Friday, 5 October 2018

You'll Never Get a Better Chance

Like the rest of the country, and a chunk of the rest of the world it seems, I've been following the goings-on in Washington with the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.

I have my own feelings about the nomination, the allegations of sexual assault against him, whose telling the truth, how the vote should go down.

This is not about that.

Recently, President Trump made a speech in which he said
It is a very scary time for young men in America, where you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of.
He's referring specifically to the as yet unsubstantiated charges against Judge Kavanaugh, but also more broadly of the accusations flying in the "#MeToo" movement of women (and some men as well) coming out with disturbing stories of sexual harassment and assault.

Again, I do not know if the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are true, partly true, or made up of whole cloth. The FBI are looking into the situation, and though not tasked with deciding truth and falseness, will issue a report on what they find.

I was asked recently what I thought of President Trump's comments. Is it really a "scary time for young men in America?"

I am no longer a young man, but I am the parent of one, and my time being one is not so distant so as to be forgotten.

Now, while I did not vote for Donald Trump, I was not upset that he was elected over Hillary Clinton. I think that Trump is a terrible choice for president; he's crude, impetuous, seems ignorant of many basic elements of governing. He makes statements that are damaging to his own cause.

But had I been forced to choose between the Trump and Clinton, I would have opted for his (at the time presumed, but now to a degree demonstrated) incompetence vs. her demonstrated competence at making the wrong decisions.

I think Trump has been about what I would have expected, bumbling from mistake to mistake, and saying some pretty laughably dumb things along the way. But still, I'm glad that Hillary Clinton (and worse, the actual powers behind the throne) have been again kept from the levers power.

In addition, Brett Kavanaugh is, with a few exceptions, the sort of judge I would want on the court. The (in my opinion, ridiculous) decisions like using the commerce clause to justify federal government intrusion into decidedly non commercial activities, upholding the ACA as a ‘tax’ when the authors themselves explicitly argued that it wasn’t, the justification of affirmative action with a wink at the 14th amendment because “it is likely only to be necessary for a little longer.”

Finally, the timing of the release of the accusations by Senator Feinstein, and the partisan way that the Democrats have used it not as a means to get to the truth, but as a cudgel that I suspect is more to try to prevent the court from tilting too far from how they want it and less about the truth or justice for Professor Ford. I think that (Professor Ford aside) what we are seeing is pretty much unadulterated political theatre.

So, the all of the elements of the situation make me inclined to to lean towards support of Kavanaugh. Under other circumstances, I would be a strong supporter of his nomination, in fact.


What I think of President Trump's claim - that it is a 'scary time' for young men is this:

It’s rubbish. I think that it should be pointed out in the most direct words for the wrong-headed and hyperbolic cant that it is.

It’s true that, as of now, there is no solid, irrefutable proof that Professor Ford is telling the truth. It’s true that false accusations can - and do - happen. While I personally have not been accused of something falsely (in each case where someone has said I was guilty, I was as guilty as hell), I know people who have. I understand that it can happen. It has happened. It surely will happen again.

But I am roughly the same age as Judge Kavanaugh. When I was in high school, I was not in the “cool” crowd, so the sorts of parties alleged, and the sorts of behaviours described were outside of my social orbit. I never - not one single time - was invited to a house party. I never - not once- attended one.

The only "house parties" I attended were playing cards in friends' basements.

But the events that have been described, I can say with absolutely no fear of mis-remembering or exaggeration, strike me as 100 per cent believable.

If you were in high school or college as I was in the 1980s, I suspect that you know that this is true.

These parties were well known in my school - which was about as close to a middle-of-the-road American public high school as you could imagine. They were well-known even to people way down the social pecking order like me. The events were described in lurid detail. Think about the sorts of people along the “Breakfast Club” spectrum who were your classmates - the cool kids, the sport-os, the geeks, the guys who wore jeans jackets and smoked out behind the library. Can you think of one or two guys who, if it were suggested, had gotten a girl drunk and had sex with her, you would say, “Yes. I believe it?” You know damned well that you can.

So can I.

Over the weeks, I’ve seen a lot written about how, in the mid 80s. What was considered “sexual assault” is way different from what it is today. The Atlantic magazine recently published an article that drove the point home to me as clearly as it could possibly be done. It was a piece about movies of the period - focusing on "Sixteen Candles" as its device - and how getting a girl drunk and taking advantage of her was not only not sexual assault, it was funny.

There is a scene towards the end where "The Geek" gets put into a Rolls Royce with the prom queen, who is too drunk to even know who he (and likely, she) is. They end up having sex, though neither really knows for sure. It's a plot device in a classic "coming of age" movie.

A month or so ago, I got into a debate with a friend on Facebook, and stated that the movie Animal House (1978) was one that I thought (and mostly still think) is hilarious. But there are parts that have just not aged well at all. One shows a fraternity brother in his room with a girl (who turns out, in the end, to be 13) who get drunk, and then listening to a debate between an angel and a devil on his shoulder about whether to have sex with the girl. The devil actually at one point says “You’ll never get a better chance.”

The audiences laughed at the scene. I laughed at it as a 16 year old.

Just today in a discussion, someone pointed out that "Pinto" ended up listening to his angel rather than his devil, and waits until later - and in fact, when his date tells him that he "won't need" beer to "get lucky."

Great; but in the very end of the film, Bluto kidnaps Mandy Pepperidge, tosses her into a car, and drives off victorious. He is identified as "Senator Blutarsky."

The claim that it’s a scary time for young men in America just does not square with this reality.

Not at all.

“You’ll never get a better chance.”

That is really all I need to think about when considering this statement, sorry.

Are there cases where young men get falsely accused? Of course there are. People get falsely accused of crimes, which is regrettable. Is it difficult to respond to an accusation of sexual assault where it is quite literally just your word and hers. That is undeniable. The recent debacle at the University of Virginia, where a coed made up, out of whole cloth, a phony story about getting raped in a fraternity, as it turns out as part of a “catfishing” scheme is disgusting, and people who make false accusations must be held to account.

