tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41492672893116194002024-03-14T01:36:13.859-07:00IOTA ----- My 2cI often say to myself, when it seems to me there are obvious improvements we could be making in public policy,
"If only they'd asked me......".
John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.comBlogger177125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-91341776013743199132022-08-21T19:14:00.000-07:002022-08-21T19:14:17.016-07:00The USPS<p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"> The USPS continues to run at a loss.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #663300;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">I have to ask: why do we need 6 days a week mail delivery? (Particularly for residential mail.) I check my mail service box twice a week or so - that keeps me sufficiently up to date with the few things that still come in the mail, while matters that need immediate attention come through email, text, or phone.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #663300;">I would suggest changing to twice a week mail delivery for home delivery: say Monday and Wednesday to half the addresses covered by a sorting station, and Tuesday and Thursday delivery for the other half. Perhaps businesses could have mail three times a week - MWF and TuThS.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #663300;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #663300;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #663300;">By changing and consolidating delivery routes, it should be possible to cut the number of mail carriers down by half, if not more, saving the USPS a bundle on labor costs.</span></span></p>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-23485145505519134892021-11-03T11:15:00.001-07:002023-04-11T21:03:42.723-07:00Another Democratic Party messaging failure<p> Glenn Youngkin's victory in VA was largely due to his bogus claim that Critical Race Theory was being taught in VA schools.</p><p><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dems were so dumb playing defense on CRT.</span></p><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Why not go on offense. and put Youngkin on the defensive?</span><div><span face="TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">"Glenn Youngkin doesn't want students to learn about slavery and Jim Crow."
"What Glenn Youngkin calls Critical Race Theory, the rest of us call History."</span></div>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-26542125282606498852020-10-26T22:15:00.009-07:002021-03-06T03:40:51.464-08:00The ACB Vote<p> </p><p><br /></p><p>The vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett was a foregone conclusion.</p><p>Democrats had the opportunity during debate to make headlnes and an historic gesture if they had each stood up in turn and addressed the GOP Senators by saying exactly the same thing, and no more, quoting Joseph Welch from the Army-McCarthy hearings:</p><p><span face="system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Ubuntu, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.03); color: #14171a; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><blockquote>"Have you no sense of decency, sirs, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"</blockquote>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-77682463389783470602020-10-15T23:25:00.002-07:002020-10-17T16:37:48.840-07:00On Packing the Courts<p> Biden continues to be pressed on whether he intends to "pack" the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices.</p><p>He should be pushing back with something like the following:</p><p></p><blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Look, we want our courts to decide cases before them fairly and impartially on the law, not on partisan political bases.</p><p>Unfortunately, for the last three and a half years the Republicans have been packing the courts with partisans, judges that have been approved by the Federalist Society, a conservative, you might almost say right wing, political organization set up to push the Republican agenda through the federal judiciary.</p><p>For the last half of President Obama's term, Mitch McConnell's senate refused to consider nominees out forward by President Obama to fill vacancies, so that President Trump was able to fill about two hundred empty seats with Federalist Society partisan judges, even though some of them were rated unqualified by the American Bar Association.</p><p>Most egregiously, Mitch McConnell refused to even grant a hearing to Present Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a distinguished independent jurist - a lawyer's lawyer, you might say, not a partisan of any political party.</p><p>In the last three years, we have seen two justices with pronounced conservative views appointed to the Supreme Court, and a third about to be appointed. The federal judiciary has been well and truly packed, so it has become more and more a way for the Republican Party to advance its agenda by, in effect, legislating from the Bench. It is not controversial for me to say this - Mitch McConnell has openly boasted of his success in packing the federal courts.</p><p>As president, I will have to find a way to begin restoring the principle of an independent judiciary that desides cases solely on the law and the facts before them, not on political and ideological prejudices. How to overcome this wave of court packing is not yet clear to me, but for the sake of the country, we need to make a start.</p></blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-25095818320744972832020-07-16T18:43:00.000-07:002020-07-17T17:42:18.422-07:00Another Press Fail<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
