Thursday, November 23, 2017

Thank You, Immigrants

This Thanksgiving, I want to give thanks for immigrants.

Not so much the early European immigrants that are the holiday’s historic roots, but the immigrants who are here today.  I have to say that I don’t really understand the intensity of anti-immigrant feelings held by many Americans, particularly since most of us here (the non-indigenous ones) are descendants of immigrants.  

I look at the immigrants I know, and I am glad they are here.  Do people really want to get rid of, kick out, send back to their countries of origin my friends and colleagues?  Do they really want to deport the attorneys I work with who came from Nigeria, South Africa and Iran? And my past and present co-workers from China, Russia, Afghanistan, Philippines, England, Turkey, France and Germany? And the parents of my daughters’ friends?  They are all immigrants.

Maybe this is still too abstract.  Are you telling me that you want Noel and Nicholas, Rebecca and Elizaveta, Phillipe and Cecilia to be gone?  Then tell me why, and it had better be good.  And don’t try to distinguish them because they are already here and you just want to keep out the ones who aren’t here yet.  If that had been the policy, then my friends might not have been able to come here, and I would never have met them - and that is how you are saying you want the future to be.  With the next batch of friends missing.

And don’t try to say you only want to keep out the poor and uneducated Mexicans and Guatemalans and Salvadorans, like the ones who are here now, washing our dirty dishes in our trendy restaurants, building (and cleaning) our million-dollar houses, picking our organic lettuce and tomatoes and strawberries, slaughtering our pigs and cows and chickens, and washing the asses of our parents and grandparents in their assisted living facilities.  Why do you want them gone?  Do you want to pick lettuce or slaughter pigs or wash elderly asses? 

Besides, that argument – we don’t want the poor and dirty and uneducated – was used to keep out the Irish and the Chinese and the Eastern European Jews.  I guess if you really think that letting in the Irish and Chinese and Jews was a bad idea, it would make sense to use the same logic now.  But please explain to me why the US is worse off because the Irish and Chinese and Jews are here. 

We benefit from people who really want to be here, and who are determined and creative. (Like the ones who figured out how to drive a 1951 Chevy pickup from Cuba to Florida.)  If you think you can persuade me that immigrants are bad for the US, go ahead and try. But be aware that the immigrants I know are smart and funny and hard-working, I am descended from immigrants (including Eastern European Jews), and my daughter is an immigrant.  Does that make me biased? Perhaps.  But more importantly it means that this issue is real for me, not abstract or theoretical, just as it is real for all immigrants, past and future.

So to all my immigrant friends, colleagues and acquaintances: happy Thanksgiving, and thank you for being here.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Discussion? Yes. Politically Correct? Not so much.

Caution - both the text of this post and a linked video contain (a limited amount of) crude language.

Leading up to the election, I heard people on the right say that "political correctness" was a major problem.  This baffled me; having lived in Santa Cruz and Berkeley, I am very used to political correctness, and while I think of it as sometimes annoying, I didn't understand how it could be a major problem.

The pat response from the left to this criticism was that if you did not like political correctness, it meant you were racist or sexist (or otherwise an asshole), and were trying to get back to a time or place when it was okay to be openly racist or sexist.  While that may be true for some people, it seemed off to me - too simplistic, too designed to make the (politically correct) leftist feel superior to those complaining about political correctness.

Then I watched this video:  (Go ahead, watch it now - it is very entertaining. But maybe not in an open plan office...)

He makes a number of good points, the main ones to focus on here are: 1) arguments are not won by hurling labels and insults, and 2) the key is discussion, to engage and debate.

I realized that the right has a valid point, because political correctness cuts off discussion and debate.  If I, as a white(ish) male, said: "I think affirmative action has not been an effective remedy to discrimination," how long would it be before I was told that I was being racist, or sexist, or trying to uphold the patriarchy or protecting my privilege?  My guess is not long at all.  In short, I would be told that I cannot talk about that issue (with the narrow exception of unequivocally supporting affirmative action).  If I talk about the issue, and take any position other than total support of affirmative action, I am an asshole. As an asshole, I should not be engaged or debated - the appropriate response is to condemn and dismiss me.  The result - no discussion.

