The Imitation Game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5CjKEFb-sM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra

I would recommend it (of course it was an indep. film), and it was a new angle on the WWII unsung hero story (how nerds/misfits helped win the war in a big way, and struggled with skeptics/haters and big moral decisions).

Reflecting on WWI-WWII, I think it was one of the greatest tragedies in modern history that the Western powers allowed GER to fall into extremism and aggression. Like Russia's revolutions and purges were of course a terrible waste of human capital, but Russia was pretty much a 3rd world country until recently.

For GER, they were world leaders in various scientific and cultural disciplines, and of course had a robust military and industries. Sure they did some bad things during WWI, but they weren't clear "villains", and the punishment imposed on them was unjust - I guess fueled by victor's hubris and other irrationality.

As far as UK-FRA were concerned, they wanted to kick GER down a few notches so they wouldn't ever again be a rival for preeminence in W Eur? But I suppose no one ever considered trying to make GER an ally in order to gain strength and plan for a potential face off with Russia/Bolshevism. Well, WWI and postwar leaders in UK-FRA were not exactly impressive.

Clearly the EU learned that lesson the hard way, but I wonder what history would have been like if the Allies approached post-WWI GER with a Marshall-plan/NATO mentality rather than the typical European to-the-victor-go-the-spoils approach. I know we can't expect those leaders to have implemented ideas ahead of their time, but I'm fairly sure there were some intellectuals who were proposing similar things but getting dismissed. Heck they idealistically made the League of Nations, even though it was terribly flawed.

So you wonder how much better the world would be today if Western powers harnessed GER's potential to advance humanity and modern values, vs. all the resources allocated for WWII activities (and WWII just led to another wasteful military buildup that fortunately didn't escalate). Maybe the same can be said about post-Napoleonic France, but that was still the monarchic period, and leaders were understandably scared of Fr. Revolutionary thinking.   

But all that shows how even advanced nations can so quickly devolve into xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, and barbaric aggression with the proper external/internal pressures and extremist messages from leaders. Trump and white-working-class anger are milder manifestations, and I don't think the US is at risk in the forseable future, but it is a shame any time a world power with so much potential for good strays off the higher path and instead becomes a negative force in the world.

---

And re: Alan Turing and Project Ultra, it's very sad but typical that the gov't he worked hard to preserved ended up screwing him and literally killing him (he was outed as gay, and the backward laws/medicine at the time prescribed hormonal therapy with bad side effects - he committed suicide a year after treatment began). And if you're gay and smart, of course you're a commie spy, so life must not have been pleasant for him during the postwar years (esp. since he couldn't tell the world his wartime actions, so no one knew he was a hero).

Imagine all the other great contributions he could have made to society had he not been persecuted to an early death. And in the context of WWII, the conflict is depicted as good vs evil, and tyranny vs freedom. But if you were a woman, black, gay, Jew, or another minority, neither the Axis nor Allies treated you very well. of course the Axis treated those groups worse, but if you were a member of one of those groups, you had to wonder WTF you were fighting for. I guess it's like US blacks during the Civil War too - it's not like they had it so great if the Union won, and Abe Lincoln was probably the most pro-equality president (it took him a while, but he really became a champion) until LBJ and Obama. But they were in a tough position to support the least evil side (but not nec. a good side for them, which unfortunately did not exist).

So a woman who was brilliant at maths but couldn't get a professional job in the UK because of her gender, and a math genius who had to hide his sexuality in the UK, significantly contributed to the Allies defeating the Nazis faster, with potentially millions of lives saved on both sides. That should be a big lesson about what social values we should fight and die to protect, and what harm we cause when we marginalize, exclude, and block our neighbors from reaching their potential (yes I'm looking at you, 2016 GOP).

---

Lastly, we know of the WWII folks as the Greatest Generation, and despite their prejudices and ignorance, I really do think they were great in terms of prudence and discipline. As depicted in The Imitation Game, the UK gov't first had to identify a path to victory (partly by cracking the Enigma settings puzzle), then recruit, fund, and trust a team who could deliver in time (a group of "rejects" with unorthodox methods). They had to let them do it their way, and not stifle their creativity with bureaucracy/meddling. Then once the puzzle was solved, they had to keep it a secret and strategically select interventions that had the highest statistical probability to (a) win the war fastest, and (b) not tip off the Nazis that Enigma was cracked. The same can be said of the Manhattan Project, but Ultra was more complicated from a game theory perspective, because there was the element of the German's actions/reactions that they couldn't control but had to predict.

