Progressive racism

A fascinating article over at the Atlantic proves what I have thought for quite some time: Progressives are every bit as racist, and possibly more so, as anyone in the South. 

In "The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America", author Alana Semuels shows us that Portland, Oregon, which is one of America's great progressive hubs, is still living in a racist past:

Victor Pierce has worked on the assembly line of a Daimler Trucks North America plant here since 1994. But he says that in recent years he’s experienced things that seem straight out of another time. White co-workers have challenged him to fights, mounted “hangman’s nooses” around the factory, referred to him as “boy” on a daily basis, sabotaged his work station by hiding his tools, carved swastikas in the bathroom, and written the word “nigger” on walls in the factory, according to allegations filed in a complaint to the Multnomah County Circuit Court in February of 2015. 

Pierce is one of six African Americans working in the Portland plant whom the lawyer Mark Morrell is representing in a series of lawsuits against Daimler Trucks North America. The cases have been combined and a trial is scheduled for January of 2017.

The article goes on to show how this isn't a Daimler problem, but rather a Portland problem:

The allegations may seem at odds with the reputation of this city known for its progressivism. But many African Americans in Portland say they’re not surprised when they hear about racial incidents in this city and state. That’s because racism has been entrenched in Oregon, maybe more than any state in the north, for nearly two centuries. When the state entered the union in 1859, for example, Oregon explicitly forbade black people from living in its borders, the only state to do so. In more recent times, the city repeatedly undertook “urban renewal” projects (such as the construction of Legacy Emanuel Hospital) that decimated the small black community that existed here. And racism persists today. A 2011 audit found that landlords and leasing agents here discriminated against black and Latino renters 64 percent of the time, citing them higher rents or deposits and adding on additional fees. In area schools, African American students are suspended and expelled at a rate four to five times higher than that of their white peers.

All in all, historians and residents say, Oregon has never been particularly welcoming to minorities. Perhaps that’s why there have never been very many. Portland is the whitest big city in America, with a population that is 72.2 percent white and only 6.3 percent African American. 

Naturally, since Portland and Oregon as a whole are "blue" mainstays of the Democratic Party, don't expect any help coming from them. Racism in "Democratland" is perfectly acceptable. To paraphrase Billy Crystal's old Fernando Lamas impersonation, "It is better to LOOK progressive, than to BE progressive."

The truth of the matter is buried in an old line by Groucho Marx:

I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER". 

Think about members of any club or group. Frequently, they don't care that you live up to the purpose(s) of the group, just so long as you support them.

The classic example is Bill Clinton and the National Organization for Women (NOW). Even as Clinton displayed his sexual predator tendencies with Monica Lewinsky, the NOW continued to publicly support him, even though their rhetoric opposes sexual predators in general. How convenient!

But this is what is happening with Portland. As long as they continue to support Democrats, you'll never hear a peep of complaint out of the Democratic Party, or even the NAACP. They have to be nice to fellow club members, even the racist ones.

Rev. William Barber at the DNC

I was asked to discuss the Rev. William Barber's speech at the DNC, and so I shall.

He starts out saying many obvious things, although I find it funny when the crowd cheers for him, not realizing he is talking about the entire country, including Democrats too. It's a classic case of people seeing what they want to see.

His comment about "pay people what they deserve" got some cheers. Who decides what people "deserve"? First, people will not work for nothing unless they already have all their needs met, and maybe not even then. Inevitably, any pay has to cover their needs. Mind you, this isn't the "minimum wage" as legislated. Millions of illegal Mexicans are in this country working for sub-minimum wage, and are quite happy to be here doing so. The big question here is what do people deserve? And is it different for some people than others? My guess is the Democrats were hearing the rhetoric and missing the point.

Barber mentioned "share your food with the hungry...and then your nation shall be called a repairer of the breach." It is my understanding that there isn't really a hunger problem in the U.S. If anything, most of the poor here could stand to go on a diet. Visit a Wal-mart sometime and you will see.

