Two post 2020 election scenarios

I've had these thoughts for a while, but I haven't made any effort to write them down. They kinda came out of me in a reply to a friend on a facebook thread, so here they are:

Based on what i'm seeing in battleground states, I pretty confident that Trump will lose. My concern is that he will not concede if he loses. In the same way that he set things up back in 2016 talking about election rigging - he's doing it all over again now.

1. What troubles me is how he has managed to polarize voting methods. Republicans in battleground states are overwhelmingly planning to vote in person on 11/3, while democrats are planning to vote by mail.

This is setting up a the scenario where Trump is ahead when polls close but loses a week later after absentee ballots are counted in key states like MI, FL, OH, WI, NC, VA, PA etc. He will claim victory and then claim that the election is being stolen from him on 11/10.

We will see demands for recounts and we will see multiple lawsuits across states calling into question the validity of mail-in ballots. I'm also sure that we will see actual attempts to tamper with the mail-in process in democrat leaning districts. Mailboxes will be destroyed and mail carriers will be bribed. I think there will be widescale civil unrest - mostly from all 2a nuts. They will descend on state capitals with their guns to essentially demand the outcome they want. They (these trump loyalists) view a country without strong republican leadership as an in-group existential crisis.

Ultimately in this scenario - i think Biden will assume the white house on inauguration day and Trump will be escorted out by the military. He will never concede. He will say something similar to what Stacey Abrams said after "losing" to Kemp (or not - since he is too much of a malignant narcissist to do anything that would benefit the country but not him directly)

Because Trump only cares about himself - i'm truly worried about what he will legally do in his lame duck 2 months. My guess is that he will do things to ingratiate himself with leaders around the world so that he can continue to enrich himself on the back end. Trump tower moscow et al still have to get built.

I think there is hope for our country in republicans abandoning trump. If he loses *not* in typical dem vs repub fashion, but in extra special dem v repub AND repub v repub fashion, it has the potential to nullify any arguments Trump has about unfairness. he's only in power now bc of the republican party. If the revolt finally comes (which would directly translate to an election day trouncing) - things will go more smoothly

2. I think our nation will look like venzuela if trump is reelected (not economically). Trump will be maduro to biden's gauido. Our democracy will face a legitimacy crisis as the plurality/potential majority of voters reject the legitimacy of Trump and significant parts of the federal government. Protests will be unending. #NeverTrump wont be a hashtag, it will be action. Possibly very violent.

Trump repeatedly saying and acting out the fact that he is only the president of his base and not the united states coupled with voter suppression as a national republican strategy will come to a head. These facts wont be the secret knowledge of political nerds - they will be the general knowledge of the populace and the ppl will respond accordingly.

The insurrection act may be legitimately enacted this time around. I don't know fully what to expect here - but looking at other countries around the world that have dealt with authoritarian/fascist leaders, i don't think it will go well.

There's a chance that we could find ourselves starting the country all over again. Like...writing a new constitution...but this would necessitate some level of polarization deescalation - and a desire for country over and above any particular political party.

I'm really nervous for this country. Jesus is my hope.

Loving Others

Was finishing 1 John 4 this morning and this came to mind for me as a way to think about the text - specifically God's command that we love others.

Loving others is a commandment from God.

From the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25, we know that one of the ways that we are called to love our brother/neighbor is to be merciful and to give generously to those in need.

There is a mindset that says we shouldn't be merciful & generous bc SOMEONE SOMEWHERE will take advantage of love expressed in this way.

This kind of disposition misses the fact that God has been generous to us and abundantly merciful.

Additionally, God's commandment isn't "don't get taken advantage of". He gives "talents" that they may be PUT TO WORK (read: put in a position where there is risk of someone taking advantage), not buried in a place that minimizes risk.

The servant who buried the talent in Matthew 25:13 was cast into "outer darkness". At the heart of his transgression was a misunderstanding of who God is. Does how we love or don't love others show that we misunderstand God and how he loves us?

If we view ourselves as deserving of God's mercy and generosity, we will not love those who we deem to be undeserving. Such a disposition is far removed from the heart of God. The essence of the gospel is that "while we were yet sinners (read: undeserving), Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

Marriage & Divorce

Divorce is not God's will.

God's will in marriage is for mutual grace-filled submission to each other and love&forgiveness. Even where there is adultery, although divorce is permitted, God's will is to see genuine contrition & behavior change, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Why? Because marriage is meant to reflect God's unfailing love for his people. In the same way that God's love  never fails, our love for our spouse in marriage should not fail - and love is not a feeling, but an action.

Hosea's marriage to a prostitute was intended to show God's faithfulness to his people during the worst of their unfaithfulness.

In the same vein, however, separation is God's will (I.e. in an abusive relationship). The ideal would be for separation to lead to heart change and reconciliation, but sometimes it does not.

