Gun Protest by Eastside Preparatory School, Kirkland, WA, April 20, 2018
“Think about this. The same congressional Republicans who over the previous eight years wanted everyone to believe they were fiscal conservatives hell-bent on balancing the budget and not increasing the national debt, sponsored, passed and then danced around the fire because of legislation that will result in a permanent $1 trillion deficit and a debt that will soar to close to 100 percent of GDP by 2028.”
And most voters couldn’t care less. They will continue to believe the talking point that the Dems are “tax and spend liberals” and the Republicans are fiscally responsible. Facts do not matter.
Subtitled “Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising,” Joshua Green’s book about the 2016 election explains how Trump pulled off an upset. Green interviewed Bannon and other major players. The journalism and writing are of highest quality, like what you can read in publications such as the New Yorker. I like that the writing doesn’t draw attention to itself but flows well.
I have a greater appreciation now for how Trump won and for the role Bannon and other nationalists played in his victory.
Trump won by
Though Steve Bannon was an extremist, and though he later was kicked out of the White House, he was smart (a former Goldman Sachs executive) and played a large role in many of these strategies.
In fact, Green is convinced that Bannon departure from the White House in August of 2017 was largely due to Trump’s annoyance at being overshadowed by Bannon. Some people called Bannon Trump’s Karl Rove. Trump wanted people to believe that he is a self-made man. In a tweet, Trump ridiculed Bannon and said he played a small role in his win. Green suggests otherwise.
It’s easy to ridicule Trump as being dumb. In some ways he is. In other ways, he’s rather a genius. He is skilled at insulting and tearing down opponents. He beat Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Chris Christi and the other Republican candidates and then pulled off an upset win against Hillary. His repeated attacks against “Crooked Hillary” stuck. He had a knack for self-promotion and for appealing to voters’ primal views.
But he also appealed to economic concerns of the middle class. Green quotes Steve Bannon on Trump’s victory:
“Trump,” Bannon proclaimed, “is the leader of a populist uprising…. What Trump represents is a restoration—a restoration of true American capitalism and a revolution against state-sponsored socialism. Elites have taken all the upside for themselves and pushed the downside to the working- and middle-class Americans.” Bernie Sanders had tried to warn them, but the Democrats hadn’t listened, and didn’t break free of crony capitalism. “Trump saw this,” Bannon said. “The American people saw this. And they have risen up to smash it.”
Of course, as Green says, this spin is belied by the fact that Trump’s economic policies have favored the rich and have led to a dismantling of regulations that protect the public from predatory capitalism. Bannon was more anti-establishment and more anti-Wall Street than Trump turned out to be. Bannon and his cohorts hated the corrupt GOP establishment and wanted Trump to overturn it.
Several times during the election, Trump campaign staff and Republican operatives were convinced Trump was in serious trouble. Trump’s attacks on Megyn Kelly for her aggressive questioning at Republican debates led to a quarrel with Fox News owner Robert Murdoch; but Breitbart News and other far-right groups were able to come to Trump’s defense and attack Megyn as a traitor to the cause. The Access Hollywood tape (“Grab’em by the pussy”) almost ended Trump’s campaign, but WikiLeaks released DNC emails, and Trump pivoted to attacking the Clintons about Bill’s infidelities and apparent corruption in the Clinton Foundation.
Trump was the Teflon Don.
Up until election night, Republicans were expecting to lose, though their polls showed the race tightening after Comey’s announcement.
After Trump clinched the election, a reporter asked Bannon if the outcome was worthy of a Hollywood movie.
Without missing a beat, Bannon shot back with a reply worthy of his favorite vintage star, Gregory Peck in Twelve O’Clock High.
“Brother,” he said, “Hollywood doesn’t make movies where the bad guys win.”
(The book has many such gems.)
Despite Trump’s relationship with Bannon and other nationalists, Green writes, “Trump doesn’t believe in nationalism or in any other political philosophy — he’s fundamentally a creature of his own ego.” Green predicts that Trump will disappoint most of his supporters, just as he disappointed and betrayed most of his business associates over the years. Green says that Trump’s presidency has mostly been chaos and failed policy initiatives.
Green seems wrong on two points. Trump’s anti-immigration policies are having a real, damaging effect. And he has launched an anti-globalist trade war with China. (This happened after Green wrote the book.)
