Why do some people hate Barack Obama? Is it because he’s black?

Why do people try to climb Mt. Everest? Because they can.

There are literally over 7 billion people on this planet. If you asked (even just the English-speakers) what the answer to 2+2 is, you would get probably get multiple percentage points worth of people not saying 4.

If you ever get a job calling people on the phone and asking them about their opinions (which I did for about a year in college), I can virtually guarantee that you will be shocked at the number of people who say things that are completely ridiculous, dumb, and/or based on obvious factual inaccuracies.

I worked for a summer in a congressional office, and I didn’t answer the phones (luckily), but there was this one guy who just kept calling and asking ridiculous questions about President Obama’s positions, and the weird thing is that we were pretty sure he actually believed what he was saying.

So, yeah, there are a shockingly large number of people that are just unimaginably dumb, or downright crazy. But, there are a few more answers to your question:

1) Yes, some people hate Obama because he is black. Probably something like 5% of the population would actually admit that they hate him because of his race. Another 5%-10% of the country is likely influenced by a more subtle, but still substantial racist element. Perhaps they feel threatened in general or they are afraid of what he represents. Perhaps they are afraid that their kids or grandkids might someday NOT be on top of the world, and their natural instinct is to try to make sure that “someone” from some other demographic stays down.

a) NOTE: People’s satisfaction with their lives is largely relative, not absolute.If you ask people whether they are happy with their standard of living, people in first world countries who have running water, televisions, computers, cars, and savings will say “no” because they are comparing themselves to those around them. In that sense, then, being part of the “in” crowd, or the group that is on top is by definition a zero-sum game.

2) There is this psychological effect called “lens vision.” People CRAVE stability in their lives, and especially in their perspective of the world. Partisan identification starts to develop in childhood before most people are capable of seriously vetting issues. Then, later, when they are confronted with a statistic or an argument that undermines the supremacy of their choice, they subconsciously look for a way to justify retention of their partisan ideology. The result is that in a world where sociopolitical issues are complex, it is very difficult to change someone’s partisan identity. When people’s partisan identity DOES change, it is usually because it didn’t mesh well with that of the people around them.

In other words, partisan ideology is as at least as much about identity and social relationships as it is about actual issues.

In that context, it should not be hard to see how the story unfolds: In the information age, as it becomes increasingly possible for people to segregate into communities where they only live near people that are like them, where it is possible to only get news from news sources that don’t piss you off (news sources that match your ideology), people begin to experience an amplified “echo chamber” effect: The people around you, the news, and your own gut all tell you the same thing, and they all reflect and amplify eachother, reinforcing your partisan identity and your lens vision, and generating increasingly strong sentiments about political issues.

Due to your partisan tunnel vision, you don’t realize that you haven’t actually thoroughly vetted a lot of the things that you say. You aren’t particularly careful about how you say what you say, since you are already pretty sure that you are right.

HERE’S THE KICKER: People in the other party are going through the same process. They are certain that they are right. They are overly certain about the things that they say, and don’t adequately vet themselves.

Then, people from opposing partisan ideologies get into a conversation, and it quickly escalates. Over multiple conversations, dormant emotional memories arise irrationally to the surface and cause increasingly quick emotional escalation. The more emotions rise, the less the parties bother to vet themselves, and the less credence they give to the other party’s opinions and perceptions. In other words, they trust themselves MORE and the other party LESS. Since this process is occurring on both sides, it becomesincreasingly difficult to find compromise, because you are both demanding an extraordinary burden of proof from eachother both to prove one’s own point, AND to dissuade the other from his/her irrational position. You both rightly feel that the other party is being unfair, and you eventually give up and go back to your echo chamber to complain.

CONCLUSION

To a greater or lesser extent, this cycle of doom is responsible for the increasing partisan rancor in the United States. There are a lot of factors, but they all seem to feed on eachother. In the end, it is hardly surprising that you end up with a shockingly large percentage of Republicans who believe the most asinine things about President Obama, and have actual hatred for a man that they have never even met.

If nothing else, they hear infuriating things about him on a near-daily basis from their colleagues, friends, news sources, and (Republican) elected representatives. They can’t understand how he can believe such infuriating liberal nonsense, or they see him as the face of hypocrisy and greed (redistribution). Perhaps they see him as a threat (or a representation of a threat) to their lifestyle. Perhaps they believe that HE hates THEM.

