Because Numbers Matter

Trigger warning (with no irony intended): I am going to be trying to make some points based on numbers. Some of the numbers might be considered controversial, the consequences of those numbers may make some unconformtable, and the conclusions may even be offensive.

If looking at a controversial topic is likely to offend you, perhaps this particular post is not for you.

OK.

For those who have not left the virtual room to go read about football or to reinfornce your political prejudices at Breitbart or DailyKos, let's continue.

There has been an enormous amount of energy - understandbly angry energy over the past few weeks. Anger, fear, and recrimination. Over the course of a few days, police in Tulsa, Oklahoma and then Charlotte, North Carolina shot and killed two black men under different, but not entirely dis-similar circumstances. The killing of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa appears to be a tragic case of police violence. The accused officer will have her day in court, but if the facts back the current narrative, then this officer needs to be held to account.

The jury to a degree is still out on the killing of Keith Scott in Charlotte (Was he sitting in his car holding a book or did he have a gun? Did his wife have a prior court order against him because he threatened to kill her with a gun?) Ultimately, the video and testimony are going to uncover what really happened.

Oddly, the reactions to the two have been completely different. In Tulsa (as of now, the more egregious case), the community has allowed the wheels of justice to turn, however slowly and imperfectly. In Charlotte, mobs immediately mobilized, assaulting unfortunate people caught in their way and destroying property in an all-too-familiar way.

Fingers are pointing and, as Newton's Second Law applied to sociology predicts, reactive "solutions" have been offered.

At the heart of the controversy has been the "Black Lives Matter" movement, simultaneously painted as champion and villain, depending on whom you speak to.

The issue has become centre-stage in the national election, and yesterday, Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton was in North Carolina, basking in her debate triumph over Republican rival Donald Trump.  NPR this morning interviewed several of her supporters, including Joan Tilghman, an enthusiastic supporter of Mrs Clinton's campaign of "inclusion."

It's no mystery that Ms. Tilghman - a black woman - supports Secretary Clinton, as she is in the intersection of two core Democratic constituencies.

What stood out was her language describing the reason for her support:

I'm terrified. I'm a black woman. I've got black sons. I've got black grandsons. Some police officer in a helicopter is going to think my grandson is a bad dude because he's tall and dark skinned, so I'm terrified. [emphasis added]

Much has been said over the past few years about how black parents - particularly of sons - need to have a "talk" with their children about the particular dangers of encounters with the police. I am not black, and I am not going to fall back on the obvious cliche about "having black friends," and thus I will certainly accept perception as reality.

It seems that, indeed, there exists amongst a large segment of our fellow Americans an all-too-real fear that at some point in their lives or, in a sense worse, the lives of their children, a rogue cop is going to kill them indiscriminately.

Setting aside the arguments about a football player refusing to stand for the national anthem or whether BLM is hero or villain, this is a serious problem. It's an insidious one. It's a corrosive one.

It may even be an existential problem for a nation that is rapidly becoming truly diverse in that there will, in my lifetime, be no majority group. I've read books ranging from the Sneetches (Dr Seuss) to The Lord of the Flies. Increasingly fractious tribal cultures typically do not end well.

But, there has been so much heat, and precious little light.

I accept as true the idea that parents of black (particularly) sons feel a fear that requires them to warn their children against police.

Is that fear based in reality? Is it healthy?

Looking at the data published in the Washington Post, there were 991 people killed by police in 2015.

That is a large number. Nearly 1,000. I am not at all anti-cop, but now matter how you slice that, it seems to me that far too many Americans die at the hands of people sworn to protect and to serve. I personally think that that reflects the unfortunate, violent nature of our culture.

Digging deeper, of the 991 killed, 949 were men - more than 95%.

At the least, parents are rightly identifying that their sons are at far, far higher risk than their daughters. As an aside, I have not heard of a single protest or march declaring that Men's Lives Matter, despite the reality that males are more than 9-1 more likely to be killed than women. In short, police violence (justified or not) is not an equal opportunity offender.

The problem identified with such an argument is that men are far more likely than women to be involved in violent crime. The data are pretty incontrovertible, and, more to the point, uncontroversial. According to FBI data, men represent 89% of the arrests for robbery, 78% of the arrests for aggravated assault, and 91% of the arrests for homicide. (For what it's worth, males also make up more than three of four victims of murder).

Violent crime is a man's game, and thus, are simply in situations where they are likely to encounter an armed, police response.

No one (I hope) disputes this.

Drilling just a bit further, of the 991 people killed by police, 258 were black (26%). As black people make up just over 12% of the population (based on 2010 census figures), so statistically, black people are more likely to be killed by police.

That is an undeniable fact. I am not going to wander onto the thin ice of whether a similar sort of logic that excuses the excess of men killed by police vs. the excess number of black people killed by police. I do not know for a fact that black people are inherently more violent than others; I don't know for a fact that men are inherently more violent than women. The numbers are what they are, and the belief that black people are more likely than white people to die at the hands of police is true.

