What is offensive?

 Big news this week is that Dr. Seuss is being "cancelled". More specifically a few of his books which have been declared "racist" -- expressing racial stereotypes which some find offensive.

To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street has been removed from publication, apparently because of one picture in the book showing a stereotypical Chinese man holding chopsticks. This has apparently been declared offensive. There are a few other pictures in the book which stereotype other groups, I'm not sure if they're part of the reason that the book is so bad.

Coincidentally, I decided to finally watch the Star Wars movie "Rogue One". This movie is praised for a female lead and a "diverse" cast. Yet I find it odd when watching the movie. The female lead is an English actress, so no diversity there. Of the various characters one is a stereotypical oriental martial arts master. I can't see that as any less "offensive" (that Chinese are martial arts masters) than the Dr. Seuss stereotype of Chinese clothing.

A few other characters fit other stereotypes, yet apparently these are ok in the movie context. Of course, the overtly white males are all officers of the Empire and thus villains.

Still, it seems it would be as easy to declare Rogue One as "racist" as it is to declare Dr. Seuss "racist".

Travel bans for me but not for thee

 In January 2020 President Trump restricted travel from China as the COVID-19 epidemic ramped up. At the time this was roundly criticized as unnecessary and xenophobic by Democrats including Joe Biden. If I remember correctly some lawsuits were also filed against the restriction.

Sometime later when this was brought up as an example of President Trump paying attention to COVID-19 (contrary to the talking point that he ignored the pandemic) Nancy Pelosi acknowledged the China travel ban but said it didn't do any good since US citizens and a number of other people were still allowed into the country.

On January 25, 2021 Joe Biden issued a proclamation restricting travel to the US from Europe and Brazil. And just like the Trump China restrictions the restrictions don't apply to US citizens and several categories of non-citizens.

It looks like Joe Biden just issued a travel "ban" which is essentially the same as the Trump travel "ban" he criticized a year ago. Yet this one is not being labeled xenophobic or racist, perhaps because we're primarily banning whites, not Asians.

What Was Donald Trump Really Like as President?

 Now that Donald Trump is out of office the Biden administration is hard at work to reverse everything which was done over the last four years. Perhaps not literally everything, but a lot.

Something else happening is further claims about how irrational Donald Trump was as President. Recent comments by Dr. Fauci say how refreshing it is to no longer be working for Trump. Yet what's the truth of these claims?

There are numerous reports describing Donald Trump's behavior as President as childish. One was by the person labeled as "Anonymous". Yet in the end it turns out "Anonymous", regardless of the truth of his accusations, lied about his identity. He wasn't a White House insider but a high level staffer at DHS. In addition, "Anonymous" (Miles Taylor) had previously denied the identity when initially asked by the press if it was him.

Other reports of the Trump administration portray a President who listened to policy debate, asked reasoned questions, and made thoughtful decisions (see "You're Hired!" by Casey B. Mulligan). Which version is true?

It's hard to say the reality of Trump's behavior. Descriptions of his Presidency are strongly based on the opinions of those doing the describing. I haven't seen objective hard evidence presented (e.g. taped together documents from reports Trump routinely ripped up things he didn't like), so we're dependent on news reports, largely by overtly anti-Trump media companies, sourced by people who have a reason to dislike the Trump administration.

Dr. Fauci says it's refreshing not to work for Trump, yet Dr. Fauci has lied to the public (and admitted it), both about masks (in March, 2020 he said they aren't needed, around July he admitted he lied because they didn't want common people buying scarce maks) and about herd immunity (admitting he stated the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity based on what he thought the public would accept).

So what's the truth? Especially after Donald Trump's failure to accept the election the best political move many can take is to talk about the horrors of Trump. I'm sure we'll see books from former members of the administration talking about the horror of the Trump White House (and a few others about how great it was). Yet can we know the truth? The Trump administration has been defined by the highly polarized positions of this supporters and opponents. Will people lie about him? "The Resistance" was formed to get him out of office "by any means". It seems clear many allies have been willing to support impossible election fraud claims.

It may be we never know the truth of what went on in the White House.

This is Human Trafficking?

Florida law enforcement has announced a big human trafficking bust. Yet was it? See 71 Arrested in Human Trafficking Sting in Florida Ahead of Tampa Super Bowl.

The headline announces a bust against human trafficking, yet reading the story it appears this was just a prostitution sting. The police posted online ads for sex or had female detectives pose as sex workers. They then arrested men who answered the ads. All will be charged with some variation of patronizing a prostitute.

