No, I DON'T do binaries or twosiderism

In a recent fairly long blogpost I made about a post at M.L. Clark's "Another White Atheist in Columbia," among it, I said I thought she was engaging in twosiderism, not just on that particular post but in general, and that brought it to a head.

She then said (while accepting the critique about lengthiness) that she thought I WAS engaged in "binaries," as she called it.

Erm, no.

I pointed out to her that I had just called out Shem for seemingly doing twosiderism on abortion. (That's one reason I don't write much about it. I've moved beyond worries of family disapproval, but still don't think my sis is a self-hating woman. And, per the second part, and my vociferous rejection of twosiderism on this issue, I regularly whip out Nat Hentoff, though I'm not a pro-lifer, but in the muddy middle. The lies fly fast and furious on both of the two stereotyped sides on this issue. One presumable abortion-on-demand wingnut said that Hentoff et al are actually religious. Well, I'm taking care of seeing said person online again.)

And, at least six sides present themselves on this issue:
1. Religious prolifers
2. Religious prochoicers
3. Religious in the muddy middle
4. Secular prolifers
5. Secular prochoicers
6. Secular in the muddy middle

Outside of that, I've regularly called out twosiderism on Mueller/Russiagate and Assange. There's off the top of my head, four or five important sides on each of those issues.

And with this, decided I needed to do a post just on this issue, with new blog tag.

If she had dodged the lengthiness issue, that would have been the only thing I would have objected to more. The kumbaya and other similar stuff? If she'd defended that on style grounds, I would have been OK. Even the religious mindreading, I would have only halfway objected back if she objected.

But, the older I get, the more and more I consciously work to fight twosiderism in myself as well as call it out elsewhere.

I did quote old friend Idries Shah at the end, after all.

I'm also outside the two duopoly parties.

I've said that business issues of Big Ag companies who make GMOs need to be separated from science issues.

I've not rejected CRISPR for ag use while at the same time saying that we are probably pushing it too fast.

I take a lot of hell for it politically on things like calling out Tulsi Gabbard Kool-Aid drinkers from a non-twosider perspective, or saying that Hiroshima, and even Nagasaki, weren't uniquely evil and were the "least bad option," in both cases.

At this point, it's time to close with old friend Idries Shah:

And this one from Shah is good, too. I am working to apply it more and more to myself.

And I really mean that. The older I get, beyond "twosiderism," the more I know the world is not blacks and whites and the more I consciously work against that in myself as well as with others.

Now, it's true that we're not always perfect observers of ourselves. I accept that, too.

But, Ms. Clark is not a follower of my blog. She's never commented here. Having come across her via Shem, I've never seen her comment on one of my comments on his blog.

So, no, I'll reject from her at least the idea that I engage in binaries.

Unless, to go Borges or Gödel, Escher, Bach, I engage in the division of people into the binaries of ...

         Those who accept binaries and those who don't.

==

Actually, it's time to close with two others, one a site, one a person.

The Oracle at Delphi:  γνῶθι σεαυτόν, or in English, know thyself.

Shakespeare: To thine own self be true.

The real edginess of The Edge and John Brockman

The Edge Foundation is well known to science and philosophy fanbois and fangrrlz, including myself, with its big "annual question" that founder and proprietor John Brockman asks leading philosophers and scientists.

But, there's also a private version.

And there's plenty of story behind that.

Evgeny Morozov calls it "an elaborate massage of the ego (and apparently much else) for the rich, the smart, and the powerful."

Turns out there's a horrible pun of sorts in that material in parentheses.

In the article, Morozov drops the reveal on just how much of a "FOJ" Brockman is. That would be as in "Friend of Jeffrey," with the Jeffrey being Jeffrey Epstein. And there's your horrible, and horribly true, in all likelihood, pun.

Brockman is also a heavy hitter in the book agency world for science authors. THAT now explains, I think, the Lawrence Krauss connection with Epstein.

Morozov explains:

Epstein participated in the Edge Foundation’s annual questions, and attended its “billionaires’ dinners.” Brockman may also be the reason why so many prominent academics—from Steven Pinker to Daniel Dennett—have found themselves answering awkward questions about their associations with Epstein; they are clients of Brockman. Marvin Minsky, the prominent MIT scientist who surfaced as one of Epstein’s island buddies? A client of Brockman’s. Joi Ito, the director of the elite research facility MIT Media Lab, who has recently acknowledged extensive ties to Epstein? Also, a client of Brockman’s.