Now if Barber is discussing hunger internationally, we have a problem: Our international "neighbors" run their own countries, and don't take kindly to us interfering with their internal affairs (even if they are crooked by our standards). Just as we wouldn't appreciate them interfering with us, it is only fair that we respect their desire to be left alone. There is a fine line to walk in assuming responsibility for another nation's people. We cannot just give them food or aid, because much of it doesn't make its way to the poor and hungry, getting intercepted by government forces instead. Hunger alone isn't the criteria to allow us to interfere in other countries, especially when military intervention would be required. How many is it ok to kill, in order to save how many others?

When Barber brings up tax policies which funnel prosperity to the wealthy few, he conveniently overlooks the poor who receive benefits, while the middle class picks up the tab for both. This is the ugly truth about the Democrats, but don't expect to hear it at their convention.

Instead, Barber fed the crowd a lot of candy ideas without much in the way of solid calories (aka real thought-worthy ideas). It was a pep rally for Democrats. He hit all the talking points without really stopping to discuss any of them.

Throughout the speech, Barber runs off a laundry list of perceived rights, none of which is mentioned in the Constitution, as well as Democratic Party causes, all justified in terms of "reviving the heart of our democracy". He does know the Founding Fathers would be appalled at that? But even if he ignores that, he needs to understand that it was a "democracy" that legislated Jim Crow and made blacks an institutional underclass? Even as Democrats cheer "democracy", it was the tyranny of the majority that kept the blacks down for a century after they were freed from slavery. This is an irony lost on most Democrats and blacks today, even as they cheer democracy. If the tyranny of the majority decides to put Donald Trump into the White House, will they still be cheering democracy then?

Today's news August 2, 2016: Spending, Russia, and the Hillary-devil

Bloomberg:

Government Spending Makes a Comeback While Austerity Starts to Fade

You have to love that title. "Government spending makes a comeback" is almost as absorbing as "skirt lengths shrink".

But on to the actual story:

Was Larry Summers right after all?

Around the world, governments are planning fresh spending to boost growth and support wages, heeding the advice of the Harvard University economist and others who have argued that economies need the jolt as society ages and productivity sags. That’s signaling the ascendancy of energizers like Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and the firing of austerity advocates such as former U.K. Chancellor George Osborne.

The shift away from budget rigor and reliance on monetary policy has been subtle and isn’t universal.  

So while countries like Canada and South Korea are among those rolling out fiscal stimulus, others such as Germany are still holding firm. Borrowing heavily to support growth in the euro area is still out of favor.

Nevertheless, the global mood music now is different from most of the period since the last financial crisis. Instead of the doctrine of belt-tightening and spending cuts, today’s political narrative talks about higher-quality jobs, investment, or the dangers of inequality. In few economies is this more obvious than in America. Where once the government shut down during a spat over spending, now neither candidate in the U.S. presidential election is talking much about the deficit.

First, "neither candidate in the U.S. presidential election"? Let us throw out the misconception there are only two parties in the U.S. That lie might sell to the intellectual elite in New York, but the rest of the country is looking for solutions outside of the status quo. There are Libertarians and the Green Party.

Back on topic, this is just politicians looking for any kind of life boat in this economic storm, any excuse to spend so they can say to constituents, "See? I did something!" Of course, that is when they aren't just outright lying and saying the economy is just fine.

The problem with this is that "spending" isn't a solution. The U.S. government could spend trillions of dollars on Q-tips, but would that improve the economy by trillions of dollars? HOW we spend counts too.

Back to the usual political bull...

CNN:

Russia continues to shadow Trump

Donald Trump's Russia problem isn't going away. 

In the past week, the Republican presidential nominee has been pilloried for his comments expressing openness to Russia's annexation of Crimea, has called on the Russian government to share emails it possibly hacked from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and drawn rebukes from critics who say he's soft on a traditional US adversary.

Really CNN? Beating this dead horse while still ignoring Hillary's sell-out to the Russians? It is real hard to take a news source seriously when they only cover one side of the story.

On the other hand...

The Daily Mail:

Trump goes all-in on bashing Hillary 

as he says Bernie Sanders 'made a deal with the devil' by endorsing her

Donald Trump called his Democratic rival 'the devil' on Monday in a high-profile escalation of his campaign rhetoric – at precisely the moment he needed to change the subject. 

