tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60483232900979234972024-03-05T11:33:03.183-08:00Detritus-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-82246165213626239762017-12-28T18:23:00.000-08:002017-12-28T18:41:04.965-08:00Semantics ARE Optics<h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Christian Koran</span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />A local school is being threatened with a lawsuit because they will only allow religion to be taught in the context of the humanities, and not as part of the science curriculum. How are we still dealing with this issue?<br /><br />Now that we're done with the War on Christmas, and back to the War on Science, Reason, Logic and Facts, can I make a request? Instead of using the word "Bible" in speech or writing, replace that with "<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: orange;">Christian Koran</span>.</span>" Is it not correct to answer "What is the Koran?" with "Why, it's the Muslim equivalent of The Bible!"? It's identical in significance -- i.e. <i>our</i> holy book, which some of us believe contains the actual words of <i>our</i> Sky Friend -- but it makes a nod to the fact that the facts of the book are not facts the way REAL facts are facts ... they're opinions, particular to a region, like whether to use Miracle Whip or Hellman's (I'm sure Pence is more of a "it's got the word miracle in it!" than "the brand that looks both satanic and humanist" kind of guy). Refusing to do this would be to come right out and say "I know it's religion, and we have no evidence for any of it, but I am certain that these beliefs are 100% right and any other belief is 100% wrong, even if the other guy feels the exact same way, and I don't need evidence to rely on my gut and what I <i>want</i> to be true, no matter how much reason or evidence contradicts my adopted bias." At least you'll know where they stand on any debate about anything that might smite their biases, or put them on equal footing with the less-Reborn ... or even prove helpful to them, but be counter-intuitive ... and you will know they would want to make faith-based and data-free guesses about, say, existential threats to our country and planet. In other words, you'll know they shouldn't be let anywhere near policy.<br /><br />Likewise, "<span style="color: orange;">Muslim Bible</span>" works, and can be substituted -- in your own head if the speaker refuses to adopt this reasonable (hrrrm?) standard -- when you hear someone talking about denying rights based on religious preference, or bombing a part of the world because those people just don't count as much as we do because they are, simply, wrong about everything.<br /><br />This concept genericizes. So when Betsy DeVos says that we should take away money from non-denomination public education to give to unaccredited faith-based schools, similarly unvetted telestudy programs, and home schooling ... what you should be hearing is: We want to replace fact-based education with <span style="color: orange;">Christian Madrassas, Online Radicalization, <span style="color: black;">and</span> Multigenerational Indoctrination</span>.<br /><br />Or, "No <span style="color: orange;">Arab Churches</span> at Ground Zero." Or, "We forced Abu Ghraib prisoners to wipe their butts with the <span style="color: orange;">Muslim Old Testament</span> (a.k.a. the Old Testament)." Or "<span style="color: orange;">Muhammed</span>, people! Clearly, <span style="color: orange;">The False Lord of the Heathens</span> wouldn't put the oil in the ground (with the 6000-year-old fossils ... um, I mean, <span style="color: orange;">Joseph Smith's Gold Tablets</span>), if <span style="color: orange;">Vishnu</span> didn't want us to Frack the <span style="color: orange;">Purgatory</span> out of it!" Or, "I bet home schools come</span> <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">with a world religion course consisting of every <span style="color: orange;">Bible Belt Buddhist</span>'s favorite <span style="color: orange;">BC Christians</span>: Jesus and Uzi."</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span>Or simply, "<b>I don't understand why we can't teach the <span style="color: orange;">Christian Koran</span> as a science, side by side with actual documented events and demonstrable science.</b>" It's still semantically identical to "let us force-teach the Bible in schools" aside from taking away the "... because if you don't you're denying my first amendment rights to religious freedom" part, which is what these arguments so often devolve into. It intrinsically opens the door for teaching other religions on an equal footing, which is clearly not part of what these <span style="color: orange;">Pontif-icating-or-Protestant-ing Pastafarians</span> (see what I did there?) are agitating for. It's clear that it's not simply "all religions are on an equal footing with science" they want, but rather "our religion trumps both science and other religions in truthiness." It's a harmless insanity, right until it gets control of the reins of government, and these semantic substitutions will help make the fnords audible.<br /><br />Since the South is extra touchy about this subject, but not so concerned about traditional book learnin', I will permit them to refer to their Book as the <span style="color: orange;">Korrect Kristian Koran</span>.<br /><br /><br />Remember: (A) Life (of gullibility, control-lust, illogic, sanctimony, and hypocrisy) begins at (the Immaculate) Conception. Please abort the coup of the born-again.</span></div>
-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-25771778703247465202017-12-19T19:02:00.001-08:002017-12-19T19:02:27.836-08:00What's it Going to Take for You to Distrust Our Orange Overlord? (Tax 'Cut' Edition)<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">One of the reasons cons work is because the marks don't ever want to admit they've been conned</span></span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This is really addressed to the population of Republicants making less than 7 figures and with less than 8 figures of income to pass down ... in short, probably none of my (3) readers, but probably nearly the entire party.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If there were any question that this administration doesn't have the best interest of the people they <b>appear</b> to be representing, it's this graphic (courtesy of 538):</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNv5xZQNWx8yfceZkQN5zOU3ILHA3ZxoRLN64KKdQsy1IJv2hI6-ZzzIszWUSJQ_72rfx4Iq1a0OMI_-ZcFoHmd-l_PYmTAY8w7IgnK8d_zo0IeUpoN-d_edrWS-SkMp_hzH_r9rdKiZg/s1600/Screen+Shot+2017-12-19+at+2.16.51+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="816" data-original-width="1214" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNv5xZQNWx8yfceZkQN5zOU3ILHA3ZxoRLN64KKdQsy1IJv2hI6-ZzzIszWUSJQ_72rfx4Iq1a0OMI_-ZcFoHmd-l_PYmTAY8w7IgnK8d_zo0IeUpoN-d_edrWS-SkMp_hzH_r9rdKiZg/s640/Screen+Shot+2017-12-19+at+2.16.51+PM.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This "tax cut" is so wildly unpopular that it's less popular than the last two tax HIKES. And you can't tell me that the middle-class Republican base in the audience were happier about Evil Slick Willie's Huckster Tax Increase (which led to just about the only surplus in decades, yet again disproving Voodoo Economics, but we won't go there) then they are about anyone's tax cut.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But the point is not whether this tax cut will help you in the long run (it won't), or trickle-shrink the deficit (it won't), or even temporarily grow the economy (any more than printing $1.5T would). It's not even whether or not you've been con(vinc)ed into thinking it's good for you. The entire point is to hand out money to the people this administration is <b>actually</b> representing, which is the poor, put-upon Dagny Taggart types who go home and shower in clean, sequential bills every night, and would like to hire a few extra man-servants to vacuum up the dirty bills when they're done. This is nothing more than a pay-back for campaign contributions (and a promise of fresh ones) from the unfathomably rich, and an effective pay raise for the multimillionaires "representin'" you in DC.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Quick questions: </span></span><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">what happened to "tax reform" and "code simplification"? Where's that postcard I'm going to be able to file my two (Mar-a-Lago golf course and Napa winery) deductions on? Tax reform and simplification sound like good ideas ... but that's never what this was actually about, and it's not even the optics any longer. And where are the Republicant deficit hawks that shut down the government(!) -- trashing our credit rating, costing us credit interest, and risking our standing as holders of the universal reserve currency -- over the debt ceiling debate (using that evil Democrat tool, the filibuster)? Once this bloats the deficit, I can bet those cockroaches will come back out of their cracks and start stripping away far more than they've given you, even if you're in the 6-figure bracket. Moral of the story: 100% of you simply need to shove your way into the top 1%, and then this government has your back (if you don't care about things like health, safety, public space, or existential threats to this country from a damn Twitter account).</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But don't think you can't benefit from the new tax code (once you learn an entirely new tax code, which is not in any way "simplification"). For example, the Failing NYT makes this suggestion:</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /><i>Imagine that you’re a wealthy person in the top tax bracket, and you own a genuine Rothko that has become worth millions more than you bought it for. Selling, you’d have to pay a huge tax on the painting’s increase in value. Instead, you could exchange the painting with a company you own for shares, a transaction that wouldn’t be taxed. Then, have the company sell the painting, paying only the new, low 21 percent corporate rate. If you pass the shares onto your heirs, they won’t have to pay any taxes on them. </i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-24769609272978757822017-05-22T18:22:00.002-07:002017-05-22T18:22:57.859-07:00The Ducks are on the Pond<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwNVq1_5_w3g-ekZwGOkt65ujo-o7oxI2l43-ttxj-VSK03J33al_I3oWK6_0aMTtJWsFQTixKMmzIfudP2DA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I haven't posted in a while because I keep re-approaching the Trumpoiska story, but the story is moving too fast to keep up with. Suffice it to say that there's no good reason for an entire cross-section of government -- from the Justice Department to military personnel to the spy services to foreign services (I'm looking at you in particular, Rex Tillerson) to presidential top aids, advisers, and campaigners, to family and business associates of the president -- to have so many ties to any one foreign government, never mind an enemy. Or to need to recuse themselves from investigation or plead the 5th or lie about their foreign ties. If you're OK with the president handing over state secrets about an organization in Syria (ISIS) to our military opponents in Syria, which is intel received from our "best friends" in Israel -- who are actually great at spywork but will think twice before they share <i>any </i>more info with us -- on the day he fires the head of the FBI without justifiable cause ("lock her up" and "he shouldn't have said anything bad about Hillary" don't fit in the same healthy cranium) while all of his cronies (and possibly him -- remember, he was wiretapped!) are under investigation for ties to Russia, and Russia's influence in the election which he won ... well, I'm not OK with <i>you</i>. Clearly, it's more about your side winning than the country and democracy winning, and I can't respect that political position. You can't burn it all down <b>and</b> call yourself a patriot, no matter how white and angry you are.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So, in the interest of posting something, here's some audio I captured from a local duck and goose farm. In the second half of the 15s track, you'll hear more geese being made. Insert your own Sitting Duck, Lame Duck, Goose is Cooked, etc. pun here.</span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-36123492963060254942017-04-29T07:57:00.001-07:002017-04-29T07:57:29.366-07:00Ironic, diagnostic or both?<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I <b>just</b> noticed that April is autism awareness month.</span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-31795985981602017022017-04-16T16:36:00.000-07:002017-04-16T16:36:21.045-07:00Ruski Business, Part 2 of TBD<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But What Do I Know, I'm Just a Cow</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the mold of his other appointments (e.g. most outspoken critic of any agency to head that agency), it appears Trump has found a replacement for Nunes on the House committee investigating Team Trump's manifold Russia connections. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrymtNVu_L3s5Vf0dxo9Y3Yrf0FDI9gbBkNZok49rzifCCmHUHt8Y-IX2lPmBLboaL74mf4twrpqG691c9GYG1bctQXMVPz0-pEIUlHUX4DABFY4BuaYOi7wHrf6fJ1pX6RRFJ8ecH9w0/s1600/unhappyCowSaysMooHoo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="unhappy cow says moo hoo" border="0" height="494" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrymtNVu_L3s5Vf0dxo9Y3Yrf0FDI9gbBkNZok49rzifCCmHUHt8Y-IX2lPmBLboaL74mf4twrpqG691c9GYG1bctQXMVPz0-pEIUlHUX4DABFY4BuaYOi7wHrf6fJ1pX6RRFJ8ecH9w0/s640/unhappyCowSaysMooHoo.gif" title="unhappy cow says moo hoo" width="640" /></a></span></h3>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trump spokesperson, campaign contributor, and lead investigator Bovine McBeevesface when asked "Is there anything suspicious here?"</span></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></h3>
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></h3>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-44743078380430608122017-04-08T10:25:00.000-07:002017-04-08T10:25:23.095-07:00Ruski Business, Part 1 of TBD<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<h3>
Here are some dots, do what you like with them. If you connect them in just the right order, you draw a bear wearing a ushanka with 'MAGA' written on it!</h3>
<br />
<li> It seems like only yesterday Russia was our greatest enemy. Because, it <i>was</i> yesterday (and still is today). They regularly use their Security Council veto to thwart our efforts in the UN, and are on opposite sides of the fence from us in actual (Syria, where both the US and Russia have troops on the ground and in the air) and proxy (Iran, Afghanistan) wars and conflicts (Cuba, Korea). They DO hack our systems on a regular basis: commercial, governmental, and civilian (that includes the Yahoo hacks ... out of 1B accounts, which includes passwords re-used on multiple sites, there has to be at least one lever into some government system or individual they want access to). They fund a network of agitprop trolls which have warped the universe of reality, not only creating entire fake news ecosystems, but pulling real news -- the kind that fights autocracies -- down into the mud with them. Their press has been completely co-opted, and typically spews anti-American invective. NATO basically exists to oppose Russia ... that's the greatest military alliance in the history of the world on one side of the fence, and just one country on the other. They recently seized territory in two sovereign nations, by force. It is in no way a free country; their response to FIFA when asked about gay tourists at the Russian World Cup was to suggest they stay home if they don't want to get thrown in jail or worse. They almost certainly scored that World Cup with bribery, blackmail and shenanigans, and their Olympic doping scandal makes MLB look like a NA meeting. Please remember, these are not the good guys, and while North Korea may be more comic-book villian-ous, they're largely ineffective, and while China is dangerous and not our friend, at least we can talk things out with them, at least for now. Russia is a unique combination of powerful, expansionist, and virulently anti-American. In short, we have met the enemy, and they write in Cyrillic.
<br /><br />
</li>
<li> There are so many threads to this story that it would take forever just to synopsize ... there's even the chance this story will move faster than it can be documented; it certainly shows no sign of slowing down in spite of the Benghazi Brigade showing little appetite for looking into a foreign power influencing our elections, which should completely freak out anyone who cares about free and fair elections (i.e. Democracy), which this crowd clearly does not. So, I'll try to focus on the under-reported stories, with just a soupçon of speculation. Let's start with the Donald and one of his more obvious "tells": he doesn't wait until he gets caught doing something wrong to start spinning the story -- should it eventually come out -- in his favor. And the Republicant Talking Points Parrots and the <i>Fox & Friends</i> & Friends echo chamber has no issue with beating this spin into Alt-Truth on his behalf (for their benefit, I hope that vengeful deity they claim to believe in doesn't exist, cause they're building some significant karmic debt by selling out their principals for short-term gains). So, how is Russia being spun domestically, in order to mitigate damage should the truth come to light?
