Crowd-sourcing Political Persuasion in Social Media

Update: Although this post was written a while back, people are still finding it and reading it. I have updated it here and there to reflect the post-Trump realities.

Right after the 2016 US election, we heard a lot about the "echo chamber" that saw a lot of people talking about issues in social media, but mostly to people of similar beliefs.

Why did neither side have much success persuading people of conflicting beliefs and what should we do differently for the futute?

Why I Voted Against Trump in 2020

Note: I wrote this in October 2020, well before the January 6, 2021 riot and so-called insurrection in the US Capitol building. Trump's role in that fiasco is not reflected in my analysis.
     -----
I have returned my completed absentee ballots for the 2020 elections and I did not vote to reelect the president.

Conservatives like to characterize opposition to the president as "they hate Trump."

The truth is that people who are committed to voting against reelection have generally made well-thought-through decisions based on solid moral and ethical frameworks.  In addition, they're tired of the chaos, bluster, and incompetence.

For the record, I am not a member of any political party and have not been for 40+ years. I, however, have a well-developed framework of what I expect from a politician in terms of critical thinking, ethics, and public policy. My years in journalism led me to decide what I think about politicians in complex terms, judging their ethics, their words, their actions, and their behavior holistically. 

So, according to my evaluation, here are the fundamental reasons I voted against Trump.

1. Policy - I disagree with virtually every major policy position of the Trump Administration.

• Rejection of evidence-based decisionmaking and well-established science in favor of wishful thinking or profit motive
• Woefully mismanaging the US coronavirus response 
• Out-of-control spending and skyrocketing deficit
• Diverting Congressionally-allocated money to unrelated pet projects
• Unprecedented interference with private businesses that goes way beyond OSHA, FTC and FDA norms
• Withdrawing from the world climate agreement and WHO for petty reasons
• Fostering fear and intimidation among legitimate refugees, a massive violation of Christian teaching
• Trying to scale back the social safety net, as if the poor were not worthy of receiving help
• Abandoning allies and tacitly supporting enemies of the US, in violation of all recommendations from the military and intelligence agencies
• Encroaching on national parks and other anti-environmental decisions, in most cases to boost profits of corporate campaign contributors
• Regressive attitudes about health care policy, as if the poor were not worthy of receiving health care
• Interfering with military justice processes 
• Pardoning friends who are convicted of serious crimes
• Politicization of federal agencies that are not supposed to be political, particularly the Justice Department
• The high-pressure rush to seat a new supreme court justice less than a month before the election, so that the justice can vote on cases he brings before the court
• Even going to the Moon and Mars, which I like, is being forced at such a break-neck pace that safety may be compromised 

2. Management practices - No management class teaches doing things anywhere near the way Trump does, much less the prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania where he has a bachelor's degree (but no evidence of the MBA he claims)

• Continued bungling of COVID-19 crisis communication
• Appointing key people who have no relevant experience, or who were lobbyists for the industry they are now supposed to regulate 
• Reliance on unqualified ACTING leadership in important positions to avoid the Congressional confirmation process; never nominating permanent replacements
• Failure to give clear policy directives to subordinate agencies so that they misunderstand or are not properly prepared for implementation (this started almost from day one with his travel ban)
• Undercutting coordinated policy he previously approved
• Firing people by public tweet
• Non-disclosure agreements for public employees
• Failure to comply with legitimate subpoenas (which even Nixon did)

3. Morality and Ethics - We cannot tell what ethics are in the president's heart, but we can evaluate his morality (judgment of right and wrong) based on his public behavior.

• Suppressing vital information that has led to over 200,000 COVID-19 deaths
• Constant threats, bullying, intimidation, name-calling, insults, and general lack of civility
• Amplifying debunked conspiracy theories
• Constant false claims and superlatives that fail fact-checking
• Frequent appeals to racism; encouraging hate against minority groups
• General lack of respect toward anybody outside his inner circle
• Using HLS (or other unidentified federal personnel) as a secret police force
• Vindictive reprisals against political opponents
• Profiting from his government position 
• Intentional Hatch Act violations 
• Anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies (compromise is the moral foundation of democracy, not strong-man tactics)
• Ordering violent assaults on peaceful protestors
• Misunderstanding or deliberately disregarding the law and Constitution
• Consuming focus on self-aggrandizement
• Highest criminal indictment rate of political appointees in a century
• His personal tax returns show huge ethical problems and national security vulnerabilities

4. Aptitude - Certainly, Trump came into office with no experience, but he hasn't gotten any better while in office.  The "give him a chance" argument didn't result in improvement.

• Lack of insightful leadership on critical issues like pandemic relief and climate change
• Little evidence of critical thinking and an apparent lack of ability to comprehend complex issues
• Mercurial, unstable temperament 
• Inability to stay on topic
• Inability to articulate his ideas and policies clearly when "live" on camera
• Inability to admit error
• Inability to be "presidential" i.e. injecting inappropriate partisanism in situations that should be nonpartisan
• Reliance on right-wing pundits for policy guidance
• Wasting hours each day on "rage tweeting"
• Almost daily conduct unbecoming a president

To be honest, I saw these things coming and did not vote for Trump the first time.  He has given me no reason to change my mind, and in fact, revalidates my original 2016 decision almost daily.

