Tag Archives: news

18 July 2026

Racism Is Bigger Than Bigotry

By Rick Ladd

In 1973, while preparing to travel to Cuba with the Venceremos Brigade, I underwent extensive political education on race, class, imperialism, and American society. Among the most memorable lessons came from members of the Black Panther Party. They distinguished personal prejudice and bigotry from something broader and more deeply rooted: racism as a system—something embedded in institutions, laws, customs, economic arrangements, and accepted ways of doing things.

That distinction has stayed with me for more than half a century because it explains something that our ordinary public vocabulary often conceals. Americans commonly use the word racist to describe an openly prejudiced person: someone who uses racial slurs, expresses hatred, refuses to associate with people of another race, or consciously believes one race is superior to another. Those behaviors are certainly manifestations of racism. But when racism is reduced to such behavior, the larger system disappears from view.

The lesson I heard in 1973 belonged to a broader Black Power analysis already articulated by Stokely Carmichael, later known as Kwame Ture, and political scientist Charles V. Hamilton. In their 1967 book Black Power, they distinguished “individual racism” from “institutional racism.” Individual racism, they wrote, is generally visible and attributable to particular people. Institutional racism is more subtle, arising through the operation of established and respected institutions. As they observed, people who would never personally bomb a church or attack a Black family could nevertheless support institutions and officials that perpetuated racial inequality.[1]

For purposes of clarity, I use prejudice to mean a preconceived judgment about a group; bigotry to mean a stubborn and often hostile attachment to such judgments; and discrimination to mean unequal treatment. I use racism more broadly to describe the network of attitudes, practices, institutions, and distributions of power through which racial hierarchy is created or reproduced.

These categories overlap. Psychological definitions often describe racism as a form of racial prejudice, while also recognizing institutionalized racism in schools, health care, employment, law enforcement, and other systems. Sociologists tend to place greater emphasis on racism’s systemic character—on the way interconnected institutions produce unequal access to resources and unequal life chances.[2]

The point, therefore, is not that personal racism does not exist. It plainly does. The point is that personal bigotry is only one level at which racism operates.

The inadequacy of “I’m not a racist”

When someone says, “I’m not a racist,” the statement usually means something like this: I do not hate Black people. I do not use racial slurs. I would not deliberately mistreat someone because of race.

That may be entirely sincere. It is also an answer to the least demanding question.

The larger question is not merely whether I consciously hate anyone. It is whether the institutions I inhabit, support, benefit from, or leave unexamined continue to distribute wealth, security, education, health, opportunity, and punishment along racial lines.

A person can be free of conscious racial hostility and still participate in a racially unequal system. A loan officer may treat every applicant politely while applying standards shaped by decades of discriminatory lending. A real estate agent may never utter a racial slur while steering clients toward different neighborhoods. A school official may care about every child while administering district boundaries created by residential segregation. A physician may sincerely believe in equal treatment while relying on a medical algorithm that underestimates the needs of Black patients.

That is why innocence of intention cannot be the sole measure of racism. Intent matters, but systems also have histories, incentives, routines, and consequences.

Redlining: prejudice converted into geography

Redlining is one of the clearest examples of racism becoming structural.

During the 1930s, federal agencies and local real estate professionals classified neighborhoods according to their supposed mortgage risk. Neighborhoods containing Black residents, immigrants, or other groups regarded as undesirable were frequently given the lowest ratings. Redlining did not merely deny particular individuals a mortgage. It denied credit and investment to entire communities. The federal government’s own housing materials acknowledge that the 1938 Federal Housing Administration underwriting manual incorporated racially discriminatory policies.[3]

The consequences extended far beyond the original mortgage decision. Families denied affordable mortgages were less able to purchase homes, accumulate equity, borrow against that equity, finance education, start businesses, or pass property to their children. Neighborhoods denied investment experienced deteriorating housing, weaker commercial development and, in many cases, reduced public and private services.

Meanwhile, families admitted to federally supported suburban housing markets accumulated appreciating assets. Those assets could be inherited. Their neighborhoods acquired stronger tax bases, better-financed services, and reputations that attracted further investment.

No contemporary homeowner needs to have participated personally in redlining for its effects to influence the value of a home, the quality of a school district, the availability of credit, or the inheritance a family receives. The original prejudice has been converted into property, geography, and accumulated advantage.

The Federal Reserve reported that in 2022 the median wealth gap between White families and Black families exceeded $220,000. Redlining alone does not explain the entire gap, and it would be simplistic to pretend that it does. But it demonstrates how discriminatory policy can shape wealth for generations after the openly discriminatory rule has been repealed.[4]

Sundown towns: exclusion without Southern signs

Sundown towns provide another example. These were communities that excluded Black people—and sometimes other racial, ethnic, or religious groups—through ordinances, police enforcement, threats, restrictive covenants, intimidation, or widely understood local custom.

They were not exclusively Southern. The National Park Service notes that sundown towns were more common in the North and West than many Americans realize. For Black travelers, an ordinary road trip could become a calculation about where it was safe to buy gasoline, eat, sleep, or remain after dark. The Negro Motorist Green Book existed in part because the supposedly open American highway was not equally open to everyone.[5]

The disappearance of a threatening sign did not automatically undo the community the sign helped create. Decades of exclusion affected who owned property, who attended local schools, who developed business and political networks, and whose families benefited from rising land values. Later generations could inherit the resulting advantages without personally approving of the original exclusion.