Remarriage is a difficult topic. "Desertion" in 1cor7 could be given a broad application "if they depart you are under no obligation. God has called us to peace". "Desertion" and "peace" extend some liberty to the believer, but all of that must be grounded in texts like "I the Lord hate divorce" (Malachi 2:16) and this one.

Ultimately, it is God's will that our relationships be full of love, grace and mercy - grounded in the understanding that the same is the basis of God's personal relationship with us. How we love our spouses should be a reflection of how God loves us.

Macy's Ad Retargeting

1. Purchased 2 winter coats from @Macys (end of season) about a week ago.

2. Macy's retargeting (you know when you see ads for websites you visit after you leave the site? that's retargeting) followed me around the internet even though I had already purchased.

3. One of the ads showed the coat I purchased, but at a lower price

4. I clicked. Submitted a price adjustment request. Macy's approved it (image attached)

5. Summary - Macy's paid ~$3 to show me an ad that cost them about $15 in price adjustments.

6. Summary 2 - Ad networks need a better way to know when people transact*. There's probably a decent amount of money wasted on showing ads to ppl who shouldn't be seeing them.


*The solution would probably require one or two of the following:

a) for ad networks to agree on a common ad targeting methodology
b) broad industry consolidation
c) data sharing between ad networks

Post Tax Plan Raise Okey-Doke?

I just saw a press release from JP Morgan Chase announcing pay raises and bonuses for their rank and file employees that attributed the move to the Trump Tax Plan.

Seeing lots of companies advertise bonuses/pay increases in response to the Trump Tax plan made me think:

1. Publicizing it in this way feels like it is being done to gain Trump's favor.

Everyone knows that Donald Trump operates on the "You say something nice about me, i'll say something nice about/do something nice for you" principle. Companies are about their bottom (and top) lines - from a money perspective, it only makes sense to say nice things about the man who is cutting your taxes and cutting regulations that used to make it more expensive for your company to operate.

2. How much of this is rebranding of already planned behavior?

What were these companies planning to do before the tax cut was signed into law? I know WalMart was planning to give raises in response to Target raising wages for their employees. Once the tax plan passed, they made it seems as though their wage increase came as a result of Trump's beneficence, not competitive pressure.

3. How much are these raises *actually* costing these companies?

How does the cost of these raises compare with the overall benefit to the companies from the tax cut? Are the raises funded by 1% or 51%? How are companies generally investing this money?

Addendum - I just stumbled across an article from the NYT that says these bonuses and raises represent a very small percentage of the windfall the companies will receive from the tax bill (we're talking 5% for bank of america, Less than 1% for Apple)

In closing

I want to believe that this is all being done for the right reasons, but press release after press release from these companies (especially wal mart announcing raises one day and huge layoffs and store closures the next) leads me to believe that this is a big distraction/marketing ploy.

I mean...everyone is saying that "wall street wins, main street loses" etc etc - but it is difficult to reliably know when subjectivity ends and objectivity begins

Philando Castile - How Can We Prevent This?

Photo Credit: LLroomtempJ

 

How do we stop things like what happened to Philando Castile from happening? There are several areas that can be addressed. The two areas that stand out to me are how we determine who gets to be a police officer and how we determine who gets to stay on as a police officer.

 

Since police officers have great job security these two areas are essentially one in the same. The officers we hire are the officers we keep until retirement. 

Just to make sure that we're on the same page - this post is not about what justice for Philando looks like - it is about how we prevent this from happening again.

Justice is difficult. The fact is - officers are rarely charged with crimes and rarely convicted when charged. This is because police are hired to make judgment calls - so it will be difficult to hold them criminally liable for doing the very thing they were hired to do. What we can do, however, is a better job of assessing their ability to make good judgment calls before hiring them and not hesitate to let them go when they demonstrate poor judgment on the job. 

It is often the case that we err on the side of job security FOR police who show lapses in judgment rather than on the side of protection for the community FROM officers who show lapses in judgment. This can be a function of a few things, top of mind for me are negligence, the blue wall of silence and/or very strong collective bargaining agreements with police unions that prioritize job security above public safety.

So what can it look like to do a better job assessing police? Here is an abbreviated solution suggestion:

1. Create a high national standard to become/maintain status as a police officer

Possibly the equivalent of a security clearance with in-depth background checks and tenure reviews for existing officers, etc. One thing this accomplishes is putting an end to police officers who mess up in one town getting rehired as police officers one or two towns over. Every police department would have to check every prospective & current police officer's federally administered security clearance before making staffing decisions.

With this standard, demonstrated lapses in judgment can be grounds for revocation of this clearance. No grace here - you mess up, you're gone. Excessive force? Gone. Impropriety? Gone. There are obvious implications here for collective bargaining agreements that are currently in place - my radical recommendation is to rewrite each of them to ensure that the safety of the public is what is held in highest regard, rather than the job security of police officers.

