Are We More Racist?

Meaningful discussion is hard to come by these days. We are invalidated before we open our mouths.

In a quest for more thoughtful tools, I've thought back to the Revisionist History podcast called The Lady Vanishes, which was broadcast long before the election. This is more about the concept of moral licensing in the context of women artists and leaders, but it is more relevant to me in thinking about Obama, race and what I consider jaw-dropping xenophobia coming out of the new President.

This blog post gives more resources on the topic: Masculinity, Inequality, And The 2016 Presidential Election.

Concise summary of moral licensing from the blog post:

...when people are presented with the opportunity to demonstrate that they are good, moral people, they are more apt to follow that opportunity by expressing support for inequalities that they might otherwise not be willing to admit to. That is, given the opportunity to demonstrate that we are “good” people, we’re more likely to engage in “bad” behavior. Social psychological research discovered that, for instance, we’re more likely to support racially prejudiced views after having been primed with an opportunity to say that we’d be willing to vote for a Black presidential candidate. When we demonstrate “good” moral qualities publicly, we feel more justified in supporting systems of inequality in public ways, too.

I think about this every time I read something on race these days.

What A Day!!!

No To Rex Tillerson, CEO ExxonMobil

Let's use this topic as a lesson of the media talking past each other. That's a nice way of me saying a lesson in conservative media (WSJ) talk past very legitimate concerns of the liberal media (NYT).

No, Suzanne Maloney, writing-in-the-WSJ, this isn't about the "chattering classes" being aghast at a just any old CEO being nominated for Secretary of State. The NYT made this point fairly emphatically (editorial link above), as do I. It is about that CEO having worked his entire professional career for one company with, allegedly, a long history of strategically working to combat science and, as if that were not enough, that CEO also having conflicts-of-interest with the head of state of a nation currently accused by the CIA of intentionally trying to destabilise the faith in the US electoral process. Your column inches given to the boy scouts is ghastly amid these extremely serious concerns.

Now, of course I can't fully prove that statement about ExxonMobil having a long history of combatting science, but it seems pretty clear, as I have been learning from Doubt is Their Product, that ExxonMobil has been one of the key examples of companies strategically working to create doubt about the negative externalities of their business model.

From Chapter 18, "The Bush Administration's Political Science":

There are thousands of scientists on our side of the debate and a mere handful on the other, but uncertainty can reign in the mass media and the public mind if that handful has a large enough megaphone--and they do because they are underwritten by ExxonMobil, by all analyses the hands-down largest funder of the warming deniers. According to the authors of the internal ExxonMobil memo titled "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan", "[v]ictory will be achieved when...average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the conventional wisdom." 

Let's be fair. Can we link Tillman to this memo? No. Is he responsible for the whole company? No. Does having worked in Russia disqualify him? No. Does working with oil and gas disqualify him? Of course not.

But...and this is a huge, "but"...why on earth at this time and in this context would Donald Trump select such a person from such a company and with such a working relationship in Russia? Why, after promising to "drain the swamp", would he think that appointing the CEO of a company ranked No. 8 in lobbyists (2014) is a good idea?

I am against Rex Tillerson because his appointment raises doubt about the institutions of the United States in such a way that is extreme. Diversity matters of experience matters! Rex Tillerson does not have a diverse work history and even if he is the best diplomat on the planet, his CV and conflicts of interest radically undermine the very idea that we have checks and balances in our political system.

Without time to read Steve Coll's "Private Empire", you can listen to this 2012 interview on Fresh Air.

"Make America Safe Again", says President-elect Troll

"I almost unleashed my beautiful Twitter account against you, and I still may", said Donald Trump, according to Megan Kelly, when threatening her after she aired a story with Daily Beast reporter who defended articled about Trump's divorce, in which his first wife accuses Trump of rape in sworn testimony, later disavowed. Kelly also makes this clear.