<br /><br />
</li>
<li> Trump refuses to bad-mouth Putin (who <i>is</i> a killer:
<br />
<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39364542" target="other">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39364542</a>
<br />
<i>Voronenkov was no crook but an investigator who was deadly dangerous for the Russian siloviki [security services]</i>)
and frequently heaps praise on him.
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>This may be the primary reason that Putin's favorability among Republicans had risen 20 points in just two years, as any question about one's opinion of Russia can now become a proxy for your opinion of Trump (and everyone seems to be OK with that, even hard-line Republic hawks, which in of itself is mind-blowing).
<blockquote>
<i>In fact, on the issue of Russia cyber-meddling in the U.S. elections, <b>Republican</b> public opinion more closely resembles public opinion in Russia than overall opinion in the United States.</i>
<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/16/republicans-used-to-fear-russians-heres-what-they-think-now/" target="other">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/16/republicans-used-to-fear-russians-heres-what-they-think-now/</a>
<br />
<br />
50% of Republicans, 73% of young Republicans see Russia as an "ally" or "friendly":
<br />
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/22/nbc-poll-50-of-republicans-73-of-young-republicans-see-russia-as-an-ally-or-friendly/" target="other">http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/22/nbc-poll-50-of-republicans-73-of-young-republicans-see-russia-as-an-ally-or-friendly/</a>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li>But it's more likely that the Talking Points Parade has been trying to soften the urgency of looking into collusion with what may the closest thing we have to a "hot war" enemy. It would be as if the US funded Saddam Hussein then sold him chemical weapons to be used on his own people, or provided arms to the Taliban or warlords aligned with Al Qaida in Afghanistan, or armed Iranians with guns bought with drugs sold by Central American warlords we armed and trained, or placed fascist killers in offices previously won in democratic elections in allied nations. OK, bad examples ... but why this isn't being treated like Benedict Arnold got elected president is inconceivable (and yes, that word means what I think it means). The difference between this collusion and all the other manifold examples of impeachable, aiding-and-abetting the enemy kinds of behavior we've practiced was that the previous offenses were sat on or considered part of "American Exceptionalism" ... how Trump gets to basically say "well, we're killers too" -- in a government where forgetting to wear your flag pin is headline news -- is beyond my powers of understanding.
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>Of course, the existential (threat) question is: What is Donny Hiding? I don't believe in first principals as a rule; you could say it's raining because the moisture content of the air is higher than the air can support, but you also need to have air, gravity, moisture, something like water that's vaguely ionic and bondy, something akin to a Big Bang, etc. So, Trump is someone who realizes that it's Russian-sourced false stories that he was able to drag into the mainstream by way of Alt Right media that fueled his populism. Praising a tyrant aids his goals of being a tyrant, and he's vain enough that he'll take praise from anywhere, and Putin is Machiavellian enough to use a tool as trivial as praise on any fool it works on. We can't forget Trump is a businessman, as he insists on reminding us, and that a huge chunk of his money comes from Russians, and that he has an eye on expanding into Russia; or that his regulatory policies show that externalizing costs (in the form of normalizing the kleptocracy in the Kremlin, with all the world-wide blow-back that will bring) in exchange for a profit is business-as-usual for Herr Drumpf. His buddies all made tons off of Russia, or hope to, and like Bush enabling Halliburton, Trump will award windfalls to those that promise unyielding fealty (I expect Sean Spicer to retire a man far more wealthy than his abilities would indicate). Russia may even have coordinated electoral strategies -- using their operatives, techniques and stolen data -- and certainly selectively leaked -- if not selectively hacked -- information to help Trump win. I suspect the Comey information-free October- and November-surprise was sourced from a Russian hack or faked leak (just like Donny asked the Russians to do on national TV), and this was just one of many things that handed Trump an unlikely election. There are so many possible "primary reasons" that Trump is becoming the kind of person that kept Joe McCarthy up at night that we can't ever know the most significant one, but I'll go with the most controversial and least reported one: a KGB-mentality government with a country full of very talented hackers decided on a multi-pronged approach to "restore the balance of power" and put Russia back in a world leadership position, and that strategy included getting everything you could use to compromise those that might oppose you. It's basically the Realpolitik you'd get here if CIA and NSA alums started running the USA, and somewhere along the line the Ruskis got their hands on enough info against Trump to make him compliant. I think we could agree that this would be the most powerful lever for getting the president of the USA to turn into a pinko, so the burden becomes to demonstrate that it's not tinfoil-hattery.
<br /><br />
<u>Is Trump Blackmailable?</u>
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>I don't think most would argue that the thin-skinned baby we have elected president has enough self-interest that should someone have something on him, he'd gladly sell the entire country down the river to cover his own ass. And no one (reasonable) wants to take the "piss tapes" seriously without some evidence (although if someone started this rumor out of the blue about Hillary I'm sure it would get some serious Echo Chamber time). But how dismissable (as in, we're confident it's NOT true) are these claims that in total the Russians have enough info to get Donny on board with their agenda?
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>Well, the person who put together the dossier on Trump and Russia from which we get much of this info is anything but a whack job. He used to be a spy at MI6, has a very good reputation in the intel community, and has never publicly released info and been proven wrong (i.e. doesn't have a history of making wild accusations). He now co-runs a <i>very</i> successful for-hire investigation agency.
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>He was previously hired by the FBI to gather the evidence on FIFA (the uber-corrupt governing body for world soccer, which is basically an ATM for the morally bankrupt), and if you know how deeply crooked but untouchable that organization was, that's saying something. Hundreds of kleptocrats from dozens of countries got jailed, fined, fired, deported, or simply called out, in a complex (and well masked) tangle of illegal handshake deals with almost no paper trails. For much of the world, the fact that "we" took down Sepp Blatter and FIFA is more scary than drone strikes and radar-invisible airplanes: we touched the untouchables, and that's power.
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>No fewer than four Russians involved with this dossier have died under suspicious circumstances.
<blockquote>
The most likely source of the Trump-Russia intel is Oleg Erovinkin. <i>Erovinkin, a former general in the KGB and its successor the FSB, was found dead in the back of his car in Moscow on Boxing Day in mysterious circumstances.</i> [
<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39364542" target="other">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39364542</a> ]
Putin is former KGB, and present hitman-in-chief, and would have no problem covering a leak with a corpse.
<br />
<br />
<i>Erovinkin was a key aide to Igor Sechin, a former deputy prime minister and now head of Rosneft (</i>more later on Rosneft<i>), the state-owned oil company, who is repeatedly named in the dossier.</i>
[ <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39364542" target="other">http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mystery-death-of-ex-kgb-chief-linked-to-mi6-spys-dossier-on-donald-trump/ar-AAmkp4E</a> ]
</blockquote>
</li>
<li>I personally believe Trump vindictive enough to want to see someone pee on the Obama's bed ... after all, Obama did wiretap Trump in his home. [As previously mentioned, another of Trump's "tells" is to pre-emptively blame someone for something that he's worried about others finding out about him. Saying "someone wiretapped me to make me look bad" in advance of the imminent release of info divulged by a wiretap would be an example. As would using that claim as a cover for wiretapping members of the prior administration. One thing the FBI is saying for sure, in spite of hemming and hawing on other topics, is that there's nothing to support President Turnip's claim, in spite of Nunes' traitorous (i.e. undermining the intelligence/security process for political gain) spin on the whole thing.] But all asides aside, that titillating (mictating) detail has little to do with the bigger picture of collusion and possible illegal funding, manipulation, hacking, etc. (unless that's the blackmail lever itself) and it's important to keep the clickbait parts of the story separate from the Enemy-Is-Undermining-All-Democracy moments.
<br /><br />
<u>Is There Real Intel About Any Of This?</u>
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>James Comey is believed by many people to have thrown the election to Trump, so it's not like this is the standard witch hunt (which is really more of a Republicant thing than a Donkey Thing, in any case). The folks at 538 figured the Comey disclosures alone were enough to swing the popular vote enough for Clinton to go from a near-lock to a loser. The FBI directorship is a 10 year appointment, not subject to removal by a president, so that he can maintain his independence. Comey seems to have a clear desire for the spotlight, but it's not obvious (yet) that he's partisan, and if he is it would appear to be pro-Republicant, so when he says "there's nothing to the wiretap claim, but there is plenty to investigate with Russia and the elections" we ought to (for now) take that statement at face value.
<br /><br />
</li>
<li>NSA <i>can</i> legally tap US conversations if they are with foreign citizens (even someone they're only 51% sure is foreign, using really weak-tea metrics to make that determination). That's <i>legally</i>. They've shown little care for the law on matters surveillant, or disclosure when the do violate the law ("revealing the name of an American swept up inadvertently in a wiretapping would damage national security and future surveillance programs") so we'll never know the full extent, but pretty much everything they've claimed they don't do has been demonstrably false. So I think we should assume that just about any e-communications between Team Trump and Russia have been tapped, filtered and reviewed, so when the intel community (which, again, Trump-tell: repeatedly dis the intel community before they reveal compromising info, so you can go all Ad Hominem on their ass later when they turn you out) says there's not nothing there, assume there's not nothing there.
<br /><br />
But not only are these people under investigation not idiots, they also regularly meet face-to-face, and the powerful and wealthy are often exempt from the kind of 4th Amendment violations the rest of us have to deal with (do you remember Feinstein having no difficulty with anything the NSA was doing or the CIA was lying about until they looked at <i>her</i> staff's computers, at which point she nearly anuerism'd out?). So, I wouldn't consider absence of evidence evidence of absence, but I fully believe we'll be back to this piece of the story soon. For now, future installments will cover the unbelievable number of players and interactions with our new frenemy Russia. On the off chance you're still reading, check back soon!
</li>
</div>
-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-68283890763766911932017-04-03T15:48:00.000-07:002017-04-03T15:51:36.101-07:00Danny Elfman, Prophet<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I recently heard this song for the first time since Donny T took the national stage. I don't know if it's aimed more at Trump or Pence, but boy, does this feel prescient for me ... sorry I can't add the 3-piece marimba section here without the DMCA police busting my ass.</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Insanity - Oingo Boingo</span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>I am the virus, are you the cure?
<br />I am a disease and I am unclean
<br />I am not part of God's well oiled machine
<br />Christian nation, assimilate me
<br />Take me in your arms and set me free
<br />I am part of a degenerate elite
<br />Dragging our society into the street -yeah-
<br />Into the abyss and to the sewer don't you see
<br />The man just told me, he told me on TV
<br />
<br />And the alcoholic bastard waved his finger at me
<br />And his voice was filled with evangelical glee
<br />Sipping down his gin & tonics
<br />While preaching about the evils of narcotics
<br />And the evils of sex, and the wages of sin
<br />While he mentally fondles his next of kin
<br />
<br />Do you think you're better than me?
<br />Do you want to kill me, or befriend me?