Policies, not people

All over the place right now we hear name-calling and ad hominem attacks (attacks on who the people are, as opposed to the policies they support). 

But arguments like that are a great way to alienate voters "in the middle" who have not yet made up their minds, because you are not just insulting the top-of-the-ticket candidates.  You are insulting the undecided voters, themselves.

When you say things like:

You are un-American for supporting _______,

If you support that candidate, unfriend me.

You are gullible if you believe those lies. 

If you do/don't wear a mask, you are stupid and maybe evil. 

 

Who raised you? 

Do you think you will shame people into changing their minds?  It's not likely to happen.

If I tell you that you are stupid, does that open you up to new avenues of understanding?  No, it makes you stubborn and it makes you close down and avoid different ways of seeing things.

Name-calling is satisfying because it allows you to express anger or fear, but it is not good persuasion. Attacking the candidates for their personality or background does nothing more than add further polarization in the minds of the people you are trying to persuade.

If you want to get people to change their minds, you need to engage with them and use evidence.  People (such as voters) will use every tactic they can to AVOID admitting that they were wrong.  Good persuasion opens the door to greater understanding, and greater understanding opens the door to changing ideas.  Insults and attacks close down pathways that might change ideas.

If you want to change the ideas of people you know, don't insult them (or the candidates they may be considering). Engage with them and introduce them to persuasive evidence.  Ask questions so you know what their actual perceptions and concerns are and focus your evidence toward these things. 

Of course, phrase your questions so as to challenge their assumptions and point in the direction you want to go.  More about that in another upcoming blog post.  

 

Is the news media liberal? Yes, but not the way you think.

We've heard accusations for years about the alleged bias of the "liberal news media." Professional journalists are trained to keep their own opinions out of their work, but in the broader (non-political) context of "liberal," having a liberal news media is good for everybody. 

Read to find out why.

Does The Wall really make sense?

As a college teacher, I avoid expressing political opinions in class.....but the new semester has not yet started yet, so, here are my comments on the proposed border wall, which is the consuming sticking point on the federal government shutdown.

1.  Big/long walls are not effective.  The full extent of the Berlin Wall required watch towers and guards, and people still got across.  The Great Wall of China (I've been there) is really a series of watch towers and an elevated road connecting them, not a barrier.  A good extension ladder would get people over The Great Wall pretty easily. 

2.  A border wall would require intensive guarding.  It would cost billions annually  for cameras, drones, aircraft, and ground patrols along nearly 2,000 miles of fence.  It would require hundreds of not thousands of guards.

3.  In spite of that, people WILL find a way over, under, around, or through the wall, when guards happen to NOT be looking. Humans are ingenious, particularly when their lives are in danger.  

4. The real cost of The Wall would be $30+ Billion, which that does not include the huge ongoing personal and programmatic costs mentioned in #2 above.  

5.  The wall would require condemnation of private property and destruction of wildlife sanctuaries.  In Texas, at least, one-third of the land needed for the border wall is owned by the federal government or Native American tribes. The rest is owned by states and private property owners, some of it owned before statehood. 

6.  The proposed wall would violate Christian teaching and whether or not you are Christian, it is hard to defend in terms of ethics and morality, particularly since the focus of stopping people is refugees seeking asylum because their lives are threatened back home.  

7. Drugs do not come in via refugees seeking asylum, but rather come hidden in luggage through legal checkpoints, or tunnels, drone flights, etc.  Any drug argument related to advocating for the wall is specious. 

8.  Illegal immigration has been down every year since 2007. I don't like the family separations and internment camps of the Trump administration, but what we have been doing for the last decade is working. 

9.  Most "illegal immigrants" have been in this country for more than a decade, such as overstaying their visas. A high percentage of them have children who are citizens by birthright.

10.  I am sorry, buy I do not trust the president to make wise decisions.  His constant logical fallacies, outright lies, and the way his actions reveal his morality have left me feeling that virtually everything he does lacks any semblance of critical thinking. So I am suspicious of his rationale. 

The conservative Cato Institute says, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration.”

For the president and the current GOP, the Wall is a symbol of fear that would cost a huge amount of money and would not be effective, because it is not based on evidence or a solid plan.

The better solution is comprehensive and realistic immigration reform, period.

Star Trek's Borg are reflected in today's society

I wrote this in 2018, but given the extraordinary growth of white nationalism in American society, it's worth considering again.

Star Trek's ultimate bad guys, the Borg, are a metaphor. As we see them from today’s perspective, they are placeholders for white nationalists and for invasions of our privacy by technology.

The Star Trek Enterprise episode Regeneration was on the other evening, and it made me think again about the Borg, their original role in Star Trek storytelling, and how they speak to us today.

From its beginnings in the 1960s, Star Trek has told stories of computers and technology overshadowing human freedoms.

