I find several things interesting. I have yet to find an ancestor in my father's line who wasn't born on this continent. My mother's family came to the U.S. in 1921 (from Canada), but the Ivy line, and the associated Moody line (my paternal grandmother's people) all seem to have been here from quite early. Even the guy born in 1777 came from North Carolina; he moved his family to Tennessee between 1805 and 1810. They all seem to have lived, before the Civil War, in the "border states" - Tennessee and Kentucky. Based on census and other records, they all seem to have relocated to Missouri sometime after the Civil war.
Sunday, July 12, 2020
Did my ancestors own slaves?
I've been interested in genealogy for some time, and with the help of Ancestry.com I've traced my father's family back to the early 19th century. In fact, I recently turned up an ancestor who was born in 1777.
Monday, June 15, 2020
Literary Racism
As a reaction to the closure of libraries during the COVID-19 pandemic, I've been re-reading some of my extensive collection of classic detective stories, collected over most of my adult life. Specifically, I've been re-reading Ellery Queen novels, which I've read off and on for most of my adult life. In recent years I've been exploring new mystery writers at the local library, but that stopped with the shutdown, so I returned to what I had.
The Ellery Queen novels debuted in 1929 with The Roman Hat Mystery and continued into the early 1960s, after which the authors, Frederick Dannay and Manfred B. Lee, also allowed other writers to create Ellery Queen novels which didn't feature their detective, Ellery Queen, as a character. Most of the novels and stories I've been reading were written in the 1930s.
Given the Black Lives Matter protests over the last few weeks, I'm unusually sensitive to racism. I didn't think of Ellery Queen novels as racist, but I notice that while the Ellery Queen character almost never uses racial slurs, the New York City cops who feature in many stories do. This includes the character Inspector Richard Queen, Ellery's father. I especially noticed the use of the phrase "the shine" to refer to what a more educated person would probably have called "the Negro." This was well before the use of phrases like black, African American, or people of color. I also noticed that even when not using racist slang, descriptions of Negro characters, such as hotel maids, were condescending at best.
You can't go back and change history, or classic novels. In fact I've seen much worse racism in "tough guy" detective novels by Raymond Chandler and Mickey Spillane. I think the explanation has to be that some people in the 1930s talked that way, and the authors put it in for realistic effects. I still think the Ellery Queen novels are worth reading for the amazing logical puzzles they present. I've always preferred puzzle mysteries to the shoot-em-up types.
The Ellery Queen novels debuted in 1929 with The Roman Hat Mystery and continued into the early 1960s, after which the authors, Frederick Dannay and Manfred B. Lee, also allowed other writers to create Ellery Queen novels which didn't feature their detective, Ellery Queen, as a character. Most of the novels and stories I've been reading were written in the 1930s.
Given the Black Lives Matter protests over the last few weeks, I'm unusually sensitive to racism. I didn't think of Ellery Queen novels as racist, but I notice that while the Ellery Queen character almost never uses racial slurs, the New York City cops who feature in many stories do. This includes the character Inspector Richard Queen, Ellery's father. I especially noticed the use of the phrase "the shine" to refer to what a more educated person would probably have called "the Negro." This was well before the use of phrases like black, African American, or people of color. I also noticed that even when not using racist slang, descriptions of Negro characters, such as hotel maids, were condescending at best.
You can't go back and change history, or classic novels. In fact I've seen much worse racism in "tough guy" detective novels by Raymond Chandler and Mickey Spillane. I think the explanation has to be that some people in the 1930s talked that way, and the authors put it in for realistic effects. I still think the Ellery Queen novels are worth reading for the amazing logical puzzles they present. I've always preferred puzzle mysteries to the shoot-em-up types.
Monday, June 01, 2020
And now we have to admit...
One week ago, a man named George Floyd died at the hands of four policemen in Minneapolis. On camera.
On the same day, May 25, 2020, in Central Park, New York City, Christian Cooper, a birder, asked a woman with an unleashed dog to leash her dog. This was in an area clearly marked "dogs must be leashed." The woman refused to comply and became abusive, so Mr. Cooper began recording the incident, during which the woman called the police and told them she was being "threatened" by an African-American man - who had done nothing worse than ask her to obey the park rules.
Christian Cooper and George Floyd were both African-American. The policemen, and the woman with the dog, were white. That's the point.
These two incidents, on top of a series of other incidents in various states where black people were killed by police, have set off a firestorm of largely peaceful protests, unfortunately sometimes accompanied by violence and looting, in major cities all over the country. For the last 6 nights. My county (Alameda) in California was put under curfew last night because of disturbances all over the county, including such largely white towns as Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill. In my entire life I've never been aware of so many large public protests, in so many different places all over the country, all at once.
I attended public school, and a public university, in the United States (California, specifically). Apart from being told about slavery in the South and about the civil war generally, I don't recall any emphasis on the fact that the U.S. is a racist society. I came out of my schooling believing the legends of a free, democratic society, where everyone had a chance to succeed. This despite the fact that I got into a major fight with my father when I was in high school, because I signed an Open Housing petition circulated by the local Methodist minister. My father was from southern Missouri, but had never really talked about his attitude toward African-Americans. But we had the Open Housing petition because Napa, CA in the 1950s was "redlined." Black people couldn't buy there. I'll never know, because Dad is gone; but I've recently wondered if that was why we moved from Vallejo (very racially mixed) to Napa in 1950, when I was 4.
I've always been a student of history, and the more I've learned about American history in the years since I left university, the clearer it is that the basic assumption of our social arrangements is that people of color are inferior to white people. Even, occasionally, when they are well educated and well-to-do. And this is still so.
I think we all have to admit now that the society we live in is racist, and values or devalues its members based on the color of their skin. It saddens me; I thought we were better than that. I was wrong. I don't think I'll detail here all the reasons this is so; as an aging white woman, I have no direct experience of them, and there are memes all over social media which include them in excruciating detail. They start with inferior education and go on to low paying job opportunities, lack of access to health care, and housing options in food deserts, but the real issue is the treatment of people of color by the police.
I don't know what we do to fix this. But it's becoming clear that we have to do something, probably starting with major changes in policing attitudes and approaches.
It's also becoming clear that white people are realizing we must do something. The policeman who knelt on George Floyd's neck has been fired, and arrested for 3rd degree murder (whatever that is). The woman in the park has lost her job (she was fired when the story went viral) and the dog (the rescue operation where she got it took it back).
There were times when nothing would have happened to either white person; in fact the policeman had a record of 18 complaints, none of which had ever led even to a reprimand.
Ironically, I think we owe the last week of demonstrations to social media. If those incidents hadn't been recorded, and shared widely on social media, it's possible that nothing would have happened, again. But they were, and there were consequences. We've complained a lot about social media the last few years. But in this case it may be the driving force pushing us to look at our racisim - and fix it. So we don't have to look at any more terrible videos.
On the same day, May 25, 2020, in Central Park, New York City, Christian Cooper, a birder, asked a woman with an unleashed dog to leash her dog. This was in an area clearly marked "dogs must be leashed." The woman refused to comply and became abusive, so Mr. Cooper began recording the incident, during which the woman called the police and told them she was being "threatened" by an African-American man - who had done nothing worse than ask her to obey the park rules.
Christian Cooper and George Floyd were both African-American. The policemen, and the woman with the dog, were white. That's the point.
These two incidents, on top of a series of other incidents in various states where black people were killed by police, have set off a firestorm of largely peaceful protests, unfortunately sometimes accompanied by violence and looting, in major cities all over the country. For the last 6 nights. My county (Alameda) in California was put under curfew last night because of disturbances all over the county, including such largely white towns as Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill. In my entire life I've never been aware of so many large public protests, in so many different places all over the country, all at once.
