Friday, September 11, 2015

Short Take: Another Racially-Motivated Police Brutality Case

James Blake practicing for the 2010 US Open / Photo: Paul VanDerWerf, CC BY 2.0

On Monday, a plain clothes NYPD officer thought this guy standing around in front of a nice hotel was a credit card fraud suspect.  So clearly, he had to apprehend the suspect by bum rushing him.  Because, y'know, you can never be too careful - white collar criminals are renowned for their deadly encounters with police.




Unfortunately, as it turns out, the bum-rushee was actually professional tennis player James Blake, not a fraudster, and not the actual suspect (who, it turns out, wasn't even the perp.)  Oops.  TMZ obtained security camera footage from the NYPD (below.)


Wednesday, September 9, 2015

New York Times Political Editor FIRED for Botched Hillary Coverage, But Will Remain Political Editor

Photo: Alec Perkins, CC BY 2.0

You're right - that headline doesn't make sense.  But neither do a couple of stories and at least one headline that essentially made that very assertion yesterday.
Screen shot

This Daily Newsbin article is a good example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read, especially in the modern hypermedia age.  Anybody with a device and a data connection can now publish any old wild speculation that jumps into their heads, where it can often find an audience eager to further disseminate it.  This story has almost 11,000 shares already, and it just went up yesterday.

I read the New York Times' statement about editorial personnel changes in the Washington Bureau yesterday.  Newsbin’s assertion that Carolyn Ryan was “fire[d] … over inaccurate criticisms of Hillary Clinton” is odd and completely illogical.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Fellow Liberals, Please Stop The Casual Anti-Semitism: "Wall of Shame" Edition

Dear Liberal Friends - especially my fellow progressive Christians,

I was disappointed to see some of you passing this lovely infographic around Facebook today (slightly modified, below.)

We’re supposed to care about human rights, human dignity, and compassion.  We're supposed to oppose the spread of hateful propaganda.  Yes?
Anti-Semitic infographic appropriately categorized by RadicalCentrist.us

So Jewish Israelis are "ruthless savages"?  Who are "inflicted [sic] with an insatiable greed"? 

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

America Is Too Great For Donald Trump's Hate-Mongering

This is not who we are as Americans.

Trump's just warming up to full-fledged rage. Photo: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0
     
Israeli columnist Chemi Shalev recently drew an interesting parallel between Donald Trump's current anti-Latino/Hispanic propaganda and European anti-Semitic propaganda of a century ago.  

I disagree with his column’s larger thesis.  But this example of old European anti-Semitic propaganda he included got me thinking about the fear-mongering propaganda we hear increasingly here in the U.S.:

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Trump’s Fortune is Built on Undocumented Immigrant Labor (Exhibits 1 & 2) - So Why's He Suddenly So Mad About Them?

Americans deserve a more intellectually honest discussion about our immigration policies.  But Trump isn't the guy we want leading it.


200 undocumented Polish immigrants helped demo the building Trump replaced with Trump Tower / Photo: Brad CC BY 2.0

Donald Trump made most of his fortune in industries that employ substantial numbers of undocumented workers: real estate development, commercial real estate management, golf courses, and hotels/resorts.  So it seems likely that he’s made millions of dollars with the help of cheap labor from unauthorized immigrants. 

So far, a few stories have surfaced involving cases of Trump knowingly, if indirectly, employing unauthorized workers.  His employment of 200 undocumented Polish workers years ago.  His contemporary use of a number of unauthorized workers to build his new DC hotel.  More such stories seem certain to come.



Friday, August 28, 2015

New Name, New Domain for the Site fka "Gimme Proof"


Finally - a domain name compatible with what this site was originally going to be called!

As shown above, the site's NEW name is Radical Centrist.  Get here by typing www.radical-centrist.us (with or without the triple w) into your browser's handy address bar.  You can also still get here through the old gimmeproof.blogspot address, at least for the time being.

Others own unused urls with Radical Centrist in 'em, including one that hasn't been active since 2006.  There's also a questionable site with a somewhat similar address.  Webroot has me scared to check more closely, so I'm assuming whatever's going on over there isn't on the level.  Just remember that this site's extension is .us, and you'll be fine.