• The Ultimate Computer made the captain and crew unnecessary
• Several aliens, like Trelane and Apollo, used hidden technology to amplify their god-like powers
• Landru and Vaal were computers that controlled entire planetary societies
• Androids imprisoned Harry Mudd
• Nomad and Vyger just wanted to kill everybody

These stories were clearly rooted in the concerns that were common in the 1960s that computers were turning us into numbers and taking away our individuality. It was a time when computer databases were first used to automate and track the interactions of people, and errors were often made due to lack of sophistication.

The Original Series plots served as metaphors for these societal concerns, generally showing the defeat of the computers/technology through the cleverness of the captain and crew, including confusing the computer with logic or illogic, getting it to calculate π to the last digit, etc.

These social anxieties about computers and technology have never completely gone away, and we see them resurgent today in the news about hacking and tracking and deceiving people via their social media and smartphones.

When The Next Generation producers were looking for a nemesis, they reportedly first considered a society of space-going insects, but settled on cyborgs, i.e. the Borg.

The Borg drones are humanoids that have extensive technology implants and replacements of body parts, but the technology suppresses their individuality. They are the ultimate of a peer-to-peer network, with no central control (the Borg Queen is simply a mouthpiece for the collective) and no individuality, hardly even individual consciousness.

But Borg is not just a cybernetic society.  It aggressively assimilates species after species, claiming to want to improve their quality of life, which requires taking away their individuality.  They are the ultimate of conformity to a black-and-white values system, with "you must comply" as their mantra.

The drive for conformity was powerful in 1950s America.  In the 1960s, the pendulum swung the other way, at least among young people, and "do your own thing" was the standard wisdom, along with great distrust of "the establishment", prompting the "don't trust anyone over 30" rule.

These twin youth culture rules had largely faded away by the time the Borg were introduced in The Next Generation.  Their original proponents were in or near their 40s, were settled down with children, and most had establishment jobs. But in Star Trek's positive multi-cultural view of a future embracing technology, it is not surprising that the great antihero (the Borg) misuses technology in a mono-cultural and deeply utilitarian society that has no respect for those who are different, including those who embrace individuality.

Based on Seven of Nine and other drones separated from the collective, Borg drones find great comfort in never being alone, in being immersed in the cacophony of the thoughts of billions of Borg.

I can't help note that many people today seem to be unable to stand being disconnected from their smartphone "friends" and are endlessly pressured to conform by forwarding memes, playing "games", and being guilt-tripped by statements like "only 1 in 147 people will share this, but do it to prove that you are my friend."

But the Borg are not just representative of today’s marketing in which loss of privacy and sharing of data leads to improved quality of life.  They are the powerful majority, suppressing the weaker minority.

The great underlying message of all Star Trek is multi-culturalism. The Borg are not just compelling bad guys. They are the antithesis of a multicultural society. In today’s terms, they are the White Nationalists, who are really interested only in power.

The dominant white culture, they believe, is polluted by the differentness (individuality) of the immigrants, just as the Borg cannot abide by individuality, forcing individuals to perfectly integrate into their cyborg society.  I wish we could simply order THEM to calculate π to the last digit.

Rick Berman (executive producer of four Star Trek series) said recently:

“If you believe in the values of Star Trek, you need to vote in November, and to get everyone you can to vote. Trek and apathy don’t fit.” 

I would go a step further and say that if you believe in the values of Star Trek, you have to take a stand against those who oppress minorities.

Don’t engage in violence, but vote, call out ethical and moral failures and don’t assume it is going to happen without getting yourself involved.

(Image from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Borg_dockingstation.jpg)

Facts vs. Truth

Screen capture from Meet the Press, NBC

Rudy Giulaini claiming that "truth isn't truth" is so strange, but WHY it's strange has been missed by the people reacting to his comments. 

It is a tenet of conservationism that there IS an absolute truth, outside of human experience and perception, that it is fixed, and relatively easy to understand. That is where literal reading of the Bible comes from. 

Conservatives, in the meantime, are skeptical about "new" knowledge, particularly when it contradicts the established narrative. This is where climate change denial comes from. I can easily understand a conservative saying that "facts are not the same thing as truth because facts are always suspect." 

The trouble for Giulaini is that this idea goes both ways. An administration that thrives on ignoring evidence, "alternative facts", and innuendo cannot be assumed to be telling the truth. But the way that Giulaini said "truth is not truth" smacks of propaganda and "if I say it enough times, they'll believe it IS the truth." And if the truth is not the truth, it leads to a mindset that lies are not lies. 

It seems to me that we see this "truth is what we persuade people it is" mindset all the time in the bogus and easily debunked claims that float thought the advocacy media. 

That is why we NEED professional, trained journalists, whose job it is to question claims, and fearlessly seek the actual truth, among the jumble of facts and opinions. The advocacy media can't do that for us, which is why we need the professional journalistic media.

Judging Ethics and Morality based on Behavior

All of the news about separating children from their parents keeps bringing me back to questions of ethics and morality, and the ACTIONS of the current administration, which many are judging to be immoral.

Behavior stems from ethical principles and moral judgments about right and wrong.  Thus we can evaluate a person's (or government's) ethics and morality by observing their behavior and actions.

