We are more than halfway through 2021 and it is once again time to review my reading habits. After quarter one, I set the following goal:
In the second quarter, I plan to forward my goals set in December by reading more about Church history, one or two books about food, and something that is philosophically challenging.
Overall, I’d rate myself an B on my overall reading habits for the quarter. I spent too long on a few books I didn’t enjoy (should have quit) and did not read for nearly a full week. In the third quarter, I plan to put down books that do not intrest me.
Here is my, non-exhaustive list, of what I read in the second quarter of this year with a one or two sentence review:
Tulipomania – Mike Dash Interesting throughout. The most socking element to be was how rapidly the Netherlands went from poor to incredibly wealthy, when compared to the rest of the West.
Song of Achilles/Circe- Madeline Miller Both are hauntingly beautiful. Song of Achilles, in particular, adds new focus and perspective to my limited knowledge of the Greek Myths.
Church History in Plain Language – Bruce Shelly I am still looking for a text that helps outline the differences held by each denomination, and the reason each came into being, this is not that text. It was too clear that Shelly has a protestant bias from the beginning.
Given the weather from July-September calls for vacation, beaches, and outdoor reading, I plan to read a number of light fiction novels, young adult fiction, and whimsical nonfiction. I plan to read nightly, but will commit to putting down any book that does not bring me joy.
I wasn’t planning to discuss Critical Race Theory (CRT) on this blog for a few reasons:
I thought the controversy surrounding it would be a flash in a pan
Critical Race Theory isn’t formalized or defined well enough to review meaningfully
I’ve seen no evidence that teaching the core tenants of Critical Race Theory in a classroom leads to positive or negative educational or social outcomes
However, Critical Race Theory continues to play a major role in conservative rhetoric and I think it will likely show up in middle or high school civics courses. After receiving an email (excerpts below) about the dangers of CRT, I found it important that I could come up with an analogy that I could use with friends and family to discuss Critical Race Theory without alienating people on one side or the other.
The Email:
Name hidden
The Analogy:
Have you ever noticed that left-handed people struggle with things that come naturally to right-handers, such as writing, using scissors, and opening cans? Why is that?
The obvious reason is that our world was built for right handed people. Replace left-handers with people of color and that is the core tenant of Critical Race Theory. The specific items that are hard don’t matter much, the point of the analogy is that the world was designed so that it worked best for the people that were in charge of shaping it.
The Conversations:
The other aspect of Critical Race Theory is how to deal with that built-in inequity and to what extent it must be resolved. This analogy does not attempt to guide a conversation on what the “right” outcome is. Ideally, this analogy fosters that discussion. Once all parties understand the core principle of CRT, how it should or shouldn’t be used should be fertile ground for constructive ideas-based conversation.
Without being able to ground discussions about CRT in something that is generally understood, I fear too many of the conversations will sound like the email above reads.
Wantto learn more?
I’ve complied a few resources I’ve used to learn more about about CRT:
Liberal (not a CRT practitioner) legal podcast perspective: part 1 and part 2
The Republican Party has been plagued with misstep after misstep. From a press conference at a landscaping firm, a top lawyer having his license suspended, to multiple impeachments and a lie about election results, the Republican party leads have appeared to have blundered its way through the last couple of years.
The press has not overlooked the frequency of these blunders; nor has it let the GOP off the hook for them. It’s easy to find articles with headlines that emphasize the Republican Party’s “disasters,” rather than report events. I’ve added one such headline below:
POLITICO Playbook: Graham: Biden made GOP look like ‘f—ing idiots’
Is it the case that the Republican Party elites are f—ing idiots? Or is there a reason for the series of blunders and scandals, even when the Democrats control the White House? I’d like to offer an alternative reason for many of the more obviously comical blunders of the GOP–rational and mercenary political strategy.
You’re a highly-paid political consultant to the GOP after the 2018 midterms. It’s clear that the Party cannot control Trump and dissent in the ranks will only benefit the Democrats. What plan will you provide to Party leads to strengthen the short-term outlook of the party?