Now, if one were to take the meta-step that blacks, more than whites, are at risk for police violence, and that men are (far) more likely to die by cop than women, then the choice of blacks to warn their sons seems on its face a rational one.

But is it?

Also reported in the data is the fact that, of the 991 people who were killed by police in 2015, 782 of them were reported to be in possession of a deadly weapon at the time. That is nearly 80%. 34, in addition, had "toy weapons" (the sad case of Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio comes to mind).

A total of 93 of the 991 who were shot and killed by police in 2015 were "unarmed." That is less than 1 in 10.

If we look at the intersection of all of these items:

• 991 police shootings
• 96% male
• 26% black 
• 9% unarmed

we arrive at an estimate that 23 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2015.

Now, one is too many. Police are there to uphold the law; as the motto goes, police are supposed to serve and protect.

But 23.

By contrast, there were 59 shark attacks in 2015 in the US. 

Again, I understand that the police are there to serve and protect, and that sharks are under no such obligations.

But 23.

Stories like Terence Crutcher are tragic, and they (rightly) get headlines.

But looking at these data, the idea that a black parent should be "terrified" that a police officer is going to shoot his or her child is just not backed up by the facts.

It's an old cliche, but it's true: People need to guard themselves against real threats. Claims that one should be paralyzed by fear - terrified - that any day, your kid could go off to school and not come home because a racist policeman in a helicopter is going to shoot him is just not reflective of any sort of mathematical reality.

Racism exists.  Police are human beings, and hence, yes. There are racist cops. As a society, we need to look in the mirror (white, black, as well as Asian, Hispanic, or anyone else for that matter) and decide whether we really can try to check our biases and actually tolerate, if not embrace, each other.

But it's extremely unhelpful to a functioning society to perpetuate what has to be, by any sort of yardstick calibrated in reality, little more than a paranoid fanstasy.

Your sons are simply not going to be killed by police.

When I was 16 and started to drive, my father sat me down and told me how to behave if I were ever to be stopped by a police officer, and I remember to this day.

Be respectful.
Show your hands (particularly at night)
Do not talk back or make sudden movements.
Always show  your hands.
Answer the questions trutfhully and courteously.
Always show your hands.

I've been pulled over, multiple times, in the three decades that I've been licenced to drive. I always follow the above. These rules seems equal parts common courtesy and common sense, which are not restricted from black, white, or any other sort of person.

Go ahead and teach them to be respectful of cops, as they would be of any person that they meet. Remind them that, if they happen to be stopped, the police have no way to know just by looking at you what you intend to do, so be smart. Teach them that police officers, like anyone else, are human beings and have among the ranks about the same distributions of honest, crooked, nice, and bigoted people as any other.

But we have simply got to try to stop perpetuating irrational fear, which necessarily is going to continue the divide among our communities that, for better or for worse, have to figure out a way to live together.

Ralph, I Was...Not Exactly Right

Yesterday, I hustled out of my office and got into the car a bit earlier than usual. The traffic on the Bayshore Freeway conspired to make me 15 minutes late anyways, but I still was able to catch most of the action.

Not the Monday Night Football game (I find American football somewhere between watching my wife use an emery board on her nails and the dog try to pick up a basketball in his teeth in terms of entertainment value), nor the latest collapse of the Blue Jays' bullpen (30 losses this year, and counting).

Last night was the much-ballyhooed debate between Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

I've had many things to say over the months regarding my opinion of the candidates and the choice we are left with, so I will only say I have no intention to vote for either. This is not even a Hobson's choice we have, but one of these two awful candidates is going to be sworn in in January.

Contrary to the clutching of pearls and threats to flee to Canada, our country will survive whichever of the two is tapped by the majority as being the less offensive of the choices.

In my opinion, Mrs Clinton overcame a terrible start, where her manifold shortcomings on ethics and economic judgment were plainly exposed. I find it incredibly difficult to see how any objective viewer can say that Mr Trump was the winner.

But the main thing I take away from the debate is just how strongly reified the meme that Donald Trump is simply so narcissistic that he simply is preternaturally incapable of admitting a mistake. 

In the above, humourous video from the old "Happy Days" television show, The Fonz, when confronted with incontravertible evidence that he is mistaken, struggles to say the simple words "I was wrong."  Hemming, hawing, and slurring over the word "wrong," he settles into saying "I was not exactly right."

It was, apparently, a big deal to the leather-clad lothario,

Last night, Donald Trump was not even capable of that.

The issue that, in my view, ultimately will sink Trump is not going to be his demonstrated lack of understanding of macroeconomics (i.e., the US government cannot just "negotiate" its sovereign debt down without destroying the world economy), nor his cartoonish approach to diplomacy (no; the US Navy is not going to sink Iranian ships because their sailors are taunting ours; the Navy is not the Little Rascals' He Man Woman Haters Club).