I teach ethics in most of my media classes, so here are some definitions:  Ethics are general principles, morality is the ethical judgment of good and bad, and values are actions based on ethics and morality.

I don't like being partisan. I am registered without any party affiliation and I have said for years that I base my election choices on my perception of the ability of the candidate to perform critical thinking, as well as stance on specific issues of importance to me. Critical thinking, applied to ethical principles, is where morality and behaviors come from.

The morality of separating children from their parents is not defensible, particularly since they apparently have no plan for how to reunite the parents and children.  Adults who have been released still can't find out where their kids are.

The attempts at rationalization do not hold up and are often logical fallacies:

• "They broke the law."  Sorry, but many of them did not, because they stopped at the border and requested asylum. And even if they did, first-time violations are no more than misdemeanors. Separating children from parents in a way that they may not be able to find each other again is cruel and unusual punishment, particularly when it is done before conviction. Even felony convicts can have family visitation.
• "Obama (or somebody else) did it too."  Sorry, but alleged past infractions are irrelevant to current unethical behavior. Morality must stand on its own, not through "whatabout" logical fallacies about the past. 
• "The Democrats made me do it." Sorry, but the Trump administration's policy changed in April 2-18, through a directive from the Republican administration.  Nobody MADE them do anything. You have to take personal responsibility for your actions.
• "The Bible made me do it."  Sorry, but narrow out-of-context Bible verses, particularly verses that have been used to justify immoral actions in the past, cannot be a basis for ethical policy today. Holistic reading of the Bible makes clear that you do not mistreat foreigners or children.
• "We need the WALL, wah, wah, wah..." Sorry, but this is a policy question that is unrelated to tearing families apart. Republicans have not been motivated to pass funding for The Wall, so the Trump administration tried blackmail (although the GOP is trying). 

The list of rationalizations and logical fallacies goes on and on, but the point is that immoral behavior cannot be lessened by weasel words. Actions tell the tale about ethics and morality.  We judge a person's (or government's) ethics by ethical or unethical actions.

This is exactly why we need organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).   We need organizations that are willing to TEST the morality of the "groupthink" that can lead policymakers astray. The causes ACLU champions are often not popular, but the way to push back against immoral governmental behavior is to challenge it in the courts, and that's what ACLU does well.

By the way, I wonder if it has occurred to Trump supporters that if they LIKE the separation policy as a deterrent, they should be thanking Democrats, who they feel are responsible for the wording of the law.

So, if you, or politicians you support, make immoral decisions, and act accordingly, don't be surprised if YOUR ethics and morality are found to be lacking.

Trump: Masterful Control of the Narrative

More than ever before, political operatives struggle to influence what people talk about, and thus influence what they believe.  More than ever, it's done by making assertions that are, at face value, false.

Why do they do this and how does it work?

Many years ago, I watched an election campaign in which a member of Congress was seeking reelection.  His opponent had been active in local causes but was not well-known statewide.  The incumbent's campaign staff thoroughly researched the opponent for past public statements, such as letters to the editor.  For the last 45 days of the campaign, the incumbent blasted the challenger about every three days for some past public comment. The result was that the opponent was always defending himself, and never got to go on the offensive.  He lost the election in no small part because what people believed about him was defined by his opponent, not himself.

In all manner of public relations, practitioners want to maximize the positive and minimize the negative.  That's why negative news is often released after 3 pm on Fridays - because fewer people will see it Friday evening and Saturday, so any reaction will be smaller, and less intense.

Years ago, when Donald Trump became a celebrity, he learned that when he said outrageous things, they would be reported by journalists. He learned about the news cycle, in which his statements would be reported for a day or so, and then any reaction would be reported over another day or so. He learned to influence what the media talked about.

When he became a political candidate, reporters were guaranteed to report what he said in campaign rallies/interviews, particularly when it was something other than a standard stump speech.  It was the same pattern - inflammatory statements reported for a day or so, and reaction for another day or so, always repeating the original claim and thus validating it.

And on top of that, the more inflammatory the Trump statement, the more it, and reaction to it, would dominate the news for a couple of days, often marginalizing other stories having less controversial content.

Lesley Stahl's report that Trump has admitted attacking the news media so that negative stories about him won't be believed is just another way of using the news cycle to control the narrative.  It's not really a new tactic.  Vice President Spiro Agnew was famous for attacking the press (before pleading guilty to tax evasion, resigning from office, and serving felony probation).

Singling out of people and media employees for personal attacks uses the ad hominem logical fallacy, and while all of our teachers tell us that we should avoid logical fallacies, they can be highly effective in persuasion, because most people do not detect that the logic is flawed.

So here is the pattern:

1. A claim is made, with either no evidence or faulty evidence, but is reported by many media outlets because of who said it.
2. Other people react, repeating the original assertion, denying it or supporting the assertion, so the original claim is reinforced from many directions, creating doubt about the truth in the minds of the public.
3. When there has been enough talk, allies then say "we need a formal investigation into whether this is true."
4. The investigation repeats the claim endlessly, making it seem more and more plausible, or disappears into the background static of the news, and gets little attention when conclusions are finally released (if ever), because they are not as inflammatory as the original claim, thus leaving the original claim as the strongest thing most people remember. 

