US Race Policy Was A Model For Hitler's Race Laws

An article on Facing South, looks at a German lawyer who spent a year studying business and American race laws at the University of Arkansas.  The article begins with a Berlin meeting, a beginning of the drafting of the Nuremberg Laws to suppress Jews and others and to protect the purity of German blood.

"At the meeting, several Nazi bureaucrats cited the work of a young lawyer named Heinrich Krieger, newly returned from his year studying abroad in the United States at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville. There, he researched how laws across the U.S. segregated and disenfranchised Native Americans, African Americans, and other non-white groups — a legal model the Nazis looked to as a way to control Jews and other minority groups in Germany. Inspiration for the Nuremberg Laws came directly from Krieger's research into American race laws, including prohibitions on interracial marriages.

'He was in Arkansas in the dead middle of the Jim Crow era,' Yale historian James Q. Whitman, author of "Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law," told Facing South. 'He seems to have taken an interest particularly in American Indian law.'

"Krieger's research cited at the Berlin meeting was a review of the history of American laws related to indigenous people, who had only recently been declared citizens under Calvin Coolidge’s Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. For centuries the law had treated them not only as non-citizens but as subhuman, subjecting them to the 19th century's violent Indian removal policies; the Trail of Tears (part of which ran through Fayetteville); the separation of indigenous children from their families, communities, language, and culture; and forced sterilization. Throughout the debates in Germany that led up to the adoption of the Nuremberg Laws by the Nazis in 1935, Nazi officials relied on Krieger's observations about the American laws that governed its brutal treatment of non-white people."

"In March 1935, after completing his studies in Fayetteville, Krieger published an article in the George Washington Law Review titled "Principles of the Indian Law and the Act of June 18, 1934." In it he observed, "[The] Indian, though being a national of the United States, was not her citizen." Nazi leaders were inspired by America's ability to treat marginalized populations as less than full citizens while still maintaining a positive global reputation, so they used Krieger's studies of American race laws as a template for their own."

There's more food for thought in the whole article. 

Republicans decry 'Critical Race Theory' as 'anti-American.' It's ironic.  On the one hand they are encouraging white nationalist fears of being 'replaced' by non-whites and non-Christians.

On the other hand, they get upset when people point out that US laws were racist, took Native American land, enslaved blacks and then after emancipation created law after law to recreate a form second-class citizenship.  

Some of these white nationalists use nazi materials as their models.  But, as the Facing South article demonstrates, they needn't.  Because the US was, in many ways, Hitler's model for how to take away citizenship from non-Aryans.  

Of course, all this is based on a human created fiction called race.  In the early 20th Century, race still referred, not only to the black and white races, but to Jewish race, Italian race, Irish race, and other non-Northern Europeans.  

Sure, there are physical differences between people with light skin and people with darker skin, just as there are differences between people with red hair and blond hair and brown hair.  Between people who are taller and those who are shorter, thinner and heavier, hairier and smoother, more athletic and more sedentary, more thoughtful and more prone to impulsive action.  

But there is nothing about light skinned people that makes them more or less human than people with darker shades of skin.  The power hungry have always exploited these physical differences to divide people who often have more in common with each other than with those dividing them.  

It's time to identify as part of humanity rather than some artificial construct like race.  

That isn't to say that we should abandon the the wide diversity of cultures and languages for one common one.  Each of those cultures and languages represents a group of people who learned to survive the physical and political conditions of the part of earth in which they lived.  Whether it's dealing with heat or cold, tropical or high elevation agriculture, ocean or desert.  Each culture has, embedded in its language and practices, survival techniques that at some point may be useful to the rest of humanity. Or may already be useful, but by designating some group as less worthy, we've overlooked what they know that could help us.  Destroying this huge repository of knowledge would be like burning libraries.  

Humans are in this together.  When we deprive one group, we make it harder for the people of that group to share their talents with the rest of the world.  When we spend our energy fighting each other, we aren't spending it making the world a better place.  Everyone is worse off.

Right now that contrast couldn't be clearer.  We've removed from office the president who has done the most to exploit those differences and set people against people.  Whose mission it was to destroy cooperative efforts among cultures around the world - like walking out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear deal.  

And now we have a president who is attempting to get people to build the infrastructure that makes human life easier and safer.  Who is promoting health and education and meaningful work for all people.  Who sees all people as human beings, not as a hierarchy of more and less valuable beings.  

Keeping Busy Doing Nothing - AK Press Club, Seedlings, Bike, Cooking, Redistricting, COVID, Spanish, Grandkids. . .

 Time seems to whiz by.  Suddenly it's Wednesday and I have to take out the garbage again.  How can it be 10pm, it's still light out?  I just paid that bill.  Making it worse, it seems like I haven't gotten anything done.  

But when I try to track what I'm doing, it turns out I'm really doing a lot.  I'm tracking and posting  the Alaska COVID numbers every day.  I'm doing 20-40 minutes into DuoLingo Spanish.

I try to do the Cryptoquote and the Sudoku in the paper every day.

My Seattle granddaughter FaceTimes with us for an hour or three several times a week.  And I've been volunteering in her class, via zoom, listening to kids read books of their choice.  The SF grandkids have a regular two or three hours every Wednesday afternoon.  

This month, the Alaska Press Club has been having Monday, Wednesday, and Friday 8am workshops in lieu of a three day in person conference.  Despite the horrible hour, all the ones I've listened in on (all of them so far) have been excellent.  Yesterday was one on covering Corrections and included a reporter who does cover corrections, an ACLU employee who works on corrections issues and used to work for the Dept of Corrections under Walker, and a woman who started a non-profit called Supporting Our Loved Ones Group - people who have friends and relatives in prison.  One part of the discussion focused on the words that journalists use to describe people in prison. I guess I've had a soft spot for the plight of prisoners ever since I visited a former 6th grade student (he was then probably in the 9th grade) at a juvenile detention center outside of Los Angeles maybe 50 years ago.  Other sessions have been on Climate Change and How to Choose And Write Stories. They also did one on setting up an elections debate commission for Alaska that was very compelling.  You can see the commission proposal here.   I've got notes for blog posts on all of these, but the Anchorage Municipal Election and the Redistricting Board have distracted me.  

I haven't seen much coverage at all in other media about the Alaska Redistricting Board and since I covered it intensely in 2011-13, I realize I know a lot about what it is, what the issues are, and what was done last time.  So it seems I'm stuck doing it again.  Right now not much is happening - setting things up procedurally and getting staff - they've hired a law firm to advise them and they are getting an RFI ready to hire a Voting Rights Act consultant.  They are behind the pace of ten years ago because the Pandemic and Trump policies slowed down the Census Count and the State redistricting numbers won't come out until maybe August this year.  Last time they got the numbers in March.