Facing a four-day-long scandal over his criticism of the father of a Muslim soldier who died in combat, the Republican presidential nominee shifted gears. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders, Trump told an overflow crowd at a high school in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 'made a deal with the devil' when he endorsed Clinton at last week's Democratic National Convention. 

'She's the devil!' he added.

I have a confession to make: I love the British Media. They have elevated "yellow journalism" to a fine art. They took what I would consider a "throwaway line" by Trump and elevated it to a major attack of Clinton.

Ok, Mrs. Clinton, what is your defense? You can answer after your head finishes spinning...

(hat tip to WiffleGif for the gif)

The exodus from the GOP begins

I was afraid of this happening. From Reason on July 25th:

At a press conference at 1:30 this afternoon in Salt Lake City, sitting state Sen. Mark Madsen, a Republican in Utah, will be announcing that he's switching his Party affiliation to Libertarian and endorsing Gary Johnson for president.

In an emailed press release announcing the planned press conference, Madsen is described as "a sitting two term state senator [Madsen actually in his third term, first elected in 2004] and former city council member from Eagle Mountain. His legislative record bears out his dedication to individual liberty. He has observed that the interests of bureaucratic agencies and the people rarely align. He believes in choice in health care and education. He is a champion of free trade and free market solutions."

At the press conference, the release says, Madsen will "discuss his experience at the GOP convention, his goals and priorities now, and his support for Libertarian nominees for president and Vice President, Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld."

I have nothing against Mark Madsen, and I don't even know him. That said, I am afraid of what happened after 1994 when Newt Gingrich's Contract with America turned the election in the GOP's favor. There was a mass exodus of legislators from the Democratic Party to the Republicans. While it was nice for the GOP's legislative balance in Washington, it was awful for the ideological purity of the Republican Party.

Opportunistic bandwagon jumpers aren't what the Libertarian Party needs.

Libertarians Reflect on Hillary's Nomination

After our interview, Tiffany Hayden gave me a link to the following video, which is hilarious. Enjoy:

Interview: Tiffany Hayden

Tiffany Hayden may be the most interesting woman in politics today, even more so than Hillary. Tiffany is running for two offices in two different parties, while overseeing a startup company and being a homeschooling mother. Sorry Hillary, Tiffany has you beat hands down.

I was blessed to get to interview Tiffany on Twitter, and here it is:

ED: First, let me ask you the basics: You are running for two offices in two different parties. Can you explain this? Which offices specifically for which parties?

TIFFANY: Yeah. This is what I'm writing about right -hoping to better clarify. I am a Libertarian running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Michigan's 13th District. I hate politics, but there are a LOT of really important issues flying right under the radar. I'm running against John Conyers -the longest serving member of Congress in history. Because my chances of winning are practically non-existent, I decided to join the Green Party and run as a Michigan State Representative as a backup position. There are several Michigan specific issues that need immediate attention.

ED: What specific issues are those?

TIFFANY: Snyder's emergency manager laws that have completely suspended democracy in Michigan, the Flint Water Crisis that STILL has not been resolved, and a new law that State Legislatures just pushed through that will allow police to start performing roadside drug testing. There is a lot more to that than people realize. I am forming a civil rights coalition in response.

ED: Tell me about this coalition?

TIFFANY: I'm really wanted to wait until I send out an actual press release announcing my candidacy. I haven't done that yet.

ED: Ok. Your profile says you are a homeschooling mother. How do you do that and run for not one but two political offices in two parties? Does the word "overachiever" mean anything to you?

TIFFANY: It really, really doesn't. I'm actually a huge fintech geek who was trying to launch a startup. There was a series of shitty events that happened all at once and knocked me on my ass. The worst of it being served divorce papers. I received the Congressional nomination unexpectedly. I was still a little winded from everything, but I've faced so many roadblocks because of FinCEN (who gets their power from Congress) that I decided to run with it.

[Ed's note: If you want to know more about FinCEN, here is their website.]

This is an article I wrote about my startup: Refugees: The Next Wave of Disruptors.

ED: How does one get an unexpected Congressional nomination? You must admit that does sound funny. And I mean "funny haha", although I suppose a little funny strange too.

