go (I think there are accounts of cartels/gangs using former US police firearms).

So to accomplish their goal, the gun lobby has to oppose anything that would potentially hurt sales, and of course social costs data is a big threat. And when the costs are so obvious (even without hard data), they pull the freedom and liberty card. Sure guns are destructive, but the costs are "worth it" because we have to sacrifice to keep the communists from taking our freedoms. We have to tolerate the side-effects of guns because I need to protect my family from the bad guys. And when it's poor/black people shouldering most of the costs, it's easier to ignore - until incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook happen, which affected affluent whites and jarred the nation.

I use data to put food on the table, so I'd like to think that I have some sense of "data ethics" and best practices. When the pro-gun side decides to actually use data in their arguments, I can honestly say that they are the worst in terms of ethics and rigor. Total intellectual dishonesty (or maybe ignorance). I have not read any NRA white papers (if there are any non-laughable ones), so I am basing my judgment mostly on the sound bites you hear in the gun debate.

Examples:

• "Chicago has strict gun laws, but they still have plenty of gang violence and murders, so gun laws don't work!" Because we don't have borders. Thugs just have to buy a gun 30 miles away in easier places like Indiana, and then drive back to the city to shoot someone.
• 
  
• "Since the Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban expired, there have been fewer mass shootings, so assault weapons in the hands of 'the good guys' is an effective deterrent." Not enough sample size to assess a trend, and what defines a "mass shooting"? Public mass shootings are fortunately still pretty rare (it's much more common for someone to slaughter their family in a private residence). But Mother Jones and Harvard ran a statistical analysis to handle rare events, and they concluded that mass shootings are actually more frequent after the loosening of gun laws. Of course correlation is not causation, but it invalidates the pro-gun claim.
• 
  
• "Guns don't kill people; people kill people - address the mental health and anger issues instead." But guns kill people A LOT more effectively than a knife or bare hands. Yes there will always be a baseline level of violence and murder intent in any society, but if you restrict access to the murder tools, people won't be able to carry them out as effectively. Look at AUS/UK vs. US. Fairly similar culture, demos, etc., but we have all the guns and murders. Canada is an exception (many guns, few murders), but there will always be outliers.

These people are supposed to protect us

We've already heard many stories about how the CIA, military, cops, justice/penal systems, and Secret Service have really messed up and violated the public trust. Apparently most other agencies are not immune either:

The FBI admits to overstating the conclusiveness of forensic biological evidence (hair) - hundreds of cases potentially tainted since 1972, incl. dozens of death penalty cases: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/after-fbi-admits-overstating-forensic-hair-matches-focus-turns-to-cases/2015/04/20/a846aca8-e766-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html

DEA agents attended wild sex and coke parties for years in Colombia, paid for by local cartels: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/26/dea-brothel-prostitutes/70482964/

What is the point of funding these people and giving them broad powers, when this is how they serve us? I know plenty of security personnel are diligent, good people, but then they have a duty to call out or root out the bad ones among them. Their mission is to protect America against external AND internal threats, right?

At least I haven't heard any bad stuff about the Coast Guard. Well, they do interact with smugglers and cartels, so the opportunity for corruption is also there.

States that are failing their residents

Ohio has a 96% passing rate on its state reading test, but matriculates students whose reading skills are worse than 75% of the nation's kids.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/ohios-third-grade-reading-test-miss-goal/

South Carolina leads the country in domestic abuse, often reinforced by religious mysoginy and lack of public services for victims.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/20/401030909/post-and-courier-of-charleston-s-c-wins-pulitzer-for-public-service

More police-related killings of unarmed black men in custody

This stuff is literally happening EVERY WEEK in the US. Imagine if minority people were killing a white millionaire (or a cute Jonbenet Ramsey-ish white baby girl) every week - what would the public and gov't reaction be? All people are created equal with the same unalienable rights under the Constitution and our creator, right?

