Musings On Jan 6th

 The discussions on social media about the debate reminded me, yet again, how upset I am that so many people ignore Jan 6th.

I truly believe it should have ended Donald Trump's career, and find it absolutely disgusting that he is instead the Republican candidate for president.

It feels like everyone really ought to know why that is, already, and so I don't really care to try to argue or explain it any more.

And I've been wondering if that's really the right idea.

So here goes.

A peaceful transition of power is important. The violence that comes when two sides go to war hurts pretty much everyone.

Historically - well, in Roman times it eventually seemed like anyone who had a loyal cadre of troops was a good candidate to become Ceasar. Sure, they sometimes 'adopted' a talented general or found other ways to change rulers, but all often it came down to fighting.

A hereditary monarchy, although very problematic for reasons I'll touch on shortly, reduced that. 

It clearly laid out who should inherit, and so fighting broke out when a) a particular candidate was a terrible ruler (which wasn't that uncommon, because it seems like it only takes a generation or two before whatever talent led someone to be considered great wasn't passed to their descendents. Or maybe it's that they didn't have the inclination or temperament, and would rather go raise corgis or something... but alas, you're the heir and you have to rule regardless. Which I think generally is when you get some great advisor or courtier to do all the hard work of actually governing while the monarch farts off somewhere) or b) no clear heir is left or c) the heir is considered too young or weak and/or some other aristocrat thinks they have a chance and starts something.

And then we get democracy.

Most Americans at least superficially acknowledge that a meritocracy is better than a hereditary aristocracy.

I say 'superficially', because we don't really have a true meritocracy, but it's hard for people who have worked hard and succeeded under this system to accept that. It's much easier to blame others for being 'lazy', or just jealous, or whatever excuse allows them to believe that everything is fine the way it is (really) and that no changes really need to be made. It's a bit arrogant and shallow but it's all too human, as we've repeatedly seen throughout history.

A meritocracy would not have so many legacy students in our 'elite' colleges. Nor would it allow so many systemic disadvantages for those not lucky enough to be born with parents who can help pay for college, or any other number of things that people have pointed out repeatedly. 

Anyways, democracy has it's issues, but the peaceful transition of power is not one of the disadvantages. And although 'winning an election' is not the same skill as 'governing a nation', the ability to run a campaign ensures at least some modicum of skill. Or at least that there are people around the candidate with skill.

It also helps prevent the ossification and stagnation that comes when entrenched powers block off everyone else's chances to rise through their own efforts. (This normally is tied to historical experience with aristocrats, with Napolean and the way the French Revolution cleared out incompetents and allowed more competent people to rise... but those are not solely the province of their system. Again, it's all too human for people in power to try to secure that power... and in the process lead to that ossification and rigidity that often precedes the decline and fall of a nation.)

Democracy forces the government to be responsive, because if you don't you'll lose elections. You're supposed to be able to change the system from within, so that you don't need a violent revolution to overthrow it from without.

Anyways. Getting back to the peaceful transition of power... a lot of that relies on both sides accepting the results of the election, and agreeing that if they lose an election the solution is to run a better campaign in the next one.

Choosing not to is a bit like when some asshole decides to drive on the shoulder of a highway to get past a jam. They might think they're some sort of brilliant out-of-the-box thinker, but if everyone does it the highway just gets clogged even more, and it's hard for emergency vehicles to get through and actually clear the cause of the jam.

In other words, it's the short-sighted thinking that says 'if I refuse to accept the election and fight, I can gain power' and doesn't care that it will kick off a new normal where every election is contested and fighting becomes the way the person in charge changes. (They may not see it right away, or even in their lifetime, but it happens nonetheless. Which is why it is supposed to be univesally condemned as a disqualifier for ruling. At least, in a society where there are better options available.)

Before I go too much further, I did want to touch on why so many Republicans seem willing to throw democracy aside, and are acting as though they can't just try again in the next election.

To be honest, I'm not really sure how many feel this way. I hesitated to say 'Republican', but under Trump this is truly what the party has become... and it has to do with race.

See, it's been a while since I've seen articles about the 'browning of America', but the demographic trends haven't really changed. We're reaching a point where white Americans are not going to be the clear majority. They're still the largest of all the different races, but if enough non-whites work together they can outnumber them.

And the difference is even more stark when you look at the children:

In 2021, 36.3 million children were White (49.4%); 18.9 million were Hispanic (25.7%); 10.1 million were Black (13.8%); 4 million were Asian (5.4%); 596,000 were America Indian/Alaska Native (0.8%); and 158,000 were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (0.2%).

To a certain sort of person, that's terrifying. They're scared, frankly. I mean, I'm a bit annoyed about how we have to worry about their insecurity and all that, but I get that that's what it is.

Even if they're not outright racist, there's still some unconscious bias that can affect attitudes. Like that study that showed how support for welfare and other such policies changed when people were reminded of those demographic trends. (I suspect it's an us vs them mentality or something. That instead of thinking 'these will help all of us' they start thinking 'these will go to those other people'. As if we aren't all Americans living together in the same country.)

To some of them, if they don't do anything drastic now, they feel like they won't have the chance to do so later.

(I would heap more contempt on them for letting their fears rule them so shamefully, but it doesn't really serve any purpose beyond venting so I'll move on.)

Democracy only works when both sides agree to let elections determine who rules, and we now have far too many people who aren't willing to do that.

But it's (poorly) hidden, so that people can pretend that's not the case. All Trump's lies about the 2020 election allow people to continue to support him and claim that they're the real patriots.

If Trump actually cared about the Constitution, and America, he would never have made those claims unless he had proof. Proof that he could back up in court. (His complaints about the courts being against him are not supported by anyone who actually researches the issue and just feed the lies, undermining the legal system and legitimacy of the current government in the process. It's very frustrating to see people latch on to the stupidest claims online in order to continue to believe in him. Even more so as he goes on and on about election fraud, when a) the fraud has never been on a scale large enough to change an election and b) quite a bit of it is Republicans who get caught. Because there are systems in place to catch that sort of thing. Checks, for example, to see if a voter died before election day and couldn't have actually voted.)

But let's leave aside the way his constant lies undermine trust in the system. Let's look more directly at January 6th.

It doesn't actually matter thatTrump once used the term "peacefully", saying, 

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

And not just because he used the word 'fight' twenty times, and as wikipedia sums up he also

He called upon his supporters to "fight much harder" against "bad people"; told the crowd that "you are allowed to go by very different rules"; said that his supporters were "not going to take it any longer"; framed the moment as the last stand; suggested that Pence and other Republican officials put themselves in danger by accepting Biden's victory; and told the crowd he would march with them to the Capitol (but was prevented from doing so by his security detail)

Why? Because none of those people would have even been there if he hadn't stirred up questions about the election.

We have had Congress count the electoral college votes for over 200 years, and we've even had the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) and similar legislation meant to ensure disputes are resolved well before then. (Apparently the details can be confusing, but I think the intent is clear. You're not supposed to be guessing at who won the electoral college votes when they're counting the votes on 6 Jan. Disputes should have been resolved by the states themselves well before then.)

Furthermore, he made the claim that Pence could have actually changed the results, and pressured his Vice President to reject the results.

I'm not even getting into the fake electors, or him pressuring someone to 'find' enough votes to change the results.

I think anyone who actually pays attention would come to the same conclusion - Trump deliberately created a situation where his supporters attacked our democratic processes.

