Fox News, kneeling, and the #NFL

Took five seconds to watch a Fox News Facebook stream where the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is discussing security for some event happening in Minneapolis on Sunday around 6:18 pm.

What I found interesting were the live comments in the timeline next to the video. Let’s just say that President Trump via his State of the Union last night has added to the attempts by many to equate “African American” with “anti-American.” A lot of the commenters expressed their displeasure with athletes who want to “kneel before Zod” versus placing their hands over their hearts acknowledging one nation under “God.”

It probably helped him that the Congressional Black Caucus was there to “stare racism in the face” as they did no clapping or standing for any parts of his speech while looking resplendent in all black and kente cloth. That was to be expected. However, in politics, optics always wins and in an economy where most Americans are not enjoying any upside from the surge in Wall Street (with the exception of the last two or three days), Mr Trump has provided certain factions of white America with an insidious excuse to point fingers ….

….fire rises….

Black Americans should think like sovereigns

Since their emancipation from physical slavery in 1865, black descendants of slaves brought to what is now known as the United States have fought for full incorporation as citizens. For blacks, incorporation meant the right to own property, vote, move freely across provincial borders, and be free from racial violence whether perpetrated by individuals or the State.

The primary reason for the incomplete incorporation process was the view of the European that blacks, based on their race, did not have equal value as humans, a view that one group must have in order to justify enslavement. Another reason closely related to race is based on the process of becoming a nation-state, a process that caught blacks in the crossfire.

By the time blacks were physically emancipated from slavery, the United States was becoming a nation-state. Having abandoned the British monarchy 89 years earlier, by 1865 America was expanding westward riding the wave of white, Anglo-Saxon manifest destiny.  During the period after 1865, the United States continued its campaign of pacifying indigenous tribes while importing and regulating the movement of Chinese. And while there was internal conflict between other European ethnic groups and Anglo-Saxons, these groups were able to be incorporated much easier than indigenous tribes, the Chinese, or former slaves of African descent.

The Chinese and other Asian groups have managed to balance maintaining their culture while incorporating to some degree into the American political economy.  While state and federally recognized indigenous tribes have limited sovereignty and ownership or use of certain lands, these groups see internal and external threats to their culture including poverty, alcoholism, encroachment on tribal lands by certain corporations, and subjugation to blood quantum tests.

The common thread, in my opinion, between Asians and indigenous tribes is that they have some land to fall back on; some physical reference point that anchors their history and existence. Blacks in the United States do not have that advantage. Besides historical records of slavery and the use of DNA testing, blacks have little connection to the African continent. America is their “soil”, their roots and some would argue that their status as descendants of involuntary migrants and slaves means a perspective significantly different from people who came to the U.S. voluntarily.

The downside of the “involuntary migrants and slave status” argument is that it falls on the deaf ears of those for whom the United States was created. If such an argument was effective, incorporation of blacks into American society would have occurred a century ago. Moral or emotion-driven arguments do not result in acquiring and distributing sufficient resources necessary for individuals in a community to sustain themselves. The current approach asks that a white-dominated government distribute temporary, sub-par benefits that act as a replacement for capital.

Sub-par public educational services do not teach children critical thinking skills that go along with the life skills provided by their households. Sub-par medical services while subsidizing drug prices thus the revenues of the drug industry do not provide the wellness information that keeps individuals truly healthy. Sub-par public safety that subsidizes police terrorism not community security does not benefit blacks either. The American political system feigns a sub-par community approach when in reality it is a temporary bandage designed to keep the barbarians from knocking down the gate.

The American political economy has been telling black Americans to “go your own way” for some time now. Maybe it is time to listen.

 

Democrats leveraging a descendant of Camelot against the Orange One

Interesting …. A majority of the population in the United States wasn’t alive when Joseph Kennedy III’s grandfather, Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated in June 1968. Senator Kennedy picked up a little political capital when he took the opportunity to tell spectators during a campaign stop in Indiana on 4 April 1968 that Martin Luther King had been assassinated earlier that day.

