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-
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran
http://www.npr.org/sections/
http://www.npr.org/sections/
As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).
However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.
Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and
some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also
they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the
only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and
is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and
some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction
compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner
more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the
deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.http://www.npr.org/sections/
As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).
However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.
---
I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting. He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff. If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.
---
If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he
could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he
agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an
interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was
ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi
talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since
it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green
at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little
sensitive.
The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Hollow criticism by the right of the Iran nuclear deal
And the FNC version: http://www.foxnews.com/
As Obama said to the conservatives, "What is their alternative?"
I'm sure some of them would publicly or privately call for war, or at
least stronger sanctions (I'll get to why that won't work in a bit).
Maybe others like Trump think that Obama's team are amateur negotiators
compared to the Iranians, and only he could outsmart them to a better
deal (he did ghost-write "The Art of the Deal" after all!). The goal is not to turn Iran into a model nation and have them cease all their questionable/negative activities - that's not going to happen for decades (no matter what leverage or violence we apply). The goal and scope were always limited: to stop or ideally reverse Iran's progress towards bomb capability (i.e. right now they could possibly get a working bomb in 3 months if they go all-out; let's make some changes so that time frame gets a lot longer), and enable the int'l community to detect whether they are cheating. To address some criticisms:
- Why take our foot off the gas with sanctions, they are crippling the Iranian economy and keeping them subdued?
- The goal of the int'l sanctions was always to force Iran to the bargaining table, not to stop the bomb or make the country suffer (which is what is happening - as usual the people are hurting more than the regime).
- If the talks fell apart with no deal, faith in the sanctions would dissolve (they did not accomplish their stated goal), and most nations would pull out except the US (because sanctions hurt other nations too besides Iran - especially energy-thirsty China).
- Since the GOP doesn't understand trade and economics, they think unilateral US sanctions are great - but actually they don't do anything but create missed opportunities for us. Iran will get what they need from the hundreds of other nations. Since we have a strong role in the global fin. system - maybe we could cause some havoc there, but again - it's not going to stop Iran from getting a bomb.
- Could Iran use the sanctions relief to invest in better weapons tech and more clandestine development activities?
- Maybe, but they take on a huge risk by doing so, and the chance of success is low. If they can build a new high-tech production facility without inspectors, spies, regulators, and satellites noticing - well that is kind of our fault then.
- It's possible that they will use their increased wealth to boost their unfavorable activities in the region (supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq, propping up Assad, etc.). But frankly those pains are secondary compared to a nuclear Iran and a certain attack by Israel.
- Did Obama's team just negotiate poorly, and a better deal was possible?
- I'd like to hear how the GOP would have achieved a better outcome:
- Vast majority of centrifuges idled (not sure if destroyed, or idled)
- Vast majority of their fissile material confiscated
- Fairly good access by int'l inspectors
- Hard caps on enrichment far below weapons-grade
- No one died
- Iran's carrot was to greatly set back their bomb production, and the 5+1's carrot was lifting economic sanctions. It was a fair swap, like a prisoner exchange.
- In the GOP dreamworld, I am sure that they would hope to get 99% of what they want, while Iran settles for 1% of what they want. But unless you have hypnotism powers or a gun to their head, how do you get them to just fold and agree to your demands? A deal has to be mutually beneficial, and even if you are worried about benefiting your enemy, you accept a deal where the net gain to you is larger than no deal at all. And as I stated above, no deal was a bad situation.
- What else did critics want, a full regime change, recognition and peace with Israel, and renouncing of terrorism? If they want those things, then they'll have to pay for it (or at least build some relationship/trust first). So far, all they have given Iran is hate.
- They think Obama is weak and America shouldn't concede anything, we should just tell the world what's up and then they obey gratefully. Well the rest of the world isn't in awe of US "authority" like the GOP is, esp. after the War on Terror.
- The Fox op-ed claims that Iran will exchange its partially enriched uranium for "raw" uranium that they can enrich in the future. There is no evidence that this will happen or the int'l community will accept this. And if you exchange the same mass of partially enriched U with 0% raw U, that will always make you further from a bomb. Fox needs to learn some math.