So, Krauss, infamous for his own Epstein connections, was either an imperial playtoy at one of these dinners, a Brockman agency client, or both. (That "prominent academics" link makes clear Krauss was invited to one of the shindigs, if nothing else.)

This, in turn leads to further issues.

Krauss was also the recipient of one of Epstein's grants to theoretically creative scientists.

And, the Slate piece that Morozov links in that pull-quote above points up more of the Epstein problem. He has almost exclusively courted male scientists with his grant funding. That, in turn, beyond its relationship to sexual procurement, is a clear promotion of sexism in science. That may not be on Brockman, but even it kind of is, even if he didn't know about Epstein's hideous sexual abuse. That said, people whom Brockman invited to participate on the public version of The Edge were almost all men, too.

Speaking of, I've long considered Ev Psych sexist, what with its bragging about man (the male) as the "noble hunter gatherer," ignoring aeons of the male as the less noble, and female assisted, scavenger gatherer, along with the pseudoscience of the EEA and other things.

Well, re Epstein, and re many of the writers in Brockman's stable, somebody's nailed the coonskin to the wall on Epstein's love of Ev Psychers.  Robert Trivers and Steve Pinker are among the name checked, but here's the money quote:

Of all academic disciplines, evolutionary psychology has the most to do with pussy.

And, I'm reminded that the douche, Pinker, defended the indefensible, and pseudoscience squared, "A Natural History of Rape." Alexandra Walling also notes Pinker's comments about rapists elsewhere, as in criminal rape cases today, and how they don't square with him defending Thornhill let alone dodging Epstein's connections with silence.

And, puhleeze, ev psych fanbois AND fangrllz, don't send me names of women in ev psych, make claims about it that aren't true or are scientism based, etc.

Beyond that, I thought the "great question" on the public version of The Edge often bordered on pretentiousness. Many of them recycled themselves. And, a number of them were at least partially connected to ... ev psych.

It seems that John Brockman's greatest sales job has been selling himself.

And, maybe, by silence, he's trying to sell scientists and philosopher clients, or at least the fans, that he's not connected to Epstein.

Morozov said he'd like to believe otherwise himself:

When the Epstein-Brockman connection first surfaced in the news, I wanted to give Brockman the benefit of the doubt. ... In the last few weeks, such a charitable interpretation has become very hard to sustain, especially as other details ... became public. John Brockman has not said a word publicly about his connection to Epstein since the latest scandal broke, preferring to maintain silence on the matter. That I have found quite infuriating.

Morozov then personalizes why he finds this infuriating. He said he got an email from Brockman in 2013, intended for somebody else. They had a back and forth and Morozov makes this observation, aided to some degree by hindsight, as he says that, years ago, he didn't know who Epstein was (born in Belarus, I have no doubt on that):

In that old email, it seems clear that Brockman was acting as Epstein’s PR man.

There you go. And, 2013 was after Epstein's original conviction, of course. He expands:

(N)ow that I’ve found that old email he sent me, I cannot believe that he knew absolutely nothing of Epstein’s wild sexual escapades—in fact, his email suggests he was trying to capitalize on them to recruit yet another useful idiot into Epstein’s network.

OK, that's that.

Morozov has decided to act.

I’m just one of the many authors in Brockman’s agency; my departure wouldn’t affect anything. I am also the last one to complain: His agency sold two of my books, and I have two more underway, also sold by them. 

Yet, I am ready to pull the plug on my association with Brockman’s agency—and would encourage other authors to consider doing the same—until and unless he clarifies the relationship between him, the Edge Foundation, and Epstein. If such an explanation is not forthcoming, many of us will have to decide whether we would like to be part of this odd intellectual club located on the dubious continuum between the seminar room and a sex-trafficking ring.

Sounds reasonable enough and straightforward enough.

So, after reading this, I Tweeted the link to two online friends of mine, philosopher and philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci, and science journalism professor John Horgan.

Let's just say I found Horgan's response "interesting":

Brockman ceased being my agent a decade ago, but I'm not going to speak ill of him. And Morozov is a rat jumping off a ship he thinks is sinking.

— John Horgan (@Horganism) August 22, 2019

I don't think I'm at "infuriating," but beyond the scare-quoted, not reference-quoted, "interesting," I find his response more than "interesting." 

"Defensive" was the first word that came to my mind.

