Home country: U.S.A
Current location: sun,sea,sand
Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 2,608
Home country: U.S.A
Current location: sun,sea,sand
Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 2,608
"Dedicate yourself to the good you deserve and desire for yourself. Give yourself peace of mind. You deserve to be happy. You deserve delight." - Hannah Arendt
"When white people are hurting economically we’re supposed to feel their pain and “bring the jobs back” to their dying rural towns. But when people of color lack jobs in the cities (in large part because of the decline of manufacturing over 40 plus years, as well as discrimination) we tell them to “move,” to go to school and gain new skills, and we lecture them on pulling themselves up by their bootstraps because the government doesn’t owe them anything. But apparently we DO owe white coal miners and assembly line workers their jobs back because remember, out of work white men are “salt of the earth” while out of work people of color are lazy."
- Tim Wise
Posted by JHan | Tue Feb 21, 2017, 11:33 AM (49 replies)
A great read from start to finish, if I could post the entire essay I would....
What Liberals Don't Get About Free Speech In The Age of Trump by Katherine Cross
"Why have so few talked in detail about Milo’s specific acts of hate, from sexual harassing a blogger and supporting the abuse of Gamergate, to using derogatory slurs and anti-Semitic symbols, playing a role in the rise of hate crimes against Jewish people?
Why was there no battalion of op-eds in major newspapers about Adelaide Kramer, the trans woman Yiannopoulos harassed off of UW’s campus after he devoted the better part of his address there to attacking and slandering her? Whither her free speech, or her right to the education at UW that she had earned on her merits? Coverage of her story was limited mostly to online opinion outlets and Teen Vogue. Yiannopoulos warranted an editorial from the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board.
...where *were these noble defenders of liberty — from eggs on Twitter to carefully manicured beards at The Guardian when it emerged that US Customs and Border Patrol were searching the phones of certain people of color to see if they had criticized Trump on social media?
You can think whatever you like, and even say it without fear of government reprisal, but when you introduce force-multipliers for speech into the equation, things begin to get very hazy indeed. You have a right to a view; do you have a right to pronounce it to millions of New York Times readers, however? No. ....
To speak to so vast an audience is a privilege, not a right. To speak through a newspaper or magazine column, a TV talk show, an interview on national TV, a speech at a university, or a primetime debate program, is, by its very nature, a privilege not open to all. There are billions of people on this planet, each speaking their views at any one time, but they can’t all appear on the Today show. Once again, we intuitively grasp this basic logistical matter, but forget about it entirely when a raving bigot shows up, feeling cornered by an abstract principle into insisting that he or she be given not only space to speak, but the largest possible platform and audience for it.
It has been the pride of my life to be able to write editorial copy and speak at universities and conferences around the world. I do not, however, delude myself into thinking I have a right to any of these things. They are privileges I have earned. I have a right to the views I espouse here; I do not have a specific right to force the editors of The Establishment to use their platform for that espousal.
The same applies to Yiannopoulos at Berkeley. What people are really arguing about is whether Yiannopoulos has a right to be paid to go on a speaking tour, complete with hotels, a bus (yes, really), and an entourage. That is a separate question from whether he has a right to hold his views; he could spread them, as so many do, from street corners and subway stations. He does not have a specific right to any particular rarefied rostrum, however.
One of the biggest problems with mainstream liberalism is its fetish for abstract principle over material reality. It is prone to forgetting that in a democracy, principles exist as a means to an end: the guarantee of maximal rights and liberties for the greatest number of people. ...
What liberalism’s fetish for abstraction does, however, is leave it woefully unprepared for rights conflicts, which are inevitable in a complex society. At some point, one person’s exercise of their rights will come into conflict with another person exercising theirs, and this dispute must be adjudicated upon. Someone’s rights will be abridged as a result, which will be necessary to guaranteeing democracy’s stated aims.