2. Higher police salaries

The job is just as hard, but with higher standards comes lower job security.

To address lower job security and to ensure a steady talent pipeline, police officer salaries would need to increase by a factor of 1.5-2x - if not more. In my mind, the higher societal benefit (e.g. prevention of another Philando Castile-like murder) is worth the cost. Higher salaries will also attract better talent - solid people with solid judgment who previously would have pursued careers in...say operations at a technology company... who will now answer the call to protect and serve.
  

3. Independent federal oversight of police departments

This is unlikely to happen in our current administration, but common sense is bound to return to the oval office after this Trump disaster is over and we may see the federal government return to playing a role in holding rogue police departments, like the Chicago Police Department, accountable.

Similar to how the centralized national security clearance would protect citizens from officers who've been fired from Police Departments in a particular municipality moving to their city and getting hired back on, centralized oversight (e.g. A federal complaint and review board) will help to protect citizens from corrupt departments who do not uphold the national standard. Something like this will also potentially help to address the blue wall of silence by giving local officers an authority to easily appeal to that is above local leadership who will theoretically be not corrupt.

4. Police department consolidation

There are too many police departments in this country. We currently have 18,000 with independent standards and oversight/non-oversight. I would propose 51 (50 states and Washington DC). It is easier to manage consolidated entities.

5. (added 5/26/2020) Private Liability Insurance

Police Departments are funded by tax dollars. What this means is that in most places in the United States, when police departments are held financially accountable for officer misconduct, the taxpayers are ultimately financially responsible for paying settlements.

New York City paid out $230mm in 2018, they paid $335mm in 2017. Numbers these large are not unique to New York City.

What is often lacking, however, is for police departments to be held accountable to institute meaningful change that reduces taxpayer's financial risk exposure.

The aforementioned Federal oversight can help here, but I propose that private insurance for police departments would be effective at curbing misconduct. Insurers have a powerful incentive to affect meaningful change that reduces risk - profit.

There would be no politics, partisanship or #bluelivesmatter in the way to prevent meaningful change. There would only be actuaries and adjusters who set risk-adjusted rates that say what must be done for the insurance policy to remain in place (e.g. "if this cop stays on the force, your annual policy rate will increase by $5,000,000").

If risk within a particular department is too high, a point would be reached where insurers will exit the market and refuse to issue policies - similar to how private insurers do not write flood insurance policies to homes in particularly risky flood zones - or how insurers refuse to insure (or charge a really high rate to) drivers who have had multiple speeding tickets.

If the department refuses to make changes, the insurer refuses to issue the policy and the department must disband. This has worked in pockets across the country. If the measures proposed above are implemented, we would see federal takeover of state police departments that do not have liability insurance.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

POST SCRIPT (6/19/17): It is important to note that Jeronimo Yanez, the officer who shot Philando Castile, had a clean departmental disciplinary record, graduated at the top of his class while studying for a degree in enforcement from Minnesota State University and was considered to be polite, friendly and helpful, having a sincere interest in public service and he was loved and lauded by his friends and classmates.(source). 

So it goes without saying that my recommendations are not a panacea - but I still stand behind them as a potential move in the right direction. I believe that corruption and protectionism are the problems that plague our police departments and I believe that addressing those issues will keep bad cops off the streets.

POST SCRIPT (6/9/2020): It is important to note that Jeronimo Yanez also attended a controversial police warrior training which trains police to be warriors who are ready to kill to protect their communities. The short-term solution here is likely to prevent police departments who send their officers to this training from receiving and federal, state-level or county-level funding and possibly to also mandate some sort of "anti-warrior" training at all levels.

Why Christian Men Don't Date or Marry Christian Women

I recently read an article on BlackandMarriedWithKids that highlighted the 12 reasons why christian men don't date or marry christian women.

This particular article derived from an earlier post where the writer questioned why we were seeing several prominent male christians marrying women who wouldn't be considered "church girls" (e.g. Rusell Wilson & Ciara, Israel Houghton & Adrienne Bailon, Noel Jones and Lisa Raye etc)

Here are some of the 12 reasons. Go to the article for the full list.

- They don't feel valued by christian women
- Christian women are too busy
- Christian women are too sanctimonious
- Not feminine enough
- Two-faced
- Always preaching, never listening

There were so many things that bothered me about this premise. I would like to briefly relay them below:


#1 - Why are we presuming that these women aren't christians? Just because "christian" isn't part of their public persona does not mean that they are not christians who are plugged into someone's local congregation off the radar. This may sound like a naive point in the cases of some of the women mentioned in the first article, but I think it is important to make note of nonetheless.

