[kenberg]

y66, on 2021-November-04, 09:56, said:

Who said this in November 2020?


Hint: her last name contains "berg"

I'll have to remember that. When asked for my name I often say 'Berg, like iceberg without the ice" since people find inventive ways of spelling it. And for that matter they find inventive ways of pronouncing it when they see it spelled.

[mycroft]

and here I thought "like Alban or Schön-".

[kenberg]

With regard to wokeness here is a thought or two.

In Minneapolis, the referendum for changing the funding of the police went down in flames. As I understand it, a good part of the reason was that many Black residents of predominantly Black North Minneapolis opposed it. Accepting that, and learning from it, could be a form of wokeness. But that's not how the term is usually used.

Many of us, at least many of us guys, have had experiences with the police. A mixed bag of experiences for me, some very good. Others, well, not so good. Nothing serious. I never was in danger of being shot. But enough so that I have on trouble believing that the balance of good and bad experiences for minority groups shifts considerably. But still, police can be useful, very useful and particularly useful to those who live in an area where crime is a good deal more common than it is where I live.

And so?

A campaign that honestly acknowledges the problems and honestly acknowledges that past efforts at reform have largely died a quick death might have gone somewhere good. Yes, it would take work, a lot of work, and it would take realism. Having a board of police officers evaluate the behavior of a police officer is not realistic. I have seen how that doesn't work. Yes, mothers would like to see their sons shot by police. These same mothers would also not like to see their sons shot by someone else. There is room to work together here, but it requires seriousness and honesty all around.

That would be a form of wokeness.

[Winstonm]

So, an ex-confederate state elected a racist governor. And this is news?

[Chas_P]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-04, 13:22, said:

So, an ex-confederate state elected a racist governor. And this is news?

They also elected a black female Jamaican immigrant as Lt. Governor. Was that racist? Just askin'..........

[pilowsky]

Chas_P, on 2021-November-04, 14:56, said:

Rambling statement about stuff...

The term racist gets a bit overused on this Forum (litotes).
Racism is inherently a bad thing, and so is discrimination.
Discriminating against people because they are black/poor/hold different religious beliefs/female/young/old/once spent time incarcerated etc. are all bad.

Not that long ago, women weren't permitted to vote. Neither were 20-year-olds.

Pointing to a single instance where a person is elected to a particular position in the USA under the banner of a large political organisation does not mean that all members of that organisation are absolved of any impurities.
Even a single individual can simultaneously hold ideas that are sensible and stupid, fair and unfair, good and evil.
At a whole population level, discrimination (racism, sexism, ageism, any other -ism) exists when a group of people is prevented from accessing the community's joint wealth because of their age, sex or skin colour, etc.

Nobody cares what you or I think as individuals. Some people agree or disagree when we say things.
Racism does not cease to exist in a country because a person with skin that is darker than that of the average Klan member is elected to high office.

People will always be strange in their beliefs.
But if everyone is taxed by a government then everyone should be permitted equal access to the services of that government.

There is a systemic undercurrent of corruption in conservative democracies throughout the world.
The United States is the most populous wealthy country at the moment but it is rapidly consuming itself to death - like the British/Roman/German empires in the past.

If everyone who is a part of a society is not cared for by that society as a whole then you do not have a functioning society.
This is what the United States lacks. A functioning mature society where everyone is treated equally.

If a country with the wealth of the United States is willing to tolerate the death of a citizen because they do not have access to the same level of health care then that is not a healthy society.
It's a Battle Royale where the winner takes all and sick people didn't have the right stuff.

[Chas_P]

pilowsky, on 2021-November-04, 15:38, said:

The term racist gets a bit overused on this Forum

An astute observation of the blatantly obvious.

[kenberg]

Race consciousness is a very tricky business. We should treat everyone the same but we should respect cultural differences, for example. How do we do both? Well, we can, usually, perhaps depending a bit on just what the cultural differences are. Respect religious differences? Sure. But suppose God tells someone not to get the vaccine? Are we at least allowed to say, as I like to imagine saying but have not yet said, "No, I was talking to God just yesterday and He said that you misunderstood His instructions"?