Again, this is the difference between an event and a structure. The event may be over; the structure created by the event may remain.

The double standard in ordinary transactions

Systemic racism is not confined to dramatic episodes of history. It can appear in routine decisions that seem individual and unconnected until they are measured collectively.

Consider employment. In a widely cited field experiment, researchers sent employers fictitious résumés with equivalent qualifications but different names. Résumés bearing conventionally White-sounding names received approximately 50 percent more callbacks than those bearing conventionally African American-sounding names. The disparity appeared across industries and occupations, including among employers describing themselves as equal-opportunity employers.[6]

Consider housing. In a national paired-testing study, equally qualified White and minority homeseekers approached housing providers about advertised properties. Blatant refusals had declined, but minority applicants were still told about and shown fewer homes and apartments. A subsequent HUD review found that paired-audit studies consistently detected statistically significant discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups.[7]

Consider appraisals. A 2024 Federal Housing Finance Agency study found that, after controlling for numerous property and appraisal factors, appraisals below the contract price were at least 23 percent more likely in majority-Black neighborhoods than in otherwise similar neighborhoods with no Black residents. The researchers also found evidence that appraisers’ familiarity with a neighborhood could reduce the effect, suggesting that institutional information practices—not necessarily overt personal animosity alone—helped produce the disparity.[8]

The pattern is difficult to dismiss:

The same qualifications, but a different name.
The same financial readiness, but fewer homes offered.
A comparable transaction, but a different valuation risk.

No racial slur is required. No one involved has to announce a doctrine of racial superiority. Yet the burden repeatedly falls in the same direction.

Housing becomes education

Housing segregation does not remain a housing issue. It becomes an education issue because American public schools are organized largely by residential location and are financed in part through local property revenues.

The Government Accountability Office has noted that discriminatory history, residential wealth disparities, school district boundaries, and local property-tax financing remain intertwined. Poor, Black, and Hispanic students generally attend schools with fewer resources and worse outcomes. GAO also found that when communities separated from existing school districts to form new districts, the new districts tended to be substantially Whiter and wealthier than those left behind.[9]

A family may say, “We moved here for the schools,” without harboring conscious racial hostility. But that apparently private choice occurs within a housing and school system whose geography was not created innocently. The issue is not that every family making such a decision is personally bigoted. The issue is that millions of individually understandable choices can reinforce a structure created through exclusion, unequal investment, and inherited property advantage.

Discretion and the racial double standard

Racial inequality also appears where institutions give decision-makers broad discretion.

Researchers examining nearly 100 million traffic stops found that Black drivers were less likely to be stopped after sunset, when darkness made a driver’s race harder to perceive. They also found that police applied a lower evidentiary threshold when deciding to search Black and Hispanic drivers than when deciding to search White drivers.[10]

This does not prove that every police officer is consciously bigoted. Nor does every disparity, by itself, prove discrimination. But when similarly situated people encounter different thresholds of suspicion—and when the pattern persists across a vast number of decisions—the matter can no longer be reduced to a few identifiable “bad apples.” Training, discretionary standards, supervision, institutional incentives, deployment patterns, and accountability systems all become relevant.

The Justice Department’s investigation of Ferguson, Missouri, illustrated this institutional dimension. It found that the city’s emphasis on generating revenue had shaped police and municipal court practices, systematically violated constitutional rights, and both reflected and exacerbated racial bias. The problem was not simply what individual officers believed privately; it was what the institution rewarded and required publicly.[11]

Racism without an explicitly racial rule

Perhaps the clearest modern example comes from health care.

Researchers examined a widely used commercial algorithm intended to identify patients who needed additional medical attention. The algorithm used prior health-care spending as a proxy for illness. But because less money had historically been spent on Black patients with comparable medical needs, the algorithm interpreted lower spending as evidence that those patients were healthier. Black patients assigned the same risk score as White patients were actually sicker, and the bias reduced by more than half the number of Black patients identified for extra care.[12]

The algorithm did not need to express hatred. Its bias arose from treating an unequal historical outcome—medical spending—as though it were a neutral measure of medical need.

That is what “baked in” means. Yesterday’s inequality becomes today’s data. Today’s data become tomorrow’s decision. A system can reproduce racial inequality while presenting itself as objective, colorblind, and mathematical.

Not every disparity is proof—but every pattern deserves examination

A serious argument about systemic racism should not claim that every difference between racial groups is automatically caused by racism. Such a claim would be intellectually careless.

Evidence matters. We should compare similarly situated people, examine institutional history, identify the operative rules, test alternative explanations, measure outcomes, and look for mechanisms connecting policy to consequence.

But we must be equally careful not to impose an impossible burden of proof—one that recognizes racism only when a person explicitly confesses racial hatred. Systems do not possess private emotions. They reveal themselves through their design, incentives, practices, and patterned outcomes.

The relevant question is not simply, “Can we find a bigot?” It is also, “What does this institution repeatedly do, to whom, and why?”

From innocence to responsibility

Understanding systemic racism does not require believing that every White person is malicious, that all members of any racial group have identical experiences, or that class, gender, geography, and other forces do not matter. Nor is it a demand for inherited personal guilt.

It is a demand for responsibility.

Guilt asks, “Am I personally a bad person?”

Responsibility asks, “What have I inherited, what do I participate in, what consequences does it produce, and what am I prepared to change?”