This is typical of the press's reaction to McEnany's comments on schools reopening:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sYIK6vhV6hw/XxEETzI-voI/AAAAAAAAD8s/Y7qbZnly3NMSONmklLfmnLCSkjuBtFsOQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Acosta.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="177" data-original-width="572" height="99" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sYIK6vhV6hw/XxEETzI-voI/AAAAAAAAD8s/Y7qbZnly3NMSONmklLfmnLCSkjuBtFsOQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Acosta.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This taking a quote out of context is the kind<span style="color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of thing that bolsters DJT's bogus claim that the press is "fake news".</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;">After saying "the science should not stand in the way", McEnany went on to refer to a pediatric study to support her claim that "the science is on our side here.”</span> </span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even though the study she quoted is of dubious validity in the context of the spread of COVID-19 - nevertheless, she was not saying science should be disregarded - she was just cherry picking what science she wanted regarded.</span> </span> <span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Or, to summarize, she was saying: "<span style="color: #14171a; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">the science should not stand in the way of school re-opening, because the science supports reopening."</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">But the press is just jumping on just one part of her full statement.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">
The study McEneny referenced purported to show that infected kids had a mild response to COVID-19, comparable to everyday flu.</div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">A smart follow up question would have been: </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> <span style="color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;">"Maybe, but how does that affect the concern that kids could take the infection home to more vulnerable adults?"</span></span></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #14171a; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let's hope follow up articles are on the lines of
"Here's the study the Trump administration is relying on to support its policy", along with an analysis of the quality of the study, whether later events called it into question, and so whether the administration is justified in basing policy on it.
i.e. responsible journalism.</span> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Update 7/17/2020</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The New Yorker piles on.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iNehP3Dwu3Q/XxJFWaI526I/AAAAAAAAD9I/Kfo0RtL4OIw_QzAjsqTN7niAvKy-ev92QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/NYer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="314" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iNehP3Dwu3Q/XxJFWaI526I/AAAAAAAAD9I/Kfo0RtL4OIw_QzAjsqTN7niAvKy-ev92QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/NYer.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-6607553426552266032019-10-12T14:15:00.002-07:002019-10-12T14:15:36.678-07:00Facebook hosts a tennis match with no referees<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/10/facebook-policy-political-speech-lets-politicians-lie-ads/#comments-wrapper">Facebook’s Nick Clegg defends</a> FB’s allowing outright lies in political ads by comparing FB to a tennis court.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; letter-spacing: normal;">“Our job is to make sure the court is ready — the surface is flat, the lines painted, the net at the correct height,” Clegg said. “But we don’t pick up a racket and start playing. How the players play the game is up to them, not us.”</span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Er — no. How the players play the game is up to the referees, who ensure that the rules are followed and that the game is played fairly.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
It’s okay for FB to make the tennis court analogy. They only need to complete it by supplying the needed impartial referees.</div>