Two stories from my youth.

1. (I have told this one before) Growing up there was very little interaction with Black youngsters. Some, but very little. When I reached the university this changed. I was aware of someone being Balck and I worried about this trait. Then I was playing chess at a coffee shop, some Black guy was kibbing and commented on my every move. After a bit I had had it with him and spoke up. I later realized I had handled this just as if he were White and I liked that. Of course that's not, in itself, a complete solution but it relaxed me a bit.

2. When I was a grad student, now we are getting into the 60s, a White friend called and asked if I would like to join him and another guy attending a talk at a church in a predominantly Black area of St. Paul. A well-known White guy, whose name escapes me right now, was giving a talk on community organizing and such. I asked if we would be safe and got a lecture from my friend about asking such a question. Ok. I joined them and I drove. The other guy with us was Black, and when we got near the church he told me to be careful in choosing where to park and to be sure and lock up the car. "This isn't the best part of town", I recall the words exactly. This gave me some satisfaction.

And I remember a bit of the talk. He said you take some issue. There will always be some issue available. And then you rub it raw. His words, he repeated them throughout the talk. The idea was to get everyone good and riled up. Ok, that was his idea, I was ready to go home and try to prove a theorem for my thesis.

If we start with the idea that making life good for everyone helps everyone, expecting that my life will go better if the life of the other guy also goes better, then this can be a decent basis for something.
I sometimes think that getting too deep into cultural issues can do more harm than good. I'm not big on Rap, but then I don't often play Stravinsky either. Duke Ellington is just fine. Caravan. Mood Indigo. A couple of my favorites, both popular with radio djs in the mid 50s.

Afterthought: WaPo has an article about "the First Thanksgiving." I suppose it might have occurred to me that this was 400 years ago this month, but it hadn't.
https://www.washingt...dians-pilgrims/

And, while I am at it, here is a 15 minute version of Mood Indigo. They tell me I should get the vinyl. I'll tell Santa.
https://mail.google....WbB?projector=1

[Winstonm]

Ken is right so often - perhaps it is the mathematics training that helps - but he does have the pulse of, for want of a better phrase, the common man.

I have to tip the hat to the Republicans who, like Ken, understand framing and its impact on the ordinary Joe seemingly much better than Democrats - or perhaps it is because Republicans are better at organization. Either way, they have the ability to take a emotion - we white people are losing our status! - and transferring that emotion into a series of slogans, thus framing the emotion into a cause that makes voting crucial. CRT! Defund the Police! Wokeness! Open Borders! Socialism! Taxes!

The Democrats fumble and blunder about but cannot match the effectiveness of bumper-sticker sloganeering to stimulate voter turnout. It is a problem the Democrats will have to address in order to make genuine headway.

The question the Democrats must answer is how to turn the 500-word essay required to debunk the Republican propaganda storm into a single word or catchy quick phrase that can be repeated endlessly on Meet the Press and passed person-to-person on the app previously known as Facebook - or was that Prince - or even on the evening news every time a Democrat has a microphone thrust into his or her face?

I'm suggesting this: Bull Sh*t!

[Gilithin]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-05, 09:42, said:

The Democrats fumble and blunder about but cannot match the effectiveness of bumper-sticker sloganeering to stimulate voter turnout. It is a problem the Democrats will have to address in order to make genuine headway.

[size="3"]The question the Democrats must answer is how to turn the 500-word essay required to debunk the Republican propaganda storm into a single word or catchy quick phrase

If the next bumper sticker slogan is anything like "Defund the Police", I would heartily suggest they simply leave the whole 5-second marketing thing to Republicans.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-05, 09:42, said:

Ken is right so often - perhaps it is the mathematics training that helps - but he does have the pulse of, for want of a better phrase, the common man.

I have to tip the hat to the Republicans who, like Ken, understand framing and its impact on the ordinary Joe seemingly much better than Democrats - or perhaps it is because Republicans are better at organization. Either way, they have the ability to take a emotion - we white people are losing our status! - and transferring that emotion into a series of slogans, thus framing the emotion into a cause that makes voting crucial. CRT! Defund the Police! Wokeness! Open Borders! Socialism! Taxes!

