There's been a recent rash of instances where certain white politicians in Virginia have admitted to using black face in the past.
One of them also had a picture which may or may not have been him in his yearbook with a person in black face and a person in a Ku Klux Klan outfit in it. There was no caption.
These incidents happened quite a few years ago and are considered racist, apparently.
The two admitted two incidents were performances, where they portrayed a black artist in some amateur type performance or at a costume party.
First, I have never, as far as I remember, ever put on black face, but I know that in at least one elementary school play many years ago we had a performance where some of us portrayed Native Americans and some of us portrayed Cowboys and make up was used. Think we acted out a fake encounter while doing some very bad singing and dancing and mostly we were embarrassed. However, it never had anything to do with racism, whatever our opinions were in those days about Native Americans were pretty much based on movies and TV in the Bronx.
I have seen movies where minstrel shows were portrayed and the cast were in black face and of course in the Jazz Singer we see a pretty famous performance involving black face. Accepting that racism was pretty widespread in those years, it never seemed to me that these portrayals had anything to do with it, or in fact anything to do with actual black people.
So what I'm trying to figure out is why portraying a black artist in a private event is in fact racist.
Both portrayals were probably at best terrible but the intent wasn't to degrade the people portrayed, they were actually emulating them.
If a drag queen dresses up as Cher, is that some sort of anti-female act, or is it just entertainment?
I'm not advocating the use of black face but after all it is just make up and the message conveyed wearing it would be the more important thing.
It is certainly getting a lot of time on various news channels but it just seems like something done by young stupid (being young and stupid is redundant) people who don't seem to have had any bad intent.
Is it worth all this angst?
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
State of the Union
Just didn't get much out of the State of the Union address that I wasn't already aware of.
It just seems that most of the positive trends started under the previous administration and have continued despite current efforts. Obviously that not completely true, but considering how little has been done in the last two years, its true more than false.
The economy is doing OK, not great, just OK. It was in free fall in 2008 and 2009 and the actions designed to save it worked, although not immediately. Also some areas are going to be permanently changed and the low skilled high paid manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past. Most of those people have been forced to find lower paying service jobs which has reduced their standard of living. Skilled people are in fact doing well, but they already were.
What is needed is a push to open new industries for the future and provide better skills training in our schools.
We just don't have a border crisis and the efforts to say we do are simply misspent effort. We do have a potential infrastructure crisis, and we need to start fixing it, but so far despite rhetoric, no significant progress has been made.
What's going on in foreign policy is a real mixed bag and the war against ISIS is hardly over. The strategies of the last two years were continuation of what we were already doing. We may have prompted some additional NATO spending, or else it was prompted by more uncertainty in Europe. We see Russia continue its aggressive policies and we have pulled out of a nuclear treaty that may have been ineffective but now its non-existent. In Asia, we have heightened tensions with China in Trade and territory disputes and maybe some improvement with North Korea (or maybe not).
We haven't seen any real progress in health care or prescription drugs and its unlikely that we will. I hope I am wrong on this but I don't think I am.
He asked for bipartisanship but his view of that is that everyone do what he wants.
He touched on some hot button issues like abortion, making the courts more conservative, reducing regulations that are clearly partisan issues. He seems to be aware that he has to reach our a bit past his base if he hopes to get re-elected, but not sure he knows how.
Time will tell.
It just seems that most of the positive trends started under the previous administration and have continued despite current efforts. Obviously that not completely true, but considering how little has been done in the last two years, its true more than false.
The economy is doing OK, not great, just OK. It was in free fall in 2008 and 2009 and the actions designed to save it worked, although not immediately. Also some areas are going to be permanently changed and the low skilled high paid manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past. Most of those people have been forced to find lower paying service jobs which has reduced their standard of living. Skilled people are in fact doing well, but they already were.
What is needed is a push to open new industries for the future and provide better skills training in our schools.
We just don't have a border crisis and the efforts to say we do are simply misspent effort. We do have a potential infrastructure crisis, and we need to start fixing it, but so far despite rhetoric, no significant progress has been made.
What's going on in foreign policy is a real mixed bag and the war against ISIS is hardly over. The strategies of the last two years were continuation of what we were already doing. We may have prompted some additional NATO spending, or else it was prompted by more uncertainty in Europe. We see Russia continue its aggressive policies and we have pulled out of a nuclear treaty that may have been ineffective but now its non-existent. In Asia, we have heightened tensions with China in Trade and territory disputes and maybe some improvement with North Korea (or maybe not).