Senior citizen volunteer sheriff tries to taze suspect in cuffs (you guessed it, an unarmed urban African American male), but kills him with his sidearm instead (a la Oscar Grant). Pleads not guilty to manslaughter and judge grants him permission to leave the country for a Bahamas vacation. I am sure a Cripp accused of manslaughter would get similar treatment. How did the geezer become a deputy participating in a sting when he should have been playing bingo at the Senior Center instead? He donated vehicles to the Tulsa Sheriff's Office and is likely rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0o4zZobZg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/21/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/

6 Baltimore cops are suspended after they put an asthmatic suspect (and yes, another unarmed urban African American male) in their van to go to the station, and when he got out, he died of a spinal injury (cause unclear). He told police that he was having trouble breathing, but they didn't call any medical staff. Like with Darren Wilson, the cops are now the only ones alive who know what really happened. No camera in the van.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/22/401436003/former-baltimore-police-head-sees-sliver-of-hope-in-freddie-gray-case

California's record drought and mandatory water cuts

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/2/after_warmest_winter_drought_stricken_california
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201504020900
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the-misallocation-of-water.html

This week, Gov. Brown mandated non-ag CA homes and businesses need to cut water consumption by 25%, effective immediately. I am not sure what the enforcement mechanisms are. Like the sequester, an x% across-the-board cut is lazy governance and pretty stupid too.

There are smaller households or efficient households that barely use any water - they should be rewarded and not asked to cut even more (which may be very painful on them to achieve). There are also larger, more wasteful households that probably should cut more than 25% (part of that may be tied to landscaping - and I think Brown plans to prohibit lawns as well - which some other Southwest communities have tried). Sacramento and LA consume much more water per capita than SF or Oakland. Likewise, some businesses consume more or less water per employee (or per $revenue) due to the nature of the business.

Why not implement quotas instead? Depending on the severity of the drought in your county, you are allotted x gallons/day per capita. If you remain below the quota, you get a rebate. If you exceed it, you pay a penalty with growing magnitude. Maybe some waivers and exceptions can be put in place for unusual circumstances. Frankly such a system should be in place with or without the presence of drought.

But of course the water cuts ignore the elephant in the room - CA agriculture, which accounts for 80% of state water usage (BTW the energy sector is also exempt, and they use a ton of water for power plants, drilling, etc.). CA farms don't even use drip irrigation like Israel - they just spray water indiscriminately because it's subsidized (which also causes a lot of runoff with harmful fertilizer/pesticide chemicals sickening the locals). CA economy is both high and low tech, but the mix has to evolve to favor high tech. Tech and service industries produce way more GDP per capita and per unit of resources (and often much less environmental impact) vs. farming. The only profitable farming these days (apart from cannabis) is large corporate ag. Profits are concentrated to the owners and execs, and workers are often temporary and poorly-paid with few benefits. I understand that not everyone can be a software engineer or account manager, but if we're in a crisis and we have to pick what parts of our economy/society to protect, and what parts are less critical, I don't think there are many strong arguments in favor of farming. 

Apart from wine grapes, I don't think there are many crops that have to be grown in CA these days. With global trade, we can get produce and other foodstuffs from anywhere. Already many of our fruits and veggies come from south-of-our-border, nuts from the Maghreb/Middle East (CA almonds are a noteworthy culprit), and rice comes from Asia. We might as well go all the way. Maybe there is some risk associated with a dependence on foreign imports, but there's also a lot of risk associated with giving CA farmers the lion's share of our dwindling potable water. And currently, desalinization is very expensive (maybe not quite cost-prohibitive, but close) and harmful to local sea life. Maybe farmers could pay a water tax to help fund desal?

Environmental conditions have caused human migrations and adaptations since the beginning of our history. Just because we settled and farmed the CA Central Valley in the past doesn't mean that we have to always. And it's not like we'd be losing so much - Central Valley communities lead the state in terms of unemployment, some forms of pollution, and crime, significantly contributed to the housing bust, and all their structures are in a flood plain with 100 year old levees. Maybe it's best if we stop the "making the desert bloom" experiment, and stick to the coasts? Just maintain an urban, non-resource-intensive society and economy. Like Dubai, but without the crazy construction projects. Let the Central Valley return to its natural state. Just putting it out there.

