http:\/\/www.vox.com\/2016\/8\/1\/12108126\/gender-wage-gap-explained-real<\/a>
I knew when I published the link with a brief comment that folks would not understand what I actually loved about it. Because it takes me 1500-2000 words to explain my thought processes. But I decided it was worth trying to explain for people who have any interest in how I tend to analyze things. So I reproduce my actual 1500+ analysis below.
A few days back, I shared this link with the notation "I love this article so very, ver much." Because I was on a train with poor connectivity, I didn't have a chance to write my usual 1500-2000 words of what I liked and didn't like. So everyone focused on the primary content, which focused on the research of three economists who followed women who graduated from U of C with MBAs and the nature of what their work showed as a general explanation.<\/span><\/span>
What I actually loved about it was its recognition of the complexity and nuance of the problem of the pay gap. The article focused on one particular line of research, but it acknowledged several important points that I have been making for years.<\/span><\/span>
1. Our assessment of the pay gap in a single, average figure is not useful for figuring out a solution. We have cleared the easy problem of prohibiting outright discrimination that previously existed. What has happened therefore is a host of more subtle problems that can, in some degree, be broken down as follows.<\/span><\/span>
a. Industries\/work environments that remain sex segregated and where very visible, traditional forms of sexism still exist.<\/span><\/span>
b. Industries\/work environments where unconscious bias and other forms of friction for women seeking to advance exist (e.g., women are penalized for behavior that is rewarded in men because it violates expected norms like being 'too aggressive').<\/span><\/span>
c. Industries\/work environments where facially neutral criteria work to the disadvantage of women.<\/span><\/span>
2. The Chicago MBA research was significant because it focused on category (c). Category (c) is often overlooked because it is a function of the work environment and therefore is the "fish\/water" problem and brings in the "but we can't just lower the standards" response. The fact that women can succeed in category (c) environment by not having children or other 'work participation' interruptions is usually taken as evidence that (c) is simply an immutable fact.<\/span><\/span>
3. The authors also note that men are penalized *more* for moving out of a "traditional hours" (or, as we used to call it when I was in private practice, "Facetime"). This makes what has been the standard recommendation (men need to do more in the "traditional" women's role such as housework and childrearing) more complicated. <\/span><\/span>
As the article notes, although we have been making steady progress in this area, the responsibility for taking care of child\/children and organizing cleaning house still falls primarily on women. There are a lot of caveats about such surveys, including what "counts" as work by men in these areas. (Surveys find that both men and women do not "count" childcare activities by men that are perceived as "fun" for men. Thus, a mother taking children to a little league game is is considered childcare, but a father taking children to a little league game is not considered childcare. Similarly, outdoor yardwork -- a traditional male activity -- is likewise discounted from 'housework' such as sweeping or laundry. Surveys which rely on random calls at various times to parents saying "please describe what you are doing right now," without categorizing something as work or not, show a slightly more equitable distribution. But the general trend is still present, particularly for staying at home with a sick child which is not amenable to such subjective categorization.) Nevertheless, we can take the overall trend as a given, since the goal should be as close to 100% equal as possible (I'll discuss this a bit more presently in the question of flexibility.)<\/span><\/span>
The traditional explanation is that we don't "value" traditional women's work because it is done by women. But the fact that men who "lean in" are punished more heavily economically (what I used to call 'the Daddy track') means that part of the decision making is not driven by valuing the work as by the expectation that women do the work more, therefore we should not penalize them as much for doing it. This is actually more consistent with the general trend in the workplace to offload as much to the employee as possible. employers regard "housework" and "child care" as extra-curricular activities that do not provide excusable absence from work not because they do not value it in the abstract, but because they do not wish to pay for it. This is similar to the way to the way that employers will pay lip service to the idea that employees should be healthy, but still penalize employees that take time to exercise regularly instead of being available for the extraordinary hours (including the core 9-5 hours) that employees provide.<\/span><\/span>
This is not simply "patriarchy hurts everyone, even men." The fact is that there is a lot of labor in having a family, maintaining a home, and otherwise having a life outside the workplace that needs to get done. If a heterosexual family takes a greater economic hit because culturally and economically it "cost more" for the man to contribute labor equally, that labor falls on the woman -- to her personal cost. But while the personal cost for the woman is higher than the personal cost for the man, the overall cost to the family may be lower. A very nasty choice that re-enforces the pay gap but can only be solved by changing cultural and economic attitudes toward men doing more home support work.<\/span><\/span>
4. I quoted the particular sentence about the "3 categories" (men, women with kids, women without kids) not because it represents a solution but because it illustrates complexity, not because it illustrates a solution. Nor does it require that women achieve full equality without children. There are a lot of friction points that work together to sustain the pay gap. While the article focuses on the primary object of the research, it does discuss the wide range of other friction points -- such as outright sexism in "negotiation" of salary and the fact that men starting their MBA career had sufficiently better previous work experience and networking capacity to start with a $15K salary advantage (about 10% pay gap).<\/span><\/span>
5. The article also jibes with my own experience and what I have observed and heard about through Rebecca Feld<\/span>. The rise of shift work families and our own experience. I left a major law firm that was about as family friendly as possible in 1999 in part because it clearly was not possible for me to be as involved in the life of my child and do what I needed to do at home and have a successful career. <\/span><\/span>
Moving to a more flexible public interest law firm required to take a cut in salary to about 1\/3 of what I had been making. My current salary, which is quite generous in absolute terms and for the public interest sector, is about 1\/5th (or less, haven't checked recently) of what I would earn had I stayed and made partner. Happily, because my wife is a pharmacist (and because of some lucky decisions and timing), we were able to take that hit and survive.<\/span><\/span>
Even then, finding the proper balance was a highly individualized process. And it involved a lot of trade offs. The graph of my professional career and earning power has a lot to do with Aaron's age and how I was able to shift more time to professional events and networking and travel as Aaron grew older. This was not a happy balance. Becky increasingly took responsibility for "managing [Aaron's] schedule and activities both because she is more organized, but because once she is finished with her work shift she is done. <\/span><\/span>
I will also add that there is enormous friction not merely from employers, but from schools and other institutions associated with childcare for father participation rather than mother participation. This is already too long, so I will not recount the number of personal anecdotes. I will simply say that focusing on a traditional idea of "patriarchy" and that we therefore "do not value" non-profit earning "women's work" is only a portion of the problem, and that to generally address it will require a deeper understanding of the complexity involved.<\/span><\/span>
6. The articles point to shiftwork\/flexibility as being an important element is likewise important, but can't be the entire solution. The percentage of heterosexual couples in shiftwork jobs, where one parent works a "day" or morning shift and the other parent works an "evening" or night shift is rising -- precisely to provide the flexibilty needed for coverage. Not surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the pay gap decreased for women able to o flexible shifts. The article did not look at the fact that to balance the demands adequately usually requires a partner in a shiftwork or more flexible job to cover the gap. <\/span><\/span>
7. I strongly disagree with the article's conclusion that policy cannot push solutions, but agree with the criticism that policy (and politicians) want things "one and done." But attacking the pay gap for gender (and for race, but that is a very different set of problems), is going to take lots of policies where government action can be extremely useful and influential. But it needs to be nuanced. Policy must incorporate both the lessons of the social sciences -- with regard to attitudes towards women and men, stereotypes, the nature of what does and doesn't get rewarded or reported and why -- and the lessons of economics in terms of sustainability and the complex choices that impact family units as a whole, not just women individually. <\/span><\/span>
None of this, of course, is intrinsically obvious to anyone reading the article, unless you're me. Because that is how I think about these things and related things all the time. When people ask me how I can do what I do, this is why. <\/span><\/span>
<\/a>
"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1252390","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1252390.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1252390"}}],"title":"My incredibly long drash on Amalek, Purim and Why Most of What You Hear on the Subject is Wrong","published":"2017-03-08T02:31:12Z","updated":"2017-03-08T02:31:12Z","content":"For those in the mood for 5000+ words:
Wherein I discuss the true nature of the mitzvah of Shabbos Zachar by examining the many apparent contradictions between the story in Exodus and the command in Deuteronomy. Furthermore, I delve deeper into the connection between Purim and the reading of the story of Amalek, demonstrating that the connection is far more significant than the surface explanations provided with regard to the lineage of Haman. I also examine why Purim, like the war of God with Amalek, is described as being "in every generation" with a perpetual command to remember both Purim and Amalek.<\/span>
The Shabbos before Purim, we read the command to wipe out the memory of Amalek as given in the book of D’varim (Deut.) Additionally, on the day of Purim, we read the story of how Amalek attacked us in the desert. Our sages have explained in Tractate Megillah and elsewhere the connection between Purim and Amalek, so I shall not repeat it here.