<br />
<br />Christian sons, Christian daughters
<br />Lead me along like a lamb to the slaughter
<br />Purify my brain and hose down my soul
<br />White perfection, perfection is my goal
<br />
<br />Christian nation, make us alright
<br />Put us through the filter and make us pure and white 'cause
<br />My mind has wandered away from me
<br />And the flock has wandered, away from me
<br />
<br />Let's talk of family values while we sit and watch the slaughter
<br />Hypothetical abortions on imaginary daughters
<br />The white folks think they're at the top, ask any proud white <strike>male</strike> chump
<br />A million years of evolution, we get <strike>Danny Quayle</strike> Donny Trump
</i></span>
-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-6422008170352446082017-03-25T12:16:00.001-07:002017-03-25T12:16:51.101-07:00True That<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>You want to know how to stop the next whistleblower? Stop breaking the damn law.</i></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> -- Ed Snowden</span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-5527669727803200662017-03-16T09:14:00.000-07:002017-03-16T10:09:26.475-07:00Vivisecting, uh ... I mean, Dissecting … Mr. Trump<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I have a very smart friend (VSF) who appears to be buying into the right-wing talking point that the “mainstream media” is the enemy of the people — or at a minimum, simultaneously incompetent but somehow manipulative and with a powerful axe to grind against the administration — but that some other publications — for example, ones that might called the failed Somali state a “Jihadist Government” when no functioning government even exists — can then be trusted enough to site as sources when providing evidence of the NYT’s “treasonous” actions (in the word of the Parmesan Putin). Recently, VSF & I had a mini-debate about the “last night in Sweden” call-out during a very high-profile speech by the prez (i.e. one where he knows his words will be carefully reviewed), with my VSF buying (what I’m pretty sure is) the alt-media’s “alt-truth” claim that this was a simple mis-step, and me (with no doubts in my mind) seeing the fnord for what it (quite clearly to me) was: a multi-tiered attempt by Trump to shift the focus and the argument onto an unlevel playing field, in a now all-too-common fashion, in pursuit of a specious and dangerous agenda. <br /><br />The problem with fighting dirty, as the Republicants and this administration are all-too-willing to do, is that it usually gives an unfair advantage, one that can only be offset by also doing something reprehensible. And Trump’s rhetoric — and to a lesser but still severe degree the rhetorical strategies of the right in recent years — is decidedly dirty. Manufacturing BS is so much easier (and entertaining) than unpacking it that even if you could give a full accounting, in an irrefutable manner, to convincing divulge the inner workings of a manipulative (other-deluding) and narcissistic (self-deluding) mind, it would take more words than anyone would read, and by the time you unpack the whole bolus, there’s so much new <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">malarkey</span> to unpack that you could never keep up. In this respect, I consider Il Douchy a savant: I’m not even sure he knows how well he packs his phrases (I’m guessing he does), given how ham-fisted many of his day-to-day conversational gambits are (“all the best words”), and but like any good Rorschach test, how his words are taken tell us more about the individual hearing them than the person saying them, and he paints BS on a canvas with that in mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWUSQ6SUbneBJjn_zkm6BCAzIx5PX_jEJrjQzJIELolr_JAavk8LZ5jI_On_d9NFEAcLrapmcej144FOhO97DSu6L3C791EaZCin5bKIAadTN8JbLGwe1RezXxKX7UCko0qBEt9UxfzC4/s1600/trump-proctology.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWUSQ6SUbneBJjn_zkm6BCAzIx5PX_jEJrjQzJIELolr_JAavk8LZ5jI_On_d9NFEAcLrapmcej144FOhO97DSu6L3C791EaZCin5bKIAadTN8JbLGwe1RezXxKX7UCko0qBEt9UxfzC4/s320/trump-proctology.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">would you hire this man to be your proctologist? or your president?</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What follows is an attempt to dissect why he said the Swedish thing and what it really means, proving my point that any convincing explanation is going to be too wordy and tedious for anyone to keep up with, assuming I even have the chops to unpack this (my failure to convince not being proof of my error). I’m not saying an alternative interpretation of Trump’s words is stupid or evil, I’m saying that cognitive bias is so invisible that if you’re being manipulated in the “right way” (as most of the confederate- and don’t-tread-on-me-flag-wavers are), then it’s almost impossible to spot that in yourself. I’m also not saying that anything that aligns with your interest is necessarily false, but I’m highly suspicious of any belief system that benefits the group doing the believing. Being a white, straight, wealthy, non-immigrant, gentile male with corporate-provide insurance and buying into a “religious freedom”, “tax reform”, “there’s too much PC”, anti-immigrant, pussy-grabbing, privatize-everything administrative platform/lifestyle/reading list in any way should make one at least pause for a self-interest check. I <b>know</b> that people who read my blog are bright, beautiful and billionaires (and if they aren’t, it’s ‘cause they’re being held down by the ‘opposition’ press and whomever you didn’t vote for) … but you shouldn’t just take my word for it.<br /><br /><br />Anyway. The exact quote (which you should ideally watch a video of, in order to get tone as well as verbatim context) was “<i>You look at what's happening last night in Sweden! Sweden! Who would believe this, Sweden!</i>” One possible (and to me the pretty-much-only) interpretation of this at face value is that something occurred in Sweden the previous night, but I admit these words are ambiguous … which is one of their strengths, from a manipulation standpoint. <br /><br />My VSF said “<i>Swedish disbelief is still front page NYTime's fake news. Where has their integrity gone and do they think we're stupid?</i>” This is itself is a pretty typical (and powerful) alt-media paragraph: it discredits the source (permanently, long after the current debate subsides), implies that possibly the most editorially conservative (in terms of when/what to publish — not from a political standpoint — although if I left this appositive out, using “editorially conservative” to describe the NYT would be a great manipulative ploy along the lines of what we’re discussing) paper in the country may be mis-reporting on Swedish disbelief (implying the Swedes would agree with President Turnip), that the media have an axe to grind by not reporting on other “more important” stories (and I would agree there’s a whole lot of news not being beaten to death that ought to be, but probably different news than what VSF would want to see), that even if you once considered the NYT the “great grey lady” of American press that you just haven’t been paying attention to where their integrity went, and that anyone who buys into the “narrative” of reporting on what people said, instead of what they later claimed they meant, is stupid. That’s a lot of messaging packed into 20 words, and I’m starting to suspect that, like all language, the rhetorical techniques used in right-leaning media and internet comment threads are rewiring some brains, creating an inherent (and not always conscious) ability to make and win arguments at the expense of other cognitive skills.<br /><br /><br />Here is just some of what “look what happened last night in Sweden” tells us about the story, the story teller, and the audience:<br /><br />1. Ambiguous language: allowing both plausible deniability and interpretation after the fact (or after the polls, if you prefer), Trump mixes tenses, say “… is happening last night.” Either (and this infinite branching is where we can start heading down rabbit holes we might never pull out of) you believe DJ DT has “all the best words” and that this is intentional — in which case it appears he is trying to get across a (false) sense of immediacy, urgency and ‘nowness’ to this scourge, scaring us into acting against our best interests — or you believe he just isn’t that clear, precise or goodly with words, in which case you need to take the scalpel to his retraction as well, and then we’re back down the ever-branching rabbit hole.<br /><br />2. Confabulating anecdote and data: if you take his words at face value, which you are likely to do while he’s talking and more words keep coming and you don’t have time to sit down and deconstruct every twist of language and jeezum christ this whole problem of churning out words while writing about the problem of keeping up with a churn of words and all their ramifications is recursively naval gazing and makes one realize how hopeless the problem really is, you would believe that “even Sweden has (a) problem(s)”. If the whitest, safest, least objectionable country on earth is being overrun with dangerous immigrants, imagine what could happen here. Plus, Purity of Essence … even Sweden (Sweden?!) isn’t white anymore … can you imagine what our country will look like if we don’t start massive deportation, denial of transit visas, rejection of orphaned children and widowed women, religious tests at the borders, racial profiling, maybe an internment camp or two … just until this war on terrorism is over … well, the slippery slope leads to a literal ethnic melting pot, with cauldrons provided by Trump-Haliburton Industries.<br /><br />3. Point scored - accepting <b>refugees</b> is bad:<br /><i>Orange You Glad I Didn’t Say Pussy</i> also said: <br />“<i>They took in large numbers — they're having problems like they never thought possible….We have to keep our country safe</i>”<br />In other words, tiny Sweden does this once-morally-necessary thing far more than us, and they’re paying the colored-rabble price for it … part and parcel of this argument is blurring the distinction between immigrant (voluntary, and generally with an option to safely stay at home) and refugee (involuntary, often in life-threatening need, held in camps for years during heavy vetting, with no say in which country they get placed). In short, we should take what used to be a source of our moral authority in the world — that we care for the downtrodden, and will provide life, liberty and opportunity to people denied that elsewhere — and turn it into a public health hazard to be avoided at all costs. It’s dizzying when you think about it: the Republicants have taken a group of voters that believe jihadists hate us because they hate our freedoms, and convinced them that repealing freedom is the way to fight jihad. <br /><br />4. Assume that “his people” will look exactly as far as they need to in order to get the confirmation bias they are looking for.<br />VSF: “<i>When i heard trumps words, in light of the fact that nothing had happened in sweden, i reasonably concluded the words were botched talking off the top of the butthead speech, and that he was referring to issues around immigration in Sweden. Is it unreasonable of me to expect the press to make that same reasonable leap?</i>”<br /><br />The presumption is that you’d bother to learn that nothing happened. That requires fact-checking everything Trump says, which isn’t temporally possible, and isn’t even of interest to those with a cognitive bias in favor of their team, or them that really never had interest in facts, science, education, research … all the traits that get lumped into the now-derogatory term “elitist”. You have to <b>discover</b> that nothing happened in Sweden. And if you’re one of the just-large-enough plurality (given a combination of the Southern Strategy and organized disenfranchisement coupled with unlimited political power to corporations) to elect Republicants, you’ll stop when you get to a publication that’s willing to say what it has to to maintain access to the administration, rather than one of those “liberal” rags that has seen enough of this mendacity to know you need to do some digging, maybe over a period of days, to unpack what the Chorizo-in-Chief was getting at, and then the reader has to do some impartial reading and consider nuance and contingency, which just isn’t happening in those states with poor public education (i.e. largely red states).<br /><br />5. Make sure you have an “out”, preferably one in your favor.<br /><br />If/when the press challenges the statement, for those who are still paying attention, you can then point them to a news story on Fox (aka Pravda West). Having already convinced a large swath of the country that Fox & Friends is real journalism, while any established news organization is fake, you can then use this controversy to get people to read a story (full of further errors and falsehoods) that reinforces your point, one that they otherwise would have overlooked. Heck, even just getting people to talk about a non-thing makes it a thing.<br /><br />Making any citation also sounds like the kind of thing that smart people who care about references would do — it’s like adding footnotes to your off-the-cuff white supremacist rant — reinforcing the fear with “facts” and “sources” (even, or especially, if people don’t check those references, which is largely a given, unless those people are the Press, which is why you must vilify anyone who calls you on your shite).<br /><br />Trump also uses the “people are saying” defense, once he gets people saying things, to make it sound like (a) he can’t be responsible for being wrong because he only knows what he reads (ignoring that he doesn’t really read) and (b) this must be a thing, or so many people wouldn’t talk about it (even if it’s just one person talking plus a whole lot of echoes).<br /><br />Here is a classic Mr. Trump tactic: discrediting (in advance) any source that has/might accuse, and accusing others of doing exactly what he’s trying to get away with (i.e. misrepresent). Now you can also make the press look bad for pressing a president on their words, which is pretty much all a president is, no matter how unpresidential he (always “he”) may act. That Trump managed to shift this whole discussion from analyzing his words to berating the press is evidence of his (one?) genius.<br /><br />And this was no mistake, either:<br /><i>The decision by Trump’s administration to restrict access to the press for Spicer’s briefing prompted at least some seasoned reporters to observe that the White House had successfully changed the topic:<br />"And now, the topic of the evening is the media outlets excluded, not the Priebus interactions w FBI + question of open investigation." </i>- Maggie Haberman, New York Times<br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Ironically, all these techniques are well-known (i.e. we shouldn’t be so susceptible to them) and are commonly used by the Russians (coincidence, I’m sure). This is really helpful reading if you want to learn about how manipulation works … it should sound eerily familiar by now:<br /><br />http://jonathanstray.com/networked-propaganda-and-counter-propaganda<br /><br />6. Attack truthiness itself.<br /><br />From creating web pages for a living, I know your average web reader has the attention span of an ADD ferret on meth. So they will never get as far as discovering that there in fact is no problem with accepting refugees as far as danger is concerned</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (not even my VSF, who implied that he’d do the digging to discover nothing happened in Sweden, but probably stop there)</span>:<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiYw0C56nb4XnIttCaSTSBvEosBqyjifDl2xbsnTK-TeawJCnBbvkRO-eo2EoEpL4FqEUVrwFDQiPWd3bNXFIvg8go-Pj5LAERbS9D9pqDQfbcbdXv3vjmXXLAmU8Biud1NDSThbPTAxw/s1600/3387.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiYw0C56nb4XnIttCaSTSBvEosBqyjifDl2xbsnTK-TeawJCnBbvkRO-eo2EoEpL4FqEUVrwFDQiPWd3bNXFIvg8go-Pj5LAERbS9D9pqDQfbcbdXv3vjmXXLAmU8Biud1NDSThbPTAxw/s400/3387.jpg" width="400" /></a><br /><br />Data (see also below) shows immigrants to the US are LESS likely on average to commit crimes than existing US citizens. Although I can’t find data, I assume refugees are even less likely than your average immigrant to bite the hand that literally feeds them. In the same way you’re more likely to get killed by a citizen in Baltimore than a terrorist in Beirut, or a home-grown (likely white & Christian) terrorist than an immigrant/refugee terrorist domestically, the people you should worry about are the people who are already here and bitter (and heavily armed), rather than a grateful newcomer. Given a choice between a white, male, semi-educated, 9th-generation American who is Trump’s biggest supporter and believes the 2nd amendment is inviolable but the document that contains it is shreddable and that white Christian males are intrinsically more valuable (and aggrieved) than other humans, and a random Muslim refugee from Syria: if you have to invite one into your home and you’re worried about getting shot or raped, and Trump’s Sweden rant doesn’t immediately raise your hackles, you’re probably worrying about the wrong individual.<br /><br />7. Fear and Anger, Fear and Anger, Fear and Anger, Fear and Anger, Fear and Anger<br /><br />Anything that primes the limbic system gets a response. Fear creates obedience (“please save us”). Anger creates many of the same chemicals as more positive emotions … our reward system is triggered by anger, even if there’s a price to pay down the road. Clinton discusses policy, showing she’s <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">able to do the</span> job. Trump riles people up and plays on their emotions, showing he’s able to get the job.<br /><br />8. Collateral cognitive damage<br /><br />Even after I’ve upped my bullshit detector to max, and convinced myself that this is a manipulation designed to steer us towards an ultra-nationalist society with too many powers handed to the executive branch (see also Russia), a country where populists will keep the current party in power even if it’s not in their best financial interest (the very interest that appears to be pandered to) … if I hear these phrases enough, they start to add up. The Republicants are very good at a few things, and one of them is consistency and redundancy of talking points. Repetition is learning, no matter how wrong the repeated phrase is (and if you don’t believe that, have an otherwise bright Scientologist explain Xenu to you, or a well-schooled Mormon explain the magic underwear). The mere fact that we are no longer outraged by what the president says or does, or that Tweeting is a form of policy making, or that the bar to being presidential is now set at “don’t grab your crotch during the State of the Union” tells us you can normalize anything through repetition. Keep it up long enough, and even the sanest of people will have some doubts about global warming, WMDs, the benefits of regulation, the dangers of immigration, yada yada yada. And the less sane or dubious will start to take these claims as gospel. Then once the gospel says “well, people have doubts about evolution as well as creationism, so why don’t we teach both, that’s only fair?” or “those libtards doubt both of these things, and won’t let us teach both, violating your rights of religion, so let’s elect a demagogue” (to name just one of dozens of topics subject to similar manipulations) … well, Sweden looks like a pretty safe and sane alternative to the Greatest Country on Earth Again(tm).