He should have been impeached, he should have been brought to justice, and if Republicans had any patriotism or any principles that would have been bipartisan.

We all know it was not.

Instead, I watched as people waffled, and that lying piece of shit who shouldn't ever be trusted with power was somehow made the Republican candidate for president.

I don't like hearing how vehement I've become, but I am honestly just disgusted at the entire state of affairs.

I'm disgusted with the entire Republican party.

I'm disgusted with the media that was able to harp on Biden's bad debate for weeks and yet doesn't say shit about the candidate who betrayed his oath of office and attacked the foundations of our nation.

And I'm disgusted that far too many people keep giving him a pass.

And while I'm sure there are some of his supporters who will get violent when he loses the 2024 election, I would rather deal with that now then deal with the inevitable violence that would come if power hungry idiots think he's showing them a successful way to gain power.

God, People in DC are Deluded

Or in denial. Or wishful thinking.

I was trying to think about how to make my point and a) haven't yet and b) am on the phone, which is never the greatest for this.

But I still am furious about what happened yesterday. It's not, like, ready to go out and punch things anger. But, like... Idk. A core of burning fury that hasn't really died down. I still think he needs to go. Impeachment or the 25th Amendment, I don't care. He's proven over and over again a number of things. That no matter how many times he gets pressured into giving a speech that sounds 'normal', he never means it and always reneges. Sometimes the very same day.

That he repeatedly does things 'normal' people don't. Like the bold faced lying. If you expect him to act like most people, you will be disappointed (like Susan Collins thinking impeachment would chasten him).

The dude is never chastened. He might lick his wounds a bit, but then he doubles down and comes out swinging. We've had four years of this, it should be expected by now. 

But the stuff I was mulling over... 

Well.  I remember I was a young lieutenant, in charge of my very first platoon. And one of my NCOs was... Uh. Maybe kinda hazing the newbie butterbar? It's been almost twenty years, so I forgot the details. Some of it was typical goofy stuff like taking your cap if it was, left unattended. (this was before the beret) and turning your rank sideways. And like, initially it's not a big deal. I can take a joke, no harm done, sure.

Eventually I decided I needed to address it, though. And pulled him into my office to politely yet firmly tell him to knock it off. That it didn't matter that I was new, I was his platoon leader. 

And he was almost, like... Proud of me for calling him on his BS. Said a lot of junior officers never did. 

What I took from that is that some people really won't respect you until you pull them up short. 

But... Not everyone. I would even say most don't think like that. It's just that a good leader adjusts their leadership style to the people you're dealing with, and it's important to know who is which.

Like with micromanaging. Some people may be new, and/or insecure, and they'll want you to be around and easily available. Others (often the ones with more experience) may resent you if you hover too closely. It seems like you don't trust them to do their job. You're micromanaging, and if you're spending that much time watching them do their job then who is doing yours? (I might expand on what 'your job' entails. Some other time).

Anyways. Sometimes tit for tat works, and you can deescalate things by giving a little. The other side may not want a confrontation in the first place, and is happy to have an out. 

Other times? You need to stand fast and firm, be quite clear about where the line is drawn, and prove you're willing to bring the hammer of God down if they cross it. (One of my undergrad classes raised the question of whether Saddam would have invaded Kuwait if we'd sent a clear signal that we weren't okay with it).

Trump, in case you haven't been paying attention, is much more the latter. Any hint of weakness, any waffling, is a sign of encouragement. It means he can continue to get away with shit. (Would Senator Collins care to comment?)

The frustrating part of the last four years has been watching, over and over and over again, as our leadership and institutions utterly fail to do so. 

Impeachment? You all know what happened there.

As I've said before. He is angry, petty, and vindictive. He needs to be removed from office before he can do further damage. 

I know there are only a couple of weeks left in his term, but he has repeatedly shown that he won't stop unless someone makes him. And I've seen no sign of anyone honestly doing that. 

Trump, Cont

 I brought up my personal rules of thumb in the prior post, because when it comes to Trump people are all over the map.

I have heard people argue that he and his administration are all incompetent buffoons, and no threat. That they're sinister manipulators, deliberately exhausting us with scandal after scandal. That Trump wants to start his own news network. That he's afraid of losing his immunity from prosecution, and thus will do anything to stay in office. That he's trying to take on the 'deep state' and a cabal of satanic pedophiles who drink the blood of innocent children. That he's a fraud, and that you really have to watch out for the manipulative masterminds using him (said manipulator could be Putin, or Stephen Miller, or Mitch McConnell, or someone else).

All of these, btw, have very different meanings for our current situation. Is the buffoonery in court something we can safely ignore? Is all this fuss and furor simply the Republican Party humoring Trump because they're too afraid to tell him he lost? Or do they seriously think they can overturn this election, and how far are they willing to go to do it? How much are they riling up the base because they're fools who put a short term win over the long term good of this country, and how much is the tail wagging the dog? 

Truthfully, I look forward to Biden taking office because it's been like this for four. fricking. years. All rumor and speculation and nobody really ever seems to know. It's exhausting, whether that's deliberate and drawing from Putin's playbook or not, and I'm really rather sick of it. There has been so much crap that eventually gets pushed aside and forgotten because of whatever the next big scandal is, and it just keeps on happening over and over and over again. I'm tired of it. I want it to go away. I want Trump to fade into obscurity and I never want to hear about him ever again. (That's not happening, I know. I just wish it would.)

There's always been a hefty amount of speculation about what goes on in a president's court, but the speculation surrounding Trump and his team is on a whole other level. 

Which makes it very, very hard to evaluate much of anything. (I suppose I probably ought to read some of Woodward's books about the Trump administration. I generally haven't bought books like that before, but I do like articles that have that sort of insider view. Mostly because they contain pieces to add to my puzzle, if that makes sense. Like... I care less about the political stance - though that does matter - and more about what sort of decision-making team they're building. Are they surrounding themselves with yes-men and loyalists? How do they handle bad news? Do they micro-manage? Are they surrounding themselves with people like Rumsfeld and Cheney? Do they have a kitchen cabinet? I can't really describe what I'm looking for, specifically, just that every so often I stumble across something that feels like an important piece worth noting.)

Much of the problem is that Trump, more than any president in my lifetime, evokes the hope and fear that generally clouds people's judgment. 

I started off with the 'hope' because even though I've grown convinced he won't fulfill those expectations, many of his supporters hope he will. They want him to stop the forever wars, stop us from losing jobs overseas, stop enabling a system that ignores and marginalizes average Americans... there's a lot of stuff he tapped into in order to get the support he has. (It's just that most of them are so blinded by that hope that they ignore and dismiss the many, many signs that Trump isn't their guy.)

The flip side of that is fear. You all are probably familiar with that, too. Fear that Trump is another Hitler in the making. That he is far more clever than people give him credit for, and is using that cleverness maliciously. That he will launch a coup, if he hasn't already, and destroy the democracy we hold so dear.

Getting at the truth is hard, if not downright impossible. For as much turnover as he's had with his staff and as much as they do leak to the press, all it seems to do is generate more and more conflicting reports... so it tends to add to the confusion and uncertainty rather than really help.

