Lee.org

Is Donald Trump racist?

Racist: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one’s own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

Dictionary.com

On June 12th Trump was interviewed on Fox News by Harris Faulkner. He was asked to explain why he Tweeted on May 29th “when the looting starts the shooting starts”.

Faulkner, “Why those words?”

Trump, “So, that’s an expression I’ve heard over the years.”

Faulkner, “Do you know where it comes from?”

Trump, “I think Philadelphia, the mayor of Philadelphia.”

Faulker, “No, it comes from 1967, I was about 18 month old… it was from the chief of police in Miami, he was cracking down and he meant what he said. And he said, ‘I don’t even care if it makes it look like brutality, I’m going to crack down. When the looting starts, the shooting starts.’ That frightened a lot of people when you tweeted that.”

Trump, “It also comes from a very tough mayor who might have been police commissioner at the time, but I think mayor of Philadelphia named Frank Rizzo and he had an expression like that. But I’ve heard it many times. I think it’s been used many times. It means two things — very different things. One is, if there’s looting, there’s probably going to be shooting, and that’s not as a threat, that’s really just a fact, because that’s what happens. And the other is, if there’s looting, there’s going to be shooting. They’re very different meanings.”

Summing It Up

In the 2 weeks between writing “when the looting starts…” and that interview, Trump had plenty of time to google the phrase or find out what public perception was. Hell, the moment I read that phrase, I knew in my gut, before looking it up, that it was charged, dangerous language. But Trump didn’t acknowledge any of that. He didn’t acknowledge the not-so-hidden meaning behind those words. By not distancing himself from the original context, he was choosing to support it and the full weight of its racist, police-brutality promoting context. Please understand this: it doesn’t matter if he said the phrase initially without understanding it’s historical context. What matters is that, after learning about the historical context, he did not correct the record, and that was intentional.

In case you’re missing my point, here’s another example. What if Trump had repeated a famous, inspiring quote like, “Do not compare yourself to others. If you do so, you are insulting yourself”. That may be fine advice. If, however 10 million people pointed out that it was a famous quote by Hitler (it is), the president might do well to distance himself from it. Maybe if he got asked about it in an interview, he’d say something conciliatory but face-saving. Maybe something like, “I didn’t remember where I heard it before. I thought it was an inspiring thing to say but realizing it’s origin, I wouldn’t use that quote again.”

Now instead, consider if an interviewer asked him about the phrase, saying, “You know, you saying that quote made a lot of people uneasy. I’m a Jew and that is a famous quote by Hitler,” What if Trump responded with, “Well, I also heard Frank Rizzo say it once and it worked for him.”? You’d think… well, what would you think?

A friend recommended I watch PBS’s Frontline, The Virus: What Went Wrong. It’s worth watching! Using interviews from many experts from virologists, epidemiologists, government officials, and others, and actual footage from news around the world, it shows how the world is responding to COVID-19 and how America got the very dubious distinction of being at the very top of this this chart:

And near the top of this one:

To be sure, there have been many missteps from leaders and people all over the world. Let’s hope we beat this sooner rather than later.

Followup: C. C. a friend pointed out that these charts don’t take into account “excess deaths”

I suspect that deaths in Russia and Brazil are seriously understated in that chart, since those two countries have been particularly bad about accurate reporting. But the US is also understated, though probably to a lesser degree. Several states are reporting many times more deaths due to unknown causes than they usually do, because they don’t have adequate testing and don’t allow COVID-19 to be listed as a cause of death unless the person was tested.

C.C.

My response:

Yup! The numbers are probably correct to within a multiplier of 2 or so. There certainly are “excess deaths”. I just found this… https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

I made a short video partially answering the question: Can we change the progress of the pandemic?

Go New Zealand! Go Zim!

I’ve been playing Dungeons and Dragons with some friends for the last couple years. It’s my time to get out, hang with friends, escape daily problems, think about completely fantastical and solve them. It feels good to solve a problem! For example, resolving the digital divide in America is a hard problem, but killing the evil necromancer terrorizing the village is a 3-hour adventure with a satisfying conclusion.

Since I’m a grown-up, my adventures tend to be more intricate. Most recently, I was exploring a scene out of the classic satire, Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift. I had read the whole thing when I was in college and, it’s way more intense than you may have thought. In this scene, Swift makes satire at the expense of the medical sciences of the day. Viewer discretion is most certainly advised:

I was complaining of a small fit of the colic, upon which my conductor led me into a room where a great physician resided, who was famous for curing that disease, by contrary operations from the same instrument. He had a large pair of bellows, with a long slender muzzle of ivory: this he conveyed eight inches up the anus, and drawing in the wind, he affirmed he could make the guts as lank as a dried bladder. But when the disease was more stubborn and violent, he let in the muzzle while the bellows were full of wind, which he discharged into the body of the patient; then withdrew the instrument to replenish it, clapping his thumb strongly against the orifice of then fundament; and this being repeated three or four times, the adventitious wind would rush out, bringing the noxious along with it, (like water put into a pump), and the patient recovered. I saw him try both experiments upon a dog, but could not discern any effect from the former. After the latter the animal was ready to burst, and made so violent a discharge as was very offensive to me and my companion. The dog died on the spot, and we left the doctor endeavouring to recover him, by the same operation.