I have a 13 year old son, who is close to entering the stage of his life where dating and perhaps sexual politics become part of the ambient noise. I am not sure what I would do if he were accused falsely.

It does happen. But it is not the norm. Let’s look at the reality. Accusations of sex crimes are false in about 5% of cases according to a recent study published in the Journal of Forensic Psychology. 5 per cent is not zero, but it's not high. And it certainly is not enough to make for "scary times."

Put another way, in 1978, the mayor of San Francisco (George Moscone) and a supervisor (Harvey Milk) were killed by a disgruntled former supervisor (Dan White). It made national headlines. Was that a “scary time” to be a mayor? No. It was an outlier where one angry man with a grudge killed two other politicians. It was not “the norm.”

Should my 13 year old be "scared?" I don't think so.

Look - it is, in my opinion, incumbent on him as a “young man” to behave with decency and respect towards men and women. Part of the responsibility falls on his mother and me to show him through our own role-playing what a healthy relationship looks like, that pressuring a girl into sex or getting her drunk so that he will “never have a better chance” is just out of the question.

He should not do these things - not because he is afraid of being accused of them, but because they are wrong.

I am now 48 years old. I’ve done things in my life that I really wish I hadn’t. But I do not fear that there will be someone who will, for financial or political or personal or indeed, no reason at all, accuse me. I suspect that the only young men who do fear this are those who should be afraid.

“You’ll never get a better chance.”

No. It’s not a scary time for young men. It really isn’t.

Thursday, 30 August 2018

Take Me Out to the Ball Game

Image result for baseball images faceplant

As summer transitions to fall, the days are shorter and shorter (and soon, we will be returning home from work in the dark), and the kids settle back into their school routine, the inevitable real end of the seasons approaches.

Saturday is the first of September. For baseball fans, September is a key point where the pretenders (which is most of the teams) bring their minor league prospects up for the traditional cup of coffee, and the "wait til next year" chorus begins warming up.

I am a Toronto Blue Jays fan, and 2018 has been another pretty dismal season. The team has played poorly, and worse still, has a roster stocked with an admixture of non-prospects, nobodies, and has-beens. 

No; that's not really fair, their "has beens" largely never really were much to begin with (Kendrys Morales?) Losing with a roster of young players at least offers some level of excitement. One (or more) of those guys at some point might be a star on a contending team.

The 2018 Blue Jays are losing with the oldest roster in the major leagues.

So, they are going to lose more than 90 games this year; and in all likelihood, the team will actually be worse in 2019.

In March, I thought that the team would possibly be historically awful - the Blue Jays have not lost 100 games in a season in 40 years. A "hot" start (they won 13 of their first 19 games, and were briefly in first before reality came around) made that unlikely. 

So the Blue Jays will have to settle for an unremarkably poor season - the sort that Toronto fans have come to expect over the past quarter century.

But 2018 has provided something interesting that has, as far as I know, gone un-noticed.

While this Toronto team is going to go down as yet another forgettable bunch, the Baltimore Orioles of 2018 actually can reach a level of futility for the ages.

There are, of course, many ways to answer the question. Worst, cumulatively? The most losses in a single season? Winning percentage? Who finished the furthest down in the standings.

When talking about terrible teams, you almost have start with the Philadelphia Phillies.

The Phillies were the first team in all of professional sport to amass 10,000 losses, which they accomplished in 2007. But to be fair, they’ve been in the National League continuously since 1876, so of course, they have had a lot more opportunity to lose than, say, the New York Mets (born in 1962).

They Phillies have been joined by the Cubs, Pirates, and and Braves in the 10,000 loss club.

The St Louis Browns from 1901–1953 racked up a record of 3462–4554 (.431), which translates to a 162 game average of 92 losses per season. The Browns lost more than 90 games on average every season they existed. In their 53 years in St Louis, they appeared in the World Series exactly once (in 1944 during the War when man of the top players were off in the Army). Only 3 other times did they finish less than 10 games out.

The Browns were an epically horrible team - and it's worth noting, the predecessors to the Baltimore Orioles, having moved in 1953 from St Louis to Baltimore.

The Kansas City Athletics were in KC for only 13 forgettable seasons, and in that time produced no winning seasons. The “best” record they produced (1958) saw the team win 73 and lose 81 games. They still finished 19 games out of first. Four of their 13 seasons saw the team lose more than 100 games (and for half of those, the season was only 154 games long).

In terms of single-seasons, there are of course the 1962 Mets (40–120) and 2003 Detroit Tigers (43–119) have posted the most losses in a single season.

By percentage, the 1916 Philadelphia As (36–117, .235) and 1935 Boston Braves (38–115, .248) are the only two teams to lose more than 3/4 of their games in a season.

By games behind, the 1909 Braves (65), 1939 Browns (64) and 1932 Red Sox (64) have finished the  furthest out.

So what then, does that mean for the Baltimore Orioles?

In 2018, as of today (29 August) the Baltimore Orioles stand at 39–94 (.293), and 52 games behind the Red Sox. At this pace, the Orioles will finish with a record of 47–115.

47 wins and 115 losses is a terrible record, but does not pose serious risk to the records of the Mets (total losses) or Athletics (worst winning percentage). 

Projecting their position in the standings, however, over 162 games, the Orioles are on pace to end the year 63 games out of first place. They are in a position to challenge that record.

With a little bit of luck, the Baltimore Orioles in 2018 can set the major league record for most games out of first place in the modern era.

The 2018 Orioles are within reach of a season of historical importance. Baltimore fans, it seems, do have something to be cheering for.

Friday, 20 April 2018

Who? Whom?

Contrary to popular belief, clown shes come in red AND blue

I read in the papers today yet one more story about a cartoonishly ignorant politician making offensive, racist comments on his Facebook page.

(Why does any serious politician comment on Facebook about anything other than the baby kissing opportunities that he is looking forward to at this week-end's barbecues?)

This one had everything. Stupidity about "climate change." Crazy conspiracy theories. Anti-semitism. Phony contrition. A non-apology. And a hastily-orchestrated visit to a Holocaust museum.

I know what you're thinking. Some rube Republican in Louisville, Kentucky. 

Wrong. Sorry. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy!, where the scores really change?

