cahwyguy | Entries tagged with rant

userpic=trump FIrst and foremost, we disagree on political positions. That’s true for every administration. You disagree with the positions and policies when Democrats are in charge, and I disagree with the positions and policies when Republicans are in charge. The party out of power has disagreed with the party in power going back to before this nation was a nation. So let’s set that disagreement aside, for now.

I do hope we can agree with one thing: The Constitution should be the supreme law of the land. We got rid of kings and monarchs when we established this nation, and no matter how much we love a particular politician, we don’t want that politician to be an all powerful king (or dictator). We want the Constitution to be supreme, and we agree that we must follow that Constitution, messy as it is. That also means we have to deal with things we don’t like. You may not like freedom of speech or religion, and I may not like the right to own guns, but they are in the Constitution, so we somehow make it work.

Thus, with respect to an administration implementing their policies — whether or not we agree with those policies — that implementation must be constitutional. It must be in accordance with the words of the Constitution. It must follow the laws established by Congress, for the Executive Branch does not create laws — it ensures that congressionally-created laws are faithfully executed. If it doesn’t like a law, it works with Congress to change the law. Oh, and regulations? Those need to be the executive branch filling in the details regarding a law that Congress has passed. They should not be, essentially, new law.

We have three parts of government to explicitly prevent Kings. Congress makes the laws. The Executive ensures those laws are executed (and takes care of foreign policy, subject to congressional approval). The Judiciary determines whether actions taken by Congress or the Executive are Constitutional and in accordance with the laws passed by Congress (if those were Constitutional).

Alas, this is where we are running into a problem with the 45/47 administration. They are ignoring the constitution, which requires due process for anyone in the country (not just citizens). They are trying to suppress freedom of speech, and trying to impose particular religious views on everyone. They are thumbing their nose at judicial decisions. They are trying to govern by Executive Order. Out of a hatred for particular groups, they are declaring things as foreign invasions that are not invasions; and they are using the media they control to create a false narrative of fear. These are problems.

There is no problem with removing undocumented immigrants. HOWEVER, they must be accorded due process. They must be given the chance to show they are truly undocumented, for America is a nation of its word: If we have given legal permission for someone to be here, we should honor that. Right now, the administration’s ICE enforcement is deporting people without due process, and in doing so, they are expatriating US citizens and legal residents — hard-working Americans, not criminals — with the undocumented. They are not giving them the right to challenge their deportation, or to challenge their imprisonment. That, my friends, is unconstitutional.

The administration is also, intentionally, treating these people with hate and violence. They are grabbed, with no time to inform their family, no way to communicate. Small children are taken to holding prisons, and not given any support or help to navigate the system. Treating people with respect has been a hallmark of America. Are we abandoning those ideals to behave like a tin-pot dictatorship?

The administration is violating law by sending the military to our cities, creating violence where there was only peaceful protest. They aren’t asking the state governments. They are just ordering troops. This, also, is unconstitutional. States control their national guard unless there is a demonstrable invasion.

They are also creating a culture of fear, and disrespecting Congress. They are handcuffing and throwing to the ground members of the US Senate, simply for asking questions (which is their congressional duty). They are disregarding elected leaders of the community, with members of the Executive Branch saying “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into this city.”. No, folks, it was the people that elected this leadership, and government MUST be responsive to the people. This is not a dictatorship; it is a representative democracy whose authority is the Constitution.

So, to the 45/47 supporters out there: While I strongly disagree with your leadership’s policies, as the elected leaders, they do have the authority to work to implement them (just as the other side should have the ability to peacefully protest them). HOWEVER, that implementation MUST be Constitutional. It must come from Congress, and it must accord due process, follow the laws and funding enacted by Congress, and must be humane. It must respect leaders elected by the people.

The mention of funding was there for a reason. Constitutionally, it is the Congress that has the power of the purse. They are the ones that allocate funds, and the Executive Branch is charged with executing the funding priorities established by Congress. This administration is ignoring that. They are ignoring congressional mandates on how funds are to be spent. In doing so, they are destroying American’s leadership position in science, health, and research. Administrations can change directions — that’s their prerogative. However, they must do it in accordance with the Constitution: They must convince Congress to rescind funding and change the laws regarding how those funds are spent. The Executive Branch cannot govern by fiat and executive order, acting as if it was led by a King or Dictator.

America is a constitutional republic with three EQUAL branches. We’ve been lazy, and have allowed the executive branch to grab too much power. That’s bad when the party you don’t like is in power, and, truthfully, it is bad when the party you like is in power. We’ve also allowed the two-party system to usurp the voice of the people: Our leaders in Congress should be more responsive to what their constituents are saying than what party leadership is saying. Party leadership’s goal is to stay in power, not to do what is right for the nation.

We need Congress to represent the people, and to work together for what their constituents want. Right now, we have members of Congress that are scared to listen to their constituents. They pledge allegiance to what the President says and what the Party says, for that’s what keeps them in power. They don’t listen or care about the impact of those positions on the people they represent. That’s wrong — whichever party is doing it.

In summary, I hope we can all agree that recent administrations have drifted away from Constitutional norms. Congress must listen to and represent the people, and work in their interest (and not be rubber-stamps for a political party or specific leader). The Executive Branch must not make laws by fiat, but must faithfully execute the laws Congress establishes, within the Constitutional boundaries. The Judiciary must be respected and non-partisan, interpreting the law and ensuring it is followed.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as A Note to the 45/47 Supporters by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

userpic=trump As usual, ‘de Tr*mp is not thinking things through when he talks about making Canada a 51^st state, going so far as to initiate horrible trade wars that only strengthen Canadian pride, but serve to tank the American economy and stock market. As there are a number of points to make here, I’m doing this as a blog post:

First, Canada is far too large to be admitted as a single state. But let’s suppose it was. It would add two senators, who are likely Democratic and a large number of representatives. As the size of the House is fixed, this means that many Republican states would lose representatives. The House would likely go Democratic, and be that way for a long long time.
More likely, Canada would insist on each province becoming its own state. So, that’s 20 senators, and again a large number of representatives. Not all would be Democratic, but most would. This means both the House and Senate would go Democratic, again for a long time.
Canada would never come in with the status of a territory, as that would be a serious demotion in influence. So statehood would have to be approved in advance, and that won’t happen instantly: each province would need to establish an appropriate and acceptable constitution that fit American jurisprudence, and US institutions would need to be adapted to cover the additional territory. We’re talking at least 5 years.
Further, new states are admitted only with the approval of the existing states — more specifically, their representatives in Congress. Would a Republican congress vote to dilute their power and to (in fact) give up their majority? I think not. That’s why Puerto Rico, Guam, and DC have never become states: Because the Republicans didn’t want additional Democratic states. So now for them to admit 6 or more in one action. Not going to happen.
Trump talks about buying Canada. From whom and with what? Canada is a sovereign nation: there is no one to buy it from. Further, even if their was, where would the money come from. We’re probably talking trillions of dollars. Talk about increasing the budget deficit!
Trump also talks about annexing it. There’s precious little in that option that would make Canada want to do it. They have better health care, a better operating government, and a strong economy.
So, annexing would need to be done by force. This would make the USA a pariah among nations, just like Russia for invading Ukraine. The Congress wouldn’t support such a war, nor would it be popular with US people. It also wouldn’t be fast or easy, and it would tank Republican chances for holding Congress.

Tr*mp is a transactional guy. What’s in it for him? Why is he doing this? It would be much better to figure that out, and negotiate a treaty that is win-win for both sides. Knowing how Tr*mp thinks, this is likely all just a negotiating tactic to bully Canada into rolling over and putting their ass in the air for Tr*mp to f— them. Canada, however, is far too smart for that. More likely, the Beaver will recognize the BS, and will remain strong and steadfast. Meanwhile, the US will have tarnished, perhaps forever, the relationship with one of our strongest neighbors.

Now, Mexico, might be a different story. But we all know how Tr*mp feels about Mexicans.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Not Thinking It Through by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

userpic=trump The age of American Exceptionalism is over. Tr*mp, and his administration, killed it.

Over the weekend, I’ve been reading the tea leaves, so to speak, and thinking about America’s future and the impact of Tr*mp, 45/47. My conclusion is that Tr*mp is serving as the catalyst that moves American from the “Shining Beacon on the Hill” to a sovereign nation, like any other. Let me explain.

For much of its history, America was just like any other sovereign nation. But during the 20th Century, thanks to WWI and WWII and what came right afterwards, America assumed a leading position among other countries. Thanks to the work of folks like Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, America began a leader. We resolved worldwide conflicts. We were the leader in science, in medicine, in industry. Our statecraft resolved conflicts; our humanitarianism saved lives. We were the refuge for those persecuted. We were a beacon of justice, a nation where liberty and justice was truly FOR ALL.

Donald Tr*mp, and his minions, have killed that in a few short months. It is unclear if we will ever climb back up that mountain; indeed, to listen to a large portion of the country, they don’t want us to climb back. They think “America First”, but by that they mean “America isolated and self-sufficient”. In that isolation, they don’t realize what they have lost. Here are some examples.

