Archive for August, 2017

Obama’s White House Photographer Among Highlights of Photoville … – New York Times

Photo Last years Photoville festival, in Brooklyn Bridge Park, Brooklyn. Credit Kisha Bari/United Photo Industries

The sprawling free photography festival known as Photoville returns to Brooklyn Bridge Park on Sept. 13 with a pop-up village of repurposed shipping containers. This years festival programming will address issues like immigration and climate change and include a conversation with President Obamas White House photographer.

Photoville will run through Sept. 24 and feature work by more than 500 visual artists, talks, outdoor projection shows and workshops. Now in its sixth year, the festival has expanded: in its physical footprint, in its number of artists and in including a second weekend. The festival is organized by the Brooklyn-based nonprofit United Photo Industries with a number of partners.

Exhibitions include Stories of Survivors, a project by the photographer Malin Fezehai in conjunction with the United Nations Development Program that documents survivors of violent extremist attacks in five African countries, and Redefining Gender by Lynn Johnson, which explores gender identity through science and culture.

A number of the exhibitions have a modern political bent. But Laura Roumanos, one of the organizers, said she was also excited about an exhibition that looks at the past. In a vintage Shasta camper R.V., Lost Rolls America will display old, forgotten rolls of film mailed from across the country to the photojournalist Ron Haviv.

Read more:
Obama's White House Photographer Among Highlights of Photoville ... - New York Times

Fiscal conservatives should support Rand Paul and Kamala Harris’ bail reform bill – Rare.us

A recent Politifact fact checkfound that California Senator Kamala Harris statements arguing that it costs $33,000 a year nationally to incarcerate an inmate are in fact correct.

Harris told the incarcerated womens advocacy group Women Unshackled in Washington D.C. in July that it costs $75,000 a year to lock up an inmate in California.

Lets look at the fact that there is an issue around how much we are paying and again, this gets back to the economic cost it costs us about $33,000 a year to lock somebody up. In California it costs about $75,000 a year, Harris told the forum.

RELATED:Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democrat Kamala Harris are teaming up to seek bail reform

Harris, a Democrat, recently teamed up with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on bipartisan bail reform legislation toprevent accused minors from sitting in jail for their offenses if they cant afford bail.

An op-ed written by the senators targets the current discriminatory and wasteful bail system and its crippling effects on young offenders.

Our justice system was designed with a promise: to treat all people equally, the op-ed reads. Yet, that doesnt happen for many of the 450,000 Americans who sit in jail today awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail.

The Senators argue that an accuseds jail time is often determined by their economic status or available connections.

Whether someone stays in jail or not is far too often determined by wealth or social connections, even though just a few days behind bars can cost people their job, home, custody of their children or their life.

Harris and Paul argue that bail reform could potentially save American taxpayers roughly $78 billion a year.

Politifact analyzed Harris figures and other reports and found her statistics to be correct.

We interpreted Harriss claim about per inmate expenses to mean the operational costs to house male and female inmates, including security, health care, facility upkeep and employee compensation, Politifact said. Advocates for criminal justice reform often argue that just looking at the operational costs of running prisons ignores the social costs of incarcerating Americans.

We looked at those costs as well, but based our rating primarily on the evidence supporting the numbers Harris cited in her Women Unshackled appearance.

RELATED:Congress can get rid of a lot of unconstitutional mass surveillance by doing nothing at all

A Vera Institute report examined the cost to house inmates at prisons nationwide. Data from 45 states found the total cost per inmate to be approximately $33,274 a year.

Additionally, a June 2017 article by the Associated Press estimates that it costs the state of California $75,560 per fiscal year to house an inmate. This number comes from funds Governor Jerry Brown set aside in the 2017 budget Californias Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed it costs us about $33,000 a year (nationally) to lock somebody up In California it costs about $75,000 a year. A recent study that examined costs in 45 states plus data from Californias departments of corrections and finance support the senators statement. The evidence supports the figures she cited. We rate Harris claim True, Politifact concluded.

Link:
Fiscal conservatives should support Rand Paul and Kamala Harris' bail reform bill - Rare.us

Silicon Valley’s Libertarian Paradise Lost – American Spectator

Beware. Big PC Bro is watching.