#2 - Reading this article, one would think that the bible presents dating outside the church as an option for christians. In my mind, the BMWK article could have just been a tweet that read:

Professing christians often find ways to justify their sin - especially when it comes to dating and relationships

And that would be it. The bible is clear concerning why christians should only marry other christians. I don't think it is fair or responsible to just quote 2 corinthians 6:14 and say "that settles it -there's your reason why". There is a big picture reason why and it has a lot to do with God's intentions for marriage and what marriage is meant to reflect. If you're looking for a deeper answer, go here for a start.

#3 - From this article, you would think the difficulties mentioned in the list do not exist with women outside the church. "Oh - christian women don't value me, let me go on Tinder and find a woman who values me" Seriously, dude? Take several seats and put your phone down 😒

#4 - You would also think churches aren't FULL OF SINGLE WOMEN. One or two less than ideal attempts at a relationship doesn't mean "give up". If that is the standard, no one would date ever.

#5 - The only people that should get asked a question about why they're dating outside the church (specifically within christian circles for the purpose of building up and maturation) are christian women. I'm not proposing this as a rule henceforth now and forever - just making a point. 

I would expect the responses to mostly hover around the fact that waiting on God to send a mate is hard and loneliness is a beast.

I don't remember the song, but I heard a female r&b singer sing "I have so much love to give" about herself (her context being "VERY SINGLE"). A lot of people have love to give and they want to give that love to another person but they feel like they don't have a chance of encountering that other person to give it to - or they're not sure when or if it will happen. That is a very difficult feeling to deal with. 

There is also a lot to unpack in the previous paragraph about looking to be satisfied in romantic relationships (in an ultimate sense, not in a "within the relationship" sense), but that requires its own post.

From a big picture perspective, I think that this is why it is important for churches to not neglect ministry to singles of all ages. Lots of churches make a huge pivot to focus only on marrieds and families (this is not the case with urban black churches - also another post) and in doing so neglect their singles. This cannot be.

Is Blackface Racist?

I stumbled across an article in the New York Times that sought to wokesplain (#wokesplain) to people why it is wrong for a white person to present themselves as a person of a different race - especially on Halloween.

In my mind, implying that it is inherently offensive for one to darken their skin for the purpose of a costume is itself inherently offensive...to sound logic.

Intention matters.

If the makeup wearer's intention is to revive minstrel shows or to show the world how stupid or worthy of ridicule a particular group of people are, then yeah - wrong, racist & offensive.

But if someone who has pale skin wants to show other Halloween revelers how much they appreciate Lebron James...or Eddie Murphy - why is that offensive or racist?

Such logic would be the equivalent of someone saying that use of rope is racist because rope played a critical role in lynchings. Is using rope racist? No? Then how is darkening one's skin for a costume racist?

Is it potentially insensitive? Without a doubt. But I question the validity of the sensitivity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that wearing skin darkening makeup cannot be racist - I'm just saying that it isn't inherently racist. Again, intention matters.

Powerful words are robbed of their meaning when we use them inaccurately.

To say it another way: The ability to call *actual* racism racism is lost when we call things that aren't racist racist.

Tell me why I am wrong - I'm willing to listen. Happy Halloween.

Google Knows Where I Parked My Car

I didn't forget, but it is nice to know #GoogleNow remembers where I parked #bigbrother?

(Google apparently also knows that I have bills due soon)

The really cool/spooky thing here is that Google was able to correctly guess that I drove myself to this rehearsal and discern what the parking to walking transition looks like using GPS data.

I'm interested to know why Google didn't think I caught a cab (maybe b/c I never take cabs) or rode my bike (maybe b/c my max speed was about 30mph and Google knows that I'm not Lance Armstrong - although I'm prob 20% of what he is w/o steroids...my hill climb game is strong).

It is obvious that I didn't take mass transit b/c I didn't disappear from location services while underground and my drive did not mirror a bus route at all.

But I feel like this trip could have been an uber pool ride taken with a friend or someone picking me up and dropping me off. I guess that since Google knows I'm a driver who never uses the uber app that there was prob a 97% chance that their guess was right.

Well...it was.

Nice work, Google

Lending Money to Friends?

A friend of mine recently expressed how lending money to friends has ruined some of his friendships

His post caused me to think about my experiences lending money to friends and what it has taught me. Here's what I've learned:

Short version: Don't lend money to friends. Give money to friends. If you get anything in return, count it as a bonus.

Long version: Here's my comment from his post -

I stopped lending after one friend never paid me back. At the time I felt disrespected, but I was able to get over it once I realized that the non repayment wasn't about me. We're fb friends now but the owed money has never been addressed again. Having the friend is worth more than the $2-300 or whatever the amount was.