Europe. Tr*mp’s horrendous treatment of Ukraine and Zelinsky, who has been a long term ally and who had agreed to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of American protection, has stunned Europe. More importantly, it has spurred Europe into action. The nations of Europe, working together, are developing a peace plan for the region and will present it to the US and Russia. Europe is also planning to spend more for its own defense (defence), realizing it can no longer depend on America. Is that good or bad? Hard to say, but it does mean that America is no longer the leader in that region that it once was. It is also bad for American defense companies, who were making a lot of money selling arms and munitions to Europe. If America is untrustworthy and imposing tariffs, they may also decide that locally-made is better.
Middle East. Tr*mp’s notion of buying Gaza and turning it into a resort has pushed the Arab nations into action, and they are meeting to devise their own plan for the rebuilding of Gaza. This would push out Hamas, and install a new Palestinian Authority 2.0 to govern the region. This could ultimately be a good thing and might bring stability to the region, although the longer term impact on Israel is harder to say. But, I think, if Gaza and the West Bank are governed by a group with no Hamas ties, backed by all the other Arab nations (including those Israel has peaceful relations with), there might be a solution. But the key thing is: America will be on the sidelines of that solution.
North America. Tr*mp’s treatment of Canada and Mexico may very well draw these two countries into a tighter alliance, if only for protection. This alliance could spread to the other democratic nations of Central and South America. None of these countries trust Tr*mp.
Medicine. RFK Jr. has shut down medical science at NIH, and slowed work on new vaccines. But the health issues will not go away, and others will pick up the slack. I expect to see European consortiums and private industry establishing standards. I see the UN taking a role in selecting the flu vaccine for each year. I see other nations picking up the skills to investigate pandemics and develop solutions. In short, the Tr*mp administration’s abandoning of health science will remove America from the leadership position and make it a follower, just like most nations. America will become, at best, a middle-tier nation instead of the leader in technology and research.
Science. Tr*mp’s shutdown of research at NSF and similar agencies will have significant impact on America’s standing in the research community. We will lose funding for students in the industries to attend conferences and learn from others. We will see less research funded. The net impact of this is that other countries will pick up the slack and the leadership. We’re already seeing this with research from China and South Korea, and we will likely see similar growth from India. This adds to the already strong work coming out of Europe and the FSB countries. Remember that this research has been the source of American innovation — not just NSF research, but research done through groups like DARPA and for DOD projects — and this American innovation is what created things like the Internet. No more. The next big innovations will likely come from somewhere else. America as the innovation leader will be no more.
Weather. Tr*mp may gut NOAA and the NWS because he is afraid of climate change research, but weather and climate isn’t going away. Other nations will pick up the slack and the science, and will become the leaders in the field. This is an area I can see Canada picking up the mantle, especially for North America, because accurate weather is required for commerce. In the short term, there will be big impacts in lack of preparation for incoming storms, and people will be killed. This will also impact the American aviation industry; pilots and air traffic controllers depend on accurate weather information to establish flight plans. Shipping depends on ocean weather. Our commerce will suffer.
Humanitarian Aid. People have, and will, die in response to Tr*mp’s abandonment of USAID and similar support. This creates a void that other countries will step in to fill — most notably, China. This is what is referred to as Soft Power, and China excels at this. It will move more countries into alliance with countries like China, India, and Brazil, and reduce America’s influence. NGOs will also pick up the slack, as will faith-based initiatives.

In the longer term, Tr*mp’s initiatives may well do some of what he wants: Isolate America, make America focused on itself. It may reduce some spending, but nothing all that significant. It will certainly increase the grift and fraud from the American oligarchs, but that’s the subject of a future blog post. It will increase the power of Russia, especially as the US reduces the efforts it was taking to stop the interference of Russia in US affairs, where Russia has long wanted to interfere in our elections and control our computer systems.

Will it make America Great Again? No. It will make America less significant globally. We’ll be just another nation, not the leader of the free world. Tr*mp will have abandoned that mantle, and he will have abandoned it in such a way that we never might get it back completely.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Tea Leaves and America by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

This morning, while in the shower, I was musing about a post I had read on FB about 15 minutes earlier. Of course, I can’t find it again, but the post was about DOD schools in Europe removing posters and textbooks about the accomplishments of blacks, women, and minorities. This was being done in response to the DEI Executive Order. We’ve seen similar things happening over the last two weeks. Posters of women cryptographers being covered at the National Cryptological Museum. Pages on the Tuskegee Airman being removed from DOD site. Numerous examples of the accomplishments of minorities being scrubbed from the collective consciousness.

So my mind went to the question of why this is being done. And the answer that I came up with is the erasure of history: the eventual end goal is to celebrate only the accomplishments of European White Men, probably Christian. This allows the narrative to be promoted that minorities have not contributed anything, and are therefore worthless. We all know what we can do with worthless things. Yup, they are planning to go there.

The train of thought then went to a different station. It was then thinking about all the names we have out there celebrating these folks. Names on buildings. Names on highways. Names on streets. There was a brief muse on how Trump and the new DOD Secretary want to return Confederate names to DOD bases. Why? Do you have to ask at this point?

But it then returned to all these minority names on schools and buildings. These are much harder to remove, and each name will prompt some to ask the question: “Who was ______?”. The answer to that, my friends, is good danger and good trouble, for we can show the value of minorities.

So we must now intensify our naming efforts. Name those schools. Name those highways. Get the names carved in stone. Make them hard to erase. Work your hardest to prevent the erasure of history.

Oh, and why *this* userpic. If you know TGOV, if it about two women cross-dressing to get around society’s conventional restriction on men.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Erasers and Names by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

userpic=divided-nation There are so many articles I want to discuss, and I don’t want to inundate FB with multiple posts, and BSky has a character limit, so a blog post it is:

I didn’t vote for Elon Musk? I don’t think anyone did. So why is Musk now controlling ALL Federal spending? Why is he making offers to resign to all Federal employees, ignoring employment contracts, retirement considerations, and Federal law? Why is he ignoring Congress in all of this? We didn’t vote for Musk.
Trmp now wants to nullify ratified union contracts with Federal workers. He thinks they were Biden being vindictive towards him. Trmp seems to believe that the laws do not apply to him. His “immunity” only goes so far, and cannot override Congress.
Further, Trmp has ordered the Army Corps of Engineerings to release water in the central valley of California, possibly flooding farmers and making it so California won’t have water for agriculture during drought conditions. Oh, and none of this water is going to Los Angeles, and the fires it is claimed to be helping are already out.

I don’t know how, but Trmp and Musk, and their cohorts, need to be reigned in. They must learn that Congress controls the purse and how is it spent. They must learn that the President is NOT a king, and his princes are not all powerful. They need to be reminded that the Constitution is above all, and that oaths are to the Constitution and the laws therein, and not a specific individual.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Wither The Rule of Law? by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

userpic=divided-nation So Donald Trump is being installed into office today, just like a defective lightbulb that you hope might work and not burn the house down, but that you know—more than likely—will flicker for a bit, and then create loads of toxic smoke. I guess you could insert your lightbulb joke here, but with Republicans uniting behind defective light bulbs, and Democrats unable to find a suitable replacement bulb to replace the one that was steady but dim, I’m not sure it is necessary.

The last time this happened, there were protests in the street. There were marches on Washington DC. It was the era of the pink pussy hat. People were up in arms, and there was fear across the land. On the Conservative side, there was jubilation about what they were going to do. On the Progressive side, the grief process was beginning. Shock. Denial. Anger. That’s what characterized 2017-2020. We couldn’t believe it. We were angry about it, and then we took to the streets.

Then we bargained. If only we could elect this old white guy, he would put the nation right. And, for a time, things seemed better, and it looked like we were on the right path. But the enablers took hold. The people that couldn’t or would accept change, or the people that only wanted change if it was on their terms. And an election was lost.

This time, the reaction seems much more subdued. Perhaps it is exhaustion, after all the energy spent in the election season, and all the energy spent during his first term, and all the energy spent dealing with him and his minions while he was out of office. This election was also different: at least where I was, there were a lot less of the good old boy truck parades and there weren’t trucks on the freeway flying his flag. He had learned better how to work the system, while on the surface vowing to dismantle the system. But then again, it could be depression. After all, that’s the next stage of grief.

In trying to make sense of what is happening today, I think back to my days in Alanon, the group for those who love alcoholics, addicts, and such. One of the teachings of that group is that you can’t change the addict. All of the things you think you do out of love to protect the addict instead just enables them to continue. They need to hit their bottom, and the best you can do is protect the people around you. Looking at Washington this time around, it appears that’s what some Democrats are doing. The attitude is: “You elected him, now you live to see what the consequences are. We warned you.” The theory, I guess, is either that Trump will somehow miraculous make things better, or (and this is the more likely outcome) things will get much worse. Inflation will be high, foreign relations will be in tatters, government will be ineffective. The Conservatives will see the folly of their ways…. wait, that will never happen for the die-hard Trumper. The Republican Moderates will see the folly of their ways, and we will rise again in 2026. We just need that next generation to lead us (oh, and alas, it will need to be a white guy, because we’ve tried twice with a woman and the nation rejected that).