Not since Jerry Maguire circulated his mission statement at Sports Management International has an internal memo so backfired on its author as James Damores written thoughts on the tech worlds groupthink did.

The Google engineer wrote that when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Googles left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.

Google quickly terminated Damore (Maybe Brendon Eich is hiring).

Point proved. But at what cost?

More chilling than the actions of the executives are the opinions of the employees. Just a slight majority of Googles employees disagreed with the company axing the engineer for reasons unrelated to his job. A minority of Apple, Lyft, and LinkedIn workers disagreed with Googles actions. Silicon Valleys libertarian paradise lost more closely resembles the college campuses from where its credentialed inhabitants came. Company men (and company women here and there) toil in the massive Northern California company town.

Googles Ideological Echo Chamber, the controversial 3,000+ word firing offense, argued that we should not reflexively attribute differences in gender representation in the workplace to discrimination. Men and women exhibit different traits. Perhaps nature draws males to such fields and women to other fields.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, Damore writes, but discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for womens representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

Damore explains that a 12-hour flight back to the United States from a diversity seminar in China catalyzed the memo. Apparently, the sensitivity training did not affect him as intended.

And thats the rub with diversity, tolerance, sensitivity, and other progressive shibboleths. Proselytizing occasionally unleashes the opposite of the intended effect. And the people committed to those principles often violate them in pursuit of them (hence James Damore standing in the unemployment line).

Some people miss their own irony. They silence in the name of tolerance, discriminate in the name of fighting discrimination, and react to microaggressions with macroaggressions. The glorious ends justify the ignoble means. Unfortunately, the ends never come. We get the mean means over and over again.

Google grew into a $200 billion behemoth befitting of its name because its founders cultivated it in the United States, the most fertile ground for freedom of speech. Its popularity springs not from it excluding controversial topics from its search engine but because it exists as an index of everything. If the government adopted the intolerant principles of Google then Google would not exist. Google welcomes pornographers, skinheads, libelers, and other loathsome types in its cyberspace. It cannot Google endure James Damore working for it. Hmmm.

Web surfers thankfully possess the power to look up any topic through Google. They also retain the power to search through Bing, Yahoo, and even AskJeeves (though he now goes by another web moniker). Why signal to such a large portion of humanity that they welcome their page visits to Google but forbid their views in the Googleplex?

Big Google, like Big Government, senses that it is too big to fail, too big to fall, and too big to boycott. Maybe the companys executives are right. But that doesnt make them right to do wrong even when, as a private entity, they possess the right to commit such a wrong.

Leon Trotsky, an idea man behind the Russian Revolution, reflected on the total states intolerance after falling afoul of the one he helped create.

In a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation, Trotsky, who felt the icepick as sure as Robespierre felt the guillotine, famously observed. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Continued here:
Silicon Valley's Libertarian Paradise Lost - American Spectator

Republicans’ biggest worry: A wave election against do-nothing lawmakers – Washington Post

President Trump attacks Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) The House and Senate have yet to agree to a budget, putting in play a government shutdown. None of the big items on which Republicans ran health care, taxes, pulling out of the Iran deal, building a wall have been accomplished. Its no wonder Republicans in the House and Senate are grossly unpopular:

According to a new CNN poll conducted bySSRS, with nearly seven in 10 (68%) judging the Republican Congress a failure so far after last months repeal and replace plan died in the Senate.Approval of the current Republican leaders in Congress has dropped from 39% in January to just 24% now. Seven in 10 say they disapprove of Republican leaders in the legislature. More broadly, only about a quarter of all Americans (24%) judge the Republican Congress a success so far. President Trump gets the approval of 38% of Americans in the CNN poll.

Even Republicans are not pleased with Republicans. (Republicans themselves are evenly split 44% to 44% on whether the GOP-led Congress has been a success or failure so far.) Democrats arent that much more popular (34 percent approve), but as the minority party they have the most to gain inthrow the bums out midterm elections. Moreover, as Democrats work hard to keep their base engaged, Republicans may have trouble turning out their side. (Views among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents of their partys congressional leadership has plummeted over the last eight months, falling from 75% approval in January to just 39% now. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents views of their partys leadership remains basically unchanged at 50% today.) Moreover, a plurality (38 percent) of Americans blame Republicans in Congress specifically for not getting things done.