No - it was his repeated intrasigence to accept that his eructations about President Obama's birth certificate was a mistake.

Worse, Donald Trump tried to turn the issue to his advantage by declaring that he had solved the issue. His foolish insistence, over many years, despite all common sense that Barack Obama was somehow secretly born in Kenya 50+ years ago, and the records covered up or falsified in a conspiracy that could only involve the mind of Dan Brown.

Trump finally decided to swallow the red pill and admit that the whole thing was a big con.  Only, rather than just admit he was, well, in the words of the Fonz, not exactly right, apologize, and move on, Trump decided to frame the whole thing as a great triumph of his own will.

You see, HE was successful to force President Obama to release the birth certificate (oddly enough, in 2011, a full five years before Mr Trump went full Fonzie). HE put an end to the debate. Veni. Vidi. Trumpi.

Trump succeeded and Hillary failed. 

The whole thing was a surreal March of the Wooden Soldiers. 

The whole issue of President Obama's birth has exactly -zero- relevance to the 2016 election. President Obama is going to leave the White House in four months, hang up his loafers, put on a pair of golf spikes, and not be seen again save for the opening of his presidential "library."

No one cares about the birth certificate. But yet, there it was as an issue, front and centre.

In any other context, the display could only be called laughable and pathetic. Only, I believe that Donald Trump himself actually believes that this is a great personal triumph. Despite all logic, it's a feather in his cap rather than an egg on his face.

I do not agree generally with the Clinton campaign and its surrogates in the mainstream media that Donald Trump is crazy.  But I do believe that the display last night has to be down to one of two things.

1. Donald Trump really believes that the series of events is a yuuuge success.
2. Donald Trump deep down knows that he's not entirely right, but he thinks the rest of us are just too stupid to notice.

Neither one of these options really recommends the man for the presidency. In the first case, I do not want a president who is so blinded by his own sense of greatness that his view of the world is completely untethered to reality. In the latter, I don't want a president who holds the population in such low regard that he thinks we will just believe anything so long as it is said loudly enough and with sufficient "great greats" placed before it.

He should just admit that he was wrroooooonn....er, not entirely right.

 

When I Was a Lad...

I was once like you are now.
And I know, that it's not easy
to be calm, when you find something's going on. 

But take your time.
Think alot.
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow. 

But your dreams may not.

Summer is turning to autumn and we are settling down into the routine of work and school. Our son has this August turned eleven years old - hard to believe - and is now on to collège (middle school; he is enrolled in a French-based curriculum after our return to the US from a couple of years in France).

Yesterday, his school (Lycée Français de San Francisco) held its annual back to school picnic for families up in San Rafael, California. It was a tremendous, warm, sunny day on the edge of the bay. As our son, and indeed all the new kids in collège, move into a brand new school, they face the excitement and challenges together of a new building, new kids, new teachers, and new rubrics.

For the first time, all have to confront changing classes - your maths teacher in one room on the first floor, your science teacher on the second floor in a separate room, of lockers and combination locks.

All of these experiences are familiar to us as adults; I don't reckon that trying to retain your combination, planning which books to leave in the locker for period four and which to bring to first period, the choice of whether to leave period two behind in the locker to grab on the way to third, or bundle with first has changed much in the 35-odd years in between my first day of junior high (as it was known in those days) and today. And of course, the fear of the five paragraph essay and multi-day assignments looms much as, I suppose, it did back in the Reagan administration.

As a parent, I've found that as often as not, life becomes a bit like the never-ended Groundhog Day scenario where victories, defeats, challenges, and thrills replay in the lives of our children, very much like they did in our own.

With apologies to Cat Stevens (see above), as the song goes, one cannot help see in your child flickering glimpses of the past - of the road taken, how it played out.  But also, of the choices not made.

Some of those choices turned out well, but not all of them. And therein lies one of the most difficult challenges of being a parent.

When you see an opportunity where a collision is (almost surely) down the road, when do you choose to act? Are some lessons worth learning (a second time), and which are best so that the learning is virtul rather than real?

When I was younger, my own personality could have been accurately described as aloof. I've never been an extrovert, and have struggled virtually my entire life trying to socialise with strangers. "Making friends" was never a long suit, though I always have recognised it as an extremely valuable strength. Just not one that I have.  I'd like to think that I'm much better - more "friendly and outgoing" now than I was, but still, my wife is the gregarious one in our family. And I'm not a close second.

As a kid, my older brother was far, far more naturally personable - many friends, homecoming king in high school. It all looked so easy from my side of the virtual window peering in.

Being able to "fit in" is an extremely valuable life lesson; one I've tried to instill in my own son, with mixed results.