It is always better to give with no expectation of repayment. If people are asking you for money it could be for any number of reasons, but it is usually because no other creditor will give it to them. And this is usually because they're really bad at managing money. Don't expect people who can't mange their own money to make and stick to a plan to pay you back your money.

Additionally, don't expect people who cannot provide for themselves to get to the point where they'll be able to pay you back - esp for 4-5 digit sums (6 digits if you're ballin?). Keep in mind that if the money was to help the person get back to "normal", normal wasn't a state where they were in debt for $10,000.

One last idea - give money in exchange for service. If the person is an artist, exchange money for some of their art. If they're a chef, have them invite you over to dinner for a few weeks over the next year. The exchange needn't be equal. Such an action allows you to speak life to the person. It says "You have something valuable to offer" to someone who may believe otherwise about themselves.



What say ye? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Mayor De Blasio Agrees To Raises For City Council Members - People Are Pissed

Lots of people are upset over Mayor DiBlasio's accepting a recommendation from an independent panel to give 23% raises for members of NYC City Council. This raise would bring their salary up to $138k from $112k.

In exchange for the raises, the City Council members will no longer be able to hold jobs outside city council.

In a news story that I watched on CBS this morning, the react quotes were from two people:

1. An NYC citizen who felt the council members are do-nothings who probably don't deserve a paycheck in the first place
2. The president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (the nyc police union) who said that this raise is a slap in the face of police officers who, by comparison, received paltry 1% raises.

After reading the comments in the online version of the CBS story I watched this morning, which essentially echoed the citizen and the PBA president (but in much more angry terms), I felt like I should quickly write down my thoughts.

Here they are:

1. It seems like the people who gave the react quotes and the comment section people completely missed the fact that these raises come with bans on outside employment.

The raise is an acknowledgment of new regulations that would be placed on city council members that would effectively lower their income earning ability.

The $50k/yr (or higher...or lower) consulting gig that they used to work is now replaced with a $25k raise. That's significant.


The public benefits because, in theory, there will be fewer opportunities for conflicts of interest. To me, this sounds like a reasonable compromise. But to those who cannot get past the announcement of the pay raise, this sounds like civil servants enriching themselves at the taxpayers' expense. Why are people only capable of seeing one side of the story?

2. It seems like people are bad at math

Why can't people do math? Why can't PBA president see that there's a huge difference between giving $25k raises to the 51 members of city council (+ a few other elected officials like the mayor, comptroller and DA) and giving a raise to New York City's 50,000 police officers? I'm not saying the cops don't deserve a raise, but we're talking a 3 orders of magnitude difference in the number of people affected.

Quick Math Aside: If 50k cops get an average raise of $500 in one year - that will cost taxpayers $25 million. $25k raises for 51 people will cost $1.3 million. 

If the argument isn't about money, but rather fairness and principle - we have to take into consideration the fact that police officers are allowed to work outside jobs (e.g. bouncers, bodyguards) while carrying their department-issued service weapons. This legislation takes away from council members the opportunity to be employed outside of their city job. So there's that.


In closing, the reactions I saw serve as another illustration of why I hate people (read my post on hating people here). People generally do not think critically about things and they often express their poorly informed opinions as though there aren't any circumstances under which they could be wrong. (Aside: with that said - there is a good chance that this raise could just be bad policy. Why hasn't the baseline expectation for NYC's elected officials *always* been "no outside employment"? Why does correcting a wrong, assuming it is wrong, require a raise?)

In the defense of the people who gave react quotes in the televised CBS NY story, there is a chance that the reporter baited them into giving nasty react quotes by omitting the information about restrictions on outside work (juicer quotes = juicier story). But even if that's the case, the people in the comment section have no excuse. The full story was presented plainly online - the article headline reads: "DeBlasio Agrees To Raises For City Council Members In Exchange For Reforms"

i'm done.

Why I Hate People

I hate people. This is something I've been increasingly realizing about myself over the past 5 years or so.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I *love* people - but I hate them as well. I definitely hate them to a lesser extent, but on some days I feel both in equal measure.

I think the biggest drivers of my hatred for people are:

1. Their seeming inability to think critically
2. Their lack of empathy
3. Their willful ignorance

I am reminded of my hatred when I take time to observe and consider the things people say and do. For me, the most egregious offenders are highly educated/well-read people whose emotions will not permit them to analyze difficult things through objective lenses. I feel this way because they should know better. 

This feeling seems to present itself most often in partisan discourse on whatever the subject of the day is - be it issues like racism and systemic injustice, or stuff like religious ideology and the broader implications thereof. For example, why can't some people see that it is shortsighted to say something like "all lives matter" in response to hearing or reading "black lives matter"?

Though I listed three things above that drive my hatred of people, continuing to think as I'm writing has helped me to see that one point encompasses the other two, and that is the second one: lack of empathy.