I want to focus on the alleged threat by Trump. This is our future President. And I have been hearing very disturbing stories about this trend in which people (sometimes Trump) point to someone on twitter and all hell breaks out in their lives. Not all of these are linked to Trump, but if you haven't heard, get a taste...

David French, National Review.

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic.

Erick Erickson, founder of RedState.

And now this, yesterday, aimed at a Union leader, Chuck Jones, who was critical of Trump's recent deal with the Carrier company in Indian. Trump then tweeted and the man's phone started ringing.

Such a "beautiful Twitter account"!

Did Trump attack all these people? No.

But Kelly's accusation basically identifies the behaviour directly (i.e., he knows exactly what he's doing!) and yesterday's tweeting confirms that the President-elect is acting like a troll, or at least using his tweets to direct trolls in very, very disturbing ways.

This must stop! And by must stop, I have no naive expectations that it means trolling will stop. I mean the fucking President-elect must stop and condemn this and work to "Make America Safe Again", which means being able to criticise people without the fear of death and rape threats flooding a person's life and making them fear for the safety of their family and children.

There is much to be said about the Kelly interview on Fresh Air (really, listen to it), but the most important take away is connecting the dots. Troll behaviour is not fun and games and it requires Trump to stop acting like a troll.

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.

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.

Top 10 Reasons Not To Vote For Him

1. The inability, on a consistent basis, to talk in any detail about issues that will affect the entire world. No link needed for this first and most important reason.
2. The suggestion that he would kill the families of terrorists.
3. Threatening to assign a special prosecutor on Clinton if elected, as if that is the President's job.
4. Targeting Islam and Muslims, specifically all talk related to the impossible task of assessing people based on religion.
5. Mocking the disabled, which even Fox had difficulty trying to defend.
6. Insinuating that Ghazala Khan was not allowed to speak.
7. Linking a judge's ability to be impartial with his ethnicity.
8. The birther saga and eventual washing of his hands, stating that he "did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president, in getting him to produce his birth certificate".
9. "I wanted to hit some DNC speakers." Symbolic for me of all the middle-school level taunts and childish logic that has come out his mouth. This one hit home as I spend large parts of my life these days trying to explain why "we don't hit" to my 2 and 4-year-old. I must tell them that everyday, so my ears really perked up when this was his response to the political criticism in the Democratic convention.
10. And, or course, the suggestion that Mexico is sending rapists.

Sorry, I need to one more...

11. The tape on grabbing women without consent was bad, but to me it wasn't as bad as this response, in the midst of the controversy to let it slip that one of his accusers "wouldn't be his first choice". Unhinged!

The Satire Paradox

I've enjoyed all of Malcolm Gladwell's podcast, Revisionist History, but this one on The Satire Paradox seems particularly relevant now as we limp toward election day in the U.S., laughing at the comedy shows and waking up at night with anxiety as we seriously consider the reality of our political debates.

I am absolutely guilty of laughing my way through recent elections, but there is a need for serious reconsideration of how "entertaining" we've allowed politics to become. There is a great contrast between the U.S. humour and the Israeli show highlighted in the podcast called "Eretz Nehederet". Try Hope Kindergarden.

While I laughed at Stephen Colbert for years, I feel somewhat justified in that I always most valued hearing those people as themselves, explaining how they got in that position and where there motivation comes from. Here's Colbert being interviewed on Fresh Air in 2012 and then in 2005.

I learned a lot about Super PACs from Colbert. I wasn't the only one.

All this is relevant to me as we have a deadly serious divide and an urgent need for the non-satirical voices to fill some of the air space before and, most importantly, after the election.

How Is This Possible?

Lots is happening. And by lots, even more than just having two kids. It's been hard to put down any thoughts and I don't like doing it on other social media. But it's time to re-engage.

Two big things happening are Brexit here in the UK (where I live) and elections in the US (where I am from). There are a lot of conversations for me these days that include the phase "How is this possible?", whether discussing the UK's pending departure from the EU or the 22.5% (today anyway) possibility of victory for Trump. For me, it's not that we have a 22.5% of Trump winning, it's that he's even there at all. Something big has happened and we haven't noticed.