John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-3837467240491553032019-10-01T09:33:00.000-07:002019-10-01T09:33:20.755-07:00The Press Fails AgainFrom the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html">NYT:</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif; font-size: 20px;">Not only did the president ask a foreign government to intervene in a presidential election by digging up dirt on a political opponent, .............</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif; font-size: 20px;">Mr. Trump appears to have used hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to pressure a foreign leader to act as the head of his opposition-research unit.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Note the expression "digging up dirt". This same expression has been used multiple times by multiple news outlets. The implication is that there is "dirt" to be found, and the constant repetition can only condition readers and viewers - i.e. voters - to believe that somehow Joe Biden is guilty of some unnamed corruption. This mindless spreading of a false trope is, I'm afraid, rather typical of our uncritical press.<br />
<br />
How should the NYT and others described the request from DJT to Zelensky? How about something along these lines:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif; font-size: 20px;">Not only did the president ask a foreign government to intervene in a presidential election by looking into alleged corruption by Mr. Joe Biden and his son Mr. Hunter Biden (allegations that have long been debunked) ...................</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: nyt-imperial, georgia, "times new roman", times, serif; font-size: 20px;">Mr. Trump appears to have used hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to pressure a foreign leader to act as the head of his opposition-research unit.</span></blockquote>
See how easy it is to provide good information to readers, rather than mindlessly spreading Trump's propaganda?John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-44720147203870462442019-04-23T16:15:00.000-07:002020-05-31T03:10:55.908-07:00Where's the Sense of Urgency?Our press is (once again) falling down on the job - in this case failing to warn the public of how imminent the tipping point for runaway global warning is.<br />
<br />
One idea for keeping the subject in the public eye:<br />
A <b>prominently</b> displayed <b>daily </b>update on the current CO2 ppm count, the ppm count expected to cause 1.5⁰ warming, and estimated time to reach that level given present rate of increase. Along with a reminder of predicted effects of 1.5⁰ warming.<br />
<br />
A black box with this info on page 1 of daily newspapers, and a few seconds in every TV news broadcast, would be the minimum the press should be doing.<br />
<br />
Update December 20, 2019:<br />
<br />
The Guardian is doing its bit.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--J1T6z2i70s/Xf0Y-p3Ed2I/AAAAAAAADe0/QenWvCBcHNcu3LNYCdzVYCzMSCPXxMFhQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/CO2%2Blevels.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="476" data-original-width="540" height="282" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--J1T6z2i70s/Xf0Y-p3Ed2I/AAAAAAAADe0/QenWvCBcHNcu3LNYCdzVYCzMSCPXxMFhQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/CO2%2Blevels.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-5543248037809221232019-04-23T13:11:00.003-07:002020-09-25T06:02:53.576-07:00Estimating Russia's Influence on Trump WinWhile it's clear that Russia supported Trump in the 2016 campaign, it's less clear just how effective Russia's aid was.<br />
<br />
Soon after the election, news orgs should have run a poll of Trump voters along the following lines:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Which of these reports about Hillary Clinton did you read/hear?<br />
Followed by a list of false statements about HRC put out by Russian disnfo</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Were those reports you read/heard about Hillary Clinton an important factor in your decision to vote for Donald Trump?</blockquote>
A poll like this would at least be a start in gauging the effect of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This long after the election, results would be fuzzier than if news orgs had been on the ball at the right time.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-22930710084985791632019-03-22T02:30:00.000-07:002019-03-22T14:54:14.641-07:00Perversely BrilliantSo Donna Brazile is joining Fox News as a <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/donna-brazile-explains-why-she-is-working-for-fox-news">regular contributor</a>.<br />
<br />
A smart move by Fox. Let's recall: while Brazile was DNC chairwoman, she was also a regular on CNN. While at CNN, she learnt of at least one question that would be posed to HRC at an upcoming presidential campaign debate, and sent the question on to HRC. A clear breach of trust on Brazile's part.<br />
<br />
Fox News knows its audience is well aware of this bad move by Brazile, is hostile to her, and so is primed to dismiss anything she has to say. Yet Fox can cynically claim to be "fair and balanced" because it is hiring such a high profile Democrat.<br />
<br />