We haven't seen any real progress in health care or prescription drugs and its unlikely that we will. I hope I am wrong on this but I don't think I am.
He asked for bipartisanship but his view of that is that everyone do what he wants.
He touched on some hot button issues like abortion, making the courts more conservative, reducing regulations that are clearly partisan issues. He seems to be aware that he has to reach our a bit past his base if he hopes to get re-elected, but not sure he knows how.
Time will tell.
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Who Benefits
Your perception of things is clearly influenced by your environment.
If you look at color coded maps of the last presidential election you see a solid block of red in large areas with blue on the coasts and Illinois.
Many of the red states do not have major metropolitan areas. They do have cities, an generally the cities show up as little blue islands if you expand the map, but the cities do not dominate those states.
In a city the benefits of Government are most evident. They may not be as effective as people would want but if you consider the anarchy that would occur in the absence of Government you realize how needed it is.
In the country you can imagine a world without Government, although they generally depend on it more than they realize.
Nevertheless, less Government is appealing and certainly the appeal of lower taxes attracts many.
Its fairly easy for them to believe that a lot of the taxes they pay end up subsidizing undeserving people in those very cities, although the statistics show a different story.
The states that get back less than they pay to the Federal Government are mostly those blue states. You can see the numbers in the article I linked to.
States Net Benefit
The idea that big Government is mostly benefitting the undeserving is of course a myth that is perpetrated.
It really doesn't.
If you look at color coded maps of the last presidential election you see a solid block of red in large areas with blue on the coasts and Illinois.
Many of the red states do not have major metropolitan areas. They do have cities, an generally the cities show up as little blue islands if you expand the map, but the cities do not dominate those states.
In a city the benefits of Government are most evident. They may not be as effective as people would want but if you consider the anarchy that would occur in the absence of Government you realize how needed it is.
In the country you can imagine a world without Government, although they generally depend on it more than they realize.
Nevertheless, less Government is appealing and certainly the appeal of lower taxes attracts many.
Its fairly easy for them to believe that a lot of the taxes they pay end up subsidizing undeserving people in those very cities, although the statistics show a different story.
The states that get back less than they pay to the Federal Government are mostly those blue states. You can see the numbers in the article I linked to.
States Net Benefit
The idea that big Government is mostly benefitting the undeserving is of course a myth that is perpetrated.
It really doesn't.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Infrastructure Repair
One of the things we all rely on but which might not be as reliable as it should be is the infrastructure on which our transportation rests.
It is a bipartisan issue that impacts everyone in many ways.
It certainly has more payoff than a useless wall on the border.
We don't actually ignore infrastructure, as anyone who has been stuck in traffic due to a work zone, but we aren't fixing it or building new infrastructure fast enough.
The problem is simply money.
The last time the federal excise tax on gasoline was increased was 1993. It has been 18.4 cents a gallon and while not one wants to increase the cost of gasoline, it might be needed after 25 years.
Less potholes or a wall on the southern border.
I know what I would prefer.
It is a bipartisan issue that impacts everyone in many ways.
It certainly has more payoff than a useless wall on the border.
We don't actually ignore infrastructure, as anyone who has been stuck in traffic due to a work zone, but we aren't fixing it or building new infrastructure fast enough.
The problem is simply money.
The last time the federal excise tax on gasoline was increased was 1993. It has been 18.4 cents a gallon and while not one wants to increase the cost of gasoline, it might be needed after 25 years.
Less potholes or a wall on the southern border.
I know what I would prefer.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Robin Hood Democrats?
Most of us are aware of the story of Robin Hood, a person who robbed from the rich to give to the poor.
While most likely fictional, it has resonated over the years as a popular story and has inspired a number of books and movies.
This popular legend resonates because it was pretty clear that the rich of that time exploited the labor of the serfs who worked their lands.
The rich exploiting the poor is something that has happened almost everywhere almost always.
It has led to significant disruptions, think the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution to name two.
However the system has always ultimately reverted back to this model, as some of us manage to excel and surpass the rest of us in acquiring wealth.
I don't think too many of us object to the people who do this, like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet. They managed to create their own money and they certainly have the right to enjoy it.
