You Say Post-truth, I Say Truthiness

The year of post-truth, but I have to say that I agree with Stephen Colbert when he says he's says "'Post-Truth' Is Just A Rip-Off Of 'Truthiness'".

Almost everything that we encounter online is being presented to us by for-profit algorithms, and by us, post by post, tweet by tweet.

Ugh. I was just beginning to like twitter...

Glenn Beck?

I mean, what the hell is going on in this world?

He is "sorry about all that". What? I guess I want to trust that this is a person who has done serious damage to civil discourse is now actually recognising his mistake.

But then this interview last week with Scott Simon -- and the whole emphasis on Benghazi being a "game-changing moment" for people on the right -- seems silly. He suggests this made conservatives just as shocked after the 2012 election as liberals feel shocked today.

But why was it a game-changer? Perhaps because of the way media used it to sledge hammer away at credibility of the administration and Clinton. One can argue for years, literally, about this, but The Economist summed it up pretty well and as far as I know, that newspaper isn't a tool of any particular party. It highlights that there were mistakes, but nothing to validate the use of the tragedy as a political sledge hammer, Fox News. This gets at why I still don't believe Beck. If he can compare the post-election shocks without addressing Trump's on-going abuse of the findings around Benghazi, he still doesn't really understand my main problem with Trump (and Beck's previous life on Fox). From The Economist article:

Undaunted [by the final report findings], on June 23rd Mr Trump told NBC that Mr Stevens “was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed.” His interviewer, Lester Holt, pushed back, noting that there is no evidence that she was sleeping. “Excuse me, wait, it went on for a long period of time and she was asleep at the wheel, whether she was sleeping or not, who knows if she was sleeping,” Mr Trump replied. Mr Holt looked unimpressed. But Mr Trump does not care what media fact-checkers think. He has anger to stoke, and for that, crying “Benghazi” will continue to do very well.

That's the problem. Facts don't matter and Beck doesn't seem to take full responsibility for his role in that slide into a fact-free world.

That said, his voice in the NYT piece is one I tend to agree with these days, which is something I never thought I'd say.

Equal Opportunity Versus Equal Outcome?

We really need to get more disciplined with name-calling.

@09:56 in this thoughtful podcast -- What Kind of Conservative is Trump? -- there is a discussion about whether Republicans care about inequality, linked to David Remnick's essential reading from his interview with Obama in the New Yorker. The response by Matt Lewis paints a common and incorrect version two concepts. In the "menu of values", he describes a choice between equal opportunity (I assume he means his ideology) or equal outcome (I assume he means the other ideology).

I associate equal outcome with Soviet-style socialism, not the more common concept of an equal playing field.

This is relevant given a huge hang up in this election over Bernie Sanders being a "socialist" and the lingering association with Obama as something similar, as though the only concept of that word is a striving for equal outcome. I don't know any politicians who support the idea of equal outcome. No, Mr. Lewis (@11:52) I don't think a discussion of "fairness" would cause liberals to say that fairness "means everybody gets the same amount".

Yes, that's a small example, but one that really gets under my skin. And this is a New Yorker podcast! Let me not even mention what I hear come out of the mouths of other media outlets.

Here's another example from This American Life, an episode called Red State, Blue State that explored why it was so hard for opposing sides to talk to one another in the 2012 election between Obama and Romney. It feels quaint to hear it today.

The journalist, Lisa, is asking Ron about why he has a falling out with his friend, Frank, when he found out that Frank was voting for Obama.

Lisa Pollak: Frank recalls you calling him a Socialist. 

Ron Sexton: Absolutely. And I did, and I still believe it. When Frank takes umbrage at the fact that I called him a Socialist, what he doesn't understand or doesn't accept is that he is in love with a Socialist. This man that's in the White House is the most brilliant president we've ever had for Frank Mills and others like some of his friends. And Lisa, it offends me to hear that while we're going down the tubes. 

Lisa Pollak: He says his feelings were hurt. Why not just agree to disagree and put those differences aside? Why is that hard?

