Happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day

From “Columbus Day now Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Cambridge” (Boston Globe):

The Cambridge City Council has voted unanimously to change Christopher Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

Councilor Nadeem Mazen, who proposed the idea, said it is important to reclaim the day for Native Americans, thousands of whom were killed under Columbus’s leadership when he came to the New World.

At the end of the discussion and vote Monday night, Mayor E. Denise Simmons had a simple message for the council: “This is a very important day in Cambridge.”

The official city notice says

In June 2016, the Cambridge City Council adopted Policy Order #164 noting that the Council go on the record to state that the second Monday of October henceforth be commemorated as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Cambridge, in recognition of the indigenous people of America’s position as native to these lands, and the suffering they faced following European conquest of their land.

It doesn’t seem that anyone proposed building houses or apartments in Cambridge in which Native Americans might live. Census Data show that, as of 2010, there were at most 0.2 percent “American Indians” among the city’s population (the Census Bureau is apparently lagging in the political correctness department).

Full post, including comments

Did Donald Trump do any better in this debate than in the last one?

Folks:

I was staying in the Trump Hotel in Chicago (magnificent) during the last presidential debate so I felt compelled to watch at least some (see Presidential Debate Thoughts: Did Trump miss some simple answers?). However, tonight I am home and reverting to my usual practice of not spending time watching or listening to politicians.

The transcript seems to indicate a collapse of American decorum, e.g., “Moderator: For the record, are you saying what you said on the bus 11 years ago that you did not kiss women without consent or grope women without consent.”

A few more things that have jumped out at me so far…

Hillary Clinton cites Michelle Obama, the spouse of a politician. This underlines the difference between the U.S. and parliamentary democracies (in which nobody is interested in what the spouse of the Prime Minister might have to say about politics; Germans aren’t listening to speeches by Angela Merkel’s husband and Margaret Thatcher’s husband was not cited by British politicians).

More discussion of Barack Obama’s birthplace. Can that be relevant to the challenge of growing our economy faster than our population, something that we’ve failed to do recently?

Finally a question that might matter: “The Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare, it is not affordable. Premiums have gone up. Deductibles have gone up. Copays have gone up. Prescriptions have gone up and the coverage has gone down. What will you do to bring the cost down, and make coverage better?”

Hillary says that she is happy that there are no limits to how much can be wasted on medical care for any given person (presumably most of what is spent is waste). Her idea for controlling the cost is to raise participation in this system from 90 percent of the U.S. population to 100 percent. Essentially she has no answer to the biggest economic problem facing the U.S. (i.e., that we spend 2-4X as much on health care as the high-growth and high-wealth economies, with no better results).

Donald Trump points out that “Obamacare will never work. It’s very bad. Very bad health insurance. Far too expensive. And not only expensive for the person that has it, unbelievably expensive for our country. One of the biggest line items very shortly. We have to repeal it. And replace it. With something absolutely much less expensive.” Absent spectacular economic growth, this is unarguably true.

Specific remedies? Donald Trump starts by suggesting repealing Obamacare, which leaves us with the old oligopolistic system. He then talks about giving block grants to states for Medicaid, which doesn’t address the bigger expense of Medicare.

On Muslim immigration: Hillary points out that Muhammad Ali was a successful citizen. Donald Trump says build a “safe zone” somewhere other than the U.S. for Muslims fleeing their civil wars and have the gulf Arabs pay for the zones. Trump says “hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria when we know nothing about them. We know nothing about their values and we know nothing about their love for our country.” Hillary responds that she has seen pictures of “children suffering in this catastrophic war.” She blames the Russians. [But isn’t the U.S. to blame as well? If we weren’t propping up various factions in Syria, mightn’t the government there, with Russian assistance, be able to win the civil war and restore order, if not democracy? Wars never lasted this long in the old days because someone would lose.]

Folks who watched instead of simply read the transcript: Is this debate going to change anything?

 

Full post, including comments

Old guys and hot microphones

Some Facebook friends were having a discussion of a recording of Donald Trump’s private conversation in 2005. A Texas resident (and Hillary supporter, as it happens) opened with “The only thing I find remarkable about the debate about Mr. Trump’s audio and video recordings from the last few years is that so many men claim to be surprised about it.” A liberal New Yorker male feminist immediately attacked her with “Wow, L. That’s really sexist.” The funniest part of the discussion was a link to this Bill Burr video about old people out of sync with modern political views.

Most of the comments were actually by men saying that they would never do or say anything bad. Or maybe they did a few decades ago, before they became enlightened by Obama and Hillary, but nowhere near as bad as stuff that Donald Trump does and says. None of these guys judging the Donald had stacks of cash, private jets, two Sikorsky S-76 helicopters, celebrity, rich friends, or a circle of attractive young women anxious to join that party, but they were confident that they would behave well if they did. It was sort of an inverse Ring of Gyges fable.