I attended public school, and a public university, in the United States (California, specifically). Apart from being told about slavery in the South and about the civil war generally, I don't recall any emphasis on the fact that the U.S. is a racist society. I came out of my schooling believing the legends of a free, democratic society, where everyone had a chance to succeed. This despite the fact that I got into a major fight with my father when I was in high school, because I signed an Open Housing petition circulated by the local Methodist minister. My father was from southern Missouri, but had never really talked about his attitude toward African-Americans. But we had the Open Housing petition because Napa, CA in the 1950s was "redlined." Black people couldn't buy there. I'll never know, because Dad is gone; but I've recently wondered if that was why we moved from Vallejo (very racially mixed) to Napa in 1950, when I was 4.
I've always been a student of history, and the more I've learned about American history in the years since I left university, the clearer it is that the basic assumption of our social arrangements is that people of color are inferior to white people. Even, occasionally, when they are well educated and well-to-do. And this is still so.
I think we all have to admit now that the society we live in is racist, and values or devalues its members based on the color of their skin. It saddens me; I thought we were better than that. I was wrong. I don't think I'll detail here all the reasons this is so; as an aging white woman, I have no direct experience of them, and there are memes all over social media which include them in excruciating detail. They start with inferior education and go on to low paying job opportunities, lack of access to health care, and housing options in food deserts, but the real issue is the treatment of people of color by the police.
I don't know what we do to fix this. But it's becoming clear that we have to do something, probably starting with major changes in policing attitudes and approaches.
It's also becoming clear that white people are realizing we must do something. The policeman who knelt on George Floyd's neck has been fired, and arrested for 3rd degree murder (whatever that is). The woman in the park has lost her job (she was fired when the story went viral) and the dog (the rescue operation where she got it took it back).
There were times when nothing would have happened to either white person; in fact the policeman had a record of 18 complaints, none of which had ever led even to a reprimand.
Ironically, I think we owe the last week of demonstrations to social media. If those incidents hadn't been recorded, and shared widely on social media, it's possible that nothing would have happened, again. But they were, and there were consequences. We've complained a lot about social media the last few years. But in this case it may be the driving force pushing us to look at our racisim - and fix it. So we don't have to look at any more terrible videos.
Sunday, May 03, 2020
Eight Weeks and Counting
Today is the beginning of the 8th week of the COVID-19 shutdown. Everything has stopped. We eat, sleep, do what exercise we can. In the absence of the gym, and especially the water aerobics classes, I'm losing core strength. I have to do something about that, because it means my old lower back trouble is acting up again. Walking has been painful off and on for the last 4 days, and I'd give a lot for a personal appointment with a physical therapist, but all that's available are videos. The doctor suggested some exercises, only two of which help at all. I'm living on Tylenol and trying to remember to stand up straight because that seems to help; but if I want to sit anywhere, I have to use the inflatable lumbar rolls I thought I didn't need any more. Well, I do.
I'm reading a lot. I've gone through the 11 detective stories I borrowed from the library just before they shut down, so I'm revisiting my extensive collection of early 20th century mystery authors. Right now I'm reading through all the Ellery Queen I have in hardback; I may have to replace some of the paperbacks with e-books, they're pretty old. A friend has recommended Elizabeth Letts' Finding Dorothy, so I've borrowed the e-book from the local library and will start it soon. But I'd like to have something real to do. I love reading, but I also like to accomplish things, and right now all the things I'd like to accomplish are out of reach.
OK, I'm depressed. I'll admit it. I doubt I'm the only one. I miss my friends from the exercise classes, and my friends from the chorus. God only knows when either of those activities will be available again. And let's not even discuss the small businesses and restaurants I like to patronize. I talk to my friends on the phone and in Zoom, and I email them. It's not the same. I'm glad Governor Newsom is being cautious, but waiting for a vaccine to be able to sing in a group again is terrifying.
I'm reading a lot. I've gone through the 11 detective stories I borrowed from the library just before they shut down, so I'm revisiting my extensive collection of early 20th century mystery authors. Right now I'm reading through all the Ellery Queen I have in hardback; I may have to replace some of the paperbacks with e-books, they're pretty old. A friend has recommended Elizabeth Letts' Finding Dorothy, so I've borrowed the e-book from the local library and will start it soon. But I'd like to have something real to do. I love reading, but I also like to accomplish things, and right now all the things I'd like to accomplish are out of reach.
OK, I'm depressed. I'll admit it. I doubt I'm the only one. I miss my friends from the exercise classes, and my friends from the chorus. God only knows when either of those activities will be available again. And let's not even discuss the small businesses and restaurants I like to patronize. I talk to my friends on the phone and in Zoom, and I email them. It's not the same. I'm glad Governor Newsom is being cautious, but waiting for a vaccine to be able to sing in a group again is terrifying.
Friday, March 20, 2020
Life While Sheltering in Place
So now we can't leave home except for "essential purposes," or to walk or run for exercise (as long as we stay 6 feet away from anyone we meet). I love my house but sometimes I have to get out of it; today I took a long walk, up to the top of the canyon where I live. I used to take this walk regularly, with a cane, when I was recovering from knee replacement surgery. It's 3/4 of a mile one way and goes up about 200 feet in altitude; a good stiff walk.
I wondered what activity I'd see, walking up the canyon on a Friday afternoon when everyone is supposed to be at home. Quite a bit, actually.
I passed the elementary school, and there were some small kids (with parent attendants) riding skateboards down the slight slope of one of the driveways behind the school. Riding, here, means "sitting on."
A little farther on, I passed the baseball diamond, where a man was pitching baseballs for his teen-aged son to hit. Further on in the sports field was a family with a picnic, a couple of guys batting a tennis ball back and forth on the grass, a woman kicking a soccer ball with her small daughter, and a couple of small boys throwing frisbees.
The major action was at the 3 public tennis courts at the end of the school sports field. Every court had an active game, and the practice wall at the side of the courts had 2 guys hitting balls. I assume all the tennis buffs were here because the private club, further up the canyon, was closed for the duration, with all the other fitness facilities.
Farther up the canyon, I saw people walking dogs, people walking without dogs, bicyclists with kids on bicycles, bicyclists without kids. There weren't many people, but I was definitely not the only one out. I'm not sure why but it made me feel better.
I wondered what activity I'd see, walking up the canyon on a Friday afternoon when everyone is supposed to be at home. Quite a bit, actually.
I passed the elementary school, and there were some small kids (with parent attendants) riding skateboards down the slight slope of one of the driveways behind the school. Riding, here, means "sitting on."
A little farther on, I passed the baseball diamond, where a man was pitching baseballs for his teen-aged son to hit. Further on in the sports field was a family with a picnic, a couple of guys batting a tennis ball back and forth on the grass, a woman kicking a soccer ball with her small daughter, and a couple of small boys throwing frisbees.
The major action was at the 3 public tennis courts at the end of the school sports field. Every court had an active game, and the practice wall at the side of the courts had 2 guys hitting balls. I assume all the tennis buffs were here because the private club, further up the canyon, was closed for the duration, with all the other fitness facilities.
Farther up the canyon, I saw people walking dogs, people walking without dogs, bicyclists with kids on bicycles, bicyclists without kids. There weren't many people, but I was definitely not the only one out. I'm not sure why but it made me feel better.
Friday, March 13, 2020
Pandemic
I haven't been posting much; Christmas and its aftermath was very chaotic. And now what we all thought was a sad epidemic in China is a global pandemic, and it's right here in my town, where everyone agrees with China that the best way to cope with it is for everyone to stay home and not mix with other people.