I have tried to have political discussions or debates or arguments, particularly on facebook.  Sometimes there is real engagement, but too often someone on one "side" or the other (more about the whole idea of two "sides" later) starts throwing insults or calling people names.  And it is not just individuals - during the campaign, the Huffington Post starting putting an editor's note at the end of every election-related piece that said: "Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist..." etc.  If I am trying to debate or persuade a Trump supporter, the presence of this note (even if true) means that I cannot use any Huffington Post piece to try to persuade them, because I have started off by insulting the candidate they are supporting, and by implication, insulting them as well.  Why would they want to engage with me?  Right-wing web sites often do the same or worse.  The result? No debate, no discussion.

The other thing that happens is that people avoid debate or discussion, cutting off or excluding those who disagree with them. (Perhaps sometimes out of fear it will devolve into name-calling and insults.)  I had a facebook friend (also a long-standing friend in real life) apparently remove posts I made in which I disagreed with her about the pink hats worn at the post-inauguration women's march.  If we can't even discuss hats (or allow dissenting voices to be heard), how can we discuss more serious issues? Again the same result - no discussion.

So how did we get here?  Part of the answer lies in the divide-and-conquer approach of the two major parties and their corporate backers, who have figured out how they can hold on to power at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent and serve.  We fall all too easily into the sports fan model, where one team is "ours" and the other team is, well, the "other."  (Some call this a "tribal" system.) We get to pick sides in fights over things like which bathroom transgender people can use, or whether NGOs that get federal money can talk about abortion in other countries, or whether we should have some sort of gun control laws, or how the health insurance industry will profit off our sickness. 

Granted, these may not be trivial issues - you have to give the fans something solid enough to root for.  But what has either party done about the really big things, like income inequality or climate change or pollution, the things that might threaten their corporate backers' bottom line?  I know some of you will insist that the Democrats are good, or at least better on these issues.  Somewhat better does not equal good - how has the Obama administration done on antitrust enforcement, pushing back on too-big-to-fail financial institutions?  What did Obama try to do to alleviate our huge income inequality, and the resulting lack of social mobility? And how environmentally friendly was his 'all-of-the-above' energy policy?  The biggest difference between the Republicans in the Democrats is how they will fuck you.  Do you want it hard and fast? Vote Republican - they want to get off as quick as they can.  Do you want it slow and gentle? Vote Democrat - they are hoping you won't notice you are being fucked, so they can keep doing it longer.

With a team mentality, you will find yourself tolerating (or even applauding) dirty play by your own team that you would condemn when done by the other team. And the sports team approach is exciting, and hard to avoid when you constantly see things like this: 

It is easier to just cheer for what your team wants than it is to take a position based on principle.  But it results in hypocrisy, like supporting "states rights" only when the states in question agree with you, or decrying the President's use of executive orders only when the President is from the other team.  It is very much like being a Patriots or Warriors or Cubs fan - you are with them and root for them, and there is no point in debating or discussing things with fans of opposing teams.  With politics, it is even worse, since there are only two major parties, and they want you to believe there are only two choices - they want loyal fans, not independent thinkers who question them.  They like the fact that if you buy into the my team/their team mentality, there is no room for debate or discussion.

So what to do? Come together.  Come together with Trump supporters and Muslims, Republicans and Democrats (both Bernie and Hillary supporters), rich and poor, Mexicans and WASPs.  But when I say "come together" that does not mean concede, or go along with the Trump program.  It means to connect with other people. The Trump supporters that voted for him because he said racist and sexist and xenophobic things you probably can't reach, but the Trump supporter that voted for him in spite of the fact that he said racist and sexist and xenophobic things you may be able to reach.  And I think there are a lot of those, who desperately wanted a change, who decided that the frying pan sucked, so they would try the fire. 