Fifty years later, the Democrats are still leveraging anniversaries and emotions, this time by wheeling out another baby-faced Kennedy who they probably hope will remind urban, white, relatively affluent progressive voters and the grandparents of urban minority youth of freedom trains riding between John Kennedy’s Camelot and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society….

….Politics. The bullshit is so predictable….

Grab your bag of Cheetos and a couple Big Macs. The Orange One cometh ….

The average American’s opinion on #immigration doesn’t matter

I just finished reading an article in The New York Times concerning the minority view toward illegal immigration in the United States. The article describes the overall opposing attitude held by 10% to 25% of the American population toward foreign nationals who enter the United States without proper documentation. Included in this group of opponents are immigrants who entered the United States in full compliance with American law.

For most Americans today pushing back against illegal immigration, the argument, in my opinion, comes from a fear of cultural dilution. Liberal elites, in their advocacy for the continuance of the Deferred Action in Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are standing up for the immigrants that look more like Sofia Vergara. Those pushing back against DACA are fearful that America will be overrun, for example, by the darker skinned Garifuna or K’iche; by the immigrants that they see working blue collar labor jobs and living on Buford Highway in Dekalb County Georgia.

Most of America’s immigration history has been less about cultural integrity and more about economic necessity. America could not actualize its manifest destiny, its push to the Pacific and beyond without human capital. European monarchs issued charters to barons, lords, dukes, soldiers, explorers, and stock companies to explore North America and take possession of land by any means necessary.

Labor, whether slave, indentured, or voluntary, was brought to the Americas for the purpose of extracting resources and organizing those resources into product for sale and export. The goal was to generate returns from the land with proceeds going to the monarchs and later the nation-states in the form of taxes and to the the private parties lending to the government, in the form of bond coupon payments. Immigration is, for the most part, about contributing to the returns on America’s capital.

A public ignorant to how the American economy works should be silent on immigration policy.   Rather, the American public, especially those who occupy the middle strata, should occupy themselves with questions of relevancy in an emerging political economy prepared to replace workers with artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics.  The immigration issue is just a distraction for the American middle class.

Over the next two to three decades, unless one is employed in a knowledge-intensive occupation or can add value to an automated process from a design or engineering perspective, the question won’t be whether an immigrant who doesn’t look like me now lives in “my country.” The issue will be, can I really function in a society where my skill set is so useless that I have no option but to be a ward of the state?

When the #internet was just for #academics….#broadband

Democrats are wary of Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Hillary Clinton’s loss in the November 2016 elections allegedly compounded by a misinformation game played by the Russians via social media has the Democrats in Congress asking themselves if a little more transparency i.e. regulation of social media practices is necessary in order to prevent any more shenanigans from Russia.

In the net neutrality debates, Democrats and grass roots progressives have taken the position that due to their gatekeeper position, internet access providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are in a position to negatively impact the innovative internet portal and social media services that Facebook and Google provide. Democrats argue that we don’t want to discourage the creation of the next Facebook by allowing Comcast to throttle speeds from potential upstarts or block a consumer’s access to the new Twitter. Now these members of Congress appear a bit wary of the cat that they have been snuggling up to; being scraped by the FANGs (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) is not fun.

What I find ironic is that these congressmen were no where to be found as the FANGs were busy building a business model on acquiring consumer data from the droppings that consumers leave all over the internet. This data collection didn’t impact the politicians, who thrive on political intelligence so having a master information collector or two on their donor page didn’t hurt. It wasn’t until the FANGs messed with the source of a politician’s livelihood i.e. the vote, that the FANGs fell under deeper scrutiny.

It is up to the individual to choose whether to use FANG services. I have little to no use for Facebook myself. Amazon, Google, and Netflix deliver pretty much what they promise: logistics and content. What’s amusing is that highly educated, professionals in the Congress have yet to figure out the business model that social media relies on for its survival.