This is not some hick town in Mississippi, but a council man in our nation's capital.

One could not be blamed for thinking that it was, however. Because that is the narrative that you are being fed. Ignorant, racist fool? Must be some Republican from the south. Better get some footage of the rube for The Daily Show, ASAP. What? It's a Democrat from the District of Columbia? Oops. Nix that and write me another joke about Sarah Huckabee's face.

Washington Councilman Trayon White got into trouble when, on his Facebook page following an odd, early spring snow storm, he posted a video and comment:

It just started snowing out of nowhere this morning, man. Y’all better pay attention to this climate control, man, this climate manipulation. And D.C. keep talking about, ‘We a resilient city.’ And that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.

Confronted with the obvious problems with the science if not the prejudice in the comment, it was deleted. White tried to inoculate himself by making at appearance at the national Museum of the Holocaust.

It went about as well as you might expect for a man who believes that French-Jewish banking families can control the weather in DC.

Standing before a photo of a woman being subjected to ritual humiliation, White asked if the Nazi soldiers on either side were there "to protect her." The docent informed Mr White that, no. The woman was being marched through a ghetto, to which he replied "marching through is protecting."

"Um. No. I think that they are trying to humiliate her," the docent responded.

Later, when informed of the walls encircling the Warsaw Ghetto, members of the council member's staff asked, "Is that like a gated community?" Rabbi Batya Glazer answered simply, "Yeah, I wouldn’t call it a gated community. More like a prison.”

Worst of all, about half-way through the visit, Mr White sneaked out the side door and was no-where to be found. 

So much for contrition. And for educating oneself.

The whole story is as ludicrous as it is pathetic. This man, who according to the Washington Post has seen no damage to his support in his district (which is described as the most "isolated" in the city, though how someone can be isolated in a city of about 70 square miles is a mystery) is incredibly ignorant of many basic things. And his empty mind gives space to crazy theories about Jewish conspiracies to tamper with the weather to enrich their banks. 

All of this is just begging to be mocked by alleged "comedians."

It has escaped the attention of Trevor Noah. Jimmy Kimmel has not tweeted about it. I do not watch John Oliver, but I am guessing he's not yet touched it.

The point is that controlling the megaphone of popular culture allows people to control the national narrative

Thursday, 19 April 2018

All Summer in a Day

Roses occasionally suffer from black spot.
But these roses are guaranteed free from any imperfections.

It is always advisable to purchase goods with guarantees, even if they cost slightly more.

The Philip K Dick story "Super Toys Last All Summer Long," the literary basis for the film "AI" ends with a terrible disclosure that we all grasp perhaps before the final denouement. One of the penultimate passages describes the return of the father of the story, Henry Swinton, appearing at his simulated home, with simulated, perfect roses at the gates. The artificial Servingman at his side points out the reality that roses are often not perfect.

Real things risk imperfection.

An advert came across my Twitter feed today from Saint-Jude Children's Hospital. Saint-Jude's is a charity group who raise money for paediatric cancer research and treatment, and provide free services to families of young children stricken with cancer.

In the video, a little boy, called Calvin, is shown reacting to the images his oncologist shows him of a tumour in his brain. Calvin, you see, was diagnosed at 9 with a malignancy. In the video, Calvin sees first evidence that his treatments are working to arrest the growth.

Saint-Jude's is one of a handful of charities that we donate to support; it's truly doing God's work - funding research to help families like Calvin to have hope, and providing totally free medical care for those who are struck with cancer.

There is another short story I recall from days past, this one from Ray Bradbury. It is called "All Summer in a Day," and it details a single hour for a colony of humans living on Venus. The bottom line is that, because of the peculiar rotational and weather patterns of Venus, the sky is dark and rain-filled all the time, save for one hour every seven years. Most of the children in the classroom have never seen the sun in their lives, and they eagerly await it. One little girl, Margot, has been locked in a locker as a prank. In the anticipation of the once in a near-decade event, the children forget Margot and run out to enjoy the brief dance in the sun. As the clouds reappear, one child suddenly remembers the little girl.

In reality, summer is not over in a day; but we all have a finite number of summers. For every one of us, there will at some point be no more tomorrows. 

30 years ago, I had a friend named Clay Mahaffey. Clay was in my Cub Scout den. If I recall correctly, he was a good student in the way that second graders are "good" or "poor" students. I played little league with him, and recall that he was a pretty good baseball player. About as good as a 10 year old can be. He was an excellent basketball player - much better than I was. But my nearly 40 year old memory is mostly that he was a pretty nice little boy. 

Clay had a younger brother named David, who was in class with my kid brother and sister. David was also a friendly little kid. But he was not much of a ball player. David also missed quite a lot of school, because David suffered from leukaemia. He would be gone from time to time for treatment. But each time, he came back, smiling. 

When I saw the story of Calvin, who thanks to Saint-Jude will have a few more tomrrows - I hope a lot more, I thought of David.

We moved away from the town we were living in in the final weeks of 1980; I've never been back in all these years. 

In April 1981 - almost exactly 37 years ago - David lost his battle to leukaemia. He was eight years old. 

As the Servingman in "Super Toys" points out, real, living things cannot come with guarantees. Not roses. Not children. It just doesn't work that way.

I think of David Mahaffey from time to time. He would have been 45 years old this year. 

If you are in position, I highly recommend giving to Saint-Jude's. 

Friday, 16 March 2018

One Tin Soldier

Courage means being the only one who knows that you're actually afraid
- Franklin P Jones (English Engineer)

Recently, there was in these United States another incident where an angry, disturbed young man (and they are almost always men) went to a school and killed several of his classmates and a few teachers who tried to protect their students for good measure. 

There have been many words written and said about gun violence. Too many and to too little effect. I've had my say more than once, here, here , and here.

It's not my intention today to talk about gun violence or gun control. Just so that there is no confusion, however, I quote my words from just over five years ago, when another angry, disturbed young man went into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and killed 20 children (all under the age of eight) with a gun that his mother legally obtained.