“I’m not a racist” can become a form of evasion when it ends the conversation rather than beginning it. It allows a person to treat the absence of conscious hatred as evidence that no further examination is necessary. It turns racism into a question of personal manners and moral self-image while leaving housing, employment, education, policing, health care, and inherited wealth safely outside the frame.

A better response would be: I may not consciously wish to discriminate, but I live within institutions shaped by racial history. I have an obligation to understand how they operate, to listen to those who experience their burdens, to examine evidence rather than defend my innocence, and to support changes when apparently neutral systems produce unjust results.

The distinction I learned in 1973 remains essential. Bigotry is often loud, personal, and recognizable. Systemic racism can be quiet, respectable, procedural, and self-perpetuating. Bigotry may announce itself with an insult. Racism may arrive as a zoning ordinance, an appraisal, an algorithm, a school boundary, a résumé callback, or a discretionary search.

The opposite of bigotry is not expressing hatred. But the opposite of systemic racism requires more than private tolerance. It requires public justice.

Innocence is not the same as justice—and “I’m not a racist” is not the same as confronting racism.

[1] Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) and Charles V. Hamilton, “Black Power,” excerpted from Black Power: The Politics of Liberation (1967), Teaching American History.

[2] American Psychological Association, “Racism, Bias, and Discrimination.”

[3] Robert K. Nelson et al., “Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America,” Digital Scholarship Lab, University of Richmond.

[4] Aditya Aladangady, Andrew C. Chang, and Jacob Krimmel, “Greater Wealth, Greater Uncertainty: Changes in Racial Inequality in the Survey of Consumer Finances,” FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 18, 2023.

[5] National Park Service, “The Green Book: An Historic Context.”

[6] Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination,” NBER Working Paper 9873, July 2003.

[7] Margery Austin Turner et al., “Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, June 2013.

[8] Daniel Grodzicki, Sean Cannon, Christopher W. Davis, and Ken Lam, “Home Purchase Appraisals in Minority Neighborhoods,” Federal Housing Finance Agency Working Paper 24-06, November 4, 2024.

[9] U.S. Government Accountability Office, “K–12 Education: Student Population Has Significantly Diversified, but Many Schools Remain Divided Along Racial, Ethnic, and Economic Lines,” GAO-22-104737, June 16, 2022.

[10] Emma Pierson et al., “A Large-Scale Analysis of Racial Disparities in Police Stops Across the United States,” Nature Human Behaviour 4 (2020): 736–745.

[11] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department,” March 4, 2015; see also the DOJ’s United States v. City of Ferguson case page.

[12] Ziad Obermeyer et al., “Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations,” Center for Healthcare Marketplace Innovation, October 25, 2019; underlying study: “Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations,” Science 366, no. 6464 (2019): 447–453.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Business, Economics, Economics, Government & Civics, History, News & Politics, Philosophy, Politics

28 May 2026

Rethinking America’s Economic Design for True Democracy

By Rick Ladd

The United States does not merely suffer from bad policy. It suffers from a failed political-economic design.

For decades, Americans have been told that the economy rewards merit, innovation, risk, and hard work. That story has become increasingly difficult to defend. Workers produce the goods, deliver the services, build the platforms, staff the hospitals, move the freight, teach the children, care for the elderly, process the data, maintain the infrastructure, and generate the daily activity that becomes Gross Domestic Product. Yet the gains from that collective labor flow disproportionately to owners, executives, financiers, and founders whose legal claims on capital allow them to appropriate wealth far beyond any plausible measure of personal contribution.

This is not an accident. It is not the weather. It is not the invisible hand. It is design.

The American economy is structured by law. Corporations exist because law creates them. Limited liability exists because law grants it. Intellectual property exists because law protects it. Stock markets, mergers, executive compensation, bankruptcy priorities, taxation, labor rights, and campaign finance are all products of public decision. The economy is not separate from government; it is one of government’s largest creations.

That means we are entitled to redesign it.

The central defect in the current system is that it treats labor as an expense and capital as the sovereign. Workers are described as “human resources,” while shareholders are treated as the rightful claimants of the surplus. This reverses moral reality. Labor is not a cost to be minimized. Labor is one of the principal sources of value. A society that depends on workers for production but denies them meaningful power over the distribution and governance of that production is not a democracy in any serious economic sense.

The fortunes of men like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos are often described as the reward for brilliance. No doubt they are intelligent, ambitious, and consequential. But their wealth was made possible by far more than personal genius. It depended on public roads, public courts, public education, public research, public communications infrastructure, public subsidies, public enforcement of contracts, publicly created corporate privileges, and the labor of hundreds of thousands of people. Their wealth is therefore not purely private achievement. It is socially enabled accumulation.

The question is not whether successful people should be rewarded. The question is whether any democratic society should permit individuals to accumulate economic power so vast that they can shape labor markets, communications systems, elections, public policy, technological development, and even geopolitical outcomes without meaningful democratic accountability.

That is not capitalism as freedom. That is private government.

Reform is no longer enough. A higher minimum wage, better enforcement of labor law, a more progressive tax code, and stronger antitrust policy are all desirable. But they do not reach the root of the matter. They leave untouched the basic architecture: capital commands, labor obeys; owners govern, workers request; profits are privatized, while the social costs of instability, pollution, poverty, ill health, and community decline are pushed onto everyone else.

The United States needs an economic transformation grounded in the principle of economic democracy.