I'll also admit that I've disliked Trump since well before he ever ran for office. I've never watched The Apprentice, and I never wanted to. He gave the impression, to me at least, of the typical mistaken image of a 'great leader' that I would actually never want to work for. He reminds me of the Jim Collins books How the Mighty Fall and the description of the 'white knight CEO' type that companies hire as they tip into failure. All that "I alone can save you" BS, when what we really need is the type of leader who says "together we can ____"

But... I never watched his show, so it's not like I have much to make that evaluation with. I have read various things over the years, though. Like the contractors he hired and then stiff to work on his hotels. And how he tended to use his money and power to bully them with litigation (since most of these hard working contractors can't afford a sustained legal effort).

While I don't have any direct access, the picture I've built over the years is of someone who is angry, petty, and vindictive. Unpredictable, too. Rather a bully, with no concern about 'norms' or 'conventions' or any sort of morals I've been able to find. Very transactional. He lives in that 'I got mine, how you do' world I've described before... and if he does you a favor he expects payback. Like the way he threatens federal aid to state governors he doesn't like. 

We've had people for years talk about when he'll start acting presidential, when he'll be more 'normal'... and although  he manages to tone things down for a day or a week or so, it never lasts. This is what we have, this is who he is, and every time you expect him to act like a 'normal' president you will be wrong.

I have no idea what he's thinking. More importantly, I think his only limit comes from the people around him. And given we've seen the Republican Party roll over for him, repeatedly, I have no idea what that means. Oh, and I do think there's some fishy stuff going on with the Christian conservatives - the DeVoss, and Erik Prince, and Bill Barr types. Sydney Powell is apparently one of them, too. Heck if I know what they're up to, other than that I don't think it's anything good. 

At least the military is one of those limits (and thank God for our history of being apolitical, and swearing to the Constitution rather than an individual. Realpolitik focuses on the underlying ability to use force to support your position. It's... misleading I think. For reasons I'm not ready to write about right now. But there's an element of truth to it in that the ability to control the military and use force to win is often a deciding factor. That's why military coups happen so often in history... and also why our norms and traditions of the citizen soldier matter. It's also interesting how our presidency, for all the power and resources available for foreign policy and international relations, actually has quite strict limits domestically. That is by design, of course. But we talk about 'most powerful man' and 'leader of the free world', and yet state governors can and have essentially told him to f___ off. Generally more politely than that, ofc.)

All of which is a long and complicated way of saying - I don't know what the heck is going on, but it concerns me. Especially since it's now been a couple of weeks since the election and there is still no sign that Trump and his supporters have accepted his loss. 

And I won't rest easy until Biden is inaugurated in January.

Command, Change, and Trump

The comments on command apply to more than just the military, and describes exactly how Trump alienated his bureaucracy.

If there is a Deep State, Trump created it. And this is how.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-11-20/trump-is-picking-a-losing-fight-with-the-navy-over-gallagher?__twitter_impression=true

A Never Trumper POV

I kind of want to stand up and applaud:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/trumps-tweet-makes-me-proud-be-human-scum/600685/

Impeachment and Social Media

I generally try not to post political stuff on Facebook (I do more of that here, tbh, where I can write long rambling things that most people don't want to read. Let's me put more nuance than you generally get elsewhere).

I don't want to be like some of my relatives, that spit out so many political memes that people start filtering them out. 

But... 

Its important, sometimes, to make it clear that you disagree. Where silence can be taken as agreement, and people don't follow politics as closely (and apparently some 40% of people get their news from FB), it's sometimes more important to speak.

And while I don't generally like Democratic leadership, I think Trump is seriously threatening to undermine the Constitution right now.

Its not about Democrat vs Republican, it's about whether Congress can use the powers given it in the Constitution to rein in an out of control executive. Will our checks and balances work? Or not?

I could probably go into greater detail on how the Executive branch has grown in power over the last century. How Trump is, in some ways, just blatantly doing what others have done... Just to a far greater degree, and with no pretense of it being anything else. (or maybe that's the cynic in me coming out. Even if there wasn't anything legally wrong, Hunter Biden getting paid a lot to do little - the way other connected people do - is yet another example of how the rich perpetuate their built in advantages, and part of why Democrats don't seem to be on the side of the 'little guy' these days) 

But...

That restraint was important. It set a limit, of sorts. They at least knew they had to at least try to make it look like it wasn't just about helping themselves. (And probably were able to convince themselves, in the process. Like the training my previous job gave on avoiding conflicts of interest, it can be hard to recognize one when you're in it.)

I don't know. I started reading Accidental Presidents, and the historical perspective is interesting. We haven't had members of Congress get into fist fights, for example. And a recent twitter thread (app update seems to be missing the ability to add the link to text, so here it is - https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1186468302400507904?s=19) made me realize that there's a lot about the post civil war history that I didn't know...

So it may be an exaggeration to say that this is the most dangerous time in our history. But when the President tries telling his people to ignore congressional subpoenas, or says the Emoluments Clause is phony, and threatens to use his ability to pardon anyone who breaks the law to get what he wants done, he is showing over and over again that he has no respect at all for the Constitution.

And I don't know how anyone can claim to be 'conservative', or a patriot, and continue to support him.

Then there's the mess he made with the Kurds, and the way he hasn't met a dictator he doesn't like. 

He's doing more to undermine America than anything that the Left has done. 

On Anime, and Game Changers, and Things We Have No Language For

So I finished up finals week, should have all A's, had an interview Thursday (and reportedly should expect an e-mail for the next step in the hiring process soon), and have been binging anime as a bit of a celebration for completing my Master's.

In particular, I've been binge watching Hunter x Hunter. The show has some of the all-too-typical problematic sexual bits that the Japanese throw in, which I tend to sort of shrug off as some sort of cultural difference. Like I know that the perverted old men (who are generally portrayed as 'good' characters) are creepy, and disturbing consent issues are not cool, but you can't really watch much anime at all without coming across some of that, and there are other things that I enjoy. (If I had a kid, I'd probably want to sit them down to talk about some of the more problematic parts if/when they came across it, but that's a story for another day.)

There are generally two big things I enjoy about anime. First, the sheer creativity. So much of it is completely out there, and I sort of feel... I dunno. I was going to say it's easier to think outside the box, but it's more like they stretch the limits of the box so that what I consider inside the box expands. Something like that. Anime makes me feel more creative.

The other thing I enjoy is that they touch on topics that far too much Western media doesn't. Hmmm, that's not quite true, but I'll get to that in a second.

The spur to writing this post came from Hunter x Hunter, where a non-human king has been learning various board games and defeating masters in those games as a way of learning how to strategize/rule/conquer. He's bright, picks up the rules quickly, and has defeated a number of master's at their own game until he takes on a Gungi master (Gungi is apparently invented for the anime.)

What makes this interesting? As the king masters various strategy games he came to realize that controlling the rhythm of the game was critical, and disrupting his opponents rhythm gave him control. As he repeatedly fails to defeat the Gungi master, he takes the mental battle off the board and tries controlling the rhythm by threatening to take her left arm. Watching how she refuses to cede control, and shifts the rhythm back in her favor is just fascinating.

This dynamic, this way of addressing complex interpersonal things, the mental components of battle, are something I just don't see addressed at all in the equivalent Western cartoons. Or perhaps it's just children's cartoons?

We do have it, at times. I think J.R.R. Tolkien did, in the battle for Gondor. The Nazgûl brought fear and terror in their wake, a mental attack as much as physical, and Gandalf riding off on his white horse helped restore strength and courage to the men fighting back. It was a morale booster, and a much needed one, that occurred during some of the darkest parts of that battle.