Let me provide a hypothetical plan that I might have suggested, and may not be far from the truth:
Limit access to voting for populations who are likely to vote “blue”
Avoid introducing policy positions where possible
Keep news coverage from the left dismissive and intense. Increase the amount and intensity of fearmongering from conservative news sources.
Build a party by opposition.
Govern from the Court.
Within this framework, the bulk of Republican party missteps start to look intentional and strategic. Before looking at some of those missteps, I’ll build a short case that each of the bullets above are part of the current Republican Party strategy.
Limit access to voting for populations who are likely to vote “blue”
On July 1, 2021, Justice Sam Alito released the 6-3 majority opinion for Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case evaluated whether changes to early voting laws and out of precinct ballot counting violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The facts of the case indicated that no history of fraud was associated with out-of-precinct ballots and that these changes invalidated minority ballots at twice the rate they invalidated majority voters. The majority opinion found that the state was within its rights to enact these restrictive laws because the impact to minorities was small in absolute terms and none of the restrictions imposes a burden greater than the usual burden of voting on voters. The ruling is significant because it enables states to continue to impose barriers to voting that will likely benefit Republicans.
The aim of these laws was made clear by the state’s lawyer, Michael Carvin, during oral argument:
Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election.
2. Avoid introducing policy positions where possible
During the 2020 Republican National Convention, the Republican Party declined to produce a party platform. The 2016 Platform was 66 pages and included party stances on cybersecurity, human trafficking, crony capitalism, healthcare, Human Rights, and Government Reform. A party platform directs the party for the next four years and informs voters of what it means to be a member of the party. Not having a platform is an aberration for a political organization.
Rather than a platform, the Republican Convention of 2020 released a statement that includes:
…The media has outrageously misrepresented the implications of the RNC not adopting a new platform in 2020 and continues to engage in misleading advocacy for the failed policies of the Obama-Biden Administration, rather than providing the public with unbiased reporting of facts; and WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.
3. Keep news coverage from the left dismissive and intense. Increase the amount and intensity of fearmongering from conservative news sources.
The headlines linked in the first paragraph are evidence that, even mainstream, news organizations are editorializing headlines. In 2016, Jim Rutenburg wrote a piece for the New York Times (gated) where he wrote, “You have to throw out the textbook [of] American journalism…. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist… by normal standards, untenable.” Oppositional media strengthens the doubt sowed by Republican elites in the last few years. The opposition of main stream news has been a major help in isolating and insolating Republicans from thoughts or perspectives that might harm party alignment.
Similarly conservative media has focused on demonizing the liberal media and Democrats in general. Tucker, the highest rated cable news show, wins viewers with a mix of vitriolic, bombastic, and fearmongering rhetoric. It might not be fair to point to a single news outlet as the totality of conservative news, but if I were to point to a single source Tucker is by far the most emblematic. During the Trump presidency, Trump keyed into Tucker to determine where his followers were leaning and Tucker was the highest rated cable news show in history. Hard to pick a better representation of conservative media in the Trump era.
4. Build a party by opposition
I’ve established that the GOP did not produce a platform with any policy stances during the 2020 convention. In lieu of the platform, GOP produced a survey in 2021 to pull members about party stances. I invite you to review the questions here. The Republicans have built a coalition by opposition, the only policy outlined in the 2020 platform was the rejection of policies led by the Democratic Party (see above). The areas where the party is aligned on policy are covered in the other bullets: attacking media/social media, tightening voting policy, and preventing changes to the Supreme Court.
5. Govern from the Court
Despite the coverage that the Court was largely bipartisan or centrist in 2020-2021, the Court managed to make significant conservative inroads. When the Shadow Docket is taken into account, the Court’s actions leaned strongly toward forwarding the conservative agenda (33 cases decided along political lines). During the 2020-2021 term, the Court held that Philadelphia wronged Catholic Social Services by denying it a contract based on the agency’s refusal to comply with the city’s nondiscrimination policy (refusing to allow gay couples to adopt kids), struck down or stayed COVID restrictions, sanctioned limits on voting access (see above), strengthened employer rights over unions, invalidated financial disclosure requirements for individual donors to political organizations.