- Fox brought up more canards. The deal permits Iran to have some research centrifuges which could potentially improve enrichment. But there are so few of them that it can't make up for all the normal centrifuges that they have shuttered. So again, they are reaching for reasons to complain.
- I don't know much about the ballistic missile part of the deal. Maybe Fox is on to something there, but Iran's missiles can already reach Israel, Riyadh, and maybe Berlin. What does it matter if they can reach London too? They can't hit the US in the foreseeable future.
- Critics keep saying that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to get a bomb (a Bibi-ism). I just don't see any facts that support that claim. It's not a perfect deal, but no deal in the history of the world has been. If Iran can do all the sneaky things that critics claim to make a bomb, then they can do that without a deal too (and faster). Again, their argument is as well built as Bush's plan for post-war Iraq.
- And the GOP are some to talk: they haven't brokered a meaningful and legit int'l deal since Nixon went to China. And if Nixon tried something similar today, he would get skewered by the right.
- But all of this might not matter if Congress has a veto-proof majority to scuttle the deal anyway!
It still seems early for a lot of criticism, NPR
interviewee didn't know how they were eliminating currently low enriched
uranium as of a couple days ago. So I imagine new info will keep
coming.
The big concern that most have is that this does pave the
way to a bomb, it is just a long way. Over the next decade or so they
get increased centrifuge numbers, more low enriched uranium stockpile
allowed, etc. The presumption is at some point between now and then
Iran will have money and start to cheat. And they will cheat for some
amount of time before they get caught. And at that time will the
community bring back all the sanctions? Will Iran have enough cash to
not be limited? So now instead of poor with a bomb they are rich with a
bomb and more time and money spent on delivery of the bomb.
Personally I think that isn't right and the real alternative they are arguing is hold the line until they have to be bombed.
I also think money and access to world markets will bring
about a lot of westernization to Iran. The web, foreign investors,
generic trade, all tends to make the regular people richer which leads
to a desire for personal freedoms. Same thing happening in China right
now. Iran is much younger and better educated, on average, compared to
China I believe.
Also, no chance for Congress to block it anyways. Obama vetoes anything he doesn't like.
---
Yeah I agree that the criticism seems premature -
like they're predicting a divorce during the wedding reception. They
could be right, but it would be just a lucky guess at this point.
I see what you mean about "paving the way" semantics. No deal would have also paved the way, and faster as you said. At least this deal "freezes" the problem for a decade (if all goes according to plan, which rarely happens), which is hopefully enough time to broker the next deal (maybe a better deal). Kicking the can down the road is not ideal, but better than tripping over the can now.
The deal does not guarantee cover for Iran to cheat with no consequences. As you said, it's possible but difficult that they will continue to develop (under the nose of inspectors) with their new cash. But if/when that is discovered (likely before an operational bomb), the 5+1 will retaliate and take measures to severely curtail any additional progress. For example, if they are 30% to a bomb now, and later they cheat to get to 50%, then other nations will make sure it is very, very hard for them to progress any further (potentially through military means). So in a sense, it doesn't even matter that they got to 50%, because they were found out and punished. Just as long as they don't get to 90%+. I wonder if the deal has conditions though if cheating is detected - what will explicitly happen to Iran?
Of course the alternative is them developing their bomb in secret, where we are shut out and have no idea what % of the way they are at, unless we have great espionage. Remember North Korea - one day they just detonated a test device, and that's how we found out they had bombs. Obviously we don't want to repeat that, and Israel would never allow it to get that far anyway (with severe global consequences).
Also agreed on the benefits of commerce to open up Iran and make it a better global citizen. Transparency rarely is bad thing, unless you're a bad guy. Obviously with North Korea we've seen that pariah status doesn't help a nation change, hurts pro-Western reformers, and only solidifies the tyrants' grip on power. I guess that's partly why the Chinese Communist Party tries to limit external influences through their firewall and repressive policies. But as Iran opens up and their younger generation gets more power (and hopefully their secular leaders will continue to be "moderate" like Rouhani), there could be positive social changes (that hopefully lead to better foreign policy).
Obama could veto Congress' blockage, but not if they have a 2/3 majority.