The Democrats fumble and blunder about but cannot match the effectiveness of bumper-sticker sloganeering to stimulate voter turnout. It is a problem the Democrats will have to address in order to make genuine headway.

The question the Democrats must answer is how to turn the 500-word essay required to debunk the Republican propaganda storm into a single word or catchy quick phrase that can be repeated endlessly on Meet the Press and passed person-to-person on the app previously known as Facebook - or was that Prince - or even on the evening news every time a Democrat has a microphone thrust into his or her face?

I'm suggesting this: Bull Sh*t!

Mathematical training is useful in an unexpected way. Logical conclusions can sometimes be drawn from assumptions. But that's only useful if you believe the assumptions. And, in the real world, the logic is rarely airtight anyway. This does not mean that logic is useless, but its use requires caution.

I guess my counter-suggestion to your slogan of BS would be that they take some of the reservations people have voiced about their previous slogans seriously. I have mentioned a couple of times the rejection in Minneapolis of a measure to alter the funding and structure of the police department. Apparently, the measure was not well received in North Minneapolis. I am by no means prepared to give the final word on this, but I hope Democratic strategists are giving it serious thought.

Little Bo Peep needs to find her sheep, and she must choose the best places to look. Wolves are one possibility, but not the only possibility.

[Chas_P]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-05, 09:42, said:

The Democrats fumble and blunder

https://www.cnn.com/...gala/index.html

[Gilithin]

My favourite mathematical logic in modern politics is: X has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore X has been disproven. It is proving particularly popular for claims subject to a massive cover-up preventing evidence from coming to light. Sometimes it's funny how these things just seem to fit together so nicely.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-05, 09:42, said:

Ken is right so often - perhaps it is the mathematics training that helps - but he does have the pulse of, for want of a better phrase, the common man.
I have to tip the hat to the Republicans who, like Ken, understand framing and its impact on the ordinary Joe .....

Here is a thought, nothing to do with math.
Perhaps our different views come down to how we view the Dems moving away from the support of the people we grew up with. I see it as a serious error on the part of the Dems. Perhaps (?) you see it as the right thing for the Dems to do.
I look back on my early days and think that the adults I knew were, for the most part, pretty good people. We could, all of us, be better people if we worked at it a bit harder, but "pretty good" is a good start.

At this moment I celebrate the passage of the infrastructure measure. Not doing that was becoming a serious weight on a swimmer trying to get to shore.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-November-05, 23:03, said:

Here is a thought, nothing to do with math.
Perhaps our different views come down to how we view the Dems moving away from the support of the people we grew up with. I see it as a serious error on the part of the Dems. Perhaps (?) you see it as the right thing for the Dems to do.
I look back on my early days and think that the adults I knew were, for the most part, pretty good people. We could, all of us, be better people if we worked at it a bit harder, but "pretty good" is a good start.

At this moment I celebrate the passage of the infrastructure measure. Not doing that was becoming a serious weight on a swimmer trying to get to shore.

I don’t know what you mean by “moving away from the support of people we grew up with”.

[y66]

What happens when a private-equity firm decides to get into the business of taking care of the elderly?

https://www.washingt...502b_story.html

Will Youngkin make good use of lessons learned at Carlyle to "help" Virginia? No doubt.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-06, 06:56, said:

I don't know what you mean by "moving away from the support of people we grew up with".

I'll rephrase it. You were speculating on where my views on how my views arise:

Quote

Ken is right so often - perhaps it is the mathematics training that helps - but he does have the pulse of, for want of a better phrase, the common man.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">I have to tip the hat to the Republicans who, like Ken, understand framing and its impact on the ordinary Joe seemingly much better than Democrat

What I was trying to get at is this: I think many in my neighborhood often voted D. I think that is less true now. Of course things change, it's been 70 years, but I think my neighborhood has changed much less than the Democratic Party has. For example, on a recent trip back Becky and I walked to the playground a half block from where I grew up. It looked largely the same. There was a woman there with her son, he was playing in the sandbox like I used to do. We chatted with her some and it seemed like a chat my parents could have had with her 70 years ago. And so, I am often not all that surprised when something doesn't go over well with such folks.