Part of the problem, of course, is that our brilliant government decided it didn't need a team of pandemic experts on standby (Trump fired them in 2018). And when a real pandemic came along, they decided we should build our own test kits instead of using the ones from the WHO, like most other countries. And because Trump has also been gutting the funding for the Centers for Disease Control, the first test kits they sent out were unusable because they were missing a part. China's epidemic is tailing off, South Korea is testing hundreds of thousands of people, and the U.S. can't get off the ground. California has almost 40 million people, and we have about 8,000 available test kits, some of which don't have all the necessary parts. Who's the 3rd world country now?
I may go crazy. I don't usually put personal information in these posts, but I'll admit that I'm over 70 and I have asthma. Treated and controlled asthma, but asthma. So here I am, a prime target for the virus; and there's nothing I can do but wash my hands. Which I do. But I'm a very social person; I need to interact with people. And the "stay home and shut up" advice is steadily shutting down all my options. My chorus rehearsals - cancelled through the end of the month. The concerts we had tickets for - cancelled. If I'm stuck in the house, my solution is to read - I just learned that the city is closing all its libraries "until further notice."
The uncertainty of all this is not helping. I'm a problem solver by nature; the pandemic is a problem I can't do one single thing about. And nobody knows how long it will last.
Part of the problem, of course, is that our brilliant government decided it didn't need a team of pandemic experts on standby (Trump fired them in 2018). And when a real pandemic came along, they decided we should build our own test kits instead of using the ones from the WHO, like most other countries. And because Trump has also been gutting the funding for the Centers for Disease Control, the first test kits they sent out were unusable because they were missing a part. China's epidemic is tailing off, South Korea is testing hundreds of thousands of people, and the U.S. can't get off the ground. California has almost 40 million people, and we have about 8,000 available test kits, some of which don't have all the necessary parts. Who's the 3rd world country now?
I may go crazy. I don't usually put personal information in these posts, but I'll admit that I'm over 70 and I have asthma. Treated and controlled asthma, but asthma. So here I am, a prime target for the virus; and there's nothing I can do but wash my hands. Which I do. But I'm a very social person; I need to interact with people. And the "stay home and shut up" advice is steadily shutting down all my options. My chorus rehearsals - cancelled through the end of the month. The concerts we had tickets for - cancelled. If I'm stuck in the house, my solution is to read - I just learned that the city is closing all its libraries "until further notice."
The uncertainty of all this is not helping. I'm a problem solver by nature; the pandemic is a problem I can't do one single thing about. And nobody knows how long it will last.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Nothing left to lose
I don't know how many people are following the protests in Lebanon. God knows there's a lot going on all over. But I listen to NPR, which has covered this, and I read the Economist. The people of Lebanon have been in the streets protesting for the last 9 days, ignoring all the Lebanese government's attempts to calm them. I just heard Marco Werman of The world interviewing a Lebanese activist on the protests. She said things that resonated with me (paraphrasing):
The government has been "making the rich richer, and the poor poorer" for years, and nothing ever changes, and the same faces keep doing the same things. She said that "we have nothing left to lose" by demonstrating, despite the fact that Hezbollah, at least, is now beating demonstrators. Yes, Hezbollah is Iran's Shiite militia in Lebanon, put there to make trouble for Israel; but it's part of the Lebanese government, and its people are attacking the ones protesting the government.
"Nothing left to lose" made me think of a historical incident in 1789 in which "the people" felt they had nothing left to lose. We call it the French Revolution, and it led to the death of a king and queen, and of a lot of other wealthy and prominent people, by an aroused public that felt it had nothing left to lose. France is now a republic, but by the late 1790s the revolution had led to the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte and eventually a war that covered Europe.
I don't know if the leaders of Lebanon read European history or not. They may think they can get away with this, and continue as they have been. But if their population really feels it has nothing left to lose, they may be as wrong as the French aristocracy was.
The government has been "making the rich richer, and the poor poorer" for years, and nothing ever changes, and the same faces keep doing the same things. She said that "we have nothing left to lose" by demonstrating, despite the fact that Hezbollah, at least, is now beating demonstrators. Yes, Hezbollah is Iran's Shiite militia in Lebanon, put there to make trouble for Israel; but it's part of the Lebanese government, and its people are attacking the ones protesting the government.
"Nothing left to lose" made me think of a historical incident in 1789 in which "the people" felt they had nothing left to lose. We call it the French Revolution, and it led to the death of a king and queen, and of a lot of other wealthy and prominent people, by an aroused public that felt it had nothing left to lose. France is now a republic, but by the late 1790s the revolution had led to the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte and eventually a war that covered Europe.
I don't know if the leaders of Lebanon read European history or not. They may think they can get away with this, and continue as they have been. But if their population really feels it has nothing left to lose, they may be as wrong as the French aristocracy was.
Tuesday, October 08, 2019
PG&E Power Outages
Based on what I've read and heard about PG&E over the last couple of years, I have to rant.
Because of the lawsuits after PG&E equipment started a number of catastrophic wildfires over the last few years, the company has gone into bankruptcy. They've now decided that, to protect their shareholders, and the executives' bonuses, the appropriate response is to turn off the power over large areas of the state, whenever the National Weather Service issues a red flag warning for dry conditions with gusty offshore winds. We have one coming over the next couple of days. Because their web site couldn't handle the traffic for the people from 29 counties who all want to know now whether they will lose power, I can't even check their web site to find out if we're affected.
As far as I can tell, this is because they were too incompetent, or too cheap, or both, to create and maintain an electrical power system that would not fail and cause fires. (Those of us who remember the San Bruno gas explosion in 2010, which destroyed a neighborhood and killed 8 people, feel that they can't manage their gas distribution system either.)
So they're putting the onus on us, their customers. I cannot express how angry this makes me. We have an announced outage coming over the next couple of days, and because their web site couldn't handle the traffic for people from 29 counties who all want to know now whether they will lose power tomorrow, I can't even check their web site to find out if we're affected.
And most of us have no choice - PG&E is a monopoly in most of northern California.
I'm still waiting for one of these outages to kill someone who relies on electrically powered medical equipment, like the ventilator my sister uses (she's in Nevada, thank God).
Because of the lawsuits after PG&E equipment started a number of catastrophic wildfires over the last few years, the company has gone into bankruptcy. They've now decided that, to protect their shareholders, and the executives' bonuses, the appropriate response is to turn off the power over large areas of the state, whenever the National Weather Service issues a red flag warning for dry conditions with gusty offshore winds. We have one coming over the next couple of days. Because their web site couldn't handle the traffic for the people from 29 counties who all want to know now whether they will lose power, I can't even check their web site to find out if we're affected.
As far as I can tell, this is because they were too incompetent, or too cheap, or both, to create and maintain an electrical power system that would not fail and cause fires. (Those of us who remember the San Bruno gas explosion in 2010, which destroyed a neighborhood and killed 8 people, feel that they can't manage their gas distribution system either.)
So they're putting the onus on us, their customers. I cannot express how angry this makes me. We have an announced outage coming over the next couple of days, and because their web site couldn't handle the traffic for people from 29 counties who all want to know now whether they will lose power tomorrow, I can't even check their web site to find out if we're affected.
And most of us have no choice - PG&E is a monopoly in most of northern California.
I'm still waiting for one of these outages to kill someone who relies on electrically powered medical equipment, like the ventilator my sister uses (she's in Nevada, thank God).
Monday, May 27, 2019
Disgraceful
It is Memorial Day 2019. The President of the United States is in Japan, being feted by the prime minister and the new Emperor. He is NOT here, honoring the veterans who have died for this country over the years - including the veterans who fought Japan for this country! (No, I don't have any particular animus toward Japan.)
I have relatives (all dead now) who fought in World War II, and other veterans still living. Let me call out and honor my cousin Johnny Maguire (U.S. Navy, WW II), my cousin Orville Hicks, Jr. (U.S. Navy, WW II), my cousin Michael Maguire (Vietnam).