Instead, I wish to examine the nature of the command that is given with regard to Amalek, as illustrated by the differences between the story of Amalek and their attack on Israel in the desert [Ex. 17:8-16] and the command given in Deut. [25:17-19]. As we shall see from the text itself, there are many contradictions and many questions which we must resolve. As we shall see, this examination will reveal deeper connections to the holiday of Purim than the surface connection of Haman as a putative descendant of Amalek.
Additionally, this should serve as a caution and a rebuke to those who would seek facile explanations of the story of Amalek to justify their own views of the world. For in twisting the words of the Torah and the sages to meet their own ends, these foolish ones seek to take the crown of Torah and place it upon their own heads.
The Context For Amalek’s Attack.<\/b>
We begin in Exodus 17. But rather than begin with the story of Amalek, we must begin with the first part of the chapter. The Jewish People journey through the wilderness of Zin “according to the command of the Lord.” When they reach Riphiddim, they find no water. The people complain to Moses, who admonishes them: “Why do you fight with me, why do you test the patience of God?” But still the people murmured saying: “Why did you bring us out of Egypt to kill me, and my children and my cattle with thirst?” Moshe cries to God, who instructs Moshe to assemble the elders of Israel, hold aloft his staff “with which he struck the waters of the Nile” and parade in front of Israel to an outcropping of rock. Moshe is instructed to strike the rock, at which point water rushes out. The people drink their fill. But they name the place “Masa oo’Meriva” (“travail and arguing”) “because of the arguing of Israel, and that they tested God by saying: ‘Is the Lord in our midst or not?’”
God’s Response to Israel’s Questioning His Presence In Their Midst: Hester Panim<\/b>
It is this questioning whether or not God is really with them that triggers the sudden appearance of Amalek. They strike the Children of Israel as they are still gathered in Rephidim, the place they questioned whether God was truly with them. They have no warning and no instruction. Unlike before, when they marched “in accordance with the command of God,” the children of Israel now find themselves bereft of both Divine Protection (since the Pillar of Cloud should have protected them from the attack, as it protected them from the Egyptians), and Divine instruction.
In Judaism, we have a concept known as “hester panim,” (God) “hiding his face.” This is repeated numerous times in the book of Deuteronomy as a punishment for Israel abandoning God in their hearts or in their actions. As Israel turns from God, so God turns from Israel, leaving us at the mercy of natural forces and natural enemies. So too here. Despite the ongoing miracles that have surrounded the Children of Israel since the plagues commenced, they still question whether God is really with them. Accordingly, God turns his face from Israel and they become open to attack from a band of desert raiders who pray on the weak.
That God is aware that such a raid is inevitable absent His divine intervention does not, of course, relieve Amalek of the moral consequences of their actions. God has created a world in which the wicked may commit their crimes as freely as the righteous may perform their deeds of charity and virtue. What is extraordinary is not the attack of Amalek, but that God would otherwise intervene and miraculously shelter the Children of Israel from harassment and attack.
Because God has reverted Israel to the “state of nature,” Moses must lead the people without divine instruction. Moses therefore responds by acting in “derech hateva” (the natural way of the world) rather than calling on God directly to miraculously punish their enemies with a visible miracle. Instead, he calls on Joshua to recruit an army to strike back at Amalek and drive off the invaders.
While this is the natural way of the world, it is still an incredible break for the people of Israel and their experience. Only a few chapters ago, God decided to avoid taking the Children of Israel on the direct route to the Promised Land “lest they see war and return to Egypt.” [Ex. 10:17] Now they must take up arms against an aggressive people who inflicted casualties on them, rather than rely upon Divine protection or divine vengeance. Nevertheless, Moshe reassures them that they will not be entirely without divine aid. Moshe tells Joshua that he will climb to a height “with the staff of the Lord in my hand.” As repeatedly demonstrated, the staff is a symbol by which Moses becomes the instrument of the Divine command.
Nevertheless, we should note this astounding turn of events. For once, Moshe does not await the instruction of God to raise the staff as a symbol to Israel. Rather, Moses informs Joshua to tell the army that Moshe will, on his own initiative, take the staff to a visible height to invoke the protection of God.
To their credit, the Children of Israel agree to do so. Astonishingly, in light of their previous conduct, they do not cry and beg to return to Egypt. Perhaps inspired by the fact that they actually survived a battle, they now unquestioningly follow the instructions of Moshe. The next day, Joshua leads his men out to battle, while Moshe ascends to the height with Aaron and Aaron’s son Hur. When Moshe lifts his arms in visible supplication to God, the Children of Israel triumph in battle. When his hands become too heavy, the Amalekites gain the advantage. Also acting on their own initiative, Aaron and Hur provide Moshe with a stone to sit upon and hold his two arms in the air. As a result, Joshua and his army are able to “weaken” the Amalekites “with the edge of the sword.”
God’s Instruction to Moshe and Moshe’s Response.<\/b>
Following this display of victory through faith, God re-establishes direct communication with Moshe. He instructs Moshe to “write this as a remembrance in the Book, and place it in the ear of Joshua, for I <\/i><\/b>shall assuredly wipe out [Hebrew: Macho Emcheh] the memory of Amalek from under the Heavens.” Moshe then, builds an altar “and he called its name The Lord is my banner. And he said, ‘For by the Hand of the Lord upon His Throne: it is war, between God and Amalek in every generation.”
I will add that the Hebrew here is somewhat ambiguous, especially when including the musical notation (“ta’amei ha’mikra”) as punctuation.[i]<\/span><\/a>
The Actual Command to Israel As Described in Deuteronomy.<\/b>
Interestingly, our sages do not require that we read the actual story of Amalek to satisfy the Biblical injunction that we remember what Amalek did and do not forget to wipe out the memory of Amalek. Instead, the requirement to fulfill this commandment is satisfied by reading the much shorter section in Deuteronomy 25: 17-19. I reproduce the entirety in translation below.
“Remember that which Amalek did to you on the road when you left Egypt. How he came upon you[ii]<\/span><\/a> on the way and he smote the hindermost,[iii]<\/span><\/a> all the weak ones that trailed behind, you were weary and exhausted, and they did not fear the Lord.[iv]<\/span><\/a> Therefore, when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies about you in the land that God has given you as an inheritance to possess, you shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under Heaven. Do not forget!”
Critical Differences Between the Conclusion of the Exodus Story and the Command in Deuteronomy.<\/b>
Of greatest importance is the shift from God being the actor who will blot out the memory of Amalek to Israel being the actor. In Exodus, God declares that Moshe should write down, and then place specifically “in the ear of Joshua” that ‘I (God) will certainly wipe out the memory of Amalek from under Heaven.”[v]<\/span><\/a> Additionally we are told (whether by God or Moshe is unclear from the text) that the war between God and Amalek will continue "forever”(despite God eliminating the memory of Amalek from under the Heavens).
By contrast, in Deuteronomy, the command is given to Israel “Timcheh,” you <\/i><\/b>shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under Heaven.” Nor is this command given for all time, nor does the text give the command in double language. To the contrary, God specifies that the Children of Israel are not to take any steps to wipe out Amalek until God has settled them in the land and they have peace with their surrounding enemies. At that point, the wiping out of Amalek is to be a one time event. Indeed, despite the direct instruction by God to Moshe that he is to “put this in the ear of Joshua,” the command to wipe out Amalek does not come to Israel until Saul is king (Samuel I: ch 15][vi]<\/span><\/a>
But whereas we have no double language with regard to the “wiping out the memory of Amalek,” we do have double language in Deuteronomy (although not in quite the same way) with regard to remembrance. God affirmatively commands Israel to “remember that which Amalek did to you.” At the end of the command God reframes this in the negative “do not forget!”
