I
refer to him as "bubble boy" because in the conservative dream world he
continues to seek refuge in, he did a heck of a job during Katrina. How
tone deaf and offensive; I wish the locals booed and egged him all the
way to Louis Armstrong Airport. Of course he didn't visit the Superdome,
Lower 9th, or his other "greatest hits". He didn't take press questions
either. Maybe he still doesn't have a good answer for, "Did you make
any mistakes during your presidency?"
What's
next, he visits Baghdad as the conquering hero? I'm sure ISIS
commanders would be happy to host him. Total a-hole. For the 5th anniv.
of the Deepwater Horizons disaster this year, even BP leaders weren't
dumb enough to visit the shrimping villages, not expecting the victims
to shower them with appreciation for all their "restoration" work.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Hillary lecturing Black Lives Matter that they need to help themselves more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Also, I don't like how Hillary kind of "lectured" some Black Lives Matter activists recently that anger won't cut it; they need to put forth concrete policy proposals to make real impact. That is a BS managerial cop-out IMO. It's like when a boss at work got his yearly upward feedback that he micromanaged too much. He asked the team to give him action items on how to improve and what to do differently. No, the team already did their job and did you a service by pointing out a failing that you should have already known about and corrected. Now you are asking them to do your job and give you the step-by-step plan on how to be a better leader? Then why does the team need you, just promote someone in the team?
Same with Hillary and BLM
- African Americans have already done their civic duty of living
through all the violence and racism every day, and now assembling and
drawing national attention to the problem. But out-of-touch (and not
really caring) white leaders like Hillary tell them that's not good
enough - give America a plan on how to fix it. Also, I don't like how Hillary kind of "lectured" some Black Lives Matter activists recently that anger won't cut it; they need to put forth concrete policy proposals to make real impact. That is a BS managerial cop-out IMO. It's like when a boss at work got his yearly upward feedback that he micromanaged too much. He asked the team to give him action items on how to improve and what to do differently. No, the team already did their job and did you a service by pointing out a failing that you should have already known about and corrected. Now you are asking them to do your job and give you the step-by-step plan on how to be a better leader? Then why does the team need you, just promote someone in the team?
Isn't that like a judge telling the rape victim to teach the rapist how to behave properly and not hurt people? No Hillary, the effective policies for police reform and social justice are already out there and have been studied & available for decades. What, does BLM have to do a literature review for you? YOU are the one who wants to be president. So show some goddam leadership and make your own platform, in consultation with BLM of course. Don't tell them what they need to do. That is a cop out and passing the buck. If you care about the issue, you take action yourself and make a difference. Otherwise I'll vote for Deez Nuts.
----
I don't think Hilary was as bad as you say. I think that is really how Hilary is as a person and leader. Black lives matter has shown that yup, black people live in a different america than people like Hilary. But since many people are effectively learning this for the first time, how can they also be expected to know how to fix it? And ultimately shouldn't the BLM movement know what they require to be successful? The better analogy than the rape victim teaching the rapist would be the rape victim teaching the bartender how to watch out for people's drinks or something like that.
So from Hilary's view, there
is a problem and the people who are affected have a lot of momentum but
they aren't putting their desires into terms she can use. Likely both
sides find this frustrating but I don't think it is either one's
"fault".
----
I admit that I'm a Hillary hater (IMO her potential is better
than most GOPers, but she's an unauthentic, awkward, uninspiring
political animal and not a president who will make big impact on
inequality, climate change, global stability, etc.). However I do
acknowledge that her candidacy since 2007 was handicapped by bad timing
and sexism (and incompetence from her team of course).
As a
"progressive" (even though she's center-left, emphasis on the center),
she should not be finding out about black injustice for the first time
now. That is unacceptable for a former lawyer, senator, head of State,
and a generally smart/modern person. The aggressive policing and
incarceration issues has been around since "broken windows" and
mandatory sentencing - when Bill was president!----
When I say "find out" i mean in the same way I found out about domestic violence in the NFL by watching a dude knock his girl out in the elevator. Or the way you "find out" a punch to the face hurts in your first actual fight.