A weekend has now passed between us and the horrific shooting in Newtown, CT.  The images of crying, shaken young children will not soon be forgotten.  And the thought of little five and six year old, lifeless children with unopened Christmas presents and named stockings forever awaiting a return that will not come, spending the weekend pending crime scene investigations to be completed is too terrible a thought to consider.
Predictably, the discussion has turned to what to do about this.
The point is, sensible people understand that we need to balance the "rights" (and more accurately, the desires) of one individual against the rights of others. 
The Republicans are just dead wrong on this. 
Yes, we need to take steps to reduce the toxicity of the sewage culture - with its phony machismo, out-sized sense of "respect" that is frankly narcissistic, and plain glorification of violence.  Yes, we need parents to be parents.  We need to make sure that mentally ill people have the resources and equally, avail themselves of those resources.
But I'm sorry.  Pretending that bromides about how "guns don't kill people, people kill people," or clinging to fantasies that these yahoos are somehow keeping an otherwise tyrannical government in check is killing people.

Five years later, and nothing has really changed.

But today, I don't want to talk about guns; I want to talk about courage.

I participate from time to time in an on-line forum called Quora. It's not the typical internet food-fight, but rather, a place where questions are asked and those with some knowledge provide answers. I get questions directed to me about maths, about economics, about life for foreigners in France. All because I am a mathematician, I make economic models, and lived as an American in France.

But I also get the odd question about US politics, and recently, with the shooting in Florida, the US president, Donald Trump, boasted about how, should he have been around the scene, would have "run into the building" to confront the murderer. One supposes that this boast is meant to contrast against the police deputy who hid outside as the gunman roamed the corridors of the school for several minutes, shooting his peers.

On Quora, the question was put to me:

Who believes that Donald Trump would run at a gunman? In my experience, the ones who say 'I would have done this' are always the people who would never do what they say, so why say it?
Now, I have no idea if it's actually true that President Trump would have run at the gunman. Honestly, in such a situation, it's hard to say how any of us would react. It's just too bizarre a situation, and how we would or would not behave really would require to be in that position.

Which I hope I am not. 


But I tried to answer the question, and doing so made me think.

Would I have the courage? Would it even be courage that was required of me?

First, to answer the question directly, more than sixty million people voted for Donald Trump. Not all of them did so because they thought that Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate who would make a terrible president - some did because they actually think Trump is an effective, credible leader.

So, yes. It seems almost existentially obvious that at least one person believes that Donald Trump would run at a gunman. I suspect that for many, there is virtually no amount of empirical evidence to the contrary that would dispel this belief.

A more difficult, introspective question is, why would President Trump make such a boast? Why does anyone do so?

I cannot speak to your personal experience, but my feeling about people who seem to puff themselves up with such ostentatious displays of courage do so because all of us would like to think that we have more courage than we really do.

We all like to think that, if put in a situation where we can do something to prevent a wrong will act.

I have a 12 year old son, and I've written here many times about his life. Our son is a quiet boy; his likes and dislikes are not the most "main stream." Unsurprisingly, he has been the subject at times of bullying. 

I am now 48 years old, but I recall being his age, and I saw bullying around me. It was frequent, and it was not hidden. To be fair, I was not a specific, frequent target of bullies, but I did draw their attention more than once. I remember the experience to this day. Names. Details. Everything.

In the 1970s and 1980s, in the school yards of my youth, one pretty much divided into three camps. 

  1. There was a small group of “alpha” dogs who, in my memory, kept their position at the top by bullying and intimidating the weak.
  2. There was a small group of kids who, for one reason or another, were the “weak” of the herd, and they took most of the abuse. Perhaps they were perceived to be eccentric. Maybe they did not like sports or wore clothes that were odd.
  3. The rest of us who were neither the predators or the prey.

Looking back, the vast majority of us were in the middle. We had the numbers. We could have spoken up and stopped the bullying. Any of us could.

We didn’t, for no other reason than fear.

It was understood by most that if you stand up too loudly, the wolf will find you instead of the lamb. 

So we kept quiet.

In retrospect, I wish I had been more courageous. I would like to tell my son - to tell myself - if I could go back to being 10 again and change one thing, I would stand beside the weaker. I would raise my voice. I would sit next to the kid who was a "fag" (and at the time, this was a ubiquitous, generic insult) at lunch.

The problem is, I know it’s not true. It’s a false courage. But from time to time, I lie to myself and say I would, even though I know that I wouldn’t.

That is why people like to say they would run towards the gunman.

This is the difference between courage and bravado. Bravado is making claims about what we would have done in a situation. Courage is what we actually did.

And for many of us, there ain't a lot of it to spare.

I suspect that Donald Trump, at least in this respect, is like a lot of us.

Thursday, 7 December 2017

Been Driving All Night, My Hands Wet on the Wheel

Was out walking my dog early this morning, and a couple of neighbours were pulling out of tjeor driveway, I presume on the way to work (it was 6.45 AM). It was early, the dog was milling around, and I was just 15 minutes removed from dreaming of electric sheep, so my mind was a bit blank.

Noticed that the man (husband? boyfriend) was at the wheel as the woman looked at her eye makeup in the mirror. Not really remarkable, but got me to thinking.

In the modern era of professed equality, virtually whenever I see a couple on the road, the guy is behind the wheel. Car commercials - yes, even Subaru - will inevitably and without fail that if a man and woman are in a car, and it is moving, and not being towed, the man is driving.

Cartoons as well.

When I was a kid, we lived close to Disneyland in suburban Los Angeles, California, and went often. One of the attractions - now horribly dated - is the Autopia in "Tomorrowland." Plastic cars that look suspiciously like 1955 Triumph TR-3s powered by lawnmower engines that, at 7 are thrilling but at 47 are noisy and noxious. On the wall in various mid-century art are a family - all smiling (it's the Happiest Place on Earth, after all) - with dad at the wheel, executive-style hair perfectly coiffed with ample amounts of Bryl Creme.

Even Mickey is not saved the chore.

I am curious - what is it about driving that makes it a "guy thing?" 