I've started my summer biking in earnest yesterday, keeping to the trails along streets while the trails through the greenbelts still have snow on them.  I did a seven mile test run south on Lake Otis, east on Dowling, north on Elmore, then wandering through neighborhoods back home.

Here's Campbell Creek from Lake Otis

An aside about snow this year.  I'd asked Weather Service guy Brian Brettschneider, via DM on Twitter, if we'd had more snow days this year, because it seemed like I was shoveling snow all the time.  He responded: 

"Anchorage will finish with about 5" less snowfall than normal. But our snow depth was one of the greatest on record. We basically had 0 melting events throughout the season."

Riding along Dowling, the ice and snow were gone from the trail the whole ride.  

And then Campbell Creek again, this time looking back from Elmore.

My knees have been showing signs of being past their warranty.  Running is out.  Biking was ok last summer.  I'm hoping I can do another 600 km or more this summer, but it will depend on how my knees react.  

We've been zooming in to the Alaska Black Caucus' Sunday panels. (Link to this Sunday's forum is on the upper right of their page.) They've been doing a great job covering a lot of topics from candidate forums (School Board and Mayor, and this Sunday they are going to have the mayoral runoff candidates - Dunbar and Bronson) to discussions on things like body cameras for police and the military experience in Alaska for Blacks.  They've been having 50 and 60 attendees every week.  Really well done.  I've never heard candidates talk so candidly.  But then the 

There was also a Citizens Climate lobby meeting and a few other zoom meetings.

One way to get through all the zoom meetings is to do relatively mindless tasks that allow me to pay attention, but also get something done.  Eating is the most obvious, but I also prepared and baked a bread through one meeting.  

And used the left over dough to make a veggie pizza.  

And I've been planting seeds now that I can see patches of ground through the snow outside.  Trying Arctic Tomatoes this year.  But I've also got arugula, stock, snapdragons, pansies, sweet peas, flax, and a few other seeds growing.  

I suspect that feeling like I haven't gotten anything done comes partially through the fact that zoom meetings let you stay home and so you don't get out that much.  When you physically go to a meeting, it (probably, it's hard to remember) feels more like you've actually done something.  So I have to write things down to remind myself that I've actually been busy and doing worthwhile things.  

Oh, and watching some of the video of each of the UAA Chancellor candidates.  A really diverse selection.  Not a good time to be a white male in this crowd I'm guessing.  Most looked reasonable, some very good, and our Superintendent of Schools must have been unwell, because she couldn't be still or say more than platitudes.  You can watch them yourselves.  I'd recommend about ten minutes of each to get a sense of them.  Really, these tell us mostly how well they speak in public.  To some extent how much the know about higher education.  But not too much about how well they can run a university.

Blooming Hoya And Dripping Icicle - The World Is Better Than Media Portray

 

These hoya flowers are past their prime.  It's a natural part of the cycle of birth and death.   

From Bloomscape:

"Hoya plants are some of the easiest indoor houseplants to care for. They are slow-growing vining plants native to tropical and subtropical Asia. They are also known as Wax plants due to their thick and shiny foliage. As Hoyas mature, they produce clusters of sweet-smelling star-shaped flowers."

 They were pretty amazing a week ago.

And even though those blooms are gone, there's a new cluster starting to bud.  

This plant has been growing downstairs in our 'greenhouse' - really a room with lots of south facing windows - for years. It does tend to bloom most years with minimal care on my part.  

Spring is technically here according to the calendar, but we still have plenty of winter on the ground and icicles hanging from our roof.

[While the drop on its way down is kind of neat, I accidentally deleted the drop that was just below the end of the icicle, still suspended by a trail of water.  The whole three foot icicle, after growing for a week or two, came crashing down just after I took this picture.]

[UPDATE March 24, 2021 1:30am:  I found the deleted album on my phone and there was the other picture.  So here it is:                                                                                                          ]

But we are getting significantly more light every day.  At Anchorage's latitude we are gaining almost 6 minutes a day - an hour in 10 days.  That's just the official 'daylight' but we have much longer twilight periods than further south.  

Yesterday I pulled out my bike - the old one with the studded tires - to ride to a routine annual physical not far from our house.  

And here's rider's view on my way home.  I'm still amazed at how well the studded tires worked on the icier parts of the way home.  

This pictures in this post are for Barbara and an Anonymous commenter  in recent days lamenting the sorry state of the world.  Our news media give us a negatively skewed view of things.   

But we also have had a lot of positive things happening.  My sense is that the anger of Republicans that boiled over on January 6 is a reflection that they feel their privilege slipping away.  They, of course, don't think of it as privilege.  They still believe in various mantras that help justify why rich people are rich and poor people are poor.  Mantras that put all the onus on the individual and ignore how social norms and beliefs, economic and legal infrastructure, and the media portrayal of some ideal USA, all combine to advantage white males.  But their anger now reflects that women and people of color have made great strides toward equality.  The election of a black president brought it all home, for many.  White males no longer can assume they get to go to the front of the line.  Now women and minorities have much better access to good education and then good jobs.  Just look at how the number of women doctors and lawyers and members of Congress have increased in recent decades.  The same is true for people of color.  For example.

Our job now is to change the conditions that produce people who understand their place in the world and work to make the world more just for everyone.  No individual has to save the world.  We all just have to take care of our selves and our families and friends.  If we have energy and resources and creativity left over, then we can help others, then we can work for a happier society. 

But when we do work to improve the conditions we live in,  we should working humbly.  Not to prove how good we are.  Not to make others grateful to us.  But in recognition that we've been lucky to have what we have and that in our own gratefulness, we want to share it.  Some of what we have we have earned through our own hard work.  Some because we've been the lucky winners of the birth lottery.

But nature itself is a lottery which affects our happiness.   I've heard that, despite what one might think, more people get down during spring and early summer than other times of the year. I did double check on that and found that indeed, spring and early summer are the worst.  And it's more so further north than closer to the equator.  So I send my hoya flowers and dripping icicle to all.  May you find pockets of peace and hope that you can fill up with good stories, good friends, good food, and good ideas.  

Is A Hate Crime Terrorism?

There's a new Hate Crimes Act in Congress.  From the LA Times yesterday:

Less than a week before eight people — including six Asian women — were killed in the Atlanta-area shootings congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would bolster the Department of Justice’s ability to address COVID-19 hate crimes.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), has been co-sponsored by more than 60 lawmakers and on Friday was endorsed by President Biden, who condemned the “ongoing crisis of gender-based and anti-Asian violence” and urged Congress to “swiftly pass the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.”

So it seems appropriate to repost something I wrote in September 2012.  Back then I titled the post Is Terrorism A Hate Crime?  This time I've reversed the key nouns in the title. Basically, Republicans love Anti-Terror laws but not Hate Crime laws.  They argue that hate crime laws are "thought control" because you have to no the person's intent.  They ignore that intent is what makes an ordinary crime into a terrorist act.  Or that differentiates first degree murder from second and third degree murder.  