That transformation should begin with a simple proposition: those who create the wealth of the nation must have a real voice in how that wealth is governed and distributed. Workers should have representation on corporate boards. Large firms should be required to share profits with employees. Public investment should generate public equity, so that when taxpayers help create value, the public receives a return. Essential sectors should be governed by public-interest obligations, not merely shareholder return. Monopolies and dominant platforms should be broken up, regulated as public utilities, or converted into stakeholder-governed institutions. Employee ownership, cooperatives, and community wealth-building institutions should become central rather than marginal features of the economy.

We should also create a national social wealth fund: a democratically governed public investment vehicle that holds diversified assets on behalf of the people and pays social dividends or funds universal public goods. If capital ownership is the route through which wealth compounds, then the public must own capital too.

The goal is not to punish success. The goal is to end economic monarchy.

Nor should this argument be trapped in the stale language of “socialism versus capitalism.” That vocabulary is designed to stop thought, not encourage it. It drags every serious discussion of economic democracy back into Cold War reflexes, as though the only choices available to us are unregulated corporate domination or Soviet-style state control. That is a false and impoverished choice.

The better question is this: the economy is already planned. The real issue is who does the planning, for whose benefit, and under what form of accountability.

The existing economy is not “free” in any serious sense. It is governed every day by corporate charters, tax rules, courts, central banks, intellectual-property regimes, labor law, procurement policy, subsidies, bankruptcy rules, financial regulation, and campaign finance structures. These are not acts of nature. They are political choices. They are forms of planning. The tragedy is that they now plan primarily for capital accumulation, shareholder return, executive enrichment, and the preservation of concentrated private power.

A transformed economy would use those same governing tools for different ends: democratic legitimacy, shared prosperity, ecological responsibility, community stability, and the dignity of work. It would recognize that workers are not guests in the economy. They are its builders. It would recognize that public investment should produce public benefit. It would recognize that no republic can remain politically democratic while its economic life is organized around private concentrations of power that rival, capture, and often dominate the state itself.

A democratic republic cannot survive indefinitely with a feudal economy. Political democracy is hollow when economic life is governed by concentrated private power. The ballot gives citizens a voice in government once every few years; the workplace governs their lives every day. If democracy is good enough for the polling place, it is good enough for the economy.

The American question is no longer whether the existing system can be patched. It is whether we have the courage to admit that the system is working exactly as designed — and that the design itself is the problem. We do not need mere reform. We need transformation.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Economics, Economics, Government & Civics, History, News & Politics, Politics, Systems Thinking

18 July 2025

The Quiet Face of Tyranny: How Emil Bove Threatens the Rule of Law

By Rick Ladd

There are monsters among us. They don’t crawl from caves or erupt in public tantrums. No, the most dangerous among them walk calmly through courtrooms and government buildings, armed not with violence but with credentials and legalese. Emil Bove is one such figure—a reminder that authoritarianism often arrives not with a bang, but with a briefcase.

Bove, a former federal prosecutor and now a prominent defender of Donald Trump, argued before the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States that a president could order the assassination of a political rival and be immune from prosecution unless Congress had first impeached and convicted him. Let that sink in. According to Bove, unless Congress acts, a president could unleash the machinery of the state to eliminate his enemies, and the courts would be powerless to intervene.

It is hard to imagine a more grotesque betrayal of the American principle that no one is above the law. Yet Bove didn’t stop there.

In a separate legal context, Bove shockingly instructed that individuals could ignore a federal court order—specifically, a ruling that prohibited the government from rendering hundreds of asylum-seeking men to a prison camp in El Salvador. These were men fleeing violence and persecution, invoking the protections of due process guaranteed under U.S. and international law. But Bove’s message was clear: the courts can be disregarded when inconvenient.

This isn’t legal strategy. This is lawlessness dressed in Armani.

Imagine the consequences if this logic took hold. The courts—our last institutional line of defense against executive overreach—would become ornamental. Their rulings optional. The law itself would be subject to political whim and brute force. And the vulnerable, the voiceless, the targets of state-sanctioned abuse? They would have no recourse. No rights. No hope.

Bove’s contempt for the rule of law reveals the true danger: a legal elite willing to hollow out democracy from the inside, all while claiming to defend it. This is not merely a technical debate among lawyers. This is about whether the United States will remain a constitutional republic, or whether we will slip—quietly, insidiously—into autocracy under the guise of “executive immunity” and “national security.”

In any other era, a lawyer who advised ignoring a court order would be disciplined, sanctioned, maybe disbarred. But in the post-Trump era, such defiance is applauded in certain circles. Bove’s arguments aren’t fringe anymore—they are being mainstreamed in front of the highest court in the land. And the justices, disturbingly, entertained them with far less outrage than the moment demands.

History shows us where this road leads. In Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, Jim Crow America—the law was contorted to protect the powerful and persecute the powerless. It always begins with legal justifications for unconscionable acts. Always. Men like Emil Bove provide those justifications. They sanitize the machinery of repression. They make it sound reasonable, even principled.

And they count on us not to notice.

But we must notice. We must resist the temptation to normalize the radical, to accept the obscene as simply another legal argument. We must remember that beneath the surface of constitutional language, Bove is advocating for tyranny: a presidency unbound by law, and a government that ignores the judiciary when it suits its purposes.

There is a reason why we revere the principle of “Equal Justice Under Law.” It is the safeguard of civilization. Without it, we are left with power unchecked, and cruelty unchallenged.

To look at Bove is to see not a villain in the Hollywood sense, but something far more dangerous—a man who knows exactly how the system works and is willing to dismantle it piece by piece. Calmly. Methodically. Legally.