In our family, we share tasks, sometimes along traditional roles (e.g., taking out the trash always seems down to me), and other times not (managing the remote, installing electronics is assuredly for my wife). But it is almost always I who drives. Unless I've had a bit too much to drink and we drove rather than use Uber or Muni, or we've gone out in the MG, which is a 70-year-old manual transmission (the wife cannot drive a modern stick shift, so a non-synched first gear is absolutely out of the question).

It's not like the old days where a coach and four required a certain amount of strength, or even the 1930s or so where cars were dirty.

Feminism has just not been able to make many inroads on, well, the road.

It's a bit ironic, in that one advancement is the omnipresence of GPS (Garmin, WAZE on the iPhone), which have as a default a female voice. (Aside: I read that a lot of research actually went into this decision, and it was determined in psychometric and market research that:

  1. A woman's voice is less intimidating than a man's when ordering you to "turn left in 100 metres"

  2. Guys stereotypically have horrible senses of direction, and never bother to ask anyways

Anyhow, the machines that act as navigator are "women."

There is an old joke (I think it's funny, but your mileage may vary) that when a same-sex couple dances, who leads? By extension, when a same-sex couple take a road trip, who drives? 

In the case of two guys, perhaps there is a fight. If it's two women, maybe both sit in passenger seats and the car stays in the garage? I don't know.

We used to live in Paris, and during our time there, the French were investigating the potential for state-controlled robot cars. Subsequently, Google and Uber (and others) are now on the verge of self-driving cars. Robots are neither masculine or feminine, so this changes the calculus just a bit.

Technology strikes another blow in the battle of the sexes.

Thursday, 30 November 2017

Je TAXE, La Rentree

Messieurs Oiseaux, Veuillez Arreter. Puis Partez a l'Etranger

Last week, the US House and Senate completed passage of a tax 'reform' bill at the behest of President Donald Trump. At the time, I wrote up some of my thoughts on the Bill here, settling on a final grade of "D" for the whole thing. Mainly because it:
  1. Alleges to solve a problem that does not exist - the economy is not in need of a "stimulus" right now by the president's own admission.
  2. Would not even really achieve (1) anyways - it's primarily a reduction in marginal tax rates for corporations, and companies do not hire workers simply because they have more money. Companies hire because they need more manpower to produce products. It's basic economics.
  3. Wastes a lot of political capital on something that, in reality, is not going to affect the overwhelming majority of Americans' tax bills.
  4. By CBO calculations, adds $1.5 trillion (with a T) to the debt over 10 years. We're already $20 trillion in debt, so this is at best ill-conceived.
In the intervening week, there has been a lot of noise about who is going to 'win' and who is going to 'lose.' Many friends are debating on Facebook and other social media, and I am sad (though unsurprised) to see that most of the debate is little more than the repetition of reductive talking points. (e.g., it is going to be a big benefit for "the middle class," or "I make less than $100,000 so my taxes are going to jump.")

One friend whom I asked admitted forthrightly that he had in fact not done any sort of calculation, but just presumed that what he was hearing about his tax bill was true.

Let me repeat what I said last week - if you are not an S-corp, or a C-Suite executive in a big company, or an advocate for some special interest group (e.g., Realtors (R) - and yes, that is actually a trademarked term), this tax reform bill is not about you.

They never really are.

For a start, here are some common talking points.
  1. I won't be able to claim my state income tax.

    No; you won't. But odds are, if you take the standard deduction (70% of filers do this), you do not claim this anyways. And if you do, chances are that unless you live in a state like California or New York, the increase in your tax due to this deduction will be offset by the decrease in the marginal rates you will pay.
  2. My mortgage interest deduction will be capped.

    In fact, this only comes in to play on mortgages going forward. It only applies if you buy a new house - your existing mortgage is grandfathered in. And even if you do buy a new home, the cap is being reduced from $1 million to $500,000. And that is on the interest portion you pay, not the payment itself or the house price, which if you put down 20%, would be $625,000. Unless you buy a house that costs more than $625,000, this does not affect you in any way.
  3. They are going to reduce my ability to deduct my medical expenses.
    Yes; the proposal does remove this deduction. But guess what? This only applies if your medical expenses are more than 10% of your income. And then, only if they are out of pocket and not covered. 
The most important thing to remember is this: 70% of filers take the standard deduction. Chances are very good, you are one of them. If you do, then all the discussions about mortgage, or state income tax, or medical deductions literally have nothing at all to do with your tax liability.

Nada. Zip. Nothing.

The sad truth is this: in terms of your tax liability, in all likelihood these changes are not going to have any real impact on you.

Let me repeat myself. 

The tax reform is not about you. It never was. It never is.

It's like the whole phony proxy war going on right now about net "neutrality." It sure sounds scary - what I see on the internet is suddenly going to be controlled by rapacious capitalists at AT&T. 

The truth there is that net "neutrality" is not about your ability to watch "The Crown" on Netflix or silly cat videos on YouTube. It's all about the money - whether it is going to go to the software guys in Silicon Valley, or the telcom guys in New York.

If you get worked up about net neutrality, either you work for Google, or you're a glove puppet for Google. 

It's not about you.

Trust me. 

Now, I am a sceptic, so I understand if you don't. There is an old saying: Trust but verify.

Here is a pretty simple tool you can use. It's an on-line tax calculator. Plug in your income, your mortgate, the number of kiddies at home, and your state income tax. It will spit out your tax liability under both the House and Senate plans (they are not identical, and need to be "reconciled.") There is a link that allows you to run the same calculations under the current laws.

Check for yourself.

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Peter and the Wolf

One of the gifts of longevity is that it brings perspective. Not that I am an old man, of course. Not yet. But I've the benefit of nearly a half century of experiences. Experience, as I have said before, is what is left behind as we live, a bit like ashes after the fire.

Friday night, I was out for a quick drink and dinner with my wife; en route, her mobile rang, and she took the call from a friend. Her son and ours were these past couple of years classmates and friends at the same school. Our son this year, entering grade seven (the dreaded middle school), has moved to a new school, leaving behind the old one and some old friends.