I have always intellectually
known that black people live a whole different experience. But all of
the black people (and basically all of the people) i know are relatively
well off socioecenomically. I'm sure Hilary even more so. So yes she
"knew" that blacks have it tough. But what I think BLM has (largely)
done well is represent just how bad it is. It isn't "I can't get a cab"
bad, but people die for what appear to be no reason on an alarmingly
frequent basis.
I'll bet that, at least
topically, dems think they have been trying to help the poor and
disadvantaged. So to have a group come to you and say "help us",
someone soul-less like Hilary can only resort to her executive abilities
and say "give me actionable policies and I can enact them". I think
that is authentic Hilary. I don't want her to be president necessarily
but the way she responded could be read as much as a positive as a
negative.
----
Yeah that makes sense, thx for the good points. Re: Hillary's executive response - it's a tough call and there are pros/cons as you said.
She's not a technocrat or functional area leader anymore though; the president's main value IMO is inspiration/communication, constituency mgmt (both foreign and domestic), and focusing on important priorities (plus kicking butts so it gets done). Part of constituency mgmt and inspiration is empathy (even people you don't get along with or who are just a pain in your side) - something her hubby was excellent at, and she seems quite weak at.
Virginia shooter and destructive payback psychology
Like
the shooting of NYC cops after Ferguson, if this violence is tied to
race and Charleston, it blows my mind. I wonder what these shooters want
for their legacy, or what they want the public to take away from their
crimes. Maybe Flanagan's manifesto will shed some light, but his
atrocious actions pretty much invalidate anything insightful he may have
written.
Although racial violence is still vastly
disproportionately black victims and white perpetrators, events like
this may just perpetuate the stereotype that young black men are all
thugs and the black people you work with are unstable and could go off
on you any moment. Those perceptions of course do great daily harm to
African Americans as a whole - even if it's mostly subtle aggressions
that are imperceptible to non-blacks.Monday, August 17, 2015
Amazon's workplace culture doesn't bother most customers and investors
We previously talked about the questionable labor practices at AMZN's DCs, and here is the corporate/tech perspective:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/
After
9/11, we empowered sociopaths in the military-industrial complex to
keep us safe and didn't want to know the details - so of course abuses
like torture and extra-judicial murder/snooping were bound to occur.
Similarly with AMZN, I don't think we should be surprised to hear about
allegations of their perverse culture/practices. Our society prioritizes
ubiquitous, limitless, instant-gratification consumerism, and AMZN
delivers that better than anyone else in the US. Wall Street rewards
huge growth and exceeding expectations, even if AMZN never turned a
profit until 2015. But we customers and investors never bothered to ask
the tough questions about the details - how exactly is AMZN able to
deliver such "magic" to us? Eh doesn't matter, I can get my Coach
handbag with free overnight shipping! It's also not surprising that AMZN
is among the best for customer sat. and brand image.http://mobile.nytimes.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/
The scammy, cultish nature of AMZN's employee policies (heavily rear-loading equity grants, putting company over health/family) are fairly extreme... I guess like Scientology? Why don't the complainers just quit? Similar to a cult, it can be hard for some Amazonians to leave because SEA doesn't have a lot of tech employers (until recently), and maybe they are able to indoctrinate the psychology that type-A high achievers have to survive and thrive at AMZN, so they don't feel like failures. They've been winners all their lives and they won't let a few workplace challenges stop them now (even if it costs their marriage or health). Everyone else seems to handle it or even love it (survivor bias), so they can't come up short. Yes, employment is at-will, but it's not so simple in many cases. I just wonder what will be the next chapter of this opera.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
The peculiar and hilarous Fox, GOP, and Trump dynamic
I
was impressed with the tough and direct questions the FNC moderators
asked of the kiddie-table and prime time GOP candidates (addressing and
not ignoring their glaring liabilities). That makes sense, as I suppose
it's in the GOP's interests to thin the (huge) heard as early as
possible so they don't waste resources/political capital for the coming
war vs. Hillary.