A perversely brilliant move on Fox's part.John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-6366469969076027042018-01-07T04:36:00.000-08:002018-07-06T12:10:10.500-07:00Lottery winnings - a repost(The recent <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/powerball-new-hampshire-winning-ticket_us_5a51fd91e4b01e1a4b15c0c7">large lottery prizes </a>prompt me to post this entry from June of 2015 again.)<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 13px;">Yes, the </span><a href="http://ifonlytheydaskedme.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-lottery.html" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; text-decoration-line: none;">state run numbers game</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 13px;">, aka the lottery, is with us for good or bad, but I do question the way prizes are distributed.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 13px;">From time to time I see posted in store windows the top prize that will be awarded to a winning ticket; this sum sometimes exceeds $200 million. Now consider who are the purchasers of lottery tickets: the poor, the indebted, the desperate. How much would it take for them to get their lives back on track? I would suggest a lot less than $200 million, and I also ask myself: just what is the average lottery ticket purchaser going to do with that much money?</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 13px;">It would make more sense to split the large prizes into a number of smaller amounts that would be enough to turn people's lives around (pay off debts, buy a house, get some job training, put kids through college), but not so huge a sum as to be overwhelming. Say twenty $10 million prizes instead of one large prize. So instead of the </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><b>size</b></i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 13px;"> of the prize going up week by week as there are no winning tickets, the </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><b>number</b></i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 13px;"> of prizes (with new sets of winning numbers) would go up. Having a larger number of prizes increases the chance of picking a winning number combination, so we could have more winners, and so more people whose lives could be improved.</span><br />
<br />
<br />John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-92048607169259534102018-01-06T02:49:00.000-08:002018-01-06T02:49:25.275-08:00The Democrats Fail Once MoreThe Democrats have once more showed their massive incompetence at messaging in the face of the Republicans' passing of the irresponsible tax cut bill.<br />
<br />
How hard would it have been to have a unified message something along the following lines?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />The Republicans are offering you a little extra spending money by adding $1.5 trillion to our national debt. Think of it like credit card debt. In your private finances, would you run up your credit card just to give yourself a little extra spending money? Surely not. So why would you want us to run up the national credit card that way? Especially as most of the extra debt is money going to wealthy people who surely don't need millions more in their pockets.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Responsible</b> people who've had to temporarily live on credit start to pay down their balance once they have regular employment and a steady income. They don't keep running up their debt for extra spending money. </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That's what we should be doing as a country now the economy has recovered. We should be acting <b>responsibly.</b> Those with more than enough money should be contributing part of their large incomes to start paying down our national credit card, not be adding huge sums to it, leaving someone else is to pay the bloated balance sometime in the future.</blockquote>
<br />
(Not to mention the fact that the cuts for middle income people will turn into tax increases in just a few years.)<br />
<br />
It's really not that hard to put out a message to counteract the Republicans' dishonest rhetoric. It's shameful that the Democrats won't even try.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-15190110396895864202017-11-13T23:54:00.001-08:002018-08-11T12:13:46.541-07:00Stay Focussed!<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem are doing so to protest aggressive police practices against people of color, and in particular the killing of unarmed people.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Right wingers are distorting the protests by making them all about the anthem, the flag, and our servicemen; the reason for the protests are drowned out by the right’s loud rhetoric.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
I suggest the discussion could be turned back to the reason for the protests if each player who knelt displayed a photo of a person unjustifiably killed by police. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Here's a mockup of how it might look if they did:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kDyOCUDCWo8/WgqgVd71lqI/AAAAAAAACWw/dPi63j0Ahu84lCi1y4Vuq83GtAQ7lsj3ACLcBGAs/s1600/comp%2B2%2B-%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="332" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kDyOCUDCWo8/WgqgVd71lqI/AAAAAAAACWw/dPi63j0Ahu84lCi1y4Vuq83GtAQ7lsj3ACLcBGAs/s320/comp%2B2%2B-%2B2.jpg" width="297" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #3c3736; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.125px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Holding the photos would keep the discussion where it belongs: the issue is not the anthem, but bad police practices.<br />
<br />