If that is the approach, then the ride to the bottom will be a bumpy one, and people will get hurt. Further, unlike in 2017, we don’t have Congress as protection against the excesses. We also learned from 2017 that, while protest and fighting in the streets may feel good, it is not what brings lasting change. It can be a catalyst, but the energy fades.

We do have a few remaining tools in our arsenal, and they are what we must use. The first is the courts. The fading light bulb helped us here: Biden has been nominating and confirming judges at a record rate, and even more at the end of his administration. Just as Trump used the courts to his advantage, we must fight him in the courts. Presidential immunity and a Republican Congress prevents us from going after the man, but we can go after his policies. When they are unconstitutional and abusive, we can delay their implementation or get them overturned. The courts have traditionally been what protected the people: we need to hold them to that.

The other tool in our arsenal is the ballot box. You’re saying: “But that’s two years away.”. Not quite. The election is two years away, but now is the time to prepare. There are two prongs here.

First, now is the time to find the “new blood”—the people that will speak to the Gen X, Millennials, and whatever “the kids” are calling themselves these days. We need to get a younger and new voice into office, and that means getting them into local offices, state offices, Congress. We need to lay the groundwork and build the grassroots networks. We need to figure out something the Republicans are going at: working together and going in a unified direction. Yes, their direction was wrong, but their unity was strong.

Second, we need some Alanon tough-love for the Conservatives out there, and (for those in Red district), we need to make our voices heard about where we stand. “Letting Trump be Trump” is going to prove that his promises were as much an illusion as his cryptocurrency. Inflation will be high, and there may be impacts for the safety net that so many in Red states depend upon. We need to get these Conservatives to write and speak up to their representatives in Congress to let them know that their jobs are on the line if they don’t reign in Trump to prevent the excesses. Congressional Republicans may love Trump, but they love their paychecks more. Progressives who live in Red districts must likewise make their voices known to their Congresscritters: without disclosing party, let them know that their jobs are on the line if they put Trump over the Constitution. Those of us lucky enough to be in Blue districts or Blue states must encourage our Progressive leaders to use the system to their advantage. Just as Trump showed us that one can use the court system to delay and prevent, Congressional rules can be used to delay and prevent, especially in a Congress that is so close. Combine Progressives working to delay things, with Conservatives whose constituents are threatening their jobs, and … well, it will only take a handful to gum up the system.

We’ll protest and fight, but we’ll do it differently this time.

As I was working through this, a song from Noel Paul Stookey was running through my head. In light of the recent death of his compatriot, Peter Yarrow, it is appropriate to resurface. Noel wrote this song at the start of Trump’s last turn, and the message remains true today:

Watch on YouTube

I won’t “work together” to dismantle health care
or “work together” to lower the minimum wage
I won’t “work together” to allow the weakening
of gun control by the NRA
i can’t “work together” to persecute the muslim
or “work together” to build a wall
I won’t “work together” to limit the freedom of the press
without that freedom, freedom’s sure to fall
I won’t “work together” to de-fund education
or “work together” to suppress the vote
I won’t “work together” to eliminate the funding
for reproductive rights and you can quote (me)

I will not “work together” to ruin the environment
or desecrate sacred ground
why would we “work together” denying global warming
with all the scientific proof that we have found?
I won’t “work together” to cripple the unions
or “work together” to unplug PBS
I can’t “work together” to normalize the racist
or tolerate the hatred they profess
I won’t “work together” to turn away the refugee
or “work together” to approve the waterboard
I won’t “work together” to create more nuclear nations
as if more of them could put an end to war…

I will stand, my God I will stand
I will stand and do my part
I will stand and work together
for my conscience, for my country, for my heart

[“I Will Stand (Work Together)“, Noel Paul Stookey, 2017]

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Trumpanon: One Day at a Time by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

To those playing the blame game: blaming Bass, blaming Newsom, blaming “liberals”: SHUT UP. There is little any of these folks could have done to prevent the disaster. Additional fire fighting resources and additional water water pressure might — at best — have reduced the loss by some single digit percentage — and when you are talking 5000+ homes, that is insignificant in the long run (although significant on the individual level).

The reality is that this fire happened because of winds more intense than the LA basin has ever seen, incredible brush growth in areas where normal brush management is not viable due to ownership, topology, or environmental aspects, and incredibly dry conditions (1/10″ of rain since May, combined with an extremely hot and dry summer).

The political cause was over many years, and from administrations across the political spectrum. It wasn’t what you would expect. It was zoning that allowed construction in the canyons, but that was only a small part. It was lack of attention/belief to/about climate change, which intensified both the winds and the dryness. Many factors contribute to this, but remember that these areas have destructive brush fires, and have had destructive brushfires before, and will have such fires again. The LA basin was named the valley of smokes for a reason. Brush fires are part of life here, just not normally in January.

So please, right now, SHUT UP. There will be post-mortems to figure out what we can do better, but this couldn’t be prevented. It doesn’t help the victims today to play this blame game. You want to do something: clear the brush around your house. Make donations to groups that are helping. Connect people with people. Care about others first instead of playing politics.

[This originally was a FB post. I wanted to post it on other socials, but they have a character limit. That’s a different rant, but one reason why I’m still using FB.]

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as The Blame Game by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

When a ship sinks, the rats come pouring out. When a disaster happens, predictably, the armchair quarterbacks come out, with all the reasons they think the disaster happened — even before the victims have time to regroup. Further, in the Trumpworld of today, these folks want someone to blame, and they want that someone to be a Democratic politician, a Democratic theory, a Democratic policy, because we all know that liberals are responsible for all the problems in this world, and if Trump and his conservative ilk were in charge, we’d live in a world of unicorns and guns, and there wouldn’t be any problems.

Geeze, and they think the liberals are smoking something.

This post is MY place to respond to these folks, all in one place. I’m going to collect links and such here so I can find them again. But there are some a key points to be considered above all: Mother Nature is a bitch, sometimes.

Suppose there were no water supply problems. OK, but there was still no good way to get the water on the fire. The winds were so high and the smoke was so dense that water-dropping apperatii couldn’t fly and drop, and there were areas that hand crews could not reach.

Suppose there were no people supply problems. Fine, but at some point, additional people do not help. There were areas of this fire that can not be reached by firefighters. Strong winds pick up those embers and ignite new fires.

We build our disaster response systems for the anticipated disasters, plus a little bit more. The scope of the winds and the firestorm were far more than has been seen in the last 200 years. The system was not built to anticipate that (nor to have the number of fires in the short amount of time that we have had). Further, were we to build a system for the exceptional disaster, it would sit unused and we would then complain about the cost. To put this another way: We build for an earthquake in the 6-7 range. If we got a 10.0, we would be screwed. To put it another way: No one designed the twin towers to be resistant to commercial aircraft flying into them, because that wasn’t in the threat model. Sustained winds of the strength seen Monday and Tuesday, combined with this long of a dry season (normally, we have had some rain by January), is not something we face often.

So let’s look at some of the complaints:

The hydrants ran dry. This was a complaint from Rick Caruso the night of the fires — the issue was low water pressure in the upper reaches of the Palisades. There was a good fact-check on this from LAist. Yes, there was low water pressure. However, it wasn’t due to mismanagement. The states’ reservoirs were not low. Reservoir levels for state reservoirs are at or above normal for this time of year, and recent releases would not have had an impact. There are 3 over 1million gallon water tanks used to feed the Palisades, and those were full before the fires. However, there was significant draw on those tanks fighting the fire, and they could not refill in time to maintain water pressure. There was one reservoir (city) that was empty for maintenance: there was a crack in the lid, meaning the water was not suitable for drinking and thus couldn’t be used in the system. That happens, and in normal times isn’t a problem. Experts thinks it wouldn’t have made a big difference if it were online.

Bass Cut the Fire Department Funding. There were concerns that some recent budget cuts to the fire department impacted response. That narrative, being pushed by the owner of the LA Times, and (of course) Rick Caruso, is false. According to Politico, the city was still negotiating a new contract with the fire department during the budget cycle. Funds for the LAFD were placed in a separate reserve until the deal was finalized in November. In reality, the department’s budget increased by over $50 million compared to the previous year. The Daily News (never a friend to liberals) noted: “On Thursday, a spokesperson for L.A. City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who was budget chair last year, said the city increased the fire department’s overall budget by approximately $53 million in the current fiscal year. However, $76 million – intended to pay for fire department personnel – was placed in a fund separate from the fire department’s regular account when the budget was adopted because contract negotiations with department employees were still taking place at the time.” The DN added: “As a result, if you just compare the LAFD’s budget last year to this year’s, it looks like it went down $23M. But that’s because when the budget was adopted last May or June, the city was still negotiating those new contracts. The $76M that was set aside in a separate account ultimately was moved once the MOUs were finalized.”