We talk about that sort of thing in the military sometimes. How leaders must maintain the morale of the troops. But, well... for the most part I think we've been at peace so long that we forget (or forgot, I can't speak for the military now, I've been gone too long... and they've been at war either in Afghanistan or Iraq for over a decade now, so perhaps the troops out on the sharp end have first-hand experience now) what that sort of thing truly means. We think of it in, well, business terms I suppose. Morale as something you can boost with bonuses or lunch or some other thing. We don't talk about the leadership and morale booster that comes from standing strong in the darkest of times, when everyone else is wavering and falling.

Hunter x Hunter is not the only anime that does this. Part of what I liked about Naruto, for example, is something similar. Early in the series he's taking an exam to get promoted, and the proctor is adept at putting on the psychological pressure. The proctor created a stressful situation where he tried getting candidates to give up and quit. Naruto, more because of stubbornness than any great intelligence, loudly refuses to crack under the pressure... and in doing so shored up the remaining candidates' resolve, so that they also refused to crack.

Anime illustrates these types of interactions, where one person influences the rest, and it's pretty frikking amazing. They put these things into words, and images, and it's almost like they have a language for it that we in the West have forgotten. Sure, it's filled with fantastical creatures and magical things, but they address the mental component of battles in a way that illustrates some core truths. Firm resolve is important, and sometimes one person refusing to bend can make all the difference. (But not always.)

Hmmm. Speaking of battle rhythm and control-thereof, I feel like I have to admit that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (there are a couple of publicly prominent politicians that I prefer not to give any sort of attention to, even negative attention, as it just seems to empower them and make them feel relevant. If I could, I would completely ignore them... alas, sometimes I can't really talk about certain things without doing so) has shown great mastery at controlling the rhythm, and probably ought to be called a game changer as well.

It's just... if he's changing the rules of the game, it's in a way that makes things worse. If you can tell a tree by it's fruit, then you can tell that he's pretty rotten... because the fruit of his leadership has consistently been making people pettier and smaller.

Technically, he's a game changer. He regularly disrupts other people's rhythms. But rather than inspiring people, rather than making them feel uplifted... less afraid, more capable...

He seems to bring out the worst in people.

Brainstorming

What a crazy time to be alive.

Making sense of things is almost impossible, and I'm not really sure what I'm going to type here. I just felt the need to sort of brainstorm it out.

There are a couple of underlying... assumptions? heuristics? worldviews?

Whatever it is, it tends to shape my perspective on a lot of things. Some of it's pretty basic - like the concept of a 'social contract', and the importance of people feeling like they  have some sort of say in their governance. (It's part of why gerrymandering is such a threat to our system. More, I would say, then whatever fears or worries the people instating it have about what would happen if they didn't have power. Undermining the social contract, undermining the connection between the will of the people and their government, is far more of a threat to America than bloated government, high taxes, etc.)

Free speech is good, protecting minority opinions is good. (The problem with lack of gatekeepers to filter out the crap is part of what I wanted to brainstorm here. Protecting minority opinions has similar complications - does it include protecting racists, for example? Otherwise someone is still deciding what is 'acceptable' and what isn't, in which case free speech and protection of minority opinions is really just protection for the ones we agree with. The underlying issues, though... the problems with censoring speech, the ills that occur when minorities are not protected, well... these are values we - the West - have come to over a long period of time. And, unfortunately, they are values that somehow wind up getting challenged. Again and again. It's sad when people who claim to be all about America are somehow the very same people pushing for things that go against the values we fought for and stood for. But that's a really long topic to get on, and I'm not sure I want to do it right now.)

Fear is almost always a bad sign. Fear, the actions/plans/strategies based on fear, and the results of fear-based strategies are almost always bad. To do a mish/mash of two quotes that I saw on a computer screensaver once "Fear is the mindkiller. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I remember reading about the Civil War, decades ago, and thinking 'the fear that the North would outlaw slavery led to the attempted secession of the South, which wound up making their fears realized... and probably even faster than they would have been otherwise.' That is, when we act on fear, we can often lead to the very thing we are afraid of. (So, for white supremacists, letting fear that we will eventually be a minority in America lead to violent actions and upheavals could actually hasten a time when we are, in fact, a minority. But then, idiots like that probably assume - since they're foolish enough to think the color of the skin somehow makes them superior - that they're going to win any coming showdown. Considering how many wars had unpredictable results, I think that's a remarkably foolish gamble. But hey, nobody has a monopoly on stupidity.)

So anyways, on to the rambling.

Over a decade ago (how weird, to talk in terms of decades now!) my boyfriend at the time commented on his Toyota truck and the concept of 'buy American'. I am absolutely horrible at quotes, so I'll just paraphrase his reasoning -

He bought the best truck on the market. If they want him to buy American, then America needs to step up and be that best truck on the market.

I know there's a whole bunch of underlying things not addressed here - disparities in the economy that allows certain goods to be manufactured more cheaply for one reason or another, tariffs, transportation, etc. - but I think he brought up a rather good point.

Namely that, when threatened, challenged, and afraid, there are two ways of dealing with it. Step up to the challenge and get even better (in which case, the issues with, say, competition being able to pay lower wages, just becomes a driver for getting even better. A challenge that makes your eventual triumph even more meaningful, since you had a handicap the entire time)... or let fear drive you into trying to protect your position by eliminating the competition somehow. Tariffs, 'buy American' drives, things that allow your existing business to continue to compete even when other businesses might actually be providing a better product at a lower cost. (Again, note that this is a complex topic, especially when you get into what countries like China have been doing to help develop their own domestic businesses. The people pushing for these policies often justify them by saying 'this is what they're doing, so we have to do it as well in order to keep up.)

The underlying reasoning, for all of that, is fear. And as I said above, that's sort of one of the things I consider noteworthy.

In political science, they've noted that previous presidential candidates often spoke positively. Uplifting. We want leaders who challenge us to rise to the occasion. To shoot for the moon. To stand up to the Soviet Union.

Trump. Well. Even though he had some of the typical markers ('Make America Great Again' talks about how great America is) the underlying structure is entirely fear based. We have to 'Make America Great Again', because we no longer  think we are. We're somehow losing our greatness, according to some people at least. (And just as Jim Collins described in 'How the Mighty Fall', that fear can make us susceptible to anyone who promises to save us. And so we get some outsider riding in on a white horse to save the day, even though they very often are actually the ones who wind up delivering the final, fatal blow.)

Great presidents encourages us to stand tall and rise to the occasion. Trump, on the other hand, feeds our fears and brings out the worst in everyone. Aside from politics, aside from anything else, seeing the sheer level of pettiness he brings to our political system is horrifying.

And I am disturbed, perturbed, and disappointed in all the various people who allow him to have what influence he has. Because nobody can be a leader when others refuse to follow.

The Republicans in particular have been awfully horrifying with how often they wind up justifying supporting Trump even when it goes against things they used to stand for. Christian conservatives as well, who laud someone who seems like the epitome of everything Jesus stood against.

But hey, that's politics, right? Should I really be surprised at how much people are willing to compromise themselves, at how nicely they can come up with something to justify doing whatever it is that is in their self-interest? Whether that's supporting Trump, or doing shenanigans to try and shape the upcoming midterms in their favor (even when it means closing polling sites and/or moving them to hard-to-reach places, because apparently they'd rather undermine the social contract and disenfranchise US citizens than lose an election.)