I've followed Morozov semi-regularly for several years, ever since the late Leo Lincourt turned me on to him. His "solutionism," the idea that modern technology, including and usually above all the social media world, claims to have "the answer" for social problems of all sorts, is mirrored in my blog label "salvific technologism."

Morozov was born in Belarus. I think that, having seen bits of the communist cum state capitalism version of Brockman's hedonic capitalism may be part of what put Morozov off. Maybe what he saw as pretentiousness was an additional factor — and pretentiousness among Brockman's Roman Senate lackeys at the court of Caligula (with Brockman kind of a Wizard of Oz behind Epstein's Caligula, to complete the analogy).

And his answer to his rhetorical question is no:

In Brockman’s world, billionaires, scientists, artists, novelists, journalists, and musicians all blend together to produce enormous value — for each other and, of course, for Brockman. This mingling of clients doesn’t happen in other literary agencies, at least not to this extent. Nor does this happen at Brockman Inc., as all such interactions that we know of took place under the umbrella of the Edge Foundation, a sibling organization, with Brockman as its president. Would Brockman Inc. exist without the Edge Foundation? Possibly—and it did, at the outset. Would it be as powerful, trading on Brockman’s ability to rub shoulders with academics and billionaires alike? Probably not. Still, I can attest that Brockman’s authors face no pressure to get involved with Edge: I, for example, diligently responded to their annual questions between 2010 and 2013—and then stopped, as I was put off by Brockman’s insistence that people responding to the annual question should keep away from politics.

So ... Dennett, Pinker and many others, even if, unlike Krauss, they have never had anything besides their egos massaged, have been at least partial accomplices in having Brockman's ego massaged through silence. That's Morozov's take. 

I personally found the Edge big questions, even before it dawned on me now that they were largely repetitive and recycled, to be pretentious in the answering thereof. That partially dovetails with Morozov's take. There was a degree of scientism in some answers, too, and maybe even philosophism from a few philosophers.

The final issue is Morozov's call for action.

Whether the ship is sinking or not, I don't think he's a rat, if there's any pejorative angle to John saying that.

Rather, the ship seems to be captained by a rat. Whether or not Morozov has Brockman as his agent at this time, which Horgan does not, he has an ethically honest stance. It's basically a call to boycott Brockman, at least as an agent.

I just think Morozov should go further. I think that, until Brockman not only clarifies those relationships, but to the degree needed, offers an apology, any remnants of The Edge ought to be boycotted, not just Brockman's agency. (The Edge is in a sort of limbo, or something; it had no 2019 Big Question.)

Also going beyond Morozov, I think Brockman needs to address the issue of sexism in being a science book agent, as I noted above.

And, turns out many science foundations, research agencies, etc., not just individual scientists, all got money from Epstein and many are refusing to comment.

GIVE THE MONEY TO CHARITY! Like an anti-sexual trafficking organization!

===

Via Twitter, Morozov also reminds me of pseudoskeptic grifter Al Seckel's connection to Epstein.

Still surprised by how little attention the Epstein-chasing media have paid to Al Seckel - a top-notch charlatan, a one-time TED Talker, a member of the Edge community, an ex-husband of Ghislaine Maxwell's sister, and a co-organizer (with Epstein) of the Mindshift conference.

— Evgeny Morozov (@evgenymorozov) September 6, 2019

Jim Lippard years ago noted this.

Lippard and Tom McIver, via Tweets, reinforce that Brockman was an enabler for Epstein.

John Brockman knew. Here he is with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s rape victims on one side, and alleged abuse coordinator, at an https://t.co/oEYOr4yISa billionaire’s dinner in the early 2000s. pic.twitter.com/dwm6UJhe9r

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) August 24, 2019

And, to complete the circle, Seckel was an Edge member.

There's also this:

Why is Jeffrey Epstein's association with John Brockman's Edge Group touted in numerous spam blogs?

— Jim Lippard (@lippard) January 5, 2011

That would seem to be answered here.

This all said, while movement skepticism, or Skeptics™, doesn't have a sexual assault problem, as anybody who knows the history of skepticism organizations, conferences and events knows, like Center for Inquiry, it's got a HUGE past history of sexual harassment. Are there other connections to at least Brockman, if not Epstein?

Respectful note to John Horgan — I think you need to rethink your attitude toward Morozov and the "rats." There's only one (still-living) rat in this equation.

Howie Hawkins versus nutters on Russiagate

With Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins scheduled to be in the Metromess Saturday and Helltown Monday, I wanted to talk a bit more about his stance on "Russiagate," using that in the broadest terms possible, and NOT limited to Trump-Putin collusion allegations which I believe ludicrous.