Yesterday, as my wife and I tried to encourage our son to approach a group of boys at the picnic, I got one of those "through the wayback machine" looks at my own youth. Not at all unlike my own experiences, our son stood at the side, watching the other boys running around, laughing.  Eventually, he mustered the motivation to join the group, for a little while.

When we asked him, why he was reluctant to approach the other kids, his answer struck me - "What if they reject me?"

The answer caught me off guard a bit.

Trying to be re-assuring, and to disarm a bit with humour, I suggested that a) they are 11 year old little boys shooting each other with water pistols; it's not likely that they are going to reject a recruit into the aqua army,  and b) it's not like he's asking them out on a date - THAT'S 'rejection'.

(As you might expect with a pre-adolescent boy, that second comment went over rather like a lead zeppelin.)

It's terrific to see our strengths reflected in our children - our son is a thoughtful, well-mannered little boy who loves to read. He is curious about the world.  It's even better when we see our weaknesses and failings overcome (at that age, I personally was an awful student who talked back to his teachers).

But it's equally terrifying to see our own failings reflected back, mainly because of this gnawing feeling that we know how the story is going to end. And I just honestly don't know how to help here.

Parenting is a juggling act to say the least. You balance intervening and avoiding the pain of a mistake, while at the same time recognising that there are times you simply have to let your kids figure things out.

Most of the time, keeping the balls in the air is thrilling, and we are good at keeping them in the air.  But sometimes, they fall. And sometimes when they fall, they break.

We just hope that we can put them back together when they do.

The Tipping Point

When I was a kid, my parents had a novelty toy - a plastic bird that appeared to "drink" water from a glass set before it. The bird would start upright, then gradually begin to tip, tip, tip, until it finally, fitfully, bent down, dipped its beak in the glass, and then sat bolt upright, only to repeat the process again.

I was, in a word, mesmerized.

Later, as a fan of "The Simpsons," I ceased being a fan after the bird was nearly to blame for a nuclear meltdown. Luckily, Homer's wide behind helped turn "a potential Tchernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island."

To mix birds, if not metaphors, I have seen the canary in the Democratic coal mine coughing.

Literally as well as figuratively.

As I read two blog posts this morning about the coming election (one, which tracks the polls in attempting to predict which states will go for whom; the other, the famous Five Thirty Eight blog of celebrity statistician Nate Silver - yes, you read that combination of words) I have begun to wonder if the outcome is as much a slam-dunk as I had thought.

As I've said, over and over again, I think that Hillary Clinton would make a singularly awful president, and should be kept far, far away from the levers of power. Simultaneously, I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, the crude, vulgar human mouth whose "ideas" indicate he has no more the skills or qualifications to be president than an anteater has for dancing the lead in "Swan Lake."

But I reckoned that Mrs Clinton, based on the electoral map, the pretty much unobscured support of the press and opinion makers (the universities, writers, the entertainment complex), was going to win and win easily.

What I had not counted on was just how awful a candidate she would turn out to be; I forgot the lessons of 2008, when she re-created the 1964 Phillies Phlop in givning the Democratic nomination - and ultimately the presidency - to a green, one-term Senator who is second perhaps only to The Donald in being unqualified to sit in the big chair.

Last weekend, Mrs Clinton scored a daily double with her idiotic, own-goal comments about "Basket of Deplorables" and subsequent collapse on Sunday at a 9-11 memorial ceremony after denying for weeks that she was unwell.

Now, I am not so sure that she is going to win.

For one, the Electoral Vote website, run by a guy who, blending Napoleon (self-coronating) and Louis XIV ("l'etat c'est moi") calls himself "The Vote Master" with no sense of irony, is a pretty thinly veiled cheerleader for Hillary. The data seem unbiased and useful, so the snark are worth listening to.

WELL, the narative has changed from "Republicans are rallying to survive damage from devastating Trump loss" to "Republicans panicking about possible Trump win."

The change is subtle, but it is important. It's the first real crack in the Democratic happy face, which to be fair, is always a smirk rather than a smile, he's put on.

Over at Nate Silver's blog, Trump continues to close on Hillary, his odds in the Polls Plus predicitons having grown from about 20% two weeks ago to 34% today.

That is a substantial change as well.

I suggest that, where Silver focuses his attention on Florida and Ohio, the real canary in the coal mine is neither Ohio nor Florida, but the Keystone State.

I was a strong sceptic about Trump's chances to win the GOP nomination, but here he is.

I have long felt that Trump's chances in the general rested on the state of Pennsylvania, and I think that that looks stronger today than ever before. The electoral maths favour the Democrats in the short term, and the numbers are going to get longer, rather than shorter for the Republicans over the next few elections.