Our son is a bit of an introvert - quiet, introspective. He's always preferred books to sports. He's cautious - eyeing the other kids and studying them - until he can sort who is who, and upon gaining some level of familiarity and comfort, makes a small number of friends. In some ways, this marks him as other in his cohort, and on a couple of occasions, has attracted the attention of bullies. Bullies in the classic sense, mind you. 

I personally hate bullying; I hate it at an intellectual level, and I despise it at a visceral one. 

The purpose of the call Friday was that Alastair's friend (the son of my wife's friend) has become the target of bullies back at his old school. The school was woefully impotent in dealing with the harassment when it was focused on our son; in this case, they have taken some steps to deal with the problem. The other boy's mother was calling to report the improvement to Jennifer.

I'm happy for this other boy of course - he, like Alastair, is a bit other, and that makes something of an easy target. Now that my son is gone, the wolves have found him.

I'm pleased that the school at least makes an appearance of intervening.

My wife and I, over drinks, were talking about this case, specifically, and of bullying more generally.

Why, we discussed, did it seem that these kids who last year took on our son, so conveniently turned their eyes to the next "weakest" kid in the class? Why him?

We read a lot these days about "bullying," whether it's the president engaging in infantile wars of insults with Hollywood celebrities, or executives belittling employees in companies, or teen girls shaming or excluding each other - the "mean girl" syndrome made famous in a movie of the same name?

The common "wisdom" is that bullies are internally conflicted - themselves vulnerable, weak, and insecure - and that their aggression is a defensive reflex. 

Honestly, as I get older, I find this excuse less and less persuasive.

In Japan, there is an expression, "弱肉強食" - weak meat, strong eat. 

I find this much more aligned to what my eyes see and my ears hear.

There is a new movie just released called "Wonder," where a congenitally disfigured little boy who for the first few years of his life is home-schooled; the parents, reckognising that they cannot shield him from the ugly truth of life forever, enroll him in a private school for grade five, and the boy (named "Auggie") of course encounters some rough sledding. I've not seen the movie, but I'm connected to an ex-teacher (who I had for both sixth and eighth grades) who did see it today, and has given high praise.

One comment of hers that struck me was this:
You also could see that bullies are really the insecure people.
Now, my former teacher has had far more direct experience with kids than I have, and I give a great deference to her wisdom here. But again, I am a sceptic at this point that this is the truth behind bullying.

Weak meat, strong eat.

We live in a society that likes to pretend that it is more refined than it really is. We believe that, if some bad guy tries to break into our house, the cops will get him. Or that white collar crooks who game the system can be constrained by ever more “regulation.”

We pretend that the veneer of civility is thicker than it really is. 

I don't believe it. It is denial in the extreme. RULES and enforcement are not what cause crooks not to break car windows, Wall St crooks not to use crooked, illegal deals to get rich, or bullies not to hurt other kids. There are just not enough police, enforcers, or teachers willing and able.

Bullies seek out perceived “weak” kids because they have been re-enforced with the knowledge that they are going to get away with it. 

For all of our rules and our therapists and our technological wonders, we are not so removed from what we have always been - human beings are tribal, violent creatures who over millennia have evolved skills to kill or be killed.

We live in a world of predators and prey. Kids can sense this.

I’m nearly 50 years old; I was not bullied terribly as a kid, but I had more than one incident, starting in kindergarten. I remember the names and faces of the kids, and the attacks, 40 years later. 

If you were ever bullied, I am sure that you do as well.

Thinking back 35 or 40 years ago, I was not big enough nor popular enough to be one of the predators. Thank God I was not considered odd or weak enough to be one of the prey, either. Spend ten seconds recalling your youth. If you were a bully or one of the bullied, I am sure you can remember, even if you've tried to forget. And if you were, like me, in neither camp,  I am pretty damned sure that you can name a couple of your former classmates who were.

From time to time, I think about them. I wonder where they are? What's become of them?

One of the things I sincerely regret from my youth was that when I was young, I knew that what was going on was wrong, and yet I kept quiet. It was mainly because of fear - the predators saw the kid on the playground whose leg was lame, and they were all over him. If I had said anything, it might have been me. So I kept my mouth shut. 

Chances are, you did, too.

I would like to think that, if I had the chance to be 11 again, I would stick up for the weak, but I know it's not true. 

The funny (and also, sad) thing is this - the bulk of the kids on the playground standing by the swings watching, hoping that they don't catch the eye of the wolf over by the jungle gym together could easily stop the bullying. But they don't. As an adult, this is obvious. As a kid though, it's one of those matters of faith that parents telly you, but you just never accept.

So we keep quiet.

Parents as well - the mother of the girl who desperately wants to be friends with the queen bee mean girl pretends that it's OK because it's not her daughter. The father of the boy not quite "cool" enough or good enough at football who encourages his son not to sit with the "Melvin" at lunch - enable this. Our kids watch what we do, and they respond. 

I'm no psychologist, but I honestly think that bullying weaker kids is the way that the strong ones express their dominance. We're not so different from gorillas; we just have fancier toys.

Saturday, 18 November 2017


The Trump administration have been searching for some sort of legislative victory - the multiple attempts to "repeal and replace" the ACA are a political version of the Cleveland Browns, three legged dog of the NFL act.

Today, news has arrived that the Republican majority in the House have passed a tax bill; it's now to the Senate, to reconciliation, and then to Trump's desk.

I am guessing that he will sign it faster than he can pour a bottle of ketchup on a steak "so well done that it rocks on the plate."

Is it "good" or "bad" is another question, and the political fur is already flying. Friends in the blogosphere and social media are all over each other, one side claiming loudly that it is a direct attempt to kill, chop, and put into a rich man's stew what's left of the middle class (Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown got into a rather indecorous shouting match -the words "spew" and "bull crap" were used), while others claim it's going to add further fuel to our economy, providing revenues to cover the cuts and "making America great again!!!"

What is the truth? I don't know, and no truthful person does with perfect clarity. But here's a summary of what I see, after looking over some synopses.