If we seek to show others empathy (including those we don't particularly care for), we will think more critically and less so in a self-serving fashion. Additionally, in seeking to identify with others, we will not be willfully ignorant of the issues that matter to them.

I halfway felt like it would be appropriate to discuss how I try to apply these feelings of mine as a theologically conservative Christian (this is not a statement about my political beliefs), but I struggled to state it concisely. Suffice it to say that my personal goal is to love others in the same way that I have been loved by God - namely, with empathy and compassion.

Why I (probably) Won't Buy Amazon Prime

In light of all the buzz surrounding their new series "Transparent", Amazon is offering a one day only Prime sale.

I'm probably not going to sign up. Here are the benefits of a prime membership:

Here's why I think 12:00 am PDT on 9/26/2015 will come and $67 will still be in my pocket:

1. Free Two Day Shipping:
 $35+ order free regular speed shipping works fine for me. I don't shop at Amazon as much as I used to and when I do, it is usually to buy stuff that costs more than $35 (like protein powder, camera lenses and smartphones).

2. Unlimited Ad-Free Streaming Music:
I never really got into the whole music streaming thing - I think the biggest hurdles for me have been incomplete streaming libraries and weird rules about offline access.

I typically buy complete albums from the Amazon mp3 marketplace and listen to them on my 120gb Microsoft Zune. I don't want to use my phone to listen to music because my phone is too big to carry around the gym and music always gets interrupted by notifications. If someone would make a connected device to replace my Zune, I would buy it. Maybe there's an android device out there somewhere.

3. TV Show Streaming:
There is too much good stuff on TV. I have too many choices. My humongous DVR is full of stuff that I don't have time to watch, why do I need more stuff?

4. Unlimited Photo Storage:
The unlimited photo storage is cool, but I'm currently using Microsoft One Drive (dropbox cut my storage, in turn, I cut dropbox) to back up pictures I take on my phone. I keep redundant external hard drive backups of photos I take on my DSLR and I've recently started using Flickr, which offers 1TB of free cloud storage, to back up/showcase these same photos.

5. Free Kindle Books:
I barely read books - and when I do, I read physical books. Currently reading a hard copy of "God is The Gospel" by John Piper. Good stuff.

6. It's On Sale! :
~$5.50/mo is enticing, but it goes back up to the normal price of $8.25/mo after a year. This is not a lot of money, but i'd rather keep my money in my pocket than pay for convenience that I probably won't use

Atlanta Public Schools Cheating Scandal Trial and Sentencing: Racism?

This is not racism.

These teachers were offered pretrial deals and post-conviction deals. I've *never* heard of a post-conviction deal. The ones doing hard time rejected the post-conviction deals.

I do think the racketeering charge was too much. As far as I know, racketeering as a charge has only been used to address organized crime (e.g. mafia activity, drug gangs) and not teachers participating in a very different kind of organized crime.

Everyone who went to trial went because they felt the racketeering charge wouldn't stick. After going to traffic court in 3 different states, I've learned that the letter of the law is the letter of the law - if you've broken the law, being a good person, being "not as bad a criminal" when compared to others or having somewhat pure intentions wont make you any less guilty.

Going to trial when caught with a smoking gun is essentially trowing yourself on the mercy of the court - and at two different junctures, the court offered all of these teachers mercy. Just because they were black does not make this whole situation racism. Let us not play the race card with haste lest it be robbed of its meaning.

Solitary Confinement

I recently read an article on solitary confinement here on Mother Jones. The article, in part, discussed movements to ban solitary confinement for juveniles.

Here are my thoughts:

Solitary confinement is incongruous with the notion of prison as rehabilitation. Prison is punishment enough without this exercise in stripping people of their humanity. This needs to stop, not just for juveniles, but for all people. It is a hazard for prisons and it is a hazard to normal society when these individuals are ultimately released.

One potential solution would be to have the equivalent of solitary, but in a place where prisoners can see and communicate with one another. I guess it wouldn't be solitary if people can see and communicate with others - but what is needed is a way for prisoners to be incarcerated in a way that balances the need for the safety of prison officials and the general prison population and the need for us as a society to respect the dignity and mental health of disruptive and/or disobedient prisoners.

I'm gonna be a coder

After much trial and error and heartache, I finally got django installed on my machine.

Things are weird with django installation when you're running windows - and no one tells you that. After running into a wall every day for the past 4 days when trying to install it on my PC, I finally asked myself 

"what if it has something to do with the fact that i'm using windows?"

...And sure enough, there are special install instructions for windows users on the djangoproject website - and those special install instructions are nowhere to be found on the main install page.

I'm probably going to sign up for code academy/treehouse or something similar after I work my way through the introductory "welcome to django" projects they've set up for new users to learn the ropes.

This whole "learning to code" thing is my new year's resolution.