I'll also honor my living veteran relatives: my brother-in-law James David Allen (U.S. Air Force; Vietnam). My cousin Richard T. Ivy was in the military, in Korea.
Let me also honor my father, Lestle W. Ivy, who was too old for the second war (born 1907) but moved to Vallejo in 1940 and spent the next 31 years working for the U.S. Navy at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.
I learned after I began this post that 45 is actually participating in a Memorial Day ceremony on the U.S.S. Wasp, with U.S. service members. So I guess I can't yell at him very hard. I still think he should have stayed home for this occasion.
I have relatives (all dead now) who fought in World War II, and other veterans still living. Let me call out and honor my cousin Johnny Maguire (U.S. Navy, WW II), my cousin Orville Hicks, Jr. (U.S. Navy, WW II), my cousin Michael Maguire (Vietnam).
I'll also honor my living veteran relatives: my brother-in-law James David Allen (U.S. Air Force; Vietnam). My cousin Richard T. Ivy was in the military, in Korea.
Let me also honor my father, Lestle W. Ivy, who was too old for the second war (born 1907) but moved to Vallejo in 1940 and spent the next 31 years working for the U.S. Navy at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.
I learned after I began this post that 45 is actually participating in a Memorial Day ceremony on the U.S.S. Wasp, with U.S. service members. So I guess I can't yell at him very hard. I still think he should have stayed home for this occasion.
Saturday, May 04, 2019
The Great Negotiator
Donald Trump ran for U.S. President, among other things, as "the great negotiator." His book, The Art of the Deal, was highly touted in evidence. (He didn't write that book, and the ghost writer has had some pointed things to say about him.)
He's now been in office for 2 years and some change, so we've had a chance to see him at it. I was going to discuss his many failings as a negotiator, starting with the fact that he has only a limited understanding of how his opponents think; but I realized it would take a full volume, not just a blog post. But for a blatant example of his ineptness, I refer you to an article in the April 25 Economist called America Wants to Challenge Rogue Petrostates. As I read it, I found myself shaking my head.
The incident which blew me away in its stupidity was related to the Iran oil ban. He announced in May 2018, when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, that America would impose sanctions on Iran's oil industry, starting in November. To support this, he dickered with OPEC to increase oil production, to help restrain oil prices. Saudi Arabia did this, increasing production by 600,000 barrels a day from June to November. This was quite generous of the Saudis, since they require an oil price of something like $80-$85 per barrel to balance the national budget.
Just before the sanctions were to take effect, he announced sanction waivers for 8 countries, including China and India (the biggest investors in Iran oil) - and he didn't warn the Saudis, who reduced production in December, along with the rest of OPEC, when oil prices fell to $51 a barrel. And he considers MBS a good friend.
The rest of the Economist article, which I highly recommend, goes into detail on several other aspects of Trump's attempts to manipulate the oil market to support his policy positions, apparently with less idea of how the oil market works than I have. Or for that matter, with less idea of how the international financial market works than I have.
I didn't vote for him; I wouldn't vote for him for second assistant dog-catcher. But we're stuck with him, at least until 2020 (I hope, no longer), and every so often I have to rant about him. Thank you for reading.
He's now been in office for 2 years and some change, so we've had a chance to see him at it. I was going to discuss his many failings as a negotiator, starting with the fact that he has only a limited understanding of how his opponents think; but I realized it would take a full volume, not just a blog post. But for a blatant example of his ineptness, I refer you to an article in the April 25 Economist called America Wants to Challenge Rogue Petrostates. As I read it, I found myself shaking my head.
The incident which blew me away in its stupidity was related to the Iran oil ban. He announced in May 2018, when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, that America would impose sanctions on Iran's oil industry, starting in November. To support this, he dickered with OPEC to increase oil production, to help restrain oil prices. Saudi Arabia did this, increasing production by 600,000 barrels a day from June to November. This was quite generous of the Saudis, since they require an oil price of something like $80-$85 per barrel to balance the national budget.
Just before the sanctions were to take effect, he announced sanction waivers for 8 countries, including China and India (the biggest investors in Iran oil) - and he didn't warn the Saudis, who reduced production in December, along with the rest of OPEC, when oil prices fell to $51 a barrel. And he considers MBS a good friend.
The rest of the Economist article, which I highly recommend, goes into detail on several other aspects of Trump's attempts to manipulate the oil market to support his policy positions, apparently with less idea of how the oil market works than I have. Or for that matter, with less idea of how the international financial market works than I have.
I didn't vote for him; I wouldn't vote for him for second assistant dog-catcher. But we're stuck with him, at least until 2020 (I hope, no longer), and every so often I have to rant about him. Thank you for reading.
Thursday, May 02, 2019
Another jewel from Art Hoppe
In December 2013, I posted a link to a column by the late lamented Art Hoppe, reproduced on the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate web site. I have another one for you, assuming you can get past the paywall for sfchronicle.com, which is where the Chronicle Classic series is posted online.
Today's column is called The Mightiest Nation, originally published on July 15, 1987. Read it and weep - I hope you can get to it. It sounds merely mildly sarcastic until you get to the last paragraph, which raised the hair on the back of my neck.
Today's column is called The Mightiest Nation, originally published on July 15, 1987. Read it and weep - I hope you can get to it. It sounds merely mildly sarcastic until you get to the last paragraph, which raised the hair on the back of my neck.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
No Collusion?
I haven't been posting much about 45 (I refuse to dignify him with his name), because I'm afraid I couldn't stop. But I have something fairly succinct to say about the current flap over the summary of the Mueller report, which is all anyone but the attorney general has seen.
Mueller was quoted that he "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" during the campaign. He also "did not draw a conclusion" about whether obstruction of justice occurred. He did, however, say that the report did not exonerate the president on obstruction of justice. 45 has spent the week since the report was delivered, Tweeting madly about how he's been Wronged, and how it was all Fake News.
Nonetheless, it's clear that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, via a brilliant cyber warfare campaign, not so much in favor of 45's election as against Hillary Clinton's. Regardless of whether 45 chooses to believe Vladimir Putin on this, if every intelligence agency we have says that this happened (and they do), I believe them, and I thank them.
Consider that a direct connection with the Trump campaign was not necessary for Russia to attack our election using social media and cyber warfare. Look at the history. Putin has dealt with Hillary Clinton before, when she was Secretary of State; and he hates her guts. I don't think he cared which of the 17 Republican candidates won the nomination; he would have launched that campaign regardless. He didn't care who won, as long as it wasn't Hillary. I'm sure he was delighted when the field narrowed down to a relatively stupid man, who happened to be a brilliant demagogue, and with whom the Russian oligarchy had done business for the last 30 years. Putin knew all about 45, if he didn't know him personally. My take is that 45 is what the Russian intelligence people call a "useful idiot." Notice that the famous meeting at the Trump Tower with potential "dirt on Hillary" was initiated by the Russians, not the Trump campaign - the fact that they leaped at the bait says more about them than it does about the Russians.
I trust we will soon see the full Mueller report. But the apparent fact that Mueller failed to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia does not mean that 45 is qualified for the office he now regrettably holds. Because he isn't. And if he actually closes the Mexican border to all traffic, which he now threatens to do, the impact on the American economy will be, let's say, visible.
Mueller was quoted that he "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" during the campaign. He also "did not draw a conclusion" about whether obstruction of justice occurred. He did, however, say that the report did not exonerate the president on obstruction of justice. 45 has spent the week since the report was delivered, Tweeting madly about how he's been Wronged, and how it was all Fake News.
Nonetheless, it's clear that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, via a brilliant cyber warfare campaign, not so much in favor of 45's election as against Hillary Clinton's. Regardless of whether 45 chooses to believe Vladimir Putin on this, if every intelligence agency we have says that this happened (and they do), I believe them, and I thank them.