I'd heard this podcast, Trends with Benefits, several years ago, but it stuck in my mind and reading some recent political commentary made me want to go and re-listen.

The number of Americans receiving federal disability payments has nearly doubled over the last 15 years. There are towns and counties around the nation where almost 1/4 of adults are on disability. Planet Money's Chana Joffe-Walt spent 6 months exploring the disability program, and emerges with a story of the U.S. economy quite different than the one we've been hearing.

I did re-listen and it is pretty amazing. I think it goes a long way to explaining a group of people who feel left out, angry and might vote without having too much too lose.

I'm not suggesting that an deliberate policy to push people off welfare and onto disability benefits that started with the Clinton administration during it's 1990s can explain the rise of Trump (and I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with why the UK voted for Brexit). But there are very interesting aspects about a changed economy and whole armies of people who are not prepared to work any more. Incentives have changed for a lot of people and, what I hear in a lot of the interviews, are people who don't see anyone doing anything about their problems. They rationally come to accept what they get.

And it's not a great income, about $13,000 a year. But if your alternative is a minimum wage job that will pay you $15,000 a year-- a job you may or may not be able to get, may or may not be able to keep, that probably won't be full time, and very likely will not include health insurance-- disability may be a better option.

Re-writing History -- Kenya and Beyond

This Radio Lab story on the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya and British response is gripping. It seems like Radio Lab was a bit late getting the story since the importance of Hanslope Park, where the documents were stored, was discussed years ago.  But it appears from this article in Feb. 2014 that it will be a while before anyone learns much more...

Since its existence was quietly made public in 2012, the FCO has twice had to seek a special 12-month dispensation from the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, while it decides how much of the archive to declassify. The department announced in December that it will spend six years assessing 60,000 files from the archive, kept at Hanslope Park, near Milton Keynes and classified as "high priority".

The Radio Lab programme has an interesting section on why these documents were saved. Apparently, one idea is that Edward Snowden-esque people opposed the wrongs they witnesses and wanted to save the evidence in hope that the world would eventually find out.

No Proof

Further to my post about having a numb mind, here is the response to a report that claims there are chemicals typically found in fracking fluid that have been found in drinking wells.

The industry criticized the new study, saying that it provided no proof that the chemical came from a nearby well.

The full title of the article, Fracking Chemicals Detected in Pennsylvania Drinking Water, as well as the contents make me realise that you can't form an opinion on these matters by reading the newspaper.

But to the point, why is the only industry response to say "no proof". Why not something on well integrity or what they do to ensure well integrity?

Numb Mind

I often think blogging and thinking out loud is something I want to do more. Then I log on to twitter and feel this thumping noise of shouting. It's people just trying to tell me what's right, who's stupid, who's a hypocrite. Does Exxon Hate My Children? Should I get my divestment placard? Or is the evil Bill McKibben trying to get me to sit in a dark cave, breaking up with a female avatar of oil?

What the fuck is the Environmental Policy Alliance?

Doubt is Their Product. Been on my shelf for months after I read A Valuable Reputation in the New Yorker. Might postpone that urge to engage with twitter for some actual reading and thinking.

Vote Obama!

I can't listen anymore. It's seems like a numbing cacophony of stats from both sides that imply the other side is lying or telling half truths.

But I still woke up this morning and sent of my vote, which I trust might sway the results in the swing state of Vermont.

I didn't need convincing -- I have found the Romney/Fox News/Republican/Ayn Rand view of the world narrow, self-centered, short-term and historically unfounded. I got my problems with Obama and politicians and the way the world is moving, but I see the clear differences.