TIFFANY: The same way one receives an unexpected nomination to become a State Representative. You walk into a nominating convention for a party you just joined, pretend to have confidence, and when the nominating process begins -own it.

ED: Let's talk about your political views. You are running for political offices in both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. While there isn't the animosity between them which you see in the Republicans and Democrats, how do you as a candidate justify how you can represent both Libertarians and Greens?

TIFFANY: I think there is a lot of potential for Libertarians and the Green Party to compliment each other, kind of like yin and yang. Where the Libertarians are [weak], the Green Party is strong and vice versa. Getting others to see that will be a huge challenge. I really wasn't expecting the reaction I got on FB when I announced I was also running for State Rep as a Green Party candidate. I'm very new to learning about the Green Party, but the reason I wanted to learn more is because I feel like there is human component missing from the Libertarian party. We're too analytical and rarely do you see compassion. I get asked regularly if I have Asperger's. I think part of it is because I'm interested in cyrptocurrencies and fintech on a protocol level and there aren't many other women that will talk about it until your eyes glaze over, but I think it's also because I can be overly analytical too. The Green Party has some important, worthwhile goals, but the way they want to implement those goals (that I have heard) is by taking a statist route. That's all they know though. They haven't been sitting around for years like some of us trying to figure out ways of getting the government out of our lives. Libertarianism could provide the means to the end for the Green Party goals. At least some of them anyway.

ED: Can you give me an example of a Green Party issue that could use a Libertarian implementation?

TIFFANY: When the Green Party advocates for collective action, it is heard (and maybe also meant) as coercive state action. But... social coordination through conscious action would invite people to participate voluntarily.

ED: Let's flip this. What Libertarian issue could use a Green Party implementation?

TIFFANY: The biggest one that stands out to me is charity.  Libertarians emphasize individual responsibility. They often say that we don't need social safety nets because if we didn't have so much money stolen from our paychecks we'd have more money to donate. I'm uncomfortable with this assumption. Like I said, sometimes I feel like there is a lack of compassion and I don't know if Libertarians are the best group to be trying to start charities. The Green Party seems ready to help all the impoverished people - locally and globally.

ED: I want to step back to something you mentioned earlier. How is Enable coming along? [Ed's note: Enable is Tiffany's startup company which she mentioned in the "Refugees" story earlier.]

TIFFANY: It's on pause, although I do have an organization wanting to partner with me. If I could add a few more hours to the day I could make it work... We'll see. I hate having it sit there idle, but campaigning takes up an enormous amount of time.

ED: What do your kids think about your political career?

TIFFANY: Oh gosh, they are SO excited and proud of me. I'm trying to involve them as much as possible so that it's also a really great learning experience. We're talking about renting an ice cream truck for the day and driving around passing out ice cream along with information about my platform.

ED: Ice cream for votes? Is that legal? Just kidding.

TIFFANY: Lol. I have to think of creative ways to get noticed. I live in a low income district and many people aren't online.

ED: On another subject, you wrote a recent editorial about the militarization of police forces in America. Obviously, that is an issue, but much of the recent controversies have been around police actions unrelated to their "arming". This is just my own opinion, but I consider one of the problems being the number of laws we have police enforcing. When you give them a legal "buffet" from which to choose, they can arrest first and figure out the crime later, which gives them far too much leeway in deciding who is really a criminal. Any thoughts?

TIFFANY: I disagree -partially, that the issues are unrelated to their arming. The arming has given police a warrior mentality that has forever changed their lens of perception. Additionally, there are too many perverse incentives for police to want to write tickets and make arrests. Many police departments offer rewards for writing a certain amount of tickets every month -like an extra paid vacation day. Also, anytime an officer has to go to court, that's overtime. I know officers that make 6 figures because they rake in so much going to court. They get paid 4 hours minimum just for showing up -even if they leave 5 minutes later. They have every incentive to try and find a crime that you've committed.

ED: Fair enough. Do you have any thoughts on the presidential election? And who do you endorse, [Libertarian Gary] Johnson or [Green Party's Jill] Stein?

TIFFANY: Johnson. I don't worship at the alter of any ideologies, but I do consider myself a Libertarian. 