(It would be appropriate for players to contact family members of the slain people to get their approval for the display of the photos.)</div>
John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-2441271836723758472017-10-24T12:52:00.000-07:002017-10-24T12:52:27.584-07:00Mnuchin and MathSo Steve Mnuchin finds that lowering middle class taxes without also lowering taxes on the wealthy is beyond his <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/steven-mnuchin-very-hard-not-to-give-tax-cuts-to-the-wealthy">mathematical ability.</a><br />
<br />
Let me lend him a hand here.<br />
<br />
(From my <a href="http://ifonlytheydaskedme.blogspot.com/2013/02/we-dont-have-spending-problem.html">blog post</a> of February 2013)<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">(Suggested marginal rates for married filing jointly - halve the income ranges for singles. The top marginal rate - constant dollars - is the same as in 1965-66.)</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></b><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">10% $0 - 25,000</b><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">15% $25,000 - 75,000</b><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">25% $75,000 - 150,000</b><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">35% $150,000 - 325,000</b><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">50% $325,000 - 650,000</b><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">60% $650,000 - 1,500,000</b><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;" /><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;">70% Over $1,500,000</b><br />
<b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></b>
<b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></b>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-41702519070575144932017-03-07T00:27:00.000-08:002017-03-07T09:56:46.608-08:00Actions and ConsequencesThe shutting down of <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/">Charles Murray's talk at Middlebury College</a> by self righteous narcissists reminded me of a similar attack on speech many years ago at the University of California, Berkeley, when the same kind of intolerant people shouted down Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Reagan's foreign policy advisor.<br />
<br />
And their actions had consequences down the road: the present day terrors inflicted by ISIS.<br />
Absurd, you say? Well, follow this chain, each of link of which I believe is valid.<br />
<br />
A young David Brock was in the audience there at Berkeley in his capacity as a reporter for the student newspaper. He was so appalled by the intolerance of the left that he gravitated to right wing politics, and signed up as a propagandist for the right.<br />
<br />
In that capacity, he uncovered the Paula Jones story, which led to a lawsuit, which led to President Clinton perjuring himself, which led to his impeachment.<br />
<br />
The damage to the Clinton presidency rubbed off on Al Gore, who (while winning the popular vote), narrowly lost the presidency to G.W. Bush. It's not unreasonable to think that, without that taint, he could well have gained those few thousand extra votes needed to assure him the presidency.<br />
<br />
President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, which Gore would not have done were he president.<br />
<br />
The destruction of Iraqi society allowed ISIS to establish itself, and to commence their reign of terror.<br />
<br />
So: I am arguing that foolish students shouting down an ideological opponent years ago led to the horrors we see today.<br />
<br />
Yes, actions have consequences. Who knows what may happen years down the road as a result of the shameful behavior at Middlebury?<br />
<br />
Addendum:<br />
How do I think the Berkeley students opposed to Reagan's South America policy should have reacted to Ms. Kirkpatrick's appearance? By going out in advance to locate some of the many refugees from El Salvador who were in the Bay area, and arranging for them, and them only, to have the microphones during the Q&A after Ms. Kirkpatrick's talk. Let each of them describe the atrocities - tortures and murders of their families - that prompted them to flee, and ask Ms. Kirkpatrick how she and President Reagan could possibly support such evil. If just one or two spoke this way, Ms. Kirkpatrick might dismiss their stories as invented, but a sufficient number of recitations would show the emptiness of such a response on her part. And contrast the news reporting of what such an approach would have been to that describing the self indulgent acting out of foolish young people, actions that only reinforced many people's support for Reagan's toxic Latin American policies.John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-69951052423561641752016-10-24T02:34:00.000-07:002016-10-24T02:34:06.118-07:00Romney and ExploitiationReading the<a href="http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/10/full-transcript-of-the-mitt-romney-secret-video-mother-jones.html"> transcript of Romney's infamous "47%" speech</a>, I find this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fbfbfb;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Oh, I just, we didn't talk about immigration today. Gosh, I'd love to bring in more legal immigrants that have skill and [unintelligible]. I'd like to staple a green card to every Ph.D. in the world and say, "Come to America, we want you here." </span></span></blockquote>