<br /><br />So, repeating a mis-truth often enough carries weight (Hillary must be guilty of something, since she’s been the subject of so many investigations, never mind that they never reached any conclusions of nefariousness), but even more significant, telling a lie and then retracting it STILL changes the minds of the most rational of humans (because we aren’t the most rational of creatures). Example (from the link above about propaganda/methods of mass manipulation):<br /><br /><i>Participants in a study within this paradigm are told that there was a fire in a warehouse and that there were flammable chemicals in the warehouse that were improperly stored. When hearing these pieces of information in succession, people typically make a causal link between the two facts and infer that the fire was caused in some way by the flammable chemicals. Some subjects are then told that there were no flammable chemicals in the warehouse. Subjects who have received this corrective information may correctly answer that there were no flammable chemicals in the warehouse and separately incorrectly answer that flammable chemicals caused the fire. This seeming contradiction can be explained by the fact that people update the factual information about the presence of flammable chemicals without also updating the causal inferences that followed from the incorrect information they initially received.</i><br /> </span><br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, what’s the problem? </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Aside from the real damage to the country that will be caused by pushing through these policies, even for those who independently desired these policies, e.g.:<br /> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-new-travel-ban-could-affect-doctors-especially-in-the-rust-belt-and-appalachia/<br />and the fact that this just really isn’t American (or a land-of-the-brave or home-of-the-free kind of) policy, I can’t believe that the president of the US is both well informed and making these “mistakes” by accident … I just can’t tell which deficiency is demonstrating itself at any given time. It’s sort of like the George W years, when you couldn’t tell if any decision was Bush’s (stupid) or Cheney’s (evil), and so couldn’t pin down why it was wrong while still knowing it was wrong. I personally believe the Prez knows exactly what he’s saying, for the most part, and is intentionally using the oldest political tactic in the book (scare the populace into compliance) in order to get what he wants. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I believe he knows that the story he is referencing about Sweden is FALSE:<br />http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/20/what-statistics-say-about-immigration-and-sweden/<br /><br />and that here in the US, immigrants commit LESS crime than 2nd-generation (or longer) citizens:<br /> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/03/immigration-crime-donald-trump-fact-check<br /><br />and there aren’t really too many ways to spin this:<br /><i> during the period 1990-2013, the number of unauthorized immigrants grew from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. Over that same period, FBI data shows that violent crime rates fell by 48% and property crimes declined by 41%.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">[This is, incidentally, the group that Trump most derides, more than the vetted and visa’d people we’re actually discussing denying entry to, who, presumably, aren’t as dangerous as those who’d break the law to come here.]<br /><br />So Trump has intentionally made an assertion that is false but that advances his agenda, that sticks in spite of its falsehood (how many people have seen the data in this post, in spite of the NYT keeping this story on the front page for “too long”), and that somehow became a referendum on the legitimacy of reportage (aka his detractors, if you consider quoting someone a detraction) rather than his truthiness.<br /><br />And that leads to this:<br />“<i>On page one of any political science textbook it will say that democracy relies on people being informed about the issues so they can have a debate and make a decision,</i>” says Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist at the University of Bristol in the UK, who studies the persistence and spread of misinformation. “<i>Having a large number of people in a society who are misinformed and have their own set of facts is absolutely devastating and extremely difficult to cope with.</i>”<br /><br />The alternative theory (and we can branch these arguments until hell freezes over, but we can never keep up with the rate of BS manufacture, which is why this rhetorical technique has worked so well for Trump) is that he is so self-unaware and self-interested that he believes what he wants to believe over the truth … in which case he is unqualified for the job, instead of too much of an ass-hat to hold the job.</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, what do I do about all this?</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Ignoring everything else in here (which we will, sadly, do), we have no moral basis for denying refugee (different than immigrant) status to widows & orphans from parts of the world we’ve destabilized through military adventurism (Isis/Al Qa<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">e</span>da), shadow-cold-wars (Taliban), and funding and befriending our frenemies (Pakistan, Iraq, etc. etc.). Why <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">refugees have</span> a longer ban (120 days) than immigrants and tourists (90 days) would seem to be worth discussing, but again, if you can keep the churn rate high enough on your misspeaks, many important conversations have to get skipped or glossed over. But if you take away just one point, remember: immigrants and refugees are two different groups of people, as are legal and illegal immigrants, and if you can’t make and keep those distinctions, you have no business discussing (never mind setting) policy on this subject.<br /><br />You can also start insulating yourself from these rhetorical techniques by being dubious by default … and don’t just apply your skepticism to “the other side.” The link I mentioned above:<br /> http://jonathanstray.com/networked-propaganda-and-counter-propaganda<br />talks extensively about the techniques you could use to persuade-beyond-reason. Becoming aware of those techniques will partially immunize against those techniques. Knowing that you can only have partial immunity should increase your skepticism even further. <br /><br />There’s a whole internet full of info on bad logic, propaganda, manipulation, etc. (as well as actual bad logic, propaganda, manipulation, etc.) Here’s another possible starting point:<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies<br /><br />While a bit awkward in places, this entire series:<br /> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/just-the-facts<br />presents methodologies for immunizing yourself against bias and doing your own fact checking … the amount of work involved is exactly why the president can get away with this crap, but it’s also why we’ve farmed this job out to the press (which is falling down on the job quite a bit, but not in the direction that the alt-right thinks, but rather by erring in the direction of click-bait and sensationalism and cat stories over content ... we <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">are largely at <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">fault</span> for being a cheap-ass and not very discerning audience</span></span>). Similarly, the job of governing is so complex that our democracy (which is ALSO a Republic, before any of you alt-right ultra-nationalist shite-heads decide to chime in), that we’ve farmed it out to politicians. It’s important that someone keep an eye on that job, and discrediting the ACLU and the NYT puts that final check on power in jeopardy. You do so at your own peril, but also mine, so please stop supporting this behavior. <br /><br />Watch the “Obama wiretapped my house” discussion unfold in the manner described above, as a sanity-check on my claims. Safe prediction: nowhere in that discussion will Trump say “clearly, a president should not have these capabilities because the risk of abuse is both obvious and proven.”</span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-40968854349088492482017-03-11T15:44:00.000-08:002017-03-11T15:44:27.272-08:00You’ve Got Mail (and So Do Your Comrades?)<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I’m sure you’ve read that Vice-Commandante Mike Pence got hacked while using an AOL account for state business, while governor of the fair (as in: meh) state of Indiana.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[source:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518286557/mike-pence-used-aol-email-for-state-business-as-indiana-governor
]<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Things I could be annoyed with in this story:</span></b><br /><br />* Pence was hacked with a trivial phishing scam and yet he’s ostensibly bright enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency (a heart that’s fed a steady diet of KFC, to boot)<br /><br />* Pence & Co. repeatedly laid into Clinton during the campaign about the poor judgement used running her own server, given the risks of getting hacked. Not only did the private sector (AOL) fail this free-market warrior, so did the government: the State Department server was hacked at the time Clinton ran her own server — or more accurately, paid a specialist to run a server for her, and I think the distinction is important and generally ignored — and the breach easily could have exposed Clinton’s emails if she’d “done the right thing”. Ironically, the only people who questionably accessed Clinton’s emails were those investigating her, after they subpoenaed her emails … exposing those emails to hacking and Three-Letter-Agency snooping, given that securing email and servers is not what federal employees appear to do well, but over-sharing secret info among spooks is.<br /><br />* Pence’s incredibly poor judgment using a public server for sensitive business, with access by sysadmins and other non-state employees, a server run by a company whose board is largely made up of questionable ex-spooks with shady histories … never mind the hacking risk of relying on a dying (and never overly competent) AOL for security.<br /><br />* The difficulty of meeting Indiana sunshine law requirements that these private-corp emails be made part of the public record, given that the state has no access to deleted emails, mail logs, etc. for email run on non-governmental servers.<br /><br />* Mixing personal and business email, then saying that not all mail could be revealed in the follow-up investigation because some of it was too personal (but claiming Clinton needs to give up her wedding planning emails because that’s part of the public interest, when she did the same, wrong thing), or too important (but not too important to properly secure):<br /><i>Some of Pence's emails were deemed too sensitive to be released as part of the Star's public records request. </i><br />* The possibility that he was hacked by a state actor that might be using personal info to blackmail the VP of the US, given that the Russians are both the most capable party, and appear to be getting a hall pass on everything:<br /><i>Security experts told the paper that hackers were likely able to access Pence's inbox and sent emails, which could have included those same sensitive documents.</i><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>What I am actually annoyed with in this story:</b></span><br /><br />* Someone with an AOL account weighing in on the security of a hardened MTA, run by a guy who secures servers for a living, and being taken seriously. Just because your mail client arrived in a box of <b>Captain</b> Crunch does not make it MilSpec. As we used to say of our AOL customers, “our AOL users couldn’t spell A-O-L if you spotted them the vowels.”</span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-40214632970941569372017-03-01T16:36:00.001-08:002017-03-01T16:36:35.890-08:00What I’m Giving up for LentToday is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent (for those not familiar, the official and semi-official holy days associated with Jesus’ Big Comeback are Fat Tuesday [aka Mardi Gras], Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday, and Goddammit How Is It Already Monday). Lent is a 40 days period during which the Big Papa wants us to abstain from something to remind us of the “hardship” of the 40 days’ flood (if you describe nearly all animal life dying from drowning following
terrifying exhaustion as “hardship,” and don’t pause to wonder why the
post-flood world was not overrun with sea birds) -- because DJ JC was all about causing and not sparing human suffering -- or something like that. I'm sure it made sense at the time it was explained to me.<br /><br />In any case, you’re supposed to give up something bad for you, so after careful consideration, I’m giving up religion for Lent. Unfortunately, now that I’m an Atheist, I will no longer know when Lent is over, so I guess I’m stuck. I’m sure the Church will eventually rewrite things to plug that loophole while simultaneously telling us that the Bible is the inviolable word of God.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-KfyVn3EhlOlITEFpUCWOJsaEhozaEeHx_zokwsz8bKrwa83xZL1Ddw9x15tbjNBU7T6BjcEBGB2q1YUhUpsxcNh1FAmDWM3ReT70nFiAc0SMFePIxTw3RT3jaP4FkiqTt95YdFq4kLw/s1600/54025714.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-KfyVn3EhlOlITEFpUCWOJsaEhozaEeHx_zokwsz8bKrwa83xZL1Ddw9x15tbjNBU7T6BjcEBGB2q1YUhUpsxcNh1FAmDWM3ReT70nFiAc0SMFePIxTw3RT3jaP4FkiqTt95YdFq4kLw/s320/54025714.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Now I just need someone to explain how (chocolate??) egg-laying bunnies is not clearly a co-opted pagan spring fertility rite. Or as my amigo Bill Hicks said, '<span class="Verdana8" style="background-color: Transparent;">Why those two things [chocolate and bunnies], y'know?
Why not "goldfish left Lincoln Logs in your sock drawer", y'know? Long
as we're makin' s**t up, go hog wild, y'know? At least a goldfish with a
Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has
a miraculous connotation to it. "Mummy! I woke up today and there was a
Lincoln Log in me sock drawer!" "That's the story of Jesus!"'</span><br />
<span class="Verdana8" style="background-color: Transparent;"> </span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-44040796753948962972017-02-20T18:56:00.003-08:002017-02-20T18:56:43.259-08:00I need a new default image for Social&Media<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxcnvcBXN458dtHRuz_ipwjL__UDQM5dVdHXcXEZZrYAuQUUXKsth85nCu7Dm5C9R0NFlH1xO0-Ab6wxFpCS74HtA9nPI2t7nBdb6KiLML6UvNFiHN7ra5SQlLjB9IFmjmTlU8-w1ahcQ/s1600/stop-calling-me-orange-himpeach-93-get-it-right-fake-14550580.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxcnvcBXN458dtHRuz_ipwjL__UDQM5dVdHXcXEZZrYAuQUUXKsth85nCu7Dm5C9R0NFlH1xO0-Ab6wxFpCS74HtA9nPI2t7nBdb6KiLML6UvNFiHN7ra5SQlLjB9IFmjmTlU8-w1ahcQ/s320/stop-calling-me-orange-himpeach-93-get-it-right-fake-14550580.png" width="262" /></a></div>
<br />-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-57249334193507027212017-02-20T18:01:00.001-08:002017-02-20T18:01:45.740-08:00The President Only Likes Leaks from Hookers and Wikis<b><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The President Only Likes Leaks from Hookers and Wikis</span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Continuing with just the (IMHO) under-reported stories, it has become increasingly disconcerting that the orange ass-hat refuses to follow the most basic security protocol:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/if-trump-hates-leaks-needs-to-give-up-phone</span><i> </i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>"So the only question remaining is how many foreign intelligence services have “pwned” the US president’s phone.<br /><br />You may recall how he castigated Hillary Clinton for her private email system. Yet his own chronically insecure practices don’t stop him fulminating against all the “illegal leaks” that his nascent administration has already sprung. And he has ordered an internal investigation to find the traitors in their midst."</i><br />So, he’s using the full weight of a putsch/purge Justice Department to find whistleblowers, when he may well be the source of some of these leaks. I can’t emphasize how insecure this phone is, and how even newer, commercial, non-hardened phones would be a bigly less-awful choice (but still not acceptable). Fearing for their jobs should something from their department leak, WH staffers have started using a chat app which, by design, deletes messages as soon as they’re read. The problem? <br /><br /><i>the law governing the management and custody of presidential records. This says that “documentary materials produced or received by the president, the president’s staff or units or individuals in the executive office of the president the function of which is to advise or assist the president, shall, to the extent practicable, be categorised as presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately”.</i><br />The only time you are allowed to destroy these federal documents is in these scenaria:<br /><br /><i>(the president) obtains the agreement of the national archivist to the shredding and that, if the archivist does not agree, “copies of the disposal schedule are submitted to the appropriate congressional committees at least 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress in advance of the proposed disposal date”.</i><br />This review-before-delete process is clearly not happening, and democracy loses a little more sunshine. Break the law or lose your job … that’s your choice if you’re working in this administration. Are we great again yet?<br /><br /><br /><b>The mainstream media IS doing their job badly, just like DJ Trump done said</b><br /><br />If the media had really been on the job, they would have jumped all over this story, which I had not previously seen. The GOP put out a “push poll” of jaw-dropping audacity. For those not familiar, a push poll is a persuasion piece disguised as as poll in an attempt to influence the opinion of those being “polled”; if I tried to make up an absurd example, a “question” might be something like “given that Hillary killed Vince Foster, and activist judges refuse to hear the overwhelming evidence that we’ll tell you about later and totally didn’t make up, don’t you think that Hillary belongs in jail instead of the White House?” However, I believe at least one of this “poll” questions exceeds even the most extremely wise-ass example I could dream up:<br /> “Do you believe that if Republicans were obstructing Obama like Democrats are doing to President Trump, the mainstream media would attack Republicans?”