It makes my stomach twist up with nervousness that garbage like Obama's America: 2016 was advertising on the NYT Five Thirty Eight blog last week, just as the polls are to close. Some really helpful comparisons on a "Who's Who" on Obama's founding fathers!? This film panders to the very worst stereotypes and distortions. While there are many moral equivalency arguments to have about left and right wing "art", this is out of bounds for dishonesty and divisiveness. (Obama's thoughts on the film.) That the film is advertising on Five Thirty Eight and soliciting more tax-deductible donations!!! to spew shit before the election points right at the heart of what's wrong with money in politics. Thank goodness we have had Stephen Colbert mocking and educating us on the role of Super PACs.

Cutting through the loads of lies and counter lies and lies about lies, The New Yorker is comprehensive in its analysis to justify why Obama should get another four years. Read all the reasons, since they all matter, but don't miss the conclusion:

The reëlection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves.

Or the New York Times or the Salt Lake Tribune... Yes, you knew how these publications would "vote", but the rationale and reasons -- dare we risk saying we value such talents in writing? -- hold together and make sense and are consistent with what we see happening in the world. And they show the contrast in this election, as well as why voting is a matter of great urgency.

More Informed Debate On 2012 Election, Please!

Listening to the Romney/Ryan opening speech was a warning to me about what is ahead. Values, principles and character... blah, blah, blah. My main question is whether the rest of the world has anything to do with the US or is it just some island that will rise or fall as a result of the moral convictions of the president?

In contrast to what I expect from both campaigns' upcoming talking points, I dream of really having an long discussion about the economy. I think any debate over the economy should take place only after the electorate listens to the Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air in her interview with David Wessel, the economics editor of The Wall Street Journal. Why can't all interviews be this informative? Best to listen to the whole interview. The "interview highlights" are not sufficient.

That was a rally and not a policy speech, for sure, but aside from blaming Obama for the economy and praise for Romney's faith and character (in contrast to a lack of both in Obama?), I don't see any other strategy developing.

A House Divided

Some people described the Supreme Court upholding the mandate as one of those decisions that change the future of a country. That's true no matter what one's opinion on the issue. But look at how different media outlets displayed the news as it was announced. Wonder how many historians will remember the importance of "Fast and Furious"... (Even the UK's Telegraph knew Balotelli was a better picture than Obama or Holder.)

Kony 2012

Holy Thursday morning distraction! I must blog!

The buzz around Kony 2012 reached my inbox early, encouraging me to drink even before lunch. I watched the film -- I cried a bit, rolled my eyes a lot and felt old for not being able to socially network like my younger socializing friends. Mixed emotions.

I've got no major problem with the filmmakers. I think it's naive. But I value and respect what it takes to organize. I also value the tone of their responses to the criticism. Dialogue is good and they are responding in detail to their weaknesses and inviting you/me to ask harder questions.

At the end of the day, I really value the push of encouragement at the end of this post -- go and read the Crisis Group analysis from November about this problem! If 1% of the 26,684,765 people who see the film on youtube do that (and go further still), that's a lot of better informed people on a really complex issue.

If some naive guy wants to push for the urgency of now, it may make me cringe on many, many levels, but I was "there" once too and I did far less than him to try and raise awareness. More power to him. Maybe in the buzz of outcry against and outcry to support, we'll all get a bit more creative about how to deal with the complexity. The the fatigue that comes with dealing with complexity is real, it's not going away, so I appreciate the kick in the pants. In fact, all this stuff is even making me re-think Bono, who I have long criticised for his shallow and over-simplistic approach to social change. But Bono is making a case that often leads to better, more specific critiques of aid and development. So, well done, Bono (even if I think your music is still shit).

Here's to all the over-simplifies, even you Bono! And to everyone who knows it's more complex, use your disgust at the over-simplification as a new push to get more creative at making your solutions heard.

Marry Gay People; Or How I Almost Topped 2011 Blog Posts!

Wow, five days into 2012 and I have almost surpassed my blog post total for 2011!

With all the Santorum quotes giving you a very bad stomach ache, listen to the governor of Washington, Christine Gregoire, who has just disclosed her intention to marry the gays! She said it very, very well.

I can't believe we are still having this debate, let alone voting for people who connect homosexuality with some sort of moral decay that is hurting the economy and country, Rick. Don't support his Super PAC!