Howie's written in some depth on this issue.

Shorter take? He's more right than wrong by a fair amount.

Longer take? He's enough both right and wrong to need "unpacking" on a couple of issues.

He's very right on the biggest portion of the issue — this is ultimately a duopoly party turf fight. Greens should stay out as much as reasonably possible. (Greens whom I will support should, at the same time, call out conspiracy theories related to this.)

Update, Nov. 2: I correct myself. Actual election meddling is a concern for all American citizens, whether it's Russia meddling in our elections, or the USofA meddling in elections in Russia and elsewhere. (Both have happened, of course.) I "get" where Hawkins is coming from in that some of this sounds like Democrat sour grapes. However, as Russia has meddled in ways that could have benefited both Clinton and Trump, it IS sour grapes. See four paragraphs below.

Beyond that, Howie missed a beat on this issue. He didn't note that, whatever he thinks of Jill Stein's appearance in Russia or talking on RT, that Democrats targeted her as Putin's tool or stooge. He also doesn't note the repeated "Stein vote = Trump vote" claims as part of why to stay out of this hot mess. That's not wrong; it's just that he's kind of incomplete here.

Now, let's go through the rest of the piece in order.

Should Clinton have "crushed" Trump? I don't think so. A number of indicators showed that 2016 was a Republican presidential year. Trump was just the least likely to do well in some ways. The Hillary Clinton margin in the popular vote is probably just about what it should have been, and bad strategery led to her losing the Electoral College.

The Russian election intervention? No, Howie, it wasn't all pro-Trump. Here in Texas, in Helltown, it's alleged that Russian actors peddled a pro-Texas secession Facebook group and at the same time, hawked a pro-Muslim Facebook group. Similar allegations have been made of other 11-dimension chess on this issue across the country. The DNC emails were just one mix of a larger master plan. Don't forget, Howie, that the Russians are also believed to have targeted RNC computers and to have gotten into some older ones.

The RNC reported a mix of successful and unsuccessful hacks against its computers in 2016. GOP Congresscritter Michael McCaul publicly admitted it until the RNC hauled him on the carpet. Comey publicly discussed it.

This can't be emphasized enough. Because the DNC got caught with its cyber-pants down, the RNC saw a chance to make political hay, and then tacitly rode along with things like Seth Rich conspiracy theorizing.

That said, while Howie doesn't address Seth Rich conspiracy theories at the link above, he does believe that Assange and/or Russia hacked the emails and that they were not leaked by Seth Rich. As for the Klansman comment on an interview with Primo Nutbar? We know that Fred Trump was at a Klan rally in Queens and was arrested, though quickly released. Given that he as well as The Donald were parties to HUD's suit over racism in their housing complexes, it may or may not be a legal stretch to call Donald Trump "the son of a Klansman"; it's not a rhetorical stretch. See Vice for more. Also note that Wiki's page on Fred notes that all arrestees, including him, were called "berobed marchers." Reasons for his quick release may have included his general status, slipping some green to cops or other legal officials, etc.

IMO, Howie may have to tackle this in more detail at some point and he needs to be prepared to do so now. Personally, as I'e already said on Twitter, if his nomination drives nutters out of the party, that's a point in his favor. He just needs to think more through this whole issue before commenting again.

==

Brains did get one issue spot on. It's just not acceptable to have called Chelsea Manning "Bradley" and "he." If this is a "fogginess" issue, then Howie needs to make sure he's not Joe Biden. If this is a bias issue, then he needs to get up to 21st century humanistic speed.

==

Hawkins will be in Dallas and Houston in days ahead, as noted above. Dallas is 2-5 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 7, at 2 Guys from Italy, 11637 Webb Chapel Road. In Houston, he'll be at the house of Don and Laura Palmer, 5402 Bent Bough Lane, Sept. 9. I hope and expect to be at his Dallas visit.

Texas Progressives talk Harvey, Howie Hawkins, Friday Night Lights and more

It's September, which means across north Texas, the season is transitioning from what this blogger knows as the end of "high summer" per the five climatological months of summer the area has to the month of "late summer" that is September. That said, the transition doesn't appear totally smooth, as 95-plus has returned to the area.

And, while the games actually happened in August, the transition to late summer was accompanied by the start of Friday Night Lights. Your blogger, after a few years absence, was back on the sidelines with a few observations about games while shutterbugging.