Mayor Bass Was Out of Town. There seems to be this notion that (a) the mayor (or governor, or President, or …) needs to be in the area when the disaster occurs, and (b) the mayor &c’s presence will solve a lot of problems. That’s bunk. People can schedule trips when they appear to have a clear calendar, and that can include doing city business out of town. Disasters don’t look at the calendar. What’s important is whether the leader has the ability to coordinate things when they are away, and how quickly they return. Bass was on top of the situation, and returned as quickly as she could. The New York Times addressed this, noting: “When a series of dangerous, wind-driven fires broke out on Tuesday in the Los Angeles area, Mayor Karen Bass was on the other side of the globe, part of a delegation sent by President Biden to Ghana for the inauguration of its new president. Ms. Bass, a former Democratic congresswoman who became mayor in late 2022, did not return to Los Angeles until Wednesday afternoon, by which point more than 1,000 homes had burned and 100,000 people across the region had been forced to flee from their homes.”. But the NYTimes also noted that Bass took the fastest route back, and that the city was prepared. Another article noted that: Bass was “in active communication with [LAFD] Chief Crowley, Council President Harris-Dawson, and other local leaders since early [the morning of the fire] and [was] flying home right now after participating in a Presidential diplomatic mission overseas”. It was also noted that the City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson was filling in for Bass as acting mayor (so there was leadership), and the Mayor’s office had outlined their plan for responding to the wind storm and potential fires in an email sent to reporters at 10:56 AM, roughly half an hour after the Palisades Fire broke out and quickly grew to 200 acres. The person behind the complaints about Bass: Again, Rick Caruso, who ran against Bass for Mayor and will likely run again (or run for governor).

Faucet from the North. This is one of Trump’s lines: There would have been no fire had we had a beautiful water supply from the North. But Trump doesn’t know engineering. The book Cadillac Desert goes into this. The problem is that the mountains in far Northern California, near Lake Shasta, make moving water from Washington and Oregon nearly impossible due to the cost of pumping. It could be done, but the cost per gallon would make it very expensive. The height differential and distance would make a siphon-based system, as used for the LA Aqueduct, impractical.

Brush Clearance. This isn’t referring to localized brush clearance, which was enforced, but a notion that the governor or mayor should have been cutting down dead trees in national forests or parklands. The National Review has a rant on this, and they note that (again) Rick Caruso is a proponent of this attack. There are environmental laws that would prevent that; in addition, these lands are protected against such actions. The National Park Service of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area contends that controlled burns are not an effective tool in their particular ecosystem. “Prescribed burning is not effective in limiting the spread of wildfires under the conditions that burn the largest amount of land and cause the most home losses. Native shrublands are being burned too frequently because of human ignited wildfires. Prescribed fire does not fulfill any identified ecological need in chaparral or coastal sage scrub and would increase the probability of a damaging short fire interval following a prescribed burn.” I recall some articles noting that prescribed burns make things worse, as they replace slower burning trees with faster burning grasses that put out more embers, making things worse. There are debates ongoing in this area. But the key fact is this, as KQED notes: “Even if the U.S Forest Service had continued to allow burning, it would not have prevented this week’s devastation from deadly fires that have destroyed thousands of homes. The fires we’re seeing are primarily spreading through urban neighborhoods, with the possible exception of the Eaton Fire that is burning, in part, on federal forest lands. Given the wind, weather and location of the fires, it’s unlikely a controlled burn would have stopped the disaster. The houses and surrounding vegetation are fuels in communities that were not designed for fire resilience when they were planned decades ago.”

In short, we’re seeing attempts by politicians — primarily Conservative politicians who love to cut funds for services — to use these fires to further their political ambitions. They have no concern about helping the people on the ground. They just want to increase the anger and political temperature, and fan fires of a different nature.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Post-Disaster Armchair Quarterbacking by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

As it is the start of Pride Month, I feel it is appropriate to post these thoughts that have been going around in my head. This all got started last week when I answered a question on Quora about whether trans rights would be the downfall of America, and the ensuing questions and answers that arose therefrom. It made me realize the level of misinformation that is out there, and the stunning ignorance that results from people not listening and thinking. So I’d like to do my part to clarify things, at least from my understanding as a cismale person.

First, there are three distinct things out there that are seemingly being conflated by those on the “anti-Woke” (henceforth !W) crowd:

Transgender. This is the condition when the physical body that one has is not congruent with the gender identity in the mind. It is something that is really hard for most of us to think about — after all, we never think about our gender as something different than what our sex organs are. But there are those who have that condition. When they do, they have a range of options, from hiding their identity (bad idea), to expressing their identity in various ways. They can simply dress and adopt the lifestyle of the gender they seem themselves as. They can go on the appropriate hormones. They can avail themselves of various surgical options. All of these things require psychological counseling and multiple years; surgery in particular requires years of living as the other gender before it is even considered. Many trans folks don’t have surgery. It is important to note that individuals under 18 DO NOT have irreversible surgery, unless some significant medical reason requires it. Before age 18, puberty blockers are used to delay puberty (there are rare side effects), and in later adulthood, hormone therapy may be used (the “at birth” gender reasserts itself if those hormones are stopped). In other words: Nothing irreversible is done before age 18. It is also important to note that suicide is very common for people suffering from this dysmorphia, and the impacts of the medicines are much better than suicide. It is also important to note that trans is independent of sexuality and sexual desire. Lastly, note that the percentage of folks that are trans is very very small, when compared to the overall population.
Drag Queens. Drag is just another form of cosplay, and drag queens are just actors inhabiting a persona. Drag has been around for a long time. In Shakespeare’s time, all “women” actors were played by men. We had folks like Milton Berle in the 1950s and 1960s, there was Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in the 1950s, there were TV kid show hosts; there was Flip Wilson and Bob Hope; and of course, there was Mrs. Doubtfire. This is just acting. It is not recruiting kids, and it is not sexual. KIds just like playing around, putting on costumes, and pretending to be other people and using their imaginations. Nothing about sex at all. They like watching people in costume. The important thing here is that drag is for entertainment.
Cross-dresser. A term for people who dress in clothing traditionally or stereotypically worn by the other sex, but who generally have no intent to live full-time as the other gender. Some of these folks do get sexual pleasure from doing this, but not all. Again, these folks don’t recruit, but do it for their own pleasure.

Different things. None of them recruiting kids.

It is also useful to understand life is rarely binary, and there aren’t simple dimensions in this area. Sex isn’t XX or XY; genetically there is a wide range between the gender (see this article). Gender is a societal construct that changes over time, and it is also a spectrum from male to female to ambiguous areas in-between. There are also dimensions that are spectrums with respect to romantic attraction and sexual attraction (not always the same). And, of course, there are folks who just want to have no part of any of this, and just to live their own life on their terms. We should not be judging on this. As the Skittles ad says: Enjoy the rainbow.

So, the next question is: Should there be laws limiting this stuff? The answer here is a resounding “No”. Such laws are un-American, where the Constitution explicitly permits freedom of expression. Gender is a form of expression. Simple as that.

You say your religion is against it? Then don’t do it yourself. But don’t use your religion as a cudgel to force other people to agree with your religious views. That is also un-American, where there is freedom of religion.

What about bathrooms you say? A few points here:

If you were in a ladies room, and saw someone dressed as a guy walk in, you would be upset. Similarly, if you were in a men’s room and saw a woman walk in. So the rule should be simple: Go into the restroom that matches your gender expression.
The notion of genital inspection to enforce restroom usage is just plain stupid. If the government does it, it goes against the 4th amendment: unreasonable search. If a person does it, it is essentially sexual assault.
But what about exposed genitals in the restroom. I don’t know where you go, but I don’t see them except at the trough pissers at a baseball game. Go into a private stall, mind your business, do your business, and wash your hands.
What about shared and open showers? That’s a bit of a harder question, for you want to respect others as well. Usually, you can find a private shower to use. You might need to wait until you get home. Talk to the management. But remember: It is as much a concern for the person being seen as the person doing the seeing.

What about sport teams, you say:

Personally, I think we should get rid of gendered colligate and professional teams, and go to weight and strength based classes, independent of gender. That’s a fair and equitable solution.
Otherwise, at the College and Professional Level, there should be a requirement to have been on the appropriate hormone for a significant period (which weakens or strengthens muscle mass), with private changing areas. This does actually tend to be quite rare.
For kids? We shouldn’t have the gender distinction. Just provide the appropriate changing areas, and let the kids have fun playing together.

It boils down to this: Treat people as you would like to be treated: with respect. Call them what they want to be called. Treat them as the gender they present as. Don’t judge, lest ye be judged.

Oh, and let the drag queen read to your kids. They’ll probably enjoy the story, and maybe will learn a very important lesson from the drag queen: reading is a lot of fun.

What? You were thinking they would learn something else?

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as 📰🌈 Fighting the Misinformation by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

userpic=divided-nation Over on Facebook, a conservative friend of mine posited the question, “Someone, anyone… please enlighten me by pointing out the racist portion(s) of the following song lyrics:”, after which he quoted the Star Spangled Banner. I hesitate to respond directly on his post because of the shitstorm from the Trump-dittoheads that would ensue; instead, I’m responding on my forum.

First and foremost, the problem is not with the anthem itself, just as the fight against the Confederate statues is not about the specific statues, or the protests against the pledge are about the specifics of the pledge. The problem is with the underlying symbolism. Further, “racist” is the wrong term. “Problematic” would be much be much better.

So where is the problem? It is captured in the simple phrase, “Land of the free”. The problem is that our nation is not living up to that ideal.