Gulliver’s Travels, Part 3, Chapter 5 : Page 3

I made my character with that scene in mind. From an email I sent to my game master, I aimed to create a character “… maybe an Early-Enlightenment Age scientist with a big stick. Pre-steam-punk (definitely!), post-dark-ages (bit only barely). Lawful-evil by a modern definition but you’ve got to break a few necks to make an omelette, don’t you agree?”

I wanted to highlight the absurdity of pseudo-science, and at the same time allow for the notion that the “great physician” in Gulliver’s Travels was performing “proto”-science. He was making an effort to use science to cure ills, in the above case with disastrous results, but he was making an effort in a world that doesn’t even recognize that science exists. I thought of my character as being in a high-minded, low-brow farce.

To make the character work, made him a bit of a sociopath with little regard for right and wrong and ignoring the feelings of others. Can you can guess what a dark hole this went down?

I talked to my game master about some weird and dastardly plans I had and he came back with a reality check “That’s getting awfully dark too there Lee. Wow. ” He also had an apology. “Yeah, the world is still ramping up the weird and awful. It’s part of why I couldn’t run the game last weekend.”

It was at this moment that I realized: now, 2020 in America is not the time to be bad. It’s not the time to talk about being bad. There is enough bad in our world. Our world is in turmoil. It’s been 155 years since the Civil War and the wounds have never been more fresh. I don’t want to fantasize about figuring out what is good and right. I know what is good and right and now is time to be good and right.

A friend just pointed out The Bail Project.

I hadn’t been thinking about how poor people are much more likely to rot in jail before a trial. Having not thought much about it, I assumed that bail amounts were being reasonably set and bail-bonds was a weird but more-or-less reasonable system to keep people from fleeing before their trial.

Maybe I should do more thinking and less assuming.

I think that old guy cracked his skull open on the pavement on purpose so he could make the police look bad.*

Have you ever noticed how glowing the reviews on Berkeley Parents Network are? I found out first-hand that the reviews are all so good because negative reviews are prohibited. When you choose to visit a doctor or daycare because they received 10 good reviews on BPN, you should very legitimately be worried that the provider may also have 100 bad reviews that were all rejected. By not allowing negative reviews, they hide any and all problems that an organization may have. Imagine for a moment if Amazon.com only allowed 3-star or better reviews.

Berkeley Parents Network is a popular website that has user submitted reviews of businesses in the East Bay with a connection to parents and kids. They also have a parent advice column. We’ve used their reviews to help guide our family.

I found out about BPN’s no-negative-reviews policy after a friend posted her personal experience with a pediatrician in Berkeley on the Berkeley Family Friends Facebook Group (link). I suggested she post her experience to  Berkeley Parents Network. Her post to BPN was denied, the moderator citing their “No negative reviews” policy.

I had an email discussion with the director of Berkeley Parents Network, Ginger Ogle about the no-negative-review policy. Her argument for why they have such a policy was very circular. Essentially it’s “We accept unsolicited positive reviews but negative reviews must be in answer to a question, though there is no reliable way to ask a question on BPN.”

I’ll let you decide, here is the discussion we had:

Lee on 11-17-19:

I’ve been using Berkeley Parents Network for many years and have trusted it to find local professionals for our daughter.

A friend and neighbor told me about a very negative, long term experience she had with a doctor in Berkeley. She tried to post her review on BPN but was denied, citing your “No negative reviews” policy. This has deeply undermined my belief in the utility of your site. How can a review site exist if negative reviews are prohibited? I know that the members of BPN care deeply about the mission of the website. How can this issue be reconciled?

Ginger’s response on 12-7-19:

BPN’s policies have been developed over 25 years. They are published on our website. Please read them. I gave you and your friend a link, but it seems you have not read the policy. We do our best to apply the policies fairly for all subscribers… People who don’t agree with BPN’s policies usually choose not to subscribe.

Lee’s response on 1-13-20:

I read the policy. The negative review in question met most of the requirements of your policy though your policy explicitly makes it impossible for any negative review to meet all of the requirements. Most notably your rule about “Negative reviews are accepted only in response to a relevant question”. This rule means that while positive reviews are accepted at any time, negative reviews are only accepted in the narrow window of time when there is a relevant outstanding question in your system, which is, in all practical terms, never. Do you think her review failed any of the other tests in your Rules for Posting a Negative Review?