With that, hopes that you didn't have to work on Labor Day, and hopes that America gets real unions, let's dig in.


Texas politics

At the Observer, Justin Miller notes Greg Abbott still doesn't want to own up his part on fueling anti-immigrant rhetoric. One thing that would make this even better? A folo story asking the likes of Rick Perry and other Texas Rethugs no longer holding state level office if they'd care to comment on Abbott and Danny Goeb. At the Dallas Observer, Stephen Young has similar thoughts.

Also at the Observer, Michael Barajas says that the LegisLater eliminating mobile early polling places will suppress early vote numbers, but by how much?

At least eight people were killed by a mass shooter in Midland-Odessa. Wingnut Legiscritter Matt Schaefer couldn't wait to Tweet that he would oppose any new gun laws. That's as new bad gun laws took effect Sept. 1. Three of the worst? Churches now have to post gun-free signage if they want to be gun free, just like any business. Frankly, I'm wondering if that's a First Amendment issue. Second? Apartment owners and other landlords can't ban guns by renters. Third? Foster homes can allow guns.

John Coby drags Rep. Matt Schaefer for his gun worship.

Green Party prez candidate Howie Hawkins will be in Dallas and Houston in days ahead. Dallas is 2-5 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 7, at 2 Guys from Italy, 11637 Webb Chapel Road. Unfortunately, as an afternoon not evening event I may not be able to get there. We'll see. In Houston, he'll be at the house of Don and Laura Palmer, 5402 Bent Bough Lane, Sept. 9. I have a separate piece offering up my take on Howie's controversial-to-some Russiagate comments.

Off the Kuff checks out the Bitecofer Model, which suggests that quite a few Republican-held Congressional seats in Texas could be flipped in 2020.

Rosemary Kowalski eulogizes Lila Cockrell, former Mayor of San Antonio.

Dallas-Fort Worth

The Guardian says RIP to James Leavelle. Who? The Dallas PD detective handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald when Jack Ruby shot him, that's who. And, from the memoriam piece, it's clear he believed Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. He was almost surely the last living person with some degree of significant connection to the assassination. The NYT has more. Here's the Sixth Floor Museum's interview history. Kind of laughingly, the Snooze, whatever story it has, doesn't have it pop up in the first page of Google search results. (A 2010 story on his 90th birthday did.) When I limit the search to the last week, ditto. That said, the Observer has nothing up, either. Oy.

Jim Schutze wonders what the hell is behind soaring appraisal values in the neighborhood of South Dallas. Before he even mentioned it, I was wondering if, beyond general development issues, the new management contract for Fair Park was part of it. Like him, I hope the old black residents there don't get screwed.

Stephen Young rolls his eyes at the Engage Texas tactic of politicizing DPS parking lots in the Metromess and elsewhere.


Houston

While I never met him, he occasionally commented on this blog. I join David Bruce Collins and Brains in saying RIP to the blogger known as Harry Hamid, IRL an HIV/AIDS legal support lawyer.

Houston is hosting an Extinction Rebellion event Sept. 8.

The Texas Signal reports from a Houston town hall on health care. Per Brains, the Chronic might have a better take on the popularity of M4A vs the unpopularity of Lizzie Fletcher's Obamacare-plus or whatever.

Harvey 2nd anniversary

Grits wonders how long before people actually get money for home damages, especially home buyouts if needed.

The Observer follows by wondering how many more disasters might hit before that money is all delivered. 

National

SocraticGadfly is disgusted that Christmas Creep is now apparently "officially" being preceded by Halloween Creep.

The Texas Observer writes the kind of story that used to piss off Bernard Rapoport and have him threaten to stop funding it. This time, it's a puff piece about Bob on a Knob O'Rourke's "last chance" for the 2020 presidential nomination, which contains inside it a puff piece about Beto's 2018 Senate campaign.

Per the latest shooting, one of the gun loopholes that needs to be closed is buying imported assault rifles. The law needs to be rewritten tightly enough to eliminate executive agency "discretion" in its interpretation.

Therese Odell is loving the Trump/Fox News slap fight.

Juanita keeps calm in the face of that DARPA announcement.

Are GMO labels pandering to fear?

Well, if you're Food Science Babe, they are.

The idea that the difference in price between name brand and store brand OJ is largely due to name brand vs. store brand, can't enter the picture. The idea that people see the no-GMO label as signaling something else? Also not allowed in her thought processes. (And, on the Facebook post where this was discussed, I was far from the only person raising such issues.)