Finally, in Exodus Amalek are not described as arriving by chance or concentrating on the stragglers.[vii]<\/span><\/a> The text in Exodus simply says “and Amalek came and warred with Israel in Refidim.” Indeed, we are not even told that the Children of Israel had resumed their march and thus created stragglers. While the description in Exodus does not contradict the details supplied in Deuteronomy, it is curious that they do not appear in the otherwise more detailed description of what happened. In Deut., God does not want Israel to focus on the details of the fight – indeed, Israel’s subsequent victory over Amalek is not even mentioned. Amalek is to be remembered as opportunistic cowards who did not fear God – and by extension did not hesitate to plan a cowardly ambush and raid on the helpless.
In other words, in a mere 3 sentences, the entire focus of the Amalek story is shifted. Israel, rather than God, is to become the primary actor through the generations. The physical victory over the nation of Amalek is a one time event, whereas the primary command for the Jews throughout the ages is to remember <\/i>what Amalek did and to not forget <\/i>it. Further, it is this 3 sentence commandment that is considered the fulfillment of the Biblical command. By contrast, the full story in Exodus is only read on the day of Purim, and then only because of its connection with the Purim story. If the point is to remember that which Amalek did, why don’t we read the actual story of what Amalek did?
Most importantly, how do we reconcile all this with the concept that God has declared an eternal war with Amalek, using the strongest language for emphasis. God is describing as actually making a vow (“by the hand on the throne of God, there is war between God and Amalek from generation to generation”). The concept is itself peculiar. In no other place is God described as waging an eternal war. Certainly not against a nation God subsequently instructs Israel to destroy in its entirety. Furthermore, God is infinitely merciful. Why an eternal war against Amalek, for an act God allowed to take place and a fight from which God apparently absented himself through any obvious physical manifestation. Contrast this with God’s personal intervention at the Red Sea against the Egyptians, where the Egyptians proclaimed “God himself goes to war against Egypt.”[viii]<\/span><\/a>
Had God wanted to wipe out the nation of Amalek, he could have done so as assuredly as he wiped out the Egyptian Army. But despite God’s proclaiming an eternal personal <\/i>war against Amalek, God declines to manifest himself directly – either here or when he commands Saul to carry out the annihilation of Amalek.
Resolving the Contradiction: The Construct of Amalek<\/b>
We can only resolve these contradictions by looking beyond the surface of the nation of Amalek and understanding the nature of Amalek. Let us recall the background event that triggered Amalek’s appearance. The Children of Israel tested God by saying “is the Lord with us or not.” Amalek then appears “by chance” and inflicts a humiliating defeat on the Children of Israel. Despite the miraculous nature of their entire existence in the desert, on this occasion they must act in accordance with the laws of nature. Nevertheless, so that the Children of Israel understand that their strength and protection comes from God, the Children of Israel only triumph when Moshe raises his staff, which is the consistent symbol of God’s delegation of authority to Moshe. But the power is not in Moshe, as demonstrated by his physical exhaustion. Only the combination of Aaron and Hur assisting Moshe, and Joshua and the Children of Israel , provide victory.
It is this <\/i><\/b>element that the Children of Israel are supposed to remember. The “eternal war” between God and Amalek is God’s eternal pledge to protect Israel from its enemies if Israel remembers that “God is with them” (and, of course, behaves in a way that God has declared is a necessary pre-requisite for Him to dwell in Israel’s midst). This is why it is so critical for Israel to “remember” and “not forget,” particularly at the time when God gives Israel peace from its external enemies. As Deuteronomy repeatedly warns, the tremendous danger for Israel is not in times of oppression, but in times of peace and prosperity.[ix]<\/span><\/a> But as long as Israel remembers the lesson they learned from the attack of Amalek, one of national unity and faith in God, then God shall eternally prevent enemies like Amalek from arising and prevailing against us. Thus, as long as we eternally remember<\/i><\/b> and do not forget<\/i><\/b>, God will declare eternal war and wipe the memory of Amalek, i.e., the targeting of the Jewish people as uniquely vulnerable, weak and desirable to attack, from the face of the Earth.
Further Proof, the Incident With the Water In Numbers Contrasted With That In Exodus.<\/b>
As proof of this approach, it is important to compare the incident that triggered the attack of Amalek with a similar incident recorded with regard to the next generation – the generation that would conquer the land. As described in Numbers 20:2-13. Following the death of Miriam, the people are once again left without water. Unlike the previous generation, who murmured against Moses and openly wondered if God was really with them, the new generation has no doubts about God. Instead, they blame Moshe and Aaron. After all, if God is infallible and genuinely with the Jewish people, then it follows that their current problem must come from some failure on the part of Moshe and Aaron.
Additionally, the people are apparently satisfied by a simple showing that God is still with Moshe and Aaron. Moshe and Aaron go to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and prostrated themselves and the glory of God appeared to them. (20:6) By contrast, in Exodus, the people continued to murmur against Moses to the point where Moshe feared for his life. (Exodus 17:4). Accordingly, in recognition of the spiritual growth of the people, God commands Moshe to speak to the rock and have it bring forth water. Instead, Moshe denounces the people and declares: “Listen here you rebels! From this rock we shall bring forth water!” Whereupon Moshe hits the rock and water comes forth.
God rebukes Moshe and Aaron in a way that at first blush seems peculiar: “Because you did not have faith in me to sanctify me before the eyes of the people.” What can this mean? How would speaking to the rock have provided “sanctification,” and why is hitting it with the staff demonstrate any less faith? Moshe and Aaron doubted God’s judgment with regard to the spiritual evolution of the people. Moshe and Aaron assumed that the people would still require a physical manifestation of God’s power, since the people were rebelling against God. But God understood that the people had moved to a new level of spiritual growth. They no longer ask “is God with us or not?” Thus, by failing to acknowledge the spiritual growth of the people, Moshe and Aaron failed to sanctify God further by demonstrating the sufficiency of prayer and faith over a physical manifestation of God’s delegated authority.
Nevertheless, the Torah acknowledges the enhanced spiritual growth of Israel in the final line. The location is called “Mai Meriva,” the waters of argument, in contrast to the incident in Exodus which was called “Massa v'Meriva,” argument and testing. In contrast to the insulting question “is God with us or not?” The text in Numbers concludes “these are the waters of argument, for the children of Israel argued with God, and he was sanctified by them.”
In other words, even without the demonstration, the Children of Israel clearly understood that God was in their midst, and that they did not require a physical symbol. Their spiritual growth from the parallel incident in Exodus is echoed in the recounting of the command Deuteronomy. As long as the Children of Israel continue to remember the essential lesson that God is with them as long as they maintain their faith, God will continue to protect them from Amalek.
Another Proof, The Incident After the Spies.<\/b>
We see additional proof that God uses Amalek to specifically punish Israel when they fail to believe in God and when they do not have God in their midst from Numbers 14:40-45. As related there, Moses sent spies to investigate the Land of Israel before invading. The spies returned with a report of the military strength of the inhabitants that filled the people with despair. God decrees that this generation will therefore wander 40 years in the desert and their children will inherit the land.
The next, the Children of Israel et up bright and early and tell Moshe: “We will go up to the place God has promised us, because we have sinned [in refusing to go].” Moshe warns them “Go not up, for the Lord is not among you . . . And the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and you will fall by the sword.” Nevertheless, the people go up and try to take the land, but “there came down upon them the Amalekites, and the Canaanites who dwelled on that hill, and they smote [the Children of Israel] and harried them all the way to Horma.”
Unlike the Canaanites, who are described as actually living there, the Amalekites are described as “descending on them” in an apparent gratuitous show of force. What is important here is that God is explicitly <\/i>not with the Children of Israel. It is this deliberate abstention of God that once again brings the Amalekites.
Comparison To The Purim Story<\/b>
The Talmud states that we have this reading on Purim morning because “it is related to the matter of the day [Purim].” The traditional explanation is that Haman is assumed to be a direct descendant of the last king of Amalek, and that the unreasoning hatred of Haman for the Jews is emblematic of the unreasoning hatred of Amalek for the Jewish people.
