Random thoughts #76
Venezuela
Are we at war with Venezuela? We just blew up another boat killing 6 people. That brings the total to 27 fatalities thus far. The president has claimed that the boats were running drugs and the people were members of Tren de Aragua. I am not aware of any evidence that substantiates this claim but hey, who needs evidence. Right? Regardless the Venezuelans can do little about it. The Navy has beefed up its presence in the area and only a fool would venture out in a speedboat to test the accuracy of naval weapons. At a press conference the president said that the strikes saved more than 100,000 lives. “Every boat that we knock out we save 25,000 American lives so every time you see a boat and you feel badly you say, ‘Wow, that’s rough;’ It is rough, but if you lose three people and save 25,000 people.” Well there he goes again. About 75,000 people died from drug overdoses in the US. So Trump’s airstrikes have saved twice the number of people that would have died had he done nothing. Well we know that the president has trouble with math.
I am not going to venture into the legality of it all but the strikes are illegal under maritime law. Picky. Picky. Trump doesn’t like Maduro so the law is irrelevant (to him). Moreover he has just authorized CIA interventions in Venezuela itself. He has also hinted in conducting land operations as well. What type of covert operations are we talking about here?
Also returning the 600,000 or so Venezuelans in this country back to their homeland is intentionally destabilizing. But what can Maduro do? He is moving some troops to the coast and says that the “U.S. is a rapacious Nazi-like state that wants to dig its claws into the country’s oil wealth but that the Venezuelan military, the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, are positioning to repel any invasion.” Sure. More fundamentally, I would hate to be a Venezuelan fisherman. Thus far we have at least eight warships and one submarine in the eastern Caribbean. We also have an assault read group with 2,500 marines as a rapid response force. So what happens next? Again is there legal authority to do any of this. Regardless, the congress won’t try to stop him – at least the republicans won’t even try.
Racial gerrymandering
I have written before about the Louisiana racial gerrymandering case currently being heard before the Supreme Court. Seems that the constitution allows gerrymandering so long as it isn’t racial – as defined in the Voters Rights Act. So we have weird looking congressional districts to reduce the number of representatives in a particular party and weird ones to assure a district that is majority minority. As I have said before, I wonder why white voters have not filed suit in California where they are grossly underrepresented. The Supreme Court is likely to rule racial gerrymandering unconstitutional. Some have bemoaned that this will strip blacks of representation and give the republicans at least 19 more seats in the House. Yet a majority of black congressmen represent districts that are not majority minority. So the concern is a bit overblown.
One way to get rid of gerrymandering is to go to a system of proportional representation. Other countries do this in various ways. But let’s keep the total number in the congress fixed a 435. Leave the same number in the states but instead of dividing each state into districts with winner take all, make the districts larger, say only three in Tennessee and allocate the seats by votes. So if the republicans get 60 percent of the votes in east Tennessee, the democrats would still get 40 percent of the seats. And this would be done by party and not by race because that assumes that the vast majority of any race only votes for one party. The same could be said of religion or any other distinguishing demographic factor.
DEI research
The administration is shutting down funding for research projects that study gender, race and other demographic factors. Diversity grants have been terminated where scientists engaged in biomedical research found their grants canceled. So a grant to study psychiatric disorders that are more prevalent among minorities loses funding. Grants for underprivileged first generation students from rural areas have been terminated, even if the recipients are white. An HHS spokesman said that the grants “no longer align” with agency priorities or the president’s executive orders “eliminating wasteful, ideologically driven DEI initiatives.” Recall that the president instructed the entire federal government to end programs that promoted diversity, referring to them as “shameful,” “immoral,” and an “immense public waste.” One researcher noted that she was researching specific genes that make some people more susceptible to diabetes, and who don’t respond well to existing treatments. She said “In my research, I use genetics to help find better drug targets so we can find medicines for people who don’t already have therapies that work.”
I am well aware that many of us think that a good deal of research funding is wasted. For example HHS canceled $350 million in projects for such things as studying “multilevel and multidimensional structural racism, “gender-affirming hormone therapy in mice” and “microaggressions.” One project was “Assessing intersectional multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations in the US.” The project included work to create an “intersectional, multilevel, and multidimensional Structural Racism Measure” in order to “eliminate health disparities and discrimination” for racial minorities. Some might think this is useless but recall my posting on kidney failure. It was found that the metric used to determine transplants consistently put blacks into a lower less critical category than warranted resulting in more adverse outcomes. The resulting research changed that metric to account for racial differences which has saved lives. That research would have not been funded by this administration.
But I am not smart enough to know whether much of diversity research is beneficial or a waste of time and money. Many life-saving therapies have come from projects that sounded totally inane. I am also left to wonder if my pioneering research in lending discrimination would have been funded. Studying the accept/reject decision on mortgages and their pricing might have been considered frivolous as many could find superficial justifications for denying mortgages to minorities. My work resulted in many changes in how we test for discrimination and resulting laws and regulations. Only goes to show you that you don’t have to be on the left to investigate whether there are differences in behavior by certain groups or by sex. Yet the NIH has even canceled projects studying autism because they involved diverse populations, with differences in race and gender. Pardon me, but this is naïve overkill and may be life altering. Just like there are gender differences, there are racial ones too. The administration needs to be smarter and not reject and defund projects simply because of the name. The bottom line is “Is it racist to address racism”?