Personally, I don't think Kelly's sexism
question was journalistically or politically out of line. Trump has not
held office and has not behaved like he deserved to hold office in the
past (esp. vis-a-vis women who are >50% of voters), so why should
America elect him now? He of course felt that question was unfair and
"impolite" (teapot, kettle anyone?), but Kelly never forced Trump to
say/tweet those disparaging things in the past. You make your bed, you
lay in it man. Nothing is off limits when you're running for president.He must have prepared for that, and you have to give him credit for delivering it so persuasively. His daughter Ivanka allegedly urged him to tone down the racist/sexist/offensive tone of his campaign, but he dismissed her because every time he did something outrageous (even the McCain comment that I thought was going to sink him - but it turns out a lot of conservatives don't really like establishment McCain anymore - esp. for losing to Obama), his numbers held steady or rose. I guess it's like saying, "Why should I reform and get a legal job when I'm making so much money selling dope, and not getting caught by the cops?"
So Ailes personally talked to Trump to smooth things over, and probably invited him on the network soon (he has had many interviews in the past). Kelly had to deliver a highly sanitized closure statement and was even subtly congratulating Trump for his recent political success (gotta throw his Jupiter-sized ego a bone). That must have sucked for her. So once again, score one for money/sexism/cynicism at the expense of decency/women/journalism.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Can money buy environmental and social harm?
Rich Californians don't think they should
have to cut back on water (their golf courses, lawns, and pools need
it):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rich-californians-youll-have-to-pry-the-hoses-from-our-cold-dead-hands/2015/06/13/fac6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html
Another heartbreaking example: birds in the extreme north. Because of climate change (and humans' acceleration of it), arctic ice has receded drastically since 1980, and snows have turned to rains. Excessive rain causes fatal hypothermia for some birds, and the weather trends are too rapid/drastic for them to evolve and adapt in time. Ice gives access for birds to fish for food, and chicks are starving to death with less available ice per family (it's as if all our farms permanently lost 80% of their acreage in a generation - could we sustain our population under such conditions?). Species will naturally wax and wane (or disappear) over time, we don't have to "fix" that, but highly successful and evolved creatures like these birds and polar bears, who used to be flourishing, are now rapidly dying out because of us. If our species makes it to the 22nd-23rd Centuries, I am sure they will look back at our (in)actions and think that we were really a bunch of assholes.
All those birds wanted to do is live, and they never did us any harm (they don't even compete for resources with us, as that land is uninhabited and the fish they eat are not commercial). Yet because people want comforts and money (enabled by fossil fuel burning), benign living things have to die. And for those who don't value other species as much as humans, the same can be said of the ~3B folks who by chance were born into poverty and/or environmentally sensitive areas of the planet.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Some interesting links
How the Buffets have quietly advanced female contraception and reproductive rights: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
The EPA fails to properly investigate pollution cases in poor/minority areas: http://www.alternet.org/
Black lives matter vs. All lives matter is a false debate
I thought this piece was pretty good: http://fusion.net/story/
Maybe
this is a microcosm of the overall race impasse in America. Blacks and
minorities want equal treatment as guaranteed by our Constitution (not
to mention human decency). They are not calling for special treatment.
Even the arguments in support of slavery reparations are not excessive
and have plenty of precedent.But here is another example of the empathy deficit. Would the critics of "black lives matter" just quietly accept it when their communities get raw deal after raw deal (or unpunished murder after murder)? Of course not. Obama gets elected and you get the Tea Party movement (sure other factors contributed like the Recession, but you know what I mean). You get armed standoffs like with the supporters of Cliven Bundy in NV (but the white cops didn't send in storm troopers and tanks to break them up). So why is it OK for "marginalized" whites to stand up for their rights (even violently), but not OK when blacks do it - and do it mostly peacefully (and they have way more legit grievances to protest about)?
----
Maybe you heard that FNC wants BLM classified as a hate group (after a couple recent high-profile attacks on cops that may have been linked to anger over Ferguson/Baltimore/etc.). I know FNC doesn't speak for all of White America, and they are intentionally provocative, but their hostile overreaction to BLM kind of validates American bias and why BLM is actually needed. Good job, Fox.
https://www.facebook.com/
Let's remember that demographically, it's highly likely that more cop killers are white than minority, and not motivated by politics (I couldn't find data on cop killers' races though). And statistically, being a cop in the US is still safer than the average job. Being a cop in the US is still safer than being a young black man in the US. At least a cop can fight back against attackers, wears Kevlar, and is backed by the law.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)