What strikes many as unfair is how profits are distributed among those who generate them. If you look at the statistics you see a number of trends which basically tell you the rich get richer and the poor are standing still at best.
One example would be CEO pay vs average worker pay. In 1965 CEO's made about 25 times what the average worker made. On average they now make closer to 200 times as much. Have CEO's become that much better?
The problem of wage inequality is further compounded by the wealth inequality. The average American has seen his wealth increase except of course the average hides a disturbing fact. All that increase went to those in the upper percentiles while those in the bottom saw wealth stay the same or even decrease.
In the last election we saw the current President tap into the discontent this has sown by promising to reverse that trend, however he has passed a tax bill that increases is.
The next election may see a whole different populist approach to fixing the problem, call it the Robin Hood one, or if you oppose it you might call it a socialist approach.
We'll see.
While most likely fictional, it has resonated over the years as a popular story and has inspired a number of books and movies.
This popular legend resonates because it was pretty clear that the rich of that time exploited the labor of the serfs who worked their lands.
The rich exploiting the poor is something that has happened almost everywhere almost always.
It has led to significant disruptions, think the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution to name two.
However the system has always ultimately reverted back to this model, as some of us manage to excel and surpass the rest of us in acquiring wealth.
I don't think too many of us object to the people who do this, like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet. They managed to create their own money and they certainly have the right to enjoy it.
What strikes many as unfair is how profits are distributed among those who generate them. If you look at the statistics you see a number of trends which basically tell you the rich get richer and the poor are standing still at best.
One example would be CEO pay vs average worker pay. In 1965 CEO's made about 25 times what the average worker made. On average they now make closer to 200 times as much. Have CEO's become that much better?
The problem of wage inequality is further compounded by the wealth inequality. The average American has seen his wealth increase except of course the average hides a disturbing fact. All that increase went to those in the upper percentiles while those in the bottom saw wealth stay the same or even decrease.
In the last election we saw the current President tap into the discontent this has sown by promising to reverse that trend, however he has passed a tax bill that increases is.
The next election may see a whole different populist approach to fixing the problem, call it the Robin Hood one, or if you oppose it you might call it a socialist approach.
We'll see.
Saturday, February 2, 2019
How About a Big Fan?
Why are we building a wall on the Southern Border when the Polar Vortex just crossed our Northern Border and was responsible for major disruptions and multiple deaths?
At this time of year I would much rather have weather cross into this country over our Southern Border!
I was thinking about how to stop something like these weather events when we get invaded by cold from the north in the winter and various nasty events from the south in the summer.
Why not a wall of border fans?
It wouldn't probably have any impact on the weather but it would make us feel like we were trying and who is going to run thought a bunch of spinning blades to sneak across the border?
They would have to be reversible so we could blow hot or cold, depending.
I suspect it might impact some migratory animals but I'm sure we can deal with that.
Just blow that Polar Vortex back to where it belongs.
Use warm Mexican weather to combat it, could be part of a trade agreement.
Canada could return the favor in the summer.
Since both would benefit, I'm sure they would be happy to finance the fan walls!
It is pretty clearly something that won't actually work, and it would be very expensive to build and maintain, but it isn't the first such proposal!
Certainly seems easier than actually working the underlying issues impacting climate change.
At this time of year I would much rather have weather cross into this country over our Southern Border!
I was thinking about how to stop something like these weather events when we get invaded by cold from the north in the winter and various nasty events from the south in the summer.
Why not a wall of border fans?
It wouldn't probably have any impact on the weather but it would make us feel like we were trying and who is going to run thought a bunch of spinning blades to sneak across the border?
They would have to be reversible so we could blow hot or cold, depending.
I suspect it might impact some migratory animals but I'm sure we can deal with that.
Just blow that Polar Vortex back to where it belongs.
Use warm Mexican weather to combat it, could be part of a trade agreement.
Canada could return the favor in the summer.
Since both would benefit, I'm sure they would be happy to finance the fan walls!
It is pretty clearly something that won't actually work, and it would be very expensive to build and maintain, but it isn't the first such proposal!
Certainly seems easier than actually working the underlying issues impacting climate change.
Friday, February 1, 2019
Scorecard 2
This is a continuation of sorts of my evaluations from yesterday.