I fancy myself as a fairly intelligent, even-tempered person, and an experienced debater. But even I have difficulty sometimes with keeping political discussions cool and focused. For people who are not experienced, or who are less intent on keeping the discussion under control, it is hardly surprising that emotions accelerate and leave ordinary americans spitting bile at one another.

President Obama SHOULD Make Death a Taxable Event

I recently stumbled across a Forbes article complaining that President Obama would like to make death a taxable event. The article was referencing a January 17th, 2015 press release that called for, among other things, a new realization event when appreciated property is received by gift or bequest.

Vocabulary

In tax law terminology, if you own property that increases in value (or “appreciates”), you have “income” because your net wealth has increased. But, the tax code doesn’t usually make you “realize” that income (and pay taxes on it) until you actually sell the property and “realize” the income.

Why? We are concerned that you won’t have money to pay the tax, or the value of the property might go back down before you sell it, or we didn’t have an easy way of accurately measuring its value in the first place. It just wouldn’t be feasible or enforceable.

The tax law has both “realization” events and “recognition” events. You have to both realize income and have the tax law recognize that you realized the income, otherwise you don’t have to pay tax — yet.

The amount of money you pay for a property is its “basis.” Basis gets adjusted by certain things, and so your “adjusted basis” is supposed to represent your investment in a property. The actual fair market value of the property minus the basis equals the amount of income/gain that is built into the property, and which can be realized/recognized at an appropriate event.

So what is the problem? 

Americans decided long ago that 1) people shouldn’t pay taxes at death; and 2) the heirs shouldn’t have to pay taxes on appreciation that occurred when they didn’t have control of the appreciated property. Hence, the “stepped-up basis” rule. When you die, the basis in the property is automatically “stepped up” to fair market value at the time of death.

Ordinarily, realization and recognition rules only ever delay taxation on income. But, the stepped-up basis rule means that if you can hold off on selling those stocks of Apple that you bought back in the 1980’s long enough, then neither you, nor anyone you know or love will EVER have to pay taxes on your gains.

Take, for example, a hypothetical guy named Larry. Larry decides to found a massive corporation and call it Moracal. Since he built it from the ground up, his basis in his personal Moracal shares is approximately $0. Decades later, Larry’s net worth is around $50 billion. But Larry is getting old. He knows that if he can just hold out for a few more decades, he will have built a massive empire to last his family through the next, say, 20 generations+, all without ever paying any income tax whatsoever.

Suppose Larry wants to buy an island. He locates one that costs about $1 billion. Larry would have to sell over $1.2 billion worth of shares in order to generate $1 billion in after-(capital gains) tax return. Then, he would have to fork over about $250 million to the government. Larry would rather have his kids inherit that $250 million. So, Larry decides to take out a loan from his friend, Bill, instead. Larry agrees to pay 5% interest (capitalized into the loan), with the full principle and any accumulated debt payable one year after Larry’s death. Larry puts up $1 billion of Oracle stock as security for the loan. Larry has successfully purchased his island and avoided paying any income taxes ever. In fact, if Larry wants to, Larry can set up shop and run a tourism business on his personal island to help defray the interest expense from his $1 billion loan.

So what is the solution?

There are a number of possible solutions.

1. We could put a cap on the amount of time that an asset could appreciate without being taxed (say ten years or five years).
2. We could simply tax all gain every year, and do away with these rules.
3. When we DO finally collect taxes, we could charge interest on any tax that might have been levied, but was instead deferred (this is actually the best solution, in my book, for reasons that I will explain in a later post; in particular, it would seriously undermine the current incentives to waste billions of dollars on clever tax-planning).
4. Or, we could get rid of the stepped-up basis rule and make billionaires who have deferred taxes their entire lives finally pay a tax on their estate when they die.

So what is wrong with this last solution, which Obama has proposed? 

Nothing. There’s not a damn thing wrong with it, unless you happen to be a billionaire looking for ways to avoid ever paying a fair tax on your income.

As previously mentioned, I have plenty of other ideas about how the tax code could be improved. But that simply isn’t and can never be a criticism of a completely rational, non-partisan, sensible, and obvious solution to a single, discrete problem in the tax code.

A Better Primary System

1. Let Iowa and New Hampshire continue holding nominating contests in early February.
2. Then, sort all remaining states (and voting territories, like Guam) by size, and classify them into three tiers, with an approximately equal number of delegates at stake in each tier.
3. All states in the first tier (the smallest states) vote on the second Tuesday in February.
4. Tier two votes on the second Tuesday in March.
5. Tier three votes on the second Tuesday in April. And then you can hold the conventions in May.
6. Tiers 1 and 3 rotate places every four years.