Ron Sexton: I would lay it on this-- the stakes are too high to consider it simply as agree to disagree. I don't agree to disagree. Frank needs to change his opinion because his view on the conduct of this society will kill it.

We have to tone it down.

Learning About Steve Bannon

I am not going to comment, but I encourage everyone to learn about Steve Bannon. Don't just read an article and don't just pick up the sound bites. Listen to and read longer pieces.

Here is the profile of Bannon from Bloomberg Politics in October.

Here is an interview with that author on Fresh Air.

For some post-election consideration, listen to the NPR weekly political podcast. Commentary with David Folkenflik on Bannon starts at 18:45.

From Russia, With Love And Conspiracy

Masha Gessen is reminding me why I was so interested in the Cold War in the first place. Two worlds believing different realities. Much to explore in her writings. For the moment, I want to capture a comment she made in this piece on The New Politics of Conspiracy.

Perhaps more than any previous election in history, this year’s contest has been dominated by charges of lying and mistruths on both sides, from the primaries to the general election. Our allegiance to a fact-based reality has been constantly challenged. But conspiracy theories work on a different level than mere lies. They lodge themselves in the mind by showing that something could be true without proving that it is true. They are therefore impossible to disprove: they cannot be fact-checked because their central tenets are conjectures rather than facts. Debates spawned by conspiracy theories become fruitless arguments about beliefs, and merely by having them, we gradually elevate these theories from assertion to assumption.

While he doesn't use the word "conspiracy", this piece, The Right Way to Resist Trump, by US-based Italian economist, Luigi Zingales, also makes very good sense to me. I wish he'd written this three months ago.

The focus on conspiracy, as Gessen argued, demands a fight with added conspiracy. I think this is where he'd like to keep our attention. Treating Trump and his allies like normal people and holding them to account for their unacceptable views are where we need to put our energies.

Resuscitating My Values

I think Tuesday was one of the worst days of my adult life. I assume many consider that a silly exaggeration. All I can say is that the negative wave of emotion overwhelmed me in a way that I never expected. Justified or not, it was anxiety about the future and the world that my children will inhabit.

I've been thinking a lot about how much the world would have been different had it never come to pass, but it's here and somehow, we have to keep going. All the values linked to the top 11 reasons I didn't vote for him are now in question. The question I have to ask myself is how I work to maintain my values when it seems the US electorate doesn't have the same priorities.

I want to re-start by going back to the quote I used to start this blog. It seems even more appropriate today than ever.

The main reason for the terrible cruelty between men today, apart from the absence of religion, is still the refined complexity of life which shields people from the consequences of their action. However cruel Attila, Genghis Khan and their followers may have been, the act of killing people personally, face to face, must have been unpleasant to them, and the consequences of the murder still more unpleasant: the wailing relatives and the presence of the corpses. And thus their cruelty was restrained. Nowadays we kill people through such a complex process of communication, and the consequences of our cruelty are so carefully removed and concealed from us, that there is no restraint on the bestiality of the action. The cruelty of some people towards others will continue to increase until it has reached unprecedented dimensions.

Now, let's get serious about the US President being advised by www.breitbart.com. 

Gwen Ifill

The passing of Gwen Ifill is blow and unexpected at a time when I think journalism is under attack. Her words on journalism in this 2014 commencement speech are worthy of reflection amid the current chaos.

"A flat spot on her head from trying to break down walls... "

She will be a very missed voice of calm in my life. Here is a beautiful tribute from her colleagues at PBS. I hope we can use her example and dedication to hearing others as a reminder in the days and months ahead.

Thneedville Lives!

Look! Shell remade Thneedville from The Lorax. They call it Best Day of My Life .

(PS -- They made a sequel called On Top of the World. 5 artists. 5 energy ideas.)

Post-Truth Anxiety

I still clearly remember that civics lesson where we debated the idea of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and how that was linked to other aspects of free speech. I've been thinking about that a lot recently.