In response to “Private guy talk. Pretty tame stuff. Of course, I lived in a fraternity house at a major university for two years,” here’s one salaryman’s condemnation of the billionaire:

The fact that it doesn’t bother you is a significant part of the problem. Sounds like you’ve been enculturated, perhaps through your fraternity experience or elsewhere, that this sort of thing is okay in a fraternity or anywhere else, for that matter. I reject that notion wholesale. I support your freedom of speech to say this sort of thing, but I am also free to observe that it is clearly demeaning to women and wouldn’t want my daughters exposed to it in any context, particularly in a business setting where it undermines their rights and opportunities. In shorthand, a clear indicator of what many describe as ‘Rape Culture.’

I would also add that what might seem okay in an all teen male fraternity environment is hopefully something that adult men can grow beyond as they mature and are socialized to interact with women on a more equal socio-economic basis. To see it in a middle age adult in a business setting is, candidly, disgusting, and would be grounds for immediate dismissal from any company I would respect.

Thankfully, none of my friends or the groups I’ve had the good fortune to frequent over the last thirty plus years are even a tiny fraction so crass or insensitive to women. Though I think this presidential race is certainly demonstrating that many seem to think as you do, but clearly, even more are as opposed to such behavior as I am. Maybe you could look beyond your current haunts for better, more forward looking role models? Come visit!

I think the way all of this is playing out is an illustration of the genius of Max Weber, who wouldn’t have been at all surprised to see how people whose paychecks depending on keeping a position within a bureaucracy will adjust their speech and, eventually, their thought processes.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Get Hamilton tickets by applying for a job as an actor?

I was recently in Chicago as part of my software expert witness life. Around the corner the musical Hamilton was opening and people were lining up to purchase tickets for 6-12 months in the future. Given that the producers have historically cast only black actors in certain roles I am wondering if a passionate (white) musical theater fan couldn’t shortcut the line by applying to play Aaron Burr or George Washington, including a photo of a boring white male face. Once rejected for the job, the fan files a race discrimination employment lawsuit and agrees to settle the case for a few mid-orchestra seats.

There is presumably a flaw in the above scheme but I am not sure what it is.

[Separately, the theater is in a Hampton Inn. At least for the duration of the show would it make sense for the hotel to be renamed the “HamiltInn”?]

Full post, including comments

Financial support for a plaintiff worth $200 million

This article on the Angelina Jolie divorce lawsuit (previous posting) is kind of interesting for the light it sheds on the American divorce industry:

As of October 8, The Richest claims [the defendant] is worth $240 million while Jolie is worth a bit less with an estimated net worth of $200 million.

[the defendant] and Angelina Jolie were attempting to sort out an agreement for the division of their properties, temporary support for Jolie and the kids, and permanent financial support for the family.

In other words, if this doesn’t settle, taxpayers will be funding judges and other court personnel to sort out the question of the extent to which a person with $200 million in assets needs financial assistance in order to take care of a few children on a part-time basis.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Meet for coffee in Palo Alto at 5 pm on Wednesday, October 12?

If you would like to meet for coffee in downtown Palo Alto at 5 pm on Wednesday, October 12, please email me (philg@mit.edu) to arrange a precise place. I have dinner at Jing Jing at 6:45 pm.

Update: Because I can’t bear the idea of paying less than $5 per cup of coffee or the idea that a machine might do the dripping of hot water… Blue Bottle Coffee on University Avenue in the old theater building. Yelp reviews say that there is a nice courtyard.

Further Update: Pete’s just west of Blue Bottle (closed for private event).

Full post, including comments

San Francisco Bay Area traffic

A friend linked to “Bay Area Traffic Up 70 Percent In 6 Years” from her Facebook status. She is a nurse who commutes from the East Bay to the city. Here’s what she said: “Leaving at 0510 these days to hit the bridge before major back ups! Still taking about 45-55 mins for the 22 mile trek.”

Would it make sense to let the big employers build high-rise dorms right next to their offices? (Right now that wouldn’t be possible, presumably, due to zoning restrictions.) So Facebook would have a 30-story tower in place of a current parking lot. Just imagine how many cars could be taken off the road if every company had dorms big enough for at least half of the employees (might not work that great for workers with children, but most of these firms seek to hire primarily the young and childless).

Full post, including comments

Correlation between religious observance and parental divorce (and voting for Democrats)

“How decades of divorce helped erode religion” (Washington Post) is kind of interesting for those interested in statistics and/or the evolution of American society away from two-parent households for children:

People whose parents divorced when they were children are significantly more likely to grow up not to be religious as adults, the study found. Thirty-five percent of the children of divorced parents told pollsters they are now nonreligious, compared with 23 percent of people whose parents were married when they were children.

A link from the article points out that Americans who don’t identify with any religion are reliable voters for Democrats. Thus the Democrats could ensure long-term national political dominance by adjusting state law to make divorce more lucrative (the more cash that can be obtained from a divorce lawsuit, the more likely a plaintiff is to file one).

The cited study may be limited going forward because it doesn’t seem to account for the modern-day trend of family court litigation between people who were never married to begin with.

Full post, including comments