Are we the “land of the free” when:

A black US citizen cannot drive through a white neighborhood without being pulled over, while a white US citizen driving through a black neighborhood is not hassled?
A brown US citizen cannot drive near the Mexican border without being stopped and asked about his immigration status, whereas a white US citizen driving near the Canadian border is not stopped?
An Arab-American US citizen wearing a hijab is instantly suspect of being a terrorist, whereas the white guy buying the nitrogen and ammonia is not suspicious?
When statistics show that brown and black citizens arrested as suspects by the police are more likely to be treated harshly, receive longer sentences, and be shown less lenience.
Our President criticizes black football players for not standing up and putting their hand over their heart for the National Anthem, when he has been recorded not doing so?

By the way, when y’all go to church, how do you show respect to G-d? You kneal.

We say we are the Land of the Free, but we don’t demonstrate it as long as we discriminate against people based on conditions that are not of their choosing: skin color, country of origin or heritage, religion, sex, gender, orientation. People are choosing to show respect in a non-traditional form, because that which is different must be respected as well.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

Tonight is the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery (FB). The first episode will be broadcast on CBS; for the rest, those in the US must subscribe to CBS’s exclusive pay-streaming service, CBS All Access. I’m a long time fan of Star Trek, and avidly devoured all of the TV series from the point where I could choose my television: the animated series, ST:TNG, ST:DS9, ST:V, and even ST:Enterprise. But I’m not going to be watching Star Trek:Discovery beyond the first episode (and possibly not even that). I think that were Gene Roddenberry alive, he wouldn’t be watching it either.

Here’s why.

In how CBS has chosen to broadcast Star Trek:Discovery (ST:D), I feel they are not being true to the Star Trek vision. Gene Roddenberry emphasized in Star Trek an optimistic attitude, a view of the world where barriers between people did not exist. The class distinctions were gone, and race, gender, orientation, religion, and similar divisions were not factors. All of the other instances of Star Trek on the small screen were egalitarian in their broadcast: if you had a TV, you could watch them, be they on NBC (TOS), the UPN network (Enterprise, Voyager), or syndicated (TNG, DS9). But for Discovery, this isn’t the case. Those without Internet access or those who are not paying for streaming service (read: most cable and satellite users) are disenfranchised. They can’t watch the show. Those with Internet access can, but only if they pay. This reduces the audience to a particular wealthy demographic.

That’s problem enough for the Emmys, as I’ve discussed previously. They no longer serve to encourage excellence in Broadcast TV (or basic cable). Let the plebeians have crappy TV; those with the means can pay to watch the quality stuff on Netflix and Hulu and Amazon and … Streaming provides the wealthy audience that buys stuff, or pays the network directly for their programming.

But for Star Trek? Putting Star Trek on a streaming platform creates the exact class distinctions that Roddenberry fought against. It is a pure grab for money and revenue from technically savvy Trek-fandom who have more money than they need — money CBS feels free to separate from them. Much as I want ST:D to succeed, it should be on a mainstream broadcast or basic cable channel: the CW or SyFy, not pay-streaming.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

Over on Facebook today, a friend of mine posted a very interesting query: “So of all who watch the Emmy’s year after year…. do you actually have access to all those networks and shows that are nominated?”. This dovetailed with a feeling I had watching this year’s Emmys: What happened to the days when most people could see the Emmy winning shows on broadcast TV? This year there were very few network shows nominated, and even fewer winners. In fact, many of the winners weren’t even broadcast on channels one could get on traditional over-the-air, cable, or satellite TV as part of the basic subscription packages. They were on channels that, like HBO, you had to pay premium prices for, or channels like Hulu which you had to have an Internet subscription to watch.

Thinking about this further, on my Facebook, I asked: Wouldn’t it be great if we could get an awards show for excellent on channels that everyone could see: free channels or those included is most basic packages. That would encourage those channels to be excellent, not just those that can command premium prices.

But, driving home, what I realized is something unspoken about the Emmys: We may celebrate diversity behind the camera — especially this year. But we don’t have diversity in front of the screen. The inclusion in the Emmys of premium channels and channels that depend on the Internet have an unwritten presumption of a form of privilege: the privilege that provides the means to pay for premium subscriptions, to have Internet service, to pay for the extra devices, to pay for the computers and such. Many of the poor in this country don’t have those means — our rush to the Internet has simply passed them by and most people don’t care. There is no requirement of Universal Internet Access, like there is for phone service.

In our push to recognize quality in premium channels, we are sucking the quality from the accessible-to-all channels. And in doing so, we are dumbing down those channels and hurting the entire viewership of TV.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

(to the tune of ~~“The Saga Begins”~~ “American Pie”)

About a week ago
At Verizon in the mall
My phone was starting to die…
And I thought me and my picks
Could talk Verizon into
A deal on an LG G6
But their response, it didn’t thrill me
They called mall-cops, and tried to shill me
I escaped from that fight
Called *611, and made it right
I checked again, redid the order
Picked it up at a Ranch called Porter
They behaved like they orter
That’s where I got this phone…

Oh my my Verizon Cellphone
You’ve the only brand I ever have owned
Northridge Mall sucks, but Porter Ranch pwned
And now I’ve got the latest smartphone
Now I’ve got the latest smartphone.

This has been an interesting week. Back in August, while we were on vacation, I had a problem with my 4+ year old, 1st generation, Moto X. Driving through Aspen to Colorado Springs, my phone had trouble finding signal after we got out of the canyon, even after multiple reboots, when my wife’s newer Droid Turbo was doing fine. I had been having significant battery life problems, and we noticed the sides of the phone were starting to crack — indicating potential battery expansion. Given my contract was long up (meaning, given our old plan, I was essentially making payments for nothing), the conclusion was: replace the phone.

Doing research during and after the trip, I settled on two primary candidates, as the Moto X4 (though just announced), wasn’t at Verizon yet: The Moto Z2 Play and the LG G6. Both were running Android Nougat, and both had the right mix of features. Although I was leaning to Moto because I liked their Apps, the smaller size of the G6 (the G6 was 5.86 x 2.83″, and the Z2 was 6.15 x 3.00) combined with the larger battery (the G6 was 3300 mAh, the Z2 was 3000 mAh) led me to the G6. Both were in my price range: under $25 a month. That number derives from the fact I was paying $40 a month for line access, and with the new phone, I’d be paying $15 with a $25 credit towards the phone: thus my overall bill would not increase. I planned to get the new phone once our current billing cycle ended.

Checking online, of the two Verizon Wireless stores closest to our house, only the Northridge Mall had them in stock. So I went over there. I dazzled them with my data, and we sat down to discuss the G6. They said the price was $28/month. I said it was $20/month online. They said, “Well then buy it online.”. I got on my phone and attempted to do so. However, I got to a screen instructing me to scan a barcode, with no other options. I asked them for help — they had no clue. I asked for a supervisor — he was out. I asked if anyone else knew what this screen meant. They didn’t, and they refused to tell me if the order had actually gone through. I gave a loud “Harrumpf” of exasperation… and they told me to leave the store and that they were calling mall security to escort me out. That got me even more frustrated (and when that happens, I tend to trip). I tripped over a chair, went flying, and they kept insisting security was on their way. I finally got out of the store, sat outside, and tried to call customer service (with the mall cops standing over me watching). After 1/2 hour on hold with my phone about out of power, I called my wife. She came over, went in the store (because they wouldn’t let me in), confirmed the order was not placed, and we went home.

Once home, I called customer service and placed an order for the phone — at $20/month, no problem — through customer service. Receiving the request to pay the sales tax online, I went to their website to do so. However, the plan price confused me, so I called them back. We sorted things out and I entered the card, thinking the order was placed.

Checked the next day at work, and the order was still “pending, call the credit department”. Evidently, the card didn’t go through for some reason, and they couldn’t fix the order. They cancelled it (which took a day to show up in their system as cancelled), and we redid the order.

That evening, I received mail that the phone was ready for pickup (within 3 days, although the website said 7). I called the store that evening to make sure I had all I needed to transfer, and to talk to a representative. Nice as could be. Driving home the next day, I got a call the phone was ready. I went up there yesterday evening. Francisco Linares helped me, and was as nice as could be. He helped me start the initial transfer, told me what I needed to do when I got home, and we confirmed that my current plan was just fine and the monthly pricing would be as I thought it would be (I’ll need to check that on the next bill). I picked up an extra Micro-USB to USB-C dongle, and I was home in under 40 minutes, when I thought it would take 3 hours. Yet again, the Porter Ranch store demonstrated that they understand customer service: they did it right.

Later that evening I ordered more USB-C stuff: a new power brick, a wireless charger, and cords and such.

I’m now the owner of a new LG G6, just waiting for the cases and cords to arrive. Comfortable in the hand and easy to use.

And that, friends, is the Saga of LG. Kudos and stars to the Verizon telephone personnel that helped, and to Francisco and the staff of Verizon Wireless in Porter Ranch for doing it right. Boos and 💩💩💩 to the staff of the Northridge Mall store, who care more about sales than customers. If you have a choice between the two, go to Porter Ranch.

Two final notes: People ask: Why Verizon? We’ve been with them since they were Airtouch Cellular, meaning about 20 years. We have 3 phone lines and 2 tablets, and in general they’ve been good. People ask: Why not an iPhone? I’m a big iPod Classic user, and I don’t want to pollute the iTunes ecosystem.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

Two articles that have crossed my feeds of late both highlight the issue of hatred: one of hatred of Jews, the other of hatred by Jews. Both demonstrate significant failures of our society.