  1. For most of us (myself included), it’s going to be more or less a wash. Most will see some sort of marginal reduction (a few hundred dollars) due to rate reductions, but much will be eaten up by the loss of deductions. For individual taxpayers, despite all the shouting on the House floor, it really doesn’t make a huge difference.
  2. Second, it will make things a lot simpler for some of us. The elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax is, IMHO, structurally a long-overdue move. It often is portrayed as a way to ensure that “the wealthiest families” cannot escape taxation, which is a laudable idea. And in 1969 when it was passed, the AMT was designed to capture about 155 families in the entire country.

    Last year, the AMT got 4 million taxpayers. More than 1/4 of the people paying had adjusted gross incomes of less than $200,000. That’s to be sure, upper middle class, but it’s really not what was envisioned in 1969, and complying with the AMT is a headache.

    (Disclosure: Each year for the past 20, since I purchased my first house, I have had to pay some amount of AMT, and in those days, earned decidedly less than $200,000 per year. It’s a long, not atypical Silicon Valley story involving stock options, but the AMT personally cost me a couple of million dollars - at the time I left my startup, I had a few hundred thousands stock options (the company later was sold) that I had to forfeit because I could not pay the AMT had I had exercised them.

    I personally hate the AMT, and will be glad to see it go.
  3. Third, it’s theoretically a good idea to move our corporate tax structure to a territorial system - where taxes are due on profits where you make them and not globally. The US is one of (might be the only) OECD country who do this. It brings us in line with our European competitors. I suspect it may make American businesses more competitive in the long run, as it reduces compliance and costs.
  4. Fourth, with respect to (3), it is not going to result in job growth. As others have said, companies hire workers to produce goods and services that are in demand, and that produce more value than the cost to produce them.

    For example, imagine General Motors, who manufacture and sell cars in many countries around the world. Now, rather than the system the US has, it moves to the territorial system, reducing GM’s tax burden. Will they then hire more workers? To make what?

    GM is already well aware of how many cars that are demanded world-wide. They have smart guys with maths degrees who sit in rooms and make all sort of forecast models. That GM will have marginally more money in FY 2019 than FY 2018 will not mean that an additional Chevy Malibu is going to be needed. If they needed that line worker, they would have hired him. Taking the money from tax savings and giving it to him to make a car that can’t be sold is something that to me is so obviously a flaw in the argument of how corporate tax cuts create jobs that I hardly believe anyone tries to use it.
  5. The bill is going to put to the test the Democrats’ argument that ‘taxation is a patriotic cost of citizenship,” because the single biggest burden it presents is that it will not allow people to deduct their state income taxes against federal ones. This is going to hit high-tax, Blue states far, far harder than it will the Red, low-tax states.

    I live in California, which has among the highest income taxes in the country. New York, Illinois, and New Jersey also make the cut. ALL of them are firmly Democratic. On the other hand are states like Texas and Wyoming. This provision will not affect them in any way. High earners in Blue states - San Francisco, New York, Chicago - are going to see their taxes go up over the long haul.

    Do not be fooled that this is a tax that will hit middle and lower income Americans. It only affects people who do not take the standard deduction, which has actually been raised.

    Rich people living in high-cost coastal cities will see this part of their tax bill go up. To me, that’s a kind of poetic justice. Will it be off-set by the rate reductions? For the really Richie Riches, it will. For the guy who makes $300,000 or so, I doubt it. (Again, full disclosure: I fall in this group personally, so I expect that, over time, this “reform” will raise my personal tax bill marginally).
  6. It is a solution looking for a problem. By many accounts, the economy is growing steadily, if unspectacularly. Trump himself has crowed about how strong the economy is. So why do we need tax cuts to goose the economy? What is more likely is that it will provoke inflation, which will hurt the poor and middle, for what are frankly dubious benefits.

    We don’t “need” it. The whole thing strikes me as an attempt to make the corporate donor classes happy and at the same time allow the Republicans to claim some sort of legislative victory going into 2018. They’ve failed on the ACA, which was their big-ticket item (in corporate speak, their “stretch goal.”) So, the Republicans being the Republicans, when they need to so something, “Hey! How about a tax cut?!?!

    The Republicans need to understand that tax cuts are an option - one among many. They are not the solution to all the ills of the world.
  7. (Final, I promise)  With no parallel cuts to spending, this looks like it is going to juice the deficits. Again. Most analyses I have seen put the cost at more than a trillion dollars over 10 years. So much for being “fiscally responsible.” That, along with point 6, is very likely to result in higher interest rates, inflation, and poorer real dollar wages for most.

Summary: I grade the GOP tax bill with a D.

Friday, 10 November 2017

One Year Later

A year ago, the in its quadrennial presidential election cycle, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. It was an outcome that very few people had expected (cartoonist Scott Adams to the side). 

I live in San Francisco, California, in the Pacific time zone, and thus we were still at work when the returns from back east started to come in. As anyone who pays attention to US politics even a tiny bit knows, San Francisco is one of the most reliably liberal, Democratic constituencies that itself has for years been called part of the "Blue Wall" - a bulwark that Democrats have increasingly counted on of populous west coast and northeastern states as part of their electoral calculus. It's close to true to say that there is not a single person living within a mile of me who was going to vote for Trump (confirmed later in reports in the Los Angeles Times here - in my specific precinct of about 500 votes cast, five - one per cent - were for the Republican candidate).

Here is an image of how the San Francisco Bay area turned out in 2016. There were exactly five precincts that went for Trump out of hundreds.

There basically was no mystery as to how our state would go, and given all the polls, most people were not even cautiously excited about the outcome. 

As the numbers from Florida and Ohio began to come in, the excitement turned to a nervousness and then concern. And then Pennsylvania was projected.

Much has been written about just how such a shocking result came to pass - poor campaigning by an unpopular Democratic candidate, Russian meddling, racism, magical thinking about blue collar jobs. 

There has been a lot of ink written in the past year about the rise of the so-called "Alt Right." It's a term I had not heard of until Clinton herself mentioned it in an interview. We all now know to one degree or another about Richard Spencer and Pepe the Frog and "White Nationalism." There has been recently terrible violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a self-identified member of the alt-right drove his car into a crowd and killed a young woman.