And that, right there, is how you know someone's political judgement has been compromised. That the wisdom of our founding fathers, who understood the risks of power and put all sorts of careful checks in place, has been lost by near-sighted people more concerned with staying in power than maintaining the legitimacy of our system.

When did we become so afraid? Why are we so afraid? We're in one of the best positions, as a nation, possible. We're capable of being so much better than this.

Pittsburgh Shooting, Trump, Hate

I remember my surprise when a Facebook friend pointed out that Trump's daughter was Jewish. She married a Jew.

Trump gets painted as such a racist piece of s*** that it surprised me to learn about his family. And, to be honest, it made me reconsider some of what I was seeing in the news.

So I didn't really weigh in on the most recent horrific tragedy, but I kind of wanted to highlight this story. Since it discusses precisely that (and the looks on Ivanka and her husband's faces as they watched Trump are truly something.)

I have been... disappointed in the current political environment for all sorts of reasons, and have sort of been taking a break from it. (Which, yes, I'm aware is a privilege... the fact that I can tune things out when it's too much.) Not that I plan on doing nothing, midterms are a week away after all.

But too much of my thoughts and feelings either fall under 'preaching to the choir and unlikely to reach anyone who doesn't already agree with me' or, well, it's been hard to feel like there was any point to writing it, anyway.

Though I do think it's critical, in a time like this, to stand up and say "this isn't right." Whether it's shooting black people at a grocery store or Jews in Pittsburgh, it's not okay.

But... well. I recently took my little to her hometown football game, and it reminded me of how different the vast majority of Americans are from the crap we see on TV. My little, who is friends with a number of black girls (two of whom will be coming to my house tonight, since apparently all three of them are trying out for basketball. I get roped into dropping off or picking up her friends fairly regularly, but I don't mind too much.)

Anyways. A Friday night football game, and the players are white and black and mixed all over. Family members watching- black, white, hispanic, asian...

This is America. The America I saw at Six Flags the other day (my little's mother's birthday is in October, and we have season passes that get upgraded if we use them before the end of the year, so it's sort of become a tradition to go for Fright Fest.) is not what you see in the news. The three of us, with my little's friend (a black girl) drove three hours to Six Flags, where the lines were full of average Americans. Again - black, white, hispanic, asian. Tattooed, pierced, or none at all. People we saw in passing while waiting in line, talked to about various experiences (we got all the way to the front of one line, only for a technical difficulty to prevent us from riding at that time. And chatted with another lady at one point regarding whether or not she'd be able to fit in the seats.)

And it's hard to believe any of them would truly turn on each other.

And yet, there are these shootings. And the stories you hear in the news. And all I can think of is that we do have fringe elements, as there have always been fringe elements.

The problem, I think, with Trump is not necessarily that he himself is hateful. He might be, he might not, he's definitely more complicated than the buffoonish caricature he often comes across as. But he seems perfectly willing to tap into that hatred, and at the very least, to stand aside and say nothing when said 'fringe elements' act.

Since there are always people on the edge, crazies who will overreact, it's hard to say how much a public figure is responsible for other people's actions. But I do know that standard responses are to condemn any actions out of line, and to make it clear that you really don't support and encourage them.

From that perspective, Trump's actions are... underwhelming.

And very, very disturbing. 

Honorverse Odds and Ends

My brother loaned me the latest Honor Harrington novel, so I've been reading that and had some thoughts.

For those who have never heard of this series, it's military science fiction. 14 books in the main series, as well as a number of spin-offs and anthologies. I have to admit, it sometimes goes a little bit into the 'science fiction' side of things for my taste - given that wormholes, faster than light technology, and various other things are all fiction I don't actually care to read in depth technical reports on things that don't really exist. And yet, I do find it fascinating how he uses those things to create rather plausible military scenarios.

14 books, well...it's a very looooong series. It's also fascinating if you know your history, because there's some very clear parallels (and differences). David Weber also does a rather excellent job of showing both sides of the story, with both sides having their talented and incompetent people.

Regarding that history... the main character is an officer in the navy for a star nation - Manticore - that has many similarities to England. A monarchy, parliament, etc. (Not exact, by any means!) It begins just before they wind up in a very long shooting war with a neighboring star nation that has some similarities to, well...at one point they had something like the French revolution (including a character, Rob S. Pierre, which is rather obviously similar to Robespierre)

At other times, the history of that star nation was more like the Soviet Union.

There was another, much larger star nation that was mostly irrelevant for the first, I dunno, 10 books or so? The Solarian League, which also has striking parallels to the United States.

Except, well...in a series that spans this much history, things change quite a bit. The Manticore and Haven war had it's ups and downs, the war pushing both sides to make all sorts of technological innovations that changed the nature of the war.  While I didn't need too many of the technical details, I could see clear parallels to...well, 'wet-navy' warfare. In particular the development of a space equivalent to aircraft carriers.

And after decades of fighting, things started to finally settle down between Manticore and Haven, and a new enemy appeared. Now, I haven't been as interested in the later books in part because the new enemy is... I dunno. I guess it interrupts my 'suspension of disbelief', which seems funny when referring to science fiction in the first place, but this new opponent is almost too sneaky to be real. Or at least, I sure as heck hope there's never a real world group like this!

Anyways, this new opponent is stirring up trouble and helping lead to war between Manticore (now in a tenuous alliance with their long-time enemies) against the Solarian League.

And that sort of gets at why I decided to write this post. The Solarian League...

Well, it originally had good intentions, I guess you could say. The original systems are centered around Earth, they've got a constitution and democracy, and all that. This Solarian League, though, has grown rather corrupt. Particular with systems on the fringe, 'neo-barbarian' frontiers, places where certain bureaucratic organizations have had free reign to do what they want.

I suppose, in some ways, the Solarian League is also more reminiscent of the Roman Empire, as the fringe systems have various governors who generally enrich themselves... one way or another. The governing class is pretty much a techno-bureaucratic class (labeled the 'Mandarins') and there's all sorts of bureaucratic infighting, corruption, connections to various businesses, etc. I know I said there's some parallels between the Solarian League and the United States, but I sure as hell hope that our system isn't nearly as bad as the Solarian one.

So one of the themes, you might say, with this new scenario is 'when has a system become so corrupt that it's irredeemable?' The Solarian League were the first proponents of some various rules of warfare that our original combatants respected (in part out of fear for how the Sollies would react.) In particular, the Eridani Edict, laying out restrictions on attacking a planet's surface.

Part of what we are seeing is the Solarian League, the creator and enforcer of the Eridani Edict, is now setting themselves up to be the biggest violator of their own edict.

When a system stops standing for what it used to stand for, becomes blatantly self-interested to the point where they're now justifying things they used to vociferously oppose...

What does that mean? And when various members decide it's gone too far and decide to leave (consider that Texas stipulated their right to secede when they joined the United States, and just what a disaster it would be if they ever seriously wanted to do so) where do you stand?

'You' being the fictional characters in the series, many of which choose different stances, most of which are believable. There's the ones who worry about the end of the existing Solarian League, who don't think it's as bad as people think, love their star nation and bitterly resent the people trying to leave... and there are the ones who are fed up, don't see any other way of fixing things, and are pretty much done with it all.

And, of course, the whole point of reading the book is to see how it all plays out.