<br />This is from the party that shut down the government and nearly destroyed our credit rating just to oppose Obama. Who passed — by far — the least legislation of any congress in history while and because Obama was in office. Whose stated top priorities were “make sure nothing passes” (Tea Party) or “make sure Obama fails to get reelected” (Republicants). Who wouldn’t even consider doing their job of considering a supreme court nominee (and I would like to point out that even saying “we’ll listen to and <i>then</i> reject this awful candidate” — as the Democrats did with Bork — is at least arguably doing your job). The party of Birthers. The …. aggggg … I think I pulled a synapse.<br /><br />If you’d like to take the poll and distort the results you can do so here, but given that this isn’t about getting input so much as giving it, you won’t accomplish much:<br /> https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/<br /><br />For me, this is the ballsiest part: even if you don’t provide answers to any of the questions, except those requesting your contact info, you end up here at the end of the “poll”:<br /> https://donate.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey<br />So, after asking your opinion for you, they then ask you to give to their needy commandant-in-chief. Who actually believes the big-league billionaire DJT needs their money, particularly now that he’s already been elected, especially after claiming he’d run on his own money in the first place? How do I get my hands on their mailing list … I should be able to sell these rubes anything, if they have any money left after being trickled down upon. Sadly, these Dickensians will soon lack even a trumppence (small enough currency to fit in any hand) to donate, or bail them out of debtor prison when they fail to pay their Trump U bills.<br /><br /><br /><b>Older News: Somehow I missed this tidbit</b><br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Betsy "I'm not as harmless as my name sounds" DeVos is the least qualified of all Trump’s appointments so far. The fact that she’s also the perfect pick to destroy the department she heads is not unusual, but unless someone else is pulling the strings, she may lack the competence to gut American education (outside of super-wealthy voting districts). But I just learned this:<br /><i>Her husband Dick DeVos was a chief executive of the beauty and nutrition giant Amway and her brother is Erik Prince, the founder of the controversial private security company Blackwater.</i>That’s like the perfect storm of evil and hucksterism. Clearly, a fitting choice for this administration. Swamp? Filled.<br /><br /><br /><b>Executive Order Round-up</b><br /><br />I don’t understand how anyone who thought Clinton would be too cozy with Wall Street is OK with this cabinet. I can’t believe we even need a reg to say that your financial advisor should be working for rather than against you, unless one believes that finance is full of evil self-interested people, at which point deregulation of that group of sociopaths may not be a great idea. But this EO tops this week’s list of most-overlooked potential media talking points:<br /><i>President Donald Trump will halt an Obama administration regulation, hated by the financial industry, that requires retirement advisers to work in the best interests of their clients, while the new administration reviews the rule.</i>I realize they have their hands full, but this is exactly the kind of simple, easy-to-follow, not-easily-alternatively-interpreted ruling that the press can put in front of someone who thinks Trump has their economic interests at heart, in order to prove that corporations are the ones being looked after here. <br /><br />And while I don’t really have a dog in this fight, I don’t see how the base’s communal head failed to explode at this EO after all the “takers” rhetoric used to get Trump into office:<br /><i>Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants.</i><br /><br />I welcome your comments, but before you say “well, Obama was also busy with the EOs when he started” I need to preempt you with these questions: were those EOs <i>designed</i> to push the bounds of the constitution, and reshape the power wielded by the executive? Were they this disruptive and debatable, or were they primarily repealing the previous administration’s EOs (the most common use of an EO)? Remember: the plural of anecdote is not data.</span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-61484487638156810822017-02-18T12:53:00.004-08:002017-02-18T12:55:21.017-08:00Trump, That Bitch<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is an inevitable topic for this blog … which exists so I wouldn’t rant anywhere people might accidentally see the rant. This topic is so partisan as to no longer be subject to debate, it seems, so by definition is a waste of typing (and reading). If you think our small-handed cheeto-faced overlord is presidential, if you are immune to (verified) facts, data, or anything different than what you want to hear, regardless of its truth or the peril in ignoring it, then any discussion more elevated than primate feces throwing will be wasted on you, and you’ve put us in a lose-lose situation where the only way to change your mind is to resort to the same manipulation (the one true talent I will grant Mr. Drumpf) that I’m so currently appalled by. I realize politics have caused a rift in this country, and we should all hold hands, but I don’t see how the opinion that Trump is a good president is any more reconcilable to me than a discussion of women’s choice would be to someone who considers all abortion (and maybe even all birth control) murder which damns you to an eternal lake of fire (although at least I wouldn’t have to suffer the cognitive dissonance of holding that opinion in one hand, and a picket sign saying “keep government out of our personal lives” in the other).<br /><br />So the primary obstacle to me finally writing something on this topic would seem to be the pointlessness of preaching to either the choir or the mob holding the pitchforks. But really, the reason it took so long to start this thread is that I didn’t know which stray piece of the regurgitated furrball which is the Republicant(tm) platform (and I include disenfranchisement and reality distortion as planks in that platform) to grab onto first. Do I gleefully point out to the rubes that fell for his rhetoric that they’re going to be the first to get screwed over? [no, because they’re immune to fact and argument and will be happy to blame their reaming on immigrants if they’re told to do so] Do I focus on Trump the manipulator, or document his “tell,” which is the 2nd grade schoolyard tactic of calling someone else out when you know there’s a risk of you getting busted for the same? [no, because the manipulatable will continue to be manipulated by the better manipulator, and as Scott Adams has shown, pointing out manipulation is the ultimate Push-Poll-style way to manipulate, and it’s so much easier (and entertaining) to manufacture bullshit than unpack it] Do I enumerate the most glaring constitutional failures, the indications that the election was stolen in a hanging-offense-ive way, the lies-as-talking-points, the failure of a single Republican to grow a constitutional spine or pretend they represent people-not-business, the flaws of an electorate that considers the 2nd amendment sacrosanct but the document which contains it a fucking chinese menu where you pick one distortion from column A and hold the due process clause from column B, please? His failure to obey the emoluments clause, on a daily basis? The swamp he’s filling, or the “best people” he’s surrounding himself with? The government he’s fixing by lighting it all on fire? The basic lack of English spelling and grammar you’d expect from a graduate of one of the better schools in this country? [no, no, and no … because my mind melts just trying to enumerate everything that’s gone wrong in less than a month]<br /><br />In spite of my personal despair, some people haven’t given up the fight, and in spite of hollerin’ for years that educated urban high-income liberals don’t have a clue what the rest of “their” country looks/thinks/acts like, so shouldn’t be surprised by the Tea Party or its bastard offspring, I would never say I truly understand how this country works (see also: Trump is now our president), or that all resistance is futile. So I’ve chosen to start with the small awfulnesses that you may have missed. Part of the Trump parade is to throw so much shit at the wall that you can’t possibly point out which parts of the wall are shit-free before more shit arrives. He plans on using fatigue, overload, and false compromise from absurd initial positions to advance his agenda, and part of the plan has been to make it hard to finish unpacking one lie before you have to deal with another. But we all have our own triggers and pet causes. Maybe one of these items will encourage you to do the work to convert the mythical red-state-neck that is subject to nuanced reason. Good luck with that.<br /><br /><br /><b>Stop Me if You’ve Heard This One Before </b><br /><br />Some of this will not be news to the masochistically well-read, but I bet there’s at least one new tid-bit in here for everyone. If you’ve see something (small but irritating, and it’s not one of Trump’s hands grabbing your p*ssy), say something (to me, so we can keep a running total).<br /><br /><br />The Muslim ban that’s not a ban, and not targeted at Muslims? Giuliani himself said that a Muslim ban is exactly what they want, but they know they can’t have it per se, so Trump asked him how to reframe it so it might hold up in court:<br /> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally<br />[I think if you want to make any headway with the alt-righteous, you need to quote their heroes when making a point, although Trump seems to get a pass on anything approaching consistency … he’s so anti-establishment that now that he’s the establishment he must regularly contradict himself to stay on point]<br /><br />The ban (or “ban”) only affects countries with no known terrorist ties to events on US soil in at least 40 years.<br /><i> In total, Saudi citizens killed 2,369 Americans between 1975 and 2015, according to CATO.</i> It doesn’t affect any country in which Trump has business interests (including those countries responsible for 9/11, the USS Cole, etc.):<br /> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956<br /><br />Protip: Somalia is NOT a jihadist foreign power hell-bent on destroying America … it’s a failed barely-nation-state hell-bent on not falling apart from within. Most of the other 6 countries are those we’ve invaded, fought a proxy war with, or destabilized, including at least one where we killed their democratically elected leader (yes, Virginia, the greatest country in the world does that kind of shtuff). As Yemen recently learned, it’s probably more important to focus on keeping Americans out of your country than worry about getting to America.<br /><br />But this is all irrelevant, because the Muslim ban was revoked, right? Wrong. Parts of the EO were rejected by the courts, but the rest is still official USA policy. Refugees, especially widowed women and orphaned children, who are the least of our worries, are still denied entry. After the ban-which-isn’t-a-ban was “lifted,” dual nationals residing in allied countries were still being denied transit through the US. In at least one case, simply having a stamp in your passport from a not-really-banned nation, and traveling from one allied nation to another on an allied nation’s passport was enough to end your trip [in this case, this is a well-known TV announcer and beloved sports star and who took a day trip to Iran participate in a charity football match]:<br /> https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/18/dwight-yorke-felt-like-criminal-denied-entry-usa<br /><br />Existing visas — promises of admission from our country — were revoked. For some people, this can mean losing their life savings, as the trip to their new country was literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. For others, this means limbo in the no-nation which is an airport security area. For others, it could mean being sent back to a country they fled for reasons of asylum, and possible death or torture … in those cases, these people are specifically at risk for either aiding the US in the global war on terror or speaking out against governments that Trump is denouncing.<br /><br /><br />Speaking of terrorists, the official terrorist-action list will soon focus only on Muslims, specifically excluding any domestic, white (supremacy) terror (e.g., Dylan Roof). I feel safer already.<br /><br /><br />Some white house staffers were removed for failing their FBI background check. But like with Betsy “how do you spell P-U-B-L-I-C S-C-H-O-O-L” DeVos, the loyal fail upward:<br /><i>One of the dismissed staffers includes Caroline Wiles, director of scheduling, the daughter of President Trump’s Florida campaign manager. She will instead get a job at the Treasury Department.</i>Apparently, Treasury isn’t an important department … which is odd, since Trump seems hell-bent on dismantling and/or defunding all the other ones.<br /><br /><br />Steve Bannon is Trump’s Dick (Cheney, that is). This respecter of the constitution labeled America’s Free Press “the opposition”. 1st amendment, it was nice being able to write about you.<br /><br /><br />A recurring theme of the Republicants: Defund, then Dismantle. Once you set something up to fail, you can point out it’s a failure, and then throw it away. <br /><br />Trump pulled ads for Obamacare that had already been paid for, and in spite of that, enrollments still rose. <br /><br />The IRS has been instructed by the white house not to enforce a provision of Obamacare (which >1/3 of americans still don’t realize is the same as the ACA) designed to ensure enough participation to make the math work (but still less than the 100% participation that allows single-payer to work in every other industrialized country). Meanwhile, provisions to ensure that poor sick people get filtered are being added. <br /> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-health-officials-propose-rule-to-shore-up-affordable-care-act-marketplaces/2017/02/15/1f69bd7c-f307-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html<br /><br /><br />Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but not little hands, apparently.<br /><br />After harping on Hillary’s email server, which wasn’t hacked (while the state department’s servers were), the Donald was using an entirely insecure phone, which he insists on keeping:<br /><i> https://www.lawfareblog.com/president-trumps-insecure-android</i>Based on the available information, the working assumption should be that Trump's phone is compromised by at least one—probably multiple—hostile foreign intelligence services and is actively being exploited. …anyone around the President should presume they are being actively recorded by hostile powers, regardless of location, unless they are positive the phone is out of the room.<br />During the campaign, Trump went so far as to ask Russia to provide the emails that Hillary claimed were personal (or, in other words, asked a hostile foreign power to subvert critical American intelligence agencies, the exact thing they were saying Clinton was risking by running her own server). Scott Pruitt, Trump’s horrific choice for the EPA (unless you are trying to accelerate the Rapture by making your backyard a cesspool of toxic waste), has refused to turn over his emails with oil and energy companies prior to his nomination, in spite of a valid public records request.<br /><i>Oklahoma district court judge Aletia Haynes Timmons concluded “there really is no reasonable explanation” for why Pruitt’s office had not complied with the request for his emails. Timmons ordered Pruitt to turn over the records by Tuesday and to comply with other open records requests by the group in 2015 and 2016 within 10 days.</i><br />And while I can’t blame Trump for this, this morsel tells you all you need to know about the future of our democracy: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>“Though Pruitt ran unopposed for a second term in 2014, public campaign finance reports show he raised more than $700,000, much of it from people in the energy and utility industries.”</i><br /><br /><br />Just as Republicans hoped they could blow enough smoke around the Clintons that someone would conclude there must have been a fire, the firing of Flynn is not the sole piece of evidence that Trump has connections to Russia, and that Russia has something on some Americans, including, quite likely, our draft dodging commander-in-chief. [When asked which foot his deferment-earning bone spurs were in, he replied along the lines of, “I don’t know, it’s in the records, you can look it up.” I have bone spurs — which are in some cases surgically treatable — but I can promise you I’m reminded of the remaining spurs’ location on a daily basis, and have the scars to remember the removed one by.]<br /><br />We all believe that there’s not nearly enough info to conclude that we know the pissgate story to be true (although it’s clear to anyone paying attention that if this scandal had involved a Clinton, it would be gospel in huge swaths of the country, just as we all know Saddam was responsible for 9/11). It just sounds like something that would come from the other camp (a la Vince Foster was killed by Hillary). However, the person that put together the dossier is not only a respected MI6 agent with years of not-nutty field work under his belt, he was the guy the FBI used to investigate FIFA, and he cracked an organization that had stayed immune from investigation for years, leading to hundreds of arraignments from a dozen countries in several industries, in one of the biggest corruption scandals in history. The dossier is the work of a highly competent and credible individual, with no apparent axe to grind, and was the result of business-as-usual opposition research.<br /><br />But it’s not like there’s just a trickle of Russian ties and influence … there’s a golden stream of innuendo. Trump has had to turn on his own intelligence agencies in order to discredit in advance what he knows they already know (again, there’s that “tell”: before the agencies release info that damages Trump, Trump downplays their importance, independence and competence, so if/when the story finally comes out Trump can say “proof of what I was saying” rather than having to defend what’s being said. Same story with calling the non-alt-right press “fake news” and “traitorous” in advance of anything negative they might report.)