But how to come together?  First, tell stories about people achieving things together.  Remember, these are the UNITED States, and we are at our best when we pull together.  Tell stories about courage, about people who stand up for or help other people, about immigrants being welcomed and succeeding, about Muslims and Christians and Jews coming together, and more.  Stories about hope, about goodness, about selflessness.

Here are some tips from a Venezuelan, based on their experience with Hugo Chavez, a populist who became authoritarian with disastrous consequences for his country.  (The headline is misleading, but the content is interesting.)

And this from Rev. William Barber on bringing people together:

We need to have discussions about issues, not arguments about positions.  We need to ask questions and listen to the answers instead of cheering and booing.  We need to figure out what we have in common with other people, and what we as PEOPLE want or need, rather than what industries or corporations want or need.  If we can do that last part, then it is easier for people to come together to decry Trump, or congress, or other politicians (of any party) when they are doing the bidding of corporations instead of people.

But this is just a beginning.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Sailboat Racing, Current, and Trump

A while ago I was crewing on a racing sailboat; at the start of the race, there was very little wind and a strong current flowing directly opposite the direction we were trying to sail.  We made it almost up to the starting line, and even though it was a fast boat, and we were moving nicely through the water, the water was moving at the same speed, so the boat was standing still.  No matter how carefully we trimmed the sails, the bow of the boat stayed just about two feet from the starting line. 

This was frustrating.  We were sailing the boat well, the boat was moving through the water, and we were getting nowhere.  The skipper in particular was getting very frustrated.  He said, "This isn't working, let's tack."  If we tacked, the boat would no longer be pointing into the current, but would be pointing across the current, so the flow of the current would be hitting the side of the boat.  A couple of us said, "No, don't tack!"  We knew that if we stopped sailing directly into the current, we would just get pushed farther away from the starting line. The skipper didn't tack, but after another minute or so, he wanted to tack again - he just wanted to do something, change something.  Once again we talked him out of it.  But by the third time, there was no talking him out of it, so we tacked, and promptly got shoved sideways by the current  back the way we came, away from the starting line.  In seconds we lost 40 feet.  We had to tack back to our original heading and try to slowly crawl our way back up to the starting line. The only plus was that most of the other boats had similar problems, and the race was cancelled.

I think a lot of people who voted for Trump were feeling the same way as the skipper - they were feeling frustrated, feeling like they were getting nowhere, feeling like they needed to change something.  So even though they were told (and maybe even agreed) that Trump was a jerk and a racist and a sexist, they voted for him anyway.  Not because they thought he was a good candidate, not because they were racist or sexist, not because they believed or agreed with everything he said, but because he represented change. 

Voting for Clinton was like staying in the same place, no matter how well you sailed the boat.  So even though they knew that voting for Trump might make them worse off, they just could not sit there going nowhere any longer.  Unfortunately this race is not likely to get cancelled, and we will get pushed back.

p.s. at some point when the current gets too strong and you are being pushed backwards, it is better just to anchor, so you can hold your ground and not get pushed back any farther.

Friday, November 11, 2016

How to Become President (aka "Machiavelli, The Sequel")

In the aftermath of Donald Trump being elected President of the United States, I reflected on the things that matter and don't matter when trying to become President.  I looked at this election, and looked back at past (post-Nixon) elections, and tried to figure out an explanation for how the US voted.  Here is my take.

Things That Matter:

Warm and Fuzzy and "Authentic" - This is the most important characteristic.  Ideally, people will like you, or at least your public persona.  But what is most essential is that you not be seen as cold and remote and overly scripted.  If you are, people will feel like you are hiding something, that you are not sincere, and you are just saying what the polls and focus groups tell you that you should say.  You are not being "real."

This coolness and distance was the kiss of death for Gore, Romney and Hillary Clinton.  People would say how warm and friendly they were in private, in one-on-one conversations, but it did not come across in public.  The most successful candidates - Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama, Bush 2 - came across as warm and friendly even in front of thousands of people and a scrum of journalists.  And the best of them managed to combine that warmth with a sense of dignity at the same time - not an easy feat.

Trump did not have that warmth, but his radically unfiltered speech (and tweets) gave a feeling of authenticity - he is saying what he really means (even if 80% of it is bullshit).  Not perfect, but viscerally more appealing to voters than Hillary Clinton's uber preparation and control.

Team Spirit - People like to belong to a group, to root for a team (and against the other team).  The political parties tap into this.  "I'm a Democrat/Republican, so I will vote for the Democrat/Republican."  Clinton got a lot of votes because she was the nominee of the Democratic Party, so loyal Democrats voted for her.  Trump likewise got votes from loyal Republicans because he was the Republican nominee.  For team voters, their character or positions do not matter (although Trump in particular had some defectors due to his departures from the team's traditional positions).  I was an Oakland Raiders fan in the 1970's - they would play dirty, but I didn't care (and maybe even relished it) because they were my team.  This is one reason why third parties struggle, even when they field good candidates.  In recent years the Republicans have cultivated team spirit better than the Democrats, and that helped Trump.

There is a second way this plays out, especially in the party primaries, where everyone is on your political party team.  And that is if you feel that the candidate is speaking for you, or cares about you, then you become part of their team.  This is why Sanders and Trump did so well - they did the best job of picking up on the dissatisfaction of their respective parties' voters.

Hope for the Future - Unless everybody is really happy, they want to know that you will make things better.  Promising the status quo is not appealing if people are unhappy with the status quo.  This was another Hillary Clinton failure; she basically promised more of the same, but unless you are a tech millionaire or a Wall Street banker or other member of the super-privileged, odds are that you are not happy with more of the same.  For most of us, job security and real wages have gone down, while the cost of living and the cost of economic and social advancement (a college degree) have gone up.  We are not happy with the status quo, and Hillary Clinton basically promised no hope of change.

Obama pulled this one off brilliantly, with his "Hope" poster and his eloquent and inspiring speeches, and the excitement of being the first African-American President.  And he had the benefit of following Bush 2, with the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the crash of the entire economy.  People were absolutely ready for a change, and he promised a better, brighter future.  By comparison, Carter did well with this as a candidate, but as President he largely failed (by being somewhat of a downer), and Reagan capitalized on that with an optimistic tone promising change.

Trump likewise promises change - "make America great again," whatever that means.  While it can be understood to have potentially negative connotations, by itself it is a promise of change for the better.  Trump's vitriolic attacks on anyone who criticized or opposed him diluted this message, but there was no question he was going to shake things up - whatever else he did, things were going to be different.  And hey, this frying pan sucks, so maybe I'll try the fire. Again, advantage Trump.

An Effective Campaign -  In addition to these factors, there is a basic prerequisite to winning, which is to have an effective campaign.  If you don't have that, you will likely lose at some point, often in the primary election. In addition to their other problems, Gore and Kerry and Dole were also harmed by this. (Although Dole may not have even been trying that hard.) But as Obama and especially Trump and to some extent Sanders showed, there is more than one way to run an effective campaign.

Things That Don't Matter:

Experience - Look at all the more experienced candidates who lost to less experienced ones: Carter beat Ford, Reagan beat Carter, Clinton beat Bush 1, Bush 2 beat Gore, Obama beat Hillary Clinton and McCain, and now the most extreme example, Trump beat all the other Republican candidates and Hillary Clinton.  Johnson and Weld had significantly more experience than Trump, but got only a tiny sliver of the votes. Experience does not appear to matter in any significant way.  Hillary Clinton's heavy emphasis on her experience was misplaced.