Notice that no actual prostitutes, pimps, etc. were involved. Nobody actually involved in human trafficking was arrested nor were any women "rescued" from sex work.

This appears to be an attempt to generate some headlines in advance of the Superbowl. These arrests are not doing to do anything to fight actual human trafficking. There might be a brief, minimal affect on the number of men seeking out a prostitute out of fear of a new police sting, but beyond that it will be business as usual in the sex trade.

Was Trump's speech an impeachable offense?

 A second Trump impeachment is being demanded based on outrage for the riot at the Capitol. More and more people seem to be demanding impeachment, even if done after Trump leaves office (for which there is apparently precedent).

Yet what was the impeachable offense? The impeachable offense was basically that the crowd attacked the Capitol building. If the crowd had marched to the Capitol and spent the afternoon chanting and yelling we wouldn't be talking about a second impeachment, it would have just been a bunch of Trump deplorables and the media would have spent days talking about how they were all stupid racists.

So the impeachment "offense" is largely an offense by the Capitol occupying crowd, not directly by Donald Trump. One could imagine a similar "offense" if somebody had gone and shot a cabinet official shortly after members of Congress called for attacks on those working for the administration.

The next few days will say whether Trump is impeached (most likely yes) and whether the Senate convicts or even holds a trial (most likely no).  

Vote counting irony

After watching this year's election fiasco I've been reading a description of the Bush v Gore mess in 2000 for comparison. The book is Courting Justice by David Boies. He was one of Gore's lawyers during that fiasco. The last three chapters are about Bush v Gore.

Much of the Bush v Gore argument ended up being the Gore camp wanting more votes to be counted (though they really only cared about 4 left leaning counties). The Bush camp wanted the results accepted as is (understandable, they were ahead). A consistent theme throughout the book is that the more votes that are counted the more Gore will gain over Bush. In this case the extra votes being counted were questionable ballots -- those not properly filled out but where the "intent of the voter" can be discerned, something Florida law allowed to be counted. Mr. Boies even seems to argue that the more votes counted in Republican counties, the better for Gore.

This leaves me wondering why this is the case. Could it be that on average Democrats don't know how to fill out a ballot, don't know how to follow directions filling out a ballot, or are afraid to ask for help? How does this compare to common stereotypes today of stupid Trump supporters?

I've read arguments by scholars that we should have some sort of minimal test for voting. The arguments tend by those of the left against "deplorables" (to stereotype broadly) and are in terms of trying to prevent the return of old, regressive policies as opposed to newly enacted progressive policies. This dovetails with arguments that conservatives are more likely to not have a college degree, etc. which I've seen since the 1980 election when I was first involved with major party politics.

Yet election vote counting shows an interesting contrast. Apparently it's Democrats who are more likely to be unable to fill out a ballot correctly. Should we perhaps ask whether those who can't vote properly are intelligent enough to choose a candidate properly?

[NOTE: I do NOT advocate establishing some sort of eligibility test for voting. It's far, far too easy to turn any requirement for voting into a partisan test (e.g. literacy "tests" in the Jim Crow south).

Social Security confusion

 One of the things I've learned over the years is that one of the most confusing areas of personal finance is retirement, Social Security, etc. Having a technical degree and having filed individual income tax schedules not related to farming, I've been completely stymied when it comes to retirement. I first dealt with retirement income, taxes, etc. for my father in law. How to take benefits (monthly payments, lump sum, etc) for some types of pension is bad enough. He had a civil service pension and the 1099 form looked nothing like the examples in tax books (different numbers, etc). Figuring out the taxable amount of the pension is a disaster. No wonder tax preparation is a lucrative career.

Now I've seen another possible confusion. My wife passed away recently. Social Security was notified and I'm wondering how the final payments work. Social Security rules say you must return any payment "for the month of death" along with later months. Since her November payment was in the bank before she died I'm wondering if I need to return it. Add to this online complaints of "Social Security yanked the last payment out of the bank and caused everything else to bounce" and I wasn't sure what to expect.

Well, it turns out there's no problem. The Social Security payment "for a month" is paid the next month. Luckily there was no bank deposit the next month. Still, it took me a couple times reading the rules to figure out that "for a month" didn't mean the payment made "in a month", which is a reasonable assumption. I wonder how many people are confused by this. I wonder how many people return the payment for the month of death thinking this what is required.

In the days of the web this is made more difficult because searches related to Social Security and death turn up more responses about the SS death benefit or survivor benefits than how the last payment is treated.

So we have the irony that once somebody has finished their working life and is ready to relax in retirement it suddenly seems an advanced degree is needed to sort out the financial and tax issues.