<br /><br />Flynn was not the first to go, either.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><i>Paul Manafort resigned as Trump's campaign chairman last August amid reports of his attempts to align Trump's policies with Russian interests;</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And Manafort clearly trained under Trump (“no one knows how many people were at the inauguration because no stats are kept, but we know that ours was the biggest”), and in the course of a single paragraph said that he knows for sure that he never dealt with Russians, and there’s no way to know who the Russians are:<br /><i>Manafort called the officials' account "absurd" and said he had never had anything to do with Putin's government. Manafort told the newspaper, "It's not like these people wear badges that say, 'I'm a Russian intelligence officer.'"</i> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Carter Page removed himself as a foreign policy adviser last September, as reports emerged about a visit to Russia and other potential contacts.</i><br />And then there’s State Department head Rex Tillerson. Here, the administration isn’t even pretending that they aren’t cozying up to Russia. Russian hacking initially was about anyone-but-Clinton, in response to Clinton’s moves against Russia’s oil deals (with Tillerson’s Exxon), sanctions over their expansion into the Ukraine and Crimea and their ongoing “disputes” in Georgia and Chechnya, and their Olympic doping scandal, all of which Clinton had a role in while occupying Tillerson’s current seat. It was only later, when Trump became a credible candidate, that Russia cared about helping Trump per se. Tillerson, who is supposed to be addressing world-wide issues, will likely focus a disproportionate amount of his time on Russia, and not in the manner you’d treat a hostile government. Putin famously awarded Tillerson the “Order of Friendship,” which in this rare case is not Russian double-speak. The current sanctions against Russia are effective and deserved, but I’ll bet 20 shares of Exxon that they get revoked this calendar year. If you believe these ass-hats when they say “well, I put my stock in a blind trust and quit my job as CEO, so I have no vested interest in helping my former employer” just look at what happened to Haliburton under the Cheney (uh, sorry, Bush II) administration, or the revolving door between top industry and government positions.<br /><i>Tillerson, a lifetime Exxon employee, came up through the ranks by managing the company's Russia account. Once he became CEO, Exxon bet billions on Russia's vast but notoriously-elusive oil resources through a bold partnership with Russian oil giant Rosneft. [which is largely state-run] Russia ha[d] already indicated it would welcome Tillerson being named America's top diplomat. Exxon said it could have lost up to $1 billion due to the sanctions, according to regulatory filings. </i><br /><br /><br /><b>State secrets are about secrecy, not security of the state:</b><br /><br />And where are the adults in the room, or the calls for Benghazi- (Starr report-, Whitewater-, choose your poison-) style investigations of Russian influence in US elections and politics, a subject that should get every Reaganite up in literal arms? Following Trump’s directives, the Republicants are putting the blame where it clearly lays … at the feet of those who would risk career and even life to point out serious risks to our country (in all fairness, Obama turned the justice department into a whistle-blower-prosecuting machine):<br /><br />Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who's on the House Judiciary Committee, has a view that’s pretty common in Congress these days … ignore the message if you have issues with the messenger:<br /><i>"There are some serious legal implications here," Johnson said, "but it has nothing to do with partisan politics. I mean, the leak of highly classified information by what is apparent here — a number of individuals inside our intelligence community — is the illegal act that I think we need to review."</i><br />Just as the Bush administration, at the behest of business, made it illegal to photograph or film the operations of any animal factory, be it for food or entertainment … and just as reddish jurisdictions around the country are making it illegal to film police officers violating citizen’s rights instead of doing anything about police brutality and racism (which does in fact exist, as would be expected in any group as large, disparate and powerful as “all licensed-to-kill individuals in a large and heterogeneous nation”) … we now have this piece of scrumptiousness (i.e. tastes like violence of Baby Harp Seal mixed with precariousness of California Condor):<br /> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/wildlife-watch-usda-animal-welfare-trump-records/<br /><i>Two weeks into the Trump Administration, thousands of documents detailing animal welfare violations nationwide have been removed from the website of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has been posting them publicly for decades.</i>This pattern will be repeated across all agencies, removing data and science from public view, wherever it negatively impacts the businesses that own our government, or might make reelection in any way difficult. This will make doing (or reporting) the right thing even harder, will enable opinion to Trump fact, will enable the continued externalization of business costs to the tax payer (not to mention out-and-out handouts to business), and will ultimately dismantle what’s left of a functioning system of checks-and-balances. In the hands of the EPA or Energy or Treasury, this policy of policy-free government could even cripple or end health (pollution), life (atomic waste/fallout), or a functioning economy (neither Dodd-Frank nor Glass-Steagal shall stay this courier from swift completion of a subordinate debt swap trade), either in this country or around the globe. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And
if you need to <a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/trump-cocktails-for-every-occasion">drink
away the next 4-8 years</a> or more (oh, yes, they’re working on
ensuring at least 8 years, so expect plenty of ASCII to be tossed down
this here sinkhole)<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, thes<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">e recipes </span>should help.</span><br /> </span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-77921326370348361342017-02-10T16:56:00.001-08:002017-02-10T16:56:47.520-08:00TGIF(rench)<br />
<h2>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Dieu merci, il est pomme frites aujourd'hui</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></h2>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thank God it's French Fryday<br /></span>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-50904451936209317672017-02-03T08:55:00.002-08:002017-02-03T08:55:48.204-08:00I just realized you can title these posts<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Every time I hear the expression "over my dead body" I think of this ...</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwbPKevdrXc5VaiIpKUu5_hUsfOkYNK8PqQwvc_VMTs-8s8NqlaBWDTfzipqaWxmThUrZkE2VnRuCH-6Php7tXrowrz3xNsV7u09jlp-XAzehe9zRdvk712ov5liBrOADZzjlZDbLwC2U/s1600/You_kids_can_get_married_over_my_dead_body.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwbPKevdrXc5VaiIpKUu5_hUsfOkYNK8PqQwvc_VMTs-8s8NqlaBWDTfzipqaWxmThUrZkE2VnRuCH-6Php7tXrowrz3xNsV7u09jlp-XAzehe9zRdvk712ov5liBrOADZzjlZDbLwC2U/s320/You_kids_can_get_married_over_my_dead_body.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-49647908556988362972017-01-28T10:56:00.000-08:002017-01-28T11:17:35.612-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">THE WAGE GAP MYTH, PART 3: </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>How do I fix this thing which may not even be broken? Part Deux.</b><br /><br />Please start <a href="https://buggy-software.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-wage-gap-myth-part-1-you-are.html">here</a> in order to get context for this discussion ... or, just jump in with no background, and leave inappropriate, uninformed comments! <br /><br /><br /><b>Option #4: Fight it</b><br /><br />You're going to hate this one, if you feel that employers should pay everyone equally regardless of their cost and ROI to the company. <br /><br />If you want women on average -- across all professions, ignoring experience and work preferences and maternity -- to earn the same wages, then options #1 and #3 are not only Right Out, but it becomes your job to "educate" your female friends that they've chosen the wrong careers, that having babies (and, god forbid, staying home and raising them) will set them back professionally, that they have to become far more greedy and hard-ass professionally, and that they need to stop taking advantage of any of the potential benefits of gender differentiation or playing into ingrained gender roles.<br /><br /><br /><b>#4a: Change thousands of years of societally- (and possibly biologically-)ingrained role-modeling.</b><br /><br />As long as women choose "superior providers" as mates (and they often do, even if you don't believe in Darwin), guys will need to make more money than other guys to get the genetic-selection pay-off, setting up an "income arms race" in just one gender ... maybe you should make different choices in spousal attributes.<br /><br />You probably need to evaluate the "genderness" of every human interaction in your life. If you are a female, pick up the check for that date that YOU asked out based on looks and/or fertility and/or potential domesticity. Don't fight for custody to the extent it may impact your career. Don't buy your daughter a doll; get her a Tonka truck. Get on her case when she gets a C in math and an A in English Lit. Don't let her read fashion magazines (60 sexy ways to please your man!). Watch women's sports (or don't accept that paying a lot of money for a men's sporting event is a good use of societal resources). Stare at men's crotches when speaking to them. I'm sure the list could go forever, and I'd guess that so much of this is implicit in our nature and/or nurture that we don't even realize we're doing it. Good luck with that.<br /><br />Personally, I think gender roles are somewhat a byproduct of biology, and you can't trump that without some gene editing ... but either way, you cannot get the feds to legistlate this component away, assuming it's even driving wages (which, I think, is what most women assume when they infer why women make less than men ... even though it may be among the smallest factors of a very small gap). But if parenthood makes women want to nurture instead of career climb while making men want to double down to provide for their families, then there will be a gap that you can only eliminate by paying a women more than she is worth.<br /><br /><br /><b>#4b: Don't have kids, and discourage your women friends from having kids</b><br /><br />If this bit pisses you off, I think the assumption is that it's society's job to help people make and raise kids ... in that sense, I believe you are oppressing me, as well as the planet, and you can go knob yourself. "Let's work out this food/air deal. Then go back to your rutting." (Bill Hicks). I don't think there should be any incentives for having children, not just because I don't want to pay (even more than I do already) for your screaming brood that will be sitting next to me on my next flight, but because babies will keep coming no matter what you do, and at a rate that will ultimately over-tax our resources (and has on many fronts already). Subsidizing that behavior, even thought it is culturally expected -- just like equal pay for equal work is expected -- may in the long term not be in our best interest. There, I have now offered up an opinion (without supporting data) which you can get legitimately pissed at me for.<br /><br />Even if you are single and childless, and employers are doing a surprisingly good job of not imposing a penalty on maternity, don't be surprised if some fields or companies are amortizing the costs of all maternities over the female population, given that they can't ask your maternity plans. Not telling your friends to choose between careeer and family is potentially hurting <i>your</i> income. They're proabably also hurting your chances of promotion:<br /><i>Concerns that women will ... spend more time away from the office ... can create a labor market where it’s difficult for women to achieve to the most advanced and highly paid positions.</i><br /><br />Really, if you want people to be paid an equal proportion of their value to a company after costs, which seems like a reasonable goal, stop cranking out kids. Unless you want companies to be able to determine (and enforce) whether you plan to have kids, baby-making females are actively lowering wages for childless females, so in some respect, women are their own problem here. If you believe women you should get compensated just as much for producing less and costing more, then I think what you want is an <b>un</b>level playing field, which is exactly what you were complaining about before I started typing.<br /><br />Critically, don't agitate for increased costs to companies to cover baby making. That just reduces the value of a woman to the company. If you want family leave, it's going to have to come from the government (a given in most industrialized countries). Either method seems unfair to the childless ("But I don't want an unfair advantage ... I just want my <i>fair</i> advantage"), but by externalizing corporate costs to the taxpayer, you remove much of the math from the equation of what each gender costs a company (in about the same way energy companies don't have to factor in the costs of superfund sites because frackers get exempted from the clean water act and taxpayers will ultimately foot that bill). <br /><br />If you must have a kid, and you want to minimize the wage damage, crank the kid out and get back into the field, Pearl-Buck-style, and make your hubby raise the kid. First, marry a guy who lacks career ambitions and can somehow wet-nurse a baby. Aside from minim<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">al </span>maternity leave (and maybe some sick days during pregnancy), the question in this case should become "why do women raise children?" rather than "why do women make less?" If you have a good answer for the former, then you should probably not be asking the latter.<br /><br /><br /><b>#4c: Work like a man</b><br /><br />Individually, you (as a woman) need to become one of those people who will do anything to make a buck, which might require adjusting your moral compass (data-free assertion: men are more likely to be scammers, hucksters, ponzi-schemers, and shorcut-takers, possibly -- but not necessarily -- driven by the darwinian status afforded high-wage-earners). Make your husband stay at home with the kids or sick parent, make him leave work to deal with the kid that missed the bus or needs a ride to sports practice, or to be the one that has to relieve the nanny or pick the kid up at daycare where they're charging $2/minute overtime, etc. This makes the most sense if you are the primary bread-winner, so trading job satisfaction for income becomes doubly important, and it wouldn't hurt to marry someone down the pay scale. <br /><br />Even once your hubbie is the stay-at-home, you still need to sacrifice family for career if you want to offset the males who get pai<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">d to </span>do the same. The male employee who leaves at 5pm several times a month to watch his kid play sports is not going above middle-management; it's just currently less common than the woman who has to leave to deal with all kid issues. <br /><br />Get an MBA or PhD, then don't have a baby. Stick it out no matter how much you hate it:<br /><i>So the highest-paid lawyers, for example, are mostly the men who’ve stuck it out at the most grueling and prestigious law firms that pay the most amount of money. The women have fallen off that elite track.</i><br /><br />While you could certainly make the argument that bottom-line-free jobs like caretaking and teaching are at least as important as bottom-line-measurable jobs like pillaging the economy and strip-mining mother earth, there's really no way to quantify the "caring" jobs, and it's easy to say "this piece of equipment, code, process, etc. made us $10M this year, so we're going to pay more money to get more of the best of those kinds of employees." If your measure of your worth and the rewards of your job are in the form of cash, then you should go to industries where <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">your value</span> can be quantified. You can argue that those doors aren't as open to you as women, but there's no data to indicate that, and a lot of CA tech companies are complaining about the absence of qualified female STEM graduates when attempting to balance pay by gender.<br /><br />Where I went to college, which was NOT in the most liberal state in the union (TX), the only thing we considered unusual about a women in a STEM course was that there were so few of them to unsuccessfully hit on. At least in education, where you are paying for the <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">privilege</span> and choosing your major freely, there are no enforced obstacles to getting a degree with massive lifetime earning potential, and the only obstacle is self-selection: women believing they aren't going to be good at or interested <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">in</span> engineering. That's not a legislate-able problem. <br /><br />And how do you legislate against this sociological contributor? Probably by becoming the primary (or better, sole) bread winner:<br /><i>The greater tendency of men to determine the geographic location of the family continues to be a factor even among highly educated couples.</i><br />Certainly, if you're still living in a patriarchal state (i.e. KS) full of good-old boys who would conceivably rather tank their business than share their wealth with women and minorities, there are plenty of lovely places you could live in a state of equality. [Note, I'm not saying that discriminatory behavior doesn't exist, but where it does exist, it raises the relative skills of the pool of unemployed females and minorities, and is self-regulating vis-a-vis wages, with some possible asymptotic wage delta reflecting a time-lag in hiring.]<br /><br />Unionization closes the unadjusted gaps as well, but we’ve already decided as a society that unions and the inequalities they currently address, are <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">passé</span>. If you’re anti-union (because you think union people are paid more than they're worth) but pro-equal-pay, you may have some thinking’ to do.