---

After discussing this issue with some economists at work, there is of course the libertarian-market approach (for better or worse). Forget quotas and reduction targets - just open up water to market forces and let people decide how much it's worth to them. Of course there are a lot of practical considerations and details that need to be resolved, but "properly priced" water will eliminate the wasteful farmers (using a lot of water on low-profit crops like alfalfa), and people will only buy what they can afford to use. There should also be a water credit for low-income or at-risk persons/groups to ensure that they have fair access to a minimum living supply, no matter the market price. But like most traded products, I can see such a system vulnerable to exploitation/manipulation by certain privileged groups at the expense of the less sophisticated.

---

I think the privileged groups is pretty clearly the farmers. As you note, they use 80% of California's water to produce 2% of California's economy. They pay 1/10th of the consumer rate for water. I think the attached graphic pretty well illustrates it.

Why should consumers go through radical water savings techniques when the real solution is to increase the rate farmers pay? You're pretty much squeezing water from a stone from residential users as it is to get further efficiencies. 

San Diego is spending billions to build a desalinization plant when almond farmers are spraying water like there's no tomorrow. It's a horrendous misallocation of resources. Even if we didn't fully marketize the price of water, even bringing it a little more in line with market forces would go a long way to hitting water reduction targets.

 

---

 

For a seasoned, liberal politician, Brown has proposed and implemented some pretty questionable stuff during his recent tenure. As you said, the 25% residential-business cutback is a complex, unfair way to barely affect the problem - while ignoring the no-brainer, big-impact approach.

I was also surprised how small a % of CA GDP ag was. Anything that consumes 80% of a scarce resource and returns 2% of value should get cut. But they have political clout, so it's much easier to lean on residents/SMBs who can't as easily take collective action. Time to relocate to Oregon? :P

 

---

 

It is interesting to note that in the us there are some things that would be unobtainable if ca stopped producing:

Artichokes 99% of us consumption, broccoli 94%, cauliflower 89%, celery 95%, garlic 95%, almonds 99%, apricots 97%, figs, grapes, kiwi, nectarines, olives, pistachios, plums, and walnuts all over 90%. 

https://motherjones.com/files/2agovstat10_web-1.pdf

So off shoring of our food may be possible but it will be painful for many foods.  But all those pointing at irresponsible California and its water wasting aren't putting their money where there mouth is (literally) and mostly non Californians benefit from the water subsidies.

---

But you have to wonder - why aren't other states growing those crops? It's not like they can't if they really needed to, and other states have more favorable tax/labor/regulatory environments. I know CA soil and climate are pretty good, but I don't think it's such a differentiator. Maybe the economics just don't make sense for the rest of the US? And for scale - CA's ag sector was $34B in revenue in 2009 (with profits of $8.8B), vs. $21B for the runner-up Iowa - a much smaller state. So to normalize for geography, actually CA is not that grand. We just have a diversity of crops, which may not be unique to CA. Ironically if you look at the financials on pg. 24 of the doc, they don't even list water as a cost, so I have no idea what they're paying.

Say we did significantly cut back on CA ag production - we would have shortages of some of those products in stores. Prices would go up for the produce that people really wanted, but suppliers would respond by planting more of those in other states (or we would import more). Maybe they don't taste quite as good or the fruits are a bit smaller, but it would get to market in a season or two. Heck, it's not like CA grows those crops all year either - when CA farms are fallow or those crops are out of season, we get supply from greenhouses (which don't have to be in CA) or foreign farms anyway.  