WHY SHOULD WE ADOPT THIS SYSTEM?

The current primary system is a mess.

Almost every state is faced with a dilemma: 1) leave the primary where it is and resign oneself to a state of irrelevance, or 2) move the primary inexorably earlier, wasting millions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars (as in the case of California in 2008) just in the transaction costs of hosting Presidential primaries separately from local primaries. The alternative (moving all of the local primaries earlier and earlier every year) is likewise sub-optimally palatable.

The public are forced to coexist with an inexorably lengthening election cycle, in which national elections have become a near-constant phenomenon.

Those few states that take a moral stand and refuse to move their primary to gain influence are punished for it.

Finally, the primary system is lumpy. Some states’ primaries are all alone amidst a sea of media coverage. Others’ are all clogged into Super Tuesday.

It is, quite simply, a senseless mess. And, everyone knows it.

If everyone knows and agrees that it is a mess, then why hasn’t anyone changed it? 

That’s a great question. One might similarly ask why Congress never seems to get around to passing budget bills until the government is brought to the brink of collapse. The simple answer is that a complex system with many stakeholders contains a lot of obstacles to doing things. Few states have a strong interest in reforming the primary system. But, the traditional first few states have a very large interest in retaining their primacy.

Plus, not everyone has coalesced around the same solution yet. A lot of people would like the states to all be equal. Iowa and New Hampshire want to retain their primacy. Some people think that the race fundamentally changes once the first couple of actual votes are cast and recorded, and so it is a good idea to put a couple of states without a ton of delegates a bit ahead of everyone else, so that the system has a chance to adjust to whatever happens and really vet the candidates. Some people want a drawn out primary, so that the candidates are more thoroughly vetted. Other people advocate a shorter primary, so that the eventual winner is less damaged by the time they go up against the opposition.

This system gets around those concerns. 

By retaining Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states, this plan simultaneously avoids pissing off those states and retains the advantages of having a couple of states out front for early vetting. The inhabitants of both states are actually quite used to performing this job, and take cultural pride in it. Anyways, they really only have a few delegates between them, so it doesn’t make that much difference to everyone else.

Then, this system puts all of the other states on equal footing with eachother. Under this system, there are no states that are truly irrelevant, as there is a substantial possibility that any given competitive election will still be undecided by the time it gets to the third wave.

In the current system, campaign events are heavily concentrated in the first 4 states, and almost non-existent for states whose contests occur after Super Tuesday. This system would allow candidates to focus their efforts in states that are conducive to their message. All states would see campaign events.

By the same token, we should do away with the electoral college, and enter an era of true representative democracy.

Just saying.

 

Suspension of Political Coverage; Adam Lambert Earns New Peak on the Hot 100

I will be suspending coverage of politics and political issues on this blog effective immediately in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I have recently been appointed and sworn in to the high post of Intern for a Federal Judge. Literally, I was sworn in. So now, I have an oath to uphold the Constitution and a duty to keep my lips sealed. I pretty much have no opinions on anything in writing until December.

For now, everyone enjoy the Wednesday Republican debate, where Carly Fiorina is scheduled to attempt a take-down of Donald Trump after he said something unkind about her face. If nothing else, it should at least be better than most other reality television shows.

In other news, in its lucky thirteenth week, Adam Lambert’s new single “Ghost Town” gains eight slots and reaches a new peak on the Billboard Hot 100. Do you think it’s a fluke, or is this song a hit? Have a listen here and share your thoughts in the comments below.

Rick Perry Drops out of the Presidential Race

Per the Washington Post, Texas Governor Rick Perry has suspended his campaign, effectively ending his second run at the Whitehouse. Realclearpolitics.com’s polling average has Perry in 13th place, with an average of 0.8% of the vote. In the most recent poll, from CNN/ORC, Perry came in last with only 0% of the vote after rounding.

Rick Perry enjoyed a brief moment in the sun as the Republican frontrunner during the month of September the year before the 2012 Presidential election.

There is HOW much money in the 2016 campaign? Where? Who? What? Why?

“Never before has so much money been donated by such a small number of people so early.” – Washington Post

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama each raised about $1 billion total during the 2012 race, including Super Pacs, the RNC, and the DNC. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s Super Pacs raised a total of $225.4 million, while Barack Obama’s raised $91.5 million. 