Two nights ago, the first broad vote was taken since the Trump victory, and the Democrats this time did a much better job of "turning out their base." In Virginia, the Democratic candidate (Ralph Northam) easily defeated the Republican nominee (Ed Gillespie) - the margin was much wider than anticipated. Though not a national election, the Democrats did very well, and have for the past couple of days been engaged in what, frankly, is a well-deserved round of end-zone ball spiking. The ostensibly "objective" media have been right up to the line of cheering (in some cases, over then line, not bothering to conceal their pom-pons).

There was nothing on the ballot here in San Francisco, and I've personally no great affection for the Republican party (I find the Democratic party loathsome in its current form), so the outcome has not immediate or even secondary impact on me.

The narrative - prior to Trump - had been that the US was changing in such a way (mostly, demographically) such that the Democrats would increasingly become dominant, as more states (Arizona, Texas, Virginia being the canaries so to speak) began to look like California. 

The outcomes in Virginia (and other locations) buoyed the spirits of Democrats.

I am not so sure - in the medium term, the Democrats surely will benefit from these changes.

No other single factor has had such a significant impact on the transmogrification of California from a reliably Republican state to one where the Republicans are more or less irrelevant to politics.

Put simply, the US is becoming Yugoslavia.

As I said, much was written about dog whistles and white identity politics when Trump won in 2016. Equally, though not in the same terms, much has been written the past two days about a different kind of identity politics as the Democrats surged. Or to be more accurate, identities, as the Democrats represent a sort of coalition of disparate groups whose interests do not naturally align. 

At least not to me.

Ultimately, this is going to be trouble for the Democrats. And it's going to be really, really bad for the country.

The future is not particularly encouraging; “white identity politics” in 2017 (often called "white supremacist") can be summed as "white people who vote as an identity bloc" - as black, Latino, Asian, and other groups increasingly have done for years.

And it may have started to happen in 2016.

Genuine “white supremacy” is a concept whose peak was probably in the 1920s, when eugenics was at its highest point of social and scientific acceptability. The US had just had as its president Woodrow Wilson, who praised the racist “Birth of a Nation” and who supported a globalist worldview where the nations of Europe plus the US and Canada would enforce a sort of Pax Atlantica upon the rest of the people of the world. Many many prominent scientists and intellectuals of the era were pretty much openly racist and promoted an idea of a racial hierarchy with whites at the top, Asians somewhere in the middle, and blacks at the bottom.

The Nazis put an end to the idea of racial eugenics as something that was OK in polite society, and in 2016, I do not believe that anyone in the US today can be successful politically advocating for the idea of white “supremacy.” 

You don't really believe it either, if you're being honest.

On the other hand, however, as white people become more and more just one group in a nation with no single group being the majority, it is virtually guaranteed that there will be an emerging “white identity” political body.

While I personally find this appalling, it is entirely predictable. In the 1968 (when the so-called “Southern Strategy” was adopted by Richard Nixon and the Republicans), the US was still 84% non-Hispanic white. Blacks made up 11% of the population (source: US Census Historical Data, Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals By Race, 1790 to 1990, and By Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, For The United States, Regions, Divisions, and States" )

When a group is seven out of every eight people, the idea of bloc voting is silly, not to mention, impractical. There are far more differences within the group than without. OTOH, for blacks, who were essentially the only visibly minority group in the country, bloc voting makes perfect sense, as they can concentrate their voices behind a politician who speaks to the top issues of their community.

In the intervening time, the demographics of the country have shifted. Enormously.

In the 2010 census, non-Hispanic whites now make up 63% of the total population. Black Americans have seen their percentage climb slightly, from 11% to 12%. But Latinos, who in 1970 were just 4% of the population, are now 16%. Asians have grown from less than one per cent, to 5% - there are now more Asians as a percentage in the US than there were Latinos in 1970.

The Democratic party has, for several cycles, openly courted ethnic blocs. With success. The Democrats can routinely count on 90% of black voters, and 70% of Asian and Latinos. As an aside, I live in California, one of the most reliably Democratic states in the country. It is believed that California has become “liberal,” partly in reaction to policies pushed by former governor Pete Wilson.

But what has really happened is that the demographics of California have shifted beyond what anyone could reasonably have imagined in 1963, the year our state became the largest in the nation. I’ve written about this before, but needless to say, the evidence is out there for anyone to review - had the demographics of California remained as they were, it would still be a Republican safe state.

The Democrats know this, and they do not hide the fact that their strategic long game is to encourage ethnic groups to bloc vote, at times even pitching their appeals as a way to pay back grievances against a vague, white enemy. 

Here is a graph looking at how vote patterns have evolved, focusing on foreign born (increasingly, Latino) voters have cast their ballots.

If you want to see why the Democrats are so eager to have "immigration reform," (and why Republicans are so against it), this chart should answer those questions. One party is trying, in the words of the former President of East Germany, to "elect a new people."

President Obama in 2013 at a “get out the vote” campaign targeting urged Latino voters to “punish our enemies.”

He tried to walk back the language - that he should have said “opponents” and not “enemies,” but I think that President Obama is a masterful speaker, and he uses his words as a surgeon uses a scalpel. The word “enemies” was not an accident.

Lee Kuan Yew, the father of the nation of Singapore, famously spoke in an interview with Der Spiegel some years ago, that in a truly multi-ethnic state, it is inevitable that economic and class interest will fall to the side, and people will vote with their tribal interests:

In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese.

When you are the unchallenged numerical majority, appealing to tribal voting interests does not work - it can’t work. But that is not the case in California, and it is not going to be the case in the US for much longer.

I suspect that Trump is just the tip of the spear, and that it’s possible, likely even, that a crack-up is coming. The balkanisation of the US is not something to be excited about.

In the long term, it’s not going to be any better for the Democrats as it is for the Republicans.

Our politicians soon will not need to waste time appealing to anyone outside their "base," and will focus on getting those voters to the polls. And increasingly, "the base" is going to be, more or less, defined by your ancestry.

It used to be that marketers surveyed us, and then put us into little boxes. Now, they draw the boxes, and we jump in, all by ourselves.

I think it’s bad for the country, and I think personally, for my mixed-race son who doesn’t ‘fit’ into any of these groups, it’s going to be terrible.