----

Apparently CA is not the only place where business interests are exacerbating a water crisis:

http://rt.com/news/167012-coca-cola-factory-closed-india/

 

GM bankruptcy shields them from liability over faulty ignition deaths and losses

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-ignition-bankruptcy-20150415-story.html

This is one of the more maddening things I've seen in 2015 (and that is saying a lot). The evidence is fairly clear that GM committed serious negligence and cover-up/fraud for years regarding their faulty ignition switches that were implicated in at least 84 deaths and who knows how many total accidents.

But since GM declared bankruptcy in 2009, a judge concluded that they can't be sued over this issue. This is because the post-bankruptcy "new GM" is a totally different entity than the one that was responsible for the fraud/deaths. I wonder if the bankruptcy was a calculated move then. Businesses probably are thinking, "Well if the shit gets bad, let's just press the reset button." The people you owe only get pennies on the dollar back, and you're not on the hook for any previous wrongdoing. Isn't that convenient. And let's not forget the billions in low-interest loans they got from the taxpayers.

GM has set up a fund to pay victims off in return for dropping civil lawsuits. But this whole debacle is the kind of thing you shut down companies over. Where is the trust, when GM has shown total disdain for the customer and government? Maybe Obama shouldn't brag that he saved Detroit.

Starbucks' #RaceTogether

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201503200900

By now you guys have probably heard the hoopla about Starbucks' proposed #RaceTogether campaign to encourage customers and baristas to have frank discussions about race issues. Maybe the idea was noble, but the communication and execution left much to be desired, obviously. It comes off as out-of-touch, know-it-all, do-gooder, liberal Seattle rich white men telling the rest of America how to fix its racial issues (without doing any actual work themselves). Or even more cynical, some claim it is a shameless marketing ploy to capitalize on recent racial events like Ferguson to boost their brand and sales among minorities (a demo that is not core to Starbucks).

I will try to avoid getting too deep in the weeds here, but just some points to consider:

• By focusing on race, Starbucks is unfairly putting the spotlight on their black-Latino employees and customers, who will likely need to play a larger role in the discussion. Why not name the campaign #Tolerance or #MoreUnderstanding, which is the end goal of #RaceTogether but could apply more broadly to any injustice or misunderstanding (like sexuality, religion, and poverty)?
• 
  
• If Starbucks expects its relatively low income and low education baristas to participate in complex race discussions, will they at least give them a raise and professional training? They were not hired on to do this job, so if they get new responsibilities, they should be compensated accordingly. 
• 
  
• Why not set aside a corner of their cafes for employees on break and customers to sit down and talk about issues, race or otherwise, in a more appropriate environment? It's obviously problematic to expect stressed baristas and impatient customers to engage in meaningful discussions during the morning rush, when all they want is their cup of overpriced Joe and to get on with their day (many comedians have touched on this point).
• 
  
• Instead of punting this issue to their baristas, why doesn't Starbucks' leadership actually lead by example? Their exec team and board are almost uniformly white upper-class men, even for Seattle standards. And that's probably why they OK'ed such a half-baked campaign. Did they consult minority groups and race studies experts beforehand? How about they improve the diversity programs within their org, and pay for professionals to hold race discussions among their workforce and customers, when they won't interfere with their core business operations?
• 
  
• Starbucks almost has no commercial presence in majority-minority neighborhoods like Ferguson and Harlem (for obvious business reasons, not necessarily racism). If they just want to have race discussions between their 20-something urban baristas and their mostly white yuppie clientele, I am not sure how much good that will do for our society and their company. Magic Johnson franchised many Starbucks in "less desirable" neighborhoods in SoCal, and recently sold them back to Starbucks. So that is a step in the right direction, but it was only because Magic took a chance and demonstrated to Corporate HQ that such cafes could be profitable (Seattle never wanted to expand into Compton on their own). But if Starbucks really cares about inclusion and social change, why is their brand and product so selectively targeted? Heck, even their #RaceTogether print ads were only depicting white hands holding coffee cups (which is about representative of their customer base - do you think many Ferguson folks can afford daily $4 frappucinos?).
• 
  
• Bottom line: if Starbucks wants to make a positive impact on race relations in America, they have the resources and influence to actually do it. But they'll need to invest seriously, fix their own house first, consult people who actually know what they're doing, and lead by example - not just pass the buck to their lowest workers while the leaders in their ivory tower pat themselves on the back.