The Money

Last Updated: 8/1/2015

Total 2016: $418.2 million

Super Pac Total: $288.4 million

Super Pac %: 68.96%

Republican Super Pacs Total: $272.5 million

Republican Super Pac Percent: 94.49%

Democratic Super Pacs Total: $15.9 million

Democratic Super Pac Percent: 5.51%

Campaign Total: $129.8 million

Campaign Percent: 31.04%

Republican Campaigns Total: $67 million

Republican Campaigns Percent: 51.62%

Democratic Campaigns Total: $62.8 million

Democratic Campaigns Percent: 48.38%

Number of donors who have shelled out more than $1 million dollars apiece: 58

Total amount contributed by million-dollar-plus donors: $120 million

Percentage of total contributed to super pacs by million-dollar-plus donors: 28.69%

Top 3 Donors

1) Robert Mercer, New York hedge-fund manager

Total donated: $11 m

Candidate: Ted Cruz (R)

2) Toby Neugebauer, Houston private equity investor

Total donated: $10 m

Candidate: Ted Cruz (R)

3) Kelcy Warren, Dallas energy executive; national finance chairman for Rick Perry’s campaign

Total donated: $6 m

Candidate: Rick Perry (R)

Top 10 Candidates

1) Jeb Bush (R) 

Total: $119.9 m

Super Pac: $108.5 m

Super Pac %: 90.49%

2) Hillary Clinton (D) 

Total: $62.7 m

Super Pac: $15.6 m

Super Pac %: 24.88%

3) Ted Cruz (R)

Total: $52.1 m

Super Pac: $37.8 m

Super Pac %: 72.55%

4) Marco Rubio (R) 

Total: $45.2 m

Super Pac: $33.1 m

Super Pac %: 73.23%

5) Scott Walker (R) 

Total: $26.2 m

Super Pac: $26.2 m

Super Pac %: 100%

6) Bernie Sanders (D) 

Total: $15.1 m

Super Pac: $0

Super Pac %: 0%

7) Chris Christie (R) 

Total: $14.4 m

Super Pac: $14.4 m

Super Pac %: 100%

8) Rick Perry (R) 

Total: $13.9 m

Super Pac: $12.8 m

Super Pac %: 92.09%

9) Rand Paul (R) 

Total: $13.1 m

Super Pac: $6.2 m

Super Pac %: 47.33%

10) John Kasich (R) 

Total: $11.5 m

Super Pac: $11.5 m

Super Pac %: 100%

Source

What’s up with Trump? His approval numbers. What’s up, Donald Trump?

Trump has been repeatedly lampooned as a sideshow to the 2016 Presidential race. The Huffington Post has relegated coverage of him to their “entertainment” section. Former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain recently said Trump “fired up the crazies,” to which Trump responded by tweet-calling McCain a “dummy” (Not even kidding.). Remember Nate Silver, AKA the only guy in the media whose statistical model accurately predicted every state in the electoral college in 2012? His blog (formerly part of NYT, now ESPN), fivethirtyeight.com, published an article one month ago titled, “Why Donald Trump Isn’t a Real Candidate, In One Chart.” The premise of the article was that Trump’s abysmal favorability rating amongst Republicans, 25% – 57%, “by far the worst of the 106 presidential candidates since 1980,” operated as a ceiling on how high his poll numbers could go. Since he was a well-known figure, the logic went, the underlying favorability rating was unlikely to change much, and Trump’s antics could only get him so far with a small, fired up group of crazies.

And yet, according to the Washington Post’s latest poll, 57% of Republicans now have a favorable view of Trump.

Really? A few careless words about Mexican rapist illegal immigrants and suddenly Trump’s approval ratings jump from worst-since-1980 to close-second-only-to-Jeb-Bush, who, by the way, now comes in behind Trump nationally in BOTH of the TWO most recent polls?!? Really?

Not only have Trump’s ratings improved amongst crazy tea party types, but they have improved amongst EVERYONE, independents, moderate democrats, and even a few points from liberal democrats! This isn’t some back-woods pollster, either. It’s the Washington Post, which is generally considered an old and reputable organization. Further, a substantial improvement (albeit not quite as shocking) was replicated in the other most recent poll of Trump’s favorables, according to an article from Business Insider, presciently titled, “One of the biggest arguments against taking Donald Trump’s campaign seriously is starting to evaporate.” 