<br /><br />& Remember: you women have far more retirement years than us men do, so making top-dollar -- assuming you want to be financially independent of your spouse -- should be MORE of a priority for you than us.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>#5: Stop spreading the wage gap myth, as it's probably a feedback mechanism</b><br /><br />If women are convinced they're going to get paid less, they'll accept lower paying jobs, and they will get paid less (this would explain the low unemployment rate for women in post-recession America). And if you think women choose to raise children because they BELIEVE they make less, and so it makes more economic sense than the guy staying home, and you share that false belief with others, then you are, unfortunately, part of the problem again.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>What was the point of all this? Or, be careful what you ask (the government) for.</b><br /><br />This may have been a poor example, since it's so easily tinged with assumptions of sexism. [Let me be the first to say that I'd be fine with being a kept man, and would hope whoever was keeping me was making a ton of money.] But understanding data & cause-and-effect are critical skills we lack as a populace. Unless we can build up those muscles, which requires checking our assumptions (and privilege and biases and wishes) at the door, we will suffer antivaxxers, a no-fly list which will fail by design, climate change deniers, Crosscheck and other "massive voter fraud" disenfranchisement efforts, trickle down economics, poor threat assessment and security theater (e.g. take your shoes off while 95% of breach tests fail), torture that's counterproductive, blowback from repeating the same international adventurism, fake news, astroturf-roots movements, scientific suppression, and a president who can get elected on the strength of whatever feels <i>good</i> for him to say and/or for his audience to hear.<br /><br />We also need to spend our energy where it matters: get mad at the insanity going on in DC and exert yourself learning high-paying job skills ... or get mad at those "awful" women who want to spend time with their children, and are dragging down all females' wages by association ... or make peace with your tradeoffs and fight a fight that doesn't involve fighting reality. Don't ask the government to legislate the unlegislatable, since that will <i>create</i> inequality. If you want equal pay for equal work, you can't start agitating for protected class status when you aren't really being discriminated against. The price of ignoring these kinds of inconvenient explanations is that you'll never solve the problem. So, ultimately, what might be an <i>actual</i> problem on the gender-wage front?<br /><br />“<i>What is left is a tangle of cultural norms, implicit biases, individual preferences and other, subtler forms of discrimination that are much harder to change or even to measure.</i>”<br /><br />If there are societal pressures for girls to play with dolls and become mothers, and for guys to play with dump trucks and become engineers, that's what you need to solve for, and what's "worse," you need to make that change yourself, and make the effort to point that out to people in your environment, even at the risk of becoming a pariah. If you have a big-hair girlfriend in Texas, who works in a beauty salon because she dropped out of high school and enjoys the work environment, extolling how cute her 8-year-old daughter looks in her Lil' Nurse halloween outfit (or her 15-year-old in her Sexy Nurse outfit), and you say nothing, you may in fact BE the problem, not sexist big business and an uncaring government (both of which certainly exist, but are not demonstrably the root cause of the problem of unequal wages, if that problem even exists).<br /><br /><br />Thanks for slogging through this, and please tell me where I got it wrong.</span></div>
-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-60618024033296660742017-01-19T17:01:00.000-08:002017-01-19T17:01:10.395-08:00<span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE WAGE GAP MYTH, PART 2: </b></span><br />
<i>How do I fix this thing which may not even be broken?</i><br /><br />A lot of this is going to come down to baby-making and role-modeling, and is going to make some females unhappy. Remember, I'm just trying to pick truth from off the bones of "common wisdom" (which is usually one or the other, but not both). It's important (to me) that you understand I'm pro-labor, pro-equality, and heavily anti-{whatever the worst of corporate America is doing at any given time}. I'm pro-regulation where it makes sense (which is an awful lot of places), probably moreso than you are. So when you read something here you don't like, please bear in mind that I'm not agitating in favor of a wage gap, or that I'd be happy doing nothing in the face of injustice, but it's important (to all of us) that we expend our political energies where they will do something positive (e.g. legislate the climate, not the weather), and I'm trying to bring facts and reason to what is typically a pretty shrill and uninformed debate. There are, no doubt, specific cases where one person's crappy situation bucks these overall trends, and while I realize this conversation could look like kicking that person when they are down, the plural of anecdote is not data.<br /><br />Note that absent from this entire conversation is anything about women being poor negotiators, failing to "lean in," or other gender-based "sociological" issues ... there just isn't the data to support these claims, and the gap can easily be explained without them. <br />
"<i>The researchers assign minimal importance to theories suggesting that psychological factors such as the notion that men are bigger risk takers, or that women are more averse to tense negotiations have all that much to do with the ... gap.</i>" <br /><br /><br />Anywho, here are some approaches if you want to close the unadjusted wage gap (i.e. pay for ALL women's jobs vs. ALL men's jobs), or eliminate the debatable few cent gap that *might* remain in adjusted wages.<br /><br /><br />#1: Do nothing<br /><br />SOME of you may already be living in the Best of All Possible Worlds. It's possible that even if a true gap exists, it's there for good reasons, and the trade-offs are ones that you should be happy with as a woman. <br /><br />It's very possible that women have intrinsically (even genetically) different career and life preferences. It could be that they are trading off income for other benefits, as previously discussed. For example, my experience in the non-profit world is that 37.5 hours is a long work week, that the demands of the job are lower than private sector, that the work is more rewarding ... and that it's work largely done by generally happy females ... and it pays far less than the private sector. Nurturing jobs may not pay as much because they often require little education, but if you like that work and *still* you'd prefer a job you don't enjoy just because it pays more money, I'd say you (not society) has some issues to work through.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I'm with the opted-out women here ... I long ago decided that trying to race the over-ambitious to the top of an ever-narrowing pyramid was just not worth it. I work at home for a sharp reduction in earnings potential. Yes, I would like to make more money without having to put in 60 hour weeks. No, I don't feel that anyone owes that to me, and I'm very happy with the bed I've made and am currently lying in.<br /><br /><br />#1a: enjoy the health benefits and extra years afforded by the status quo<br /><br />According to this:<br /> https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/19/men-breadwinners-health-effects-wellbeing<br /><i>...as men take on a greater share of economic responsibility in their marriage, they reported greater strains on their wellbeing and health. In years where men in question were their family’s sole breadwinner, their psychological and health outcomes were at their worst.</i><br />For women, taking on a greater financial responsibility in their marriages had positive effects on happiness and wellbeing. “<i>Women ... may approach breadwinning as an opportunity or choice. Breadwinning women may feel a sense of pride, without worrying what others will say if they can’t or don’t maintain it. After all, they have accomplished something rare for their gender</i>,” the study says, about women who are their family’s primary breadwinner. “<i>Should they fail to maintain this status, however, they have less to lose than men in the same position, based on social expectations.</i>"<br /><br />This stress of responsibility and the lack of an "opt out" is literally shaving years off mens' lives in the form of poorer health. This is also likely reflected in the uneven suicide stats by gender and the life expectancy gap (currently at least 5 years, and as much as 8).<br /><br />What has been demonstrated, sociolically, is that men are still considered failures should they be unsuccessfully relied on to support their family, whereas should women end up hating their job, it is completely acceptable to "drop out" and become mothers (or kept women, or mothers-with-nannies, which is the job I want). These are expectations that the majority of people -- including women -- place on gender roles in this country, and that's something that you just can't legislate away. <br /><br /><br />#1b: raise kids in one-earner families, and enjoy the alternative to rat-racing<br /><br />If parenthood makes women want to nurture instead of career climb while making men want to double down to provide for their families, a gap is inevitable, but an opportunity is there as well.<br /><br />I'd love the additional *option* of staying home, doing something I loved, and not facing societal approbation for it. This would be the flip side of women not having the option of bayonetting civilians for a living, and one that many people would be happy with (and, if a lot of women choose this route -- and they do -- in lieu of working in their prime income years ... well, that alone should explain a huge unadjusted wage gap to anyone who remains unconvinced).<br /><br />As a child of two working parents, I can tell you that there are benefits to a traditional family, and the traditional roles may have evolved for reasons other than patriarchy. <br /><br /><br />#1c: feminize the workforce<br /><br />I was hoping that when women entered the workforce at the managerial level, it would reshape buesinss ... instead it's the women (think Meg, Carly, Marissa) that get reshaped. If you don't like what it takes to get ahead (which is almost the opposite of what's involved in getting a degree, where women are currently "in the lead"), then don't try to get ahead, at least not by using the current ruleset. Some prices may not be worth paying. And when you do get into a position of responsibility, don't continue to turn the workplace into a sterile, emotion-free environment, but do promote solely on merit (not on those traits like bullying and backstabbing that some might associate with males). In the short-term, this will lead to lower pay, because the highest pay goes to those who are willing to do anything to get ahead, but it will make your job suck less, will provide better lives for your subordinates, and may even transform the workplace into something that doesn't seem like the worst parts of a high school locker room, and which may be an environment more amenable to womens' strong suits.<br /><br /><br />#1d: Wait it out<br /><br />The wage gap is largest for older women; but when you look at those stats, you aren't looking at a women in her 30's compared to what she'll make in her 60's ... you're looking at a women who entered the work force 10 years ago (with comparable-to-males educational opportunities) with one who entered 40 years ago (when the workplace was far more discriminatory and female college educations much less common), or maybe one who entered 20 years ago after raising kids for a decade or two (a noble cause, but not experience that trains you for much more than daycare work). Birth rates are falling here as they are in all industrial countries, graduation rates are rising for women, manual labor (where I *would* expect men to have an advantage careerwise) is becoming less of a career path as technology improves, and societal assumptions continue to shift. Although there are headwinds to closing the unadjusted gap, things should continue to improve if you do nothing more than sit on your ass.<br /><br />Then, if you still want something to be upset about, it should be the disparity in earnings for women of different races, adjusted for education. Those durned Asian-Americans get all the breaks.<br /><br /><br />#2: Run with it<br /><br />As with any generalization (e.g. income for ALL folks in a gender), there are certainly exceptions. If your sole goal is to out-earn your male counterparts, here are some industries you can choose from. From one study (numbers represent how much all women make on average for each $1 made by males):<br /><br />1. Social worker - $1.08<br />2. Merchandiser - $1.08<br />3. Research assistant - $1.07<br />4. Purchasing specialist - $1.06<br />5. Physician advisor - $1.02<br />6. Communications associate - $1.02<br />7. Social media - $1.02<br />8. Health educator - $1.01<br />9. Procurement - $1.01<br />10. Business coordinators and therapists - $1.01<br /><br />I'd argue that anything under 5% is basically noise, when you consider how many factors are involved in "earnings," never mind the perceived inequalities between two sets of very different people, but some other fields worth considering, from a separate study: <br /><br />HR (which is largely populated by women): $1.01<br />Elementary school teacher: $1.01<br />RN: $1.02<br />Software developer: $1.04<br /><br /><br />Also, female part-time workers are now out-earning their male counterparts on an hourly basis. Granted, some of those jobs suck, and this isn't for everyone, but the *option* to make a decent living working part time is a good thing, and some of those jobs like bartending and waitressing do have potentially professional career tracks (think 5-star hotel bar and Michelin Star dining), can pay very well, and are generally tax-reduced (I suspect at least a fraction of the wage gap comes from *reported* wages, with women working for tips more than men, keeping a higher percentage of their pre-tax income, and appearing to net less than reality).<br /><br /><br /><br />#3: Work it!<br /><br />If you accept societal gender roles, there are additional opportunities for you ... every thing from having your lifestyle subsidized by your date to being a kept woman to working a job where you will get paid well just for being a woman. Again, and I'm sorry I know I have to keep saying this, I'm not implying these would be good options if they were your only options, just that options, particularly for a group as diverse as "all women," are definitely a good thing.<br /><br />As a former bartender in a bar full of male patrons, I can tell you there are industries with a "reverse wage gap" wherein pay goes up if you have lady bits. And there are certainly plenty of sales jobs -- particularly in the pharma and medical devices field -- where your qualifications for a 6-figure job are basically a rack, literacy, and a willingness to bat an eyelash. Or ... strippers! I played soccer with a woman who put herself through a very, very pricey law school working at the "Pink Poodle." Again, maybe not for you, but if I could have made more than minimum wage at 20, I probably would have G-stringed-up.<br /><br />Societal presumptions are also unequal in ways that would make some women happy (and others sad). For example, women are still generally awarded custody in divorce cases, where women also receive alimony and child support. Family support is a drain on the NET earnings of males but is not factored into the wages for females, which coupled with societal expectations about who picks up the dinner tab and buys the jewelry would leave me to believe that the net (not gross) all-income-after-expenses gap goes the other way. I understand some women pay alimony, that there is nothing wrong with women collecting alimony, and I'm not dissing women who gave up school and career to be home makers. But if our goal is to try to get our brains to look past the first "obvious" conclusions, then considering a "disposable income gap" might be a good first step for anyone unconvinced about the absence (or paucity) of the adjusted wage gap.<br /><br /><br />On the other hand, if you do NOT like the gender roles that society has doled out, yet you still let a man hold the door for you, pick up the check, or buy you a summer home, you may be a part of the problem to the extent that you are reinforcing those gender roles. Equality means just that -- with no differences -- so if you're actually looking for "fair but unequal" then you just have to accept some trade offs and unintended consequences in any bargain. Asking for equality in areas where you are at a (percieved?) disadvantage while not throwing away the benefits of the same deal would make you sound like today's white, wealthy, hetero, Christian male who is chronically complaining about being a persecuted class. Sometimes, if you want to keep the baby, it's only fair to keep the bathwater.<br /><br />Having used this many words just to annoy a bunch of people, I think I will draw the curtain here for now, and present Act III next week.-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-12255402853915602272017-01-13T13:18:00.001-08:002017-01-13T13:28:31.773-08:00<span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE WAGE GAP MYTH, PART 1: </b></span><br />
<i>You are probably wrong, but that (in of itself) does not make me a dick</i><br />
<br />
Statistics
are tricky. Many people feel that if you can't draw a knee-jerk
conclusion from the data, then statistics -- in general -- are no good
(e.g. hard alcohol consumption goes up with teacher salaries, so clearly
if we give teachers more money they'll just spend it on booze). Or if
they've ever seen statistics misapplied (e.g. IQ is correlated to race,
and therefore President Trump), they assume that all data can be
manipulated and don't trust anyone (which may be exactly the conclusion
certain creationist, anti-science, vote-against-your-interests, and
believe-both-evils-are-equal politicians want you to draw). The truth
is, statistics are only as good as the statisticians wielding them,
numeracy in this country is pretty low, and it's the lack of analysis
(aka effort) that lets people misrepresent stats, or hold onto
convincing (but wrong) data-attributed beliefs. I'm going to make the
women of the world like me even less by explaining away the gender-based
wage gap (in the USA), one of those things that everyone "knows" to be
true, but is not.<br />
<br />
<br />
There are two issues here: one is that the
stat you commonly hear -- which is that women make $.77-.80 on the
dollar -- is not comparing males and females doing the same work.