Elite colleges are not necessarily the place to get the best life prep

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/books/review-in-where-you-go-is-not-who-youll-be-frank-bruni-examines-college-admissions-mania.html?_r=0

This is especially true for wealthier Americans and "elite" institutions, where admission is seen more as a status symbol (like a Tesla or a LV bag) rather than a vehicle for educating and cultivating a young person for the benefit of society (a university's true mission). But actually, the data suggest that graduates of elite schools do not have significantly better life outcomes on the whole vs. graduates from "moderate" state schools. Sure, there are some segments where your pedigree really matters, but do you want to spend the rest of your life in those circles, surrounded by pompous pricks (some snobby corners of tech, Wall Street, etc.)?

And of course two major drawbacks of attending an elite private school are (1) debt and (2) a more bubble experience (your peers will be more homogeneous, and you may not get exposure to many real-life challenges that help a student thrive in the adult world). Also, some students may feel complacent that admission is the endpoint - they made it. Life is just about marketing yourself and jumping through the hoops to earn some administrator's approval, and then you're on easy street.

But admission is actually just the start - students should be driven to maximize their precious opportunity and realize that it is just a first step along a path that has many greater challenges and learnings ahead. Students may feel entitled ("I'm going to have a degree from Yale - of course the top employers will want me, I'm so awesome!"), and then lose focus (or even get lazy) - while other similarly-talented students snubbed by the Ivies might have a chip on their shoulder, rededicating themselves at a state school to be the best they can be. And let's be honest - undergrad chemistry or econ at Harvard vs. Texas will be taught at about the same quality (and probably not much better than Coursera). The concepts and knowledge are identical - it's just how motivated the student is to think critically, set healthy goals, and apply the learnings productively. Upon graduation, which student will likely have more grit and tenacity to succeed in the workplace? Savvy employers know that character/fortitude is way more important than pedigree to help the org succeed.

Some other sick facts about the perverted system:

• In some cases, families are paying admissions "coaches" $50K and starting at age 12 to get their resume in good enough shape to be competitive. Just imagine what message that is sending to the kid for what is required to get ahead.
• Stanford set the record recently for a 5% undergrad admissions rate. Now the bar has moved so of course the Ivies will try to match. They often do this by advertising to students with good metrics, but low chance of admission (maybe no legacy or not from the right demos). This helps puff up their "exclusivity rating" by making the median scores of their applicants look better, while lowering their admissions rates. And as we know from Apple, exclusivity begets disproportionate interest, even if the underlying product doesn't merit it.
• Many administrators and admissions officers know that the system has gone off the rails and want to fix it, but they fear that they will be the only one and then be at a disadvantage vs. their rivals who perpetuate the misguided process.

A good (but depressing) interview about Pakistan and Afghanistan

http://www.worldaffairs.org/events/event/1422#.VQgPGmaEr9k

I didn't listen to the whole thing, but the guest had a lot of no-BS, compelling comments about the dire situation in that region. She also stressed the economic and foreign policy angles of the conflict (often ignored by the MSM), such as:

• How do we expect the current Afghan gov't to survive when the US set it up in such a bloated model that it can only afford to pay 25% of its staff (and a regime that can't pay its people will surely collapse)? To make matters worse, global donors are reneging on their aid promises (understandably). Plus there's the lingering handicap of exceptional corruption.
• Why are we not asking China and India to get more involved in Afghanistan, as they have huge interests at stake and could serve as a check against Pakistan and Islamists? Instead we support/enable Pakistan, whose interests are pretty much diametrically opposed to ours?
• The Afghan national police and army are basically warlords and militias in uniform. When NATO leaves and things start to devolve, those fighters will pretty much fragment and return to the pre-2001 invasion state.