So, what on EARTH is going on with Donald Trump? 

Many have dismissed his Presidential bid as an ego trip, but I’m not so sure.

“Only a fool casually dismisses a billionaire as a fool.” Me, now.

I think a smart person would take a long hard look and figure out what Trump is getting out of all this. He isn’t stupid. You don’t make billions of dollars that way. You make billions of dollars by being savvy and manipulative, by carefully projecting an image of yourself, and by planning ahead. Maybe Trump doesn’t think that he has a chance at becoming President, maybe he doesn’t want to be President, maybe he can’t become President, and maybe he isn’t even trying.

I have seen multiple suggestions (including this one from the Washington Post, the sarcasm of which I am not entirely sure of), citing Trump’s extensive past political donations to democrats and his professed liberal policy positions, that Trump is secretly purposively sabotaging the GOP’s image in the hopes of cementing the chances of his “old friend” Hillary Clinton. 

However, I don’t believe it, at least not entirely. Even if Trump were close friends with Hillary, it wouldn’t be worth it. Trump is inherently a selfish human being (you kindof have to be selfish to accumulate billions of dollars!).

Trump’s Presidential ambitions have already cost him perhaps $1 billion.

NBC and Univision have severed business relationships with him. His brand (which accounts for one-third, or several billion dollars of his claimed net worth) has plummeted, for now, from golden to toxic. Plus, he is supposedly self-funding at least a good chunk of his campaign.

If Trump wanted Hillary Clinton to win badly enough to waste $1 billion, he could have just donated $1 billion and funded her entire campaign.

I’m no more willing to believe that this is all just one big PR stunt to boost ratings for Celebrity Apprentice.

Trump has alienated an entire race of people. He is dropping business relationships like Family Guy drops similes. There are now a substantial number of people who might boycott anything attached to him. That’s not good for business. That’s not good for ratings. If he doesn’t get lucky, then once his contract expires there’s not going to be a Celebrity Apprentice.

Ego Shmeego.

Trump has come a long way in life. Maybe his ego is real, and maybe it’s an act, but it has NEVER come directly between him and $1 billion before, and I don’t believe he would let it do so now. Whatever Trump is playing at, he knows EXACTLY what he is doing, and I’m betting he is going to come out on top somehow.

Conclusion

We don’t know what is going on in Trump’s brain, but he is tapping into real energy in the GOP base. His near-universal name recognition is certainly helping, and maybe his bubble will pop, but consider this: 1) Trump already has the money on hand to keep running ads on TV through the primary season. 1) He taps into a very specific and non-zero portion of the GOP primary electorate, and that portion can buoy him up in an extremely crowded GOP field. 3) He has been cleverly playing directly to the issues that animate the GOP base most, and his brash, brazen manner make it hard to get a scandalous misspeak to bring him down. 4) The media are afraid NOT to report on him. 5) The GOP establishment are afraid to offend him, for fear that he will run as a third party candidate in the general election. 6) He is getting wall-to-wall news coverage, and likely will continue to do so throughout the election cycle. 8) When the right wing of the Republican party sees the “liberal media” attacking someone, their instinct is to defend and befriend that person. And, finally, 7) his favorability rating just went from absolutely ridiculously horrible to fantastic in just one month!

Trump may not become the Republican nominee, and I am not even going to speculate on what would happen in a general election (harrumph… epic etch-a-sketch…humph). But, he is definitely a force to be reckoned with. He is wealthy, powerful, and influential. It would be a mistake to ignore him. And, most of all, it would be a mistake to casually dismiss him as a fool on an ego trip. Donald Trump simply isn’t going to fade away into oblivion until/unless Donald Trump decides to do so. In the meantime, let’s hunker down for the most interesting Republican Presidential primary season that the world has ever known.

EEOC Just Ruled Employment Discrimination is Sex Discrimination – Here’s How

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just announced that sexual orientation discrimination in the workforce is a kind of sex-based employment discrimination that is already prohibited under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is easy to see how discrimination against transgender individuals is sex-based discrimination (and the EEOC, predictably, made that call three years ago), but many people are wondering how sexual orientation discrimination is sex-based discrimination. After all, a homophobe might say he discriminates equally against gay men and gay women!

So, how does the EEOC come to its conclusion that sexual orientation discrimination is sex-discrimination?

1) The EEOC first admits that sexual orientation was not explicitly listed in Title VII.