Consider that a direct connection with the Trump campaign was not necessary for Russia to attack our election using social media and cyber warfare. Look at the history. Putin has dealt with Hillary Clinton before, when she was Secretary of State; and he hates her guts. I don't think he cared which of the 17 Republican candidates won the nomination; he would have launched that campaign regardless. He didn't care who won, as long as it wasn't Hillary. I'm sure he was delighted when the field narrowed down to a relatively stupid man, who happened to be a brilliant demagogue, and with whom the Russian oligarchy had done business for the last 30 years. Putin knew all about 45, if he didn't know him personally. My take is that 45 is what the Russian intelligence people call a "useful idiot." Notice that the famous meeting at the Trump Tower with potential "dirt on Hillary" was initiated by the Russians, not the Trump campaign - the fact that they leaped at the bait says more about them than it does about the Russians.
I trust we will soon see the full Mueller report. But the apparent fact that Mueller failed to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia does not mean that 45 is qualified for the office he now regrettably holds. Because he isn't. And if he actually closes the Mexican border to all traffic, which he now threatens to do, the impact on the American economy will be, let's say, visible.
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Go Away, Juul
I dislike ads in general, and in fact I don't usually read them. But these days you can't miss the full-page newspaper spreads from Juul, showing a big photo of some obviously adult person, praising Juul for freeing them from that awful tobacco smoke while still supporting their nicotine addiction.
Wait, what? That's right. The people in the Juul commercials are publicly bragging about how easy it is now to support their addiction. I don't think I've ever seen that advertised before. On one level, if you are hooked on nicotine, it's probably better to vape than to smoke cigarettes. I've heard no suggestion that vaping nicotine will kill you, although some people now worry about small children opening and drinking the little plastic capsules containing vape liquid. But we know that smoking cigarettes has a very good chance of killing you. Lung cancer has killed two of my cousins and a brother-in-law. So far.
I've seen a number of articles and blog posts suggesting that vaping is much better for you than cigarettes - and every one of them so far has traced back to organizations that sell e-cigarettes. This makes me suspicious.
Make no mistake, nicotine is addictive - smoking tobacco would probably not be addictive if the nicotine could somehow be removed. (But then, why would you do it? Cigarettes stink.) A 1988 Surgeon General's report declared nicotine to be as addictive as cocaine or heroin. The article Nicotine Addiction 101, from WhyQuit.com, has a pretty good description of how and why nicotine (and other drugs) causes addiction, and why it's so hard to quit. There's good evidence that early Juul advertising, emphasizing sweet, fruity flavors, has addicted a lot of teenagers who shouldn't be using the stuff at all, as their brains are still developing. That's why all the people in the ads now are adults, and Juul no longer brags about how nice its vapors taste. They were forced to change their ads.
Nicotine is a poison. It's been used as a pesticide for centuries. A large enough dose of the stuff (30 - 60 mg) will kill you, according to the National Institutes of Health, although other articles indicate the dose varies. And nicotine addicts, of course, require a much larger dose to kill them. I'm a detective story fan, and I can recall at least one old novel where the victim is murdered by nicotine (obtained from an agricultural poison) in his drink.
So it's a good thing that both cigarettes and e-cigarettes give you a very small dose of nicotine. Vape liquid contains somewhere between 3 and 24 mg/ml (that's milligrams per milliliter for the non-metric), and the amount you get when inhaling is a tiny fraction of that. So I'll agree that, on that level, vaping is probably less destructive than smoking, although you get more nicotine from vaping Juul than from smoking a cigarette. One original Juul pod contains as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes, so someone who inhales one pod a day is getting equivalent nicotine to a pack of cigarettes a day. Juul recently said they're putting out lower nicotine options.
Wouldn't it be better not to be addicted at all??
Wait, what? That's right. The people in the Juul commercials are publicly bragging about how easy it is now to support their addiction. I don't think I've ever seen that advertised before. On one level, if you are hooked on nicotine, it's probably better to vape than to smoke cigarettes. I've heard no suggestion that vaping nicotine will kill you, although some people now worry about small children opening and drinking the little plastic capsules containing vape liquid. But we know that smoking cigarettes has a very good chance of killing you. Lung cancer has killed two of my cousins and a brother-in-law. So far.
I've seen a number of articles and blog posts suggesting that vaping is much better for you than cigarettes - and every one of them so far has traced back to organizations that sell e-cigarettes. This makes me suspicious.
Make no mistake, nicotine is addictive - smoking tobacco would probably not be addictive if the nicotine could somehow be removed. (But then, why would you do it? Cigarettes stink.) A 1988 Surgeon General's report declared nicotine to be as addictive as cocaine or heroin. The article Nicotine Addiction 101, from WhyQuit.com, has a pretty good description of how and why nicotine (and other drugs) causes addiction, and why it's so hard to quit. There's good evidence that early Juul advertising, emphasizing sweet, fruity flavors, has addicted a lot of teenagers who shouldn't be using the stuff at all, as their brains are still developing. That's why all the people in the ads now are adults, and Juul no longer brags about how nice its vapors taste. They were forced to change their ads.
Nicotine is a poison. It's been used as a pesticide for centuries. A large enough dose of the stuff (30 - 60 mg) will kill you, according to the National Institutes of Health, although other articles indicate the dose varies. And nicotine addicts, of course, require a much larger dose to kill them. I'm a detective story fan, and I can recall at least one old novel where the victim is murdered by nicotine (obtained from an agricultural poison) in his drink.
So it's a good thing that both cigarettes and e-cigarettes give you a very small dose of nicotine. Vape liquid contains somewhere between 3 and 24 mg/ml (that's milligrams per milliliter for the non-metric), and the amount you get when inhaling is a tiny fraction of that. So I'll agree that, on that level, vaping is probably less destructive than smoking, although you get more nicotine from vaping Juul than from smoking a cigarette. One original Juul pod contains as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes, so someone who inhales one pod a day is getting equivalent nicotine to a pack of cigarettes a day. Juul recently said they're putting out lower nicotine options.
Wouldn't it be better not to be addicted at all??
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Changing Names
There is a current trend that if a public monument or building is named after someone who we learn was actually a racist, that we should rename it after some more current "good" person. San Francisco has renamed several streets and a couple of high schools on this basis, and it's related to the urge in parts of the southeastern U.S. to remove statues memorializing the Confederacy.
This is a mistake, and it's stupid. Frankly, many of our ancestors (yes, I include mine) were racist, and bigoted. This country was founded economically on racism - the rich economy of the Old South was based on the labor of African slaves, which was justified by a misreading of the Bible. If you doubt me that it was based on the Bible, read the secession statements of several Confederate states, especially Texas, which make it brutally clear. Further, this country was expanded on the backs of all the Native Americans we murdered, or gave syphilis or measles to (probably not deliberately); and the transcontinental railroad which tied the country together was built by immigrant Chinese laborers, whom we later prohibited from living here by the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I won't say the racism wasn't our ancestors' fault; I will say they came by it honestly. Most of the original white settlers in the U.S. came from the British Isles - now the United Kingdom. Before the 20th century (and for that matter during much of it), Europeans (including the British) honestly believed that people of color were generally inferior to the "white race;" there was a formal hierarchy of races, and some actually believed that they derived genetically from separate origins than white people (see Wikipedia on Scientific Racism, which says that scientific racism was only formally denounced, by UNESCO, after World War II).
So our bigoted ancestors were honored by naming things after them because during their time, bigotry was normal. Why, then, is renaming buildings and taking down Confederate monuments a mistake? The Confederate monuments, especially, represent the Old South's cry of victory in establishing the Jim Crow regime. Why should we memorialize that?