The right to free speech is essential; it is very, very far from abstract. Ask anyone who had their phone searched at a border crossing this past week. That scenario is the very reason we have a First Amendment: uniformed, armed officers of the state, searching the correspondence of a civilian to see whether they criticized the president, punishing them if offending material is found. More than anything our First Amendment exists to protect the rights of the ordinary person to criticize those in power without fear of reprisal from the state. Yet instead we debate the right of an already rich man to use his exalted platform to take away the speech rights of others.
This is largely because liberal abstraction — and its counterparts on the political right — are very shy about delving into the specifics of any one case, lest it complicate an otherwise triumphantly straightforward argument.
So many people are hung up on Yiannopoulos’ right to free speech (without enumerating the specifics, e.g. a right to this platform, a right to payment from this institution, et cetera, none of which are democratic rights per se), while ignoring the rights his hate-mongering specifically abridges. This recent editorial in The Guardian by Matthew d’Ancona does not even try to reckon with the rights-conflict issue raised by Yiannopoulos’ planned Berkeley rally, and it’s quite typical in that regard. For the principle-obsessed pseudo-civil-libertarian, details only confuse the matter. D’Ancona merely gestures at it through yet more generalizing language, saying: “In a pluralist society, the line of least resistance is to shield citizens from offence. The problem is that everyone is offended by something, or by many things.” But this discourse of “offence” is a refuge for those who do not wish to speak of substance.
Posted by JHan | Sun Feb 12, 2017, 08:09 PM (8 replies)
"Liberties aren't given, they are taken" - Huxley
"Action comes from keeping the heat on. No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."- Alinsky.
Kurt should know better, and he was proper schooled. This is not the time for respectability politics:
Posted by JHan | Sat Feb 11, 2017, 01:32 AM (5 replies)
He also knew many would be duped by it because of their worldview of the West, but it's right out of the USSR propaganda playbook: "Whataboutism" - the goal of which is to *silence dissent and/or criticism by fostering uncertainty using conspiracy theories and false equivalency arguments.
Whataboutism is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world....It represents a case of tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy,...a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.
And also EVERYTHING in this video:
Posted by JHan | Mon Feb 6, 2017, 01:40 AM (55 replies)
.. the urgency of making a statement about the Bowling Green Massacre. His silence is deafening. He needs to talk more and more about this.
To his credit, his meme game is strong: https://twitter.com/FDouglass2020/status/827545751781666817
Posted by JHan | Fri Feb 3, 2017, 12:36 PM (2 replies)
The glory that is black twitter:
Posted by JHan | Thu Feb 2, 2017, 08:31 PM (15 replies)
They used it far too effectively against Obama.
If they remove it now, it's on them.
So let's raise the stakes for 2018 and 2020.
We have to recapture Congress and the Presidency, and if Republicans remove the filibuster now, whenever they're in the minority they'll have fewer tools of obstructionism on hand to frustrate a Democratic President.
Posted by JHan | Wed Feb 1, 2017, 05:13 PM (10 replies)
I have to begin by saying my original plan for this visit was to focus on our agenda to help small businesses and entrepreneurs. This week we proposed new steps to cut red tape and taxes to make it easier for small businesses to get the credit they need to grow and hire.
I want to be a small business president. My father was a small business man. And I believe that in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it.
And so, we’ll be talking a lot more about small business and about our economic plans in the days and weeks ahead.
But today, here in this community college devoted to opening minds and creating great understanding of the world of which we live, I want to address something that I am hearing about from Americans all over our country.
Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election.
And I understand that concern, because it’s like nothing we’ve heard before from a nominee for president of the United States from one of our two major parties.
From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia.
He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.
His disregard for the values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.
In just this past week, under the guise of “outreach” to African Americans, Trump has stood up in front of largely white audiences and described black communities in such insulting and ignorant terms:
“Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen." Right now," he said, "you walk down the street and get shot.”
Those are his words.
But when I hear them, I think to myself: How sad. Donald Trump misses so much.
He doesn’t see the success of black leaders in every field, the vibrancy of black-owned businesses, the strength of the black church.