So here's the original post:

People get upset over anti-American attacks, like the consulate attack and deaths in Libya.  There's something about terrorist attacks against Americans that adds, literally, insult to injury for most Americans.  Terrorist attacks take, collectively, a minor toll on American lives compared to many other causes of death we pay little attention to.  But they get media attention far out of proportion to their actual impact.  From the Cato Institute, for example:

Any violent crime is terrible, but terrorism is extremely rare in the United States. The risk that any given American will be killed by a terrorist is about the same as the chance that a randomly selected high school football player will one day be a starting quarterback in the Super Bowl. One's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one's chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder. We would not adopt the "if it saves one life'' theory to justify a ban on bathtubs, even though hundreds of lives would be saved each year. Accordingly, America should reject terrorism legislation that will probably not save any lives and that demands that Americans give up things far more important than bathtubs. 

But emotionally, we are far more affected by terrorism than other causes of death.  We've been willing to compromise basic freedoms to prevent terrorism and punish terrorists  (ie, assassinations, habeas corpus violations, 'extraordinary rendition').   We've been intimidated by terrorists (or manipulated by politicians using terrorist attacks as an excuse) to spend huge amounts to invade the privacy of every airline passenger.  We've committed violence to our justice system to punish those we call terrorists.  The Obama administration's attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York federal court instead of a military court, for example, caused sharp protests.  From the Carnegie Council:

The response of prominent members of the Bush administration and other leading Republicans to the announcement was swift, as they accused the Obama administration of failing to understand the danger of trying a terrorist on US soil. A secondary concern, expressed at Attorney General Holder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, was that the trial would give the accused the chance to avoid conviction. The protections of a legal team and the vagaries of juries, it was argued, could result in a suspected terrorist escaping justice.  

There is no presumed innocence until proven guilty for terrorists here.  Somehow these crimes are different, are more heinous, are less deserving of the American justice system. 
  
The Patriot Act was passed, in part to increase the penalties for terrorists.
From the Department of Justice website:

4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That's why the Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad. In particular, the Act: 

• Prohibits the harboring of terrorists. The Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses, such as: destruction of aircraft; use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; use of weapons of mass destruction; bombing of government property; sabotage of nuclear facilities; and aircraft piracy. 
• Enhanced the inadequate maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists: including arson, destruction of energy facilities, material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations, and destruction of national-defense materials. 
• Enhanced a number of conspiracy penalties, including for arson, killings in federal facilities, attacking communications systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear facilities, and interference with flight crew members. Under previous law, many terrorism statutes did not specifically prohibit engaging in conspiracies to commit the underlying offenses. In such cases, the government could only bring prosecutions under the general federal conspiracy provision, which carries a maximum penalty of only five years in prison.
• Punishes terrorist attacks on mass transit systems. 
• Punishes bioterrorists.
• Eliminates the statutes of limitations for certain terrorism crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes.

There is something different about a lone angry man shooting up a theater and a terrorist who does the same thing.  The latter apparently commits a crime that is even worse than the former.  It's murder plus. One difference seems to be intent.

Here's how the US Congress has defined terrorism 18 USC §2331 from Cornell Law:

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— 

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended— 

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

These are acts as 1(A) tells us, that are already illegal and now are getting the extra label of terrorism added to them.   

The Justice Department defines Hate Crimes on its website : 

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful. Others may become frustrated and angry if they believe the local government and other groups in the community will not protect them. When perpetrators of hate are not prosecuted as criminals and their acts not publicly condemned, their crimes can weaken even those communities with the healthiest race relations. 

What the two acts - hate crimes and terrorism - seem to have in common are:

• Violence
• Intent to intimidate (and I think coerce plays a role in hate crimes too, though the word isn't used in the definition above.) 

If you read white supremacist or white nationalist websites, there is also a clear  goal to change government policies related to race (usually separate the races to save whiteness)  and there is talk of inevitable civil war in the US.  I won't link to those sites, you'll have to find them on your own.

Given the similarity between terrorism and hate crimes, why is there opposition to hate crimes laws by people who support anti-terrorism laws?   

For instance a statement by House Majority leader Boehner (from CBS News):

All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance." 

To be fair to Boehner, CBS contacted his office to see if he objected to all hate crime legislation or just adding gender and sexual orientation:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics." 

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislationwould cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

Of course, religion is NOT an immutable  characteristic.  People choose to change religions all the time and while individual sexual acts may be choices, sexual orientation surely isn't.  But that's besides the point here.

Another legislator also saw the idea of hate crimes as creating "thought" crimes: 

Rep. Tom Price, who heads the GOP conservative caucus, also complained last week that the expansion of hate crimes legislation amounted to "thought crimes," and he labeled the bill's passage – tied to a defense bill – an "absolute disgrace." 

But contacted about his position on hate crimes legislation overall, Price took a different position than Boehner. According to Price communications director Brendan Buck, the congressman opposes all hate crimes protections, including existing ones. 

"We believe all hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional and places one class of people above others," said Buck.

Intent, of course, is the basis for finding someone guilty of murder.  No one cries "thought police" there.  And despite the law, despite Boehner's assertion that "all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance,"  the ACLU points out that some murder victims get less vigorous legal attention than others. 

While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims. 

The emotional attachment of the public and of officials affects how they react to events.

The hatred of a specific group of people makes a normal crime into a hate crime.  It's not  just about the criminal and victim, but about all people who share the targeted characteristic of the victim, whether it's race or religion or gender.

In terrorism, we have the same reaction - it isn't about what the victim did, but who the victim was - an American.  I'm an American, so I too could be randomly victimized if I'm traveling abroad.    The impact is wider and stronger because of the intent of the terrorist to use violence to intimidate anyone who is a member of the group American, just as in hate crimes.

Where's this all going?

I would hope that at least some of the readers can see where this is leading.  For some people - especially those who live in a society in which they are among the dominant population (ie a white male Christian in the US) and are never victimized because of their personal characteristics - it is hard to understand the effect of hate crimes on individuals within that group and on the group collectively.  (Though some people who call themselves Christians claim they are discriminated against.)

It seems to me that when the idea of America is attacked - as when the world trade center was destroyed - Americans react the same as members of traditionally victimized groups (racial and religious minorities, women, gays, etc.).

Even if they can't feel  what an African-American feels when seeing a Confederate flag, perhaps they can understand it's the same way they feel when they see video of planes crashing into the World Trade Center.  It doesn't diminish their feelings to know that the Confederate flag can cause the same feeling to many African-Americans.  It's like translating an emotional context from one culture to another.  

That, of course, assumes logic and consistency, and a real desire for the ideals of democracy and freedom.  There are many who are too fearful to be concerned about anyone else.  There are many whose goals are simply personal benefit and for whom American ideals are merely tools to use to get their own way. (Using American slogans to convince people to vote for them.)

