EVERY War is "Our War"

I say that EVERY War is "Our War," and that we have both a moral and a self-serving imperative to care about every conflict everywhere in the world. That certainly does NOT mean that we should send Americans or military supplies to every conflict, and in most cases that is exactly what we should NOT do. The response to each conflict needs to be completely customized, but ignoring the conflicts and pretending they don't exist is never the right thing to do.

The best we can hope for in a conflict is to use our influence to bring about a quick and just peace. The worst we can do is to provide military support to the "wrong" side, the self-serving aggressor, as in the case of Israel assaulting Gazans. Let's look at some examples:

The civil war in Sudan, as one example, pits two cruel and self-serving adversary groups against each other (which is typical of most civil wars in Africa and around the world at the moment). Certainly neither group deserves US support. Both groups oppose humanitarian aid being sent to Sudan. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing we could do. Outside players including UAE, Libya Russia, Egypt & Iran, are sending military equipment to one side or the other in Sudan, purely for their own self-serving interest, and not out of principal or humanitarian interest. The US could and should use its geopolitical influence to interrupt the flow of military equipment to both sides. Also, we should be ready at a moment's notice to send massive humanitarian aid as soon as the situation on the ground allows it.

MY Thoughts on the Near-Future World in which AI & Robots Do Most of the Work

 In MY opinion, it is inevitable that AI & Robots will perform most of the world's work relatively soon - not in my lifetime, but in my grandchildren's. 

1) Available technology has never been suppressed for long, and never will be. Progress is inevitable.

2) The core breakthroughs to enable an AI/Robot-driven world have already been made. What remains is (lots of) refinement, and implementation.

*I* see two very different ways in which our AI/Robot future could play out in society as human labor is no longer needed to perform the world's mind-numbing and repetitive but essential tasks:

1) The widespread availability of AI & Robots COULD be the catalyst for a social revolution that ushers in a society in which the fruits of AI/Robot production are shared by ALL people, with EVERYONE receiving at least enough for a comfortable life. Think #UBI (Universal Basic Income) as the first step in this direction.

2) In the absence of a social revolution that embraces human equality and sharing, *I* see catastrophe awaiting in widespread AI/Robot adoption. AI/Robots *WILL* mostly eliminate the need for human labor to perform mind-numbing and repetitive but essential tasks, so most people *WILL* become "unemployed." Without a sharing of that new-found wealth:

 a) Most people would become destitute.
 b) The oligarchs would become even more obscenely wealthy in the short term
        as they no longer needed to pay wages, BUT...
 c) Oligarchs need CUSTOMERS as well as producers. AI/Robots can build a car, for example,
        but they don't BUY cars - so the whole system falls apart.
 d) ALSO, Destitute people become desperate and take ACTION, SO IMO, the social revolution will happen later if not sooner, and if delayed too long might not be a peaceful revolution.

What would people DO with themselves if they didn't have to labor at mind-numbing and repetitive tasks? Write poetry (as John Quincy Adams suggested), hike the Appalachian Trail, study (science, history, literature, a thousand other things), spend time with their grandchildren and their grandparents. It is tragic that humanity has been all-consumed with "work" for so long that we even need to ask what we could do without "work."

A list of independent user-supported news/analysis/opinion websites I read:

A list of independent user-supported news/analysis/opinion websites I read:

https://www.commondreams.org/

https://newrepublic.com/ 

https://theintercept.com/

https://zeteo.com/

https://www.dropsitenews.com/

https://www.propublica.org/ 

https://inthesetimes.com/

https://progressive.org/ 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/

https://www.texasobserver.org/topics/politics/

https://kyivindependent.com/

https://theconversation.com/global

https://tnholler.com/ 

I also read these commercial news sites:

https://www.theguardian.com/international

https://www.apnews.com/

and I am also a very active user of Blue Sky

https://bsky.app/profile/amerliberal.bsky.social

Let's Look at Gendered Sports and Gendered Restrooms

Let's look at the BIGGER PICTURE of gendered sports and gendered restrooms, and look at the nature of segregation in general - and the similarities between racial segregation and gender segregation...

In the Jim Crow era, a LOT of time and effort was spent arguing over who could use "Whites Only" restrooms and play on "Whites Only" sports teams. What about those who looked White but had a trace of African ancestry? What about Arabs and others who didn't fit neatly into the binary racial segregation system in the United States?