Mind you, I think that the Democratic coalition of the fringes is ultimately going to come apart - what, other than animus to historical boogeymen unites black, Latino, Asian, feminist, gay, and environmental activists? The forces pulling them apart are so obvious and strong, that once "old white men" are put into their place, it is just a matter of time until the Democratic party succumbs to what Singaporean President Lee Kwan Yew said decades ago about pluralistic democracies.

But Trump, ironically, is different from the big business, Wall St crowd who have controlled the Republicans for the past 80 years. And his loud - some say xenophobic - bluster can appeal to people that the cosmopolitan President Obama derided as losers who "cling to guns or religion".

It's no accident that these people Mr Obama disparaged live in Pennsylvania, a rust belt state of hunters where the coal industry was once a huge employer.

When Mrs Clinton made her "basket of deplorables" comment - to a roomful of people who had paid thousands of dollars to have dinner and listen to her, hosted by Barbara Streisand, she was talking about people in central Pennsylvania. Some of them, to be sure, are deplorable racists. But I suspect not as many as Hillary Clinton imagines, and surely, not half of the people.

Mrs Clinton has tried to clarify her comments - no, I didn't mean you are an ugly, irredeemable bigot - I meant the guy across the street. But if YOU lived in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and were historically a Democrat but considering Trump because of Hillary's comments about putting coal miners out of work, is it not possible that the thought might cross your mind that, "maybe she really meant me." These are, as I've said before, the working poor whose prospects under Obama (and to be fair, Bush and Bill Clinton before him) have dimmed, but who entitled Yale students whose apparent greatest problem is Halloween costumes libel as "privileged" in perhaps the single greatest example of lack of self awareness in the past 25 years.

The Keystone State has not had polls released since the remark, but it will be instructive to see what, if any, impact the remark has.

Right now, Silver puts Hillary as about a 3-1 favourite to win PA. But 38 polls - all before the "deplorables" comment - have been taken, and virtually all put Trump within 5 points of Clinton.

I think that Donald Trump is going to win in Ohio. And of course, he cannot win without Florida (which also is close).

But if he closes the gap in Pennsylvania, it is almost surely going to be a bellwether of bigger gains. IF Trump wins in PA, he is going to win in Florida, and he is going to win - easily - in Ohio.

So far, the drinking bird is not in the glass, but he may be tipping.

A Century of Roald Dahl

“And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it.” 

Today, 13 Septemer 2016, would have been author Roald Dahl's 100th birthday. Most famous of course for the great children's book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Dahl was one of my favourites for his impish sense of humour and crypto insubordinate wit.

It's hard to pick a favourite - who doesn't love Charlie, where craven and nihilistic kids (and their parents) meet with almost karmic endings? 

Veruca Salt, the little brute,Has just gone down the garbage chute,(And as we very rightly thoughtThat in a case like this we oughtTo see the thing completely through,We've polished off her parents, too.) 

But now, my dears, we think you mightBe wondering–is it really rightThat every single bit of blameAnd all the scolding and the shameShould fall upon Veruca Salt?Is she the only one at fault? 

For though she's spoiled, and dreadfully so,
A girl can't spoil herself, you know.

There is of course, the charming James and the Giant Peach, which I enjoyed equally because of the incredible, giant insect characters as well as the fact that the eponymous character shared his name with my baby brother.

Perhaps the most deliciously miscreant is The Twits, or perhaps Matilda, which was recently made into a stage play.

My own little son Alastair, whose most favourite thing in the world is to read, loves Dahls perhaps even more than I did. We were thrilled during our time living in Europe to take him to see Matilda on the stage in Covent Garden.

If you want to throw the hammer for your country
You have to stay inside the circle ALL THE TIME
Apply just one simple rule
To hammer-throwing, life, or school -
Life's a ball, so learn to throw it
Find the bloody line and TOE it.
And always keep your feet inside the line

For a change of pace, I suggest people to pick up a book of Dahl's short stories.  Within the pages of The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, are two not at all humourous works.  One is called "The Boy Talked to Animals." It tells the story of a snapping turtle that winds up - through no fault of its own - stranded on a beach, overturned on its shell.  The crowd gathering round has decided that the beast is dangerous and deserves to die. As the parents are haggling with the crowd over the price required to save it, the little boy whispers to the turtle's ear....

In the second, "The Swan" also concerns a little boy quite sensitive about animals. Some school bullies first capture and torture him, and then set about to kill a nest with a mother swan and its babies. 

The stories are not at all like Dahl's others, and that's perhaps why I find them poignant 35 years later.

Clinton's Recent Basket Case. What Is "Deplorable?"

Belisle, Trump Supporter

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president, recently made (what I think she thought was) a 'cute' comment about supporters of her opponent.

Specifically, last week she commented that 

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. 

The comment was met with laughter and giggling in the crowd. 

Maybe it was the basket image, or perhaps people thought of the little yellow minion creatures of Moi, Moche et Mechant .