And, there are some who, while emotionally impacted by crimes against the US, would advocate that terrorists deserve no more and no less punishment than those who commit similar crimes without an ideological or political motive.

But deep down, we're all humans who should be able to understand all this.   Even Clarence Thomas spoke up when the Supreme Court considered a cross-burning case and convinced his black robed colleagues that cross burnings were more than free speech, they were acts of intimidation.

Symbolic acts can intimidate and cause other real harm, beyond any direct physical harm to the victim.  

 

Lots of FaceTime With My Granddaughter, Blog Suffers, But World's A Better Place

My oldest granddaughter is eight.  She's been FaceTiming with me fairly regularly.  Also teaching me the whole emoji alphabet and how to custom design emoticons.  And she shares her explorations with the effects options.  She also plays the piano for me. In exchange I've been providing an appreciative audience. And loving challenges.  I've been  introducing codes.  We've had a lot of exchanges where every second letter is the real one.  Slbigkne rtshwims.  And I've finally got her working with me on the newspaper Cryptoquotes.  And she dazzled me with her magic trick of making a toothpick disappear and reappear.  Her calls come whenever and I just don't think there is anything I can do that is more important than being available for her.  

But there was also a local Citizen Climate Lobby meeting yesterday.  I helped tutor reading in my granddaughter's class via zoom.  That's easier than it sounds.  I just sit there and listen to first and second graders read books they've chosen.  

And Wednesday is the zoom with my SF grandkids for a couple of hours.  And I've been keeping up with my DuoLingo Spanish (I'm taking a break from the Turkish - they started introducing too many new words and grammar patterns at once.)  

After dark - it gets later and later now - is Netflix time, though their algorithm is now sending us lots of bloody sword fight combat movies.  This seems to have started by our watching Marco Polo - which is an interesting fictionalized account of Polo's time in Mongolia with Kubla Khan.  There are some bloody hand to hand battles with swords.  Not my thing, but getting a sense of the history, even fictionalized, was interesting. The costume designers must have been in heaven.  This led to The King - about Hal and Falstaff moving up to King and his general and a lot of blood and swords as they attack France.  

That's when the algorithm seems to have gone crazy.  We got offered Age of the Samurai; Rise of Empires: Ottoman.  All take place around the 15th Century and include lots of battle scenes which include sword fighting, some rudimentary guns, catapults, and some canons to break down the walls of sieged cities.  The blood and guts has gotten too much for us. A couple episodes were enough. We passed when they offered The Lost Pirate Kingdom.  When we do watch these sorts of shows, we have to clean our our brains with something sweeter, like the Great British Baking Show.  

But there are lots of more serious things I want to blog about, but those things take more time.  There's lots that needs to be done on the Alaska Redistricting Board, like profiles of the Board members and some contextual pieces on how to evaluate how much the final maps have been gerrymandered.  I'm also trying to get information on the law firm that was chosen to advise the Board.  

So, no, I've not abandoned the blog - and I do update the Alaska COVID numbers daily (see the tabs up top.)  And thanks to the commenters on the last post.  I'm thinking about what they wrote.  

And while I'm rambling, some thoughts from reading today's obituaries:

"... is survived by his loving wife. . .; children . . . ; two snakes; a goldfish; a turtle; and a cat."

". . .  and gave hugs to family and friends to show how much he cared for them and never wanted anyone to feel left out or unloved." 

The second one, about the hugs, relates to another issue I've been thinking about - the evolution of what men are allowed to do in their relationships with women.  While many Republicans may have been distressed by Trump's admitted (on the tape) use of his star power to abuse women, they still voted for him.  Meanwhile, they're all aboard in calling for Gov. Cuomo to resign.  

This obituary raises a cultural issue about touching and hugging.  Some people grew up in families where hugging is a natural form of greeting.  (In France people kiss each other on the cheeks as a form of greeting.)  So when men come from hugging families and cultures, that kind of greeting for someone you care about, is usually pretty innocent.  But for a woman who comes from a family with little or no affectionate touching, or who has been abused, those touches can have a very different meaning.  I'm not downplaying the ways men abuse their power to make sexual overtures to women who work for them.  I even suspect a fair amount of male support of Trump is in support of their own right to rule over women.  But I am saying that in some cases it may not be about power or sex, but simply cultural differences in how people show platonic affection.    

I'd also note that in this second obituary, there are long lists of people who preceded him in death and those who survived him, including "his pride and joy" two sons.  But nowhere could I find mention of the mother of those two sons.

So, this is to let you know I'm not brain dead.  More like overloaded.      

White Privilege, Underprivilege, and White Supremecy

 We hear a lot about 'privilege' these days.  Whites, particularly males, deny they have any special privileges.  Blacks and other people of color insist whites do have privilege.  This use of the term seems to be of recent currency, though for some white folks, the first introduction to the term 'white privilege' came in 1989 in Peggy McIntosh's article, White Privilege:  Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.  She brought the point home by asking people to answer 26 questions such as:

13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

But I'd like to point out that white folks unconsciously acknowledged the idea of privilege (if not exactly white privilege) well before that. As we looked for more delicate terms for 'poor' we hit upon "underprivileged."

"Synonyms of underprivileged

Find synonyms for:  

Adjective

1. underprivileged (vs. privileged), deprived, disadvantaged, underclass(prenominal), poor, unfortunate

usage: lacking the rights and advantages of other members of society"

Jeff Kunnerth wrote in the  Orlando Sun in 1989:

Euphemisms have eliminated old people from America, a place now populated by "senior citizens." They have done away with the poor, retarded and ambitious, replacing them with the "underprivileged," the "mentally handicapped" and the "upwardly mobile."

 And people in the US tended to think of blacks as poor, so underprivileged has a racial tinge too.

Writing in 2009, Marcus Bell, in  Reflections of Whiteness: The Origins, Progression, and Maintenance of White, writes:  

"Today there is a term used to describe people who are at the bottom of the socio- economic spectrum. The term is “underprivileged.” This can be applied to poor people, minorities, women, or any group of people who are now, and have historically been exploited or discriminated against. Paraphrasing Tim Wise (2004), the passive voice of the term underprivileged implies that no one did anything. “It’s as if one day someone said ‘here is privilege and I’ll be damned, there you are under it’” (p. 36). This addresses the overall structure of American society as it pertains to race. Speaking socially, culturally, politically, and economically, America was initially shaped and flourished under the banner of white supremacy. As a result, America has established generally accepted “race neutral” policies that inherently advantage whites but are not considered racist because these policies do not specifically mention race."

So, the term "underprivileged" has been around a long time and has been used as a euphemism of poor.

As Bell writes, the term doesn't mention race. It just implies people who did not get all the 'privileges.'  Who then, gets the privileges?  