Trump can read the polls, so he likely figures that beating up on Republicans wont hurt him much. He continues to taunt McConnell. If he doesnt get repeal and replace done, and if he doesnt get taxes done meaning cuts and reform, and if he doesnt get a very easy one to get done infrastructure if he doesnt get them done, then you can ask me that question, the president told reportersThursday when asked if McConnell should keep his job. He refused to say explicitly if he wanted McConnell to be replaced: Ask me that question. Lets hope he get it done. Trumps smackdown may help shift blame from himself, capitalize on public anger andmaybe light a fire under Republicans.

Unfortunately for him, popular support for repealing and replacing Obamacare has lagged:

Moving forward, a majority of all Americans (56%) says Republicans should work with Democrats to make changes to current health care policy. The rest are divided: One in five say the GOP should both stop trying to repeal Obamacare completely (21%) and the same share say Republicans should keep trying to repeal it anyway (21%). Republicans themselves are split on this question: 45% say GOP leaders should continue trying to repeal Obamacare on their own, 42% that they should work with Democrats to make changes.

And finally, Democrats are benefiting from the gender divide. (Six in 10 women back Democrats for Congress in 2018, while men back Republicans by a slim 5-point margin.)

Looking at this data Trump, might benefit from dumping Republicans and looking to make deals with Democrats on infrastructure and repairing Obamacare. Trump has always been about his own wins, so why should he care which congressional party helps deliver what he wants? By the same token, if Democrats could strike a deal with Trump on, say, infrastructure, theyd undercut the rationale for GOP majorities in the House and Senate.

That strategy is fraught with peril for both sides, however. Democrats want no part of items Trump might demand (e.g., the wall) as part of a bipartisan deal, and they would just as soon see Trump fail, dragging down the GOP House and Senate with him. Meanwhile, Trump needs to keep the support of Republicans, who are the only ones that can confirm conservative judges, pass a giant tax cut and, most important, protect him from not only removal but also more serious inquiries that would explore his conflicts of interest and receipt of foreign money. Trump might revel in sticking a knife in the back of the party he inhabited to reach the White House, but as a practical matter, a president as weak as this one, with brewing legal problems and waning support from the GOP base, cannot afford to be friendless.

In short, voters dont like Republicans in Congress, who these days dont much like Trump, who doesnt like Republicans but cannot afford to lose GOP majorities. Democrats would like nothing better than to see Trumps attacks and GOP inertia depress the GOP midterm electorate, but not if it means giving Trump wins he so desperately needs. In sum, no one likes much of anyone these days but neither do they want to risk blowing up the partisan status quo. That means we should be prepared for plenty of sniping and very little legislation.

Follow this link:
Republicans' biggest worry: A wave election against do-nothing lawmakers - Washington Post

Do Republicans Actually Want to Postpone the 2020 Election? – The Atlantic

If a presidential election were held today, President Trumps approval ratings suggest he would be in deep trouble. The good news for Trump is he doesnt have to face voters again until 2020 (though the fate of his Republican allies in 2018 is a different question). But what if he didnt have to face the voters then, either?

In The Washington Post on Thursday, two professors revealed the results of a poll that asked some Republican voters that question. Using a scientific online survey, the authors asked GOP supporters whether theyd be willing to postpone voting in the 2020 election if President Trump said it was necessary to make sure only eligible voters participated. More than half52 percentsaid they would, and that number bumped up to 56 percent in a scenario in which congressional Republicans agreed with the president.

A presidential election has never been delayed, and temporary delays for pretextual reasons in other countries have often been a prelude to leaders attempting to bypass democratic control. Cue the horrified reaction: Republicans hate democracy! Trump is a totalitarian! But take a deep breaththe poll shows something horrifying about American democracy, but its probably not that.