The comments have created a stir, those for and against tweeting, commenting, and bloviating on television.  I read today the comments of New York Times writer Charles Blow that the comment, whilst impolitic, was not incorrect, and that any supporters who help advance Trump's campaign are deplorable.

To be fair, Blow goes much further in his calumny than Clinton.  But saying that something “is clearly true” doesn’t make it so, 

I am not a Trump supporter, and I have *no* intention of voting for him in November. I think his solutions are far too often wrong, his rhetoric outrageous, and his personality vulgar. I think, based on his experiences, that he is not prepared to carry out *any* of the functions of President of the U.S.

That said, I do not believe that people are over-reacting. Not at all.

Mrs Clinton did not say, “David Duke, and Alex Jones, and people who do things like punch a guy being escorted out of a rally in North Carolina are deplorable.”

She literally said that “half” of the supporters of a candidate who is polling 40 per cent of the general population are deplorable because they are “racist, xenophobic, homophobic…” etc. She did not offer why so many people should be labelled with these -isms, mind you. Other than that she thinks that they are,

I do not share the Republican party views on gay marriage, for example. But how is it any different from her own position of just 8 years ago?

What she has basically done is tar a huge group of people with an ugly brush for which there is really no defence other than “no I am not.”

Being called “racist” is sort of like being called a communist 50 years ago. The attacker can define parameters to suit themselves (David Duke: racist; Al Sharpton: activist). I am not sure that Duke has actually encouraged people to the point that they murdered someone. Can the same be said of Sharpton?

Clinton sought out Sharpton's endorsement. President Obama has had him to the White House on multiple occasions.

Donald Trump, for all his ugliness, has never hosted David Duke.  Not that I am aware of. Maybe we can get Jake Tapper to ask Trump?

To far too many people, if you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist. If you think that one ought to consider the impact of a million immigrants to this country every single year on the current housing costs, wage market, and environmental sustainability of this country, you are a xenophobe.

I was sent an article yesterday from (of all places) “Think Progress”, a web clearing house of progressive thought. Ketchup sandwiches and other things stupid poor people eatdescribes how the working poor deserve not our ridicule or scorn, but our compassion.

Well, a huge number of these folks were just called “deplorable” by Hillary Clinton.

They are ‘deplorable’ because they live in a country where the changes of the past 50 years have not meant fancy brunch spots in the Mission District of San Francisco, or someone to clean their yards so that they can spend Saturday sitting in Starbucks working on their “blog.” Many of them are a group who, almost uniquely in the US, has seen its life expectancy actually decline in recent years.

THESE are the people that entitled Yale students decry as “privileged.”

Some of them who turn blindly to racist vipers like Duke are in a sense deplorable.  Their actions are to be condemned.

But when Hillary Clinton calls such a huge group of people into the same “basket,” so wantonly and clumsily, it in itself is just the sort of “dog whistle” that the Left have been whining about for a decade.

These people, despite the claims of Hillary Clinton "are not America," in fact are our countrymen. And some of their concerns are not fantasies nor imagined, even if Paul Krugman (who lives in the cozy ZIP codes of Princeton, NJ) or Blake Lively (Beverly Hills) think that they are.

THAT is why many of us react.

1 View

Not Even Pretending

The Editors of the New York Times at the 2016 Blind Man's Zoo

Morton Hull: Do you realize that more people will be watching you tonight, than all those who have seen theater plays in the last forty years?
Chance the Gardener: Why?

In 1979, a film called "Being There" was released, which represented the final role of the brilliant, eccentric comic actor Peter Sellers.  Sellers played a gardener who had spent (it is implied) his entire life in the house of a rich man, tending to the garden and watching television. Upon the death of the old man, "Chance the Gardener" (he is never actually named in the movie) is forced out into the world. With no education and the apparent wit of a young child, Chance the Gardener encounters a series of increasingly powerful, important people. His cereal box sophistries ("if the roots are strong, the garden will grow") are mistaken for political and economic brilliance, as those around him imagine that they mean this or that in a humourous blind man's zoo of incompetence and misunderstanding.

Yesterday, the editors of the New York Times reviewed the previous day's visit of US presidential candidate Donald Trump to Mexico and subsequent speech on immigration.

I was reminded of all of the people who listened to Chance and saw what they wanted.

Only, rather than the blind man's zoo patrons of the movie, there is something disturbing, malign about the wilful ignorance of the Times in discussing Trump.

Here is the key passage of the discussion:

The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs. [emphasis added]

I have read the transcript of the speech. Nowhere does Donald Trump say - or even imply, really - what the writers would have you believe. 

Quite literally, the editors of the newspaper of  record of this country are IMAGINING what Donald Trump is saying.

Read that again. And think about it.

Shocking.