The implication - since this is about being poor - is people who aren't poor.  The term, again, following Bell, doesn't mention social, economic, and political structures that keep the poor 'underprivileged.'  It's a step up from the belief that the poor are poor because they are simply lazy and don't want to work, but not by much.  It still implies that fixing the problem means fixing the individuals by providing them something that will allow them to get out of poverty.  

This is a long introduction to the idea that the term "White Privilege" doesn't ring true to many whites.  

First, because 'underprivileged' means to them neutral (race-less) poverty.  Privilege, in reverse, is not something you get because of race, but by having enough money. 

Second, whites, particularly blue collar males, in the US have seen their economic status slip over the years.  Unions that protected them have been badly weakened.  Blue collar jobs have been sent overseas or lost to automation. Pensions have evolved from defined benefit to defined contribution, or disappeared altogether. Health insurance tied to jobs disappeared with the jobs. Minimum wage has been stagnant while maximum wage seems to be limitless for the few.  Though, Republicans have blamed the change in economic security on others - particularly immigrants - who are willing to work their jobs for less money.

So, when people talk about White Privilege, these folks don't see any privilege attached to being white.  They see it attached to not being poor. And as their own economic situation worsens, they feel more and more that they themselves are underprivileged.  So their whiteness gives them no special privileges.  They don't see that their whiteness gives them a privileges compared to blacks in their same economic situation.  

And while it's true that a larger percentage of blacks and other POC are poor than whites, whites still make up the largest number of poor people of any ethnic group.

And, of course, this doesn't account for the whites who still are economically comfortable.  What they can see, though, is that today they are competing for jobs with women and POC.  In the 50s and 60s this was pretty much NOT the case.  Women were to stay home and take care of the kids, and POC were simply not  given access to the better jobs.  These are people whose power was taken for granted.  And with the idea of the work ethic part of the mythos of the United States, those who succeeded understood it was because of their own superiority and hard work, not the fact that women and blacks were not in the competition.  

The ironic part of all this is that we now 'see' whiteness.  White people conscious now, in a way they weren't 40 years ago, that they belong to a group called white.  Sure, they knew that in the past, but then it was conflated with American.  Now, lots of people who are not white, are also claiming their equal rights as Americans.  

I think it's the losing of privilege that is freaking whites out.  And their resistance, in part, stems from still being in denial that their relative good life in the past was due, not to their own merit, but to their own privilege compared to people of color.  

And some are coming out from hiding and declaring publicly the supremacy of whiteness.  

How Much Does It Cost To Eat Out In Anchorage? The Redistricting Board Thinks $6o A Day Isn't Enough

The staff of the Redistricting Board today recommended a per meeting compensation of $477 a per diem for meals of $60, and incidental costs allowance of $25, and a ground travel allowance of $60. The incidentals were taken from the previous Board that said often they carry lots of maps and other displays for traveling to various communities and that requires extra costs getting those things onto planes.  Hotel allowances were "actual costs." 

I thought, overall, the Board members sounded responsible about this.  While I personally think pay for such service should be more like an honorarium, I also don't think they should have to pay out of pocket to travel to the meetings and spend the night away from home.  Further what was approved was within the general parameters of other Boards and Commissions.  

A couple members of the Alaska Redistricting Board today said the equivalent of "You can't eat three meals in Anchorage for $60."  In the end they combined the meal allowance and the incidentals into a single category of $85, which, for the most part means there's now an $85 a day meal allowance.  Any incidentals above that need receipts and approval to get reimbursed.  So, that also means that if the Board member eats for $50 a day, they'll probably get an extra $35.  (I don't think they need to show actual costs below $85, but I'm not sure.)

I also don't think that the Board should be put in the position to decide how much they should get paid.  The legislature should spell out guidelines for this.  

All that said, I think it's also reasonable to consider that lots of people are eating courtesy of the Food Bank these days.  That lots of Anchorage kids are not eating much at all because schools aren't open and they aren't getting the free meals they normally get there.  And there are lots of people who, when they go out to eat, go to food courts, fast food restaurants, or order pizzas.  

I'd also guess that everyone on the Board has made contributions to charity greater than they'll get back in the $25 per diem they'll get each time they travel.  So, just for appearances, it would be a nice gesture for Board members to accept the $60 limit and if they want to eat fancier than that, or have drinks with their meals, they pay for that out of pocket.  After all, if they stayed home, they would probably spend at least $25 on food anyway.  

I've traveled for work and I know that it's often useful to have meals with colleagues at conferences. But the Board members can't get together in groups of more than two (I think) without it being considered a secret, un-noticed Board Meeting.  And the Board members are all likely folks who know lots of people in Anchorage who will invite them for a meal while they are in town.

But to help them find places to eat for under $60 I here's Trip Advisor's list of place to eat on the cheap in Anchorage.  I suspect they are so refined that they can't eat at these places while they are in town for meetings.  

Here's the menu for one place on the list:  Arctic Road Runner:

"BIGGER, BETTER, MEATY BURGERS

the following are 1/4 pound patties, served on a hamburger bun, unless otherwise roasted. we cook our burgers "medium well" unless you request otherwise.

"All American $4.35

ketchup, mustard, onion.

Alaskan Banquet $5.25

mayo, lett, tom, onion.

Arctic Cheese $5.50

mayo, lett, tom, onion & amer cheese.

Bacon Burger $6.30

mayo, lett, tom, onion, amer cheese & bacon.

Pepper Burger $5.95

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper & mozz. cheese.

Kodiak Islander $6.15

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile peppers 1/2 slice. each: bologna, salami, ham, amer, mozz, cheese. an onion ring to top it off.

Kenai Whopper $6.50

our biggest meaty burger. two 1/4 pound patties, mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper & mozz cheese.

Mexican Burger $5.95

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper, meat sauce & amer cheese.

Nature Burger $6.15

on a wheat bun. mayo, sprouts tom, onion & mozz, cheese, not this is not veggie burger."

Uncle Joe's Pizzeria has pizzas from $8.99 to $13.99 and a bunch of salads for under $6.  

Most dishes at the Thai Kitchen are $13 and rice comes free.  Three people could have a filling meal sharing, Thai style, a green curry, pad thai, and cashew chicken.

There are pages and pages of places to eat on Trip Advisor's list.  

Campobello Bistro is a little more upscale, with real tablecloths even, but you can get several different pastas for under $20.  Yes, if you add a salad and dessert, you're going to have to keep your breakfast and lunch combined under $20.  [UPDATE Jan 27, 2021:  a reader informed me this restaurant has closed.]

Part of me says, this is small potatoes.  The state spent too many millions buying ANWR drilling leases in (legitimate) fear that no one else would bid.  