You can criticize this strategy of controlling the media.  You can make an excellent case that the use of falsehoods and exaggeration makes it unethical (along with a lot of other things in politics).

BUT...

It is a sly, crafty, and highly strategic way of manipulating the media and controlling the narrative, making sophisticated use of the fundamental ways in which journalists work, public psychology, and ways in which people consume news content.

What can we learn about the 2nd Amendment from 1st Amendment court rulings?

I am not a gun enthusiast, but I have taught Communication Law.  So every time I hear 2nd Amendment arguments, I think in terms of the 1st Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In the 1st amendment case law, "no law" clearly does NOT mean "NO law."

If it meant NO law, there would be no laws about slander or libel, no local ordinances requiring parade permits, and no laws about lots of other behaviors that come under the legal definition of "speech."

The courts have ruled that the "no law" 1st Amendment protections are very important, except in narrowly-defined circumstances in which there is a "clear and present danger" resulting from the speech or behavior (Schenck v. the United States).  The most common example is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no real fire," but the courts have also ruled that "speech" such as child pornography, inciting people to commit crimes, and slander/libel is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.

In each case, it is because the lawmakers have voted, and the courts confirmed, that such "speech" represents a "clear and present danger" of harm to others.

So how do we apply this same logic to the 2nd Amendment issue of gun ownership, and particularly of assault weapons?

First, the 2nd Amendment does not mention guns, but rather covers "arms" a collective term for weapons of all types.

Second, the 2nd Amendment does not use the phrase "shall make no law." It refers to the right of the people "keep and bear arms" and says that this right "shall not be infringed."  (Note that this is written in "passive voice" and it does not identify who might be doing the infringing.)

Still, the wording of the two amendments seems to have similar intent, so my original question about what we can learn about the 2nd Amendment from 1st Amendment case law remains valid.

The reality is that there are lots of national, state, and local laws and regulations limiting the ownership of a wide range of weapons. In Chicago, for example, it is illegal to carry concealed a knife with a blade longer than 2.5 inches. In New York, it is illegal to carry a dirk, dagger, or stiletto with the intent to use it as a weapon against another. You can't own your own nuclear weapon because of risk of radioactive contamination, not to mention the actual explosions (arguably a "clear and present danger").

These rules would appear to violate the absolute "shall not be infringed" requirement.  But when we look at the 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment together, it only makes sense that the same legal theories apply.

Thus, it only makes sense that arms CAN be regulated, based on the same criteria as the 1st Amendment protections:

1. Is the law well-constructed, i.e. specific enough, but also not so narrow that it doesn't make sense?
2. Is there a "clear and present danger" resulting from lack of regulation, making it in the best interests of society for the government to make an exception to the constitutional protection?

It is this "clear and present danger" test that is the focal point of the gun regulation issue.

We regulate child pornography because children may be harmed in the making of it, even though we cannot predict which children, where, are at risk. 

How does this logic translate to regulation of weapons which COULD be used in mass shooting, but there is no way to predict when and where these shootings may occur?  Is this enough of a "clear and present danger" that an exception to the right to "bear" certain categories of weapons is compelling?

Regardless of what you think about the subject, the final decisions will be made via court review of legislation, based on meticulous legal arguments derived from principles such as those above.

Whatever the legislation says, the courts will not affirm, overturn, or otherwise take action based on emotions.

Why go to the Moon?

Going back to the Moon will be great -- if it's a means to an end and not an end in itself.

The Trump administration announced an initiative today to partner with private industry to return Americans to the Moon, and continue on to Mars.

I like the idea...if it's done right. But it could easily be done wrong.

First a confession

The starry-eyed idealist in me believes that we MUST establish a population of humans off the Earth, because there are SO many things that could destroy the Earth, or at least destroy civilization. I have thought this since I was old enough to understand the ramifications of the Cold War, and my ideas have been strengthened by the credible threats of climate change, big rocks from space, and even things like the Yellowstone super-volcano, not to mention epidemics, political stupidity, and other threats.

For the human race to insure that it will survive for the very long term, we have to distribute ourselves, in a way that is sustainable, on many different worlds, and eventually many different star systems.

Now back to today

Based on my logic above, having a significant human presence on the Moon, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would be a good thing. 

Having a significant human presence on MARS, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would also be a good thing, and possibly easier to sustain, in the long run, than the Moon.

There are other worlds in our solar system with lots of water and the possibility of sustainable colonies, as well.

Why return to the Moon now?

The biggest reason to go to the Moon now is to begin developing the technology we need to do the rest of this stuff.

A lander that can set down on Mars would also likely be able to set down on the Moon, which would be a good way to test it. The deep space outpost around the Moon, previously announced, can be the precursor of the orbit-to-orbit "mother ship" that takes people and landers to Mars, and maybe farther out.  We need to develop these things, step by step.