The Editors of the New York Times,
Imagining Donald Trump's Speech

Now, I have no intention of voting for Donald Trump. There are many very good reasons to oppose his candidacy. His lack of a coherent economic plan. The suggestion that the country could simply 'negotiate' its debt for pennies on the dollar (i.e., default). His suggestions of using tactical nuclear weapons in terrorist-sponsoring nations.

In short, one does not need to make up reasons to oppose Trump.

Yet, the Times feels compelled to do so. Why?

I would suggest it's because the writers, like those at the Washington Post have abandoned even the pretense of journalistic ethics and objectivity.  And it's not even due to alleged liberal bias. After all, during the Democratic primaries, the reporting on Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders (the most progressive of the major candidates) was pretty biased against Sanders.

Here, I suspect that the Times, which is largely owned and under the control of Carlos Slim, has an agenda. Slim, at times the wealthiest man in the world, holds near monopolistic control of telecomunications in Mexico. His companies directly benefit from remittances and communications between Mexicans living in the US and back home. Does he really have an objective, honest take on the consequences of illegal immigration?  Is it in his interests to curtail the flow?

In the past, we've been warned about "dog whistles" and "Willie Horton" moments. I guess because the media want to ensure that implicit offences are not overlooked. Suggesting something about President Obama golfing is racist because, well.  I don't know.  The ball is white?

Here, even that is a bridge too far, so we are asked to go beyond listening for something we cannot hear into imagining offence into existence.

We are being lied to. The machine is, apparently, so desperate to grab power that they are not even pretending anymore. It's no longer what the candidates say, but what "we" are asked to imagine that they mean.

The NYT equivalent in Russia is called Pravda, which evokes laughter in the west.  Its name translates to mean "truth," which is almost the definition of irony in a George Orwell sense.

Imagine that.

Not Even Pretending

The Editors of the New York Times at the 2016 Blind Man's Zoo

Morton Hull: Do you realize that more people will be watching you tonight, than all those who have seen theater plays in the last forty years?
Chance the Gardener: Why?

In 1979, a film called "Being There" was released, which represented the final role of the brilliant, eccentric comic actor Peter Sellers.  Sellers played a gardener who had spent (it is implied) his entire life in the house of a rich man, tending to the garden and watching television. Upon the death of the old man, "Chance the Gardener" (he is never actually named in the movie) is forced out into the world. With no education and the apparent wit of a young child, Chance the Gardener encounters a series of increasingly powerful, important people. His cereal box sophistries ("if the roots are strong, the garden will grow") are mistaken for political and economic brilliance, as those around him imagine that they mean this or that in a humourous blind man's zoo of incompetence and misunderstanding.

Yesterday, the editors of the New York Times reviewed the previous day's visit of US presidential candidate Donald Trump to Mexico and subsequent speech on immigration.

I was reminded of all of the people who listened to Chance and saw what they wanted.

Only, rather than the blind man's zoo patrons of the movie, there is something disturbing, malign about the wilful ignorance of the Times in discussing Trump.

Here is the key passage of the discussion:

The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs. [emphasis added]

I have read the transcript of the speech. Nowhere does Donald Trump say - or even imply, really - what the writers would have you believe. 

Quite literally, the editors of the newspaper of  record of this country are IMAGINING what Donald Trump is saying.

Read that again. And think about it.

Shocking.

The Editors of the New York Times,
Imagining Donald Trump's Speech

Now, I have no intention of voting for Donald Trump. There are many very good reasons to oppose his candidacy. His lack of a coherent economic plan. The suggestion that the country could simply 'negotiate' its debt for pennies on the dollar (i.e., default). His suggestions of using tactical nuclear weapons in terrorist-sponsoring nations.

In short, one does not need to make up reasons to oppose Trump.

Yet, the Times feels compelled to do so. Why?

I would suggest it's because the writers, like those at the Washington Post have abandoned even the pretense of journalistic ethics and objectivity.  And it's not even due to alleged liberal bias. After all, during the Democratic primaries, the reporting on Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders (the most progressive of the major candidates) was pretty biased against Sanders.

Here, I suspect that the Times, which is largely owned and under the control of Carlos Slim, has an agenda. Slim, at times the wealthiest man in the world, holds near monopolistic control of telecomunications in Mexico. His companies directly benefit from remittances and communications between Mexicans living in the US and back home. Does he really have an objective, honest take on the consequences of illegal immigration?  Is it in his interests to curtail the flow?

In the past, we've been warned about "dog whistles" and "Willie Horton" moments. I guess because the media want to ensure that implicit offences are not overlooked. Suggesting something about President Obama golfing is racist because, well.  I don't know.  The ball is white?

Here, even that is a bridge too far, so we are asked to go beyond listening for something we cannot hear into imagining offence into existence.

We are being lied to. The machine is, apparently, so desperate to grab power that they are not even pretending anymore. It's no longer what the candidates say, but what "we" are asked to imagine that they mean.