Another part of me says, a few dollars here and a few dollars there start to add up.  Assume the five members of the Board all spend $85 for meals when they travel to Anchorage for meetings - if and when it's safe to do that - say for 100 days.  How much does that extra $25 add up to?  (Some may travel more than others, but just to ballpark this let's go with this.  The last Board ended up taking three years to get their work done, so I'm sure there will be more than 100 per diems racked up by the Board.)  

That's $25 X 5 X 100 = $12,500.  Again, not a lot in terms of Alaska's budget. But $12,500 savings here and $10,000 savings there, adds up.  The Governor says that we have to make millions more in cuts to the Alaska budget. Other legislators argue there's fat to be cut. Well, here's a place to do that. It's not so much large expenditures that are they problem.  They get lots of scrutiny.  It's more stuff like this that tends to be invisible in the budget.  

And, while the Board member bios aren't up yet for the Board members, it doesn't appear to me that any of these people are strapped for money.  They don't have to do this to make ends meet.  It's an honor and a public service to be performed.  One Board member today said that when members of her Corporation serve on boards like this on company time, they get the boards to give the money straight to the corporation.  (I'm guessing she makes a lot more on her regular salary anyway.)

And a third part of me thinks about the fact that these Board members are doing this for the people of Alaska.  How connected are they with the people of Alaska if they either can't imagine how to eat out in Anchorage for $60 a day or they can't imagine eating at places that don't have cloth table cloths and where they can't get a few drinks with the meals.  (The Board did not talk about whether the meal allowance will cover drinks too.)  $60 a day is more than many families spend a day on food.  

Final Note

This issue isn't really about the Board.  It's about how people in different income brackets think about what is normal, think about what level of restaurant is suitable. It's about a system that goes well beyond the State, where people get perks with their jobs that allow them to stay in hotels and dine in restaurants that would stretch most people's budgets, because the company or in this case the government is paying.  I'm all for reimbursing legitimate expenses, but when government employees are traveling they should be reimbursed to stay in the least expensive accommodations that are clean and and quiet enough to do work and close enough to places they have to go to minimize extra costs for transportation.  If that doesn't suit the traveler, she is free to stay and eat at better places by paying the difference from their own pockets.  I think most Alaskans would agree. Legislators often go after travel budgets when they want to cut agency costs.  I think a lot of travel is necessary.  Much of it has long term benefits to the organization.  Cuts should be on the edges to allow reasonable, but not extravagant travel. 

There was more to the Board meeting and I'll talk about that in a different post.  Tomorrow I hope.  I would add that for the most part I think the Board members discussion was reasonable.  But I do think the issue about not being able to eat in Anchorage for $60 a day does reflect that at least some on the Board have different standards of acceptable eating than many of the people whose district boundaries they are going to be setting.

AIFF2020: Paper Spiders And Delusion

 I guess this is a film festival post because I'm starting with a film I saw the other night - Paper Spiders.

In the film a widow lives with her about-to-go-to-college daughter.  Her husband, a doctor, has been dead two or three years.  New neighbors move in and the mother gets upset because she sees him,

Screen shot from Paper Spiders

through the window, back into a tree on her lawn.  

She runs out and comes back to tell her daughter that he told her to fuck off.

The mom later says the neighbor is throwing rocks at their house.  One night she's sure he's on the roof.  The daughter goes next door to just talk to the guy and the wife yells at her.  "Talk to her?  He can't come within ten feet of her. Your mother put out a restraining order against him.  Your mother is deeply disturbed."

Mom knows he's an electrical engineer and she's sure he's sending some kind of waves at her that are giving her headaches.  Whatever explanation the daughter gives, the mom twists it around saying "that proves what I'm saying."

"He's trying to torture me, it's a power struggle, can't you see?"

The daughter, Melanie, tells her mom her grades are dropping and the school counselor wants to do family therapy.  The mom quickly starts talking about the "stalker" and the counselor pulls out the DSM and reads her about delusional disorder (my definition comes from The Cleveland Clinic)

"What is delusional disorder?

Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness — called a “psychosis”— in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue. People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated."

The counselor asks if the mother recognizes any of the symptoms.  The mom's response:  "I think you nailed it.  He has delusional disorder."

Mom hires a private detective to track the man's movements.

They meet the detective for the final report.  The detective chronicles the neighbor's movements.  On Saturday he went to St Percy's hospital.  

• Mom: "You see, he's getting psychiatric treatment."  
• Detective: "I've been in the business for 25 years, so if there was any suspecious activity, I assure you, I would catch it."
• Mom:  "You understand what this means.  We're dealing with a seasoned criminal who can out maneuver a seasoned investigator with 25 years experience."

Things get worse and worse and eventually the mom moves out so the neighbor can't persecute her and sleeps in the car to stay safe from the neighbor.  

As we all watch Donald Trump claim that Biden stole the election, this delusional woman comes to mind.  She's certain about the neighbor.  Every shred of evidence offered to disprove the neighbor's evil mission is turned around as further proof of his devious cleverness.  And Trump ignores the fact that many of the judges turning down his appeals are judges he appointed!  And he doesn't have quite the agility the mom in the movie had to turn around such facts to her advantage. He just changes the subject or blames the messenger.  

Part of me believes that Trump knows exactly what he's doing, but his behavior is so, so similar to this character's, perhaps he doesn't.  

If Trump weren't president of the United States, a normal family would get him treatment.  Or at least try to prevent him from destroying their lives. Given the power/money dynamics of the Trump family I suspect he might not be challenged, even if the kids saw their inheritance being frittered away.  (I don't know whether his assets are greater than his debts.)  

And even in the movie, the daughter had a really difficult time getting her mom treatment.  She was homeless first and then involuntarily admitted only after a very public incident where she turned on her daughter for not supporting her.   

How many of Trump's supporters also have delusional disorder?  Probably not that many.  After all, their news sources all support this mass delusion.   The mom had no one supporting her delusions.  

Here's what the Cleveland Clinic says about treatment:

"How is delusional disorder treated?

Treatment for delusional disorder most often includes medication and psychotherapy (a type of counseling); however, delusional disorder is highly resistant to treatment with medication alone. People with severe symptoms or who are at risk of hurting themselves or others might need to be in the hospital until the condition is stabilized."

The mom was given medication and was in the hospital two weeks.  Even then, at the end she marches off to confront the neighbor again only to be told he's been dead for a month.  But the mom says that's bullshit and points at some equipment in the hallway to prove it's the machine he's been using to torture her.  The neighbor looks and says, "That's his chemo machine."

I don't think any of Trump's destructivenes will end on January 20th.  There are too many people who share Trump's delusions, not just about the election, but about every thing else.  Trump supporters are talking about overturning the election still.  

The Texas lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots.  Over 100 House Republicans joined the lawsuit.  And even after the Supreme Court (including three of Trump's appointees) voted 9-2 against Trump of procedural grounds and 9-0 on substance,  Law&Crime notes:

"In response [to the Supreme Court decision], Texas GOP Chairman Allen West on Friday erroneously claimed that the high court’s ruling—which was widely expected among legal experts and court watchers—created a precedent that allows states to act unlawfully in the administration of elections, leading him to float the idea that the Lone Star State should look into forming a separate nation. In other words, he is preaching secession."