But having now examined the story of Amalek in Exodus, we can discern a deeper connection between Purim and the assigned reading. Like the Exodus story of Amalek, Purim is a story where God’s presence is hidden. Both the danger to the Jewish people and the salvation of the Jewish people appear to happen by natural means – albeit with peculiar coincidences. Haman, like Amalek, seeks to attack the Jews when they seem weakest as a people. “There is a certain people, scattered and mixed in among the other peoples of your kingdom; their laws are different from any other people, they do not do what the King laws – there is no benefit to the King to preserve them.” As with the attack by Amalek, the previously divided people are united and come together to cry out to God. It requires the combination of Mordechai and Esther’s efforts with the willingness of the Jews to stand up for themselves and fight their would-be murderers for them to triumph.
Similarly, like the command to remember that which Amalek did, the Jews adopt the holiday of Purim as an eternal remembrance. “Therefore these days [the 14th<\/sup> and 15th<\/sup> of Adar] shall be remembered and performed in every generation, in every family, in every country, in every city; that these days of Purim shall never disappear from out of the Jewish people, nor shall the memory of these days cease among their descendants.“[x]<\/span><\/a>
Furthermore, just as the incident with Amalek was a necessary precursor to receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, so we are told that Purim was necessary for Israel to fully accept the Torah and place their entire trust in God. As Tractate Megillah explains, quoting the Midrash, the Children of Israel only accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai because God held the Mountain suspended over their heads and asked if they would accept the Torah. Only then did the people respond “we shall do it, now tell us that we may hear it.” But on Purim all of the people voluntarily accepted the Torah and turned to God,.
None of this, of course, contradicts the commonly known Midrash that provides a surface connection with Amalek through Haman’s lineage. But our appreciation of the meaning and symbolism of Purim is made deeper if we understand the full construct of Amalek and how Purim recapitulates the story of Amalek and how our faith in God and national unity are the means by which we oppose Amalek when Amalek physically manifests itself in the world, just as we should understand that it is our failure to be confident that God is in our midst that causes God to turn his face from us and allow the spirit of Amalek to descend upon us.
Rejection of Modern Nations As “Amalek” As justification For Immoral Action.<\/b>
Finally, I will conclude with a brief meditation on those That there are those who claim that the nation of Amalek exists today, and that they are a named people, the Palestinians or more broadly the “Arabs,” and that therefore it is incumbent upon us to “destroy” them. V’davar pela![xi]<\/span><\/a> For as the sages of the Talmud have explained, none of the ancient races that were named in the land of Israel still exist today, because Sancherib carried them all off and mixed them so that they have no distinction.[xii]<\/span><\/a> Furthermore, our sages tell us that the Arabs, of whom the Palestinians are a part, are descended from Ishmael the Son of Abraham. But we know that Amalek was descended from Esau and the Canaanite woman Adah![xiii]<\/span><\/a>
Wherefore we know that the Palestinians cannot be descended of Amalek. As for those who would say they are the incarnation of Amalek that we should physically wage war against them, I will say to them – have you the Urim V’Tumim and a Cohen Mashiach?[xiv]<\/span><\/a> Have you a Sanheddrin that can declare a Holy War? If not, then only ignorance can excuse this interpretation. For without either direct prophecy, such as God gave to Saul, or a declaration from a duly appointed Sanhedrin, there is no halachic justification for declaring a Milchemet Mitzvah.
But more importantly, such foolishness takes the true mitzvah of Zecher amalek, as I have explained above, and stands it on its head. For as I have demonstrated above by diligent examination of the language, it is God who has sworn “eternal war” against Amalek, whereas the command to Israel is to remember <\/i><\/b>the lesson of Amalek. Only when we have created a true community of Israel, in which God will chose to dwell,[xv]<\/span><\/a> will the spirit of Amalek depart. Those who say backwards, that we should put our strength in arms and march upon those they would declare “Amalek,” will instead themselves fall and fail, as was demonstrated by the Children of Israel when they defied God and sought to conquer the land after the incident of the spies. [xvi]<\/span><\/a>
Therefore we should reject those foolish ones, even if they otherwise show themselves to be men and women of wisdom, who claim that by designating a nation as “Amalek” they can chose to go to war against them. For even in the Megillah, Mordechai and Esther did not order or permit the Jews to fight against their enemies without provocation. Rather, they specifically gave the Jews leave to defend themselves against their enemies. Those who had plotted against them were utterly unpunished, even if they only held back because of fear. Only those who chose to attack without provocation, based on Haman’s initial decree, were slaughtered and their property pillaged.
Accordingly, even if those who claim that Palestinians or Arabs are “Amalek,” or “the spirit of Amalek,” have no basis in halacha or aggaditah to take up arms against them or to pillage their property other than in self-defense from a genuine attack. Moreover, if they would truly defend the Jewish people from the spirit of Amalek, then they would not seek to fight them with arms. Rather, they would seek to embrace their brothers and sisters in Israel, and make teshuvah for their sins. Then would God do as he promised and “make eternal war” with Amalek, so that we would again be at peace in the land that God has given us for an inheritance.
Written this 9th<\/sup> Day of Adar, 5777
Harold Feld
Rather than be afraid of the miracles God had performed on behalf of the Children of Israel in Egypt, the Amalekites rationalized that God had the same limits as a mortal or their own idols, and could therefore be deceived if something occurred outside his direct physical manifestation\/”line of sight.” In likening God to a mortal leader, they demonstrated a complete absence of understanding or respect for God. This also prompted them to assume that they could attack Israel in the rear and carry off their captives without being identified or subject to retaliation.<\/div>
But society is complicated and complex systems have remarkable powers of re-enforcement. Worse, our failure to appreciate the elephant for what it is -- a mutually re-enforcing composite -- prevents us from understaning it or how to deal with it effectively.
Having written this specific lengthy rant as a comment on FB, I'll park this incomplete and largely unfootnoted essay here for anyone who cares.
For those who don't click through (and its only a few minutes long), the story is this. When console video games (and arcade games) were introduced, they were "for the entire family" and were generally unisex. In addition, many game designers were women. Then, after a raft of really bad games came out, the video game market collapsed and most adults stopped playing console games.
Nintendo made a marketing decision to market their next product as a "toy" rather than a family game. But the toy department was entirely sex segregated. You were either a toy for boys or a toy for girls. Nintendo picked "boy," which shifted the entire development of its video game product to things considered more "boy." This trend continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, including the shift to the sexist and violent games that became so associated with video game culture in the popular mind such as "Grand Theft Auto."<\/div>
What's The Economic Story? Consolidation Is Bad For Gender Equality For Solid, Economic Reasons.<\/b><\/div>
Why Doesn't The Market Correct?<\/b>
The usual response to this is that, as the market goes unserved, that creates new openings. As Waldfogel shows, however, there are numerous factors that tend to mitigate against this -- all of which were operating at maximum warp from the mid-1980s until the 00s.
First, lets consider how the market is supposed to "discover" the unmet market need. The typical answer is that if you have a product that meets the need you bring it to market and it sells and creates a profit. This is like saying "you get to reach the moon by building a rocket ship that is strong enough and goes fast enough." It doesn't actually tell you any of the details.
This topic is too long to go into here. I'll cut it by saying that you need (a) a product or service; (b) a channel of distribution so you can actually reach the consumer; and (c) a way to alert consumers as to the presence of your product.
These things are a lot easier in some markets than others. In particular, and of most relevance to our story, this works best if an entirely new market segment is developing. How did K-Mart and Toys-R-Us displace Woolworth & Wilco? Because cars made shopping malls possible, opening up opportunities for stores that relocated to suburbs and exurbs (where they had lower costs) where they had more space for more products and better access to the growing subruban population. But without cars and roads and houses out in the 'burbs, new chain stores would not have had a chance against the older chains.
Lets get back to video games. Say you are a would be consumer who wants a game more like Q-Bert and less like Castle Wolfenstien. How do you signal that? There is no alternative product for you to buy. You can decline to buy the existing product, but that doesn't tell me you would by a similar game that was marketed to you. After all, you're a *girl*. you're not supposed to even want the product, so your failure to buy the existing product, and failure to buy the non-existent competing product, simply proves my point.
The same is true for boys who may actually like both a Castle Wolfenstien product and <\/b><\/i>a Q-Bert product. The boy cannot show his demand for Q-Bert like games because they no longer exist. His purchase of Castle Wolfenstien as a substitute is considered proof that this is in fact the product he prefers rather than the product he settles for because it is available.