I really don't think Western leaders and armed forces of today could have executed a project so well, and made the tough but correct decisions. You see how our "best and brightest" messed up the War on Terror and the War on Drugs - and that is when we enjoy huge resource advantages. But maybe that is the problem, advantage leads to overconfidence. We drank our own Kool Aid too much re: American exceptionalism. For the UK (and WWII Allies overall), the prospect of losing was very real (and they were losing until 1942), and it forced them to rise to the occasion.

Today, the sad truth is our best and brightest do not go into gov't and public leadership. Both the gov't and the individuals are at fault for this, but the gov't more so (reasons? just watch a session of Congress or a GOP debate). Obama and Bill Clinton are exceptions, but the majority of politicians these days do not have the "right stuff" to even make it as a mediocre middle manager or professional in the private sector. They are seriously worthy of ridicule, not admiration.

I would hope that if/when the next WWII-scale crisis arises, our best minds and leaders will participate (and be allowed to participate in the right roles). But the problem is that many of our modern problems are not acute, but slow bleeds, like climate change, injustice, and terrorism. There isn't a sense of urgency for the Zuckerbergs and Musks of the world to enter public service (not that those guys are natural leaders with great moral compasses, but they are very smart/capable, even if their EQs were borderline autistic in their earlier years as CEO). Or they cling to the unproven libertarian belief that the private sector corporate model is in the best position to solve humanity's biggest problems. I disagree; Zuck couldn't even get India to accept his free internet, so there are obvious limits as to how much good one firm (and its army of lawyers, PR, and marketers) can do.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-criticized-in-india-over-free-limited-internet-1453398493

Refugee crisis

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-03/5-groups-doing-important-work-help-refugees-you-may-not-have-heard
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-germany-presses-europe-into-sharing-refugees

Frankly I've been avoiding this topic because it's just too damn depressing. Being a refugee fleeing war is one of the scariest situations to me - I can't possibly imagine leaving your whole existence behind to flee to a foreign place. Because if you don't, you or your loved ones will starve/be conscripted/get raped-murdered.

The US helped many in my family who were refugees in the 1970s, but we really haven't done that recently, not since Somalia. What are the UN, US, and UK doing about the current crisis? Germany has been forced into a leadership situation and pledged to absorb 800K mostly Syrian refugees (out of a potential 4M). If we won't physically take in people, at least we can send cash and supplies to those who are.

I've already written about how the US turned its back on allies and refugees before (below). Are we complacent to hide behind our geographic isolation? The UK's excuse is that the world should focus on "improving conditions" in Syria so there isn't a need to flee. Well they aren't doing squat about that either, so what gives? I know every nations has very needy people domestically and may not be able to support many new visitors. Greece is on the front lines, and obviously is not in the best position to handle the crisis. If the US was as welcoming as Scandinavians per capita, we would be taking in 5M refugees this year. And we can, for probably the cost it takes to maintain a nuclear carrier. But we won't.

http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/08/children-fleeing-central-america.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/05/refugee-to-native-ratios.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-and-responsibility-to-protect.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/10/with-friends-like-these.html

How about China too? Aren't they the #2 economy and don't they want to be respected as a global leader? Syria is a key partner - what are they doing for their friends? Like climate change, it's someone else's problem, even if the victims are innocent and the definition of deserving help.

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.

"Israel's other war" by E Keret

"We are faced with the false, anti-democratic equation that argues that aggression, racism, and lack of empathy mean love of the homeland, while any other opinion—especially one that does not encourage the use of power and the loss of soldiers’ lives—is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Israel as we know it."

Another quality op-ed from Keret, questioning why some people expect others to show love for country with such extreme hatred for the "enemy", and intolerance for any other opinion besides total unwavering support for war. His article also reminded me of America after 9/11, and sadly Germany between the wars too: the terrible right-wing nationalist rhetoric that the country would prevail if it wasn't for "the enemy within" subverting their efforts. If Israel wants to level Gaza to the ground, nothing can stop them - not dissidents, liberals, traitors, or Arab-lovers. Same thing with America in Iraq - we can destroy the whole country if we wanted to. But the question is: will that make us safer? Will our unrestrained violent actions prevent the enemy from ever returning? Of course the answer to the second question is "no" (if the IDF could magically wipe out Hamas, another org would take its place), and the answer to the first question is still a source of debate.

And as Jon Stewart said, showing concern for the gratuitous murder of women and kids in Gaza is not the same as supporting Hamas and being anti-Semitic. I thought the person who killed kids (or condoned others doing it) was the asshole. Now in Israel (and sometime in the US), it seems that the real asshole is the person expressing regret over child killings. Sometime we have to step back, take a deep breath, and recognize the insanity of our prejudices.