2) The EEOC notes that it traditionally asks whether an agency accused of discrimination has “relied on sex-based considerations” or “taken gender into account.”

3) The EEOC notes that there is no reason to think that congress specifically intended to EXCLUDE LGBT individuals from Title VII protections, and then notes that LGBT individuals should be protected to the extent that the language extends to them even if congress didn’t actually anticipate its language being applied thusly.

4) The EEOC blathers on at length about how sexual orientation is inextricably linked to sex.

5) Finally, the EEOC gets to the point: A man fired for being gay is a man fired because he is a person — who is attracted to, or associates with (or is perceived thusly) certain classes of people — who has a penis. A person attracted to women, who is fired because she also happens to be a woman is discriminated against based on her sex, because if she had been a man with those attributes, there would have been no problem.

6) An employee can state a claim for sex discrimination if she can show that the discriminatory treatment would not have occurred but for her sex.

7) Alternately, the EEOC has precedent saying that sex discrimination occurs when one is discriminated against for failure to comply with sex stereotypes, norms, or expectations (such as the stereotype that men sleep only with women, for example). Suppose an employer reserved a special pink tutu for a female employee and made her wear it to work every day because of her sex, or lose her job. That would be sex discrimination. The EEOC is just saying that the same principal applies if an employer requires male employees to sleep with only women or be fired. Obviously that is ridiculously discriminatory and outrageous, and men should not be subjected to it (and women should not be subjected to the converse).

Conclusion

So, now you see how the EEOC’s decision makes perfect sense.

Technically, the EEOC’s opinions are not binding on the courts, but they are given substantial deference. The EEOC is a part of the federal government, so it is conceivable that a Republican President Bush or Walker, for example, could seek to undo what has been done in 2017, assuming no federal court had yet ruled on the issue. However, with the country moving steadily closer to virtual unity on the issue of LGBT rights (after all, marriage was SUPPOSED to be the LAST battleground; the country is generally far more supportive of things like employment and education non-discrimination), I see this as a huge victory that is unlikely to face serious opposition in the years to come.

 

The Ridiculousness of the Republican Opposition to the Iran Deal

This week’s hyperpartisan meltdown has been replaced by a boring article that just rips into Republican’s in general for their response to the Iran deal. If that fact makes you sad, then sound off in the comments, and perhaps you’ll get a pleasant surprise on Friday. 

1) Republicans unabashedly denounced the Iran deal in scathing terms without having read it, without their staff even having read it. 

The 100-page deal was released at 6:30 AM via an EU site that soon crashed. Within an hour of the conclusion of negotiations, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had this to say, “This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast.”

a) Remember how upset those same politicians were that Democrats voted on the ACA without having personally read it?

2) Republicans haven’t offered a real world alternative, because there isn’t one. Instead, they compare what Obama got to the hypothetical magical world where the USA gets everything on its wish-list without giving up anything.

Let’s go through the possible choices that the US has. 1) We accept this deal. 2) We do nothing and let Iran develop its nuclear weapons. 3) We go to war with Iran. 4) We reject this deal, strengthen our sanctions, and keep negotiating until Iran cracks.

The last choice is the one that most Republicans seem to be citing as the answer. The problem is that we actually don’t do a lot of trade with Iran. The sanctions that could/do really hurt Iran are the ones that are or might be imposed by our European partners, by China, and by Russia. The other countries that are sanctioning Iran are not interested in continuing them, let alone strengthening them, should negotiations break down. In other words, if we pick this option, what we are really picking is almost certainly: “do nothing and let Iran develop nukes,” “do nothing now and go to war later and hope Iran doesn’t develop nukes,” or “do nothing now and sign a much worse deal with Iran later, again, hoping that Iran doesn’t develop nukes.”

Conclusion

The deal is certainly not perfect. Several democrats have criticized it or vowed to take a close look before supporting it. The Washington Post’s “view” was not exactly complimentary. The deal may very well create a headache for US foreign policy in the future, as Iran becomes even more of a regional power. Iran may ultimately still develop its nuclear capacity in problematic ways. However, it could also form the basis of a new era of American-Iranian foreign policy, where we finally have a toe in the door to talk with Iran about maybe making its society just a little bit less awful to women and minorities, to maybe get them to tackle government corruption just a little bit, and maybe migrate to a form of government that is more pluralistic and functional, and maybe a little bit less angry, aggressive, and incendiary. Maybe, by being nice and understanding of Iran’s culture, needs, and ambitions, we can ultimately make the world just a little bit better place.