I do like how we get to peek inside the various decision-makers meetings and councils, in part because you can see how otherwise intelligent people wind up making horrible choices. That happened a lot with the Havenites, as you see the pressures leading towards decisions.  Things tied in to maintaining public support, economic pressures, and so on and so forth. And now we see something similar with the Sollies.

Of particular interest, to me at least, is the role that information plays in all this. Coming from an American background (and the First Amendment which values free speech, and the desire for 'truth, justice and the American Way' for all), I almost immediately think 'bad idea' every time one of these organizations decides that they need to 'spin' events by outright lying to their people in order to...

Well, they always sugarcoat it with some sort of unselfish reason, like preserving their government, but honestly the government would probably survive if they were honest about what happened, so it's really about them not wanting to face the consequences of their bad decisions. It's just, well, as Upton Sinclair apparently said - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Or rather, in this case you could rephrase it to say 'it is difficult to get people in power to understand that the nation/government/party will be fine when their ability to stay in power depends on not understanding it.'

In other words, it's the classic fallacy of inflating what's good for you with what's good for everyone else. And so these organizations justify editing video to make it look like the other side was lying, setting out a narrative that makes them look good, and doing all sorts of other various things that essentially demonstrates just how much they've lost their way.

If you need to lie about what's going on in order to maintain your grasp on power, then maybe it's a sign that you shouldn't be in power. But good luck getting anyone in that position to admit that.

Anyways. Reading this book has been especially interesting in the current political climate, especially Donald Trump's latest claim of being a 'nationalist'.

There are quite a few people who want him to be a nationalist, and yet I can't help thinking that it's like the exact opposite of what America always stood for.

Hmmm. Let me back up a bit. I was actually thinking about that in a different context, namely Trump's love of various dictators. The Philippine President Duterte, cozying up to North Korea, and his flat out refusal to speak anything bad about Putin. (You can add in the current situation in Saudi Arabia, if you want.)

I won't outright say it's a bad idea, in that I'm sort of a believer that whatever works, works. He's definitely thrown out conventional wisdom on foreign policy, and shaken things up...and the situation in North Korea has been sort of an ugly stalemate for decades.  Honestly, his policies remind me of Nixon's madman theory, and while I don't really agree with that policy, I understand intelligent people believe in it and it's the sort of thing we probably won't know whether its a good idea until decades after the fact. If even then, since people are masters at finding evidence to support their take on things.

I mean, we could learn sooner if he lands us in World War Three, of course, but for now that hasn't happened. And it seems silly to alienate all sorts of long time allies, kind of reminds me of Wilhelm Kaiser II before World War I, but again... we probably won't know the real fallout until decades later. Or unless World War III breaks out and we're left high and dry by those former allies.

Anyways, I digress. He's been speaking highly of dictators, which seems the exact opposite of what America has always stood for. It's a far cry from Ronald Reagan, who firmly stood against the Soviet Union.

And when Trump, and the Republicans, now stand for the exact opposite of what previous Republican greats (like Ronald Reagan) did...

What does it mean?

When someone claims to be a 'nationalist', and throws out all the things that made America great. Throws out the ideals we always stood for (at least in part... there's definitely been some self-interest in our foreign policy)...

Well, what makes America any different from Russia, or the Philippines, or North Korea any more?

This 'N That

I haven't posted much because, well...

I'm focusing on what I can do, I guess.  That is, I'm pretty disturbed by what I see in the news...but for the most part all I can do is vote (and contact my Congress person...which given his response last time I did, isn't going to do much good.) So I'll just show my displeasure with my vote.  And if enough other people feel the same way, then come mid-terms things may change.


I sort of feel as though things are so far past f'd up that there's no point yelling and screaming about it any more.  The people I'd want to persuade are clearly not interested in listening, or they wouldn't be doing the things they're doing in the first place.  You sort of have to be willfully ignorant (or in a pretty serious bubble) to be doing the things these guys are doing.

So whatever.  The drumbeat of war is beating, even though nobody sane wants that. 

Or rather, as Sun Tzu says -

 "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

If you truly have that level of knowledge, going to war is not necessarily a gamble.  Or it's a calculated gamble that may get the result you want.  Yet who can say that they really know the enemy and know themselves?  Historically, we're pretty lousy at that...and there's nothing worse than getting all aggressive, thinking it will be a "short, victorious war" and winding up in the deadly slog of WWI.  Maybe if you have the talent of Otto von Bismarck you can accurately assess the situation and make it happen, but if you don't you wind up losing far more than you gain.

Given our track record for the past half a century or so (Vietnam, OEF, OIF) I do not think there's any grounds for feeling confident in how well we "know the enemy and know yourself".

Honestly?  Eh...it could be Trump is an able negotiator and that acting like a crazy person will somehow end the decades long tension with North Korea.  Maybe. And even though those game theory studies show that trying to be a harda$$ tends to backfire and make things worse, maybe in the real world things will be different and what he does will work.  (I'm saying that in order to acknowledge my preconceptions on such things, and to be open to the possibility that I could be wrong). 

In some ways, I do hope I'm wrong.  I hate feeling all doom and gloom.  On the other hand, I feel there are some potential parallels between Trump and Wilhelm Kaiser II, who alienated most of Germany's allies, came across as a threat to England, and contributed greatly to the disastrous political environment leading up to WWI.

I'm not in a position to do anything about that, though...so I guess I'm just going to work on some more homework and watch more Naruto or something.

Taking An Idea Out to Look At

I start my summer classes tomorrow, and I'm kind of excited about the material.  I'll be taking three classes - the second computer programming class, a class on incident response, and a class on malware.  Should be fun.

That's not why I'm writing today, though.  I came across an article this morning that I really wanted to blog out my thoughts on.  Mostly because, if I don't blog, they seem to jumble together and not really amount to much other than "it's complicated".

The article is discussing the mechanics of what it says is a "full-on psychological war".

I almost shared this to Facebook and Twitter, but a couple of things stopped me.  First, most of the examples in the article were discussing Trump.  That means that anyone who is a Trump supporter will focus more on that, instead of considering the tactics listed and what it means.  (Articles like this all too often seem geared towards the people who already agree with them, unfortunately.  I'd love to see the same article, except with examples related to holocaust denial.  There are still enough Americans who remember grandfathers or fathers from WWII that they know holocaust denial is a bunch of crap.)

The second reason is that I don't think this 'war' is as one-sided as the author makes it sound.  That's mostly from some impressions I picked up during the 2016 election, though.

Despite those issues, I think this touches on a very real problem.  It...feels like a good explanation for what I'm seeing and hearing today.  I remember when I was in Iraq, noting one of the big issues there.  There was an incident (or maybe not), where Sunni insurgents killed some Shi'a and strung their bodies up on a lamppost.  One source said his friends saw it, while many other residents said the claim was nonsense, and aimed at inciting more violence.

So here's the thing.  Our media has it's biases, and if you are careful you can sometimes read past that.  But for the most part if an event happened, both sides reported that it happened...and the bias appears in their interpretations and explanations.  And, in some cases, with disputes over unclear facts.  That's part of why reporting that the police shot a black man is such a difficult topic.  Nobody disputes that the police shot the guy, they dispute whether it was justified or not.  That report from Iraq, however, had a very clear dispute regarding the facts.  Either bodies were hung from lamp posts, or they weren't.  One side is lying.  There is no middle ground, there is no way to reconcile this in order to account for  different perspectives.  Either it happened, and the local Sunni are so supportive of the insurgents that they lied about it, or it didn't happen and the Shi'a in the article was willing to lie instead.  (Or his friends lied to him.)