No matter what we vote in the US election, or in any other country for that matter, I hope people can agree with This American Life (essential listening here) and The Economist in their framing of "post-truth" as a factor in global politics. As Ira Glass explained in relation to some of Trump's lies:

[Trump's] lies are perplexing in their nakedness. Like, he knows lots of us know these are lies, but we're in some kind of new kind of universe where that is normal and that is OK and we will just accept that.

I won't accept that and hope everyone considers the weight of what comes next after Tuesday's election. The lack of trust in each other and in the media is the issue of this election. It is also what I blame for the fundamental lack of any discussion on policy or issues. Saying this election is about immigration (a wall versus open borders?) or the second amendment ("she's going to take away your second amendment rights", as if that has anything to do with reasonable gun regulation) or any other dumbed down issue from the debates -- it's silly. Nobody actually discusses data, they discuss feelings and instincts. That's alarming for anyone who cares about rationale debate.

It's pretty clear I blame one side more than the other for this, but both sides share guilt. And this fire will burn the whole house down. This was also in my mind when I thanked journalists a few days ago, so I was somewhat heartened to see this story come up yesterday on Fox's Bret Baier for his use of inflammatory language related to the "inditement" of Clinton. Maybe there is a sobering among the more activist news reporting? But then I looked more closely and watched his actual efforts to "clarify" what he said. In that clip you realise how far we have to go. His word soup epitomises what's wrong -- how on earth can any normal person weed through his "clarification" to see his point? He used irresponsible language that was false and unjustified. And his apology does nothing to douse the flames, only to admit he shouldn't have yelled "Fire!"...yet, but he's going to sit there waiting to yell it again any second. And so should everyone who watches him.

"America’s Best Hope"

The Economist votes (hypothetically).

I just thought this cover was a lot better and more fitting than today's.

Thank you, Journalists!

Let's pause for a moment.

I want to thank all responsible and hard-working journalists, especially those who have felt so attacked in this last year. You are not "disgusting people"! I know the majority of journalists work hard to understand complex problems and relay that information to people. It is a public service, a check and balance in our political systems and a profession that needs to be vigorously defended.

I do not like all the news you have reported, but I never want a journalist to tell me what I want to hear. I want you to stretch my brain and make me think. I want you to increase my empathy by showing me an angle that I wouldn't see otherwise.

The point of journalism is not meant to provide people with "truth", but rather to tell as story. We, the news consumers, make your job impossible when we think you have to be "objective" above all else. What I expect of you is to be as transparent as you can be and to listen for other ideas that you consider relevant to that story. Then it is my job to take what you give me ask myself questions or to look of other reporting on the same story.

Finally, a request to those who have felt attacked. Do not let this profession become a political weapon. We need your questions and we need your integrity, even with many question yours. Good journalism is like oxygen to the brain and we need a lot more of it.

Thank you for your work!

Another Sobering Reason To Vote For Clinton

As ever, I loved This American Life and the great reporting of Zoe Chace -- yes, you know their politics, but I can't think of anything on conservative media that is nearly as inquisitive and informative.

I've been thinking this for a year, but I couldn't say in any better than Rob Long, guest on the Ricochet podcast feature on this TAL episode when he tried to explain his reluctance to back Trump:

To me, it's more like, at any point, Trump could have chosen to be a big person. He could have chosen. He could have just sat there in Trump Tower and said, you know, I'm going to have a speech about how great Martin Luther King was, and how great America is, and how we all need to come together. I'm going to give a big-- someone write me a big speech. I don't know the words. You give me the words, but I want a big, big, big speech.

He could have done that. It would have cost him zero. He just chose each time the small route. And I just find that offensive. I just am offended by that. I think it's a great, great, great gift to run for president. It's a great gift to be an American. And for him to do that and to treat it that way, callously, that's wrong.

Chace's entire story on Minnesota in the TAL episode if really fascinating, but most noteworthy is her highlighting of the source of Trump's information from that insidious speech where he declared that he wanted a ban on a group because of their religion. Go check out the Center for Security Policy and ACT for America. You hear a name like Center for Security Policy we all assume it's just another think tank. Here is another opinion on Trump's source for making the American public think that 25% of the Muslim population agrees that violence against Americans is justified and 51% should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah laws.