42% of Americans still support Trump, according to some polls. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins re-election in 2020.
At my previous job, there was a coworker who was amicable and technically smart. Though he and his wife combined earned over $300K a year, he complained a lot about taxes. He’s a white Christian. He is skeptical about climate change and evolution. He watches Fox News and listens to Rush Limbaugh. He hates Dems and voted for Trump (he said he chose the lesser of two evils).
But, really, he’s (otherwise) a nice guy, with a self-deprecating sense of humor, and quite smart. I liked him, he liked me, and we enjoyed chatting. In our discussions, I told him that a pro-life Christian should be in favor of medical care for all — at least, surely, medical care for children, elderly, and poor people. He reluctantly agreed that basic medical care should be guaranteed. He told this to his (Chinese) wife, who is even more conservative than he is.
He kept trying to convert me to Christianity, to no avail.
After I left that job, he tried to reach out to me. But I rebuffed his efforts, even though I like him, because I am repulsed by his political views. After all, he voted for politicians who lie frequently and promote destructive policies: giving even more money to the rich and the Pentagon; deregulating Wall Street; gutting the EPA and other regulatory agencies; under-funding the IRS so tax cheats aren’t audited; making it harder for minorities and poor people to vote; separating parents and children at the border; allowing billionaires to buy elections and set policy; denying climate science; favoring corporations over unions; making it easy to buy military-style guns and ammunition; etc, etc.
Are the GOP politicians he supports sociopaths? I think many of them are. Some of them probably regret being forced to support radical positions; this is probably why many Republicans are quitting.
Does my friend’s support for these politicians make him a sociopath too — “a sociopath-by-proxy”? I’m not sure.
With this story in mind, I can now explain the three interpretations for the title of this essay.
In fairness to my coworker and to other Republicans, many Trump voters disliked Trump and voted for him only because they thought Hillary was even worse. Still, Trump was so obviously corrupt, stupid, racist, crude, dishonest, and misogynistic. Though I disliked Hillary’s hawkishness and her friendliness to Wall Street, she was clearly more qualified, more honest, and less destructive than Trump. The email scandal which Trump and others made such a big deal about was minor compared to all the scandals involving Trump. How is it possible for an intelligent, decent person to vote for Trump over Hillary?
I know a progressive woman who became estranged from her sister because the sister joined the NRA in response to the Parkland shooting and the protests that followed from it.
The country is so deeply divided.
It’s hard to believe that all Republican voters are sociopaths. I rather believe they’ve been brainwashed, by Fox News, AM talk radio, Breitbart News, and other conservative media.
I can forgive uneducated, poorly informed people for voting for Trump and other Republicans. I cannot forgive my friend, who is too smart to fall for their lies and distortions.
I fear for the future. I won’t be surprised if the Republicans do well in the midterms or if Trump wins re-election in 2020. Trump said, “I could stand in the middle Of Fifth Avenue And shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Not quite true, but about 42% of Americans support him still, and his support has been increasing. It boggles the mind.
Recently I’ve been seeing anti-Trump and anti-GOP articles from Time, Newsweek, and USA Toda on my facebook newsfeed. I don’t know if that’s because those publications have become more progressive, or if it’s because facebook sends me only the articles it thinks I’d be interested in.
Recently I saw:
Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will “protect your job.” But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World, from Time Magazine
The Heirs to the Walmart Fortune Just Made $5 Billion in One Day, from Time Magazine
How an Alt-Right Bot Network Took Down Al Franken, from Newsweek, though that story is now retracted.
Five Reasons John Bolton Is Unfit to Be Secretary of State, Newsweek again
This is what Donald Trump’s photo sounds like when I feed it to my software for converting images to music:
Here’s a second rendering of Trump’s face, using a different algorithm:
Here’s what Barack Obama’s photo sounds like:
Here’s a second rendering of Obama’s face, using a different algorithm:
Here’s what a young woman, Brenna, sounds like:
Here’s what a photo of a plant sticking up through a grate sounds like:
Here’s what a photo of a pair of Northern Gannets sounds like:
Here’s what a photo of a cute child sounds like:
Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates says he should pay more in taxes and that the government should require other superwealthy people like him to contribute “significantly higher” amounts.
