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.  

 

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.

Facebook

There has been a lot of angst recently about how Facebook uses data from user profiles. But pretty much every organization that uses advertising does essentially what Facebook does, i.e. collecting information about customers and using it to target advertising messages to them.  So how do we make sense out of current events in social media?

Yes, Everybody does it

It is a standard postulate of advertising and marketing that we respond most favorably when the messages we receive are relevant to our interests. So ALL advertising companies do research to find out where their preferred customers (and prospects) hang out in the media, and they advertise in those locations.

They also do various kinds of research to understand us better.  For example, the bar code scanning in our favorite supermarket.  Everything goes into a database, and if we pay by credit card for check, they know a lot about us, personally.  Have you ever noticed that the coupons that print out while we're checking out are usually for something we already buy (or a competitor)?

Data collection about customers is not new, by any means.

• For centuries, newspapers and later radio and TV created interesting content in order to get people to also see advertisements.
• Starting in the 1970s there was an explosion of specialty magazines, allowing advertisers to reach audiences they knew was already interested in the specialty products the advertiser sells. 
• The hundreds of cable channels now provide this same pre-selection of specialty interests for advertisers.
• When businesses started using the WEB, the same thing happened -- specialty websites sprang up allowing advertisers to find the audience interested in their particular specialty products.

Modern mobile technology has certainly taken this way of doing business to new heights, like knowing your exact location so they can text you discount coupons when you are near a certain store. But it is more of the same and NOT something unprecedented.


How does Facebook Advertising work?

When you make a post on a Facebook business page, some people see the post "organically" because they already follow the page, or they see a friend comment or like the post.

But as page administrator, you also have the opportunity to pay money to extend the post so more people see it.  You can select friends of your current followers, or use a variety of other criteria, such as geographic area, age, and gender.  Facebook also watches what members post, like, and share, so you can select people based on a variety of interests which Facebook has identified, resulting from your history of posting.

In doing this, Facebook does NOT actually share your data.  The advertiser provides the criteria, and Facebook does the match internally in its system, and "serves" the post (advertisement) to the people who match the criteria.


So how did Cambridge Analytica get the data?

According to this article, the researcher, Dr. Kogan, made an agreement with Facebook which allowed collection of data for research purposes, but forbade transferring the data to third parties.

At face value, this is reasonable.  Academic researchers collect personal data all the time, but ethical research does not allow the identities of the participants to be known by anyone outside the study. Institutions have mechanisms in place to ensure this, called "Human Subjects Institutional Review Boards."  I have served on HSIRB at my school and have written proposals seeking approval for my research plans.

In keeping with this, Facebook prohibits collected data from being sold or transferred “to any ad network, data broker or other advertising or monetization-related service.” Dr. Kogan apparently collected the data, then violated the agreement with Facebook and transferred the data anyway.


What was the real failure here?

One can certainly argue that Facebook needs a stronger way of enforcing it's terms of service policy than simply trusting people to comply.

One can argue that websites and apps on which we post personal data should not be allowed to use that data, but this has been happening for 20 years or more on almost every commercial online platform you visit.  It is the REASON they exist, i.e. to make money (not to "serve the public.")

One can argue that users need more warnings about "the information you are about to post may be used for advertising, and delivered back to you in individually-targeted messages."  Most people will still ignore the messages, as they do the terms of service and other warnings.

One can argue that the people in Congress who are charged with regulating this stuff have no clue about what they are trying to regulate (a fact made clear by the questions from members of Congress to Mark Zuckerberg).

I wish I could boil this all down to a single failure with corresponding solution, but the social media environment is too complex.

The vast majority of these web and app systems are for-profit undertakings, meaning that they either need to charge fees, or depend on advertising.  The tried and true business model is to attract an audience with interesting content, and then expose them to advertising, ideally focused to the interests of the audience because what is advertised aligns with the content.

But most consumers conceptualize these content sources as "services" and do not understand that they, themselves, are an audience being sold to advertisers.  This makes them gullible and prone to impulse when they encounter memes, quizzes, and other means of data collection.

There is no simply way to change this paradigm, but public education is part of it.  Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) is critical.  Stop and think what information you are entering into the app or website.

If you don't want the entire world to know something, don't put it on the Internet (including ANY communication transmitted via technology).

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.

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.

Who Posts Trump's Tweets?

When I first read the president's tweets about Charlottesville, my immediate reaction was that some of them didn't read the way he says things.  It turns out that some of them MAY have come from a staffer, not Trump himself.

During the campaign in 2016, we know pretty certainly that some @realDonaldTrump posts were made by the candidate himself, and some were made by staffers.  The language was different, but also some were posted from an Android device and some from Twitter for iPhone.  Trump was using the Android device during the campaign and staffers had the iPhone.

This is not unexpected. There are a LOT of politicians and celebrities who have staffers or publicists manage or contribute to their social media.  It is pretty much standard procedure, except that most politicians probably do the hands-on tweeting less than Trump has.

This article from March scrutinizes the Twitter dynamic of the Trump campaign/presidency. It turns out that some tweets are STILL probably written by somebody other than the president, personally. Again, not at all unreasonable for a politician.

The @TrumpOrNotBot bot analyzes the president's tweets and uses machine learning and natural language processing to estimate the likelihood Trump wrote a tweet himself.  It uses an algorithm that compares new tweets to the president’s massive Twitter record, and calculates the odds that Trump, personally, wrote the new tweet. Supposedly the algorithm is continually updated.

So what do I conclude from looking at the analysis?

I think it's really hard to accurately analyze the language, but the platforms the tweets come from are interesting.  This week, most tweets have still been sent from an iPhone, but some are from the "Media Studio" Android app.

The Media Suite Android posts are more likely to be announcements about events, videos of the president, government reports, etc.  Advocacy posts (and insults) are more likely to come from the iPhone app.

So what did @realDonaldTrump tweet?

iPhone:  We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one! 

iPhone: What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. #Charlottesville 

Android Media Studio: We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST. 

Android Media Studio: We will continue to follow developments in Charlottesville, and will provide whatever assistance is needed. We are ready, willing and able. 

iPhone:  Deepest condolences to the families & fellow officers of the VA State Police who died today. You're all among the best this nation produces. 

iPhone: Condolences to the family of the young woman killed today, and best regards to all of those injured, in Charlottesville, Virginia. So sad! 

iPhone: Our thoughts & prayers are with the families, friends & colleagues of #Virginia's @VSPPIO Lt Cullen & Tpr Bates #Charlottesville

I don't think it is likely that sometimes the president uses one phone and sometimes another, sometimes iOS and sometimes Android. It would not surprise me if more than one trusted person using an has access to post to the account. So I interpret the Android Media Studio posts as being the White House Communications office or other trusted party, and most, if not all, of the iPhone posts being directly from the hand of the president

In some ways, none of this matters, other than as a curiosity to observers. If something is released over the signature of the president, it IS functionally the president saying it, no matter who wrote it.  But given the unique Twitter dynamic the president has established, I find it to be intriguing to try to understand which tweets fall into which categories.

And particularly in light of the recent criticism of whether Trump should have called out white supremacists the way he calls out everybody else, I do wonder who really is posting what content to the president's accounts.

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.

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/)