And Trump is inciting his followers by insisting that he actually won the election and that Biden stole it with fraudulent votes.  

At some point, the Democrats are going to have to play hardball.   

"18 U.S. Code § 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

You can see that this discussion could go on and on.  Gore and Kerry conceded their elections even though there was much more evidence than Trump has that they won.  Even Lincoln wanted to welcome the South back into the union to make that return more cordial.  But that resulted in another 100 years of de facto slavery and inequality for blacks.  (See for example White Rage by Carol Anderson.)  It seems to me the extreme behavior of Trump requires serious consequences lest these new excesses become the norm.  

AIFF2020: The Subject Took Me By Surprise

I finally figured out the Q&A scheduling [it's tricky just seeing the times, so I've put up a schedule on the AIFF2020 page above] and Hometown Pride was going to have the Q&A Thursday at 6pm.

I watched Hometown Pride this afternoon.  This is a fun and easy to watch film about a very out and outgoing gay man who comes back to his tiny Ohio hometown to dance at their annual beauty pageant. Good, not remarkable.  We've seen other versions of this story at AIFF in past years.  

Then I went for Paper Spiders.  I'd been avoiding this one because I wasn't sure I wanted to deal with a mother's mental illness, but its Q&A was also coming up.  

We paused Paper Spiders in the middle so we could watch the Q&A for The Last Days of Capitalism.  This was my favorite feature film and I was looking forward to the session.  It's not quite the same on Zoom as it is live at the festival.  But it was a good discussion.  

The back to Paper Spiders which was surprisingly good, but the mom is definitely delusional and paranoid.  But the story was well told and well acted.  There are lots of very good narrative features at this festival.  The title is referred to visually only briefly in one shot.  It leaves a lot to the viewers imagination.  

Then on to another one I was avoiding, because it looked like it was going to be heavy - The Subject.

This film follows a documentary film maker doing a project on Black young men mostly in Harlem.  The difficulties filming his volatile subjects seems to be the focus.  There's also some tension at home which escalates when he hires an assistant.  But then at the end everything kicks up a bunch of notches and we have an amazing confrontation between the film maker and the mother of one of his subjects who has been killed by gang members.  

I feel a little like a fickle boyfriend, but I've abandoned The Last Days of Capitalism and now my favorite feature is The Subject.  I don't want to say too much about it - I think I've told you more than you need to know already.  Just see it.  The issues - the relationship between the filmmaker and his subjects, particularly if the filmmaker is a privileged white male and the subjects are black kids living in poverty and violence - themselves are powerful.  But the final scene is amazing and where the issues are served up like fireworks.  

There's an interview with the director of The Subject Laney Zipoy here.  The AIFF interview was last Saturday and I haven't figured out how, or if we even can, watch the ones we missed.  

AIFF2020: Opening, Crescendo, Mazel Tov Cocktail, and Green Screens Of The Future

This is the second day of the Anchorage International Film Festival.  Last night we saw the opening ceremony, the opening shorts program, and then we watched Crescendo - a German feature about putting together a peace concert with young Jewish and Palestinian musicians.  I definitely recommend it.  It's a well made movie and the story line is both optimistic and realistic.  This movie was sponsored by the Anchorage Jewish Museum.  

Another German film - Mazel Tov Cocktail - is in the narrative shorts category.  I thought it was great!  As white folks in the US are learning, seems like we've been working on this forever, that each person of color is a unique individual and shouldn't be assumed to behave in some characteristic way, Mazel Too Cocktail looks at the world through the eyes of a Russian Jewish immigrant high school student in Germany as he confronts the many different stereotypes the people around him have of him.  This includes, positive ones, negative ones, from classmates, teachers, people on the street, and even his own parents and grandfather.  But what makes this short stand out is, well, everything.  It's a snappy, irreverent, well acted, well filmed, funny movie with a kick.  I highly recommend it.  

For as much as I've gotten used to Zoom and Jitsi and Skype and Netflix, watching the film festival movies with my wife at home in the living room, just felt wrong.  None of the familiar AIFF faces walking the aisles and lobbies to greet and compare notes with.  None of the audience reactions to the movies. None of the passing exchanges of tips about good movies.  I even miss getting into the cold car and driving from one venue to the other.  (Well, not that much.)

And if people do see great movies, please leave recommendations in the comments.

On the other hand - all the movies are available all the time.  You can watch what you want when you want to.  As many times as you want.  I hope that means I don't miss those hidden gems I went to because there was nothing else in that time slot.  

And we're supposed to get lots of film maker interviews and Q&A's though I'm not quite sure how we're going to figure out when these will happen.  But figuring out new habits keeps us young (or drives us crazy.)

And I thought I'd add the YouTube video I accidentally found the other day on the future (demise) of green screens.  A little behind the scenes of movie making.  

Now that people are using Zoom, more people know about green screens - the green background that allows you to supply the people and objects in front, with a totally different background.  It's called "The Volume" and consists of a wrap around background.  Just watch the video.  It's cool.

Education Level And Elitism

Although most people would like to have the benefits of the elite line boarding an airplane and other perks of wealth, conservatives have been labeling people as  'elitist' people due to their college educations.  Scientists and doctors especially right now are dismissed as elitists if they say that people should wear masks to avoid spreading COVID-19 or if they say that climate change is real.  

On the other hand when people say that we should be focused on economic inequality instead of race, conservatives cry "Class warfare."  This is just another example of how Conservatives are totally inconsistent in terms of content.  Their only consistency now is their focus on winning by any means necessary.  Even by overturning a democratic election.  

A couple of posts back I had the elitist label thrown at me by two regular readers because I suggested that college graduates were harder to fool than non-college graduates.  I'm responding here, in a new post, rather than in the comment section, because I can put an image here and I can't do that in a comment.  Here's what I wrote at the end of a post on Denialism:

"Also, remember, only 35% of US adults has a bachelors degree or more education.  The chart below is from Wikipedia.  That does affect how susceptible people are to the arguments of organized deniers."  

[Including this chart below]

Education	Age 25 and over	Age 25-30
High school diploma or GED	89.80%	92.95%
Some college	61.28%	66.34%
Associate and/or bachelor's degree	45.16%	46.72%
Bachelor's degree	34.98%	36.98%
Master's and/or doctorate and/or professional degree	13.04%	9.01%
Doctorate and/or professional degree	3.47%	2.02%
Doctorate	2.03%	1.12%

Jacob responded (in part):

"Steve so often writes of his concerns that we should all be scholars in life, but I am one of those folk who never could sit still for college study. I'm one of his 'stupid' people who don't have a college degree (as evidenced in his chart and its implication to thinking things through).