Think about that. Romney would like countries poorer than ourselves to educate some of their citizens to Ph.D. level, and then have those people abandon their home countries to bring their expensively provided skills to the US, so those poorer countries gain nothing from their investment in educating those people, and the wealthy US would become the beneficiary of that investment.<br />
<br />
We know the Romney business model: enrich his investors by leaving empty shells of companies behind, with workers losing their jobs, and often their pension funds. This desire to exploit the investment in education made by other countries shares the same moral emptiness.John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-83824325308443540152016-10-19T14:30:00.000-07:002016-10-19T16:27:24.134-07:00Well, duh!<a href="http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/10/five-principles-to-follow-for-a-new-fiscal-policy.html#more">Brad DeLong</a> quotes from an article by Jason Furman in the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d6a1970a-95e0-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582">Financial Times</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #fbfbfb; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 40px; padding: 10px 20px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But the post-crisis experience, as well as research on the effects of fiscal policy, is establishing a “new view” grounded in five principles:</span></div>
<ol style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-position: outside; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 5px 10px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">At a time when conventional monetary policy faces limitations in a world of lower interest rates, fiscal policy can be a particularly effective complement....</span></li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 5px 10px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In today’s conditions fiscal policy may... “crowd in” private investment through stronger growth....</span></li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 5px 10px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">[In] advanced economies... under today’s economic conditions effectively crafted investments could raise output by more than they raise debt--reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio....</span></li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 5px 10px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Prolonged lower interest rates and economies operating below potential suggest that fiscal expansion should be more sustained....</span></li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 5px 10px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Fiscal policy is even more beneficial if co-ordinated more across countries...</span></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
To which my reaction (as a lay reader, not an economist) is: Well, duh! Wasn't all that obvious (except maybe for #5) seven years ago? John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-12503424640262430672016-10-14T16:11:00.002-07:002016-10-14T16:11:46.270-07:00Potty HumorAh, the Engish, they love it so!<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Donald Trump has taken a knuckle-duster to American political culture <a href="https://t.co/fDJdgUuQtF">https://t.co/fDJdgUuQtF</a> <a href="https://t.co/cBKOS2abYv">pic.twitter.com/cBKOS2abYv</a></div>
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/786676359879942144">October 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-58201463275416812432016-10-10T23:42:00.001-07:002017-01-21T18:07:27.111-08:00The Moscovian Candidate?From <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635">Kurt Eichenwald</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
"The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The Russians have been obtaining American emails and now are presenting complete misrepresentations of them—falsifying them—in hopes of setting off a cascade of events that might change the outcome of the presidential election. The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump?"</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Why, indeed!!</span><br />
<br />John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-50992575638719479622016-10-09T16:03:00.000-07:002017-01-21T18:08:51.735-08:00More on GOP Sabotage<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/barack-obama-on-5-days-that-shaped-his-presidency.html">Jonatan Chait's interview</a> with President Obama sheds more light on the Republicans' deliberate <a href="http://ifonlytheydaskedme.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-i-do-not-understand.html">strategy of sabotage</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="entry-body" style="background-color: #fbfbfb; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both;">
<blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 40px; padding: 10px 20px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.25; margin-top: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"When I came into office, my working assumption was that because we were in crisis, and the crisis had begun on the Republicans’ watch, that there would be a window in which they would feel obliged to cooperate on a common effort to dig us out of this massive hole.</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="entry-more" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both;">
<blockquote style="background-color: #fbfbfb; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 40px; padding: 10px 20px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Probably the moment in which I realized that the Republican leadership intended to take a different tack was actually as we were shaping the stimulus bill, and I vividly remember having prepared a basic proposal that had a variety of components. We had tax cuts; we had funding for the states so that teachers wouldn’t be laid off and firefighters and so forth; we had an infrastructure component. We felt, I think, that as an opening proposal, it was ambitious but needed and that we would begin negotiations with the Republicans and they would show us things that they thought also needed to happen.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">On the drive up to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Republican Caucus, John Boehner released a press statement saying that they were opposed to the stimulus. At that point we didn’t even actually have a stimulus bill drawn up, and we hadn’t meant to talk about it. And I think we realized at that point what proved to be the case in that first year and that second year was a calculation based on what turned out to be pretty smart politics but really bad for the country: If they cooperated with me, then that would validate our efforts. If they were able to maintain uniform opposition to whatever I proposed, that would send a signal to the public of gridlock, dysfunction, and that would help them win seats in the midterms."</span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;">Smart politics, bad for the country. Pretty much sums up today's GOP, until nominating Trump caught up with them.</span></div>
John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-40852977852183929572016-09-25T09:50:00.000-07:002016-09-25T10:15:55.062-07:00Week of WhoppersSo the New York Times has finally got around to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html">chronicling a week's</a> worth of Trump's falsehoods.<br />
<br />
Perhaps they can follow the example of Steve Benen, who in 2012 posted a <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xli">list of Romney's lies</a> every week, and make "A Week of Whoppers From Donald Trump" a continuing feature.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Update.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I see Politico has <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/2016-donald-trump-fact-check-week-214287">chronicled a week's worth</a> of falsehoods from each candidate, and come to this conclusion: <span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Trump’s mishandling of facts and propensity for exaggeration so greatly exceed Clinton’s as to make the comparison almost ludicrous." (They calculate that Trump averaged one falsehood every 3 minutes 15 seconds in the five hours they examined.)</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-16740998780203305952016-09-21T15:02:00.000-07:002016-09-21T15:56:10.068-07:00Playing SkittlesHere's the tweet from Donald Trump, Jr. that has stirred up some controversy:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pRYMGQOWwS8/V-L9TGvl2aI/AAAAAAAABYI/ih-RP56aLjIWjkbdnWwxwSglFFoJEeIdQCLcB/s1600/Skittles.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pRYMGQOWwS8/V-L9TGvl2aI/AAAAAAAABYI/ih-RP56aLjIWjkbdnWwxwSglFFoJEeIdQCLcB/s320/Skittles.JPG" width="267" /></a></div>
<br />
Let's unpack what it says.<br />
"If.. I told you just three would kill you"<br />
<br />
The meaning: I have certain knowledge that three of the Skittles in the bowl will kill you.<br />
<br />
I'm guessing there are about 100 Skittles in the bowl, though Mr. Trump has used the figure 1,000<br />
<br />
So in his scenario, 0.3% of the Skittles are known to be deadly.<br />
<br />
To apply the analogy to Syrian refugees, Mr. Trump would need to have certain knowledge that 0.3% of them are known to be deadly terrorists.<br />
<br />
Does he have that certain knowledge? <br />
And has our pusillanimous press even thought to ask him that?<br />
<br />
But to continue unpacking:<br />
"Would you take" - I assume he means "eat" - "a handful?"<br />
<br />
Presumably analogous to the US taking at random some proportion of Syrian refugees.<br />
And if 0.3% of Syrian refugees were deadly, as Mr. Trump appears to claim, that would indeed be a concern.<br />
<br />
But we do not take Syrian refugees at random. There is a long drawn out screening process.<br />
So to continue Mr. Trump's analogy, we should add:<br />
<br />
"And if I told you we had screened out the Skittles that would kill you, would you take a handful?"<br />
<br />
If I enjoyed eating Skittles, well yes, I would.<br />
<br />