In some ways, I feel like things have degenerated to a similar state.

That's mostly where I've gotten so far.  I'm going to eat brunch and probably write more afterwards.

Russia and the US Election

I'm only going to touch on a few of the things swirling around in the news, and mostly to complain about how little I truly know.  I can't tell if I'm seeing shadows or being realistic.  Sometimes I kind of regret not being in the intelligence industry any more.


In the last 24 hours came across three really disturbing articles, when you put them all together:




First, yesterday was an article saying the Russians had asked their government officials to come back home, and bring their families with them.  Now, looking at Snopes this morning it appears it was an informal request, ostensibly because of domestic perception that officials had too many ties to the West. 




Thing is, there's a darn good reason why militaries are especially careful whenever another state is conducting 'training maneuvers' near a border.  It's hard to surprise an opponent when they know you're moving to attack, but if you can make them think something different is happening then you can gain the advantage.



So, does that mean this was something more serious than it sounds?  Who knows.  I don't have the intel access or the basic information needed to really say.  I do think that an 'informal request' from Putin would probably have the effect of a formal order, regardless of what the Russians say.  And I think the perceptions about government officials have probably been around for a while, so I don't know why this would be a major concern right now.  But who knows?  I don't know what's going on with domestic Russian politics.




So on to the second article, Russia's use of inflatable weapons and maskirovka as a strategy.  Now, the Allies used inflatable weapons during World War II to deceive the enemy, so this isn't exactly a sign that the Russians are any trickier than we are.  It does, however, mean it's wise to always look two or three times at what the Russians say they are doing.  Again, I wish I still had a clearance.  And access.




The third article is the one that really spurred writing this post...though again, it's not a direct or obvious threat.  Or rather it is...if this is Putin's roundabout and indirect way of threatening us through surrogates.  Otherwise, it's just another bit of hot air.




Basically, a Putin ally said Americans need to vote for Trump or face nuclear war.  Now, I'm not exactly a war-mongerer...but if they seriously think they can force us to vote for that jack ass all I can say is - "Bring it."

Wither Now?

https://praxis.ink/2016/08/after-trump-gop-elites-havent-realize-they-cant-return-to-the-status-quo/

Hard-heartedness

I wanted to discuss a couple things that seemed only distantly related at first.  Upon further reflection, however, I think both have to do with the human tendency to harden our hearts.  And so I kind of want to begin with a Bible quote instead (for those of you who aren't very religious, please take this as coming from someone who had a religious upbringing and finds it easier to talk about this by drawing on those experiences.  It's not meant to proselytize or convert anyone.)

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." Matthew 19:8-9

Most people discuss this one, rather obviously, when they want to talk about divorce.  Yet I want to discuss the concept of a hard heart more.  So much of the politics of today seem to require hardening your heart in one way or another.  Mostly in self-defense, I think.  After all we've all seen people begging on the streets, and most of us find some reason to ignore them.  (For me, personally, I would rather support a homeless shelter or food pantry that will hopefully be more involved in their lives and make sure my donation is used well.  In other words, I don't really trust the people asking for money on street corners.  Everything I know about the world says that's probably a good thing, yet there's an inner voice that says being able to ignore suffering when it's right in your face is not really what God asked us to do.)

I wanted to tie this in with two different topics.  The first touches on a strain of thinking I've noticed on the right.  I dated someone over a decade ago who once said he thought we should nuke the entire mid-east and turn it into glass.  At the time I ignored it, because I didn't think he truly meant what he was saying and I also knew he was not in any position to actually make it happen.  In other words, idle words by someone expressing an emotion rather than a real policy.  He was condensing an entire region down to a shallow and superficial caricature that he considered a threat, and indulging in wishful thinking.  In reality, any such plan would be horrible.  

Every region of the world has families.  Children.  Women.  Men.  Some people who may be cruel or a threat, and others who are just trying to raise their families in some semblance of peace.  There's an entire field of thought focused on what would make a 'just war', what's considered a reasonable and proportional response, and what he was suggesting was so clearly out of proportion that it wasn't even worth taking seriously.

And yet I hear comments like that, still.  Even worse, we have a presidential candidate who seems to believe the same thing.  What was almost laughable in someone with absolutely no power to make it happen becomes pretty scary when it's said by someone who could.

I understand, to a certain extent, why we harden our hearts like that.  You can't serve in the military, can't make peace with what you are being asked to do (to other human beings, albeit from an opposing force), without finding some way of closing off your empathy.  Hell, I hate terrorists so much sometimes that it kind of scares me.  The things they do are horrible.  I understand why people choose to do so, and yet I think it's in some ways a mistake.  I suppose in some ways I'm influenced by a book I read some time ago, in which the author talked about how prisoners of war were not affected by PTSD the way soldiers were, despite both dealing with awful and traumatic events (with the exception of Holocaust victims).  That part of the reason soldiers were affected was because of the things they did during the fight.  In other words, we harden our hearts to fight a war...but it has consequences.  A part of us knows that what we are doing is done to people who in other circumstances are just like us.  

I, personally, don't like to forget that.  Not because I think we should stop fighting, because if I believe it's worth fighting even knowing that, then it's truly important.  I sometimes wonder if that explains some gender differences I've heard of off and on.  No scientific studies of it, of course, and I hate to say there's a gender difference for sure.  Yet even though men do the bulk of fighting and spying I've heard that the women who get involved are often even harder and more dedicated than the men.  Spying, for example, involves lying and betraying people you are spending a lot of time with.  Time that generally leads to some sort of sense of fellowship.  That's actually really hard to do.  But if you've convinced yourself it's worth doing, worth fighting for, then it's a little easier. 

And so I can say that jihadists are human.  They have feelings, and are trying to do what they think is right.  If they gave up fighting and chose to live a quiet life in peace and security somewhere, I would be okay with that.  Maybe even pity them.  But as a movement, as a belief system that justifies murder, torture, rape and slavery...they are worth fighting against. (And we'd better make sure our own belief system doesn't justify the same sorts of things.)  And that is also why I oppose overly simplistic beliefs that justify hardening our hearts and lead us to say inhumane, stupid, and poorly thought out things like "let's nuke the middle east".

The second, related, topic goes back to my question on modern slavery.  "How can anyone justify doing that to another human being?".  Clearly, the managers and business owners that are dependent on debt bondage and control have hardened their hearts to the people working for them.  Sometimes it's necessary.  Hell, I manage people, I know exactly why and how it's necessary.  You get someone who isn't performing well, and who isn't a good fit, and who isn't really improving despite your attempts to train and develop them, and you have to let them go.  It sucks to know what sort of trauma doing so causes.  The job loss, the uncertainty, the pain of not having any money.  And if they have a family, you know it will cause all sorts of difficulty for them as well.  For children, even.  All you can do is hope that they find a better fit somewhere else, some other place where they can excel and succeed...because they clearly are not doing so where they were. 