That is why we must be ever-vigilant.

Because when monsters wear suits, when they speak in measured tones and cite precedent as they strip away our liberties, the danger is greater—not lesser. They know how to mask authoritarianism as patriotism, cruelty as strength, and impunity as “executive authority.”

We cannot be passive. We must name the danger. Confront it. Reject it in the courts, in the media, in the halls of Congress, and in the court of public opinion. Emil Bove may be just one man, but he represents a movement of cold, calculated disregard for democratic norms.

It is up to us to remember: when a lawyer tells you the president can murder without consequence, or that you may ignore the courts, they are not defending the Constitution. They are laying dynamite at its foundation.

And if we don’t stop them, history will not be kind to those who looked away.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Government & Civics, History, Leadership, News & Politics, Politics, The Law

26 February 2025

The Legacy of DOGE

By Rick Ladd

Recently I’ve been studying Generative AI (ChatGPT, et al), and learning how to use it effectively. This is somewhat difficult as I’m not currently employed and haven’t been for about two and a half years. As a result, I have few specific tasks to work on and discover how to implement AI, either to automate or to speed up their completion. Regardless, I’ve subscribed to Quora’s Poe, which is a compilation of bots to which I now have 10,000 points to use every day for the next year. As well, I’ve secured inexpensive access to several other services which allow me to experiment with image creation, reasoning and writing, and general search capabilities.

Today, something I read caused me to wonder what, if any, historical significance there was to the term DOGE, which is performative Nazi Elon Musk’s name for his chainsaw approach to dismantling our government. It would be remiss of me not to point out I’ve believed for virtually the entirety of my adult life (that would be 56 years if you count from age 21) that the government of the United States is in dire need of an overhaul … the economy too! However, what is happening now is NOT what I would consider either an efficient or an effective method of achieving progress.

At any rate, I asked one of the bots to which I have access (Web-search, which costs 15 points per prompt) to explain the word/concept’s history to me. Here’s what I got. BTW – I cross-checked the response with ChatGPT and received very similar responses. The answers I received from the bot are in italics, below. The simple prompts I used are included prior to the answer I received and are in red.

PROMPT: “What does the word doge represent historically?

The word “doge” historically represents the title of an elected lord and head of state in several Italian city-states, most notably Venice and Genoa, during the medieval and Renaissance periods. Here are some key points about its historical significance:

  1. Etymology: The term “doge” is derived from the Venetian language, which in turn comes from the Latin word “dux,” meaning leader or duke. This reflects the role of the doge as a leader within the governance structure of these republics.
  2. Role and Governance: The doge was not a monarch but an elected official who governed alongside a complex system of councils. This system included the Great Council, the Council of Ten, and the Senate, which helped to balance power and prevent the abuse of authority. The doge typically ruled for life, although their power was often limited by these governing bodies.
  3. Historical Context: The first doge of Venice, Paoluccio Anafesto, was elected in 697 AD, and the position continued until the fall of the Venetian Republic in 1797 due to Napoleon’s conquests. This long duration highlights the stability and continuity of the doge’s role in Venetian governance.
  4. Cultural Impact: The doges played a crucial role in Venice’s development as a maritime power and cultural center. They were involved in significant events, such as the Fourth Crusade, and presided over periods of territorial expansion and artistic flourishing.
  5. Legacy: The doge’s palace, a symbol of Venetian power and artistry, remains a significant historical site. The title of doge has also transcended its original context, becoming part of modern internet culture through the “Doge” meme and the cryptocurrency Dogecoin, illustrating its lasting influence.

In summary, the word “doge” historically signifies a unique leadership role within the context of Venetian and Genoese governance, characterized by elected authority, cultural significance, and a legacy that continues to resonate today.

PROMPT: Elaborate on the legacy as it resonates today. Put special emphasis on any negative connotations given to the word or concept of doge.

The legacy of the word “doge” extends beyond its historical significance in Venice and Genoa, influencing modern culture and language. However, it also carries some negative connotations that have emerged over time. Here’s a closer look at both aspects:

Positive Legacy

  1. Symbol of Governance: The doge represents a unique form of governance characterized by elected leadership and a system of checks and balances. This model has influenced modern democratic systems, showcasing the importance of limiting power and ensuring representation.
  2. Cultural Heritage: The doges were instrumental in Venice’s rise as a cultural and economic powerhouse during the Renaissance. Their patronage of the arts led to significant contributions in architecture, painting, and literature, which continue to be celebrated today.
  3. Modern References: The term “doge” has found new life in contemporary culture, particularly through the “Doge” meme featuring a Shiba Inu dog, which became an internet sensation. This meme has also inspired the creation of Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency that gained popularity in the digital economy.

Negative Connotations

  1. Corruption and Elitism: Over time, the doge’s role became associated with corruption and elitism. As the Venetian Republic evolved, the political system became increasingly oligarchic, with power concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy families. This shift led to a perception of the doge as a figurehead for a corrupt elite rather than a true representative of the people.
  2. Decline of Power: The eventual decline of Venice as a major power, culminating in its annexation by Napoleon, has also tainted the legacy of the doge. The fall of the Venetian Republic is often viewed as a cautionary tale about the dangers of political stagnation and the failure to adapt to changing circumstances, which can be linked back to the governance style of the doges.
  3. Modern Misinterpretations: In contemporary discussions, particularly in political contexts, the term “doge” can evoke images of ineffective leadership or bureaucratic inefficiency. This is especially relevant in satirical or critical commentary on government figures who are perceived as out of touch or overly ceremonial, drawing parallels to the historical role of the doge as a largely symbolic leader.