But we also need to start thinking not just in terms of reusable space vehicles, but also vehicles that can do lots of stuff.  Like the space opera fiction of the 1950s, our next generation of craft needs to be flexible enough to go many different places and land on many different worlds.

That's expensive, isn't it?

Yes, but the reusability brings the cost down a lot.  Partnering with private industry brings the cost down a lot.  Stable goals that do not get changed every time there is a new president would make a BIG difference. 

And remember -- every dollar spent on space is spent ON EARTH.  All the R&D and construction contracts go to companies and institutions on Earth which employ people, and have payrolls.  It would require a big push for STEM education, which would benefit lots of other technology programs and companies, also.  Face it, without the Apollo Program, you probably wouldn't have smartphones.

Is there a down side?

There is some concern that the Trump administration is pushing NASA to the Moon and Mars as a way of deemphasizing Earth resources programs and climate research.  It may be, and those programs will need protection in Congress. 

But going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond is still a wise investment in the future of the human species.

Why you SHOULDN'T watch your favorite shows on-the-air (or cable)

If you REALLY want to help a TV show you love, don't watch on the networks (including cable). Watch a (legal) streaming feed or DVR.  Why?

TV series live and die by the ratings, but many people do not realize that weekly ratings that lead to cancellation or renewal are only collected from the top 50 markets (cities) in the country.

On top of that, only a random sample of homes with "people meters" actually get counted, and then are project statistically.

So, if you live in a big city, but do NOT have a people meter, you don't get counted.  If you live anywhere else you do not get counted...if you watch your show over-the-air or on cable, that is.

On the other hand, ratings today take into account how many people streamed or DVRed the show in the seven days after the network/cable broadcast.  When you stream or DVR the show you DO get counted.

(Of course, this means streamed legally, or DVRed with a system that can "phone home" to report your viewing.  Bootleg copyright infringed streams, downloads, and old-style home video recorders don't get counted.)

The reality is, there are some shows that get twice or more as many views via legal streaming/DVRing than they do in the network/cable feeds. This is particularly true when you look at certain desirable demographics, like 18-49-year-olds. A three-times increase is not unheard of.

Because these streaming/DVR viewers still get commercials, the networks make money from every commercial you see, and profitability and return on investment is what gets a series renewed, or canceled if the return is too low. 

So the "broadcast plus seven" ratings are influential, and streaming/DVRing allows you to contribute to the ratings of the shows you like.  Or, if you still like the context of gathering for the broadcast at a specific time, watch the live feed but make sure you also stream it again, at least once, before seven days are up.

(Of course, this does not address original series from Netflix, etc, that are never on the broadcast and cable channels.  They are not counted in any ratings, other than the company's internal tracking of hits, downloads, and streams, which they rarely reveal.)

So again, of you REALLY want to help your favorite shows, make sure you stream them at least once in the seven days following the original network/cable feed and add your ratings into the renewal calculations.

Tax cuts do not create new jobs

Federal tax reform is on the agenda for Congress again, and that means another round of the tried and true Republican goal of tax cuts for the rich (which never really works to help the economy).

The problem is that jobs are created when the current workforce of a company can't keep up with sales and operation of the business. Tax cuts are not what creates jobs.

Hiring employees you don't need is bad business. A smart manager wouldn't do this, because it increases expenses while not increasing profits.

Tax cuts mean more dividends or direct income for the investors, meaning more money for their lifestyles, and/or to invest in the stock of still more businesses.

If you really want to stimulate the economy, the way to do it is to increase middle and lower class consumer spending. Stimulating local spending percolates money up to the top of the economy as increased sales, in turn making more money for the rich AND requiring more jobs to fulfill demand. How do you do this?

• Increase minimum wage
• Reduce student loan debt
• Control against inflation
• Don't do stupid stuff that reduces consumer confidence
• There are plenty of other things, too.

(Let me note, by the way, that once a business HAS decided to expand, tax INCENTIVES are a great way to recruit new business to YOUR community, such as tax increment districts in which the company pays reduced taxes for a certain number of years, while their facility ramps up productivity. But that is different from "tax cuts for the rich.")

We have known for weeks that corporate tax cuts were on the conservative agenda for this winter, seeking more profits for owners and investors. It's certain rich people who push this through large campaign contributions and lobbying, like the Koch brothers, because it means more money in THEIR pockets.

Don't believe the rhetoric that if you are a conservative/Republican/patriot you MUST support tax cuts for the rich.  It doesn't stand up to critical thinking and doesn't benefit the economy much.

It's not really about statues and flags

Charlottesville, and all of the other hot buttons about white supremacy, is about the symbolism, not about statues and flags.

It is all about the symbolism, and this means that it is not a stark "one or the other" of whether we can or cannot have statues and flags commemorating the confederacy.

It is highly complex and nuanced, and it is all about injustice and discrimination, committed to preserve social and political power.

Flying the confederate flag over state capitol buildings (and other places) has a symbolism of glorifying and endorsing the confederate cause of continuing slavery, which was highly unjust. This is true, even when that glorification is not the intent.

Does that mean we forget what the flag looked like? Of course not. But we have to understand the complexities that go with the pro-slavery cause it represented.