All this renaming allows us to blind ourselves to where we came from. It lets us pretend, as our schools largely do pretend to our children, that America is a wonderful place with opportunity for all, and that we wouldn't discriminate against anybody.
That is a lie. America over its history has been a wonderful place with opportunity for some white men; in the beginning, only for white men who owned property. Over the intervening two and a half centuries, we've gradually expanded the opportunities to other white men (poor men, Irish men, southern European men, Catholic men), to African slaves (Reconstruction tried to do that but was summarily squashed for another 50 years until the Civil Rights movement, see my comments about the Confederate monuments), eventually to the Chinese. Oh, and to women, who slowly stopped being their husbands' property, and became able to own property themselves, but who couldn't vote until 1920.
If we let ourselves forget how nasty our forebears were, we risk falling back into the same ways. If you don't know where you came from, how can you focus on where you want to go? I've written before about tribalism (Hating the Other, Sept. 2010); I see racial bigotry as an outgrowth of tribal attitudes, where "the other" is a threat to the tribe's hunting grounds and other food sources, going back millennia, before agriculture.
We must remember that we have these tendencies, so we can fight to overcome them, especially in the midst of a major recurrence of bigotry and intolerance. So we should leave Boalt Hall named after the man who backed the Chinese Exclusion Act, but also put up a plaque explaining about his racism. (The linked article may be behind a paywall, but this one isn't.) And we should leave up the Confederate monuments, but add a plaque explaining that they represent, not victory in the Civil War, but a successful movement to reduce the South's African-American residents to a state as close to actual slavery as possible.
If we are continually reminded of our bigoted past, we may some day be able to decide, collectively, that racism is a waste of time and energy. Science tells us that there are no significant genetic differences among the races. Do we really want to keep arguing about skin color??
This is a mistake, and it's stupid. Frankly, many of our ancestors (yes, I include mine) were racist, and bigoted. This country was founded economically on racism - the rich economy of the Old South was based on the labor of African slaves, which was justified by a misreading of the Bible. If you doubt me that it was based on the Bible, read the secession statements of several Confederate states, especially Texas, which make it brutally clear. Further, this country was expanded on the backs of all the Native Americans we murdered, or gave syphilis or measles to (probably not deliberately); and the transcontinental railroad which tied the country together was built by immigrant Chinese laborers, whom we later prohibited from living here by the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I won't say the racism wasn't our ancestors' fault; I will say they came by it honestly. Most of the original white settlers in the U.S. came from the British Isles - now the United Kingdom. Before the 20th century (and for that matter during much of it), Europeans (including the British) honestly believed that people of color were generally inferior to the "white race;" there was a formal hierarchy of races, and some actually believed that they derived genetically from separate origins than white people (see Wikipedia on Scientific Racism, which says that scientific racism was only formally denounced, by UNESCO, after World War II).
So our bigoted ancestors were honored by naming things after them because during their time, bigotry was normal. Why, then, is renaming buildings and taking down Confederate monuments a mistake? The Confederate monuments, especially, represent the Old South's cry of victory in establishing the Jim Crow regime. Why should we memorialize that?
All this renaming allows us to blind ourselves to where we came from. It lets us pretend, as our schools largely do pretend to our children, that America is a wonderful place with opportunity for all, and that we wouldn't discriminate against anybody.
That is a lie. America over its history has been a wonderful place with opportunity for some white men; in the beginning, only for white men who owned property. Over the intervening two and a half centuries, we've gradually expanded the opportunities to other white men (poor men, Irish men, southern European men, Catholic men), to African slaves (Reconstruction tried to do that but was summarily squashed for another 50 years until the Civil Rights movement, see my comments about the Confederate monuments), eventually to the Chinese. Oh, and to women, who slowly stopped being their husbands' property, and became able to own property themselves, but who couldn't vote until 1920.
If we let ourselves forget how nasty our forebears were, we risk falling back into the same ways. If you don't know where you came from, how can you focus on where you want to go? I've written before about tribalism (Hating the Other, Sept. 2010); I see racial bigotry as an outgrowth of tribal attitudes, where "the other" is a threat to the tribe's hunting grounds and other food sources, going back millennia, before agriculture.
We must remember that we have these tendencies, so we can fight to overcome them, especially in the midst of a major recurrence of bigotry and intolerance. So we should leave Boalt Hall named after the man who backed the Chinese Exclusion Act, but also put up a plaque explaining about his racism. (The linked article may be behind a paywall, but this one isn't.) And we should leave up the Confederate monuments, but add a plaque explaining that they represent, not victory in the Civil War, but a successful movement to reduce the South's African-American residents to a state as close to actual slavery as possible.
If we are continually reminded of our bigoted past, we may some day be able to decide, collectively, that racism is a waste of time and energy. Science tells us that there are no significant genetic differences among the races. Do we really want to keep arguing about skin color??
Friday, August 24, 2018
Why Not?
I keep hearing and reading that the Justice Department policy is that they can't (won't?) indict a sitting president. If you Google the subject, you see articles on all sides of the issue. NPR, on All Things Considered, did a nice dispassionate summary of the situation on August 22. If I read the interview correctly, there's nothing in the Constitution, and there are no laws, which say this. It's a very interesting discussion and I recommend you read it before going on.
Ailsa Chang interviewed Philip Lacovara, a lawyer who was counsel to the special prosecutors who investigated Watergate. Yes, this issue was discussed at that time, and they concluded that there was no constitutional bar to indicting a sitting president; they just didn't do it. I was delighted to read that Mr. Lacovara agrees with my totally instinctive reaction to this position: this is a huge load of baloney.
To assume that the President can't be indicted says that the President is - above the law. What really bothers me is that Brent Kavanaugh, the current SCOTUS nominee, agrees with this position, which is called the "unitary executive theory." Here's how Mr. Lacovara summarized it:
I thought we were a nation of laws. I thought we had 3 branches of government so that each branch could act as a check on the other two (Congress, are you listening to me?). Congress doesn't want to know; the Republican leadership has been turning their collective eyes so far away from the emerging evidence about Trump that their necks are about to break.
As far as I'm concerned, the President is not above the law; and Mr. Lacovara agrees with me. Here's how he concluded the interview:
Ailsa Chang interviewed Philip Lacovara, a lawyer who was counsel to the special prosecutors who investigated Watergate. Yes, this issue was discussed at that time, and they concluded that there was no constitutional bar to indicting a sitting president; they just didn't do it. I was delighted to read that Mr. Lacovara agrees with my totally instinctive reaction to this position: this is a huge load of baloney.
To assume that the President can't be indicted says that the President is - above the law. What really bothers me is that Brent Kavanaugh, the current SCOTUS nominee, agrees with this position, which is called the "unitary executive theory." Here's how Mr. Lacovara summarized it:
It's the notion that all law enforcement resides in the president and that everybody else in the executive branch, including prosecutors, is essentially irrelevant. And the president, therefore, would in effect be prosecuting himself. And they think that that's a bizarre conundrum which the Constitution shouldn't allow.This theory says the President isn't subject to the laws. King George III would probably have agreed with that. I'm sure Donald Trump agrees with that. But I think the faint screams you hear in the background are the Founding Fathers, ranting and raving from whatever afterlife they are in. I don't think they agree with that.
I thought we were a nation of laws. I thought we had 3 branches of government so that each branch could act as a check on the other two (Congress, are you listening to me?). Congress doesn't want to know; the Republican leadership has been turning their collective eyes so far away from the emerging evidence about Trump that their necks are about to break.
As far as I'm concerned, the President is not above the law; and Mr. Lacovara agrees with me. Here's how he concluded the interview:
The whole purpose of the Revolution and our Constitution was to treat officials of our government as different from the royal in England. And I think they would be astonished at the notion today that the president is somehow immune from criminal prosecution if he violates the norms that apply to everyone else.If you haven't talked to your representative about opposing Kavanaugh's confirmation, do it now. And remember all this when you vote in November.