The NYT equivalent in Russia is called Pravda, which evokes laughter in the west.  Its name translates to mean "truth," which is almost the definition of irony in a George Orwell sense.

Imagine that.

Gladiators Don't Get Paid to Sing (or, That's Enterainment)

Here in the San Francisco Bay area, there is big news from the sports front.

No - not the end of Tim Lincecum's career, or the Giants' struggle to catch the Dodgers.  

Guess again.  Hint: it's about football.  

No. There is not much intrigue about the 49ers' preseason, either.  It's a foregone conclusion that the team is going to be terrible again.

No.  It's about the recent eructations of quarterback Colin Kaepernick, and it has nothing to do with the fact that his career is apparently over.  

Well, maybe it is about that, indirectly.

You see, recently, Kaepernick (benched last year so that a guy called Blaine Gabbert - yeah, I never heard of him, either - could play) made headlines when he sat during the playing of the national anthem at a preseason game, then announced his reasoning for that, and his future refusal to stand.  You see, a guy who is being paid $126 million dollars does not want to show "pride in a flag or country that oppresses black people and people of color (sic)."

Kaepernick is no stranger to controversey; in the past, he has been fined for using abusive language on the field, and for wearing the wrong brand of headphones ("Beats by Dre" rather than then NFL 'official' headphones provided by Bose) at a press conference.  

Who knew that there was an official NFL headset?  And I guess I am equally nonplussed about why you would wear headphones to a post-game interview.

While the NFL already has an official head set, Kaepernick, it seems, has worked to become the league's unofficial head case.

The events have raised a ruckus, with the usual suspects and usual arguments lining up for and against Colin Kaepernick. A question I hear often is "why does Kaepernick get so much hate in the US, when it's supposed to be a country based on freedom?"

It's an odd question, and one that I think misses the point.

Whether Kaepernick gets “a hot of hate” or not has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom in the US.

For what it’s worth, I really have no opinion about Colin Kapaernick's views of the flag, what it stands for, or whether he wants to sit or stand during the national anthem. As the question suggests, in this country any of us is entitled to his or her own views and opinions. 

Kaepernick is an entertainer. He's an entertainer of a particular sort - a modern day gladiator. He’s paid to throw a football (when he plays). He's paid very well to do this. His views on politics are as relevant to me as his views on the Academy Awards, the weather in Nebraska, or whether “We Built this City on Rock and Roll” really is, as Rolling Stone magazine claims, the worst song ever.

It won’t change my views on any of the topics.

To be clear, Colin Kaepernick has every right to his opinion about any of these topics. I respect his right to say what he pleases, and in a sense, the freedoms we have in this country to speech and belief are nothing if they do not protect unpopular opinions.  As I've said before, it's easy to defend speech we like; the acid test is whether we stand up (or sit down) for views that are unpopular, or indeed, are ones we personally do not like. I also am not particularly fond of bumper sticker patriotism, as if sticking an "I Support the Troops" emblem on your car absolves one of the responsibility to actually support the troops by not sending them to fight in senseless wars, or pay the taxes needed to pay for their care when they come home damaged.

But just as Kaepernick is entitled to his opinion, so too are those who are giving him “a lot of hate.”

Freedom is available to all, one would hope, equally. Kaepernick should not be afforded special protections for his opinions because he is an athlete. One presumes that he made his statement to provoke a reaction - otherwise, why do it? 

Maybe a big problem here is that Colin Kaepernick and his supporters do not like the reaction he is getting?

Whilst we are on the subject, I would ask people who are rushing to defend Kaepernick for his “courageous” stance - just how courageous was it, and if the shoe were on the other foot, would you feel the same?

It’s a rhetorical question, and I am sure many would defend someone taking a stance against one of their beliefs equally. But not everyone does, or would.

I live in San Francisco, and every year, the Giants participate in an “Until There’s a Cure” event drawing attention to the AIDS crisis and supporting people and their loved ones who suffer with HIV.

Imagine if one of the Giants’ players decided to make a very public display against participating in the ceremonies? I suspect his actions would be much less popular in the Bay Area than Kaepernick’s were.

One needn’t imagine.

20 years ago, a pitcher named Mark Dewey (I think an evangelical Christian) took the red ribbon his team was made to wear and turned it sideways (in the shape of a fish) and refused to be on the field for the ceremony. His actions received immediate, angry, responses. Local politicians officially complained to the Giants’ management.

I don’t know that any local politician has thus far written to the 49ers asking that the team discipline Kaepernick. Donald Trump of course could not resist the urge to open his YUUUGE mouth and weigh in.

Like Kaepernick, I do not really care what Dewey’s opinions on virtually anything are. But I find that both sides in these sorts of feet-stamping displays are pretty hypocritical.

We pay to see our gladiators compete on the field. Or, in the recent history of Colin Kaepernick, sit on the bench. That is their job. 

They should leave the singing to the vocalists.