The Supreme Court currently holds a 6-3 majority after the Senate blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 and the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. At the federal level, Republicans have a 52% majority on judge appointments. These majorities make it possible for the court system to bound the possibilities of a Democratic-controlled legislature and aid the five list items above and advance the traditional policies of the Republican party.
In October, the Court will hear a challenge to Roe and a few police-powers cases. I will watch closely to see how aligned the rulings in these cases are to traditional conservative policy stances.
How do the “Blunders” fit in?
Let’s review a few of the higher profile blunders of the Republican leadership over the last few months:
Phone call where Trump asked Georgia Secretary of State to “find more votes” released
I will not dive into the strategy of lying to millions about the outcome of an election. It clearly aligns with policy points 1, 3, and 4, and has by covered by myriad sources.
It is possible that Giuliani, a lawyer who used to be called America’s mayor for his 9/11 response, and Trump a mogul who has avoided numerous scandals in his life forgot how to build a competent team or prevent self-incriminating. However, I struggle to believe that is the case. I think it is likely that the party recognized a post-Trump era as a threat to the manufactured fear and hate of anyone on the left-side of the political aisle.
Since Biden took office, media ratings on all sides have fallen significantly. The Republican strategy requires abstracting their voters from specific policy discussions. A continued drip of scandal, blunder, and missteps will cause the liberal media to continue to editorialize headlines and push conservative listeners/readers to conservative sources. In the short term, these scandals have not damaged Republican odds. The Republican party outperformed in 2020 in relation to president Trump’s favorability ratings.
I’ve attempted to produce a set of strategies that both explain the direction of the GOP since 2018 along with some of its recent blunders. If I am near the mark, I anticipate seeing a continued drip of blunders within the Trump camp and Trump-associated Congress people and continued efforts to limit voting access and govern from the bench.
I am the third of my name. The concept of heritage and genealogy were important aspects of my childhood. My last name is derived from the word armor-maker in French. The spelling and pronunciation changed with each new location and set of cultural influences my forefathers faced. We tell many stories within my family about our history and for the first time have the ability to add to, or in some cases disprove, the stories that shape my family’s self-conception.
Genetic testing solutions allow consumers to learn more about themselves and identify unknown relatives. The vendors that provide these tests, such as 23&Me or Ancestry promise to provide recipients with information about their health predisposition, their family tree, their physical traits, and their ancestry data. These promises present a compelling sales pitch to a person so enveloped by the stories passed down from generation to generation.
But I will not participate in genetic testing. At least not now. While learning about my past is important to me, it is the future that will prevent me from participating in any of the genetic testing services.
My genetic information is not just my own. If I am fortunate enough to have any children, they will inherit 50% of my DNA. My DNA belongs to them as well, and they cannot consent to having their genetic data shared with a 3rd party service. If there are consequences to my decision to receive genetic testing services, they would be powerless to combat them and likely just as vulnerable to those consequences as I am.
The United States has long realized the value of protecting an individuals personally-identifying health information. This information, covered as protected health information (PHI) is regulated under federal law (HIPAA) to prevent healthcare organizations from misusing or inappropriately distributing health data. Secure health information is critically important to a person’s safety, psychological and physical.
Let us consider a world without these protections. Imagine an elderly man who is suffering from a disease that may prove fatal previously had his health records distributed. Big Pharma buys those records and targets him with personalize adds that push unproven medication at high cost. Does that man have the presence of mind to consider those treatments rationally? Or does this predatory advertisement scheme, made possible by the release of health data, place this person facing his death in a psychological space that will result in overspending and potentially accepting treatment that lowers his quality of life. Consider a young gay consultant that travels internationally for work. Professionally, she keeps her sexuality private. Due to her medical records being sold, her clients based in a conservative country find out her sexual orientation and fire her.
These DNA test companies are not covered under HIPAA. The United States does not have a legal structure to suitably regulate what these companies do with their data. When these companies promise to provide reports on the recipients genetic indicators, physical traits, and medical predispositions, they are promising they have data that make the above scenarios possible.