Conclusion

While the legacy of the doge is rich with cultural and historical significance, it is also intertwined with themes of corruption, elitism, and political decline. These negative connotations serve as reminders of the complexities of leadership and governance, both in the past and present.

I don’t know about you, but the conclusion makes perfect sense to me given what Musk and his merry band of Incelites are doing to dismantle, especially, every department and service that’s designed to help out regular Americans, who are – IMO – victims of an economic system that exploits and steals from them at every turn.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Economics, Education, Government & Civics, History, News & Politics, Personal, Politics

28 April 2024

An Historical Note

By Rick Ladd

I can’t remember if I began writing and posting these diary entries on Facebook each day, or if I wrote it here on WordPress and just forgot about it. Regardless, I know I wrote these short updates of my bout with COVID-19 beginning at the very tail end of 2020. Actually, the results came in on my brother’s birthday. I was more than halfway through my 74th year on this planet and I was somewhat riddled with the dreaded comorbidities.

Since most everyone seems to have forgotten (or understandably repressed the memories of) just how difficult things were during the pandemic, I’m posting this now to memorialize my struggle with the disease.

12/24/20 at 14:37:
Out of an abundance of caution, I initiated an e-visit with Kaiser to determine if I’ve got COVID. I don’t have any of the worst symptoms, but I definitely have some of them. I’m scheduled for a test this coming Monday.

12/28/20 at 09:48:
Getting my COVID-19 test in the parking lot.

12/29/20 at 09:12:
Well … Now if someone asks if I personally know anyone who’s tested positive for COVID-19,I can answer “Yes.”

Me!

So … the illness I really didn’t want to test my immune system and my overall health on finally got me. Now I have to isolate for 10 days. I think I’ve already been through the worst over the weekend.I’m taking MucinexDM once every 12 hours, an occasional Aleve, and vitamin C. I can’t taste a damned thing and I wasn’t terribly hungry for the past four or five days; I’ve lost eight pounds in the last six days. I’m feeling good today. No fever this morning and SpO2 is staying around 95%. No congestion, hardly a cough. I know this thing can offer some surprises, so I’m monitoring myself carefully, but it looks like I won’t suffer as much as I thought I might, which is a pleasant surprise. Still, being cautious seems prudent.

12/29/20 at 20:08:
Have I mentioned I feel like shit. I have a mid-grade fever and I’m sweating under the blanket, but I get the chills if I get out. Typing this is difficult. Stomach is sour and SpO2 has dropped as low as 91%. I’m dizzy, weak, tire easily, and can’t take a deep breath without bronchial pain. Other than that, I’m feeling just peachy.

12/30/20 at 10:02:
Sitrep: As of this morning, I am feeling better. No fever, but that’s how yesterday started. SpO2 is 96. I think the low reading I got yesterday was an anomaly. I have never felt as though I was having trouble getting enough oxygen. Still taking MucinexDM every 12 hours, which seems to be working quite well as a cough suppressant and expectorant. Also taking vitamin C. Still hurts to take too deep a breath, but doesn’t cause spasmodic coughing. Kaiser and many, many people have sent me lots of instructions, many of which I will choose to ignore, because that’s the kind of asshole I am. Haven’t left the bedroom.

Bottom line. This sucks, but I don’t think it’s going to kill me. Then again, this virus has proven to be trecherous and I have waaay too many comorbidities to let my guard down. Stay safe y’all. At least try … that’s what I did.

12/31/20 at 17:31:
The battle continues. My normal temperature is 97.6. This morning it was 98.7. Since then it’s been as high as 102.5 and everywhere in-between. Currently, it’s 101.1. Linda went out and got me some vitamin D, Zinc, & NAC, all of which are said to be efficacious in combating this fucking virus. Happy God damned New Year, reprobates.

01/01/21 at 12:21:
Happy New Year everybody. Well, these last few days have been trying and difficult, to say the least. I can finally taste again; not completely but it’s getting there. I no longer have to pay as close attention to my breathing as I have for the last couple days, as my bronchial tubes are opening up and taking deep breaths is far easier than it’s been up till now.

I still have another five full days before I can even leave the bedroom really, at least without wearing a mask and worrying about what I touch. I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s daylight, not a train coming for me. I’m very grateful.

Temperature continues to be normal. Still dizzy and weak, but a bit more aware. Onward and upward.

 01/01/21 at 15:47
Man! This virus doesn’t give up. Temp is back to 102.3° F.

01/02/21 at 10:26
OK – Health update. I can’t recall the last time I had the flu, or anything for that matter, that caused me to have a fever, so I’m not sure if what’s been happening to me is the normal progression of dealing with a virus. As noted over the past few days, I wake up feeling reasonably well, with no fever, and by mid-afternoon I’m burning up.

Last night it got up to 102.5, the highest it’s been since last weekend. I feel as though my fever broke last night. I finally had to take my t-shirt off. It was soaking wet. I put another one on and it was pretty soaked by 9pm, so I took it off as well and, for the first time since this started, I was comfortable sleeping without a t-shirt, which is how I normally sleep.I had taken two Aleve, since my fever seemed to be climbing and within about an hour it was down to 98.3, which is still nearly a degree above my normal temperature of 97.6, but a good sign.