At the very least, though, at least now we have staved off a nuclear holocaust for a few years. THAT, at least, is worth something.

As usual, feel free to share your thoughts on the partisan BS this country wades through every day in the comments below. Also, if you have a pet issue you’d like to hear my thoughts on, post it!

Hyperpartisan Meltdown RE: So Much for the Free-Speech Left

“Your acid partisanship blinds your eyes to the truth and paralyzes a nation.” – Me

Hyperpartisan Meltdown – a new weekly segment where I pick an article from a hyperpartisan newsource, melt down all of the BS, and see what, if anything, is left. 

This week I picked an article from Townhall, an extreme rightwing publication, called, “So Much for the Free-Speech Left.” For an optimal reading experience, take a glance at the original BS here. Always feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment section, and refer me if you happen to stumble across a hyperpartisan news article that is ripe for a meltdown. 

The Melting

You know you have reached a rightwing publication when the links to other articles bear pictures of muslim men and frowning Hillary Clintons in defensive postures, and when hovering over a picture of rainbow flags outside the Supreme Court reveals the caption, “Mass Hysteria in America.” Pictures of gold coins advertise investment managers, and a pop-up asks you to vote on Marco Rubio. And, of course, the title of the piece refers to the “left,” disparagingly. These should all be signs that what you are about to read should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

The article begins by pointing out that there is violence and vulgarity in movies. Hollywood makes movies. 1) The word “Hollywood” is apparently now interchangeable with “the left;” the article offers no further evidence of liberal beliefs beyond what makes its way into movies. 2) Last I checked, the movie industry was a business, and reactionaries, of all people, should be aware that businesses are not emotional, political entities. They operate to maximize profits, and that means that they put things in movies that are going to make people buy movies. Roughly half of the people in the country are Republicans. If movies are loaded with violence and profanities, it is because people (including Republicans) LIKE to watch violence and and profanity. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that “liberals” have a secret plot to inject violence and profanity into our culture by means of “Hollywood.” For starters, even if liberals thought it was a good idea, there are like 100,000,000 of them, and they aren’t exactly known for being good at communication and teamwork… or voting…

Then, the article foregoes any attempt at logical argument and dives straight in with an insupportable conclusion: “When it comes to perfectly decent speech — spoken innocently with no bad intention — those same liberals need smelling salts.” What “perfectly decent speech” is being referenced? Presumably, from context, the author is referring to speech that sounds racist, but actually was not intended to offend. Now, I am actually a huge fan of the biblical idea that “he who takes offense when offense is not intended is a fool.” But, the article overlooks some pretty big problems: 1) Only the person who said the racist thing can know whether they intended offense. 2) When someone says something that is racist, it can cause harm to people regardless of whether it was intended to offend and regardless of whether it DID offend (it may make someone feel bad, it may make someone else think that racism is okay, it may divide us, etc.). And, 3) liberals, in fact, generally DON’T take offense when they don’t think offense was intended (they might still inform of the potential damage that the words that were said could cause, but that is just simple courtesy.).

Next, the article goes off on a rant about liberal “micro-aggressions,” “where conversation becomes a minefield of political correctness.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel like I am walking in a minefield when I am talking to people. For me, being respectful of others comes naturally 99% of the time. Occasionally I say something stupid, or hurtful, or mean. Then, I apologize and try to go on with my life trying to be a decent person.

If someone were to hand me a list of things that I might be saying, which might represent subconscious prejudices and negative attitudes towards others, and which might be coming across subtly in my verbal and non-verbal communication and thereby causing friction in the workplace and potentially reducing the value of others’ experience, I would say thank you and think carefully about the words that are on the list.

The author attacks such lists because they include entries which could be innocuous in some contexts. But what the author doesn’t realize is that it isn’t about the words themselves. It is about the ideas, feelings, and emotions that they represent. If you are glad that you live in the land of opportunity, and that is the thought that you consciously and subconsciously intend to convey, then there is no microaggression. On the other hand, if your real intent, conscious or subconscious, is to put somebody else down because they haven’t been able to succeed, then that IS a microaggression, and you are being a micro-jerk by saying it. Employers trying to educate their employees about how not to be micro-jerks is a solid business practice, and it is disingenuous for a conservative proponent of the free market to criticize the way a liberal (assuming that the university administrators actually are liberals) runs HER business. If the author still doesn’t understand how seemingly perfectly innocuous statements can be disruptive microaggressions that can bring an institution to its knees, I would suggest the movie, Mean Girls.