In the environmental arena the administration maintains that the impact of human activity is not as significant as almost all scientists maintain. They have rolled back what they consider unnecessary anti-competitive restrictions that were designed to reduce global warming. In addition they have withdrawn from the Paris accord which they felt penalized America. Many of these action's are being challenged in the courts and almost all of it was done by executive order or agency policy. It hasn't resulted in a revival of the coal industry, one of the stated aims. To the extent the executive orders stick, they may have helped some industries who explore and exploit carbon reserves, but generally much of what they were trying to do is happening because of economic forces. With natural gas being cheaper and cleaner, few new coal plants are being built.
Health Care has been an area where they have been unable to achieve their stated objectives, namely to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Whether that was a worthwhile goal is another question. They admittedly got close and lost because of a single Senate vote. They have taken actions to weaken it and have eliminated the penalty for not having insurance. We certainly have not replaced it with a "much better" system and after the last election the debate has certainly changed.
They have also not been able to build a border wall that was promoted and touted as being paid for by Mexico. That is still in negotiation although the chances right now don't look likely. Whether such a wall would be effective or not is questionable, it just hasn't been funded
The stated objective of improving America's trade deals is a mixed bag. New agreements seem imminent with Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA and at the very least it has updated areas that were not of concern when the original agreement was signed. Are they significantly better? I don't think we will know that until they are implemented. We have withdrawn from the trans-pacific agreement which gives some of our competitors an advantage and we have ongoing issues with China and other countries over tariffs. Good or bad remains to be seen.
In foreign affairs we have withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal although most indications are they were complying with it and have imposed additional sanctions. There may or may not be improvement in our relationship with North Korea, although at this time it has not resulted in any notable reductions in their nuclear capability. Some of our interactions with our allies have deteriorated although the long term outlook is unclear.
It is the midway point of the administration and the next two years it is going to deal with a divided congress. Considering that it's party controlled both houses for the first two years, it didn't accomplish much of significance except the tax package. That may be a good thing considering how you feel about the stated goals but its clear that it has a shortage of skills needed to get things passed.
So I would say it is about a C at this point, which is pretty generous. Certainly not the most effective president ever.
In the environmental arena the administration maintains that the impact of human activity is not as significant as almost all scientists maintain. They have rolled back what they consider unnecessary anti-competitive restrictions that were designed to reduce global warming. In addition they have withdrawn from the Paris accord which they felt penalized America. Many of these action's are being challenged in the courts and almost all of it was done by executive order or agency policy. It hasn't resulted in a revival of the coal industry, one of the stated aims. To the extent the executive orders stick, they may have helped some industries who explore and exploit carbon reserves, but generally much of what they were trying to do is happening because of economic forces. With natural gas being cheaper and cleaner, few new coal plants are being built.
Health Care has been an area where they have been unable to achieve their stated objectives, namely to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Whether that was a worthwhile goal is another question. They admittedly got close and lost because of a single Senate vote. They have taken actions to weaken it and have eliminated the penalty for not having insurance. We certainly have not replaced it with a "much better" system and after the last election the debate has certainly changed.
They have also not been able to build a border wall that was promoted and touted as being paid for by Mexico. That is still in negotiation although the chances right now don't look likely. Whether such a wall would be effective or not is questionable, it just hasn't been funded
The stated objective of improving America's trade deals is a mixed bag. New agreements seem imminent with Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA and at the very least it has updated areas that were not of concern when the original agreement was signed. Are they significantly better? I don't think we will know that until they are implemented. We have withdrawn from the trans-pacific agreement which gives some of our competitors an advantage and we have ongoing issues with China and other countries over tariffs. Good or bad remains to be seen.
In foreign affairs we have withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal although most indications are they were complying with it and have imposed additional sanctions. There may or may not be improvement in our relationship with North Korea, although at this time it has not resulted in any notable reductions in their nuclear capability. Some of our interactions with our allies have deteriorated although the long term outlook is unclear.
It is the midway point of the administration and the next two years it is going to deal with a divided congress. Considering that it's party controlled both houses for the first two years, it didn't accomplish much of significance except the tax package. That may be a good thing considering how you feel about the stated goals but its clear that it has a shortage of skills needed to get things passed.
So I would say it is about a C at this point, which is pretty generous. Certainly not the most effective president ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)