“I need to pay higher taxes,” Gates, who is worth over $90 billion, said in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday.
“I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require the people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes,” he said…
My brother’s response to my mom’s email about the recent shooting. I want to share, particularly because of the way he explains things. As a veteran and a gun owner, he knows much more about guns than I do. Hopefully his arguments and information can help any of my friends trying to sway people on gun control laws.
“Completely agree with the sentiment here, Mom. However, in order to make educated arguments for gun control, it’s important to actually know what you’re proposing and use the right language. Otherwise, you’ll just get completely shut down as “not knowing anything about guns” to people you’re trying to convince. And if you don’t know anything about guns, you can’t really advocate for responsible gun policy.
AR15s are not the problem alone. Yes, it’s the most popular military-style rifle, and it is designed to kill people effectively. But banning one model of weapon will just make people switch to other, equally effective killing machines. If you banned the Toyota Camry, would people stop buying midsize sedans? No, you’d just end up with more Honda Accords on the road. If you want to fix the problem, you have to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic means the weapon is loaded with a magazine (or belt in some cases) with multiple rounds; and for every trigger squeeze, one bullet is discharged. There is no real need for these weapons in civilian use. They aren’t necessary for hunting, where the point is to kill the animal with one shot. It is only useful for killing a lot of things in a short amount of time or having fun at a gun range. I think our children’s lives are more important than a fraction of the population’s fun shooting a bunch of rounds quickly at a range. They’ll cope.
Handguns are far more responsible for gun deaths in America than semi-auto rifles. You mentioned the kid who brought a gun to school as only having a “handgun, not a semi-automatic.” Well, almost all handguns are semi-automatic. They have magazines and one bullet per trigger squeeze. Though most handgun rounds aren’t as deadly as rifle rounds, it’s inconsequential at short range. And handguns are far easier to conceal than a rifle. With the exception of maybe revolvers (which have 5-6 round max before reloading), I believe handguns should be outlawed. The Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in American history, was accomplished with handguns only. Don’t underestimate their lethality. I think military style rifles only account for about 2% of gun deaths each year. If you want to solve the problem, semi-auto handguns have to go, as well.
If we really want to make a difference in gun deaths, we need to do WAY more than universal background checks and better mental health screening. Banning all semi-automatic weapons would make that difference. Keeping shotguns, revolvers, and bolt-action rifles legal accomplish all the typical, common uses of guns. (Bolt-action rifles are typical hunting rifles that you have to reload between shots.) With these types of firearms legal, you can still hunt, defend your home, and compete in sport shooting.
Combine the following with the semi-auto ban.
Government buy-back program of all semi-automatic weapons. Once a grace period for turn-ins ends, possession will be a felony without a special (and rare) license for Federally approved dealers and collectors.
Gun licenses for all who want to continue to own approved firearms. Licenses will be granted by completing a comprehensive background check, psych evaluation, safety training, marksmanship training, and meeting strict storage requirements. Storage requirements would include safes, weapons unloaded, with ammo stored separately. Licenses expire after a certain number of years and all the requirements must be completed again for license renewal.
Registration of all firearms.
Insurance for all firearms. If your gun is used in a crime or if there’s a accident with your gun, your insurance company is liable for damages. Let the insurance market set rates based on their analysis of risk. Then, people can decide if it’s financially worth it to own a gun.
Finally, here’s your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments:
Pro-gun argument – assault weapons aren’t an actual thing. Banning them won’t make a difference.
Counterargument – none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an “assault weapon” is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don’t have a bayonet problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of made-up things like “assault weapons.”
Pro-gun argument – 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!
Counterargument – sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks, Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia’s majority opinion, he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations should be made on “dangerous and unusual” weapons, per previous precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms should now be considered “dangerous and unusual,” given their lethality.
Pro-gun argument – if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won’t follow the law, and we’ll be in more danger.
Counterargument – this is an argument against having laws. Since criminals don’t follow the law, there should be no limits on anything. Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn’t been a similar bombing since. We outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in the 20th century, and what has happened? We don’t see violence with those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths.
Pro-gun argument – if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats
Counterargument – there are plenty of incidents around the world of mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a mass shooting.