And, of course, all trends are mutually reenforcing on a cultural level. If these are the toys boys should want, then boys will want them, becuase human beings are social animals who take our cues from everyone around us. The economics re-enfroces the social conditioning, which re-enforces the economics.
Why Is the Re-Enforcement So Critical?<\/b>
What is so critical is that you can't get rid of the social conditioning without the economics, and vice versa.
Over time, folks made some sporadic efforts to create non-sexist toys. But they were swimming upstream against a massive economic current. A single alternative, or a handful of alternatives, in a sea of mainstream products with all the power of the distribution and advertising behind it are simply not going to compete effectively.
Worse, the companies that make and distribute such products do not want them to be effective substitutes <\/b><\/i>for the existing sexist toys. Big companies are interested in expanding via differentiation, not replacing. Replacing is referred to as "canabilization." As Mega Toy, you are happy if parents buy non-stereotype toys in addition to your eisting products. You do not want to actually lose customers from one line or another. That leads to economic loss (from lost inventory and sunk cost), market disruption (the opportunity for rivals to steal your customers and for new entrants to emerge), and runs counter to the divisions in the existing incumbents that make the existing toy lines.
So How Did Things Change?<\/b><\/div>
In video games, it was the rise of the PC, followed by the Internet, followed by the phone. With the rise of new, open, low cost distribution channels, we saw the return of unisex games (as well as investment and development in a wider collection of niche games, such as first person shooter games with female protagonists). The new distribution platforms created new opportunities. Because the new distribution platforms were primarily contnent neutral, the emergence of key bottlenecks in platforms did not have the same level of impact that it did in the toy and entertinment industry.<\/span>
As a result, games like The Sims became enormously popular. Online games and communities found that giving users the ability to customize their content interactively enhanced economic value. Additionally, the anonymity of use and the fact that it was adults (and then teenagers) deciding on the games in question reduced the influence of editors and other decision-making bottlenecks. The cost of bringing products to market dropped, advertising costs dropped, the ability to satisfy niche markets was resotred. The broad presence of niche markets signaled to larger producers about the diversity of need, and -- annoyingly -- much better methods of harvesting personal information and analyzing it allowed product developers to micro-target more effectively.<\/span><\/div><\/a>
As a result, today the gaming word is pretty much divided 50\/50 between men and women. This includes consoles, which once again boast a host of unisex games. But the stereotypes persist, which continue to impact investment, marketing and social norms. This creates, for example, a distinction between the actual market (50\/50 men\/women) and the existence of "gamer culture" (still heavily male). This includes a much greater number of men who identify themselves as "gamers" than women, despite the market evidence.<\/span><\/span>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1251275","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1251275.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1251275"}}],"title":"Whatever Happened To \"Obama's Army?\"","published":"2017-02-24T16:13:40Z","updated":"2017-02-24T16:13:40Z","content":"Micah Sifry, who knows his way around this stuff, has written this article which explains what happened to Obama's "Movement 2.0."
https:\/\/newrepublic.com\/article\/140245\/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine<\/a>
It's worth reading and gives you a better understanding of the tension that continues to reverberate through the Democratic Party today.
Sometimes I try to remember what it was like back in 2008. I particularly remember what it was like to have a foot in two worlds -- the "Netroots" world and the traditional Washington world. At the time, I had such confidence that the incoming Netroots world would be able to reinvigorate and re-organize the Washington World. At that point it wasn't a question of trying to sweep it away or treat it as an enemy. It was more like a gang of happy techies trying to share their enthusiasm and excitement with their older relatives who couldn't understand why anyone would *want* a phone that did all kinds of stuff other than make calls and who found all this babble about revolutionizing and disrupting annoying. I can remember my older coleagues laughing at the naivete of the newcommers, then getting annoyed and frustrated with their refusal to get with the program and follow instructions from on high.
Depressing."},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1250998","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1250998.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1250998"}}],"title":"Link Harvest: Unions Need To Understand the Internet Better","published":"2017-02-21T16:55:18Z","updated":"2017-02-21T16:55:18Z","content":"So it would really help if they would finally get on the right side of issues like network neutrality.
http:\/\/rooseveltinstitute.org\/new-frontiers-worker-power\/<\/a>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1250592","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1250592.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1250592"}}],"title":"The Political Construction of Segregation","published":"2017-02-21T15:59:18Z","updated":"2017-02-21T15:59:18Z","content":"This is a fascinating article, pulling together recent research re-discovering older research.
https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2017\/02\/segregation-invented\/517158\/<\/a>
What happened is somewhat prophetic for modern times, and a good contrary example. For about 25 years following the end of Reconstruction, Southern African Americans and poor whites formed a successful progressive third party movement called the "Fusion Party." Technically, African Americans were Republicans (which was still the party of Lincoln), a party white southerners refused to join. So they formed "fusion tickets" of Repblican African Americans and independent poor whites.
In the South, the Democratic Party remained the party of the elites (a role that became occupied by the Republican Party in the North). Threatened by economic populism, the Democrats used their control of the media to create a race issue and drive poor whites away from African Americans. They also unabashedly resorted to physical violence -- in one case forcing a Fusion mayor and board of Alderman to resign at gunpoint. Once back in power, the Democrats instituted a rigid Jim Crow segregation to prevent a similar interracial movement from occurring ever again.
(Eventually, poor southern whites would form a new progressive movement that would focus on economic progressivism, but would maintain the now ingrained tradition of racial hostility and discrimination. This is the Woodrow Wilson\/Huey Long progressivism that most people are familiar with, and which created the idea that economic progressivism is in tension with racial justice.)"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1250480","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1250480.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1250480"}}],"title":"More documentation that income inequality is major contributor to economic stagnation","published":"2017-02-21T15:39:18Z","updated":"2017-02-21T15:39:18Z","content":"And one plus factor for the Gen X folks I need to factor in to my Demographic Snake calculations.
https:\/\/fivethirtyeight.com\/features\/inequality-is-killing-the-american-dream\/?ex_cid=538fb<\/a>
To quote Billy Joel:
Every child has a pretty good shot\/To get at least as far as his old man got.
But something happened on the way to that place
They threw an American flag in our face.
Briefly, we have two new studies confirming that economic mobility has declined and that income distribution inequality is a major driver. For each decade since 1940, the number of children earning more than their parents (adjusting for everything) has steadily declined. 70% of those born in 1940 earned as much or more than their parents did over their working lives. From there, the numbers decline steadily -- with the exception of a brief bump up for children born between 1965 and 1975 (Gen X).
Why? Gen Xers entered the work force when the economy was booming in the 1990s. The 1990s was unusual in that we created an entire new sector of the economy, resulting in a significant expansion. It helps that middle age Boomers were also huge consumers and willing to take on ridiculous levels of credit card debt and housing debt, further expanding the economy. Also, while the industrial base in the Rust Belt was eroding, much of it was moving into southern states with no unions in the 1980s. It wasn't until about the mid-1990s that offshoring got serious.
The research tracks with wealth inequality, which means both that the economy overall shrinks and that fewer people capture more of the wealth. These are related phenomena.
For me, it means recalibrating some of the factors that go into my theory of the demographic snake. The bump up in Gen X income may explain the distribution of political and social trends among Gen Xers as a transition generation to Millenials. It may scew some of the trend lines that I expect to manifest in 10 years to a 15-20 year timeline. The problem is I need much better stats and much better analysis than I have. I simply don't know enough advanced statistics and demographics. I have reached a limit on my amature poking around.