So . . . the signs are all good, but I’ve heard too many stories of people seeming to be on the mend then, boom, they’re in the hospital being intubated. No victory lap for me yet. Eight more days of quarantine. Hopefully, by next weekend I’ll be chomping at the bit to leave the bedroom. I haven’t really cared this past week.

ADDENDUM – I should add my breathing has improved considerably. I can take pretty deep breaths without pain or the need to cough and I have no congestion at all. I almost didn’t take a MucinexDM this morning, but decided not to tempt fate.

01/02/21 at 15:58
Yesterday at almost exactly the same time, my temperature was 102.3. Just now it was 99.1. I would call that an improvement. So there.

01/03/21 at 19:12:
FYI – No news is good news.

01/04/21 at 13:14:
Update: While I believe I’m pretty much out-of-the-woods wrt the possibility of being hospitalized, recovery is clearly going to take some time. I just took a shower for the first time in a week and I almost couldn’t finish. I had to stop and rest halfway thru drying myself. This virus really takes a lot out of you. I can only imagine how much more difficult it might be for people who are really overweight. I feel so much better being clean (I was too sick to care for a week) but I’m beat from the effort.

Be careful out there, folks. There’s a far-too-large contingent of obstinate assholes whose selfishness is making it harder to avoid becoming infected.

 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Health, History, News & Politics, Personal

8 August 2014

Breaking Away from HuffPo

By Rick Ladd

Recently, I wrote about my frustration with the Huffington Post’s online presence, due mostly to the length of time it takes for the page to load and the number of refreshes one experiences while numerous pieces are fit onto the page. What I find most frustrating is the constant resizing and repositioning of what I’m trying to read as it’s loading. I’m not one to click on a link, then walk away for a minute or two waiting for the page I’m being served to settle down comfortably in my browser. I start reading the moment there’s a word in front of my face. BTW – I currently use Google Chrome and I am not going to spend time testing Safari, Firefox, or Opera to see if there’s a difference, though if someone tells me there is a substantial difference I might check it out.

Apolo Ohno

Yep! Just Like my Politics.

HuffPo is no longer the force it was when I first joined it over eight and a half years ago. At least it isn’t for me. There are plenty of alternatives, many of which are simpler and also a bit closer to my politics. Meaning, they lean to the left like Apolo Ohno entering a turn.

Yesterday I received a comment from a reader (also a friend) who said he experienced the same thing and was wondering if I could point him to some possible replacement sites for learning from a similar outlook. I should mention I know this person does not share my politics, but I’m glad to hear he’s interested in seeing things from more than one angle. The hallmark of an open mind is the willingness to see things from perspectives different than one’s own. I respect that a great deal.

Now, I go to quite a few different sites, each of which would be considered Leftist, but which are also somewhat different in how they approach the news and their reporting and analysis of it. For instance, there is a distinct difference between a site that is run by liberal Christians and one run by secular leftists. They report the same stories, frequently in similar fashion, yet they each have a particular slant on how important they consider these stories and what they think is behind them and how they ought to be resolved. These show up in how their posts are written, where they’re placed, or when they are attended to. There are numerous other nuances that I think differentiate many of the sites I get my news from, but the bottom line is I still have to sift through what they’re telling me, as well as what others are saying. Then I have to hold it all up to the lens of my knowledge and experience over the years. Did someone say critical thinking?

So . . . here’s a list of some of the sites I would recommend, along with a little bit of my thinking as to why they matter:

  • Daily Kos – What I like about Daily Kos is that many, if not most, of the stories (which they call “Diaries”) are written by individuals who have an interest in the subject they’re writing about. Some of them are excellent journalists and some are merely passionate individuals who have something to say. Diaries run the gamut from well-researched investigative pieces to highly opinionated diatribes. The page loads quickly and is customizable to your tastes, including subjects and authors. You can also create a fairly detailed profile. It’s very participatory. I post there once in a while; usually by copying over one of my blog posts from Systems Savvy.
  • Mother Jones – In addition to politics, MJ covers environmental and cultural news, much like HuffPo. They also have lots of photo essays and blogs. Pages load up quickly, yet there’s lots of info to choose from, all of which is presented pretty clearly. I’m not a web designer, so I don’t know what the ultimate is when it comes to ease of access, etc., but MJ looks pretty good to my eyes.
  • The Raw Story – I’m not that familiar with this one, but I do read some of their stories when I’m pointed to them via a friend on Facebook. The site loads up quickly and offers snippets to lots of different stories. In addition to the front page, their menu (easily accessible at the top of the page) offers U.S. and World News, Science, Tech, and a few other special areas of interest.
  • Slate Magazine – Visually, Slate is considerably different than the three above, though I think they just changed and it looks like they’re trying to create a paid subscription issue with some special content. The home page is somewhat visually appealing, but looks a little confusing if you’re just wanting to find specific types of information. There is a menu, but it wasn’t apparent to me (it’s at the top right and the icon for it is three horizontal lines. What I like about Slate is many of its articles are in-depth. They take a bit of commitment to read through, but they’re generally quite well-written and literate.
  • Truthout – Interestingly, I’m not all that familiar with this one, yet their Senior Editor and Lead Columnist is a Facebook friend of mine. I read a lot of his stuff directly on Facebook, where it is easy to engage. Doing so on any of these sites isn’t anywhere as easy or as immediate, let alone satisfying. Truthout is a non-profit and you will see far fewer ads than on some of the other sites. They also have a section called “Progressive Picks” where they offer books for sale, a portion of the proceeds (tax-deductible) going to their organization. They also provide articles, excerpts, and interviews related to their weekly pick. Everything loads quickly and there’s little superfluous junk on the pages. Truthout also has a sort of auxiliary site called “Buzzflash”, which has loads of headlines (sortable by freshness) as well as commentary.
  • Liberal America – This WordPress-driven site is one I am somewhat familiar with, as I was accepted as an author for them. I ended up not writing anything because I was admonished that it wasn’t an opinion site, yet it was clear to me there’s a very opinionated slant to all their articles. I’m fine with that, but I found the position confusing and, since the pay was very minimal, I decided to concentrate my efforts elsewhere. Nevertheless, the site is reasonably clean, loads quickly (without all the garbage that makes HuffPo so damned infuriating nowadays) and, with the exception of a tendency to republish older material (at least on their Facebook page), is timely and pertinent. The publisher and at least several of the writers are left-wing Christians.