We remember Robert E. Lee as an effective general. There are positive and negative things about him. In giving loyalty to the state of Virginia over his vows to the national government, he exhibited a form of patriotism, but also supported the unjust political and social regime that was grounded in slavery. Is it appropriate to honor him on public property, without recognition of this complexity, and things that were NOT honorable about him?

I know people in the South today who feel that states should have the right to nullify all federal laws and regulations they do not like. For them, the confederacy is an uncompleted project that they would be happy to get back to, not in terms of another war, and not to return slavery, but in terms of transforming the federal government to eliminate the ability to impose rules on states and local government.  Remember that the emancipation was an imposed rule that the local whites mostly did not like.

The current national debate is about a movement that strategically uses intimidation, fear, and also politics to repress people who are not like themselves. It is deeply motivated by fear of becoming a minority and having to abide by the majority rule of others, not like themselves. There is nothing admirable about this movement.

But the debate also resides in today's hyper-sophisticated techniques of persuasion and brand marketing. The "brand" is what our target audience thinks about our company, product, or cause, based on all of the messages they have received about us.

So what is the brand of white supremacy?  What do they promise followers? How do they "tell their story"?

Their promise is to preserve white privilege.  And they personalize it.  All of these other non-white groups are harming you and you will be better off without them, they tell followers.

To a huge majority of the people, this brand is unethical, unjust, and confederate flags and statues symbolize this injustice.  But the white supremacy brand appeals powerfully to a certain small minority, based on their backgrounds and world-views.  To them, the symbolism of removing flags and statues is the growing threat of losing their power and provilege.

Counter-protests may change laws and official policies, but they are not likely to change the minds of those who have bought in to the white supremacist cause. Removing statues and flags that commemorate and glorify the unjust confederate cause also will not change their minds, and in fact will like make these guys even madder.

So what do we do about the statues and flags?

I think that this mission of remembering the complexities and nuances of history, particularly the negative parts of our history, is the role for museums, not for public property displays that lack explanation and context. So, move these things to museums, or put companion interpretive displays in the parks, or maybe even companion statues that tell the other side of the story.

Do a better job of teaching the underlying pro-slavery social and economic dynamics of 19th century American slavery in our history classes.

Our society has long-neglected addressing the underlying white supremacy driving many political agendas.  Just like a politician works to define the "brand" of the opposing candidate, the overwhelming majority needs to continually define the negatives of the brand of white supremacy.

Hate

Causing or advocating injustice is hate.

Opposing injustice is not hate.

We need to be prefectly clear about this.

Strategic Distraction in Social Media

Given the power that social media has to influence society and social agendas, it's become a regular tactic to use social media ti divert attention away from the bad stuff.

Trump does it.  Lots of other organizations do it. But we are hardly aware of what is going on.

Two stories have prompted this post. The first is about a study that concludes that the Chineses government employs a tactic of diverting attention from bad news or dissent. They do this NOT by addressing the issue to counter arguments, but by inundating social media with other, positive content that leads the conversation away from the dissent. The study concludes that they do this with an "army" of 2 million people who flood the internet with positive news posts.

The article quoted one of the authors of the study as saying:

We had always thought that the purpose of propaganda was to argue against or undermine critics of the regime, or to simply persuade people that the critics were wrong. But what we found is that the Chinese government doesn’t bother with any of that.  Instead, the content of their propaganda is what we call “cheerleading” content. Basically, they flood the web with overwhelmingly positive content about China’s politics and culture and history. What it amounts to is a sprawling distraction campaign rather than an attempt to sell a set of policies or defend the policies of the regime.

The second story I read recently concludes that bots are a major factor in spreading "fake news" on Twitter. Automated accounts are particularly active in the early spreading of viral claims, and tend to target influential users, according to the authors.

I have addressed bots before and not all are bad, but in the political realm, they are doing more than just auto-liking posts.

So what can we learn from these two stories?

• There are organizations and governments that are actively manipulating the flow of information via social media and the Internet, for their own benefit.
• Often, their goal is distraction.

The Chinese government uses "good news" to overwhelm the "candle in the wind" of dissent.

Donald Trump uses insults to distract from the criminal investigations centered on his election campaign.

But whether he knows it or now, Trump also distracts from OTHER important things going on in the American government.  Because the insult of the day has to be reported and analyzed in the media (it doesn't but they haven't figured that out yet).....

Other important things never bubble up to the surface for broad discussion, like this story about a Commerce Department plan that could reduce the size of 11 marine sanctuaries and monuments.

If the opposition wants to retake Congress in 2020, and retake the White House in due course, they have to get MUCH more sophisticated about how they disseninate simple, straightforward Twitter-like talking points that will REALLY get the attention of undecided voters. Armies of people doing coordinated posting and bots are clearly fair game, but false information is not, in my opinion.

Temperatures rising! What we REALLY know about climate change.

Update: Since I wrote this, there have been more and more extreme climate events. The warming and melting of the arctic is having an increasingly powerful effect on weather farther south, from a hurricane that retained its strength and crossed overland from Louisiana to New York to freezing weather in Texas.