<\/a>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1250266","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1250266.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1250266"}}],"title":"Link Harvest: MMTC, NAACP, et al. letter in support of Net Neutrality legislation","published":"2017-02-14T13:37:25Z","updated":"2017-02-14T13:37:25Z","content":"This is pretty playbok. The orgs in question ave made their feelings about this pretty clear from the beginning.
https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/3458582-MMTC-Joint-Press-Statement-Protecting-and.html<\/a>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1249886","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1249886.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1249886"}}],"title":"Link Harvest: Richard Rorty","published":"2017-02-13T17:39:14Z","updated":"2017-02-13T17:39:14Z","content":"http:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy-and-politics\/2017\/2\/9\/14543938\/richard-rorty-liberalism-vietnam-donald-trump-obama<\/a>
A presicent look in 1988 as to how we would end up with Donald Trump. Need to get to the primary sources on this."},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1249633","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1249633.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1249633"}}],"title":"Never leave things to the last minute","published":"2017-02-10T00:28:00Z","updated":"2017-02-10T00:28:00Z","content":"I missed this a few weeks ago, but find it modestly amusing now.
http:\/\/www.timesofisrael.com\/palestinians-say-trump-freezes-obamas-last-minute-221-million-payout\/<\/a>
Congress budgeted hundreds of millions of aid for the PA back in 2015 for the 2015-16 budget cycle. The US sent about $335 million in 2015. In 2016, two Republican Reps put a hold on paying out the remaining $221 million on the grounds that they believed that the PA had used the money for things they weren't supposed to use it for, such as applying to various international orgs for sovereign status.
Hold requests like this from the jurisdictional committees are generally respected, but not legally binding. The State Department held the money until Friday morning of Inauguration Day. Right before leaving office, Kerry sent a message to Congress announcing he had transferred the $221 million to the PA.
Problem. Inauguration Day is a federal holiday. So State Department personnel needed for a money transfer were not available until Trump became President. Whereupon the State Department informed the PA that, despite being told by Kerry on Friday the check was in the email, they were going to hold the money pending review by the Trump Administration. We'll see how that goes.
Moral: If you are going to be a dick to people, don't wait until the last minute. If Kerry didn't want to respect the hold, he could have transferred the money any time before January 20. But he didn't want to get tagged in a nasty publicity fight, particularly after crapping all over Israel in his speech after the US abstention. So -- tee hee -- he figgured to be a dick on the way out, making his message to Congress that he was giving the Rs a middle finger on this his final gesture on his way out the door.
Except it backfired. Because if you don't have the moral courage to pull the trigger in public, then you are simply being a vindictive dickweed. Next time, if this is really about principle, have the guts to do it in public and take the heat. "},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1248859","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1248859.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1248859"}}],"title":"My quote for today.","published":"2017-02-03T15:52:51Z","updated":"2017-02-03T15:52:51Z","content":"A lot of people would rather nurse their grudges than their children. That's a shame, because it means their grudges grow up nice and strong and get all the love and attention while the world we leave for our kids is just a hand-me-down from our grudges.<\/span>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1248464","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1248464.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1248464"}}],"title":"Links to Trump Immigration EO and Other Useful Background","published":"2017-01-30T14:33:43Z","updated":"2017-01-30T14:35:19Z","content":"Immigration law is enormously complicated and I can in no way claim to be an expert. Nevertheless, a glance through the primary documents is always helpful.
Link to Trump EO: http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2017\/01\/28\/politics\/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees\/<\/a>
Link to 8 USC 1187: https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/8\/1187<\/a>
Link to 8 USC 1182: https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/8\/1182<\/a>
Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terror Travel Act of 2015.
https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/114th-congress\/house-bill\/158\/text<\/a>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1248113","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1248113.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1248113"}}],"title":"Copied from hammercock: Resistance Made Simple(r)","published":"2017-01-29T21:17:28Z","updated":"2017-01-29T21:17:28Z","content":"
- 12:13 AM<\/abbr><\/span><\/li>
<\/ul><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Daily Action<\/a>: "Phoning our legislators, as New York Times recently reported, is an extremely effective way to make our voices heard. That’s where the Daily Action alerts come in. We follow the news cycles closely to determine where we can collectively make the greatest impact. The point of Daily Action alerts is to make civic engagement easy and logistically painless."
Follow up on the Women's March with their 10 Actions in 100 Days<\/a> campaign. Just sign up and they'll email you with instructions on actions you can take.
Join the Scientists'<\/a> March on Washington<\/a>, or sister marches in Boston<\/a> and Seattle<\/a>, on March 4th! It sounds like there may be sister marches in many other cities, too. <3 Whether you're an actual scientist or just a fan of evidence-based thinking and policy, let's support the scientific community as Republicans cravenly redouble their attack on reason.
Looks like there is also a People's Climate Movement<\/a> march planned in DC for Comrade Gropinski's 99th day in office, which would be April 29th. I would not be surprised if that one spawned sister marches as well. Other themed marches in the works include an immigrants' march<\/a> in DC on April 8th and a the rich asshole Taxes March<\/a> on April 15th.
Read this handy critical thinking cheatsheet<\/a>, courtesy of the Global Digital Citizen Foundation. I've printed it out and hung it on my cube wall at work. Spread it around! There's a desperate need for it these days.
See something? Say something...to ProPublica<\/a>, who says, "We’re investigative journalists devoted to exposing abuse of power. If you’ve got evidence showing powerful people doing the wrong thing, here’s how to let us know while protecting your identity."
Support Planned Parenthood by purchasing "alternative facts" from Chuck Tingle's Alternative Facts Warehouse<\/a>!
Got an account with one of the banks involved in funding DAPL? Consider divesting from it<\/a>, or contacting any\/all of them<\/a> to tell them why they suck.
You can install Countable<\/a> on your phone, an app "that makes it easy to pester your Congressmember<\/a>. There are other apps out there for similar purposes.
Thinking ahead, realize that Sen. Elizabeth Warren could be more vulnerable than we would have thought<\/a>, commit to supporting her re-election in 2018. We CANNOT be complacent. Not even here in Massachusetts. We need her in the Senate, even if you're pissed that she threw her support behind Clinton (or, for that matter, voted for Ben Carson's HUD confirmation -- you can read her reasoning . Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and don't let enemies of the good goad us into shooting ourselves in the foot. Eyes on the prize, people.
And definitely check out Swing Left<\/a> to "find your closest Swing District and join its team to learn about actionable opportunities to support progressives—and defeat Republicans—in that district, no matter where you live." I signed up for updates on both my closest Democratic-controlled and closest Republican-controlled districts. We have to build that support starting NOW.
ETA:<\/b> Do you get anxious at the thought of calling your elected representatives? If so, check out this useful guide to calling your representatives when you have social anxiety<\/a>. I myself have some amount of phone anxiety and can attest that these suggestions are helpful.
ETA<\/b>: Also, don't forget self-care. Read this piece, "How to #StayOutraged Without Losing Your Mind"<\/a>: "Professional organizers and veteran activists have strategies for staying sane during a long fight. If you’re serious about sticking it out in the picket lines for the duration of the Trump presidency, you’re going to have to learn these strategies or else burn out in the first six months."<\/div><\/div>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1247955","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1247955.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1247955"}}],"title":"I know this is gonna sound weird and wrong, but . . .","published":"2017-01-26T17:12:33Z","updated":"2017-01-26T17:12:33Z","content":"I'm thinking about whether we need a "white guys against Trump" March.
I just feel that we need to break the mindset that Trump has unqualified support from white guys. I think it would be beneficial for a lot of the Trump voters who were very uncomfortable voting for Trump but did so anyway from latent misogyny and racism (among other reasons) to see that "look, you can be a white guy and totally oppose Trump. it doesn't make you less manly or anything. Lots of white guys hate Trump."
It also denies the media narrative that this is a "white guy v. everyone else" issue. Lots of white guys voted for Hillary. Lots of white guys have been opposing Trump. The media should not get a free ride on framing this as "white guys support Trump." It is a particular subset of white guys (and smaller subsets of white women and Latinos).
OTOH, this is classic conservstive MRA tactic of setting things up as an opposite. "Oh, you wanna say Black Lives Matter? I think All Lives Matter!" This could easily be perceived as trying to take agency and leadership away from women and the Women's March.
I think the other marches help to push back on this perception. We now have climate deniers and scientists planning to march, and giving credit to the Women's March for inspiring them. Another follow on March explicitly crediting the leadership of the Women's March and with a clear statement of goals -- while not eliminating the potential for misinterpretation -- could also concievably reenforce that, yes, there are plenty of white men who are quite happy to be led by and inspired by women.