Why "Radical Centrist"?  This 2010 column by Matthew Miller describes well the spirit animating this site, even if some policy positions he hints at aren't shared.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Iranian Leaders Are Anti-Semitic, Not "Merely" Anti-Zionist


Tomb of Biblical prophet Daniel in Susa, Iran / Photo: ninara, CC BY 2.0

Roy Isacowitz of “In These Times” is engaging in some wishful thinking if he believes that Iranian leaders’ gripe with Israel is solely Anti-Zionist in nature.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Iranian leaders' anti-Zionism quite happily coexists with a big, steaming vat of anti-Jewish hatred.  Their state-sanctioned media and leaders often propagate John Bircher-esque and Nazi-inspired global Jewish conspiracy nonsense, some downright silly conspiracy theories, like this, this, this, and this, racist stereotypes so ugly they'd make Adolph Hitler blush, idiotic blood libel (claims that Jewish people use blood of murdered non-Jewish children to make Passover matzo), and declarations that not just Israel, but the Jewish people are to be eradicated from the Earth.  The Ayatollah and former President Ahmadinejad have been particularly egregious on this front.[1]  

Bounty Offered for Evidence That Trump's Employed Undocumented Labor

It may not be much of a bounty.  But I'm not Lars Larson or Mitt Romney - I don't have $10,000 to put on the line, particularly when I strongly suspect that the proof is out there, in myriad locations. 

So here it is:

I'll give a big kiss on the cheek to the first person who comes up with *credible* documentary or testimonial evidence that undocumented labor has been substantially involved with building or maintaining any US "Trump" property (whether his project, or a project he merely licensed the use of his name to.) 

Given the frequency with which we see crews of folks with limited to no English proficiency on construction sites, on landscaping crews, in restaurant kitchens, and on hotel housekeeping staffs, the odds that Trump has been personally enriched through the use of low-cost undocumented labor seems very, very good.  And given the frequency with which this has occurred in the past 15 or so years, it seems that someone who has Mr. Trump's passionate concern about illegal immigration would have ensured that his management and subcontractors ran each and every person employed through E-Verify for at least, what, the past decade?

It doesn't need to be proven that he personally, knowingly hired undocumented work crews.  It merely needs to be shown that he knew - or reasonably should have known - that his projects (or projects he rented his name to) were employing significant numbers of undocumented workers. 

Deconstructing "Holistic Living"

The Gluten-Free Aisle is here to save all from "wheat belly" / Photo: Memphis CVB, CC BY-ND 2.0

A lot of my friends love and swear by naturopathy, so posting this may be like kicking a bees' nest.  My mind is not set regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments (I'm not a firmly anti-CAM person at this point.)  But I've finally been pushed over the brink.

Take a lifelong healthy skepticism when it comes to claims that sound weirdly mystical, too good to be true, and/or like New Agey fetishization of "the ancient," "the natural," and "the exotic."  Add many years in Seattle and Portland - a couple of the nation's hotbeds of CAM ("complementary and alternative medicine.")  Sprinkle liberally with ever-increasing "activism" by folks who are succeeding in shaping public perception - and policy - through pseudoscientific fear-mongering (see, e.g., the 80s alar scare, the anti-vaxxers, and the Portland anti-fluoridation effort) and demonstrably false, allegedly "evidence-based" claims.  These activists' continuing efforts to shape public policy - my lifelong obsession - is probably what finally tipped me into caring enough to look at these things closely.


So I've hit my limit.  I'm going to try to do my part to dig into the weeds when it comes to CAM, "natural childbirth," organics and other trendy food obsessions, GMOs, various "toxin crises" du jour, and the like.  


Most folks posting on these matters fall into one of three camps:

1. Hardcore proponents of "holistic" living,

2. Well-intentioned folks who pass along notions that sound plausible because they're justified with a lot of scientific-sounding arguments, and

3. The quackery debunkers, some of whom are a bit reflexive in their debunkery.  The best of them actually have respectable educational and professional backgrounds in science or medicine, are able to articulate mainstream scientific scholarship on these topics, and are willing to acknowledge when the holistic folks have a legitimate claim.


I tend to be skeptical when it comes to CAM and various health fads, but I'm skeptical about everything, including my own skepticism.  So I don't fall into any of the three above camps - not yet, anyway.  I'm well-versed in statistical methods and analyzing and interpreting quantitative research, but I'm not a scientist (I don't delude myself into thinking that economics is a hard science), nor do I have any medical background.  So I'll rely heavily on the work of folks who do have legitimate, respectable medical and scientific expertise.  I'm not likely to break any new ground myself in this arena, but hopefully I can use this space to help amplify the voices of folks who know a lot more than I do.

If you have any great articles to share on these topics, please do so in the Comments section!

Dems Need to Resolve Angst About Hillary, Stat!

Secretary of State Clinton / Photo: U.S. Embassy in London, CC BY-ND 2.0

I still have angst about the State Department email situation that is holding me back from enthusiastically supporting Hillary Clinton.  The arguments for the defense coming from Dems sound more like typical spin than thoroughly researched, credible arguments.  But so do the arguments being made by the GOP folks.  I'm feeling like I need to dig in, sort through the best info available, and sort out my feelings on this one right away.