And if common humanity impelled me to give refuge to <span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;"> your tired, your poor,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #252525;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."</span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="color: #252525; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">...well, yes, I would.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Update:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Chris Hayes and Ken Burns <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/trump-history-and-demonizing-the-other-769816131831">discuss the subject</a>.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-32101246810924457332016-08-21T13:45:00.000-07:002016-08-21T13:49:17.512-07:00One More Press Fail<span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.15px; line-height: 24px;">“I’m a truth teller,” the Republican nominee told CNBC on Thursday. “All I do is tell the truth."</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gHfN9hsSIvY/V7oSUl-Zj7I/AAAAAAAABN0/QfkVSx0wUK4fIhKv1TeGKX-PeyRB_onnQCLcB/s1600/The%2Bliars.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gHfN9hsSIvY/V7oSUl-Zj7I/AAAAAAAABN0/QfkVSx0wUK4fIhKv1TeGKX-PeyRB_onnQCLcB/s400/The%2Bliars.JPG" width="340" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Needless to say, CNBC didn't bring up Trump's record of falsehoods so their audience would be properly informed.</div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.15px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-86971882184127802132016-08-20T13:53:00.001-07:002016-08-20T13:53:42.691-07:00Another Democratic FailZack Beauchamp <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12370848/ransom-iran-400-million">lays out clearly</a> why the $400 million paid to Iran was not "ransom".<br />
<br />
But the right is <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439155/obamas-400m-cash-payment-iran-was-ransom">on the offensive</a> with claims that the payment was a ransom.<br />
<br />
A simple response would be for the administration to point out that the $400 million would have been paid to Iran <b style="font-style: italic;">even if Iran held no hostages. </b>The only link was holding up the payment until Iran followed though on a separate deal to free hostages.<br />
<br />
But I've yet to hear the administration or Democratic pols make this very simple statement, while the "ransom" claim <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/ransom-confirmed-us-wouldnt-let-iran-take-400-million-till-prisoners-released/">continues to fester and be widely spread.</a>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149267289311619400.post-56789098703219674292016-08-02T15:40:00.006-07:002022-01-22T21:57:09.445-08:00Shame On You, The Atlantic!Bill O'Reilly had some push back when he <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2016/07/27/bill-oreilly-white-house-slaves-cnnmoney.cnn" target="_blank">commented that the slaves who built the White House were well fed and had decent lodgings.</a><div><br /></div><div>While I'm no fan of Bill O'Reilly, I'm also no fan of dishonesty from his opponents in making rhetorical points. <br />
<br />
The Atlantic has an online post with this heading:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: "Lyon Display", Georgia, Times, serif; line-height: 1.04; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <b> </b>How Abigail Adams Proves Bill O'Reilly Wrong About Slavery</span></blockquote>
and purports to prove that with this excerpt from one of her letters:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; line-height: 30.0001px;">Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, ... to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "lyon text" , "georgia" , "times" , serif; line-height: 30.0001px;">.</span></span></blockquote>
Notice the ellipsis after the word "cloathing". As you can see from the reproduction below, the entire sentence reads:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: times; line-height: 30.0001px;">Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is<u> true Republicanism</u> that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, or fit for Mayfare, to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "lyon text" , "georgia" , "times" , serif; line-height: 30.0001px;">.</span></span></blockquote>
Now we can see what Mrs. Adams was really saying. A careful reading of her words show that she is pivoting from a description of White House work habits to a generalization about slavery: that all of them, whether "half fed and destitute of clothing" (in truly wretched condition) to "fit for Mayfare" (fed and dressed well enough for Mayfair, London's most fashionable district) have the same thing in common - they "labour, while the owner waches about idle". She is saying nothing one way or the other about the condition of slaves working at the White House.<br />
<br />
Leaving out the "fit for Mayfair" section completely distorts Mrs. Adams' meaning. The Atlantic should be ashamed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LjPuuTTrg68/V6Gg5ncNu9I/AAAAAAAABL4/KZLo7JVYaZkSx2G_fLnM-o0XLkQdeCxhwCLcB/s1600/Adams%2Bletter.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LjPuuTTrg68/V6Gg5ncNu9I/AAAAAAAABL4/KZLo7JVYaZkSx2G_fLnM-o0XLkQdeCxhwCLcB/s320/Adams%2Bletter.jpg" width="261" /></a></div>
<br /></div>John Quickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.com0