We have this image of the good businessman as someone who makes the tough decisions - and yet to make those tough decisions, they have to harden their hearts and ignore the very human costs to the people under their responsibility.  And yet I think there's another way.  I tried finding an article I read years ago, unfortunately all my search terms come up with other studies.  It was a company that ran into trouble and had to downsize.  As my search terms indicated, there are a whole bunch of problems that come when a company lets people go.  The ones who stay are more afraid of losing their jobs, morale suffers, the company as a whole suffers.  So much so that some people debate whether downsizing really pays off.  The article I read said that this company managed to avoid most of the backlash, and they did so by opening up the decision on who to let go to their employees.  The employees met in groups, and their recommendations didn't always have to do with who was the best worker.  Sometimes it was "so-and-so has a family of four that would suffer more if they lost their job".  Yet allowing the employees that level of engagement and control meant the ones that the company as a whole did not suffer as much when they did downsize. 

And so a parallel seems apparent.  Just as a soldier hardens their heart to the enemy, and yet can probably be an effective fighter if they don't (I would even argue a 'more effective fighter', except that the type of fighter I envision won't fight for unjustified reasons...which can cause problems with discipline if you've got leadership that doesn't appreciate that), so a business man or woman hardens their heart to their employees, and yet might possibly be an effective business leader if they don't.  Perhaps even a more effective business leader. 

It goes against the grain, goes against a lot of cultural beliefs.  Just consider the pressure Costco gets for paying higher wages.  Or the backlash against that company that decided to pay it's employees $70,000 a year.

Yet what if the hard-hearted business leader is actually a bad thing?

What Threatens America - Internal Cleavages, II

Okay, okay.  Today I want to talk about Trump.  Or to be more accurate, what Trump's candidacy represents.

I have to admit that when I (reluctantly) talk about Trump I normally talk about what I actually understand.  Namely, the appeal he has for people who feel left out and ignored.  The people who feel they've lost their job to China or Mexico.

But one of the first positive responses to Trump I heard was from someone thrilled to hear a public figure say whatever he really thought.  For some, Trump's lack of political correctness is a huge part of his appeal.

I feel like this is a tricky one to address, because you either sound like you're a racist (i.e. I should be able to say what I like even if it's really hurtful to someone else, and I don't care that it bothers you so there) or you sound like a nagging parent (i.e. why can't you respect other people?)  That, or you're an apologist for racists...excusing the hurt their words and attitudes can do to people who've been hurt often enough already.  Or, on the flip side, you're an intolerant hypocrite who tries to make everyone conform to your views.

I could go on and on, but I think you know all the stereotypes.  All the ways we portray the side we don't agree with.  There's even cute little facebook memes that capture a viewpoint in one neat little picture  (I have a much harder time finding the liberal memes on political correctness, btw)

And the very difficulty we have talking about this is a sign of what a huge problem it is.  It means we are not have a national discussion, we practically can't talk about it.  Not in a caring and empathic way, one that doesn't outright dismiss the other side. 

This was something I noticed when our company had their Culture of Inclusion summit.  We spend a day and a half there, some clearly annoyed at being forced to attend, and only touched on the attendees real thoughts at the tail end when someone anonymously asked a question. 

The Starbucks attempt to start conversations about race was a disaster.  Unequivocally a failure.

And in this day and age, where we see anonymous hate and internet trolls that aren't always doing it for the lols, I think it's safe to say that we have a public consensus and some pretty powerful private dissent.  (For good or bad.  I'm trying my best not to condemn any one side right now, as this post isn't about saying who is wrong or who is right.  I'll leave that for another time.)

The Presidential Race Part I - Trump

I can't even begin to describe how disappointed I am in America.  I actually want to focus more on the Democratic primaries, but I figured I (like so many others) have to talk about Trump first.




Full disclosure - I've never been a fan of him.  Even when he was 'just' a wealthy celebrity, he seemed overblown and kind of ridiculous.  I also don't consider someone with four bankruptcies an example of good business acumen.  But whatever, clearly there are others who think differently.




As a celebrity, I was quite content to ignore his existence as much as possible. As a potential future president?!?  Not so much. There's one issue that captures in a nutshell why I'm concerned.




Let's start with a few facts.  The Berlin Wall was around 96 miles long and divided Berlin for 28 years.  In that time about 5,000 people successfully crossed the border despite the wall.  They crossed by "digging long tunnels under the Wall, waiting for favorable winds and taking a hot air balloon, sliding along aerial wires, flying ultralights and, in one instance, simply driving a sports car at full speed through the basic, initial fortifications. When a metal beam was placed at checkpoints to prevent this kind of defection, up to four people (two in the front seats and possibly two in the boot) drove under the bar in a sports car that had been modified to allow the roof and windscreen to come away when it made contact with the beam. They lay flat and kept driving forward. The East Germans then built zig-zagging roads at checkpoints. The sewer system predated the Wall, and some people escaped through the sewers, in a number of cases with assistance from the Unternehmen Reisebüro."(see Wikipedia article)



The Israeli West Bank barrier will be more than 272 miles long.  Israel also struggles to identify and prevent people from sneaking across the border.  Again, determined people will find a way - over, under or through.  There's a rather healthy debate about how effective this is, you can read up on it if you're interested.  Note as well, though, that the Israeli wall involves much more than just a wall.  You also have to have people patrolling along the wall in order to catch the various attempts to cross it.




Now, let's look at our own borders.  Note that I said "borders", plural.  I've lived near the Mexican border, and I heard from the border patrol there that they also get a number of illegal immigrants crossing through the Canadian border.  A wall only built on the Mexican side will probably just mean more people try crossing on the Canadian side.  If you truly believe a wall is necessary then you need to build it across both borders (and most likely you'll need to beef up the coast guard, as well).




So anyways.  Our border with Mexico is around 1,989 miles long.  That's over 20 times the size of the Berlin wall.  If and when the Israeli wall is complete, our Mexican border is still 7 times as long as that!




And Canada is far longer - 5,525 miles long!  That's twenty times as long as the Israeli/Palestinian wall, and 57 times the size of the Berlin wall.




So what does that mean?  Well, obviously if it's costing the Israelis over $2 billion to build a wall, it will cost us at least $14 billion to build the Mexican wall in a similar fashion (a lot depends on how much you're willing to spend to make it secure.  If you don't have enough security to prevent people from crossing over than you're wasting your money in the first place.) 


$14 billion, minimum, just for the Mexican side alone.  Add in the Canadian side and we're talking $54 billion.  Assuming similar costs, which is a big assumption as the terrain varies greatly.


I've driven somewhat close to the border, btw.  From Sierra Vista, AZ to San Diego, CA.  Or El Paso, TX.  And on one memorable occasion I've driven from Sierra Vista to Houston.  I can tell you from personal experience that it's a lot of empty desert.  A whole lot of nothing.


Which means that you also have to budget for regular stations, ones close enough to provide some sort of quick reaction force.  It will do you absolutely no good to have a sensor go off telling you that someone just tunneled under the wall or went over the wall or what-have-you if it takes two hours before someone checks it out.


Israel is small enough and well populated enough that it's probably not too hard to do so there...but how many people are you willing to pay to live along the 700+ miles between El Paso and Houston? 


The reason I bring this up is that I think ANY politician claiming they will build a wall between the US and Mexico to be disingenuous.  A wall on the border of Mexico, all by itself, will not stop illegal immigration.  It's almost a joke to say that it will, and if it's not going to be effective if it's a waste of money.  If you're serious about being effective, it would be a very expensive, resource intensive endeavor that will require more money than you'd think. 


Arguments to build a wall sound more like a way to make people feel like we're doing something.  Even if that something isn't particularly effective.  I think anyone arguing for such a wall is either feeding people what they want to hear or really doesn't know what they're talking about.