The answer - obvious in retrospect - is that RACIAL SEGREGATION was the problem! Once there were no longer "Whites Only" facilities or "Whites Only" sports teams, there was automatically no longer a question of which restroom an Arab (for example) was required to use, or which sports teams they were allowed to play on.

Today, a LOT of time and effort is spent arguing over who can use "Women's Only" or "Men's Only restrooms and play on "Women's Only" or "Men's Only" sports teams. The parallel between GENDER SEGREGATION and RACIAL SEGREGATION is obvious. In MY Opinion, the solution is also obvious. Instead of arguing over where an individual fits into the binary gender segregation system, LET'S ELIMINATE the GENDER SEGREGATION SYSTEM. If "Whites" and "Coloreds" can learn to use the same restrooms, so can "men" and "women." Same with sports teams. Same with the military. Same with the legal system. Same with all of life. Like Racial Segregation, Gender Segregation is an evil that we need to relegate to history.

[and for those who argue that race is clearly not binary, while gender is, look at the reality of the Jim Crow era: the racists of that time absolutely did believe that an individual WAS definitively either "White" or "Not White."]

----- Background - AI Generated (Gemini)

During the era of Jim Crow segregation in the United States, the concept of race was rigidly defined and enforced, but it wasn't always straightforward. Here's how some groups outside the strict White/Black binary were dealt with:

• People of Arab Descent:

  • Varied Treatment: Individuals of Arab descent experienced a range of treatment. Some were considered "white" due to their lighter skin tones and European ancestry, while others were subjected to discrimination and prejudice, often being lumped in with other non-white groups.
  • "Honorary Whites": Some Arab Americans, particularly those with lighter skin and higher socioeconomic status, were able to "pass" as white and avoid some of the harshest forms of discrimination.

• People of Indian Descent:

  • Often Classified as "Other": People of Indian descent were often not easily categorized within the existing racial framework. They were frequently classified as "Asian" or "Other," which could lead to varying degrees of discrimination and exclusion.
  • Exclusion from "White" Spaces: Despite sometimes being considered "honorary whites" in certain social circles, they were often excluded from "white" spaces and faced discrimination in areas like housing and employment.

• People with Darker Skin Tones:

  • Subjected to Increased Scrutiny: Individuals with darker skin tones, regardless of their ancestry, faced increased scrutiny and were often subjected to harsher treatment. This applied to people of Southern European descent (such as Italians and Greeks), as well as individuals from other regions with darker skin.
  • "Honorary Whites" vs. "Non-White": The classification of individuals with darker skin tones often depended on their socioeconomic status, perceived ancestry, and the specific social and political context.

• Multiracial People:

  • "One-Drop Rule" Applied: The "one-drop rule" was often applied to individuals of mixed race, meaning that even a small amount of African ancestry could lead to their classification as Black.
  • "Passing" as White: Some individuals of mixed race attempted to "pass" as white to avoid the consequences of being classified as Black.

Important Considerations:

• Subjectivity and Inconsistency: The application of these rules was highly subjective and inconsistent, varying significantly by region and over time.
• Social and Psychological Impact: These experiences had a profound impact on the lives of individuals who did not fit neatly into the existing racial categories. They often experienced social isolation, internalized racism, and struggled with their racial identity.

Disclaimer: This is a simplified overview, and the experiences of individuals within these groups varied greatly.

It's crucial to remember that the Jim Crow era was a period of systemic racism and oppression. The experiences of individuals who did not fit neatly into the dominant racial categories highlight the complex and often arbitrary nature of race classifications and the devastating impact of racial prejudice.

----- end-of-AI-generated

A Look at the MANY Factors that Contributed to Trump's 2024 Win

There are MANY different reasons that Trump won! I don't know how much weight to assign to each, but these are some of the reasons (in no particular order):

Misogyny: This is far more than not wanting a female president, this is the feeling among men, especially young men, that women have been granted special legal protections AT THE EXPENSE OF MEN. These men want a return to the time when men were granted exalted status in legal affairs, in society, and in the home, simply for being male.

Racism: This is far more than not wanting a non-White president, this is the feeling among Whites, especially White men, that people-of-color have been granted special legal protections AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE PEOPLE. These Whites want a return to the time when Whites were granted exalted status in legal affairs and in society, simply for being White.