He doesn’t see the excellence of historically black colleges and universities or the pride of black parents watching their children thrive. And he apparently didn't see Police Chief Brown on television after the murders of five of his officers conducting himself with such dignity. He certainly doesn’t have any solutions to take on the reality of systemic racism and create more equity and opportunity in communities of color and for every American.
It really does take a lot of nerve to ask people he’s ignored and mistreated for decades, “What do you have to lose?” Because the answer is: Everything.
Now, Trump’s lack of knowledge or experience or solutions would be bad enough.
But what he’s doing here is more sinister.
Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.
It’s a disturbing preview of what kind of president he’d be.
And that's what I want to make clear today:
A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military.
Ask yourself, if he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?
Now, I know some people still want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
They hope that he will eventually reinvent himself – that there’s a kinder, gentler, more responsible Donald Trump waiting in the wings somewhere.
Because after all, it’s hard to believe anyone – let alone a nominee for president – could really believe all the things he says.
But the hard truth is, there’s no other Donald Trump. This is it.
Like she repeated this over and over and over and over.
She got criticized for this speech and there was backlash. She was too "harsh", she was "descending to his level" they said.
Chris Matthews got in on the action and while discussing the speech with ex GOP Chairman Michael Steele, lamented that it dragged politics to a level it shouldn't be and he and Michael agreed that Hillary was wrong. Trump's gaslighting had so infected political media, the pundits couldn't see the truth if it slapped them in the face.Maybe Chris should eat crow now, because this speech was prescient about the dangers of a Trump presidency.
Hillary warned us time and time again about Trump, and was criticized for being too negative and too "anti- trump" even when her speeches weren't all about Trump. In fact, most of her speeches were about her policy positions and plans but the media didn't have time to discuss such unimportant things.
It is important to be ANTI TRUMP because of what he represents. He is a throwback, a dying breed of American who looks back instead of forward. He is regressive and autocratic and wants to hold on to an old tired view of the world that is tribalistic, nationalistic and provincial - to do so he will allow religious theocracy to take hold, he will fuck the environment over and justify doing so because it's a god given right, and wealth=right in his mind. He'll allow backward right-libertarian ideologues to steer policy and crush socialism in favor of feudalism and he will starve green energy initiatives in favor of extractive industries. He will turn his back to the promise of 21st century civilisation: Liberalism - open markets, green energy, cosmopolitanism, diversity, secularism, a vast social safety net, democracy.
The true progressive position is to be AntiTrump and all he stands for, on that score Hillary was right.
Posted by JHan | Wed Feb 1, 2017, 01:49 PM (137 replies)
Robots Are Taking Over Oil Rigs
by David Wethe, January 24, 2017
The robot on an oil drillship in the Gulf of Mexico made it easier for Mark Rodgers to do his job stringing together heavy, dirty pipes. It could also be a reason he’s not working there today.
The Iron Roughneck, made by National Oilwell Varco Inc., automates the repetitive and dangerous task of connecting hundreds of segments of drill pipe as they’re shoved through miles of ocean water and oil-bearing rock. The machine has also cut to two from three the need for roustabouts, estimates Rodgers, who took a job repairing appliances after being laid off from Transocean Ltd.
“I’d love to go back offshore,” he says. The odds are against him. As the global oil industry begins to climb out of a collapse that took 440,000 jobs, anywhere from a third to half may never come back. A combination of more efficient drilling rigs and increased automation is reducing the need for field hands. And therein lies a warning to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has predicted a flood of new energy-sector jobs under his watch.
Automation, of course, has revolutionized many industries, from auto manufacturing to food and clothing makers. Energy companies, which rely on large, complex equipment for drilling and maintaining oil wells, are particularly well-positioned to benefit, says Dennis Yang, chief executive officer of Udemy, a company in San Francisco that trains workers whose careers were derailed by advanced machinery.
“It used to be you had a toolbox full of wrenches and tubing benders,” says Donald McLain, chairman of the industrial-programs department at Victoria College in south Texas. “Now your main tool is a laptop.” McLain, who worked as a rig hand for 25 years, is helping to retrain laid-off oil workers for more technical jobs.