But the arguments I saw play out between folks on whether men should or should not participate in the Women's March have somewhat disheartened me on the subject. I am not sure I am up for the inevitable dissent nd argument with people with similar or identical overall policy goals. This is why I always say "I am no one's ally, I am a fellow traveller.""},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1247513","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1247513.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1247513"}}],"title":"Should Dems Vote No As a Block On Trump Nominees? And How Should The Base React.","published":"2017-01-26T12:00:20Z","updated":"2017-01-26T12:00:20Z","content":"Should Dems vote no as a block on Trump appointments? And should activists express their displeasure with them voting yes on some and no on others when they want to see a united front?<\/p>
These are complicated questions. I will not answer yes or no, but will suggest the factors to consider.
<\/p><\/p>
The Dem Caucus appears to have targeted a few specific candidates to try to block and for block voting. Sessions is one. DeVos may or may not be another. For the rest, it is a "vote your conscience" thing.<\/p>
I suspect a major reason for the strategy is recognizing that some Dems will simply not hold together on a number of the appointments. This is especially true for folks like Manchin, who are Dems in Red States. So rather than show weakness by an inability to hold together on every vote, Schumer and the rest of the leadership appear to have settled for unity where possible and acquiescence where it is not.<\/p>
This is an application of Feld's Law of Hand Grenades: "When you threaten to throw a hand grenade, you better be ready to pull the pin. When you pull the pin, the hand grenade damn well better go off, even if it goes off in your own hand. It is much better to be known in Washington as someone willing to blow off their own hand than as someone whose hand grenades are duds."<\/p>
The question is, which part of the law applies here. Is this a case where Dems promised total resistance, and therefore they need to pull the pin? Or is this a case where the hand grenade won't go off? Getting a large block of Senators to vote no on every vote to confirm may persuade the weaker Dems that they need to stay with the party, or may create a clear wedge group for Rs to target. Yes, they will target them to some degree anyway -- they can read the map. But do you keep the weak ones in the fold by only holding them to key votes, or do you expose them to progressive anger by isolating them and let activists pressure them to stay in line -- as happened with Republican Tea Partiers?<\/p>
Which brings me to the next question: how should the base react?<\/p>
My feeling on this is that angry phone calls and personal contacts about not resisting Trump have the benefit of driving the Dems into harder resistance and keeping up the energy from the base. A constant worry for Dems is the perception that Liberals and Progressives are fickle voters -- especially in off year elections. Why satisfy a base that doesn't show up to vote? But additionally, why satisfy a base that will let you get away with anything?<\/p>
What troubles me is all this "Traitor" talk. Folks can disagree on strategy without being "Traitors." Nor do you have to call them "traitors" to take action to let them know you are angry, disappointed, demand more of them, or even primary them if they don't shape up. But we have at least a year before we need to worry about finding primary opponents if we decide a certain Dem is just utterly not what we need. We can afford to spend some time preaching fire and brimstone to the errant and faint of heart Dem before we start calling people traitors.<\/p>
While I think it is important to see how the Tea Party was successful, I don't want to emulate their faults. A Senator or Rep. can be a disappointment, frustrating and in urgent need of replacing without being a "traitor" or "DINO." Because if Elizabeth Warren is a traitor for voting to confirm some appointments, then we really are "a land that devours its inhabitants."<\/p>
So yes, if you want to see Dems show more vigorous opposition, even if it is symbolic, do call your Senators offices or make a personal visit. Do schedule protests and other actions. But please no "traitor" talk. Instead, passionately explain *why* Dems must stand on principle and oppose candidates who are so obviously unfit, that they must rally the troops for the fights to come, and that they will show Republicans that they are serious about rejecting extremists and extremist policies. Make sure they know you know that they can't stop confirmation, but that you want them to vote know anyway because we have to take a firm stand from the begging and the Republicans have proved over the last 8 years that stubborn resistance is rewarded whereas even symbolic compromise is perceived as a sucker bet.
<\/p>Or, alternatively, if you think Dems are following the right strategy, tell them so.<\/p>
<\/p><\/a>
<\/p>
Just remember. Passion is supposed to be our rocket fuel, the thing that propels us and gives us energy. We must embrace our passion, not fear it. At the same time, this is not some kind of political Pon Far that strips us of our reason and gets us into combat to the death with our friends. Anger does not need to lead to hate (which, as we all know, leads to fear, etc.) Anger should lead to calculated and sustained action. Fear should lead to energy, not panic. Anger and fear are rational responses to what we see unfolding before us. Make them serve reason, and make reason serve your passions. We should neither repress our passion as the enemy of reason, nor reject reason as the enemy of passion. We should delight in their synergy, which will make us unstoppable.<\/p>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1247013","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1247013.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1247013"}}],"title":"Please, Oh Lord, Let Me Be Wrong -- Or Smarter. One of those two.","published":"2017-01-19T13:26:27Z","updated":"2017-01-19T13:26:27Z","content":"While contemplating the most recent spectrum auction and the evolution of the industry and policy over the last few years in the shower this morning, I was blinded by a deep insight into the political science problem of licensed v. unlicensed spectrum.
If my theory is correct, the current game is unwinnable from an unlicensed spectrum perspective in the short term (10+ years) because there is an unsolvable collective action problem on the unlicensed side.
Mind you, it is blindingly obvious when stated intuitively, and in retrospect. But it wasn't clear until I actually thought it through in all its particulars why the current strategy of the last 15 years has now run its course and is a dead end.
I need a giant delta-S carved on my tombstone. Damn.
This has nothing to do with the most recent election. That is a transient tactics issue. The broader collective action problem is the one that needs solving.
I should not be too hard on myself. It's not like the last 15 years have been wasted. Nor was the insight possible without empirical data. And I really need to run this by some actual poli-sci game theorists to confirm. I might still be wrong. Or, after my panic settles down, I might get more clever.
Yeah, I'm vague-journaling. Actually, what I'm doing is panicking. Yes, this is what wonk-panic looks like. Because if I'm right, then I need to figure out if there is any realistic way of altering the collective action problem. Otherwise I should give up on spectrum policy and go back to wireline."},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1246792","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1246792.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1246792"}}],"title":"Insanely Boring Trade Association Produces Super Rational, Boring Solution For ACA Problems.","published":"2017-01-18T19:49:53Z","updated":"2017-01-18T19:49:53Z","content":"The American Academy of Actuaries has now issued a report on: "How Can the ACA Actually Work So That People Have Affordable Insurance and Stuff."
http:\/\/www.actuary.org\/files\/publications\/Acad_eval_indiv_mkt_011817.pdf<\/a>
it basically provides a substantive, boring critique of the current ACA (summary: "still not enough people buying enough insurance to be sustainable, based on the general ACA rules about non-discrimination and minimum standards) and comes up with a very boring list of what you would do if you actually wanted to solve the problems and have a working ACA.
Most people will not even hear about this, never mind understand why it is important. But this is likely to be an extremely important document in the behind the scenes debate on "WTF do we do now?" for both Ds and Rs. "},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1246664","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1246664.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1246664"}}],"title":"Vox Article On Resegregation Seems Ass Backward","published":"2017-01-18T18:09:22Z","updated":"2017-01-18T18:09:22Z","content":"Came across this on Vox which purports to show the resegregation of America.
http:\/\/www.vox.com\/2017\/1\/18\/14296126\/white-segregated-suburb-neighborhood-cartoon<\/a>
The article claims that unlike white flight, where a few African Americans or Latinos moving into a neighborhood prompted white Americans to flee to the suburbs in the 1960s, "resegregation" in the suburbs is occurring more gradually largely based on decisions by individuals when they chose to move. In particular, the article focuses on the fact that white people are more likely to have ideas about black majority neighborhoods (similar to the way Trump keeps thinking they are all like Fort Apache, the Bronx).
But the article is very poorly sourced and seems to be drawing the wrong conclusion. The lead example is Worthington, MN, which went from a population of 9,000 nearly 100% to 12,000 of whome 1\/3 are Latino.
What happened was a new meat processing plant opened in Worthington. As a result, Latinos came to work there. They communicated to friends and family looking for work that there was a big meat packing plant expanding. So the town grew.
The changing demographic had nothing to do with white flight, or even white sauntering, and everything to do with the Latino migration practices. Whites living in Worthington still lived there. Indeed, the rate of decrease in the white population overall slowed. True, other whites did not increase their migration along with Latinos, but why should they have? There were particularly things that attracted a new population of Latinos fairly quickly. There was nothing particularly new or interesting to attract non-Latinos, assuming they had even heard of Worthington, to move there.