I've pointed out, in these pages, that artisinal cheeses, beer barley and other modern foodie foods contain GMOs. Related, I've pointed out that Rio Star / Ruby Star foodie grapefruit are made by radiation, that bananas contain radiation, that the USDA once allowed organic GMOs and more.

But I want good science, and good social science, on BOTH sides.

First, it is true, as I suspect, that many people identify "non-GMO" as meaning "organic," as shown here, and on that reason alone, are buying for non-fear reasons. (That's not to justify all reasons people buy organic, just explaning.)

Second, among mandatory or non-mandatory food labels and descriptors, "non-GMO" is NOT, not in the top 10 of buying influencers. So, whether no GMOs invoke fear, food quality, food safety, something else or all of the above, they're not that significant of a "mover." (She halfway accepted that, halfway didn't.)

Third? People generally won't pay a bunch more for non-GMOs. That ties to No. 2.

Fourth? I'm unaware of any reasonably scientific study (self-reporting by the two polarity sides here doesn't count) as to what percentage of consumers regularly look for the GMO labels. Given point the second, this has to be "look for" and not just "notice out of the corner of one's eye."

If I were to guesstimate (as I now am) I would say that the issue is 55 percent fear, 25 percent (per link above) perceiving "non-GMO" as "organic" (setting aside myths, realities, realities that cut both ways, Big Organic and the five or more sides involved with all of the above), 15 percent general "purity" or "less processed" issues and 5 percent miscellaneous other.

I finally left the conversation on Book of Face, hinting that I thought she was engaged in motivated reasoning, and didn't have survey evidence on the fear factor. (That's when I produced the links above.)

And, contra Chris Mooney, liberals and leftists as well as conservatives, intelligent as well as non-intelligent, and scientists as well as non-scientists, all engage in motivated reasoning.

I do, too. With the help of Idries Shah, I've worked to lessen that.

Recognizing there's "more than two sides" is to me a BIG issue on this whole GMO kerfuffle. That has started with GMOs as science vs. BigAg GMO product makers as biz. But, it goes beyond just thast.

And this one from Shah is good, too. I am working to apply it more and more to myself.

And I really mean that. The older I get, beyond "twosiderism," the more I know the world is not blacks and whites and the more I consciously work against that in myself as well as with others.

Now, it's true that we're not always perfect observers of ourselves. I accept that, too.

Sidebar: I think GMO labeling is good for people who have religious dietary rules. Yeah, a pork gene in bread sounds weird, but if it ever happens, if not a GMO label, then it needs to be labeled as "contains pork."

Maybe a Science Food Babe would laugh at that. Or others even more into scientism. If so, that's part of the problem. It may be part of the problem here. To the degree the no-GMO label IS a fear motivator for some, laughing at said fears won't reduce them.

I've also, on the more than two sides, noted that some claims for the benefits of GMOs have been overstated, and that this generally seems related to the Big Ag side of the coin — but isn't guaranteed to fall just on that side of the three or more out there.

The GMO issue, per David Hume's observation that "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions," has a lot of passion from people concerned, from companies trying to make money, and from scientists and science advocates trying to prove their chops.

Scattershooting Labor Day: Bourgeoise unions, more

Nothing new to blog about, but offering a roundup of some of my past thoughts on labor issues.

First, an unpopular, but carefully considered cold take that will resonate popularly to the left of the Democratic Party but not within it, nor within AFL-CIO type unions. Per the header? American labor unions arguably don't even go along with duopoly politicians in claiming Merika is a class-free society. From their early days, the AFL half actually believed in climbing the ladder then pulling it up. That remained a problem for decades and still is to some degree. That same post reminds you that the AFL-CIO types opposed Harry Truman's push for national health care cuz they figured "bennies" was a great union drive recruiting tool. (The first possible push for national health care was actually pre-Truman.)

Second, even those types of unions continue to be ignored by national neoliberal Democrats. I wrote this five years ago, but Hillary Clinton, among others, showed it's still true.

Third, and related, the Dem-neoliberals continued to kowtow to China.

Fourth, Hillary and Barack were hypocrites on NAFTA in 2008 while running for election.

Fifth, and related to one and two? The "Protestant work ethic" is bullshit and management exploits your belief in it.

Sixth, given all the above, and per Janis Joplin's definition of freedom, why does US organized labor still enserf itself to the left half (or sometimes the right half) of the duopoly? I said eight years ago you need to free yourselves!