I think it is best that the internet go back to what it was meant to be: a way to connect information seekers with data. The irony is that internet service providers have been providing their networks as a part of the larger data transmission scheme for over two decades but seem to be catching the most heat from congressmen that support the companies providing the most abuse.

Listening to the whiny left on net neutrality can leave you jaded about “edge” technology

Over the past week, a number of progressive grass roots groups and some 21 state attorneys general have filed suit in federal appellate courts seeking to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules that were promulgated in December 2015. This early in the process the petitions have laid out general assertions that the Commission’s decision to repeal was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of agency discretion.

In other words, the Commission, dominated by three Republicans to two lone Democrats, was given to sudden and unaccountable mood swings as it went from determining in 2015 that broadband access providers should be viewed as old style telephone companies to last year’s decision where the Commission now views broadband access providers as information service providers.

I don’t see how the left’s position, that the Commission should use rules for regulating a point to point communications service, is to increase broadband access for insular communities like the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. According to Commission data, 66% of population in U.S. territories lacks access to 25 megabit per second download, 3 megabit per second upload broadband access services.  The flexibility required for deploying more advanced broadband access services in U.S. territories like the USVI and Puerto Rico cannot manifest itself in a regulatory framework that requires a body of regulators give approval or delay proceedings necessary for approving the introduction of new services.

The real arbitrary behavior took place when the Commission, led by Democrat Tom Wheeler, actually persuaded two other Democratic members of the board and some four million naive voters and taxpayers, that the Commission was actually in a position to ensure traffic neutrality throughout the entire internet; from the voter and taxpayer’s laptop to her favorite porn site hosted on a server located in the Azores. For Mr Wheeler to premise a ridiculous expansion of the Communications Act on the assertion that the Commission, via regulation, could ensure that all traffic be treated equally on the internet only resulted in creating false expectations regarding service among a public that couldn’t tell you exactly what net neutrality is in the first place.

The Commission, now led by Ajit Pai, has, if anything, reintroduced some reality into communications regulation. The first reality is that Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is not necessary for regulating advanced, broadband internet access services in the 21st century. Second, the repeal of the 2015 Wheeler order recognizes that providing American consumers with the best access to a global, interconnected computer network means being able to leverage the openness of the internet to provide new services in a permission-less environment.

It is ironic that the edge providers that want their subscribers to access their content on the highest quality communications networks are willing to endure delays that will certainly arise under a Title II regime that requires permission to innovate at every turn.

Capital, technology, social media, & fake connection

Capital uses technology to create a singularity in the individual. This process toward “self-actualization” is the wrong one because the journey to self has nothing to do with technology or capital.
 
The downside of using technology to create a singularity is that as part of validating its use, technology markets itself to the masses as a way of creating a collective consciousness, a fake singularity.
 
I call it fake because trying to create a oneness with multiple, diverse, un-self actualized minds is dangerous and only leads to narcissism on steroids. It is the mistake that liberals, for example, have been making for the last 130 years of political history in the United States. One need only look at social media and see the effects.
 
Meanwhile, the masses, believing they are creating some good through collective behavior are merely being used by the few that herd them up into single-minded, over-emotional mania.
 
Eventually this fake singularity collapses on itself with violent repercussions as all shifts in mass political behavior eventually does as this fake singularity is exposed for what it truly is; a distraction.
 
What are the masses being distracted from? The fact that progressives have learned how to hoard and leverage inside information, move to urban centers, monetize this inside information, and raise rents on the poor, forcing the poor to move to lower quality areas.
 
Meanwhile, rich, liberal urbanites become more “singular” meaning less diverse as they show their true value system, one that was never built on diversity, but where a diversity narrative was merely used as a Trojan Horse that allowed them to infiltrate minority communities and run out people that neither look, act, or think like them.
 
Atlanta, Manhattan, San Francisco. We see it, but cognitive dissonance allows us to ignore it. The fake singularity has no room for an organic collective.