First, there are some good reasons to be dubious about the results. The authors include a doozy of a to-be-sure paragraph, noting that their situation is a hypothetical, and if it were actually attempted it would produce strong backlash, including from Republicans, crash markets, and probably fail to pass constitutional muster.

But thats just a start. The researchers note that before asking respondents whether they would support delaying the election, they asked several other questions:

Respondents were asked whether Trump won the popular vote, whether millions of illegal immigrants voted, and how often voter fraud occurs. These questions evoke arguments frequently made by Trump and others about the integrity of the 2016 election.

In other words, the respondents were primed to be thinking about Trumps (spurious) claims of widespread voter fraud, already shading their impressions before they got to the central question. Pollsters and political scientists long ago showed that the sequence and tone of questions can help determine the way people will answer the question. Thats especially true with the idea of delaying the election, which few voters will have considered since its not a topic of open debate. Poll respondents often offer what are called doorstep opinions: Theyd rather answer a question than admit they havent thought about it. As the Harvard government professor Ryan Enos put it on Twitter, Ask people about something complex they've never considered and tell them somebody they trust supports it and they will also support it.

Besides, there are lots of dubious partisan views that show up in polls. Respondents consistently say things that are counterfactual or plainly nuts. How many voters really believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim, or born in Kenya? Probably fewer than told pollsters they did. Even the belief that Trump won the popular vote, which has shown up in other polls, could fall under the same umbrella. As Julian Sanchez has argued, such results look like symbolic beliefs, offered mostly to affirm fidelity to a party or politician. In the early 90s, bumperstickers suggested, Annoy the media: Re-elect Bush. In todays even more polarized, media-hating environment, the temptation to annoy the media, liberals, and Republican elites alike by backing outlandish ideas in polls is even stronger.

These weaknesses are not confined to Republican voters. The delayed-election result feeds the prejudices of progressives whose reaction to Trump is the potent cocktail of ridicule (those idiots!) and terror (those idiots are in charge!). But Democrats have sometimes expressed equally worrying views in polls. In the summer of 2016, for example, a pollster found that two-thirds of Democratic voters would trade an unconstitutional third term for Obama if it meant avoiding either Clinton or Bush. Perhaps you think, They must have been joking, and would never have followed through. But thats just the point: What happens in polling often stays in polling. (That gives us reasons to take polls like this with a grain of salt. But as Brendan Nyhan writes, it doesnt let people off the hook for unwise statements. Where can one draw the line between real and partisan beliefs?)

A better way to think about the delayed-election poll is in a broader context of eroding democratic norms. For the last few months, since shortly before the election, the Harvard lecturer Yascha Mounk has been publicly warning that voter support for bedrock principles of democracy is waning, both in the U.S. and overseas. Polls suggest the American public has never been as skeptical of democracy or as open to authoritarian alternatives like military rule as it is right now, Mounk wrote in October.

Thats particularly true among younger people, the cohort that will gradually make up a larger and larger share of the population. Fewer of them think its very important to live in a democracy. About a quarter of young Americans say democracy is a bad way to run a government. Theyre more open to a strong, authoritarian leader. Theres other evidence of this tendency in other places. A 2015 Pew Poll found that 40 percent of Millennials think censorship of offensive views would be acceptable.

Thats where Trump comes in. Even if the delayed-election poll is dubious, it is true that Trump was elected on a platform that was unusually, and in some cases pointedly, authoritarian. He has raged against the independent judiciarys check on his power. He supported a registry of Muslims that he could not or would not differentiate from Nazi religious registries. The president shows little regard for norms of all types, encouraging an iconoclastic tendency in society. At a time in which democratic norms are in question, it might be useful to have a president who could calm and reassure the population, but instead, the president has encouraged a more authoritarian mindset.

The bedrock principles of American democracy are often more revered than actually believed. The nation has often violated these principles, and with less sober political leadership at certain points in the past, many voters might have been willing to go much further. This is a much greater danger than Trumps shrinking base supporting a hypothetical delayed election three years from now: that a tendency toward illiberalism spread throughout society will be encouraged by a president with little interest in democratic norms.

More:
Do Republicans Actually Want to Postpone the 2020 Election? - The Atlantic