Thursday, August 02, 2018
E Pluribus Unum
Out of many, one. This was the original motto of the United States, and has appeared on the Great Seal since 1792. Wikipedia says,
We've heard a lot lately about Russian interference with the 2016 election, and potentially with the 2018 midterms. I've been reading a lot about this, particularly in Clint Watts' excellent book, Messing with the Enemy - Surviving in a Social Media World of Hackers, Terrorists, Russians, and Fake News. I recommend it. It's clear that the Russians did hack the socks off the Democratic National Committee computers in 2016, and stole a whole load of emails. The purpose of that was to leak the emails, via WikiLeaks, and to make the DNC, and Hillary Clinton, look bad. It wasn't to directly affect anything the DNC was doing.
The broader Russian propaganda effort, based on American-developed social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, and Google, was not to damage any particular candidate. It was to cause dissension around all candidates, and around the process itself. The purpose was to turn Americans against each other, and maybe against democracy itself. Russian agents set up fake accounts on all the platforms, and had both humans and bots creating multiple propaganda posts, aimed at making Americans more angry with each other. Some of these posts were adapted from existing posts - America has plenty of angry people. The Russians intended to intensify the polarization, and they played both sides of the aisle. They posted white supremacist rants; and they posted rants which seemed to come from Black Lives Matter; anything to make somebody angry.
You may have read that Facebook just took down a bunch of pages they thought were run by Russian operatives. The CNN article I linked notes that one of the pages was an organizing site for a "No Unite the Right 2" march planned for Washington. This appears to have been a genuine rally, planned in opposition to a white supremacist rally (also planned for Washington), and partly supported by Black Lives Matter. Since Black Lives Matter is a very decentralized organization, it's relatively easy to appear to be speaking for them. What this means is that Facebook is still learning how to spot the genuine bad actors. May they learn quickly. I know from personal experience that it's much easier to create a "fake" account on Facebook than they want to admit.
Out of Many, One. In many ways, the various waves of immigration over the last 2 centuries have in fact created a single America out of families whose ancestors originated everywhere else in the world. How many Americans do you know whose ancestors were German? Russian? Italian? Greek? Mexican? Chinese? Japanese? Korean? Haitian? Nigerian? And the descendants all now speak American English and eat American food, and vote in American elections. But some of these Americans are now challenged by other Americans - "you don't belong here."
We've become extremely polarized, at least partly due to Russian propaganda. How do we back off of that? Can we? E Pluribus Unum is one of those phrases, like the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, which was not totally true even when originally published, but which slowly became more true than it had been over time - a goal or aspiration, rather than a statement of fact. (See my post, I Miss the America I Thought I Knew.) In the 2 World Wars, America was pretty united; since then, perhaps less so; it's much easier to be united when you have a clear and present enemy to fear.
The enemy we should fear right now is Russia and its propaganda. We need to question extreme social media posts, especially if they appeal to us - not only, "is this true?", but "who is saying this?" Russia is no longer a Communist state; but it's still an enemy.
"Never codified by law, E pluribus unum was considered a de facto motto of the United States[5] until 1956 when the United States Congress passed an act (H. J. Resolution 396), adopting "In God We Trust" as the official motto.[6]"Or, as I would have put it, until the McCarthyites panicked about the godless Commies in the 1950s and replaced it with In God We Trust, to prove that We were different from Them. But the original motto of this country was, Out of many, one.
We've heard a lot lately about Russian interference with the 2016 election, and potentially with the 2018 midterms. I've been reading a lot about this, particularly in Clint Watts' excellent book, Messing with the Enemy - Surviving in a Social Media World of Hackers, Terrorists, Russians, and Fake News. I recommend it. It's clear that the Russians did hack the socks off the Democratic National Committee computers in 2016, and stole a whole load of emails. The purpose of that was to leak the emails, via WikiLeaks, and to make the DNC, and Hillary Clinton, look bad. It wasn't to directly affect anything the DNC was doing.
The broader Russian propaganda effort, based on American-developed social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, and Google, was not to damage any particular candidate. It was to cause dissension around all candidates, and around the process itself. The purpose was to turn Americans against each other, and maybe against democracy itself. Russian agents set up fake accounts on all the platforms, and had both humans and bots creating multiple propaganda posts, aimed at making Americans more angry with each other. Some of these posts were adapted from existing posts - America has plenty of angry people. The Russians intended to intensify the polarization, and they played both sides of the aisle. They posted white supremacist rants; and they posted rants which seemed to come from Black Lives Matter; anything to make somebody angry.
You may have read that Facebook just took down a bunch of pages they thought were run by Russian operatives. The CNN article I linked notes that one of the pages was an organizing site for a "No Unite the Right 2" march planned for Washington. This appears to have been a genuine rally, planned in opposition to a white supremacist rally (also planned for Washington), and partly supported by Black Lives Matter. Since Black Lives Matter is a very decentralized organization, it's relatively easy to appear to be speaking for them. What this means is that Facebook is still learning how to spot the genuine bad actors. May they learn quickly. I know from personal experience that it's much easier to create a "fake" account on Facebook than they want to admit.
Out of Many, One. In many ways, the various waves of immigration over the last 2 centuries have in fact created a single America out of families whose ancestors originated everywhere else in the world. How many Americans do you know whose ancestors were German? Russian? Italian? Greek? Mexican? Chinese? Japanese? Korean? Haitian? Nigerian? And the descendants all now speak American English and eat American food, and vote in American elections. But some of these Americans are now challenged by other Americans - "you don't belong here."
We've become extremely polarized, at least partly due to Russian propaganda. How do we back off of that? Can we? E Pluribus Unum is one of those phrases, like the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, which was not totally true even when originally published, but which slowly became more true than it had been over time - a goal or aspiration, rather than a statement of fact. (See my post, I Miss the America I Thought I Knew.) In the 2 World Wars, America was pretty united; since then, perhaps less so; it's much easier to be united when you have a clear and present enemy to fear.
The enemy we should fear right now is Russia and its propaganda. We need to question extreme social media posts, especially if they appeal to us - not only, "is this true?", but "who is saying this?" Russia is no longer a Communist state; but it's still an enemy.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
I Miss the America I Thought I Knew
As we get older and read more history, we learn that the story of the United States which we learned in school was, let us say, whitewashed. The genocide of the original inhabitants, the appalling blot of slavery and the later development of Jim Crow, the hatred of almost every immigrant group which ever tried to come here (starting with the Germans who helped us win the Revolutionary War) - we learn all these things later. Yes, we passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, yes, we refused the Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, yes, we incarcerated thousands of Japanese Americans because they looked like the people who had attacked us; but we also accepted many other immigrants (including, by the way, my mother), and more recently accepted refugees from natural disasters and wars. And I don't even include the fact that until the mid-20th century, women were legally inferior to men and couldn't vote or in some places even own property.
I was born after the second World War, and as I became an adolescent, the Civil Rights movement was going on; later, the feminist movement began and flourished, President Reagan allowed amnesty to the undocumented immigrants here at the time. I've been troubled recently by the police wars on people of color, but I allowed myself to hope that over time we were becoming more civil to each other and more open to the world.
And no matter what Americans did historically , the language of the Declaration of Independence blazes across history like a torch:
Since the 2016 presidential election that hope has died. The 45th president has enabled and encouraged every form of bigoted, abusive behavior by his largely white, Christian supporters against everyone else. We've reverted to a world in which people of color are publicly insulted and assaulted by white citizens, where women and people of non-standard sexual preference can be publicly attacked, where immigrants are regarded and attacked as evil animals. We briefly separated children from their parents at the border, who came here for no worse reason than that they were fleeing danger in their own poorly governed countries. We are at odds with our former allies. We have begun a trade war, which could easily throw the entire world into another great depression - tariffs were what caused the first one. And on top of all this, his people are systematically destroying all the protections against dishonest, rapacious, polluting big business which the country has built up over the last hundred years.