The first was brought to my attention by Rabbi Barry Lutz of our congregation. Titled “Reform is Not a Four-Letter Word“, it describes a problem that is growing in Israel these days: the divide between the “ultra-Orthodox” (note that I do not put all Orthodox in this category) and the more progressive movements within Judaism. I’m familiar with this divide, for it isn’t a new one. Back in the early 1990s I started a mailing list where we explicitly prohibited that device, as the RCO fights (as well called them) were taking over soc.culture.jewish (the Usenet group) with their invective and hatred. It seems this hasn’t gone away: some ultra-Orthodox are using “Reform” as an insult. As the author of the opinion piece writes:

Still, I’d probably not have gotten around to writing this piece had Deri’s remarks not been echoed – almost drowned out – by those of Shlomo Amar, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and past Sephardic Chief Rabbi, who proclaimed a few days later that “Reform Jews are worse than holocaust deniers.” You can catch his remarks, word for word, on the ultra-Orthodox Haredi website Kikar Shabbat as he responds to the latest appeal of progressive Jewish groups to the Supreme Court regarding the Kotel (Western Wall). “They don’t have Yom Kippur or Shabbat but they want to pray [at the Western Wall]. But no one should think that they want to pray, they want to desecrate the holy,” was Amar’s take on the matter. “Today there was a hearing on the Kotel on the petition of the cursed evil people who do every iniquity in the world against the Torah,” he added, including both Conservative Masorti Jews as well as the Women of the Wall (original and otherwise) as objects of his wrath as all were party to this litigation.

Did you catch that? Reform Jews are worse than holocaust deniers. Who needs Nazis in the streets when we have the ultra-Orthodox to hate us (without ever knowing what Reform really is, just like many of the Nazis know Judaism only from false stereotypes like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Hatred built on fake news and fake information is not new, folks; it has long been the domain of the ignorant, uninformed, and more importantly, those who do not want to be informed.

The current alt-Right and neo-Nazi — hell, Nazi — movements are bringing this all back to America. I met Shmuel Gonzalez when he recently gave a talk to the San Fernando Valley Historical Society on the community of Boyle Heights. This was an ethnically mixed community east of DTLA that — in the days of red-lining — brought together Jews and Latinos and Russians and Japanese and Blacks and all sorts of ethnicities into a loose coalition that worked for the rights of workers and the rights of people. Those Jewish Community Centers you see these days where nice economically advantaged families bring up their children outside of the horrid public schools were once Yiddishist centers fighting for workers and teaching English to immigrants. Shmuel, a very nice and gentle fellow, talks about this history all the time and preserves the Jewish heritage of those communities while celebrating both his hispanic and his Jewish background. Shmuel describes himself as follows in a recent post on his Barrio Boychik blog: “I am an activist historian and community organizer from Southern California; many of you might know me as the author of the Barrio Boychik blog, which is dedicated to presenting our local heritage of civil rights activism, with special focus on the historical and present inter-section of Jewish and Latino civil rights organizing. As a Mexican American of the Jewish faith, I also proudly serve the as teacher of Jewish education and leader in sacred Hebrew ritual, serving Southeast Los Angeles and North Orange County.”

Shmuel was recently at a counter-protest of the America First Rally – an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rally organized by the so-called “alt-Right” – at Main Beach in Laguna Beach, California on Sunday, August 20, 2017. As he writes on his blog:

On this day I was in attendance to stand with local friends and business people as they stand against hate. Among them my good friend and a father figure to me, Irv Weiser; whose family came to this country as refugees following the holocaust. I came to stand shoulder to shoulder with him as he protested against this nationalist hate rhetoric. There were just a few dozen anti-immigrant/refugee protesters that day, a mixed race group of far right extremists that noticeably even had neo-Nazis and white supremacists participating in the event; while there were several hundred counter-protesters in attendance. After the right-wing protesters group dwindled they started making incursions into the counter-protest, to get in people’s’ face and to agitate the crowd; they caused some minor scuffles and were shooed back by the police. While documenting the event on video, I followed the right-wing group back. By this time the right-wing protesters on the other end were encircled and engaging a crowd. I engaged the right-wing protesters in their rhetoric angering them several times with just verbal rebuttals, while also taking video of the protest.

He continued:

As I was still documenting this event on video with the camera running, I went in for a close-up shot as we argued, and one of them quickly approached and hit my hand, sending my camera flying. At that point I was immediately arrested by five officers in riot gear from the Laguna Beach Police department. I was arrested, instead of these nationalist extremists who wanted to assault me. And that was just the begin of a long ordeal. I would be arrested, taken to central jail – where I would be subjected to racist and anti-semitic treatment by the jailer.

His blog provides all the details of this, and he has a court date this coming Monday. Why they arrested a counter-protestor, and not the perpetrators of hate is beyond me.

The reason I bring up Shmuel’s story (in addition to bringing it the attention it deserves) is to highlight the hate aspect of it. Both stories — the one from Israel, and the one from Orange County — deal with hatred of Jews. One is from the ultra-Orthodox (many of the same folks who, in America, are still supporters of Trump). One from the alt-Right — again, a supporter of Trump. Further, as I write this, a bipartisan group in Congress has sent a resolution to Trump condemning such behavior . Why did Congress send it? According to the Washington Post: “Trump was roundly criticized by lawmakers of both parties last month after he blamed “both sides” for the Aug. 12 violence that resulted in the death of counterprotester Heather Heyer, as well as his suggestion that some “very fine people” were among the white-nationalist marchers.” Of course, the White House is saying he will sign it but the reason why is unclear: political expediency, or because he really believes in it. I guess we’ll find out in the after-the-fact tweets.

Whether the behavior is from our fellow Jews or from the alt-Right/neo-Nazi groups: we must fight hatred in any form. Further, as in the early days of Boyle Heights, we must remember that our cause is tied up with the immigrant — be they be from South of the Border, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, or Africa. Hatred of minorities in any form eventually turns to us Jews, and we have to stop it before it starts. Both of these stories are lessons and poignant reminders of where things can go.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

Many people complain about the high cost of housing, especially here in Southern California. There was a very interesting opinion piece on the subject over the weekend here in LA. The article starts as follows:

Out of curiosity, I looked up the value of a two-story tract house I bought in a middle-class San Jose neighborhood back in 1983, for about $130,000. The home — which I sold for about $140,000 in 1985 — would now haul in an estimated $1 million or more, based on recent sales in the same neighborhood. That’s roughly eight times more than I paid for it. But in the 34 years since then, California’s median household income has increased by roughly three times, not eight.

Now, for those of us who have purchased more recently — say in the mid-2000s — there’s not as much of an increase. Houses in the San Fernando Valley, where I live, were on the order of $600-$800K back at the top of the market (if not higher). They dropped some, but have come back to those prices. Orange County? As the OC Register notes, new homes in the Pacifica San Juan neighborhood of San Juan Capistrano “includes two-story townhomes ranging from from 1,836 to 2,068 square feet in space; three or four bedrooms; three bathrooms and two-car garages. Prices start “from the low $700,000s.”” Mind you, these are townhomes, not even detached housing. How can Millennials purchase housing?

Not having been a renter, I can’t speak to how the rents have changed. But my sister-in-law recently started a discussion on this based on that Register article where she noted salaries are up (for some) on the order of 6%. Comments on her post (which was restricted to friends, which is why I’m not citing names or linking to the post) noted that “you can’t even rent very well for $60k a year. That’s about $1600 a month. Barely a two bedroom apartment in a nice area…” Another person commented “As a renter in CA my ass feels sore and raw. Rents for higher and higher and we where told it’s based on the housing prices in the area. The housing market crashed and rents didn’t come down and we where told it was because more people had to rent because they lost their homes. ” My daughter, however, rents, and she could tell you how expensive it is to rent in places like Los Angeles (she ended up having a roommate in the West Adams area) or up in Berkeley — especially compared to what she can rent in Madison WI.

Why is this happening?

The article explains it as follows:

How to fix all this can’t be covered in one little corner of the newspaper. The short answer, though, is to build more housing. But bureaucracy, land scarcity and construction costs, limited funding for affordable housing and well-intended environmental restrictions all stand in the way of new projects. And so do people up and down the state who are OK with new housing unless it happens to be in their neighborhood.

So let’s explore that last sentence a bit: “And so do people up and down the state who are OK with new housing unless it happens to be in their neighborhood.”

Building new housing (let’s assume non-rental, stand-alone, single family residences) increases the housing stock, and has a little dilution effect on overall housing prices. Large developments have a greater effect, but as we saw in places like Porter Ranch that have added loads of single-family houses, the demand is such that prices don’t drop all that much. Maybe we’ll see a big drop with the new Newhall Ranch development. Building multi-family developments — think condo developments with higher density — creates even more affordable homes, but still there isn’t a significant drop in housing.