Here is another of my posts that explains in detail where these extreme events are coming from.

     ---

Original article:

The first half of 2017 was the second-hottest first six calendar months on record, behind only 2016.

This article notes that this is significant because this year there is no El Niño, which can temporarily raise global average temperatures.

That's after correcting for all the "figures don't lie but liars can figure" distractions out there, global warming is a fact and is a clear threat.

For those of you unclear about the details, here is a primer:

• Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.  The most simple, straightforward explanations are the best, and when proposed explanations are tested, there needs to be broad agreement that the observed facts ARE well explained.
  
• We know that the Earth is warming. Multiple independent sources of data tell us this. It may vary a bit from year to year, but the trend is upward. Within reasonable limits of error, these different independent sources agree.
  
• We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
  
• We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, is not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitudes have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified.
  
• We also know that in the prehistoric past, when the temperature was sometimes higher, the CO2 PPM was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not consistent with the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.
  
• So the question is "where is the CO2 coming from?"
  
• The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming is not consistent with the facts. If man-made CO2 is somehow not a contributing factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from? Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything. A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

To be fair, there have been attempts to suggest other causes for the climbing temperatures, but they are all over the map. There is no alternative explanation that has stood up to repeated independent testing, the way the human-produced CO2 explanation has.

So there it is. The ONLY consistent answer to the question of where the CO2 is coming from is human sources, primarily the energy industry burning fossil fuels.

It's inconvenient because solving the problem could reduce business profits for a while, but if we DON'T solve the problem, the global turmoil will also be bad for business.  Relatively modest changes now can reduce or prevent huge catastrophes in the future.

Guerrilla Tactics for Corporate Tax Cuts

From The Intercept

The billionaire Koch brothers have plans to plant questions and comments at August congressional recess town hall meetings to make it appear that there is a grassroots demand for lower corporate taxes.

That's according to a confidential plan obtained by The Intercept, reported in this story. (The Intercept is the site that released Edward Snowden's documents about NSA hacking.)

Such guerrilla tactics are not new in politics. Over the years, there have been plenty of examples of paid rally attendees and planted questions -- more times than you can count, all across the political spectrum.

Sometimes the politician (or staff) does it, to make the politician look good or get a foot in the door for a prepared answer. Sometimes it really is to persuade the politician. But sometimes the goal is to allow the politician to JUSTIFY voting the way certain lobbyists and campaign contributors want.

"Every place I went this August, people were encouraging me to support cutting corporate taxes."

See how this helps justify voting a certain way?

But it's also hard to NOT see this underground campaign in the context of "back home" political events earlier this spring, in which activists hammered away on progressive social causes -- so much so that some Republicans were scared away from holding public events at all.

Don't get me wrong -- most politicians are honest, hard working, and devoted to serving their constituents. But they can also become seduced by power.  If you want to serve your constituents, you need more and more power, such as better subcommittee and committee assignments. To get those, you need to be seen as supporting the party leadership. And that means voting for litmus test legislation, like repealing the Affordable Care Act.

If you're going to vote on a controversial bill like that, it helps to have a strong rationale for WHY you voted the way you do. And that's where the guerrilla questions and comments at public events come in. When "constituent" questions go the way the politician wants, it's great. When they go a different direction, the politician resorts to avoidance.

To counter this kind of tactic, advocates for the other side need to keep turning out in force and keep countering the guerrilla operatives.

What's this blog really about?

August is when school starts again for me, and the end of July seems like a reasonable time to reflect on the status and goals of my blog.

As it turns out, I have been making a lot of posts about politics recently, but that is not my MAIN intent with this blog.  My intent is to post as an observer -- of life and culture and things that interest me.

Passing Trumpcare is NOT how high school Government taught it should be

The political machinations in Washington over Trumpcare are WAY outside the scope of how things are "supposed to work."

When I was in High School Government class, we learned a straightforward process by which a bill becomes a law. The process made sense and was a logical flow of thoughtful, informed decision-making:

Th first house does the best it can to create good legislation. Then they send it to the second house, which either agrees or makes amendments members there think will improve the legislation.  The two houses work out their differences and send the compromise to the president.  Sometimes the bill is rejected along the way.

When it comes to Trumpcare, the House Republicans didn't care about the provisions they voted on, because they knew it would be changed in the Senate.  Now it appears that the Senate Republicans are going to try to ramrod something through, so that they can figure out their final plan in the conference committee.  No significant hearings or public input in either house. They are voting on things that nobody has been allowed to read.

That's not how it's supposed to work!

Obamacare was something this country has never done before.  There were hundreds of special interest groups with their fingers in the pie.  It is not at all surprising that there are things that need change, now that we are down the road a ways. When you try something completely new, nobody expects it to be perfect the first time.  Success is often incomplete until it has been tinkered with and fine tuned several times.

I am open to changes that make sense to improve health care for vulnerable populations.  The best way to do that is to have everybody as "part of the pool."

I am not open to the mindset that says people are poor because they are lazy and do not deserve the support of society, which is what we are seeing among many Republicans right now.

(Image above from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/190066046749776126/)