The Long Road Out

Today's wacko news:  five or seven individuals, perhaps Chinese high school students, have been kicked off Facebook and Twitter for posting pro-Chinese depictions of the Hong Kong protests.  Presumably we've also kicked some Russian programmers off those platforms too because they posted stuff that supported Trump for president. The reason:  stating government points of view on the platforms so that you and I could possibly see them here in the United States.   Please note the ludicrousness of this--the Chinese government itself has banned the platforms domestically, so clearly China (and Russia) has very little reason to care what gets posted since their own citizens can't legally see any of it (not even all the selfies!). Still-- the media, including NPR for instance, characterizes the high school student posts as "an international propaganda campaign." Two points of insanity destroy this perspective: The Chinese government has been heavy-handed, but ...

I'm talking to you.   Hiding over there behind a piece of faux burned papyrus upon which the holy words of the US Constitution's Second Amendment have been written in magic marker. Yes, you.   Why not buy a bazooka instead?   Because, in the interest of civil peace and safety, you can't buy shoulder-mounted missile launchers.  You can blame a conspiracy of the deep state, but you can't.   Which reminds all of us:   The Second Amendment, as pathetic as it is, doesn't allow you to own any weapon.   It does, in fact, result in regulation of the amount of lethal force a private citizen can own. Don't worry--as currently understood, your hobby of retro-fitting guns is A-OK.   I know you love your hobbies! Here's the problem:   too much lethal force is now associated with assault guns.   They're no better than missile launchers from a civil rights infringement point of view.   (I'm describing being able to go to Walmart without be...

We've been through two cycles of Democratic Party debates.   This is what we get with a two-party system.   Not a single candidate challenges the system whereby the strategy appears to be to try to destroy whoever is on the stage next to you.   Isn't that exactly what we result about the tool in the White House? Pissing matches and horse races aside, now we can't get past the "electable" vs "idealism" debate.   In this year's version, you've got 20 candidates who all are within about 20 yards of one another policy-wise.   If you're middle of the road, you may be electable.   If you're an inch over the double yellow line (say, for instance, you believe the health policy used successfully by every other democracy in the world might work here in the US), you're an idealist. My point:  Here's my argument:   you probably think Elizabeth Warren is an idealist and unelectable.   And maybe Biden or Pete or some one else is a "rea...

I saw a short thing on a parental leave discrimination settlement with JPMorgan on the Bloomberg  news feed today… It said that US in only major country without mandatory paid parental leave…strike one for USA.  We're special all right. And that 36% of companies have any paid leave.   Most are gender neutral  (29% are gender neutral and the  remaining  7% of more generous companies are female only)…so says SHRM.  (My company has paid gender neutral leave...fairly similar to JPMorgan's policy.  We often have to cajole the dads to take it.) So, since the investment bank is on the side of the angels with this policy, how did JPMorgan get the ACLU after them?   A recent dad filed a claim…yes, the firm had a gender neutral policy, but guys who tried to claim it were routinely refused.   So the policy and the practice were different. This cost JPMorgan a $5 million settlement, to be distributed to...

Progressives warn of intrusions into human and civil rights all the time.   It's their job.   Even Adam Gopnik agrees in his newest book--and he's just a nice liberal. Trump and the MAGA folks set off far more warning bells than the more bellicose Republican administrations that preceded them.   Reagan and the two Bushes did tragic domestic damage--but the people they really wanted to hunt and kill were always overseas (weirdly, the same "overseas" thing can be said for Obama, and Johnson, though both professed differently).  J Edgar Hoover really owns the title for worst domestic enemy ever--and you can't blame him on any of the last seven presidents. Trump isn't a militarist, but here's why he may have no choice other than to try to "grow" into one of his predecessors.   Albeit, no one has turned the military loose on US citizens yet, though the "Handmaid's Tale" scenario feels plausible and palpable enough that this book/TV t...

Our latest false pretense in international business relations requires that we see Huawei as a bad actor.   Every one is piling on, offering hyperbole after hyperbole.   The major themes are: Huawei has oppressed the Chinese people, keeping them dumb and isolated, because they can't see Google or Youtube! Huawei is competing unfairly by selling switches at cheap prices. Huawei's leaders are criminals. Huawei wants to invade your privacy!!!! I'd like to at least record a fifth option, which I believe to be true:   Huawei owns nearly all the patents on the next generation of cell technology, 5G.  (As far as I can tell, Ericsson and Nokia own a smattering that brings us to 100% of the 5G IP--but they don't have the advantages of low cost production, so they can't compete.) So...if you let the cell technology market take its natural course, Huawei would displace the 4G players to become the "sole source" over the next 12 months.   Every tech player...

Our attorney general is testifying to our federal legislators about whether Russia interfered in the 2016 elections by posting goofy messages on Facebook. Meanwhile, Trump announces, within three days of the Israeli election, that: The Iranian national army is a "terrorist organization," which I assume gives the CIA and Mossad carte blanche to assassinate Iranian soldiers with drones or whatever, and We're happy if Israel ignores international law (as the US does every day) and (more) formally takes the West Bank. I'm hoping some one reads this post and can explain to me why social media posts are "collusion" and "interference," while covert assassinations and illegal annexation are "policy decisions."   When we do dreadful things, it's fine.   When other people use Facebook, it's criminal?   Say what? Why would any one from ANY country other than the US--and any political group other than Netanyahu's conservative...