I don't "do" resolutions, but because the new year represents a new season in my life, i'm going to make my goals into "resolutions" for 2015.

Why coding? Why not?

I've missed lots of opportunities in life to develop my coding skills (not the least of which was being a student at MIT) - but i'm not going to let missed opportunities get me down. Here's to a new year, a new season and to new goals.

Check out a blog I wrote on resolutions over here.

DiBlasio's Vision Zero and 25mph in NYC

The New York State legislature recently passed a measure that gave to New York City the right to enact a citywide 25mph speed limit (it is currently 30mph).

This law is a product of Mayor DiBlasio's Vision Zero, a plan to reduce to zero the number of pedestrian traffic deaths in New York City.

At a recent press conference the DiBlasio administration released the following statement as justification for lowering the speed limit:

"70% of accidents involving pedestrians are the result of speed or the failure to yield" 

This statement is disingenuous as it conflates two concepts. If the speeding statistics were so jarring so as to merit a speed limit reduction, they would stand on their own without needing be paired with "failure to yield" numbers. 

It also strikes me as outrageous that this legislation is considered an appropriate response when the current speed limit of 30mph is largely unenforced in the city.

Not enforcing the speed limit is tacit approval of the speed limit and occasional departures from it. Seeing cars pulled over for speeding with some degree of regularity gives drivers incentive to obey they law rather than to flout it.

Having spent time in traffic court (the NYC traffic violations bureau) studying cases, I can confidently state that police officers, when they enforce traffic rules, give the most citations for failure to yield and for various minor moving violations like failure to use a turn signal. 

To me, common sense says that the primary problems that drive pedestrian traffic fatalities are aggression and distractedness on the part of both the driver and the pedestrian, not driver speed. I will concede that the speed at which a pedestrian is hit will largely determine their prognosis, but under no circumstances will I ever agree that speed (that isnt reckless) alone is the cause of accidents. 

The people who speed in the city are the exception, not the rule. An NYC DOT traffic study that I read recently declared this to be the case on a major avenue in my neighborhood in Brooklyn. This avenue could be an anomaly, but my observations as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver confirm that this conclusion is the case across the city.

On another note, I think that NYC drivers need to unite to ensure that transportation policy reflects our interests. It is far too easy to get support for anti-car legislation in a city where so few residents drive. Maybe I need to be the person to start it.

Photo Credit: NY Daily News

Pageant Resale

Brendan Eich forced to resign as Mozilla CEO over 2008 Prop 8 donation

Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla donated $1000 in support of Proposition 8 in 2008.

He was CTO when he made the donation. Two weeks after being appointed CEO by the Mozilla board, he was forced to resign amid controversy surrounding his donation. This controversy was started by online dating site OKCupid who blocked firefox users from accessing their site. You can read New York Times coverage on the issue here.

Here are my thoughts on this issue: At the end of the day, I just don't think it is right for someone to lose their job for a personal conviction that in no way affects their ability to perform their job.

Especially when the open, inclusive and supportive environment at Mozilla is one that he helped to create. The only reason why we know he made the contribution is b/c California requires that a name and an employer be attached to all political donations.

Should people fear donating money to candidates or causes for fear of future retribution? In the world where CEOs can be forced to resign, it looks like the answer is "yes". This sets a terrible precedent.

I think this is a case of zeal gone awry. It is a partisan redefinition of the word tolerance. I'm a christian and I believe that gays should be afforded equal rights and protection under the law as quickly as is possible in every state in the union. But I also believe that as a citizen, I should have the right to freely believe and practice my religion without fear of losing my job. I would not have donated in support of prop 8, but I do agree with what the bible says is "sin". Religious groups are protected classes under the law. All citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs - no matter how subjectively weird/backward/repulsive they may be - deserve equal protection under the law.

What's wrong with Obamacare?

A friend of mine recently shared an article from viral nova about the $55k bill a 20 year old reddit user received after he went to the hospital with appendicitis. The first thing that came to mind for me when i read this article wasn't "why doesn't he have insurance?" rather - it was "WHY IS A SIMPLE PROCEDURE SO EXPENSIVE?!?!?

The Affordable Care Act does a good job of guaranteeing insurance for those who want it. However, where the ACA fails is in addressing the root issue - and the root issue is cost.

There's no good reason for health care to be as expensive as what it is. On a per capita basis, America is a world leader in health insurance cost ($8,608, which equates to $2.7T or 17.2% of GDP). America also ranked 46 out of 48 countries in a recent Bloomberg study on health care efficiency (life expectancy vs absolute and relative per capita cost of healthcare). Suffice it to say that in America, medical care smells of rent seeking behavior.

Expensive health care means expensive insurance. Just because I get someone else to pay for something that is very expensive for me does not make it any less expensive. Insurance companies are not charities - they will pass their high costs onto their consumers.