Nor is the pattern described a particularly novel pattern. It is only novel when compared with demogrtaphic drivers of the 1960s and 1970s.
There is a reason why you can find towns in whatever geographic region we put the Dakotas and MN that are all Swedish, or all German, or all of some other particular white ehtnicity. Migrants tend to go to where there are other, similar migrants. True, this tends to be mostly urban areas -- because that's where the jobs are. This leads to some odd distributions that most people rarely notice, like a comparatively large Somali population in Minneapolis.
The article also fails to cover the most dramatic counter-example of its thesis: gentrification. Anyone in major urban hubs of San Francisco and New York City and DC know that white people are moving like crazy into primarily African American communities because of more affordable housing. This puts pressure on housing prices, which tends to push out the original residents. While creating resegregation, it is not because white people are afraid to move into Oakland or the Bronx.
There are so many other things wrong with this thesis that I need to stop myself. The more I look at it, the sloppier it appears."},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1246309","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1246309.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1246309"}}],"title":"Too Bad For Western Mass","published":"2017-01-18T17:27:02Z","updated":"2017-01-18T17:27:02Z","content":"Turns out your Republican Governor is holding up all that money you were supposed to get for building out broadband. Bummer.
https:\/\/backchannel.com\/who-is-killing-the-towns-of-western-massachusetts-5dcf6bcd770#.d5y6dp67r<\/a>"},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1246165","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1246165.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1246165"}}],"title":"The more important headline in the CBO Report on Repeal and No Replace","published":"2017-01-18T16:22:01Z","updated":"2017-01-19T12:11:51Z","content":"The headlines were full of reporting on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the impact of repeal of the ACA (aka Obamacare). You can find the Report here: https:\/\/www.cbo.gov\/publication\/52371<\/a>
As usual, everyone obsesses over the wrong headline from an advocacy perspective. Sure, 18 million people losing insurance is pretty awful -- especially if you are one of the 18 million. But the more significant headline is that everyone else with insurance is likely to experience a 25% increase in premiums.
Everyone. All those people who don't think it impacts them. It totally impacts them.
Why? Because of the way insurance works. The CBO used the 2015 repeal bill as the baseline for analysis. That bill eliminates a bunch of things like the individual mandate and the subsidies and the Medicaid expansion but keeps things like the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. So costs for insurance providers will go up, and they will have many fewer customers over whome they can spread those costs. So the costs go up for everyone still in the pool.
Yes, this is a death spiral. This was true before 2010. Trying to get out of that death spiral was one of the reasons why the healthcare industry was interested in some kind of reform. The death spiral problem is now even worse, because the ACA did a lot to change the fundamentals of the industry and reallocate various costs. Eliminate a bunch of changes while keeping other things in place dramatically accelerates the death spiral for everyone<\/b><\/i>. Not just the uninsured. Not just the rural hospitals. Not just the drug companies. Everyone.
It is against these <\/b><\/i>funding issues that the plans proposed by Republicans must be measured. It is uninteresting to most people whether a "health savings account" gives people they don't know real health insurance coverage so they can continue to afford care or not. It is of great interest to almost all people if they will experience a 25% hike in premiums next year.
Likewise, insurance companies themselves are not indifferent to these price increases, and do not have absolute freedom to charge as they please. The large ones are aware that a 25% across the board hike makes them a target of state insurance regulators and popular anger. That won't stop them, of course, because cash is cash. But they will pressure members of Congress to come up with better ways to address the problems.
It has not yet appeared to penetrate most Republicans that a solution that results in a 25% insurance premium hike for all their constituents in 2018 is not a politically viable solution -- even if you can pass it. They may hope to blame it on Democrats. Who knows, they may even succeed. But Republicans appear unaware of the scope of the gamble they are taking, or how difficult it may be to undo the damage once it happens. It would help considerably if advocates worked to educate them -- and the public at large -- that we are all in this together. "},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1245784","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1245784.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1245784"}}],"title":"Here at Arisia","published":"2017-01-14T23:12:27Z","updated":"2017-01-14T23:12:27Z","content":"Shabos is now over. Need to get out and do stuff.![](\"https:\/\/l-stat.livejournal.net\/img\/userinfo_v8.png?v=17080&v=916.1\")
<\/a>goldsquare<\/b><\/a><\/span> Would have loved to have gotten together, but I don't think it works. Am seeing parents Sunday so perhaps next time."},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1245303","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1245303.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1245303"}}],"title":"Link Harvest: Net Neutrality For Edge Platforms?","published":"2017-01-11T15:36:07Z","updated":"2017-01-11T15:36:07Z","content":"Hal Singer writes this in Forbes on why he thinks we (a) should get rid of Title II classification for broadband, and (b) modify net neutrality to include edge platforms (Google, Apple, Facebook) to address their power to favor their own content\/services.
http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/washingtonbytes\/2017\/01\/10\/a-new-path-forward-for-net-neutrality\/#40353e121891<\/a>
Lets ignore (a). The question of (b), and who should actually do it, and under what standards, becomes worth considering. "},{"id":"urn:lj:livejournal.com:atom1:osewalrus:1244774","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/1244774.html"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"text\/xml","href":"https:\/\/osewalrus.livejournal.com\/data\/atom\/?itemid=1244774"}}],"title":"And we are now up to 5 . . . .","published":"2017-01-09T22:21:06Z","updated":"2017-01-09T22:21:06Z","content":"Republican Senators who have expressed serious "concerns" about repeal and replace. These are: Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of KY, Robert Corker and Lamar Alexander, both of TN, and Tom Cotton of Arkansas.
Mind you, none of them have gone so far as to actually publicly commit against voting for "repeal and replace." But for those of us who recognize the dance, this is an opening step -- and a fairly significant one. Each defection emboldens others, especially since we are now past the point of simple Republican majority. To repeal and replace, Mitch McConnel must persuade at least 2 of them to change their mind and decide that their "concerns" are satisfied. This may be harder than expected, as there are now lots of Republican Governors who also think Congress shouldn't repeal without a replacement in hand.<\/a>
Feel free to point out that they might all still fall in line. But what's up with the last minute switches? If, as I keep hearing shouted from the rooftops, Republicans just don't care about anything but repealing Obamacare and enacting the agenda on which they have been running since 2010, then why would all these guys even pretend to have last minute concerns.
Well, lets see. TN is home to the HQ of one of the largest rural hospital chains in the country. Repeal of Obamacare could potentially cost them billions of dollars.
KY and AK have huge numbers of constituents dependent on Obamacare. They also have, by taking the Medicaid expansion and embracing O-care back when they had Democratic Governors, avoided the rural hospital closing crisis that is seriously impacting SC and GA (which did not take the Medicaid expansion).
Mind you, there are plenty of changes which would still suck ass, but would be acceptable to these various interests. But rural hospitals and insurers and others with big bucks riding on losing lots of paying customers and subsidies are not known for trusting politicians on their word. This is especially true when no one has come up with a useful solution to date. The Republican proposals by and large still leave lots of people uncovered or with crappy plans, which still results in millions of paying customers for rural hospitals, drug companies, medical service suppliers, home nursing companies, etc. no longer being able to pay for these services.
That is pure loss<\/b><\/i>
Why didn't anyone think of that before? Well, Democrats never made that argument. Democrats were all blah blah lives blah blah moral duty blah blah Republicans are cruel monsters who want to kill people and have them dying in the streets. Turns out, Republican (or Republican leaning) voters didn't believe this argument. They assumed that when Trump said "we will repeal Obamacare and replace it with something terrific," he was telling them what he was actually going to do -- whereas Democrats are all about making sure all those "other people" get covered and stuff.
It didn't help that the ACA has a lot of problems that a sensible, functional Congress would have addressed over the years, and therefore our Congress utterly refused to do it.
One of my dictums of advocacy. "This isn't about what argument you find compelling. It's about what convinces those you need to convince."
But it is also true that the stakeholders Republicans care about didn't focus on the studies and other things you need to get them to take these concerns seriously until it became clear that Republicans were actually serious. After all, if you are rural hospitals, why waste money on a study about something you don't think is going to happen?
But now? Well, the game is afoot . . . . "}]}