I see what you mean about "paving the way" semantics. No deal would have also paved the way, and faster as you said. At least this deal "freezes" the problem for a decade (if all goes according to plan, which rarely happens), which is hopefully enough time to broker the next deal (maybe a better deal). Kicking the can down the road is not ideal, but better than tripping over the can now.
The deal does not guarantee cover for Iran to cheat with no consequences. As you said, it's possible but difficult that they will continue to develop (under the nose of inspectors) with their new cash. But if/when that is discovered (likely before an operational bomb), the 5+1 will retaliate and take measures to severely curtail any additional progress. For example, if they are 30% to a bomb now, and later they cheat to get to 50%, then other nations will make sure it is very, very hard for them to progress any further (potentially through military means). So in a sense, it doesn't even matter that they got to 50%, because they were found out and punished. Just as long as they don't get to 90%+. I wonder if the deal has conditions though if cheating is detected - what will explicitly happen to Iran?
Of course the alternative is them developing their bomb in secret, where we are shut out and have no idea what % of the way they are at, unless we have great espionage. Remember North Korea - one day they just detonated a test device, and that's how we found out they had bombs. Obviously we don't want to repeat that, and Israel would never allow it to get that far anyway (with severe global consequences).
Also agreed on the benefits of commerce to open up Iran and make it a better global citizen. Transparency rarely is bad thing, unless you're a bad guy. Obviously with North Korea we've seen that pariah status doesn't help a nation change, hurts pro-Western reformers, and only solidifies the tyrants' grip on power. I guess that's partly why the Chinese Communist Party tries to limit external influences through their firewall and repressive policies. But as Iran opens up and their younger generation gets more power (and hopefully their secular leaders will continue to be "moderate" like Rouhani), there could be positive social changes (that hopefully lead to better foreign policy).
Obama could veto Congress' blockage, but not if they have a 2/3 majority.
---
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Follow-up discussion to Cold War 2.0 post
In reading what you wrote I agree to a certain extent but you lost me in the conclusions that you draw:
(1) NATO is a military organization... but it is a *defense* organization; insofar as one might be talking about military matters or (implicitly?) reserving the right to use force, it is not offensive in the case of NATO.
(2) Expelling the baltic nations that joined NATO would likely only lead to a liability with no recourse (i.e. the need to defend nations that have been, at that point, willfully excluded); isn't the catch-22 with respect to military force (e.g. missile defense that could be withdrawn) that you would you need it when it's no longer there (i.e. not have a motivation to remove it once you've put it in place)?
(3) Withdrawal would remove the semblance of a pretense... but only where the facts of the same are clear; it is openly speculated that, within Russia, what is reported is not consistent with what is reported in America... further, if Russia is acting out of fear then they would just be that much more likely to start WWIII given the opportunity - so how to signal the absence of hostile intent (independent of never attacking Afghanistan & Iraq in the first place) while not rewarding the Russians for flouting international norms under the guise of keeping an unaccountable U.S. in check?
(4) Russia should withdraw from Crimea... though Vladamir Putin has publicly declared, on multiple occasions, that he will not do so (and that economic sanctions can damage the country for the next couple of years without it affecting his opinion).
(5) We cannot "just let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as (uh, where) they may"... Much like the people in those Baltic states that joined NATO post-2000 it is not the fault of the people but rather their leaders (and the fears/uncertainties/
PS: There are probably a handful of people out there with the game theory experience to see right through the situation to a simple solution; all I know is that compromise requires give and take (as you hinted at) and working together towards a common goal - maybe Obama's efforts at nuclear deterrence (i.e. decommissioning of nuclear weapons) should get some attention before he leaves office.
---
Thx for your reply and hope you're well.
(1) NATO is a military organization... but it is a *defense* organization; insofar as one might be talking about military matters or (implicitly?) reserving the right to use force, it is not offensive in the case of NATO.
(2) Expelling the baltic nations that joined NATO would likely only lead to a liability with no recourse (i.e. the need to defend nations that have been, at that point, willfully excluded); isn't the catch-22 with respect to military force (e.g. missile defense that could be withdrawn) that you would you need it when it's no longer there (i.e. not have a motivation to remove it once you've put it in place)?