Pro-gun argument – we need armed security guards in every school
Counterargument – do you trust the security guard won’t become a mass shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it’s relatively easy to get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he’s not expecting, then keep going. That’s what the Pulse nightclub shooter did. It’s not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security, too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn’t reduce it.
Pro-gun argument – it’s a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don’t kill people, people kill people
Counterargument – The United States has the same rates of mental illness as other developed Western countries, but we’re the only ones with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to commit crime than those who aren’t mentally ill, which many find surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become the victim of a crime than those who don’t have mental illness. It’s a common refrain to hear “anyone who would do that must be crazy.” That’s not true. Being a murderer doesn’t actually mean you are mentally ill, which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials. And if “people kill people,” then we really should stop giving all these people guns, right? We don’t allow private F-22s or nuclear weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people. People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.
Pro-gun argument – We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people’s hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens’ guns.
Counterargument – Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have trended down as we’ve advanced as a society. Mass shootings have remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns.
Pro-gun argument – we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Counterargument – I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons.
Pro-gun argument – gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us
Counterargument – The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There’s over 300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to take everyone’s guns, they’d do it the same way they would if there wasn’t a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone.
I truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. They’ve figured it out. Why can’t we?”
On Saturday, Feb 17 over 100 people turned up to the 41st Legislative District town hall at Somerset Elementary School in Bellevue.
Representative Judy Clibborn (House Transportation Committee chair), Senator Lisa Wellman (chair of the Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee), and Representative Tana Senn (Vice Chair of the Early Learning & Human Services Committee) answered questions for two hours.
I asked Rep. Senn about the prospects for a carbon tax and for a capital gains tax. She said that it is likely that no Republican will vote for either bill. Because the Democratic majorities are so slim (a couple of seats in each house), and because there are some wish-washy (conservative) Democrats, it will be hard to pass either bill.
Last year’s state legislative deal funds education via increased real estate taxes. (The legislature was placed under contempt by the Washington State Supreme Court for failing to adequately fund education, which the state constitution says is the “paramount duty” of the state.) Because of the high real estate values in King County, residents here are subsidizing education in other parts of the state. Most voters and legislators are Democratic here in King County and are Republican elsewhere. So the Republicans are happy to burden King County with the costs of paying for education.
All three 41st LD legislators voted against last year’s education deal, as did legislators in most surrounding King County legislative districts.
HB 2967 would enact an excise tax on capital gains in exchange for a reduction in property taxes. “Assisting Washington families by improving the fairness of the state’s tax system by enacting a capital gains tax and providing property tax relief.” It is scheduled for consideration by the Finance Committee tomorrow, Feb 19. It has exemptions for primary residences and exempts the first $25,000 in gains ($50,000 for a couple). The tax would apply to only about 48,000 households in the state. Several people told me that two people in Washington — guess who? — would pay one quarter of the new tax.
One legislator said that some Republicans were pleasantly surprised that the Democratic leadership is relatively polite towards Republicans, allowing their issues to come up for consideration. One Republican legislator thanked her. So I wondered if a carbon tax or a capital gains tax could pass by some sort of horse trading. Apparently it will be difficult.
As for a carbon tax, Gov. Inslee proposed a carbon tax bill, SB 6203, “Reducing carbon pollution by moving to a clean energy economy.” A watered down version of the bill passed out of a Senate committee last week. (Lisa Wellman is one of the sponsors.) See CarbonWA for information about the various bills, their prospects, and the politics of the issue.
Senator Wellman pointed out that adding a tax on carbon will cost jobs in some industries. She mentioned, too, 10,000 jobs lost at Longview coal terminal. The workers need green energy alternatives. Such issues make passing a carbon tax politically difficult.
Wellman said that public banking is a “wave” across the nation. (New Jersey is seriously considering a public bank). In Washington State, Sen. Bob Hasegawa, Senator Wellman, and Senator Patty Kuderer have worked for a public bank bill. See SB 5464. As Wellman explained, Washington should stop giving money away to Wall Street.
Someone asked about the prospects for stopping the rich from buying elections. We need to counter Citizens United, they said. One of the legislators spoke of the Disclose Act, SB 5991/HB: “Increasing transparency of contributions by creating the Washington state DISCLOSE act of 2018.” It passed the Senate and is in the House.
