Profile cover photo
Profile photo
David Jao
About
David's posts

Post has attachment
I understand that emotions are raw and people are scared. As an emotional response, this kind of thing is fine. But as a rational choice, it's the wrong decision. When conservatives refuse to do business with someone because of that someone's beliefs or political views, we call it bigotry. But progressives have always been a-okay with it when they themselves do it. That's just wrong. That needs to change. We should know better.

This position of mine is not new. I argued similar views way back in 2014 when Brendan Eich lost his job at Mozilla: https://plus.google.com/+DavidJao/posts/SgBADtW1fhF

In hindsight, I'd probably go even further. These kinds of SJW-style attacks (sorry for borrowing alt-right terminology, but the terminology suits this discussion) are exactly why a lot of swing voters felt threatened enough to vote for Trump. These centrist voters are not at all threatened by (for example) gay marriage directly, but they very much feel threatened when someone indirectly loses their job merely for holding the wrong political stance on the issue of gay marriage. (I'm not talking about dyed-in-the-wool rednecks who always vote Republican. Those deplorables are genuinely opposed to gay marriage. I'm talking about the swing voters whose votes are in the balance, and who decided the presidential election.) You can quibble that comparing fat-cat CEO jobs with street poverty is false equivalence, and yes, they aren't equivalent for practical purposes, but morality is relatively insensitive to practical details. We don't go around saying that murder or discrimination is somehow less bad when the victim is wealthy, nor should we.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Clinton and I'm disappointed at the result. I'm just trying to understand where it came from. (Another big problem, absolutely worth mentioning, is that my vote for Clinton essentially didn't count, because of the Electoral College, but that's a discussion for another time.)

Post has attachment
Are you kidding me? I don't mean the subject of the article itself (although that is important). But the twenty three tweets that form the core of the article's content vividly illustrate just how terrible Twitter is as a medium of communication.

There's a reason English teachers in English class don't teach students to break up their essays into one sentence per page. It's awful for the reader, awful for the writer, and awful for any purpose involving intellectual, rational, or logical thought.

I don't use Twitter. Nobody should use Twitter. Friends don't let friends use Twitter. You don't run marathons with your legs tied together -- that leads to long-term injury. Twitter hobbles political, scientific, and intellectual discourse similarly.

Post has attachment
The Democratic presidential primary contest has reached the stage that we in sports would call garbage time. There is no question as to whether or not Clinton has secured the Democratic Party nomination. She has.

And yet Tom LoBianco of CNN writes "The fight comes as Clinton has struggled to secure the Democratic Party nomination." Incompetent reporting at its finest.

Repeat after me: Sanders' intransigent refusal to drop out does not alter the fact that Clinton has secured the nomination.

Post has attachment
The Sanders camp, unable to win by way of either voting or political campaigning, has resorted to outright lying about who the winner is.

From the linked article: "He [Sanders] still trails Hillary Clinton 1,719 to 1,425 in bound delegates, by CNN’s count, but he’s won a majority of the delegates since March 1." Presumably they are trying to build up a case that Sanders has more support among voters right now.

The only problem? This numerical claim is outright false. Since March 1, Clinton has won 1111 pledged delegates to Sanders' 1022.

I don't understand how this nonsense gets past even the most incompetent fact-checkers. I don't understand how the Wall Street Journal can fail to have anyone on their staff capable of counting. I don't understand how people blindly accept these ridiculously false claims.

Lying about published vote counts has got to be the lowest of the low. Give it up. Clinton is winning.

Post has attachment
Here we go again. Sanders is going back to his old lies.

"If I win a state with 70 percent of the votes you know what, I think I'm entitled to those super delegates. I think that the super delegates should reflect what the people in the state want," he said.

Left unsaid is that this will not be enough to nominate Sanders. The only way Sanders can contest the convention, much less win, is if he convinces delegates from states that Clinton won to support him. That's simply because Clinton has won more states, by more delegates.

In other words, he wants delegates from states that he won to vote for him, and ... he wants delegates from states that he lost to vote for him. He pretends like there is an important principle at stake, but really the only guiding principle is self-interest.

Sanders will not come out and say the truth, which is that he wants party insiders to overthrow the results of the voting public. Because, really, how bad does it look for him to beg for favor from party insiders while basing his entire campaign around opposing the establishment? Very very bad indeed. Instead he implies, completely falsely, that the "fair" outcome would be for him to win. His supporters, who either don't know math or willfully ignore the math, buy into his lies. People like me, who know math, are revolted.

This kind of deceptive, nonsensical rhetoric frustrates me to no end. It lowers the bar of discourse in our already severely degraded public sphere. It de-legitimizes Clinton's victory based on no evidence other than the ignorance of the accuser. No previous losing presidential candidates in my lifetime have ever exhibited such lack of grace in accepting the elected outcome, not even Clinton in 2008, which was a much closer primary than this one (never even mind Bush vs. Gore in 2000). If you are Bernie-or-bust, tell me: how would you like it if Clinton lost the primary vote and got the nomination anyway thanks to superdelegates? Because that's exactly what Sanders is trying to do, with the names reversed.

If Sanders would come out and tell the truth, I would respect him. He would lose, but he would deserve respect. Right now, he's still going to lose, and he's going to lose without respect.

Post has attachment
After months if not years of insisting that superdelegates are obliged to respect the will of the people, the Sanders campaign is ... explicitly lobbying for superdelegates to overturn the inevitable impeding victory that Clinton is about to earn at the ballot box. This is disgustingly, horrifyingly, hypocritical nakedly self-serving dishonest political gamesmanship from a man whose entire campaign is supposedly based on opposing such nonsense.

Of course it's pure fantasy and will never actually happen, since the Democratic superdelegates are sane. But it's still abhorrent, pathological behavior all the same.

Post has attachment
Sane people know this stuff already, but it's still helpful to see it written out so clearly:

"Most fertilized eggs [naturally] never make it to birth.... Yet there has been no concerted anti-abortion effort to demand research funding into why all of these fertilized eggs die, or to find a cure.... Perhaps that’s because even the most active anti-abortion advocates know the truth is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a 3-year-old, and they do not genuinely believe that it has the same right to life.

The outrageous thing isn’t Donald Trump’s original comment. It’s that so few in the mainstream political establishment have bothered to interrogate the reality of the anti-abortion position and its stranglehold on Republican Party policies. When you do, you see that punishing women for making their own reproductive choices isn’t a defective, offensive answer. It’s the entire plan."

Post has attachment
Yes, the Flint water crisis could cost $300 billion to fix ... but lead abatement returns $10 in public health benefits per dollar invested [1]. Any journalist who fails to mention the benefits is not doing their job.

[1] http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22224-lead-abatement-a-wise-economic-public-health-investment (this is for lead paint removal, which although not the same thing as pipe replacement is the closest thing I could find)

Post has attachment
2016 Taipei Lantern Festival
PhotoPhotoPhotoPhotoPhoto
2/27/16
30 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
Not feelin' the Bern lately ... would hate to have to explain to my kids how President Trump happened. 
Wait while more posts are being loaded