(3) Withdrawal would remove the semblance of a pretense... but only where the facts of the same are clear; it is openly speculated that, within Russia, what is reported is not consistent with what is reported in America... further, if Russia is acting out of fear then they would just be that much more likely to start WWIII given the opportunity - so how to signal the absence of hostile intent (independent of never attacking Afghanistan & Iraq in the first place) while not rewarding the Russians for flouting international norms under the guise of keeping an unaccountable U.S. in check?
(4) Russia should withdraw from Crimea... though Vladamir Putin has publicly declared, on multiple occasions, that he will not do so (and that economic sanctions can damage the country for the next couple of years without it affecting his opinion).
(5) We cannot "just let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as (uh, where) they may"... Much like the people in those Baltic states that joined NATO post-2000 it is not the fault of the people but rather their leaders (and the fears/uncertainties/
PS: There are probably a handful of people out there with the game theory experience to see right through the situation to a simple solution; all I know is that compromise requires give and take (as you hinted at) and working together towards a common goal - maybe Obama's efforts at nuclear deterrence (i.e. decommissioning of nuclear weapons) should get some attention before he leaves office.
---
Thx for your reply and hope you're well.
- I agree with you about NATO's mission, but from the Russian perspective it doesn't matter - they are hostile and potentially offensive if they are observed to keep adding Eastern member states and massing troops near Russia. It is provocative.
- You can't really win a cold war. Detente and the USSR collapse was exceptionally fortunate for the US and the world, and I'm not sure if we can expect it again. So the alternative is to reduce tension and live with a balance. That means a demilitarized buffer zone between NATO and Russia, to reduce fear on both sides. You presume that Russia intends to invade the Baltics. We don't know that for sure, and they may only be posturing to invade now because they see NATO massing and want to be able to strike first. You see how defense/precaution on both sides can lead to aggression? That is what we need to avoid.
- I did say that NATO leaving the Baltics is based on a guarantee that they would help if Russia invades. So it is de facto like they are still in NATO (an attack on any member is an attack on all), but without the provocative troops presence that upsets Russia.
- I think you signal lack of hostile intent and avoid rewarding Russia for bad behavior by:
- NATO pulling out of the Baltics, refusing to add any new members that are Russian neighbors, and ceasing military exercises on Russia's flank
- But also requiring Russia to give back Crimea, stop its arms buildup in the arctic and on the Western border, and cease all military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels - only then will they lift the econ. sanctions
- And let's remember - the goal is to avoid war, so there has to be some compromise. Sometime that means relaxing principles and "appeasing", as long as you believe it won't enable future worse behavior
- Putin has to take a hard line with public statements, but I am not sure how critical Crimea is to his defense strategy (they obviously did just fine for decades without it). Again, if NATO pulled back, I think his fixation on Crimea would also naturally wane (esp. with the carrot of lifting sanctions on the table).
- It's not like I want to abandon Ukraine, but what choice do we have? We can't allow Ukraine to be a proxy cold war and pretext for nuclear war. If either side meddles in Ukraine, it will necessitate a tit-for-tat by the other side, and then you get the escalation spiral. Maybe someone will blink like the CMC, but sadly we can't count on Putin to be as conscientious as Khruschev. And let's remember that the rebels are still at a disadvantage, and have little chance of taking over the country. Maybe the best thing is for Eastern Ukraine to secede if it stops the killing (like in Sudan)? Of course that is not ideal for the gov't in Kiev, but peace has a price.
Monday, June 29, 2015
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.
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.
---
This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Cold War 2.0
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.- 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
- 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
Friday, June 26, 2015
Taking down the Confederate flag
This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
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.
---
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.
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/
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.http://www.npr.org/sections/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/
---
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?
---
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...
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.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
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/
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.- 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".
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.
---
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.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Race and America
http://news.yahoo.com/
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.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.
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/
http://www.newshounds.us/to_
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
---
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://mediamatters.org/video/
http://www.newshounds.us/to_
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
---
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-
----
This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
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.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
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/
http://www.onthemedia.org/
- 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.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
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/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
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.http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
----
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.
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/
Sunday, May 31, 2015
How women's education is contributing to income inequality
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.
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".
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
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."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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)