Xenophobia: Let's be clear, what LOOKS like prejudice against people who live, or used to live, in other countries, is NOT that, it is just another version of RACISM. No MAGA ever suggested deporting Elon Musk or Melania Trump, even though they were born in other countries and both broke the rules of their immigrant visas (and are thus both legally subject to deportation). Those who say "immigrants" should be deported ALWAYS mean NON-WHITE immigrants should be deported.

Homophobia/Transphobia: This is the feeling, especially among men, that LGBTQ+ people, especially Trans people, have been granted special legal protections AT THE EXPENSE OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE. These men want a return to the time when straight people were granted exalted status in legal affairs, in society, and in the family, simply for being straight.
Homophobia/Transphobia is also a major issue in Religious Extremism.

Note that when MAGAs say "Stop WOKE" they mean: Bring back Misogyny, Racism, and Homophobia/Transphobia.

Religious Extremism: This is a huge and complex issue, so let's look at the component parts:

Religious Extremism - Privilege: This is the feeling among some Christians that their religion is being diminished. These Christians want a return to the time when the Christian Religion was granted exalted status (even exclusive status) in legal affairs and in society.

Religious Extremism - "Morality": American law and American society have long been dominated by "conservative" "Christian" views toward "morality" regarding marriage, family, sexual orientation, birth control, abortion, "Protestant Work Ethic," and more. These "Christian" Religious Extremists want a return to the time when THEIR version of "morality" was the basis for American law and American society.

Religious Extremism - "Protestant Work Ethic": The Protestant Work Ethic is the view that a person's religious duty "is to achieve success through hard work and thrift, such success being a sign that one is saved." Among many other ugly side effects, this leads Protestant Religious Extremists to oppose most social programs, including subsidized healthcare, SNAP, WIC, UBI, etc.

Prices/Rents: Nationally, rents have increased 20% from 2019 to 2024. In some areas the increase has been much greater. In my part of Florida, rents are up 50% from 2019 to 2024. Many Trump voters were INFURIATED by Biden and Harris and their surrogates continually harping on "declining inflation & rising wages!" REAL people demand MORE than that the rate of increase of prices slow, AND they demand more empathy from their leaders! Probably there is nothing any President could have done to bring rents and other high-impact prices (groceries, gas...) back to 2019 levels, BUT they could and should have acknowledged the PAIN, rather than telling Americans they were just crybabies for complaining!!!

Israel/Gaza: Very few if any voters voted for Trump because of the Biden/Harris decision to support Israel's genocide of Gazans through weapons, money, and pressure on the UN & American allies, BUT a lot of voters chose to vote 3rd party or not to cast a ballot in order to avoid supporting either genocidal Biden/Harris or genocidal Trump. [remember that I am reporting, not condoning anyone's vote]

Change: Some voters just wanted change, and would vote for any candidate/party who was not the incumbent. This has been a global trend recently.

Smash the System: Some voters just wanted to destroy the status quo (legislators who get rich from billionaire and corporate money and stay in office for life, income inequality, Capitalism in general, etc.)

There are probably other crucial reasons Trump won, what have I left out?

#HarrisWalz2024! #GetOutTheVOTE!

 

There are 3 (and a half) reasons for the Silicon Valley Bank failure...

There are 3 (and a half) reasons for the Silicon Valley Bank failure. Change any one of the 3 and everything would have been ok.

1) Large deposits were not FDIC insured. If they had been, depositors would NOT have panicked. Congress MUST extend FDIC insurance (which is paid for by a fee on banks, and NOT by taxpayers) to cover ALL deposits in regulated banks.

2) The Fed changed interest rates TOO FAST.  Banks can live with high rates or low rates, but NOT with rapidly changing rates.

3) SVB management erred by buying longer-maturity treasury bonds.

3.5) Ending Dodd-Frank reduced regulatory oversight of banks in the $50B-$250B range. Even with DF, regulators might or might not have disallowed SVB's purchase of US bonds. Also, DF would do nothing to protect depositors in small banks.

"Most accidents do not have a single cause: there are usually multiple things that went wrong, multiple events that, had any one of them not occurred, would have prevented the accident." ― Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things