Closes campaign finance disclosure loopholes and requires the disclosure of contributions and expenditures by nonprofit organizations that participate significantly in
One questioner spoke of the substandard conditions at most assisted-living facilities, which are often under-staffed. The owners and lobbyists blame the $15 minimum wage. One of the legislators said: Why work in such a facility when you can work under better conditions and for equal pay at, say, Starbucks?
A woman from Grandmothers Against Gun violence asked a question about prospects for gun control. Despite the horrifying massacre in a Florida high school, several bills failed to survive “policy cutoff.” In particular, a bill about enhanced background checks failed. [Correction: I went to Olympia on Monday, Feb 29 to speak with legislators. There I saw some people dressed in orange and wearing signs calling for gun control. I said, “I heard that the enhanced background check bill…” Before I could finish, the man said, “No, the bill isn’t dead. That’s a rumor that was spread by NRA supporters to try to derail reform.” I also heard that some swing district Democrats would be vulnerable if they supported gun control, so it will still be hard to pass. And Speaker Frank Chopp is unwilling to risk losing seats. Some people think Chopp needs to take more risks, which he apparently did, because I heard that that the carbon tax bill is moving forward.]
One bill about restricting the ability of perpetrators of domestic violence to carry concealed weapons is still alive. (Seems like a no-brainer to me.) Another bill, SB 5992, to restrict “bump fire stock guns”) passed the Senate and moving to the House.
Prohibits a person from manufacturing, owning, buying,selling, loaning, furnishing, transporting, or having inpossession or under control, a bump-fire stock.Provides the following definition for bump-fire stock: Abutt stock designed to be attached to a semiautomatic firearmwith the effect of increasing the rate of fire achievablewith the semiautomatic firearm to that of a fully automaticfirearm by using the energy from the recoil of the firearm togenerate reciprocating action that facilitates repeatedactivation of the trigger.
The legislators expressed frustration on the issue of guns (especially Rep Senn). They said their inboxes have been flooded with emails on the issue.
There is more bipartisan support for reproductive rights, especially for reproductive parity, SB 6105. “Enacting the reproductive health access for all act.”
Requires the state health care authority to administer aprogram to reimburse the cost of medically appropriateservices, drugs, devices, products, and procedures forindividuals who can become pregnant and who would be eligiblefor medical assistance if not for 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1611 or 1612.
The aim of the bill is to prohibit insurers and employers from refusing to pay for employees’ reproductive-related medical expenses. (Think Hobby Lobby.)
The biggest drama at the town hall was the vehement questions by Asian Americans directed toward Sen. Wellman, asking her why she cosponsored SB 6406, “Restoring the fair treatment of underserved groups in public employment, education, and contracting.”
The aim of SB 6406 is to overturn I-200, a citizen initiative which Washington State voters approved in 1998. I-200 states, “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” The proviso against discrimination is uncontroversial. The proviso prohibiting preferential treatment effectively outlawed affirmative action in education, as well as programs to give preference to minority-owned and woman-owned businesses for public contracts. “All state agencies, boards, departments and commissions are prohibited from using any equal opportunity programs that grant preferential treatment in hiring. Initial consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin may continue through outreach efforts. No comparable aggressive action to end equal opportunity programs that grant preferential treatment [sic?].”
I-200 was promoted by California affirmative-action opponent Ward Connerly and filed by Scott Smith and “initiative king” Tim Eyman.
The initiative passed with 58.22% of the vote statewide, but lost in King County.
Here’s a photo of some of the Asian Americans holding signs in opposition to SB 6406.
Senator Wellman said that SB 6406 was “dead” for this session. One of the Asian Americans strongly demanded that she not cosponsor a similar bill next year. Wellman said she would take their views into consideration but would not succumb to threats. Wellman said such threats were illegal when they involved donations. [In Olympia I heard that it’s unlawful for lawmakers to succumb to threats about funding, and they were told not to even respond to such aggressive emails. Also, I found out that there was similar organized oppositionat the 45th LD town hall. ]
Wellman also explained that the intent and effect of racial preferences and affirmative action is to help minorities such as Asians to get contracts. Before I-200, 13% of state government contracts were awarded to minority-owned businesses; afterwards, only about 1% were. (I’m not sure what exactly she was referring to.)