Near the bottom of the page, I would like to point out that the author actually does something perfectly reasonable: he complains about how distressingly complicated it is to be nice (Note that the reverse-compliment is a particularly well-known form of micro-aggression. ;P). It is true that in order to respect a person, you have to balance a respect for a person’s background, including his ethnic heritage, with a respect for the fact that he is still a complete human being. Trying to “integrate” Native Americans by destroying their culture in the name of being “color-blind” is NOT respect, for example. ALLOWING Native Americans to pay tribute to their culture, while at the same time ALLOWING them to participate in ordinary society to the extent that they desire to is NOT complicated. It is simply respecting their autonomy, because this is AMERICA.

Grammatically, it is kind of weird that the author moves on to the next topic within the same paragraph. His paragraphs are kind of haphazard and random in general, and the article as a whole pretty much lacks any semblance of structure. He complains that:

If you are a “store owner following a customer of color around a store,” presumably because you believe he might be shoplifting, you believe he is “going to steal,” and he is “dangerous.” And that is wrong.

First of all, old man, we don’t refer to people as “of color” anymore. Seriously. Find another way to express that thought. Second of all, YES, if you are only following black people around in your store, and you assume that all non-white people are dangerous criminals and thieves, then unless you happen to live in a really bad all-black neighborhood, you are probably a racist. Why? Because the vast majority of “people of color” are not any more likely to rob you than the white person that you are NOT following around. Also, I don’t want to get into the complex causes of criminality, but let’s just leave the idea in the air that maybe black people are humans too, and the reasons for higher criminality (to the extent that disparate arrest and imprisonment are actually caused by higher criminality and not just disparate enforcement) among some communities is ultimately caused exclusively by past and present racism and not by your imagined lazy/criminal gene.

On the second page, the author continues to rant about how things that aren’t really micro-aggressions, like asking an Asian person why he is so quiet, where he was born, or for help on your math homework, are perceived to be micro-aggressions by “nutty professors.” Yes, Mr. Author, these things COULD all be innocent. But lets face it: frequently they ARE micro-aggressive, and frequently they may be misperceived as micro-aggressive even if they aren’t intended that way. Professors aren’t “nutty” for trying to educate students about the complexities of human communication, and encouraging everyone to just not get an education is a recipe for disaster!

 

What’s Left?

When we melt off the partisan BS, we find a few weak points: 1) Movies are vulgar. 2) Sometimes some liberals go overboard, criticizing microaggressions that aren’t actually micro-aggressive. 3) Sometimes it is difficult to function in a complicated modern social world, especially if you are a cranky, stubborn old man who still refers to people as “colored.” 4) Sometimes people who see people of other races as inferior don’t like to be criticized when they voice their honest opinions directly or through microaggressions that those people are inferior or are likely to have negative qualities. 5) The word, “Liberals” is interchangeable with “professors” and “Hollywood.” And, 6) education makes you ignorant.

 

Conclusion

The author displays the hyper-partisan lens through which he sees the world in every paragraph. The article abandons logical argumentation with the first sentences, jumps haphazardly from topic to topic, and reads more like a live-stream of crazed consciousness, or a soliloquy at a Tea Party rally  than like any kind of thoughtful and structured written work. Finally, the article unprofessionally uses sentence fragments and seemingly random paragraph breaks.

Yes, sometimes some liberals go overboard in their criticisms of others. But, the author of the article treats liberals as a tiny group of malevolent and powerful satanic angels which have taken control of hollywood and academia and whose sole purpose is to make the lives of honest, decent human beings harder. It perhaps should come as little surprise that a person who doesn’t understand why racial sensitivity is important, should also not see the logical problem in viewing liberals that way.

A lot of the article can be explained away with the probability that the author of the article apparently just doesn’t understand what the word “microaggression” refers too.

All I can say is this: the two biggest problems facing American capitalism today are 1) we don’t have enough workplace drama in our companies, and 2) we don’t have enough uneducated people on our streets. If we could just solve those two problems, ah, what a country this could be.

 

I Would Suggest…

…that if the author of the article finds that going through life without saying something racist is like walking through a minefield, then he should take a look in the mirror and reconsider the way that he subconsciously thinks, or DOESN’T think, about other human beings.