It shows a sort of prejudice that I, not being a Trump supporter, still feel from folk who think themselves better for having achieved. I read. I write. I think. But I don't have an institutional degree.

And I'm thought worse for it, in what work I can do; in what people think of me; of what people assume my ability to think at all. No wonder too many Trumpers think of the 'other' side as being elitist."

And Oliver wrote:

"Steve, these people I would wager do not have degrees ,Carpenter.

Carpet installer .Electrician .Heavy equipment operator (or anyone in the construction trades) .Insulation installer .Landscaper .Painter. Plumber, auto mechanic but might possess a few smarts. I would take anyone of them over a room full of Fine Arts majors or anyone who's degree ends with the word 'studies'. 

Oliver "

A writer recently reminded me that once you put something on paper, it is no longer yours.  People take it and interpret it as they want.  So let's consider this a discussion.

I DID NOT say that all people who go to college are smarter or less likely to be conned than all people who do not go to college.  I never would say that.  

But I would say this: People who go to college get exposed to ideas they would not likely have been exposed to, and they are challenged by classmates and teachers to defend their own ideas and explore the ideas of others in a more disciplined way than most people who do not go to college.  There are lots of caveats.  The abilities of one's classmates.  The abilities and dedication of one's teachers.  Other influences in one's life that might hone these skills without college.

And as I wrote the words quoted above, I was thinking about the statistics I'd seen about college educated and non-college educated voters - particularly whites, particularly white males.  Those statistics support what I was suggesting - that more (not all) non-college educated voters were likely to vote for Trump.  

From a November 12 Brookings Institute Report:

This chart looks at the changing gap between Trump and Clinton and Trump and Biden voters in different categories.  In both 2016 and 2020 the non-college women, and to a greater extent, the non-college men voted at much higher rates for Trump than for the Democrat.  

To have a 48% gap between non-college educated men who voted for Trump and Clinton in 2016, you need 74% voting for Trump and 26% voting for Clinton.*  So after I copied the Denialist strategies that are designed to con people into believing things that aren't true, I was merely pointing out, afterward, that only 35% of the US population had a bachelor's degree.  

*Third party candidates probably skew the numbers a little, but it's still a big deal.  

And the data on how college educated men and non-college men voters marked their ballots sure looks like it supports the implication I made.  You could argue that these non-college men weren't conned and that they simply prefer a sexist, racist, lying, law breaker as president.  

I'd counter by saying that a college education would have exposed them to how sexism and racism actually hurt our economy and the value of the rule of law.  That wouldn't have changed all their votes - there were still a lot of white males with college educations who voted for Trump - but it would have changed many of them.  

Do I think everyone should go to college?  Not really.  People have different aptitudes and learning styles.  Many like Jay simply can't sit still and do the kinds of assignments most colleges require.  But I do believe that in a constitutional democracy, we all need to understand that constitution because it is essentially the "user agreement"  with the ground rules that we all, tacitly, have agreed to.  It's the one thing that all United States citizens and residents have in common.  

And I've written about my thoughts on alternative ways to get this knowledge to people who have talents in areas other than academic studies.  Here's from a post I wrote during a University of Alaska president search on the clash between the business culture of many on the board of regents and the academic culture of universities.  

"It is precisely this conflict between the business model's use of instrumental rationality and traditional academic use of the substantive rationality model - in this case scholarship and learning and truth and even the meaning of life - that is raging around universities everywhere.   Faculty are told to be more productive, which translated first into "more students per class" which would mean less expenditure for each tuition dollar.  It assumes a large lecture model as the ideal, the larger the better.  In fact, why not just do internet courses with thousands of students?  For certain students learning certain topics, this can work.  But this model ignores the possibility that education (as opposed to training) is about self examination, about learning to think critically, about exploring the moral implications of one's actions, about learning to write and learning to recognize the legitimacy of others' knowledge.  It ignores that this kind of learning  requires an intense interaction between a student and a teacher, among students, and among a teacher and a group of students.  The value of that interaction is diluted as more students are added beyond an ideal size. You can get a certain amount from reading a book.  You learn even more from discussing it with others.

Universities are being asked to do too many things

There are lots of things problematic with large modern universities.  For one thing, we decided, as a nation, that everyone needed a college degree, because that is the ticket to earning more money over one's lifetime.  (See how that technical rationality gets into everything, making, in this case, the purpose of a college degree, earning more money?)   A degree rather than an education has become the goal of many students.   Some online schools offer those degrees,  quickly, while the student works full time.  Just send in your money.  There are good online programs that serve students who otherwise couldn't get an education.  And there are schools that essentially sell degrees.

I do think that everyone would be better off learning to do the things I listed above - gaining self knowledge, critical and ethical thinking abilities, etc. - but I  know that not everyone has the aptitude or interest to pursue traditional college level academic studies.  There are lots of other important skills that society needs, but most have been sacrificed in K-12 to focus everyone into a college (translation:  academic, STEM, etc.) track.  We don't have tracks for less academic but still important vocational education which could also be more than technical training.  They could also include self awareness, critical and ethical thinking, but in areas that involve building, growing, and creating in more tangible disciplines than in academic disciplines.  Skilled craftsmen used to have a reasonable status in life and learning one's craft well involves learning the various sciences related to it as well as the social and political and economic realms in which a craftsperson lives.  Why not use carpentry or culinary arts or music or electrical work, or health care as the focus rather than history or math or political science?  Then bring in the other fields as they relate to one's focus.  Carpenters, nurses, cooks all need to know chemistry and biology.  Understanding the humanities, ethics, history, and government are also valuable to a craftsperson making a living.   People with different aptitudes would learn what they need much more easily when it's tied to doing what they really want to do, rather than some isolated, abstract academic subject. 

But we've created an educational monster that forces everyone into an academic track starting in first grade.  And if you aren't ready to read or add and subtract when the curriculum guide says you should be,  you acquire a negative label like  'slow learner' and you (and others) start seeing you as less capable than everyone else.  School becomes increasingly oppressive as you're forced to perform in areas you don't like and aren't particularly good at."

So, no, Oliver, I wasn't demeaning carpet installers.  I was thinking the ideas in the quoted paragraphs above.  That the way education is structured, people without academic skills, are much less likely (not "unable") to acquire a well thought out set of problem solving skills, and an understanding of the political, economic, psychological and other contexts that are needed for negotiating the complex issues of our day.  And the system we have doesn't insure college grads have it as well as they should either.  

I was just saying those without college degrees are more susceptible to a con artist like Trump and more likely to vote for him.  And the numbers seem to support that conclusion.   

The challenge we have is to get that ideal education system that allows people to find the educational tracks that most appeal to their subject interest and learning style.  

Now if you have some facts I've missed, not just opinion, to counter what I've said, please present them.