Furthermore, the intolerance of dissent from ostensibly free societies is really troubling. Disasters occur when people don't speak up and allow biases people to make rash decisions. If the hawks are so certain of the righteousness of their cause and soundness of their strategy, then why squelch debate? If I know that 2+2=4, what do I have to fear from the person claiming that the answer is 5? Maybe the hawks are worried that the disloyal, subversive cowards will convince the gullible populace that the answer is actually 5, and support will turn against them. If that is the case, then that exposes the utter contempt that the hawks have for the intelligence of the citizenry that they claim to be protecting.

Sacre bleu! Stop checking your Blackberry at night!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/10/301418591/mon-dieu-no-more-work-email-at-home-for-some-french-workers?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140410

 

Earlier The Guardian and BBC reported that France passed a law barring tech and consulting workers from using their work devices after hours (and for them, after hours means 6PM-9AM), affecting up to 1M employees. But it turns out the law only applies to hourly contractors (~200K workers) and amends a previous law that workers must have at least 11 hrs of free time per day, which is not exactly super generous.

This story was probably a Brit attempt to mock "the lazy, hedonistic frogs", but really - is it so admirable to be plugged into work almost 24-7 at the expense of your loved ones, personal interests, and health? Even if we love our job and want to work more (or are we just addicted, pressured, or socialized to think that?), you have to stop sometime! Even too much of a "good thing" is unhealthy; what happened to balance? Some managers have to force US workers to take vacation... that is kind of pathological right?

Well, despite having a 35-hour work week, at least 6 weeks of yearly vacation, and shall we say, "different" union laws, French worker productivity is similar to that of Germans AND Americans. So they are just a lot more efficient than us? Maybe knowing that you have under 9 hours a day to get your stuff done, it is motivating and clarifying? Instead in the US, it's always "let's see how much more we can pile on." But is that stuff really value-added? I think you would agree, but I have never read a brilliant late-night email and definitely don't do my best work late when I'm tired/distracted. If the late night stuff was so important, you would have worked on it at 10AM. Unless you need to respond to a 4-alarm fire at midnight, but in that case you may be hourly with a pension.

So, F-U GM and your macho, consumerist, Europe-mocking work ethic. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (don't make deadly ignition switches and don't beg for a gov't bailout). Sorry, but I think truly successful people would be ashamed to have a Caddy in their driveway these days. So you get the posers like that B-list blond actor you hired on the cheap. I'll take a Renault, and use the leftover cash to have a nice vacation... IN FRANCE (well, Tahiti and Martinique are still technically France right?).

Prohibition

Going back to Rotisserie Baseball, remember the co-founder from the 30for30 documentary, Dan Okrent? Apparently he's a pretty famous media dude too. He was an editor for the NYT and Time, and a Pulitzer nominee. His recent book is about the hidden history of prohibition, and the interview below is pretty interesting.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126613316

Some factoids:

- "Brand name" liquors started from prohibition. Before that, people just ordered "scotch" or "beer" at a saloon and didn't care who made it. But due to the spread of nasty improvised booze (in some cases, filtered from industrial alcohol in paint thinner), you had to buy brand name to feel more confident that you wouldn't sicken yourself from knock-off crap. But of course the spread of phony booze labels made it harder for the consumer. So China learned from us.

- Prohibition did more for woman's lib than we would imagine. Women's suffrage groups made deals with anti-booze groups, like "you vote for my cause and I'll vote for yours". Also before prohibition, "bars" were men-only saloons. Speak-easies were the first co-ed alcoholic social establishments, persisted after prohibition, and never again did hot chicks have to drink at home alone, or pay for a drink. 

- Due to the advent of federal income tax, Washington had less need to tax liquors, so the anti-booze conservatives had more clout. And the crash of 1929 was one of the big economic motivators to repeal prohibition and recoup liquor tax revenues.

- Turn-of-the-century America was getting more anti-immigrant, much like 100 years later. WWI created anti-German sentiment, and there was also the usual anti-Jew/Catholic bigotry. Those people happened to be big booze makers at the time, so the Midwest WASPs used prohibition to indirectly promote racism/xenophobia. Speaking of racism, I find it funny today, but part of prohibition was to keep booze out of black hands. I guess whites were fearful of drunk out-of-control blacks.

- Sacramental and medicinal alcohol were still permitted during prohibition. As you would expect, the number of prescriptions for alcohol and the number of rabbis authorized to distribute wine (as well as the size of Jewish/Catholic congregations) ballooned during prohibition. It was pretty similar to the "medicinal pot" fad now I guess. Drug stores were one of the "dispensaries" where one could obtain medicinal booze. Not surprisingly, the Chicago-based Walgreen's chain exploded from 20 to 525 stores during prohibition.