One more post to go for a tie with 2011. What a year already!

Unfit for Democracy?

This column, Unfit for Democracy? by Mr. Kristof was open on my browser for several days. I have nothing to add, but just wanted to link it to my blog since I hear the claim that some countries are "not ready" for democracy all the time in places I work. Maybe people aren't used to participatory decision making, but I don't think you can go along and keep people from trying. Everyone is working to figure out how to do it better so I'll adopt the William Easterly standard of reciprocity noted at the end: "I don’t support autocracy in your society if I don’t want it in my society."

The (Sad) State of Socializing

It is pretty sad how rarely I have put thoughts up here. Also pretty sad to see the aftermath of the US election. My despondency is not so much about the size of the swing to Republications, but the growth moronic truisms that pass as debate these days.

Generally I love NPR, but they have been irritating me this week. This whole Tea Party thing is just plain anti-thinking and even NPR has been giving them a platform without challenging them sufficiently. For example, Tea Party Leaders Go Over Election Wins, Losses, we get the excellent commentary from Matt Kibbe, CEO of FreedomWorks, whose motto is "Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom".

I really think that even before November 2nd, the Tea Party had defined this election by driving the issues that mattered in this debate. And virtually every Republican and most Democrats - certainly, the Democrats that won in battlegrounds like West Virginia - literally ran on the Tea Party agenda.

Ran on the Tea Party agenda? How about a question like, "Where can I find the Tea Party agenda?" Maybe www.freedomwork.org, where I can buy "Partner With Beck" and get my free copy of Rules for Patriots Handbook.

Another comment by Kibbe, this time in relation to Republicans willingness to "compromise".

If the question is government-run health care, I don't understand what the compromise would be between a bad idea and half a bad idea.

And the interviewer, Steve Inskeep, ignores the quip on "government-run health care" and just goes right to the next question.

Look, I got no problem with people like Kibbe being on NPR. In fact, let them on all the time, but please make them defend their moronic statements. Ask a follow on question. It's your job.

Sadly, also, is the fact the person most actively doing the job of the journalist is a comedian. It still is Jon Stewart who highlights the absurdity of our declining debate. Watch his interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News. Wallace doesn't even understand the point Stewart is making - that he too criticizes MSNBC, which he says is a pathetic attempt to fight Fox by being "double AA ball" partisan next to major league Fox when what is should do is get some "earned credibility" by becoming a "brand new journalistic organization".

Listen, Mr. Wallace, did you get it? Think...think...oh, no, right over your head and on to your talking points about the latest poll.

Where have all the good journalists gone?

Palin-omics

I enjoyed this review of Going Rogue: An American Life in The New York Review of Books.

In our present neo-Keynesian moment, economics has never seemed more bewildering and arcane, or more the exclusive preserve of hated "experts" from the "East Coast elites." Most people I know, myself included, can't readily follow the algebraic equations that explain the "Keynesian multiplier," which, in its turn, is needed to explain TARP and the stimulus package. Belonging to a tribe different from Palin's, I simply take it on trust as a matter of faith that Paul Krugman, in his columns for The New York Times, is more likely to be right about such things than, say, Lou Dobbs or Senator John Thune, but I share in the general apprehensive fogginess about what's happening.

For Palin, it's simple. The national economy is a straightforward macrocosm of the domestic economy of the average god-fearing family of four. What's good for the family is good for the nation, and vice versa; and the idea that the family should spend its way out of recession is an affront to common sense, conservative or otherwise. On December 3, she tweeted: "Baffling/nonsensical: Obama's talk of yet another debt-ridden 'stimulus' pkg. Fight this 1, America, bc after last 1 unemployment rose, debt grew." Five days later, while Obama was speaking at the Brookings Institution about the economy, Palin wrote, "Quik msg b4 book event: Prez pls pay down massive, obscene U.S debt &/or give 'stimulus' $ back to Americans b4 propose spending more of our $."