I was then speculating that you would not see this the same way when you look back over the years, but of course I have no way of knowing that.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-November-06, 11:14, said:

I'll rephrase it. You were speculating on where my views on how my views arise:

[/color][/size]


What I was trying to get at is this: I think many in my neighborhood often voted D. I think that is less true now. Of course things change, it's been 70 years, but I think my neighborhood has changed much less than the Democratic Party has. For example, on a recent trip back Becky and I walked to the playground a half block from where I grew up. It looked largely the same. There was a woman there with her son, he was playing in the sandbox like I used to do. We chatted with her some and it seemed like a chat my parents could have had with her 70 years ago. And so, I am often not all that surprised when something doesn't go over well with such folks.


I was then speculating that you would not see this the same way when you look back over the years, but of course I have no way of knowing that.

My question is who has moved away from whom?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2021-November-06, 13:14, said:

My question is who has moved away from whom?

That is a very good question, the answer could be some of both, but as I said when I visited my old neighborhood I thought little had changed and when I chatted with the woman with the kid playing in the sandbox I thought that little had changed with the nature of the people. Of course, we did not get into a political discussion. The K-8 elementary school I went to was now K6, her sone would be going there. In the winter the playground now has only one skating rink, when I was there it had a skating rink and a hockey rink. We talked about that sort of stuff. But they had moved to St/ Paul from out of state somewhere, she had been the house scout to see where they would live, she found the area where I grew up and called her husband and said "I have found it". We liked her, she seemed to enjoy talking with us, it all seemed very natural.

But I didn't ask her who she voted for.

I think there are a lot of people like her. I also think, alright I have no evidence but I believe, that Dems get fewer of their votes than they did when I lived there. I hope Dem strategists are asking themselves if anything such as what I say is true. Of course, I could be wrong, I don't earn my living as a political consultant. But if I am right, or somewhat right, then they need to be thinking about this. She was a very nice person. Not at all someone who would join a mob to storm the capitol. But who will she vote for next year? I dunno. I can hope.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-November-06, 13:53, said:

That is a very good question, the answer could be some of both, but as I said when I visited my old neighborhood I thought little had changed and when I chatted with the woman with the kid playing in the sandbox I thought that little had changed with the nature of the people. Of course, we did not get into a political discussion. The K-8 elementary school I went to was now K6, her sone would be going there. In the winter the playground now has only one skating rink, when I was there it had a skating rink and a hockey rink. We talked about that sort of stuff. But they had moved to St/ Paul from out of state somewhere, she had been the house scout to see where they would live, she found the area where I grew up and called her husband and said "I have found it". We liked her, she seemed to enjoy talking with us, it all seemed very natural.

But I didn't ask her who she voted for.

I think there are a lot of people like her. I also think, alright I have no evidence but I believe, that Dems get fewer of their votes than they did when I lived there. I hope Dem strategists are asking themselves if anything such as what I say is true. Of course, I could be wrong, I don't earn my living as a political consultant. But if I am right, or somewhat right, then they need to be thinking about this. She was a very nice person. Not at all someone who would join a mob to storm the capitol. But who will she vote for next year? I dunno. I can hope.

I don't disagree and I was not being facetious with my question - but a lot of political water has gone under the bridge since bygone years. A couple of those changes are important to note concerning the people about whom I believe you write. First, the Civil Rights Act back in the middle sixties drove the Southern Democrats into the waiting arms of the Republican Party. Other than civil rights, you would be hard-pressed to differentiate those southern Democrats from those from Minneapolis of those times. The second thing that happened with this same group of people was the 1979 formation of Moral Majority that yanked a bunch of churchgoers onto the Republican side of the aisle. Add to that what felt to them from Clinton, et al, of the abandonment of the unions and you are left with few of the original Democrats.

All that said, the division now is so narrow and defined that choices of the truly independent determines most outcomes - and it is that much smaller group of critical voters of whom I believe you are speaking. They are not traditional Democrats.

Anyway, that is my take.