A rating system is not valid if it only accepts positive reviews. It sounds like you disagree with me on this.

>People who don’t agree with BPN’s policies usually choose not to subscribe.
A major problem is that only people that find out about the no-negative-review policy are people that try to post negative reviews. I’ve spoken with a few people who use BPN and none knew of this policy. All showed me deeply furrowed eyebrows of concern when they recognized the perils of such censorship.

Ginger’s response on 1-14-20:

You are misunderstanding how BPN works. Your friend posted an *unsolicited* review, which is unusual on BPN. Very few of the tens of thousands of reviews on our website were unsolicited reviews. I would guess less than 1% of all our reviews. The unsolicited reviews are all positive since we don’t accept *unsolicited* negative reviews. 99% of the tens of thousands of reviews on our site were posted in response to a question. Some of them are negative, most of them are positive.

.

I welcome you, dear reader to honor Ginger’s advice. “People who don’t agree with BPN’s policies usually choose not to subscribe”.

I should note that I tried to create a question about Claudine’s doctor’s office but it was rejected because, the moderator wrote, there was already enough information on the BPN site about the doctor’s office.

Claudine’s Negative Review
Here is the negative review that my friend wrote about Berkeley Pediatrics. I think you will agree that, with her factual, informative, neutral tone, this negative review, and any like it should definitely be seen by potential clients and customers. Here is what she wrote on the Berkeley Family Friends Facebook Group (link) and to BPN:

We are very disappointed with our experience at Berkeley Pediatrics over the course of 5 years specifically regarding our 6 year old. The negligence and mistakes they made were apparent immediately upon switching providers.

Our son was recently diagnosed as being completely deaf in his left ear despite passing his hearing screen (as perfect in both ears) at Berkeley Pediatrics and showing behaviors of single-sided deafness for years. I consistently expressed my concerns over his language development regarding conversations and making friends as well as his difficulties with auditory processing. All of these were passed on as being behavioral issues or needing more sleep. They basically convinced me that his hearing was perfect when in fact MRI has now shown his left ear has likely been deaf since he was a baby.

In addition to this negligence the reaction I received when informing our former pediatrician was “I don’t know what to think about that.” No one ever followed up with their concern or expressed that they would investigate what went wrong so that no other child will fall through their cracks like ours did. We called back yesterday to try to understand what went wrong and why they failed to diagnose a deaf child that had been with the same pediatrician since he was 18 months only to be met with defensiveness. Finally after almost an hour on the phone she agreed to have a meeting about this situation and review the pure tone hearing screen administrations.

Since we are no longer patients at Berkeley Pediatrics I feel like I have an obligation to alert any of you that are patients, of our experience.

There are nationwide protests and riots related to the murder of a man named George Floyd at the hands of a police officer. It has become a huge racial issue and the president has threatened to turn the military on the protesters. It’s a shit-show. We are a country divided. How the hell did that happen so quickly?

Trump declared himself “your president of law and order” and proceeded to tear-gas peaceful protesters across the street from the white house so he could get a a photo-op in front of a church. Note at the end of the first video he says he is going someplace. In the second video he goes there.

Religious persons were not amused. Here’s an interview with the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC and a Jesuit priest.

The president later said that tear gas wasn’t used. Here is a live-streamed video of the protesters being pushed out of Lafayette park, please note all the talk of pain in the eyes at 6:10, 7:09 and elsewhere.

This, of course, escalated the violence.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told the president he can’t have the military for his war on Americans. No, he didn’t say that, he wrote (via)

As members of the Joint Force – comprised of all races, colors and creeds – you embody the ideals of our Constitution. Please remind all of our troops and leaders that we will uphold the values of our nation, and operate consistent with national laws and our own high standards of conduct at all times.

And just in case you are thinking, “Ah ha! they aren’t protesters, they’re looters! Milley is an ally of Trump! We’re gonna bust some heads!” Ask yourself, why did Milley write this letter now? Why did he say that thing about all races, colors, and creeds?

Followup, June 11th: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Milley apologizes for appearing with Trump at church photo op … “I should not have been there,” Milley said in a video commencement address to National Defense University

You can now go outside! But only during the day!

Yesterday, Contra Costa County declared a mandatory curfew due to riots. (link)

Today, the COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place orders are being partially lifted. (link)

“Contra Costa County residents can go back to work, shop at local retail stores, get childcare and hang out with small groups of loved ones starting June 3.

Indoor retail shopping, business offices, outdoor museums and pet grooming are among the businesses that will reopen in Contra Costa County under the latest shelter-in-place order released today. The order also permits services that don’t require close customer contact, such as housekeeping, car washes, plumbing and pet grooming.”