The described scenarios are not only conspiracy fodder. DNA is not sufficiently protected and some of the privacy concerns have been proven valid. One of the DNA testing companies had a DNA breech in 2019 that revealed genetic and demographic data for 3,000 individuals. Law enforcement officers can require arrestees to take a DNA test without a warrant. In April 2018, US law enforcement legally used an online DNA match to catch a suspect, judges compelled the testing provider to open their database to a police search.
If US law enforcement’s use of DNA or a small leak are not sufficiently compelling, 60 Minutes ran an interview with Bill Evanina, the former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, about China’s desire to collect American DNA data. I’ve added an excerpt below:
Current estimates are that 80% of American adults have had all of their personally identifiable information stolen by the Communist Party of China. The concern is that the Chinese regime is taking all that information about us – what we eat, how we live, when we exercise and sleep – and then combining it with our DNA data…
…Part of the social control includes the forced collection of DNA. Under the guise of free physicals for Uyghurs, Richardson says China is actually collecting DNAand other biometric data that’s then used specifically to identify people, target other family members and refine facial recognition software. And those, national security officials say, are just the uses we know about.
Currently, both Ancestory.com and 23andMe (the two biggest vendors in this space) claim strong privacy policies, and even allow users to delete some of their data (at the expense of future updates) that are designed to give their customers confidence that their data will be used responsibly and held securely.
That may be true.
But without a regulatory system that enforces genetic privacy, ensures total transparency on the transfer of genetic and demographic data and levies harsh punishment on data breeches, the risk of misuse is too high for me.
A final consideration. In 2018, U.K pharmacy giant GlaxoSmithKline invested $300 million in 23andMe, which included some exclusive access to 23andMe’s database. In December 2020, Blackstone Group, a global investment firm, bought Ancestry.com for $4.7 billion. In both cases users who purchased genetic tests prior to the investment/purchase now have their data managed or available to a corporation they may not trust as much as the company they purchased the test from. And given the sums invested, would it be rational to expect that these investors plan to maintain this store of priceless data without capitalizing on it?
One quarter of 2021 has passed and it’s time to review my reading habits. In December I set the following goals for the first half of the year:
In the first half of 2021, I’d like to read more books on theory and history of thought. Specifically, I’d like to read about the founding of different Protestant denominations, a history (or histories) of mathematical thinking (generally or in specific veins), and philosophy of technology.
Overall, I’d rate myself an B+ on my overall reading habits for the quarter. Although I am not on track to satisfy my goals within specific topic areas, I read diligently and covered a variety of genres.
Here is my, non-exhaustive list, of what I read in the first quarter of this year with a one or two sentence review:
The Data Detective – Tim Harford. Consistently good. Some rules are obvious, but the totality of the framework for considering data is helpful for a world where we must interpret data on a daily basis. Recommended for those who mistrust statistics.
Yes Chef – Marcus Samuelsson. Interesting throughout. Highlights the incredible, often unforced, sacrifices Samuelsson made to become one of the best-known chefs in the world.
A Perry Mason Novel – Erle Stanley Gardner. Read to compare with the corresponding HBO series. The novels compare favorably, although I am not sure which one I read last quarter. I read and reread Gardner’s novels frequently.
The Bombay Boomerang – Franklin W. Dixon. The Grosset & Dunlap Hardy Boys novels hold up well. Although the book isn’t especially sensitive to how it addresses other cultures, an effort was made to introduce readers to the broader world.
Foundation- Issac Asimov. It deserves its reputation as one of the best science fiction novels. The lack of plot action serves as an incredible literary device.
I’ve attempted various readings in mathematics; however, none has captured my attention. Instead, I am taking an online course on geometry (and plan to work through calculus) to satisfy my desire to learn more about the history and underpinnings of mathematics.
In the second quarter, I plan to forward my goals set in December by reading more about Church history, one or two books about food, and something that is philosophically challenging.
Polly Wanna Math 