Now for a little confession. When I read the comment asking my opinion of sites similar to The Huffington Post, which was last night, I did a Google search on the term “news sites similar to huffington post”. It was a bit disconcerting to find most of the hits returned were about HuffPo itself. I probably could have changed my query to get a more targeted set of responses, but I was able to find one site on the second page of hits that was what I was looking for. It’s entitled “Huffingtonpost.com – 50 Similar Sites and Alternatives” and I used it to navigate to most of the sites I mention above. I could have gone to most of them independently, but I wanted to check out some of the others.

In the list of 50 similar sites, there were a few that are not similar; at least not for the purpose I was asked to consider, which was sites with a definitely liberal, progressive, left-wing slant. Obviously, there are quite a few sites to check out and I suggest anyone who is interested (including my friend who requested my opinion) use this site to check them out. You can even vote on whether or not you agree with their picks.

My analysis is not terribly extensive, but I hope it’s helpful. I would like to reiterate what I mentioned in most of what I wrote about these sites. None of them take longer than a few seconds to load and, therefore, in addition to being left-leaning in content and position, they are also superior for ease-of-use and lack of irritating, multiple refresh instances. As always, I welcome any feedback others may wish to provide.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in News & Politics, Technology

24 April 2013

Martial Law or Cocooning?

By Rick Ladd

A deserted Harvard Square

Twitter pic of Harvard Square

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” — John Philpot Curran

I came across an interesting blog post via my Facebook feed today. It’s a personal account of one man’s experiences and some of his thoughts during the Boston bombing and manhunt. The author, Phil Johnson, discusses a few interesting issues, the first of which is the contradictory feelings one has when simultaneously feeling relief you or your friends weren’t affecting by a tragic event, while knowing full-well others have been devastated. He concludes “You can’t really call that luck”, and I agree. It is the dialectic of life, the yin yang of our existence, karma. Poorly understood, I think it leads some to conclude life is a zero-sum game.

He goes on to explain his mental journey from envisioning the perpetrators (especially after seeing a picture of the younger brother, Dzhokhar) as “pure evil” to reading an innocuous tweet of his and thinking “What could be more human that that?” As one who generally believes people are complex and capable of both great good and despicable evil, I found this revelation interesting and somewhat instructive, but hardly new or particularly revealing.

There is one thing he writes about that got my attention, though. Keep in mind I’ve read a lot of personal accounts of the bombing and subsequent activities (you probably have too), so it’s not that I’m dismissive of the personal tragedies experienced. It’s just that this particular issue that kind of lept out at me is something many thoughtful people are discussing, though usually in a slightly different direction than I gleaned from this tidbit. Here’s his paragraph:

“Throughout the day I jumped between Twitter, Reddit, the Boston Globe, and local TV for news. Jeremiah, a PJA developer, wrote a blog post about how social media gave us all our own private situation rooms from which to monitor events, something totally absent during the events of 9/11, when we were still dependent on the mainstream media.”

There are, it seems to me, a whole bunch of important issues contained in this paragraph. One of them is the way our consumption and processing of news and information is being transformed by social media (further encouraged by the alternate realities of the incompetence and disingenuousness of the MSM). In case you didn’t click on the link in the quote of his I’ve provided, consider this other blog post written by a colleague who discusses the communication differences between 9/11 and the five days between April 15 and 19, which I think are truly profound.

However, what I find of greatest interest is sussing out the implications (if any) of the entire City “sheltering-in-place” during the manhunt. I’m not entirely certain how I feel about it. On the one hand, for the period of time everyone was confined to their homes a heavily militarized police force had complete control of the City streets. On the other hand, the people of Boston, Watertown, etc. seemed quite willing to forego a little bit of freedom to expedite the search for a perpetrator they wanted to be caught. So, is their willingness a product of a situation in which most everyone was on the same page regarding the desired outcome, or is it an indication our citizenry is slowly giving control of the streets to law enforcement? Furthermore, is this a good thing or is it something more sinister and less-than-benign?

Some may argue it’s “unpatriotic”, perhaps cynical, of me to question what seems to have been a salutary outcome. However, I’ve never been one to believe the end justifies the means. This is one reason due process of  law is so important in this country. It provides, theoretically, a means to ensure all are treated fairly. As well, it’s hard to be sanguine in the face of the possibility we are slowly giving way to the transformation of our nation into a police state. At the pace I’m envisioning, most would not notice and, once in place, would be difficult to convince it had happened. I don’t have a good answer to these questions. Neither do I wish to be paranoid. I do, however, want to explore the implications further. I would like to see others do the same.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Government & Civics