Rentals can make housing more affordable, especially if you dump a lot of rentals in the rental market. This, after all, is how New York City (especially Manhattan) works: almost everyone there is a long term rentals with large housing corporations (the only one that can afford the buildings) taking the rental income and making the rich even richer. There is extremely high density and low car ownership, owing to the density of transit. Los Angeles doesn’t have that transit density, but that doesn’t stop builders from trying to increase density. It is unclear whether that will work, especially with parking and transportation issues. Most likely, people will end up paying one way or the other.

So what is doing us in with respect to housing. My supposition? Human nature. To put it another way: People are not willing to take a loss in value for their house even if it makes other houses in your neighborhood more affordable. People are not willing to have more housing constructed in their neighborhood if it lowers values solely due to the increase in supply. No one wants to see their property values drop. Your house is your main financial asset. You can’t afford to take the loss. Let it happen in another neighborhood. And thus, the NIMBY is born, with the net result that home purchase prices stay sky-high. The impact, of course, of this is that less folks buy (and thus can use the mortgage deduction), and more folks — if housing is available — rent. This increases the demand for the rental units, which (as the supply doesn’t increase as fast), increases the rent.

So, why not build more rental housing? Because those same folks that don’t want more low-density single family housing in their neighborhood don’t want high-density housing. Think what that will do to the traffic! We won’t be able to get anywhere! And if we make housing more affordable, all that riff-raff will move to our neighborhood, lowering values even further. Oh, and don’t get me started on what adding low income housing does to our housing values!

In the end, it is people who are protecting the values of their single family homes that keep the market high. Banks and other financial institutions are complicit in this: making it easier to take out riskier loans with lower down payments to make more expensive houses affordable, and then selling off those loans so they don’t keep the risk in the community (that’s part of what caused the housing crisis). Remember: What they can’t make in interest rate income they can make by having a smaller percentage of a larger base amount, with a longer loan. So what if they homeowner loses the loan? They can forclose and sell it to someone else making even more money the second or third or fourth time around.

The high housing prices also mean that those who can afford to buy and built multi-unit housing are those at the upper end of the financial spectrum. If these multi-unit complexes are built as condos, you have the same problems as above: housing prices that keep raising (which also keeps raising the prices of the detached non-condo houses). If they are built as rentals, the landlords want to keep the prices up — and thus they fight any low income units. But eventually there will be higher density, which will give us — you guessed it — Manhattan.

And that, folks, is why housing is so expensive. You have no one but yourself and human nature to blame.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

userpic=divided-nation With the upcoming publication of Hillary Clinton’s book, the debate has started up again on the role of Bernie Sanders on giving Trump the election. Per CNN: “In it, according to excerpts posted by a group of Clinton supporters, she criticizes her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, for running to be the Democratic nominee while not actually being a Democrat, and for targeting her in a campaign of character assassination, instead of doing a deep dive into policy.” This notion, predictably, has Sanders supporters responding on FB, and has reignited the debate about the election once again. Here are some of my thoughts, so I don’t have to keep posting them again and again … and again:

Get Over It! Much as I don’t like the result, the Electoral College voted and gave us Trump. Hillary Clinton lost, and we should just let her fade into the background and focus on the next generation of candidates.
…but don’t get full of yourself. However, the election was not a Trump landslide, despite what he said. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote; Trump was more strategic in where he won. Playing to Trump’s base is not what the country voted for.
Bernie Sanders could not have won. Sanders had a great very progressive message. Despite the positives in that message, he was doomed from the start. As we saw recently in Virginia, there are loads of people out there that hate both Jews and Blacks. Sanders was an ex-Socialist, New York Jew. This country was not ready for that messenger. They were barely ready for a Black President, and as we saw from the election, really weren’t ready for a woman President. Much as we think we’ve come a long way, the battle for true equality — and universal acceptance of that equality — isn’t over for different religions or women (and certainly not for the newer protected categories, including LGBTQ etc.).
Hillary cost Hillary the election. Although Sanders had an impact on Clinton, certainly, it is unclear if he cost her the election. What really lost the election was Hillary’s presumption of winning vs. hard work. She didn’t think strategically and ensure she had the electoral votes. It was the tortoise vs. the hare.
Messenger, not Message. What got Trump elected was not his message, it was the messenger (or for some, hatred of the other messenger). He was the “anti-establishment, anti-government, shake things up” candidate — who spoke off the cuff in the language of the people. He excited a segment of the population that hadn’t gotten excited before (Alt-Right), and implicitly gave them permission to enthusiastically go for him — in the strategic states. [ETA: He expressed broad ideas and goals with few specifics, letting people trust in the power of him to get it done.] Clinton was not exciting; she was more of the same. [ETA: That is: Detailed policy wonk positions, playing up experience in the status quo, dull political speech, yada, yada.] Trump (likely aided by Russia and social media) played up those flaws. Clinton didn’t excite voters, and the segment she spoke to weren’t the types that got enthusiastic. Sanders’ supporters were enthusiastic, but they couldn’t get enthusiastic about anyone other than Sanders, so they sat on hands at the general election (or — forfend! — voted for Trump because they hated Hillary so) — essentially, putting their dislike of the messenger over their like of the message (much of which Clinton adopted).
Although the Endpoints are Excitable, the Bulk is in the Middle. The endpoints — the alt-right, the arch-conservatives, the Sanders progressives, the semi-Socialists — make the most noise and think they are the most important, but they aren’t the bulk of the electorate. Those in the middle are — those who Bill Clinton, and to a lesser extent, Barack Obama — played to. The problem is: the gerrymandering and the nature of the primaries gives the edges a stronger voice in selecting the candidates these days, leaving the electorate to choose between the extremes. It often isn’t a good choice.

Post-election, it is clear that not much has changed. Trump’s base loves him no matter what he does. The rest of the Republican party doesn’t like Trump, but has no viable Republican alternative — and they won’t go for a Democrat. Meanwhile, the Democrats have lived up to their reputation of not being an organized political party. Neither Sanders or Clinton is a viable party leader — Sanders because (a) he’ll be too old, and (b) he isn’t really a Democrat, and Clinton because, well, she’s Clinton and folks are tired of dynasties (i.e., Clinton / Bush). The candidates that have been floated all have their flaws. The country is clearly not ready for another racial minority or a woman, and needs a more “status quo” (i.e., sigh, white male) for a cycle or two — which means both Booker or Warren, while great with their messages, are stronger in the Senate. It also excludes folks like Kamala Harris or Antonio Villagrosa. Much as I like Al Franken, he has a Sanders problem — Jewish, as well as being a former actor and comedian. The Democrats need to find a suitable candidate and start grooming and promoting them now — and, alas, by suitable I mean white, male, and Christian. A candidate who will make the country feel safe in the messenger, so the message can be heard. They haven’t done that, and looking at their bench of up and comers, they don’t have a lot of choice.

Actually, they do have one good possibility — Hillary Clinton’s former running mate. If he isn’t too tainted by that association, Tim Kaine of Virginia has the right credentials. Democratic, white, and Catholic. Able to speak to hispanics. Good on policy. A former governor. But surprisingly, I haven’t seen his name come up at all.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

While eating my lunch, I’ve been reading the news about DACA and the reactions thereto on Facebook. I’ve also been thinking about my recent trip, and Will Rodger’s famous statement that people’s minds are changed through observation, not argument.

When you look at most of the people supporting DACA, they are people that either know a dreamer directly, or are close to someone who knows one. They know the hard work these people put in; how they strive to make their lives better and the world a better place. They also know, from first hand discussion, what would happen to these people if they are kicked out of the only country they have known. A similar narrative exists, by the way, for those who work with immigrants and refugees — legal or not. They know how much these people treasure this country, how hard they work to stay here and improve their lives. They know how important it is for their kids to be educated and go to college, and to exceed and do even better than their parents. These kids, with aspirational goals, are the dreamers we talk about with DACA. These are people that must succeed, for there is no significant welfare largess, so significant safety net.

I’ll note that this ethic: the ethic of hard work, of striving to be better, of pushing to move forward, learning, growing, and educating — and using all such opportunities available to you — this ethic is something that is often missing on those born in this country. I think we all personally know citizens that would rather wait for just the right job, are happy being on welfare and government assistance, are willing to work but not to work extra hard. Eliminating DACA will not suddenly employ these folks, will not solve the problems of society.

We just took a road trip through parts of the country that do not support DACA. From my observations, the people in those parts of the country don’t have the same level of interaction with Dreamers or Immigrants. Their view is not shaped by their experience and observations; that vacuum instead sucks up the arguments of bias. Essentially, in the absence of observation and experience, they are willing to believe what they are told about “those people”. They believe they are the ones taking the jobs away from them, sucking money from Washington, and generally abusing public service. The facts of the contributions of these people don’t sway them; in fact, no argument will. They are the people that will, alas, fulfill a different Rodgers adage: “There are three kinds of men. The ones that learn by readin’. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” The problem is that learning their lesson will hurt innocent people just trying to do good. Rodgers has an adage on their view of that as well: “Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else.”