UPDATE: Turns out I'm not the only Dem with such angst.  From today's New York Times: Hillary Clinton's Handling of Email Issue Frustrates Democratic Leaders

Donald Trump seems to be gaining on Hillary in head-to-head match-up polls.  She's still ahead, but he's moved a LOT in the last month or so.  All of the polls in June and July had her ahead by 12 to 24 points.  The results gauged in August have her ahead of Trump by just 4 to 6 points.

Friday, August 14, 2015

Trump: Best Wishes, Losers!


This was the best laugh of the day.  Or maybe of two months ago.  But who's counting?  Does a collection of The Donald's best Twitter beefs ever *really* become outdated?  

That Trump has such a graceful, almost poetic way with language ...



So glad Chris Moody of CNN found this and shared it as part of his terrific, ultra-classy, TREMENDOUS collection of some of the Donald's best ever Mean Tweets.  I have a feeling this'll be just one in a continuing series until Trump implodes (or worse ... SHUDDER.)





I Feel Glenn Beck's Pain (No, Really!)

Glenn Beck / Photo: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

It's a weird day for me.  I just found myself agreeing with - and then relating to - Glenn Beck, of all people.  And just one day after I join other Portlandians in celebrating Beck's declaration that we live in The WORST City in America.  The very next morning, he goes and says something reasonable.


Screenshot / Selina Davis  
 
Beck wrote a lengthy post on Facebook in the wee hours asking other conservative pundits about their support for Donald Trump.  Beck specifically calls out Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage by name and asks why they support Trump when he doesn't seem to share the vast majority of their conservative principles, and when Trump's guiding principles seem to be whimsical and unpredictable, at best.  

Good for Glenn Beck.  He's probably voicing what a lot of other conservatives have been thinking, but have been too afraid to say.  

Upon searching the Internet to see if Trump had fired back yet, I learned that Beck's been gunning hard for Trump pretty consistently for months.  [I missed it - me fail.]  


But what I didn't see?  Trump mean tweeting Glenn Beck, or calling him a loser, or speculating where Beck may be bleeding from at the time.  It is hard to keep track of all of The Donald's Twitter beefs, so if I missed something, please share it in the comments!

But back to the FB post ...  In the final paragraphs, things got weirder.  I found myself feeling Glenn Beck's pain: 

When Leviticus Attacks!


People - all of us - are so damn funny.  Spotted on Facebook:




Thursday, August 13, 2015

No, There Doesn't Really Appear to Be A Trans Homicide Crisis

Protesters in Atlanta, August 2015 / Photo: HotlantaVoyeur.com, CC BY 2.0

I’m going to say something at the risk of people I care about getting mad at me.  I don’t want folks thinking I’m trying to minimize oppression or violence against marginalized communities.  People who know me well know that is among the last things I’d ever want to do.  But they also know that I’m a stickler for ensuring that declarations of social crisis be founded in sound data, not gut feelings or fear. 

Why am I compelled to be such a pain about bad stats?  See this page for a thorough explanation.

That said – this Al Jazeera story is wrong.  No, there does not appear to be an actual transgender homicide crisis occurring.

This story appears to be the phenomenon of confirmation bias at work.  People, based on the information that they have, assume that trans people are murdered more frequently than non-trans folks. They then notice every report of a new trans homicide and add it to their collection of proof that there is, in fact, a trans homicide crisis.  In the process, they don’t really notice all of the dozens and dozens of other reports of non-trans people being murdered.

This practice is common to us all.  But we still need to recognize it when it’s happening.

Claims that there is a homicide crisis within the transgender community doesn't really seem to square with actual statistics.  In fact, if this count is accurate (13 or 14 to date for 2015), it indicates that trans people are being killed at a disproportionately LOWER rate than the U.S. population at large. 

Here's why:

Top Six Reasons I’m Such a Pain About Bad Data

Back-ache !!!!!!!!!!! by Craig Sunter, CC BY-ND 2.0


If you don’t know me well, you may be asking yourself, “What the hell is Selina’s issue?  Why is she so frigging nit-picky?  And why does she have such a damn annoying compulsion to scrutinize every third talking point she reads?”  Heck, people who know me well may well have been asking those very questions for years.

You could say it’s an illness.  A verbal tic.  Maybe even a personality disorder.  Or maybe it’s just because I want us to focus our limited collective resources on effectively solving real problems.  And when I say resources, I mean tax dollars, charitable giving, time, labor, talents, and physical/emotional energy.  