Wellman also described her experience as a Vice-President at Apple Computer, where she had to deal with discrimination against women. Too few women are in senior positions in many corporations. Likewise, there are too few women in high tech (software). When I used to interview candidates for software jobs, we’d regularly give preference to women and minorities, I think, partly because so few women and minorities applied.
None of the speakers explained clearly why they oppose overturning I-200, but my understanding is that many Asian Americans are angry that their children have trouble getting into colleges because preference is given to minorities such as African Americans. Harvard University has been sued for apparently restricting Asian enrollment. “The lawsuit alleges that Harvard effectively employs quotas on the number of Asians admitted and holds them to a higher standard than whites.”
Defenders of affirmative action and of racial preferences say that diversity is desirable in education and government contracting. Also, it is desirable to correct past wrongs (slavery and discrimination). Furthermore, if a student in a poor black community is able to earn good grades and test scores, despite the many roadblocks to success in such communities, it is evidence of intelligence and a strong character. Raw grades and scores are not the only factors that admissions officers should consider.
When I sketched this argument to one of the Asian American men opposing SB 6406, he said it’s unjust to correct past wrongs by enacting new wrongs. He also said that while it is appropriate to consider other factors besides grades and test scores, skin color should not be one of those factors.
After having gotten a chance to ask a question, one of the Asian Americans repeatedly raised his hand and called out verbally to be allowed to speak again. The legislators said that they wanted to give other people a chance to ask questions first. The man was politely asked, by a legislative aide, to sit down.
Senator Wellman said she would not debate the issue but would be happy to discuss it afterwards. They did.
I can see both sides of this issue. If my kid got better grades and scores but lost out to someone with lower grades and scores I might be unhappy too. It does seem like discrimination. Yet I understand too the desirability of diversity and of correcting past wrongs and so might be willing to sacrifice my interests for others who are in more need.
In late 2016 I met a Chinese American woman who said she voted for Trump. When I asked why she offered two reasons: (1) the efforts to allow transgender people to use women’s rest rooms, and (2) affirmative action in education. When I told this story to one of the Asian Americans at the town hall, he said that I shouldn’t lead by relating the issue to Trump. And he denied that college admission was the only (or main) issue involved.
After the town hall, a well-spoken African American woman spoke with the Asian Americans, telling how racial preferences helped her get established in her career. (She became some sort of executive.)
A similar issue is the opposition among some people to HB 2927, which would standardize and broaden the outreach for finding students to enter gifted programs in public schools. There were questions about such gifted testing in North Shore School District. See Washington state lawmakers consider universal screening to find gifted students.
A reporter and photographer from the Seattle Times were in attendance. Both were friendly and easy-going. The reporter was having trouble getting cell phone reception (apparently, he had to step outside the gym). He said that he’s the only reporter on duty this weekend, and he needed to keep in touch with the editor in case there was an important story to cover. I was somewhat surprised that the Seattle Times chose the 41st LD to cover. I would have thought that, say, the 45th LD would be more exciting, given Manka Dhingra’s dramatic win there in the election last year. The reporter said he generally worked on city hall and wasn’t so familiar with legislative issues. I discussed with the reporters the trouble that newspapers are having staying in business and suggested that more people would subscribe if the editorial board stopped endorsing candidates. They insisted that the newsroom really is distinct (and cut off from) the editorial team. We do desperately need journalism.
Here is the Seattle Times’ write-up on the town hall.
An editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald:
“It is incomprehensible to us, as Australians, that a country so proud and great can allow itself to be savaged again and again by its own citizens. We cannot understand how the long years of senseless murder, the Sandy Hooks and Orlandos and Columbines, have not proved to Americans that the gun is not a precious symbol of freedom, but a deadly cancer on their society.
We point over and over to our own success with gun control in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, that Australia has not seen a mass shooting since and that we are still a free and open society. We have not bought our security at the price of liberty; we have instead consented to a social contract that states lives are precious, and not to be casually ended by lone madmen. But it is a message that means nothing to those whose ideology is impervious to evidence.”
• Demand background checks
• Demand a ban on assault weapons
• Demand a ban on all modifications to convert weapons to semi or fully automatic
• Demand accountability by the Senators and Representatives on the NRA payroll.”
See also “Fuck you, I like guns”