P.S.: For those who believe I’m quoting someone who was consistently liberal, remember it was also Rodgers who said “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

userpic=trump As I read all the discussions around Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio, a few articles keep sticking in my head:

The Power to Pardon. First, to set the context, listen to this excellent TrumpConLaw podcast on the Pardon Power. In short, the President can pardon whomever he wants, but only for Federal crimes, only after the crime has been committed, and it can’t be a pardon from impeachment. Most Presidents (and Trump isn’t “most Presidents”) pardon on the recommendation of the Justice Department, only after some jail time has been served, and for the controversial ones, as their last action as President before they leave so they don’t have to suffer the political ramifications. But, as I noted, Trump isn’t “most Presidents”. He’ll get to deal with the fall out.
Why He Did It? (Take One). Vox has an interesting explanation of why he did it: To send a message that the enforcement of law and order takes priority over the actual laws. Arpaio was convicted of violating civil rights in order to enforce his interpretation of law and order, which is congruent with Trump’s interpretation. Or, as Vox put it, “Joe Arpaio recognized the fundamental truth of Trump’s worldview even before Trump did: that promising “law and order,” and protection from social disorder in the form of unauthorized immigration and street crime, didn’t require you to actually adhere to the rule of law.” This sends message #1 from Trump: “If you are doing what I like, I’ll protect you from the law.”
Why He Did It? (Take Two). The LA Times presents a different take on the subject: the Federal Government expects local help on dealing with immigration issues, to the extent they will shield those who violate civil rights to take actions against immigrants. It sent the message that using racial profiling was acceptable in Trump’s book.
Why He Did It? (Take Three). The Atlantic captures yet a third message in Trump’s pardon: Contempt for judges and the rule of law. As the Atlantic writes: “The Arpaio case was the very integrity of the federal judiciary. He was not convicted of an ordinary crime, but of deliberately disobeying a federal court order and lying about that; but beyond that, during the litigation that led to his conviction for criminal contempt, he hired a private detective to investigate the wife of a federal judge hearing a case against his office. Any judge can understand the threat posed by law enforcement personnel who seek to strike back at judges and their families, perhaps for purposes of blackmail or revenge—and the deep arrogance of a president who regards such behavior as praiseworthy. In fact, since even before the election, Trump has brandished his hostility to judges almost as aggressively as his disregard of racial decency. When federal district Judge Gonzalo Curiel was assigned the Trump University civil fraud case, Trump attacked the Indiana-born Curiel in front of a campaign rally as “Mexican” and “a total disgrace.” When Judge James Robart (a George W. Bush appointee) of the District of Washington enjoined the first version of Trump’s “travel ban,” Trump on Twitter dismissed Robart as a “so-called judge” and told his supporters “If something happens blame him and court system.” When another District Judge enjoined his “sanctuary cities” defunding order, Trump publicly threatened to break up the Ninth Circuit. When a terror cell carried out a car attack in Barcelona earlier this month, Trump immediately zeroed in on the “travel ban” case, now pending before the Supreme Court: “The courts must give us back our protective rights,” he tweeted. Every indication is that Trump will respond to an adverse Supreme Court ruling on any important issue with a full-throated assault on the court and on the very idea of judicial independence. That the court’s majority is conservative and Republican won’t matter.”

In short, the simple takeaway is this: As President, Trump has the authority to pardon whomever he wants for a Federal crime. Once pardoned, one cannot un-pardon. However, the President has to deal with the fallout of his actions, and this will add to Trump’s shedding of any discretionary supporters. All that will be left is the hard-core (“rabid”?) base of those that place ideology and hatred of “the other” over the laws of this country. Trump never had any progressive support, and those who were supporting him for fiscal conservatism are coming to realize that there are better ways to achieve their goals, and better politicians to back to do so.

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

The other day, I saw an article about the potential renaming of a “Jefferson Davis Highway” to something that didn’t celebrate the President of the Confederacy. It got me thinking about the cost of renaming things, and created the urge in me to explore it with a post:

Removing Statues. What is the cost of removing a statue celebrating a son or daughter of the Confederacy? First and foremost, there is the surface cost of removing the statue and moving it somewhere that places it in historic context. This, in general, is a cost incurred by government, not private organizations. There likely aren’t significant other references to the statue; it is relatively straightforwards.
Changing a Mascot. The next step up is changing a mascot, such as is common with schools that have a “Southern Rebel” as their mascot. In general, this would involve getting a new costume, perhaps renaming a building and changing a few signs. The impact on tradition is harder to cost.
Renaming a School or Building. A step up the cost ladder happens when we rename a building. What happens when we rename a public school from “Robert E. Lee Elementary School” to “Sojourner Truth Elementary School”. There is likely the cost of new stationary and new websites, and the cost of resigning the school. There is the association of the old with the new, and how one might deal with old yearbooks and such.
Renaming a Street. Here we see a significant cost increase. Changing Jefferson Davis Highway to Emancipation Highway impacts much more than a map. There is significant cost to government: street signs must be changed, directional signs on freeways require update. Property mapping databases require update. Similar updates must occur in all mapping services — an impact not to just the government, but many private organizations. Then there are all the businesses on the street that must update their advertising material and stationary, orders, and such. Homes must order new checks and such. This is a significant impact on private citizens, with no recompense from the government. How do we balance that cost against the impact of the name? Can there be a compromise of changing it to a less offensive name (perhaps dropping “Jefferson”)? This is a much harder question.

Then, of course, there is the overreaction renaming, such as ESPN pulling a sportscaster from a game because his name was “Robert Lee”, or similar reactions to the numerous folks named Jeff Davis and such. That is clearly stupid, and an overreaction (deserving of ridicule).

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

userpic=divided-nation I have friends on FB of all political stripes, and I’ve recently been seeing some common themes from conservative friends that are starting to irk me — and so I’d like to expound upon them for a bit.

Erasing History. I have been seeing many conservative folks stating that the removal of Confederate Monuments is an attempt to erase history. Such an opinion reflects I biased misunderstanding of the rationale for removal. History, in general, cannot be erased. It leaves marks much deeper than monuments. The Civil War left a divided nation: a nation whose divisions (and their mishandling by the Democratic party of that era — which is different than the Democratic party of today) lived on in Jim Crow laws and racial segregation in the South. Blacks may have become citizens, but they never achieved full civil rights until somewhat recently. Most of the statues that went up in the 1910-1940 periods (and I’m distinguishing them from plaques recognizing actual burial places of soldiers) were put up not to remember the South’s loss in the war (which is what the history was), but to remind people of the “good old days” and what the South was fighting for — slavery and the subjugation of the black and poor. And yes, that is what the South was fighting for: cheap labor in the form of slaves. The recasting of the war as one for states rights was the real erasure of history, an attempt to play down the racial aspects of the war and to play up the economic. But if the war was for states rights alone, it would have been fought in the courts. Removing statues doesn’t erase history. Changing the narrative does. I strongly recommend that those who want to learn more about the statues listen to the Backstory Podcast episode that explores the battle over Confederate monuments. Lastly, I’d like those who still believe the removing the monuments is erasing history to consider this: Germany lost World War II. Do you see monuments in Germany to Adolph Hitler or major World War II German generals? Does the lack of those monuments diminish at all how the history of World War II is told? How would the presence of those monuments (if they existed) be viewed by Jews living in modern Germany? Would they be viewed as a gesture that reminds them of how the German culture and country wanted to exterminate and subjugate them, and is celebrating that aspect of their history? If you think about those questions, you’ll understand why the Confederate monuments are problematic.
It Offends Me. Another common thread I see on Conservative feeds is something along the lines: “X offends me, I want it removed.”. This is a play on the Conservative stereotype of the “Snowflake” — someone who protests at any offense. It also plays to the notion that the statues were offensive. That, to put it politely, is a pile of 💩. Simple offense is not cause for removal. The ability to offend is protected speech, and there is no restriction to being offended by what someone says. Trust me, if that were a reason for removal most of my Conservative friends wouldn’t be on Facebook, and they would have removed me as well, and FB would be a very empty place. However, there is a distinction when the speech is being made by the government, and the purpose of that speech is to impact a protected class — that is, a class that had no choice in the aspect that creates offense. Examples would be skin color, sex, sexual orientation (which isn’t a choice), and in some cases religion, which some groups believe is transmitted by blood. The Confederate monuments aren’t being removed because they offend in a broad sense, but because they are a government celebration of discrimination against a protected class. That is something different. I’ll note you’re seeing the push for removal against statues placed by governmental organizations or in public spaces. Private expressions and private spaces are up to the owner of their space, and the customers that owner wishes to court.

More on a similar and related issue this in my next post…

===> Click Here To Comment <==
(Click Here to Comment)

Observations Along The Road... at Dreamwidth

Roadkill Along The Information Superhighway

A Note to the 45/47 Supporters

Not Thinking It Through

Tea Leaves and America

Erasers and Names

Wither The Rule of Law?

Trumpanon: One Day at a Time

The Blame Game

Post-Disaster Armchair Quarterbacking

📰🌈 Fighting the Misinformation

Bending the Knee

Why I Will Not Be Watching Star Trek: Discovery (At Least Now)

Emmy Awards: Relevance and Privilege

Gee, Six

Hatred and Jews

Who Is To Blame for High Housing Prices

Messages and Messengers

Will Rodgers Was Right About DACA

Pardon Me

Degrees of Removal | When Are We Going Too Far?

Erasing Offense

Profile

December 2025

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags