Monday, June 04, 2012

A Sensible Proposal

 
Andrew Cuomo has not exactly had the worst term in office of any first term governor...he did get gay marriage passed, after all, which is both a progressive coup as well as a logistical one...but as a former state attorney general, he has shown a mean streak about crime and punishment.
 

Wading into the debate over stop-and-frisk police tactics, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo plans to ask legislators on Monday for a change in New York State law that would drastically reduce the number of people who could be arrested for marijuana possession as a result of police stops.

Here's the deal: during Mayor Giuliani's tenure, a political philosophy was applied to police tactics. Called "Broken Windows," it assumed that by cracking down and arresting people for minor crimes like turnstile jumping or possession of a joint, a message would be sent that crime would not be tolerated, thus discouraging larger crimes.

Did it work? It's a quaint notion to believe it did and it may have had some small positive impact on the level of crime in the 1990s in NYC.

During the first half of the '00s, NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly applied this theory more broadly. Rather than spot a crime, he went out of his way to find them, insituting the "stop and frisk" practice where police would pull over a person for the crime of being Latino or black, and pat them down, then if they were carrying anything illegal or could be shown to be implicated in an unsolved crime, arrest them.

Nice, huh? The average percentage of people who were innocent of anything hovered around 87% over the past ten years. Some white people were stopped, of course, and ironically white people were arrested and/or issued summonses about twice as often as blacks and Latinos. Representing about 11% of the stops while representing two-thirds of the criminal outcomes, you'd think cops would focus on more whites as the years progressed, but not so.

Many of the crimes involved the possession of small amounts of marijuana which, despite its alleged "decriminalized" status in New York-- it merely means possession of pot has been bifurcated from drug possession laws-- is an offense, which results in a ticket.

If it's the only crime of which the offender is cited. Or, more relevant, his first arrest and conviction. After that, Katie bar the door.

Needless to say, possession of even a joint in those circumstances make you a repeat offender and even though it's considered a violation and dismissed the first time, the next time a possessor will face a judge. And then it becomes either a good lawyer or a conviction. A criminal record and all that implies.

Bleak prospects for a young minority youth in a city like New York. You can't get a job easily with a criminal record, you will always have a handicap in terms of income and housing and god knows what happens to you in jail.

It's not marijuana that's a gateway drug; it's being arrested for possession that is the gateway.

Cuomo's idea, to completely decriminalize possession of small amounts of pot, makes a lot of sense. This is legislation who's time has long come.

An Observation About George Zimmerman

 
A very good friend of mine is a former district attorney. One of his favorite sayings is, "The lie you catch them in is the lie they felt comfortable telling, but it is most certainly never the first lie they've told."
 
Gee, I can't imagine what Zimmerman *koffkoffMURDERERkoffkoff* would have wanted to lie about before this...

Friday, June 01, 2012

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) Asheligh Banfield used to be hot. Now, she's a right-wing nutcase who somehow believes that pedophilia...pedophilia!...is sometimes a voluntary lifestyle choice. No doubt the *children* involved, like I was, were free to weigh the choices, you moronic cheap-suited newsslut.
 
Which, by the way, ARE all voluntary lifestyle choices.
 
2) Mitt Romney picks yet another idiotic target. Solyndra received $500 million in loan guarantees under a program that the *Bush* administration insituted. The application was made and the initial approvals given before Obama even had the chance to take office.
 
3) John Edwards walks. Zombie Elizabeth Edwards bides her time.
 
4) Spell it? I never even heard of it!
 
5) Good news! With bonus adorable picture. In a Clockwork Orange sort of way.
 
6) Forget the Mayans and 2012. Mark 4,000,002,012 on your calendars! That's when the shit hits the fan, literally.
 
7) Speaking of Armageddon, the last transit of Venus in our lifetimes occurs next Tuesday/Wednesday. This is one of the Mayan signal events for the ending of the current b'a'ktun. Here's how to watch the transit. Online. Safely. DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN!
 
 
9) Selling yourself....for advertising? There's the capitalist system working, you betcha.
 
10) Everything I've told you today is a lie. OK, no, but that was, tho. Everyone does it.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

One Of These Things Is Just Like The Others

 

The G Spot

By any account, Mitt Romney's tenure as governor of Massachussetts can be termed a period of moderate governance.
 
Which is great until you decide to run for President as a Republican:

"Mitt Romney claims his experience as a corporate buyout specialist will bring positive economic results for the nation," said an Obama campaign announcement.

"He made the same economic promises when he ran for governor of Massachusetts that he makes today -- more jobs, less debt and smaller government," added the statement. "Once in office, he broke all those promises and more."

I don't want to start to parse the Romney administration and weigh it on a scale of just how moderate it was. Suffice it to say that, by today's standards of homophobic legislation and anti-government rhetoric, it was pretty moderate.

So why would the Obama administration slam Mitt Romney as a moderate governor? After all, everyone-- except Mitt now, altho I suspect that will change by November-- acknowledges that Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare (clever, that, and part of Obama's vaunted eleven-dimensional chess), and that Romney was pro-family autonomy before he was pro-life.

("Family autonomy" meaning that medical decisions are left up to the individual family unit.)

You read that campaign tactic and view the four minute film and you begin to wonder if it makes sense: it's not going to persuade anyone on either side of the fence to switch allegiances. Republicans will still hold their noses and vote Romney and Democrats for Obama, albeit more enthusiastically. Anyone on the fence isn't really going to care about his social issue stances or his spotty record as governor.

Ah, but the devil is in the details...

The four-minute film notes that Romney raised state fees (i.e., taxes) and increased state debt during his single term in the statehouse; Massachusetts wound up 47th out of 50 states in job creation.

Those three items-- jobs, debt, and taxes-- are right at the top of the mind of every independent voter in every swing state. It shows that even Mitt Romney admits that he'll have to raise taxes and even then, there's no guarantee that he can cut the deficit. And, to boot, it thoroughly destroys the central rationale of his candidacy, that he's a job creator.

Remember, he was governor of Massachussetts, elected in 2002, and part of his constituency was the Route 128 corridor (Silicon Highway). A high tech hotbed that should have been creating jobs like crazy given the massive tax cuts that Congress passed under President....errr, what was his name again?

In other words, he stepped up to the plate with a runner on third and no outs and somehow managed to hit into a triple play. He could hardly have asked for more favorable economic conditions to take office in.

Mind you, in his first year in office, he received $500 million in Federal grants under the Homeland Security intiatives. He also got a windfall from increased capital gains tax increases passed under his predecessor of $1 billion. He still couldn't close the gap.

And he had strong bipartisan support from the Democratic legislature, mostly because he didn't set out to bash them as he has started to do in the general election campaign.

Yet, he still failed.

It's a powerful message, one that ought to resonate with voters across the country.

 
 

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

In Re: Chris Hayes

Conor Friedersdorf does the unthinkable: he defends the defensible
 
In case you missed it, MSNBC host Chris Hayes has been obligated to apologize for pretty inocuous comments he made with respect to death in wars and whether "hero" is a term bandied about too easily.
 
It's an emotionally charged subjec to be sure and kudos to Friedersdorf for taking the time to lay out not only the context but the rationale for the argument.
 
"UP with Chris Hayes" is one of my favorite punditry programs because Hayes is unafraid to tackle tough questions and to invite people (Buddy Roemer, for example) who will take opposing viewpoints. Arguments are intelligent and difficult topics are discussed fully, including the dark sides that those of us politely sipping our coffee would rather leave alone.
 
Hayes called into question whether anyone who dies fighting for his nation in a war, specifically this nation, is a hero. He walked a difficult tightrope, which he himself acknowledged by not only putting a hefty emphasis on the context in which he was speaking and "pre-apologizing" because he knew he would offend some people who suffered losses at war.
 
He also defended deaths in our recent wars as heroic, simply because these were kids who volunteered to put themselves in harm's way, the context of their demise irrelevant beyond that simple fact.
 
To those who took umbrage at Hayes' comments, let me ask this: did you wear a bandaid on your boo-boo during the 2004 campaign? Did you mock Max Cleland, who lost both his legs and one arm in a tragic accident in Viet Nam?
 
Did you Swift Boat?
 
Then shut up and let the man speak. At least he speaks from his heart.

And So It Begins

The past couple of weeks, ever since Rick Santorum dropped out, have been prologue. A time trial, if you will, the opening stage of silly season touring:

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - The Republican presidential race is over.

Mitt Romney won the Texas primary Tuesday, picking up enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

CBS News estimates Romney now has 1,198 GOP delegates.

Romney didn't go to Texas Tuesday night to celebrate.

He was raising big money with Donald Trump in Las Vegas.

OK, couple of points to make here before I move on:

1) Texans won't forget the insult. Texas is arguably a soft Republican state now, as the dramatic increase in Latinos bodes poorly for a state-wide electorate suddenly voting not only against their better interests but also against their own safety and security. Romney really needs to solidify his standing with the cowboys and oil men of Texas and generate enthusiasm. This fundraiser with Trump in Vegas not only puts him at odds with Texans who would have wanted to celebrate with Romney, but gives a clear signal that the yankee has more stroke than the largest state in the Republican column.

2) The more Trump speaks and the closer that Romney ties himself to Trump, the bigger the loss Romney faces. For Trump, it's a no-lose situation: he gets publicity, he gets to dupe the rubes out of even more cash in his casinos, and if Romney manages a miracle, he suddenly has stroke in the White House. This is Trump's MO, however: risk nothing and gamble with everyone else's money. After all, it's how he attempted to "steal" the Empire State Building for a mere $50,000. For Romney, he's blind to the danger he's put not only his campaign in, but the entire party.

3) Up until now, the Obama re-election campaign has kept their powder dry and not unleashed torrents of attacks. This is traditional and pro-forma: you don't launch a full-scale campaign until you're sure of who you are facing. Even now, Obama will smartly withhold the main thrusts of his attack at least until Romney names a Veep candidate. Why tip your hand and allow your opponent to shore up his weaknesses? By all accounts, Romney is not politically savvy enough to remain nimble. A lot of what he has said up to this point has been a mixture of memorized bromidizations and off-the-cuff gaffes-- "tells," if you will. Romney's weakness is his uncomfortable balance of entitlement with the appearance of caring for the poor (if indeed he actually does not.)

If Romney's staff is as disciplined as it should be, Romney will take this opportunity to lay out his attacks on Obama. It's free play time, and Obama will be busy being Presidential right up to the convention, if not beyond. A lot depends on the polls: specifically, polls in states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Right now, tho, Romney has a few weeks of free sailing, and that message seems to be taken up. So far this week, Romney's attacked foreign policy and the stimulus, two Obama strengths (and two really stupid attacks to make.) Job creation will likely be on the agenda, which for Romney is probably his strongest argument.

Which is saying a lot considering how few jobs he's actually created himself, a point the President's team has been quick to make early and often.

If Romney's staff is as undisciplined as I believe it is, they'll screw up this freebie.

But, as we hockey people like to say, "Game on!"

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Mitt's Dilemma

 
Pity poor Mitt Romney: he has to beat an incumbent with favorability ratings hovering around 40-50%, with a flagging economy and some of the worst press ever, and yet can only manage to draw about even with him.
 
What's a billionaire to do to win an election? I guess, attack the successes of the President?

Mitt Romney’s campaign events and the firepower of American Crossroads will both focus this week on President Barack Obama’s jobs record as a way to fight off charges about the Republican candidate’s private-sector experience, with a Romney aide attacking the stimulus as “the mother of all earmarks.”

This week is a preview of coming attraction for the general election campaign, with American Crossroads, the outside Republican group poised to spend $300 million this cycle, pushing a message that amplifies the Romney campaign’s storyline.

A senior campaign aide said Romney will argue that Obama has actually subtracted jobs: “Were these investments the best return on tax dollars, or given for ideological reasons, to donors, for political reasons? He spent $800 billion of everybody’s money. How’d it work out?”

It seemed to work fine: most of it was paid back, GM and Chrysler are both making money again and the economy is slowly picking up steam while the unemployment rate has cooled off almost 1.5%
 
Sure beats the Hoover-style tax cuts of Bush and the GOP over the past ten years. Plus, Mitt might want to consider who he's really chiding in his silliness: his banking buddies, who begged for relief from the Obama administration. Remember TARP?
 
This comes on the heels of, well, perhaps the silliest thing Mitt Romney has said seriously this season:
But he ticked off a list of global threats and said: "I wish I could tell you that the world is a safe place today."

Romney said the country must not shrink its military to the point where the U.S. loses its status as the strongest power in the world.

"Were we to follow that kind of course, there would be no one that could stand to protect us," he said.

Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi would respectfully disagree. Actually, not so respectfully, which is why Obama killed them in his first term. And the US suddenly becoming a second-rate superpower over the next four years is unlikely to happen, but if it did, it would be a damnation of the American economy having been starved for tax revenues, and not an inclination on the part of Obama to dismantle the machine.

If anything, Obama has proven rather too quick to pull triggers.

This all points to one thing, and one thing only: Mitt's inability to stop lying about something, even when the facts are clearly against him.

Next up: race relations, no doubt.

 
 

Friday, May 25, 2012

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) The high school freshman who was first suspended, then expelled, then unexpelled for a class project on bullying that involved creating a fake Facebook profile for the main character in a video has been reinstated and the suspension expunged. Cooler heads have prevailed, but there's an irony that she was institutionally bullied for making a video about being bullied by peers.
 
2) I'll be at the bar....until September!
 
3) This bar, specifically. McSorley's used to be the guidepost on the path to manhood in New York City, and while that's still partly true, if you can wend your way through the throngs of tourists and commuters that have turned it into a "destination," it's sad to see it become McSorley's Lite. Except for Geoff. And the cheese platter.
 
 
5) Y'know, I'm OK with this, provided we aren't setting up the next Al Qaeda. Could we please vet this carefully?
 
6) I'm sure it will be "worldclass" and "classy"....right?
 
 
8) With regards to the S E Cupp/Hustler blow job picture controversy: I don't condone the use of violent imagery involved here, but let's be quick to point out that Sippy herself has said some equally emotionally and sexually violent things in an attempt to get attention to her pathos. Karma exists, dearie.
 
9) There was a time, in my lifetime no less, when a typical CEO made about 40 times what the average worker made. That means, if the line operator in the factory made $10,000, the CEO made about $500,000. That seems to have changed. I'm sure the average worker in America doesn't make $250,000.
 
10) Moooooooooooooooooooooove away from the bar!

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Poor Facebook!

 
If it's not the stock that's creating an uproar, it's their idiotic standards and practices folks!
 
Worse, the idiots who got fleeced are suddenly shouting at anyone about how chilly it suddenly got.

Speaking Of Austerity

 
When you compare them head-to-head, the Obama and Romney tax plans are nearly identical:
Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, is offering a 20 percent tax cut for everyone. Given the mood of the conservatives in the United States today, that may not surprise you. But even President Barack Obama, who is routinely described as a socialist by his opponents, is peddling a plan under which 99 percent of Americans would pay less than they did under the last Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton.
A one percent difference really is no difference, unless you're in the one percent. But they can afford it, to be sure. But here's the interesting thing:

According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2011, among the world’s 30 leading countries economically, only in New Zealand and in Japan was government revenue a lower share of gross domestic product than in the United States. Countries like Australia, Estonia, Ireland and Switzerland, which tend to favor low taxes and a small state, have government revenue that accounts for more of G.D.P. than does the United States.

The Internal Revenue Service is relatively restrained, too, compared with recent history. In 1945, at the close of World War II, federal tax receipts were 20.4 percent of G.D.P. (expenditures, by the way, were 41.9 percent, putting the federal budget deficit at 21.5 percent, compared with 8.7 percent in 2011). In 1952, the year the Republican Dwight Eisenhower was elected president, federal government revenue was 19 percent of G.D.P. In 1988, the last year of Ronald Reagan’s transformational conservative presidency, the federal tax take was 18.2 percent of G.D.P.

Compare those figures with that of today, when a Democrat is in the White House, nearly half of Americans think their taxes are too high, and both parties are promising to keep taxes low for all, or, in the case of the Democrats, 99 percent of Americans: In 2011, government revenue was 15.4 percent of G.D.P., lower than it was at any time during the Eisenhower or Reagan eras. Like anorexics, who think they are grossly fat when they are very thin, the American body politic is suffering from a national version of body dysmorphia, with nearly half the country believing taxes are high, when they are comparatively and historically low.

So everyone agrees that taxes are too high, except history.

Obama's plan at least has the weight of recent history on his side: when Bill Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class and poor but raised them (a whole 4%!) on the rich, the economy skyrocketed from the doldrums of the first Bush recession to have the greatest growth in human history AND created budget surpluses, something even the so-called "Reagan boom"-- which only happened after he raised the taxes he had lowered far too much-- could not achieve.

Indeed, Clinton's economy was so great that we very nearly paid off the national debt. Had those policies continued in place, had the three Bush tax cuts not been passed, and two insignificant little gnats not been invaded for few rational reasons-- meaning Bush would have taken the dire warnings the Clinton policy experts levelled seriously and prevented September 11-- we might still be on the path to prosperity even now.

See, here's the thing: to look at the economy now and forget those eight years of mishandling is to exam why a bridge collapsed without looking at the corroded metal braces. You might come up with some logical explanation-- too much weight, unsafe drivers-- but in the end, you've missed the point entirely.

We were in the midst of a mild recession when George W Bush took office. After the dot-com bubble burst, we had growth of less than 2% and finally dipped into a contraction as Bush took office. But by that summer, we had nearly reversed that and started growing slowly.

And then we double-dipped in 2002. Despite the tax cuts. Despite the spending on ramping up for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the private sector panicking that Al Qaeda was looking over our shoulders for an opportunity to strike again.

Indeed, it wasn't until the 3rd quarter of 2003 that the US began a recovery.

We were almost out in 2001! And you'd think that all the economic stimulus of three tax cuts AND two wars AND all the homeland security spending-- on the scale of billions when you include private and public sector spending-- would have pulled an already recovering economy straight back up.

And you'd be wrong. Indeed, and here's where we get to this current recession, it turns out that the prime motivator in ending the Bush recession was the move by the Federal Reserve to drop its discount rater (the federal funds rate) from 1.75% to 1%, in steps. This dropped the prime rate to about 4% or so (it generally runs three percent above the federal funds rate, which is the overnight rate that banks can borrow money from each other), and then came all those mortgage refinancings.

Which begat more refinancings. Which begat the "ownership society" of Bush's second term. Which begat subprime mortgages. Which begat derivates of CDOs and CMOs and all those lovely acronyms to represent meaningless valueless gambles disguised as "investments".

And so here we are, still talking about lowering taxes when what we need is a little fiscal discipline and a little fat over the meat on the bone. We need to raise government revenue and have that government spend it to benefit the greater good of all us, get rid of the rust and make the bridge stronger so that we don't grit our teeth and grip the wheel tightly each time we drive over it.

 

Austerity, Bitches!

 

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Liberals Are Fapping

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Poorly Played

 
Well, I mean, you knew a lawsuit over the Facebook IPO was forthcoming. Unless the stock did gangbusters out of the chute (few do) then someone was going to feel screwed.
 
The claim that investors were misled is interesting, intriguing even, as is the fact that just a week before the formal offering, the asking price was tweaked up almost ten bucks a share. It certainly lends credence to the claim that the issuance was less than honest.
 
On the other hand, you'd have to be a fucking idiot to have bought Facebook on its opening trading.

Kewl B's! (Also A's C#'s and Dmin7's!)

 
Not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a thing. I suppose on balance, it's good.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

It's Sad To See

 
Apparently, Megan McArdle's column is contagiously idiotic: meet guest-blogger Laura McKenna, who's thinly-disguised bigotry is given a patina of "We can't fix the problem so let's move on."

There's no way to go back to busing or 70s integration methods. Racism might be a factor, but the biggest problem is self-interest. People worry that integration will harm their kids and their property values. 

One has a hard time discerning whether McKenna is talking about society at large or her own mind.

 

Why Picturephones Never Took Off

 
The technology to broadcast video alongside a telephone call has existed for decades. Indeed, data transmission in the form of faxes actually predate telephones, and that's before you think about telegraphs. 
 
And yet, picturephones were always kind of a sideshow, trotted out at World's Fairs and expositions, never really taking off.
 
Maybe if they had turned the camera around... 

Is Not Aging Anti-Evolution?

That's the pretty interesting, if simplistic, question posed by The Atlantic:

Not everyone is thrilled by the prospect of radical life extension. As funding for anti-aging research has exploded, bioethicists have expressed alarm, reasoning that extreme longevity could have disastrous social effects. Some argue that longer life spans will mean stiffer competition for resources, or a wider gap between rich and poor. Others insist that the aging process is important because it gives death a kind of time release effect, which eases us into accepting it. These concerns are well founded. Life spans of several hundred years are bound to be socially disruptive in one way or another; if we're headed in that direction, it's best to start teasing out the difficulties now.

But there is another, deeper argument against life extension---the argument from evolution. Its proponents suggest that we ought to avoid tinkering with any human trait borne of natural selection. Doing so, they argue, could have unforeseen consequences, especially given that natural selection has such a sterling engineering track record. If our bodies grow old and die, the thinking goes, then there must be a good reason, even if we don't understand it yet. Nonsense, says Bennett Foddy, a philosopher (and flash game developer!) from Oxford, who has written extensively about the ethics of life extension. "We think about aging as being a natural human trait, and it is natural, but it's not something that was selected for because it was beneficial to us." Foddy told me. "There is this misconception that everything evolution provides is beneficial to individuals and that's not correct."

The short answer to this silly conundrum is, evolution is designed for survival of the fittest, which implies adaptation not talent or ability. If our intelligence is the key to unlocking almost-permanent longevity-- I figure I have a 60% chance of living to 200, and a 10% chance of immortality-- then evolution is not going to make a value judgement on this. It's either going to encourage it or discourage it through the interplay of evolutionary factors.

For instance, if it's an inefficient strategy for the population as a whole, then we'll either not achieve it or we'll find the cons to achieving it more than outweigh the pros. Whether we pay attention to those signals is irrelevant: if another species finds a way to become the dominant one on this planet or we begin to die off, evolution will have had its say.

However, the argument of a value judgement as to whether extreme longevity is a good thing, a wholly human argument, is a good one to have.
 
One thing extreme longevity could bring about, which is implied but unstated in the article, is a radical shift in our attitudes towards money: with more and more people outliving their money-- something that is already happening-- society will be forced to make decisions about the structure of private wealth. Indeed, the backlash we see now against the strawman of the "welfare state" raised by conservatives is the expression of a desperate fear that they, too, will not have enough to live off indefinitely.
 
One thing evolution encourages is the preying of the strong upon the weak.
 
It's not that aging is a bad thing, but you have to take a long view to see it as a good thing: aging allows diversity in a slow-growing population and a more efficiant allocation of resources. If I'm 80, my gene-pool is draining, and I am less productive than a 30 year old (right now. I'll get to a non-aging scenario in a second.) Less productive from a conception orientation (I'm less attractive to women who would be breeding), less productive from a work perspective (I tire easily and lose focus), and less productive in a child-rearing scenario.
 
I'm old, to put the point bluntly. But notice the positives to the population as a whole. In removing my breeding capacity, a younger pool of breeding males can step up, males with genetic material significantly different from mine and this adds to the long-term survival of the species. I haven't been exposed to many of the challenges these men and their ancestors have, so my genes may not be the best defense against, say, a bird flu.
 
Not aging changes this dynamic substantially. Suddenly, I can be competitive with younger men, particularly if I keep my boyish good looks and athletic stamina.
 
Suddenly, my gene pool is replenished.
 
On a societal basis, this puts pressure on the next generations. From an evolutionary basis, pressure leads to adaptation as those younger men develop strategies to circumvent whatever competitive advantages I might have (experience, for one thing, confidence, there are any number I might accrue over time.) And while it's hard to prove that my not aging is a bad thing, we can infer from the evidence that aging is a good thing for the population that not aging may not be a good thing, too.
 
Since we're talking about time frames that span millenia if not eons, it would be hard to say. And that's assuming non-aging isn't ultimately fatal to the species first.
 
From my perspective, I'd prefer not to die: the world is too interesting and I want to see how some things play out. Uncertainty principle suggests that by seeing them play out, I immediately alter how they play out.
 
And THAT'S the interesting question from this silly scenario.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Interesting Reaction

 
Tyler Clementi committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson valley. While it has never been definitively established that Clementi's suicide attempt was directly tied to an ugly incident where one of his roomates, Dharun Ravi, broadcast a sexual encounter between Clementi and another student, it's seems to have been the straw that broke Clementi's back.
 
Ravi has been tried and convicted on multiple counts of bullying and hate crimes, and is scheduled to be sentenced today. He faces up to 10 years in prison and therein lies an interesting tale: many gay advocates and advocacy groups do not want him to be jailed.
 As a result, some gay advocates are calling on the court to give Ravi probation instead of prison time.

Among them is Aaron Hicklin, editor of Out magazine, who said in an article that Ravi was being made a scapegoat for Clementi's suicide.

Another, E.J. Graff, who writes about gay and lesbian issues, said in her column in The American Prospect, "I fear that Ravi is an easy scapegoat for a complicated problem."

Jim McGreevey, the gay former governor of New Jersey, and Dan Savage, a gay columnist, are others who say that Ravi's behavior, while wrong, is being dealt with too harshly.

At least one gay advocacy group, Garden State Equality, is pressing for prison time for Ravi, although less than the maximum 10 years.

"Justice is best served by his serving some jail time for the crime committed," Garden State CEO Steven Goldstein said. "The moderate position is not to throw the book at this young man, nor should he get off Scott free."
I fall onto the side of moderation here. I do not think that ten years in prison is justified...he doesn't seem to have had malicious intent in trying to hurt Clementi...on the other hand, he invaded an innocent person's privacy. We all worry about the government doing this, but governments are at least nominally responsible to the voters. A private citizen is not so to let him off with just a warning seems out of balance.
 
It would send the wrong message to let Ravi off without some strict punishment, and certainly this should include deportation (he is here on a student visa). But I think a year in prison would set an example that this kind of behavior cannot be tolerated.
 

75 Years Ago Today

 
Lindy landed in Paris, thinking it was Ireland.

Careful Readers of This Blog

Saw this coming.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Best Question Of The Day

 
And believe it or not, it happened at a shareholders' meeting:
Another shareholder wanted to know why, if a $2 billion loss [by JPMorgan Chase Bank] is digestible, the bank cannot then reduce lending burdens and help get this economy rolling again.
 
Indeed. How about it, Jamie? Give your borrowers the same spirit of forgiveness you ask for from your stakeholders!

An Update To A Story Yesterday

 
Apparently, the answer is "yes"

Reflections

A moment arrives tomorrow that is one of those markers in life that grabs your attention. My daughter graduates from college-- although she still needs a couple two credits-- and it makes all the difference.
 
I worry for her, as I worry for all young people of my acquaintance, from fellow bloggers to people at my gym and work, to her friends. I see trouble, deep deep trouble, ahead.
 
I guess if I could make a keynote at a graduation, I'd say something like this:
 
Today, you are glad to be finishing a stairway in your life. You've climbed to a landing, and can take a breath and look back down. Those steps, they looked so tall and steep as you walked up, but you made it. You perservered, and did what you had to and got through.
 
People, your parents and teachers had expectations of you based on what they knew of you, and they knew you better than you think they did. They didn't know all your secrets, but here's a secret they kept from you, and I'm going to reveal it: they never had to.
 
All those times you hid that cigarette or joint, the times you wiped the lipstick off before walking in the door, the times you walked quickly past the family room to hide the fact you were a little high, we knew. We didn't have to know the specifics, and we may not have figured out exactly when you did whatever it was that you did, but we were pretty sure you had done stuff.
 
We knew when you were slacking off your homework and when you were studying frantically because you forgot about a midterm.
 
We didn't always call you on our suspicions, because that would have set up an adversarial relationship, but we knew.
 
See, we were students once too. There's a big difference, though. When we grew up, the world was promising us, well, the world. You don't seem to have that promise anymore, but I've got another delightful secret to share with you.
 
It doesn't matter. The world you learned about growing up, the one you learned about in school and at church or on the ballfield or the Y, in Scouts or down at the mall is not the world you'll end up living in, but it doesn't matter.
 
It wasn't for your parents or your teachers. It won't be for you.
 
When I was a kid, baseball players made about $40,000 a year, which was pretty good money in an economy where $100,000 was the estethetic equivalent of a million. But it wasn't enough to stay unemployed in the odd-season. Ballplayers took odd jobs, working as stock brokers or even digging graves. I was a fair athlete. I could have been a Rhodes Scholar if my parents had any inkling that my athletics combined with my grades would have put me in that class, but they chose to keep me from palying sports in school for the most part.
 
See, they raised me based on the world they knew, and the world they knew was one of poverty and want, one that saw them go days without fresh food, living off bread and soups and stews. They learned from the world they grew up in that a brain was the most valuable asset a person could have and that it ought to be honed to a sharpness that would make a Ginzu knife embarassed.
 
It would be hard to blame them for missing the turn in fortunes that saw this nation go from a thriving intellectual hotbed to one where Snooki is more admired than Eric Lander. It's as if Greta Garbo would be better remembered than Albert Einstein. They'd never see that coming.
 
As my life unfolded, it didn't matter that I was reading college textbooks in fourth grade. I mean, it helped, but I didn't end up in an academium. I ended up in the corporate world because I was trying to live the life I thought I should live.
 
"Should." There's the most dangerous word in the English language. I'm here to tell you that "should" doesn't matter. The experiences you've lived and the values you've been taught up to now are important, even vitally, but you have to remain flexible because some of them won't matter nearly as much as they used to.
 
What does matter is the two oldest pieces of advice any adult can give you: Gnothi Seauton ( you may have seen this rendered as Nosce te Ipsum) -- Know Thyself-- and "To thine ownself be true."
 
It took five years out of my life and tens of thousands of dollars to understand what those really mean. I'm going to sum it up for you with a piece of imagery:
 
When you die, who gets buried in your casket? Not your mom. Not your teachers. Not your spouse or business partners.
 
You. And you alone. And in the preceding moments, as your eyelids close for the final time, is the spiritual reckoning we all must entertain: who are you?
 
If you are anyone else than who you are, if you try to be someone else because it's just easier than fighting people's expectations, you will have failed at life.
 
Once you know who you are, once you get a handle on your basic essence-- and make no mistake, you have the capacity to infinitely surprise yourself, so this is an ongoing process!-- a door will open in your soul, and what you will find is your calling. Getting to this point takes a lot of work, mind you. It's a constant process of auditing yourself and asking difficult questions like "Why? What the hell did I do that for? Is it lunchtime yet?"
 
Worse, as you evolve (apologies to any evangelicals out there, but you know, facts are stupid things), you change and who you are changes, too. Who you are at twenty is not who you'll be at 35, married with a couple of kids and, one hopes, a mortgage.
 
So take a few minutes each day to know yourself. Pay attention to the words coming out of your mouth as much as you pay attention to how other people receive those words. Lay back on the grass every so often and just listen to the world around you. In those sights and sounds lie an awful lot of the answers you seek. When something or someone annoys you, ask yourself why. When you feel enormous joy, wrap yourself in it like a blanket and enjoy. Later, you can reflect on why it felt so good (sex with the right person leaps to mind, because it's the right person).
 
You'll be attracted to some people and things and repelled by others. Figure out why. In those, especially, lie many answers to who you are. Treat your life like a detective story, always asking why you did what you did. A lot of the time, the answer is obvious but not apparent, like the shoe print under the window, but behind a bush.
 
You want to do this, because you want to follow your heart in life. The most satisfying work you'll ever have is the work you love to do, and you can't know what you love unless you know who you are. This is what the Bard meant by "To thine ownself be true." You can't be anybody else. That would be false, and you can't be true to anyone or anything else until you are true to yourself first.
 
And if all this sounds like a lot of work and you'd rather give it a miss, that's OK too. You just learned something about yourself and there's nothing wrong with deciding this isn't important, just as it isn't wrong to not want to wear a helmet riding while riding a bike: probably nothing will happen and you'll still enjoy yourself, but in the back of your mind will always linger the concern that you might be missing something. If you can live with that, god bless you. I tried, and ultimately could not.
 
Let me start to wrap this up, because I can see the champagne bottles shift under your gowns and the nervous glances at your watches: if you can be true to yourself, then nothing and no one will ever be able to stop you.
 
They may stand in your way, but the harder you work on yourself, the easier it will become to look upon these objects and people as obstacles, not blockades. You can get around or even roll over an obstacle. You just work a little harder. You know all those people who you read about who "overcome"? They do it because they refuse to let themselves be blockaded. They see the obstacles and figure how to get around them.
 
You'll have friends, true friends, because of who you are, not what you are, and they'll cheer you on without taking an ounce of credit for themselves. This is your life. Take center stage. And in the words of Steve Jobs, "Stay hungry. Stay foolish."
 
I mean, he only changed the world. You only have to be yourself.

You Think You Know Someone...

 
I grew up hearing the name "Gordon Parks" regularly. The man was a legend and a legendary New Yorker. He was the first person of color to direct a major motion picture ("The Learning Tree") based on a screenplay he wrote based on a best-selling novel he wrote.
 
He also directed the original Shaft.
 
That alone would solidify his legendary status, but he was also an accomlished jazz pianist, ballet choreographer, composer, poet, and of course, civil rights leader.
 
But first and foremost and what I forgot over the years, he was one of the greatest photographers in history. His photos adorned the cover of Life magazine regularly.
 
Perhaps his most famous photograph, American Gothic, Washington, DC, combined his fervor for fairness with his sense of humour and married them in one of the most iconic photographs in history.
 
So I was struck when I read that the International Center of Photography would be running a retrospective of Parks' work to celebrate the 100th anniversary of his birth (he died in 2006).
 
Fittingly for a man of the city and one who fought for equal access for all, the exhibit will be displayed not in the gallery, but in the windows facing the street.

I Support This

 
Unfortunately, I doubt many other New Yorkers, particularly those with money, do.
 
In gentrification, we've destroyed neighborhood after neighborhood. Keeping Harlem at the scale it presently exists would help preserve the single most important cultural neighborhood in the city. Think about it: you can mention any other neighborhood, and you'll get different opinions as to what they represent (even Times Square) but Harlem evokes a passion and majesty that remains consistent across generations.
 
That's not to say the neighborhood won't change. It will. It has to. It's one of the few affordable inner city neighborhoods left and that means there's pressure on landlords to find new tenants and gain increased rents. But there's no reason to destroy a neighborhood to enrich a few.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

C-R-A-Z-Y Lady Is Crazy. No. Really.

 
We all had a pretty good laugh at the woman who got up in front of the Lincoln, Nebraska city council and railed on about homosexuality in response to the proposed "Fairness Ordinance" extending anti-bias protections to the LGBT community.
 
Select quotes:
  1. "A huge percent of gay men in school grounds molest boys, partly because they don't have AIDS yet."

  2. "Whitney Houston was found without clothes in a bathtub. Every corpse found without clothes has a partner who did away with them."

  3. "P-E-N-I-S goes into the anus to rupture intestines. The more a man does this, the more likely he'll be a fatality or a homicider."

You get the drift. We all had a good laugh. We all might want to rethink that laugh:

[Jane] Svoboda lives at an assisted-living facility in Lincoln and is listed as a protected person, according to court documents. Her brother, Patrick Svoboda of Ogallala, is her conservator because she is incompetent, the documents say.

He was unaware of the video's popularity, but wasn't surprised -- he knew it would be a matter of time before she got in trouble somewhere.

He said he's disappointed the video garnered such attention and jokes without the whole story.

"To me, it shows how little society really cares about people with mental health issues," Patrick Svoboda said. "She does have a very tender heart ... but anything she says is certifiably schizophrenic ... she's not some crazy conservative."

Apparently, she speaks in front of the council regularly at their open mic sessions, which allow anyone of the general public to speak for up to five minutes on any topic. And believe it or not, this might not be the most outlandish speech she's ever given. She's talked about "Chinese subliminals," radio signals sent through our cell phones, brought a large stick figure and said it was the ghost of her mom and regularly hands out fliers on the U Nebraska campus.

I empathize with her brother and his comments, to be sure, and see his point. I have a mentally challenged brother and my mom was, well, possibly less than stable. And I've spent tens of thousands of dollars in therapy to come to grips with my own....shall we say, unique?...mental and emotional challenges. I don't think I'm normal in the way most people would define that term, but then I don't think there is a normal anymore.

But here's the thing: in her speech, she sounds perfect rational and reasonable for a right-wing conservative. She may not honestly believe what she's saying...indeed, it's possible she picked up these thoughts along the way and is merely echoing what she's learned and not what she believes, as a parrot would...but it's such a convincing performance that we all took her as being not unusual for that sector of society.

That says a lot more about that sector than it does about this woman. Still, we probably all should take a look in the mirror tonight.