Courage and Toughness - Combat veterans have not done well - Gerald Ford and Bush 1 did not get reelected, and Bob Dole, John McCain and John Kerry all failed in their election bids to candidates who had not experienced such (literal) trial by fire.  Kerry also showed courage in his anti-war activities and his investigation of the BCCI scandal. Hillary Clinton went through the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals, and was Secretary of State while the Middle East was melting down, only to lose to a spoiled rich brat whose idea of hardship was getting only a $1 million loan from his father.  Proven courage and toughness? Doesn't matter.

Policy - This one is hard for me, because this is the primary basis for how I vote, but for the majority of voters this appears to be secondary at best. Otherwise it is hard to explain the oscillations of position on things like protecting the environment and reproductive rights, where we swing back and forth between Carter and Reagan, and Clinton to Bush 2 to Obama to Trump.  Voters may choose their party team based on policies and issues, but will then stick with that team's candidate even if he or she folds or switches positions on the issues, like Bill Clinton on welfare reform or Obama on shutting down Guantanamo or his "all of the above" energy policy.  Team identity comes first.

Ethics - In the post-Nixon era, the President of each party that was generally considered to be the most ethical - Ford and Carter - did not get re-elected. Bill Clinton was already known as "Slick Willy" when he was elected (and then re-elected). In some situations, especially the primaries, ethics may matter, as a candidate may be perceived as too tainted to successfully represent the team (because the other team will happily point out ethical failings).  But again, once past the primaries, team identity and warm-and-fuzzy are more important - if you like a candidate and they are on your team, you will vote for them despite their ethical failings.  Trump is ethically challenged, but he won anyway.


I am not saying that everyone bases their vote on these criteria - there are voters who vote based on policies and issues (economics, environment, abortion, gay rights), or for whom the ethics of the candidate are most important, but they are in the minority.  Nor am I saying that I endorse or agree with these criteria - like Machiavelli (who has unfairly gotten a bad name), I am just observing that I think these factors are the most important ones in the US for electing the President.

My bottom line? I think we may not be doing this the best way...

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Propositions! 65 and 67

The Battle of the Bags! (In reverse order.)

Prop 67 - Yes. If it passes, Prop 67 would enact a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags (like some of us are already used to due to local ordinances), with a minimum 10-cent charge for paper or reusable bags. The money charged for the bags would go to the store. (I actually reused "single-use" bags, so I never quite understood why thicker bags or paper bags are that much better, but that is just me.) Please note that Berkeley and Patagonia and Gov. Brown and Trout Unlimited support Prop 67, while Dow Chemical and the plastic bag manufacturers oppose it. Enough said, vote yes.

Prop 65 - NO. This measure was put on the ballot by the plastic bag manufacturers to counter Prop 67.  It does not require or implement a ban on plastic bags or a fee for bags, but if there is a fee charged, this proposition would require the money to go to a new state environmental fund, rather than to the store.  While that sounds okay, I think this is just a move to get retailers to oppose bag fees. (Especially since this is sponsored by the plastic bag manufacturers.)  This is yet another bullshit proposition that should not be on the ballot, and whose only purpose is to confuse and mislead voters.  Fuck that, vote NO on 65.

Propositions! 61, 63, 64

Another batch of propositions - now we get to drugs, guns, and pot!

Prop 61 - Yes?  Maybe - it is kind of weird. The state of California buys drugs, generally for MediCal and CalPERS.  This proposition would prohibit state agencies from purchasing prescription drugs at prices higher than the price paid by the VA, which tends to be able to negotiate low prices.  That sounds good, except for a few things: 1) This proposition doesn't order to drug companies to sell at the lower price, but only orders the state agencies to buy at the lower price.  What if the drug company refuses to sell at the lower price? Then the state agency has the quandary of either not buying the drug or violating the law (or the other likely option of being paralyzed).  Not good options. 2)  The state agencies have generally been able to negotiate decent prices, so it is not clear how much this will save. 3) This gives the drug companies an incentive to raise prices to the VA, which would not be a good thing. 4) Why is the price paid by the VA the only criteria?  Seems like that could cause some problems or anomalies. On the other hand, the drug companies are spending massive amounts of money to defeat this, which must mean they think it would cost them even more.  That by itself tends to indicate that this might save the state some money.  So while I have some reservations, on balance I think maybe a yes vote would be okay.