Secondly, when you do compare those jobs for people with comparable
years of experience, location, education level, etc., males and females
generally aren't doing those jobs in the same way. <br />
<br />
So how do we
explain (away) the gap? I will be the first to admit that even with a
math degree, the multi-multivariate separation of cause-and-effect is
beyond me, even if I had that kind of time and energy (this is why we
have division of labor in the first place). But the kind and number of
factors are so deep and wide that I have no trouble buying the
mathematicians' conclusions. In fact, I've read several studies
explaining the gap to within a few cents of even -- including some of
the ones cited below -- but each of those studies used *different*
factors to explain the gap; in other words, adjusting for everything,
it's quite possible the gap goes the other way (if, for example,
business is reluctant to pay a class of individuals their effective
"worth" because it appears discriminatory, or you add back in the value
of time off, paid or otherwise, or equal insurance rates for unequal
insurance costs).<br />
<br />
Here's one such conclusion, from a decidedly pro-women's group: <i>The
American Association of University Women (AAUW) has now joined ranks
with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant
differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length
of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of
men and women employed “full time.” What is important is the “adjusted”
wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables.</i> <br />
<br />
Here
are just some of the many causes of the perceived gap (quotes come from
references at the end of this article, or can easily be found with a
quick Googling):<br />
<br />
1. Women on average (and more so historically) enter the workforce later, with fewer job skills, and have less education <u>among older workers</u>.<br />
<br />
While
the education gap has completely reversed itself, with more women
college graduates than men, that's not the composition of the current
work force, and that also does not hold for advanced degrees or STEM
degrees (where a lot of the big money jobs are):<br />
".<i>..those who
always see themselves as going to be mothers (and yes, there’s still a
substantial portion of the population who do indeed regard life as being
one of those things best run by the traditional gender time
allocations, whatever you or I might think about that) tend to invest
less in education and careers when they know that they’re intending to
drop out of that rat race.</i>"<br />
<br />
Many of those women entering the
workforce later in life are coming off careers as homemakers, which
limit the types of jobs they are eligible for, and their expected pay.<br />
<br />
2. Women choose different types of jobs than men. Those jobs have lower pay, and, significantly, lower rates of pay increase.<br />
<br />
"<i>Jobs
themselves seem to have a gender component. Jobs that involve helping
and caring are typically female (though many men work in them) and lower
paid, while men’s jobs (with many women working in them) involve
controlling and managing and are higher paid.</i>"<br />
<br />
In the older
salary surveys, a whole bunch of white-collar jobs get lumped together
(including, say, a broad category containing "pro athlete," where pay is
commensurate with the dollars those performances bring in), skewing
those "buckets" so they were actually apples-to-adam's-apples
comparisons. Newer, better analyses (again, doing the work matters in
statistics) shows these studies to be flawed, so please don't quote them
when commenting (which you <i>are</i> encouraged to do).<br />
<br />
3. Women leave the workforce, often permanently, to have kids.<br />
<br />
This
is going to be the most controversial one, since many women feel they
should be able to do just that without affecting their career options.
However, companies aren't just hatin' babies (in fact, single folks help
subsidize the insurance costs of full families in companies that
provide insurance benefits, males now subsidize females, there are
several benefits available only to the childfull, etc. ... so one could
argue -- but I won't -- that non-breeders that can't host an embryo are
the discriminated class here). It's not just that some businesses've
evaluated the cost of maternity in the face of current laws, in terms of
expected time off (both for leave and future child-related time costs),
in the cost of holding open a position that may get vacated, etc. and
discounted the average value of a women's contribution to the bottom
line, but that time off takes away from <i>anyone</i>'s future earnings,
and dropping out of the workforce before peak earning years is
obviously going to affect the mean income of all females severely.<br />
<br />
One studies estimate wage costs at about 5.7% less for each child women have. <i>The gender wage gap for unmarried people with no kids? About $300 out of $47K.</i> [I consider that in "rounding error" territory.]<br />
<br />
Even
if women just took maternity leave, and were willing and able to raise a
baby without impacting their job, in many high-paying careers, *any*
time off is a massive income hit:<br />
"<i>Specifically the penalties for time out of the office — regardless of gender — are high among those with MBAs and JDs.</i>"<br />
<br />
The
timing of this departure, when permanent, is a huge driver in the wage
gap. Women's pay growth stops *outstripping* men's (not just matching,
but surpassing) in their 30's, which is when, on average,
college-educated women start having children. <br />
<br />
Interesting aside:
There is clearly a significant pay gap between women who have children
and those who don't. However, there's a wage *bonus* for fathers over
single men, comparable in size, so *families* don't end up earning much
less even when women do. I don't know what accounts for that bonus, but I
suspect it's a division of labor + having responsibilities thing.<br />
<br />
There's
always going to be the question of how a *family* maximizes its
earnings and minimizing daycare expenses, and for a family with at least
one parent in a high-wage, high-demand job, that’s generally having one
full-time-plus worker and one part-time-or-less caregiver, except in
those cases where both parents are both such highly paid workers that
they just farm out child rearing:<br />
<i>The “motherhood penalty” — the
relative decline in wages for women when they have children — has
disappeared or even reversed for highly paid, highly educated women.</i><br />
This
would also apply in the increasingly popular but still relatively rare
cases of the stay at home dad, which brings us to ...<br />
<br />
4. Women have different life preferences, somewhat (but not entirely) based on expectations of life roles:<br />
<br />
I'll
touch on this in depth next time, but the bottom line is women *are*
nurturers (whether by nature or nurture it's hard to tell, but you can
see a feedback cycle here if you are a women and were raised by a
nurturing woman, and that is your dominant role model, because your
daddy is at work all the time). On the balance, women also have
different life priorities (or nurturing responsibilities) than males,
which limit their commitment to certain professions (I am NOT saying
this is true of ALL women, only that's it's measurably more true for
women than men, and will probably continue to be so until I too can
lactate out my nipples).<br />
<br />
Being a nurturer limits your available time in total:<i> </i><br />
<i>Women
are more likely to spend time away from the workforce and are more
likely to work truncated schedules as they try to balance both
professional and personal priorities, such as caring for children or
parents.</i><br />
<br />
In the latest stats I can find 19% of men and 7% of
women worked more than 55 hours a week. And women not working those long
hours is spreading the unadjusted wage gap the "wrong way" (which
implies that there are still advances being made in the absolute gap,
ignoring job types, in spite of the appearance of stagnation):<br />
<i>"In
the past, the tendency of men to work longer hours would not actually
have contributed much to the wage gap, because the payoff for doing so
was negligible. In 1979, workers who chalked up more hours actually
earned less per hour than those who worked full time. The average man
working a typical full-time job, 35 to 49 hours a week, now earns about
$26 an hour. But the man working 50 hours a week or more now earns close
to $33 an hour."<br />"Men make up a bit more than half the full-time
workforce, but they account for more than 70 percent of those working 50
hours a week or more. So as wage gains have gone disproportionately to
people working long hours, they have also gone disproportionately to
men."</i><br />
Note that is more hours AND more per-hour, which is an
N-squared contributor, PLUS a bonus for promotions going to the most
"dedicated." Also interesting: women who work long hours have seen even
faster gains than men.<br />
<br />
Women are also less likely to give up
their life and sanity to claw their way to the top (we address why next
week). One study saw this attrition highest in the most grueling (and
highest paid) professions: "<i>the penalty for M.B.A.s is higher than in
any other profession she’s looked at. A high percentage leave the
highest paying jobs after just a few years.</i>"<br />
<br />
This issue also
affects the simple comparison of same-job-different-sex in a manner not
factored in previously (i.e. under point #2, wherein the gap was still a
few cents after accounting for ONLY "identical" jobs, experience,
title, etc.):<br />
"<i>For instance, a woman with young children may have a
job with a title that reflects her seniority but opts to work at a
company that pays somewhat less in exchange for more flexibility.</i> "<br />
<br />
5.
The economic supply-and-demand argument (or, "it must be so because it
makes sense superficially, not because I have irrefutable evidence" ...
this tack doesn't work for me, but if you're the kind of person who
falls asleep during these discussions and just want the Karl-Rove-style
"there's this simple argument that appeals to many plain-ol'-folk and
makes any convoluted truth sound faggy*, elitist, and wrong" then you
can have this nugget, which completely defeats the point of this post):<br />
<br />
If
women were truly cheaper, and did the same work as males in every way, a
business trying to increase its bottom line would hire more of them,
and you'd see a lower unemployment rate for females (ceteris paribus,
which they always ain't). Although the female unemployment rate was much
lower after the last crash -- possibly due to everyone losing earnings
potential and men taking a longer time to get over their entitlement,
and <b>women convinced they're going to get paid less, </b>thus taking
the lower paying jobs first -- that's evened up again, which is business
as usual, and I'm a bit surprised how consistently about-equal these
rates are. There's pretty much no other axis and metric along which you
can slice up the work force and come up with roughly equal numbers on
both sides of the fence. <br />
<br />
<br />
* With apologies to Idiocracy, as well as my gay friends<br />
<br />
Some references (and generally good reading if you're a 538-type-of-person):<br />
<br />
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/whats-really-behind-the-gender-wage-gap/462363<br />
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/05/5-Charts-Explain-Gender-Pay-Gap<br />
http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap<br />
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm<br />
<br />-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-70944470675597183522017-01-03T14:26:00.002-08:002017-01-08T20:52:49.956-08:00EXIT POLLS: Flawed Methodology, or a Dying Canary?<br />
<br />
I know it sounds tinfoilhatty to some people, but there is plenty of hard evidence (including actual legal convictions, and the inevitable "whistleblower dies in small plane crash the day before testifying" story) that elections have been stolen in the past, and lots of implications that they're being stolen today. FL '00 was stolen by the Republicants (I'm specifically referring to win-at-any-cost neocons here: they're like Replicants ... <i>nearly</i> indistinguishable from human beings) long before the polls opened, and the Crosscheck program (brainchild of the AZ Rebublicant responsible for AZ's "living while brown" laws and Trump's "build a wall and get MX to pay for it" scheme) is just part of the recent attempt to take that strategy national. The presumption in all the hand-wringing following the recent election is that the pundits and exit polls were wrong; I'll agree with the former, but the latter is the standard by which we judge whether international elections were free and fair, and asking a voter "who did you vote for?" will be different than the actual results based on many factors such as whether the scantron machines (which are older are less frequently updated or calibrated in poorer areas) misread your ballot, or whether the poll worker challenges your right to vote based on a disenfranchisement effort and hands you a provisional ballot (which you would be surprised to find out typically lands in the trash, and is often prohibited from being used in a recount).<br />
<br />
The fact that, e.g. Ohio turned off the security and accounting features on its e-voting machines for no good reason just prior to the 2016 vote; or the existence of laws like the ones in MI mandating that a recount CANNOT include comparing paper ballots to machine totals (allowing only for retabulation, but throwing out once again any precinct where the voter roll counts differ from the vote total by a single vote, even if that's a mis-scan or a forgotten tick mark (oops!) by a poll worker); or that Secretaries of State are inevitably highly partisan hacks (I'm looking at you, Ms. Harris) tells me that these shenanigans are not only known, but welcomed by our perpetual overlords. There are a lot of bad election laws that only make sense in the context of preventing meaningful auditing or recounting. There are plenty of real election experts that know how to run a free and fair election that are being willfully ignored. <br />
<br />
Exit polls in '04 were right in 49 of 50 instances, the exception being Ohio, which both decided the election and is the home to Diebold, the voting machine company that runs most of the Ohio e-voting machines, and which is run by a staunch Republicant who promised to "deliver Ohio to Bush." Similar, they nailed the exit results well in '00, aside from calling FL as a clear victory for Gore.<br />
<br />
Exit polls, where wrong in '16 (which was often), failed beyond statistical probability in favor of Republicans in all but one (non-contested) state. Where the states were swing states, those error bars were most violently violated. Even if you believe in a Shy Trump Voter (have <b>you</b> ever met one of those?), this doesn't explain errors in down-ballot elections or the collection of locations where the skew was heaviest, and the odds of pollsters (who make their living on the strength of their accuracy) missing in this manner (not just missing, but with extreme prejudice) are winning-the-lottery-while-being-struck-by-lightning-like.<br />
<br />
But don't just take my word for it, please:<br />
https://scienceblog.com/490775/elections-stolen-shouldnt-ask/<br />
I invite you to tell me where any of these claims are wrong, as long as you use a reasonable citation. <br />
<br />
This ignores "legal" disenfranchisement efforts such as
gerrymandering, voter ID laws (which address exactly the wrong kind of
vote fraud), provisional balloting, roll purges, rewriting the laws determining the balance of power based on whether or not your party is in power, willfully not doing your job once elected, using your office to ensure reelection and/or campaigning in lieu of governing, etc. These issues plus additional evidence of (sufficiently) widescale fraud intended to give a minority of the population (white, male, conservative, religious, wealthy ... i.e. those who feel most put upon these days) the majority of the political power -- in what used to be a democracy -- will be coming soon to this space, under "Electoral Shenanigans." So, you have that going for you. Just remind me not to board any small aircraft any time soon.<br />
<br />-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-43819863017726773352016-12-27T15:28:00.003-08:002017-01-03T14:20:14.954-08:00I have a random generator for my business email signature file, seeded with quotes I hand it. Eventually, these quotes get me in trouble, either because they are contextually poor choices (for example, the "car seat" quote in an email to someone that's pregnant) or because I lack a filter in the first place (e.g. just about any political commentary in a business email). I'll periodically scrub them and post them here instead, under the category "quotes", where I expect they'll cost me less business.<br />
<br />
<i>Islam is much like Christianity, in that you can find something in it to justify almost any fool notion.</i> — Cecil Adams<br />
<i><br />Socialism is bad. I learned that in public school. </i> - Barry Crimmins.<br />
<br />
<i>When asked "If you don't love this country, why don't you get out?" I replied, "Because I don't want to be victimized by its foreign policy.”</i> - Barry Crimmins<br />
<br />
<i>There are now kids in middle school who can say, “We’ve always been at war with Westasia” without doublespeaking.</i><br />
- YT<br />
<br />
<i>We should move the drone program under the Department of Immigration. Apparently, even the creation of a global surveillance state can’t help us tell a refugee from a terrorist at the border, but the drones have no difficulty telling them apart from 30,000 feet.</i><br />
- YT<br />
<br />
<i>To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true!</i> H. L. Mencken<br />
<br />
<i>Live every day like it’s your last: spend it wallowing in regret, then lash out at family members for their greed.</i> — Teddy Wayne<br />
<br />
<i>When all you have is a pair of bolt cutters and a bottle of vodka, every problem looks like the lock on the door of Wolf Blitzer's boathouse.</i> -- xkcd.com<br />
<br />
<i>I finally read former President Bush's memoir, and I've got to say, the book was way better than the presidency.</i> -- Jimmy Fallon<br />
<br />
<i>It's kind of endearing, watching him endeavor to shove an entire carseat into his mouth with no thought toward what would happen if he succeed. That kind of naive blindness and inability to think about the consequences of his actions gives me hope that, someday, he too will have children.</i> <br />
-- defective yeti<i><br /><br /> </i><br />
<i><br /></i>-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-61273162906886925682015-04-27T12:49:00.001-07:002016-12-27T14:57:34.531-08:00Looking for <a href="http://islandwidesolar.com/" target="_blank">Oahu rooftop solar</a>? Then you definitely want to check out Islandwide Solar. Especially if you happen to be a search engine.-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6048323290097923497.post-43448854243979851512012-04-03T10:15:00.003-07:002016-12-27T14:57:45.893-08:00<b>What's the difference between a plumber and a web designer?</b><br />
<br />
Nobody feels qualified to tell a plumber how to do their job just because they manage to take a cr*p every day.-b.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17719927680135340589noreply@blogger.com0