To break it down, I do this because:

1. When we end up battling things that are deemed a crisis based on faulty reasoning, we also generally tend to make other faulty assumptions about the cause as well as possible solutions to the problem,

2. We may or may not see backlash, as folks who are skeptical of the validity of the claimed crisis grab on to every data point they can find that confirms to them that the crisis-claimers are, in fact, lying liars,

3. Sticking with provable data and reality-based talking points actually helps attract high-information folks who’d be naturally sympathetic to the cause (I know I’m not the only one turned off from social movements by hyperbole and “gut-based facts” – I’ve met plenty of people just like me),

4. Sticking with reality-based talking points is also our best tool in building middle-of-the-spectrum folks’ support for policy approaches to solve social ills,

5. We all too often end up throwing a ton of time, energy, and money at something that isn’t the crisis we think it is and/or at things that aren’t actually causing the phenomenon we’re concerned about,

6. And, in the process, we divert our time, attention, energy, and tax dollars from combating things that actually *are* crises.  Climate change, anyone?  Disproportionate police use of excessive and deadly force against black and Native folks, anyone?  Flagging public confidence in our political system due to the corrosive influence of moneyed interests, anyone?  Complete and utter failure to reasonably regulate our financial institutions in order to prevent another massive financial crisis, anyone? [There are more, but you get the point.]

I hate inefficiency and inaccuracy with a passion that may well be indicative of a mental disorder.  But I’ve come to terms with that.  If exploiting that personality quirk might possibly help improve life for anyone else on this planet, I’m willing to risk people thinking I’m an old-school nerdy weirdo.  Quite frankly, I am, I always have been, and it’s okay.

If you don’t like what I write, you don’t have to read it.  But if you do like it, then welcome!  Enjoy, and please share your thoughts once in a while in the Comments sections. 


Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Conservative Portland Students Outraged That They Can’t Retraumatize Combat Vets

So this tale of “liberal speech suppression” here in Portland, Oregon (at PSU) is currently pinging around the conservative blogosphere/echo chamber, and even made it to the Fox News network:


The story has now been retold at College Insurrection, Accuracy in Academia, The Libertarian Republic, this Oklahoma City Fox affiliate, this Las Vegas talk radio station, AR15.com, on Reddit, at a mess of lesser-trafficked blogs, and even on some non-partisan & non-Fox-affiliated sites: ischoolguide.com, University Business and this Alabama ABC affiliate.

Best I can tell, the story hasn’t been picked up by any major talk radio hosts.  I suspect it’s only a matter of time.

The student, Christian Britschgi, and his fellow travelers are spinning the tale as a story of liberal academics suppressing conservative speech in order to shield fragile liberal students from the trauma of experiencing opinions they don’t like.  This is a common meme in conservative circles – if anyone points out that ad hominem attack and invective aren’t really intelligent methods of debate, they often get shouted down for being a wussy liberal crybaby. 

It seems pretty dang likely that the reality of what happened is far more nuanced than the story that Christian Britschgi is telling.  I'd like to see local media shed light on things.  Oregonian?  Willamette Week?  Anyone? 


I searched extensively for a more reliable, unbiased, LOCAL recounting of the story, but have come up empty-handed thus far.

As a former college political org leader on a MUCH smaller campus, one aspect of his story struck me as deserving greater examination.  Were Britschgi and his friend literally trying to arrange to table *now-ish* because they had a few spare hours?  Even at my undergrad campus of 1,200, 20-some years ago, you usually had to arrange for these things days ahead of time.

If the story is accurate as Britschgi tells it, and they weren't just shut down because they were trying to do something on the fly, this was a Portland State U FAIL.  Universities cannot sanitize students' speech in order to avoid triggering anybody, and really shouldn't be attempting to do so.  As someone who's experienced PTSD, when you're in it, anything and everything can be triggering.  JOYOUS FRIGGING SONGS WERE TRIGGERING sometimes.  It definitely sucks, but it's on those of us experiencing PTSD to do what we need to do to recover so we can function in society, not on society to become a grey, silent place so as to avoid triggering us.

There is a BUT coming, though.  It seems quite likely that the faculty & admin were NOT concerned about the message, but with graphic – if cartoonish – imagery on one of their posters – imagery that would be more likely to impact combat veterans with PTSD than others.   

Here's the poster. You be the judge.
                                                                      [MORE …]

Two Americas? I Count At Least TEN


Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post shared a chart today from Republican lobbyist Bruce Mehlman, purporting to highlight the existence of TWO AMERICAS:


This "dichotomy" isn't wearing any clothes.