Prop 63 - No. (Surprise!)  This proposition would require permits to buy or sell ammunition and ban large-capacity ammunition magazines, along with some other tweaks to California's gun control laws.  Most of the provisions are well intended, although it is not clear how effective they will be.  The problem with this proposition is that it largely duplicates legislation that was just passed into law this year - despite that, Gavin Newsom kept pushing ahead with this initiative.  I think this do-little proposition is just Newsom grandstanding in preparation for his run for governor - not a great reason for a proposition to be on the ballot.  And because this would be enacted by popular vote, if problems show up or adjustments need to be made (which is common - laws rarely work exactly as intended), any attempt to fix it would require another popular vote - the legislature couldn't do it.  As I read more propositions, I am getting tired of shit being on the ballot that does not need to be there (like Prop 59 asking you how you feel about Citizens United, and Prop 60 requiring condoms for porn actors).  Maybe I am just getting cranky about seeing even more of that in this election, and I don't want the NRA to think I agree with their extreme position, but I am still inclined to vote no on this one.  But if you want to vote yes just to say "fuck you" to the NRA, I won't mind.  Your call.

Update on 63 - I talked to a friend who knows more about the legislative maneuvering on this one, and that person's take was that the legislature was playing more games than Newsom, and that Newsom had legitimate reasons to continue to push this initiative (i.e. he was not just grandstanding).  Still considering what this means for my vote; you decide what you want yours to be.

Prop 64 - Yes! Please!  This proposition would legalize marijuana for recreational use under California law. (It would still be illegal under federal law.)  Prohibition of marijuana has been a dismal failure that has done little but drive up the profits of drug traffickers and the growth of violent cartels, and result in environmental degradation from illegal grows.  Alcohol prohibition gave rise to organized crime, and marijuana prohibition has done more of the same. (Duh.)  This proposition would legalize, tax and regulate recreational marijuana.  The arguments against Prop 64 from the right are the same old prohibitionist scare tactics that gave us the expensive-in-every-way "war on drugs;"  there are some arguments against it from the left, but they are also pretty weak.  It is important to push the feds to legalize marijuana, and California voting to do so would be a good push.  Please vote yes.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Propositions! 58, 59, 60

I am getting tired, so this fourth installment may be a bit shorter in the descriptions.

Prop 58 - Yes. This would allow for bilingual education in schools, repealing the "English only" Proposition 227 from 1998.  Having the state mandate "English only" for all schools never seemed like a good idea to me - it always felt like it was intended to be more punitive than educational.  Vote Yes.

Prop 59 - Yeah, I guess so, but whatever.  This one doesn't really do anything. Do you want to tell California that it should work to reverse the Citizens United decision?  You can vote yes to do so.  But it seems kind of wasteful to put things like this on the ballot.  And some potential fixes (via constitutional amendment) could cause serious problems, if done wrong. So overall I guess voting yes (assuming you don't like Citizens United) is okay.  Or you could just skip voting on this one.

Prop 60 - No.  This one would require adult film actors to wear condoms during vaginal or anal sex.  Is it just me, or this just a weird thing to have on the ballot?  I found some of the opponents' arguments pretty compelling; I tried to verify some of them by looking at the text of the proposition itself, but it is really detailed and long, and I didn't have the patience to wade through it, but it seems to set up a complicated (and expensive) regulatory and enforcement scheme.  I don't think this is worth doing that for, and I think it has the potential to cause unforeseen problems. And my guess is that it would drive a lot of commercial porn producers out of California, among other things.  Vote no.