We elected a stupid, self-centered, ignorant and dishonest man, who is convinced that his "gut" is always correct and he doesn't need advice. If this goes on much longer he will destroy us. He already thinks he'd like to be "president for life," which God forbid. And Congress, which the founders meant to be a check on the president, licks his boots and does whatever he wants. I didn't vote for him. I will never vote for anyone who supports him. But unless everyone who thinks like me rises up and votes to turn over control of Congress in the fall, we'll be stuck with him for 4 or possibly even 8 years. By which time the America we thought we knew will be dead.
Is that what we want? If it isn't, we'd better act.
I was born after the second World War, and as I became an adolescent, the Civil Rights movement was going on; later, the feminist movement began and flourished, President Reagan allowed amnesty to the undocumented immigrants here at the time. I've been troubled recently by the police wars on people of color, but I allowed myself to hope that over time we were becoming more civil to each other and more open to the world.
And no matter what Americans did historically , the language of the Declaration of Independence blazes across history like a torch:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.Yes, I know the man who wrote that was a slave owner, who carried on an affair with one of his chattels, and that when he said "men" he meant property-owning white males. I know that isn't what he meant. But it's what he said. And somehow over the intervening centuries, people of color have gained the vote, women have gained the vote, it became less socially acceptable to use certain words and do certain things, and even people who prefer to love others of the same sex have moved toward acceptance. I allowed myself to hope that we were moving closer to what Jefferson said, and might actually become the beacon of freedom he wrote about.
Since the 2016 presidential election that hope has died. The 45th president has enabled and encouraged every form of bigoted, abusive behavior by his largely white, Christian supporters against everyone else. We've reverted to a world in which people of color are publicly insulted and assaulted by white citizens, where women and people of non-standard sexual preference can be publicly attacked, where immigrants are regarded and attacked as evil animals. We briefly separated children from their parents at the border, who came here for no worse reason than that they were fleeing danger in their own poorly governed countries. We are at odds with our former allies. We have begun a trade war, which could easily throw the entire world into another great depression - tariffs were what caused the first one. And on top of all this, his people are systematically destroying all the protections against dishonest, rapacious, polluting big business which the country has built up over the last hundred years.
We elected a stupid, self-centered, ignorant and dishonest man, who is convinced that his "gut" is always correct and he doesn't need advice. If this goes on much longer he will destroy us. He already thinks he'd like to be "president for life," which God forbid. And Congress, which the founders meant to be a check on the president, licks his boots and does whatever he wants. I didn't vote for him. I will never vote for anyone who supports him. But unless everyone who thinks like me rises up and votes to turn over control of Congress in the fall, we'll be stuck with him for 4 or possibly even 8 years. By which time the America we thought we knew will be dead.
Is that what we want? If it isn't, we'd better act.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Richard Spencer and Facebook
Last week Facebook removed Richard Spencer's pages. The BBC reports that his personal page was removed, as were the pages for the National Policy Institute, an organization that favors a white ethnostate, and Altright.com, his online magazine. All of these are now gone from Facebook, probably as a result of Mark Zuckerberg's appearance before 2 Congressional committees.
Let me be perfectly clear. I don't agree with Mr. Spencer. His white supremacist views offend me. It's also true that his Twitter and YouTube accounts are still there, and both the National Policy Institute and Altright.com have active web sites. He has plenty of access to free speech. But he no longer has access to Facebook. For some reason this bothers me.
I've posted before that if Nazis don't have free speech, I don't have free speech. I think Mr. Spencer qualifies as a Nazi, at least in his racist views. I suspect he was evicted from Facebook because of the bad publicity over the 2016 election, not to mention the riot in Charlottesville. But when offensive speech is censored, it raises the question: who decides what is offensive speech? Also, who decides what platforms are and should be available for public speech?
Removing these pages from Facebook reduces the size of his audience to the people who know how to find his platforms elsewhere; and there seem to be a lot of people these days who never leave Facebook. This is a form of censorship. Is that a good thing?
It's a hard question and I don't have an answer. But I'm not sure I trust Mark Zuckerberg, if he was the one who made the decision, to be the guardian of free speech.
Let me be perfectly clear. I don't agree with Mr. Spencer. His white supremacist views offend me. It's also true that his Twitter and YouTube accounts are still there, and both the National Policy Institute and Altright.com have active web sites. He has plenty of access to free speech. But he no longer has access to Facebook. For some reason this bothers me.
I've posted before that if Nazis don't have free speech, I don't have free speech. I think Mr. Spencer qualifies as a Nazi, at least in his racist views. I suspect he was evicted from Facebook because of the bad publicity over the 2016 election, not to mention the riot in Charlottesville. But when offensive speech is censored, it raises the question: who decides what is offensive speech? Also, who decides what platforms are and should be available for public speech?
Removing these pages from Facebook reduces the size of his audience to the people who know how to find his platforms elsewhere; and there seem to be a lot of people these days who never leave Facebook. This is a form of censorship. Is that a good thing?
It's a hard question and I don't have an answer. But I'm not sure I trust Mark Zuckerberg, if he was the one who made the decision, to be the guardian of free speech.
Monday, March 19, 2018
Numbers and the NRA
I've noticed the #BoycottNRA movement, which sprang up after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. I've been surprised at some of the large companies which have chosen to cut ties with the NRA - to stop offering member discounts and branded credit cards, and in some cases to quit selling guns. Not all companies are joining the boycott, of course. But enough have done so that, according to the Economist, a backlash against the boycott is brewing among NRA supporters and conservatives. So we face a war of boycotts. Who will win?
To consider that, I want to look at some numbers.
To consider that, I want to look at some numbers.
- The U.S. Census Bureau and the World Bank estimate the population of the U.S. in 2017 at 325.7 million people.
- The NRA has 5 million members, by its own report. That is .015% of the U.S. population. I'm sure it has non-member supporters but I haven't seen the numbers.
Sixty-six percent of respondents said they would support more stringent laws, while just 31% said they would not.If you take that as representative of the U.S. population, and it was intended to be, that's quite a difference from the members who agree with the NRA. Even among gun owners, "50% were in favor" of more stringent gun laws, and 44% were not.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
The U.S. Post Office At Work
I want to share an experience I just had with the U.S. Post Office.
I'm a Kaiser Permanente patient with a much-too-long list of pills to take, and I happily use Kaiser's web page to order prescription renewals by mail. I have a spreadsheet that reminds me when something needs renewing and gives me about 2 weeks lead time to order. I rarely have to wait more than 3-4 days for my prescription to appear in my mailbox. It's a very convenient system.
On Feb. 3, I reordered a prescription. On Feb. 11, as I was doing my weekly pill reload, I realized that I was almost out of that pill, and that I hadn't received the refill. Kaiser's site has a "track your order" link to usps.com, so I clicked on it to see what was going on. This is what I found.
I'm a Kaiser Permanente patient with a much-too-long list of pills to take, and I happily use Kaiser's web page to order prescription renewals by mail. I have a spreadsheet that reminds me when something needs renewing and gives me about 2 weeks lead time to order. I rarely have to wait more than 3-4 days for my prescription to appear in my mailbox. It's a very convenient system.
On Feb. 3, I reordered a prescription. On Feb. 11, as I was doing my weekly pill reload, I realized that I was almost out of that pill, and that I hadn't received the refill. Kaiser's site has a "track your order" link to usps.com, so I clicked on it to see what was going on. This is what I found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)