The table only purports to show the difference in opinion between GOP primary voters and Democratic primary voters.  Those folks are a very small part of the American citizenry.

Cillizza, Mehlman, and others so enraptured with the “Two Americas” narrative that they’re cramming these polling figures into it are forgetting about 72.3% of our voting-age citizenry.

In the 2008 presidential nominating process, which was an unusually active nominating season, just a little over one quarter (27.7%) of voting age citizens participated.  About 
57 million voters participated in the nominating process (Harvard) - out of 206 million voting-age citizens (US Census Bureau, see p. 2.)

When it came to the November General Election, 
15 million registered voters didn’t vote (same, p. 14.)  Another 30 million weren’t registered to vote at all (same.)

I don't think that primary voters are representative of the (potential or actual) American electorate as a whole, nor does anyone who seriously studies these things.   [MORE ...]


But people - especially political consultants and the commentariat - love to parcel Americans out into demographic groups.  So in the interest of helping divvy Americans into semi-distinct ideological groupings identified as "Americas," here are ... 

Americas Three through Ten 
(as I currently conceive of them)

3. The 88.9% of GOP voters who DON'T participate in the presidential nominating process  (Harvard)

4. The 81% of Dem voters who DON'T participate in the presidential nominating process (
Harvard)

5. The unaffiliated GOP-leaning eligible voters who don't participate in nomination battles

6. The unaffiliated Dem-leaning eligible voters who don't participate in nomination battles

7. The folks firmly in the middle, who actually do tend to vote for BOTH Dem and GOP candidates

8. The folks somewhere in the middle, who are so turned off by politics that they either don't participate or participate rarely in elections:
> About 56% of the 30 million unregistered voting-age citizens said they weren't registered because they weren’t interested in politics or candidates/issues on the ballot, didn’t think their vote would make a difference, or didn’t know or refused to answer why they weren’t registered (Census Bureau, p. 14)
> About 33% of the 15 million who were registered but didn’t vote in the November election said it was because they weren’t interested, didn’t like the candidates or issues, or didn’t know or refused to answer why they didn’t vote (same source.)

9. Radical folks on the right who don't participate 
> Just 53.1% of voting age citizen Utahns and 56.1% of such Texans voted in the November 2008 General Election (Census Bureau, p. 8.)  I suspect these low numbers are due in part to radical right opting-out, but a majority of these states’ non-voting folks likely fall in groups 3 through 8.

10. Radical folks on the left who don't participate
> Just 51.8% of voting-age US citizens in Hawaii voted in November 2008 – perhaps this could be somewhat due to radical left opting-out? (same source)

Okay, Ten or More Americas isn’t as tidy a sorting system as Two Americas.  Nor does it create that fun, Hatfield vs. McCoys, us vs. them dichotomy that lends itself to dramatic pronouncements about further evidence of the polarization of America.  But it does provide a much richer – and MUCH more accurate – picture of the American people and our politics.

Gun Down Illegals - AND Get Paid For It!

I'm not loving this ad for US border patrol agents that I stumbled across yesterday.

While reading the Washington Post, this ad sprung up:






"Huh?"  I thought.  It would be strange if our government is recruiting folks for border control with an ad that seems to be saying, "Wanna gun down illegals tryin' to sneak across our borders?  You can - AND get paid for it! (PLUS Federal benefits!)"

Well, maybe, I thought, it's one of those ads that links to a for-profit company that promises to help users land a job with the federal government. Or maybe it's from a for-profit site that somehow makes money as little more than a portal to government job sites.  I've seen plenty of ads for outfits like that.

So I clicked on the ad.  And landed squarely at USAJobs.gov - our federal government's own job listing site.  


Interestingly, the application period for this announcement had ended nine days prior - so not only were we (since our government represents all of us) running an obnoxious and ill-considered ad, but - BONUS! - we were wasting taxpayer money while we were at it. 

Thursday, July 9, 2015

I Got Offensive on Twitter







So I was denounced on Twitter last week for being “offensive” and “in your face.”  Here’s a screen grab of this epic take-down, with the poster’s name, current pic, and part of his handle obscured to discourage Twitter-style mob justice (Please, just DON'T.)  Part of the handle had to remain, for obvious reasons.

Maybe he had a point.  I dunno.  You be the judge – here’s the pic he complained about:



I KID, I KID.  The “biopic” he objected so heartily appears next to my response to his denunciation (below.)  It was just my long-time profile pic, rainbow-ified to celebrate the marriage equality decision with folks whose lives are more directly impacted by it. 



His denunciation didn’t have anything to do with anything I actually said.  Applying a rainbow filter to my pic was, itself, perceived as a hostile act.