I browsed bronze-level insurance options in NY: The most affordable option for me had a $4k annual premium and a $6k deductible before 50% coverage with no out-of-pocket maximum kicked in. Essentially, I would have to pay $10k out of pocket before getting 50% coverage. Presented with choosing between this "affordable" option and a 1% penalty for 2014, I would choose the 1% penalty every time.

But why is health care so expensive? Here is a partial list:

1. Insurance (for doctors): One of the (many) reasons why health care is expensive is because insurance for medical providers (malpractice etc) is expensive. Median ob/gyn salary is around $200k, however, ob/gyn malpractice insurance premiums can run anywhere between $85k and $200k - and let's not forget the fact that with malpractice lawsuits come legal fees. All these things *must* be factored into the price doctors charge for their services
2. Tort Reform: One of the reasons malpractice insurance is so high is the lack of effective tort reform in this country (I don't know what effective tort reform will look like, but i know that it can help). Tort reform efforts in Texas have not had much of an impact, but that is a reflection of ineffective legislation. Patients may need to bear a larger portion of the risk inherent in receiving medical care. I'm not 100% sure here.
3. Price Transparency: Another reason why care is expensive is because of the lack of price transparency. Price transparency would place downward pressure on prices as consumers would shop around to get the best value (and no one would go to hospitals that charge $2000 for anti-nausea pills and an overnight stay when they know another hospital located 2 miles away charges $500). In no other sphere of life do we make purchases without having some idea of what said purchase will cost...and there is a societal "cost" associated with this behavior. Especially when you consider the fact that a high cost option for you is ALSO a high cost option for your insurer who is covering between 50 and 100% of your costs. High costs for your insurer means high costs for all the other people they insure.
4. Corruption: One reason (of many) why there hasn't been significant change in policy that affects the cost of service (contrasted with Obamacare, which addresses coverage for the cost of the service) is corruption. The medical lobby is strong and many of our politicians have been bought. I'm convinced that in the same way that corruption is the largest driver of instability and inequality all over the world, corruption is the largest driver of high medical cost in this country. It is easier to legislate change that affirms our current medical cost structure than it is to expose the medical industry's ridiculous pricing and impose regulations that make the US healthcare system one that is more fair for all American citizens.

edit (1/4/2014): here's a video that i stumbled across on facebook concerning corruption 

I don't know how to fix everything, but i know that there is no good reason for our costs to be as high as they are.

just thinking aloud. I welcome your disagreement/agreement/augmentation

Google drops Active Sync Coverage

So it turns out that Google dropped Active Sync coverage for unpaid and a few other types of Gmail accounts effective January 30th, 2013.

In an announcement made here in December of 2012 they had the following to say:

Google Sync was designed to allow access to Gmail, Google Calendar, and Contacts via the Microsoft® Exchange ActiveSync® protocol. With the recent launch of CardDAV, Google now offers similar access via IMAP, CalDAV, and CardDAV, making it possible to build a seamless sync experience using open protocols. Starting January 30, 2013, consumers won't be able to set up new devices using Google Sync, however, existing Google Sync connections will continue to function. Google Sync will continue to be fully supported for Google Apps for Business, Government and Education users who are unaffected by this announcement.

I found out about this announcement 10 months after it was made because I got a new phone (a GS 3...new to me) this week and I could not understand why I wasn't able to set up my Gmail account using Microsoft Exchange on my new phone.

Most people couldn't care less about this announcement. Most people are saying to themselves "whatevs, i use the Gmail app...no skin off my back"

I am not one of those people. Why am I not one of those people? Because...let me say this clearly:

THE GMAIL APPLICATION SUCKS!

Why does it suck?

1. No offline search
2. No push scheduling

#1
Offline search matters when you want to find an email from 8, 9 or 10 days ago when you're without a mobile network connection on the train and you don't have the time nor the patience to sort through hundreds of emails to find that ONE email...that was probably sent to you 12 days ago.

#2
Push scheduling matters because battery life matters. Microsoft Exchange allowed me to get all power user with my email download scheduling. My personal preference is for every 5mins during between 7a and 7p, hourly between 7p and 11p and on weekends and Not at all between 11p and 7a. Only giving me a binary ("push on" "push off") option in the Gmail app is completely unacceptable.

I have found a suitable solution in Aqua Mail. Although it doesn't have the email sync scheduling of exchange, it does have a helpful and battery saving "nights and weekends" feature. I have been using the free version for the past 5 days and tonight, my friends, I will purchase the full version of the app for $5 (this will be my first ever app purchase). I'm purchasing the full version because I'm a fan of the functionality (customization and the gmail integration), but I really don't like the email signature that gets appended to my emails - and the full version lets you delete the signature.

Big Ups to Aqua Mail for making an awesome app.