Given the depth and complexity of the cascading crises happening around the world, I don't see how one political group can think they have all of the answers. I'm willing to listen to what everyone has to say.

ED: Your opinion on Trump and Clinton?

TIFFANY: I detest them both.

ED: I am with you there! Anyway, thank you for your time today. Good luck with both your elections.

TIFFANY: Thanks!

[Note: I totally stole her picture above from her Twitter account. I hope she can forgive me.] 

Today's News August 1, 2016: Conflicting debates

The big story is the conflict between debate schedules and the NFL. But the more interesting story is how this story is being reported.

First, Fox News...

Fox News:

Team Trump: Debate schedule instant replay of Dems' blindside on Sanders

The Commission on Presidential Debates on Sunday issued another statement in an apparent effort to end criticism by Donald Trump’s campaign about two of the events being scheduled during televised NFL games -- and suggested Trump is fighting a losing battle. 

“It is impossible to avoid all sporting events, and there have been nights on which debates and games occurred in most election cycles,” the commission wrote. “A debate has never been rescheduled as a result.” 

Two of the three debates scheduled in September and October will be televised during NFL games.

Ok, now to the left side...

CNN:

Standoff? Commission defends debate schedule amid Trump complaints 

Donald Trump's campaign is pushing to reschedule two of the presidential debates set for this fall, but the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan group responsible for scheduling, is standing firm. 

"Our position on the debates is we want as many people, as many voters, to be participants in and to see the debates as possible," Jason Miller, senior communications adviser with the Trump campaign, said on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday. 

The campaign is concerned that two of the three presidential debates are set to take place on the same nights as nationally televised NFL games. 

The debate scheduling process is always difficult. Debates and football games have overlapped numerous times before, including twice in 2012.

Notice the subtle differences in this same story as reported from two different sources?

First, let's start with who is performing the action in each story:

• Fox: The Commission on Presidential Debates on Sunday issued another statement...
• CNN: Donald Trump's campaign is pushing to reschedule...

Here is what happened, minus the Media bias on both sides: 

1. Trump's campaign complained about the scheduling conflicts with football games on two of the dates.
2. The Commission on Presidential Debates denied the request to reschedule, basically saying the debates are more important than football games.

Each side of the political divide concentrated on one "actor" in this story, in order to sell their biased view of the story. Fox had to point at the COPD in order to sell their story that the COPD is corrupt like the DNC was, whereas CNN concentrated on Trump's complaint as some kind of attempt to "squirm out of the debates" (this is how CNN described it on their front page). 

Why is there a need for bias and spin in this story? Because it needs a lot of "sexing up" to make it interesting. Bias is the only way to sell this story. Be honest: Debate scheduling doesn't send a thrill up your leg.

In other news...

The Hill:

Third-party support surging

Voters now confronted with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are making something abundantly clear: they want another option. 

Surveys over the last six weeks have found a steady but noticeable jump in support for third-party candidates. The biggest beneficiary has been Libertarian Gary Johnson, who has shot up from 4.5 percent to 7.2 percent in RealClearPolitics polling averages. Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also seen an uptick since June — from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent.

You have to go back to Ross Perot to see a third party candidate with numbers like these.

The article goes on:

Pollsters and political scientists say the deep malcontent with Clinton and Trump should give both candidates pause. 

“The fact that we have two major party candidates who are enormously disliked by the electorate, enormously and equally disliked, creates the opportunity for the minor party candidates to do better than they would in other presidential elections,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. 

“The minor party candidates can have great influence if the final race is very close.” 

Pollsters contacted by The Hill predicted that many of the voters now leaning toward a third-party candidate would eventually side with Trump or Clinton by Election Day.

But they caution that the volatility of the race and the low favorability ratings for both candidates mean anything is possible.

That last sentence is key. Here is my view: If Trump and Clinton persist in negative campaigning, it is highly likely the third parties will see an increase as more voters get disillusioned with their "current" R or D. The more mud thrown, the more mud sticks. The problem they will face is that the more support third party candidates get, the more they will keep. Once voters realize they CAN vote their conscience, they will, win or lose. It is a liberating experience knowing you can vote for someone because you support them, regardless of their party.