News potpourri

• New bipedal robot from Boston Dynamics is amazing, terrifying, and pitiful all at once
• We already knew that tech workers can be immature and insensitive, but this suggests that elite wealth/education isn't doing a good enough job on race issues either (and living in the cosmo. Bay Area doesn't guarantee racial awareness either)
• BTW, MS-FB-Google are ~2% black, and Apple is super-diverse at 8%
• This Trump thing has evolved from a joke/curiosity to real national concern; if he wins the nomination, then ALL OF US seriously have to volunteer (and get our networks to do so, also) to help his main rival, if we care about America
• http://youtu.be/DRauXXz6t0Y
  
  
  It is understandable for some to oppose abortion, but this video describes the almost cruel/vindictive ways that some red state governments obstruct patients and providers. America is not even going after ISIS this passionately.
• More John Oliver recently vs. Trump: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132366/john-oliver-donald-trump-last-week-tonight
  
  As his GOP rivals said, the guy is a glorified watch salesman; all talk/image no substance. Maybe supporters are voting for the name, just like Clinton I guess (I assume most of her supporters can't really articulate her major career accomplishments and Senate voting record). We buy based on what we think the benefits of the brand are, and brand ultimately leads to happiness more than product features. But Oliver's point was that the "Trump" image has nothing to do with the candidate/man (he can understand why people like the mythical notion of a "Donald Trump" leading America, but that is not what we'll get on inaug. day). Actually his actions only merit the "Donald Drumpf" brand.
  
  
  Very entertaining, but the only downside is that it could help Rubio/Cruz (whose stated policies are not that different to those of Trump). However, I don't know which of these guys pose the greatest challenge to Hillary (I support Sanders, but I know the odds are against him).

Hillary lecturing Black Lives Matter that they need to help themselves more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-hillary-clinton-and-her-rivals-are-struggling-to-grasp-black-lives-matter/2015/07/22/8b5870e8-2f34-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html

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.

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!

Bottom line, the Dems have taken the black vote for granted for decades, and the GOP have given up trying to swing the black vote. So blacks are not really represented nationally. It's not just Hillary of course, do any of the candidates really address racial crime and minority justice issues? Maybe Rand Paul at best, but he's not electable.

----

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. 

Black lives matter vs. All lives matter is a false debate

I thought this piece was pretty good: http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-these-5-paragraphs/

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.

However, I think some whites dislike the race debate because (1) no one likes feeling blamed as the bad guy, or enjoying an unfair latent advantage (especially in a nation of "self-made" individualistic success), and (2) they get turned off by what they view as blacks/minorities already getting special treatment (welfare, immigration amnesty, affirmative action, political correctness, etc.) and wanting more. Of course the evidence suggests that such an attitude is misguided, and ignores the obvious facts that some minorities have worse outcomes for health/wealth/edu/incarceration/etc. vs. whites even when you control for other variables.

So "black lives matter" can be misinterpreted as "blacks are more important." Which is of course not the point of the moment, and not what the supporters believe. The whole genesis of the moment is the fact that blacks are treated as second-class (or worse) by many measures in the US, are fed up about it, and want to raise awareness. I don't think that is unreasonable. But then you get the white privilege backlash (no, only "we" are allowed to be special!), and they criticize the movement by saying "shouldn't all lives matter?" Yes, they should! But you're not doing it, and the victims are disproportionately the poor and darker skinned. So when those lives get equal respect (validated by actions and data), then the "black lives" folks will gladly disband I think.

I guess it is related to whites' "fear of blacks" again. Fear of them getting more power (even equal power is a threat), uprising, and taking over (hence no traction on slavery reparations). Obama in the WH was bad enough. Why can't they be meek and respectful like the Charleston blacks after the shooting? Well some civil rights folks have criticized the Charleston response as conditioned by decades of southern blacks' fixation with needing to please whites and be accepted by them (even though they never will).

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)?

I guess even the ability to assemble and protest in America is not equally guaranteed and free of bias.

----

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/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153332388156130/

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-news/2015/jun/10/the-counted-500-people-killed-by-police-2015

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