Automation-related jobs for software specialists and data technicians are in demand as the oil industry recovers, said Janette Marx, chief operating officer of Airswift, an oilfield recruiter. She sees explorers and service companies being much more methodical and selective in their hiring this time around.
“To me, it’s not just about automating the rig, it’s about automating everything upstream of the rig,” says Ahmed Hashmi, head of upstream technology for BP Plc. “The biggest thing will be the systems.”
That means an engineer can design an oil well at his desk. With the press of a button, an automated system would identify the equipment needed from a supplier, create a 3D model and send instructions for building it out into the field, Hashmi says. “That is automation.”
Posted by JHan | Wed Jan 25, 2017, 10:44 AM (2 replies)
Underneath the nostalgia and hope in President Obama’s farewell address Tuesday night was a darker theme: the struggle to help the people on the losing end of technological change.
“The next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas,” Mr. Obama said. “It will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle-class jobs obsolete.”
Donald J. Trump has tended to blame trade, offshoring and immigration. Mr. Obama acknowledged those things have caused economic stress. But without mentioning Mr. Trump, he said they divert attention from the bigger culprit.
Economists agree that automation has played a far greater role in job loss, over the long run, than globalization. But few people want to stop technological progress. Indeed, the government wants to spur more of it. The question is how to help those that it hurts.
The inequality caused by automation is a main driver of cynicism and political polarization, Mr. Obama said. He connected it to the racial and geographic divides that have cleaved the country post-election.
Education is the main solution the White House advocated. When the United States moved from an agrarian economy to an industrialized economy, it rapidly expanded high school education: By 1951, the average American had 6.2 more years of education than someone born 75 years earlier. The extra education enabled people to do new kinds of jobs, and explains 14 percent of the annual increases in labor productivity during that period, economists say.
Now the country faces a similar problem. Machines can do many low-skilled tasks, and American children, especially those from low-income and minority families, lag behind their peers in other countries educationally.
The White House proposed enrolling more 4-year-olds in preschool and making two years of community college free for students, as well as teaching more skills like computer science and critical thinking. For people who have already lost their jobs, it suggested expanding apprenticeships and retraining programs, on which the country spends half what it did 30 years ago.
Displaced workers also need extra government assistance, the report concluded. It suggested ideas like additional unemployment benefits for people who are in retraining programs or live in states hardest hit by job loss. It also suggested wage insurance for people who lose their jobs and have to take a new one that pays less. Someone who made $18.50 an hour working in manufacturing, for example, would take an $8 pay cut if he became a home health aide, one of the jobs that is growing most quickly.
" they divert attention from the bigger culprit." - In other words, we have to prepare ourselves for a world where capitalist enterprise no longer needs low-skilled workers.
Capitalism has always depended on a ready stream of low skilled workers. Which isn't to say Capitalism doesn't uplift people out of poverty - it does- however it works best in tandem with some communist/socialist principles of collectivism i.e. investing in the commons and placing value on people or "human resources". This hybrid approach is a better guarantee of sustained wealth creation and economic opportunities for all. But, unfortunately, American capitalism prioritizes shareholder value and short term profit above all other considerations. The result of this rapacious and short sighted approach has been wage stagnation and entrenched poverty over the past couple decades.
With increasing automation, the need for low wage labor will be eliminated, and even mid to high skilled jobs may be threatened by mechanized and/or AI systems. Whatever can be made cheaper, even complex processes, will be made cheaper using technology.
Regressive Protectionist ideas won't fix the problem, just prolong the suffering by allowing capitalists to exploit the remnants of a system that is slowly dying. And this Trump government ,backed by Anarco capitalists, won't care - and they won't come up with real solutions to address poverty - like implementing Universal Basic Income, quality socialized healthcare and changing the current paradigm.
Democrats must lead on these issues. We can't say we weren't warned.
Posted by JHan | Mon Jan 23, 2017, 03:03 PM (24 replies)