Wednesday, September 2, 2020

We Didn't Start the Fire

I was recently challenged on my dual assertions that 1) the rioting and violence in “Democrat-run cities” is NOT directly related to the Black Lives Matter protests, and 2) the real violent perpetrators are right wing zealots and opportunists. I realized, to my chagrin, that I had not fully researched my claims; therefore my arguments were unsupported. There was nothing for it but to dive into the deep end of the news cycle and swim around until I had a broader understanding of protest-related violence.

To be clear, I was NOT asking “Has there been violence and looting?”, nor "Is there a history of dangerous systemic racism in this country?", nor “Do BLM protestors have a right to be angry?”. The answer to all of the above is a resounding “Yes.” Instead, I focused on the equally complex question, “Who is responsible for the violence at the protests?”

I focused on news sources deemed most reliable by Ad Fontes Media, generally avoiding opinion and bias from the likes of Fox News, MSNBC, Daily Beast, or OAN. What follows are the key points I discovered, along with supporting news articles and summary notes for each article.

So, who is responsible for the violence at the protests? EVERYONE.

KEY POINTS:

  1. Both Biden and Trump have denounced the violence at the protests. Biden condemned violence on both the left and right, but Trump specifically blames leftwing extremist groups. Biden has also condemned Trump for refusing to condemn his own supporters who act as an armed militia.
  2. Most Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful. However, many people perceive the protests as violent despite the commitment of demonstrators to remain non-violent.
  3. Although most protests are peaceful, there has definitely been documented violence from protesters.
  4. Violence at the protests has been primarily due to gangs, local groups, and extremists across the political spectrum, not the protesters.
  5. There is no evidence linking Antifa or any other organized left-wing movement to the violence and riots.
  6. Right-wing extremist groups and various opportunists have incited violence online, often disguising themselves as Antifa.
  7. Right-wing extremist group have been directly involved in violence at protests.
  8. Protests are now becoming more violent with armed groups on both sides of political spectrum fighting each other.
  9. Police response can exacerbate the situation and turn protests violent.
  10. Self-styled militia have exacerbated the violence, often with the tacit approval of authorities.
  11. Trump’s rhetoric is inciting violence.


Both Biden and Trump have denounced the violence at the protests. Biden condemned violence on both the left and right, but Trump specifically blames leftwing extremist groups. Biden has also condemned Trump for refusing to condemn his own supporters who act as an armed militia.

  • Biden condemns violence and asks if Americans 'really feel safe under Donald Trump' (August 31, 2020; CNN)
    • “The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally,” Biden said in a lengthy statement. “I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right. And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same.”
    • "I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted," Biden said. "Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It's wrong in every way."
    • Biden also condemned Trump, whose armed supporters have been involved in violent clashes with protesters, saying his refusal to call on his own supporters to "stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows how weak he is."
  • Trump blames leftwing extremist groups or instigating looting and violence (September 1, 2020; Washington Post)
    • “Reckless, far-left politicians continue to push the destructive message that our nation and our law enforcement are oppressive or racist.”

Most Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful. However, many people perceive the protests as violent despite the commitment of demonstrators to remain non-violent.

Although most protests are peaceful, there has definitely been documented violence from protesters

  • Fact Check: How Violent Are the Portland Protests? (July 28, 2020; New York Times)
    • The crowds have been largely peaceful and have included high school students, military veterans, off-duty lawyers and lines of mothers who call themselves the “Wall of Moms.”
    • NYT has documented that some protesters have thrown rocks, water bottles and fireworks at federal officers. Others have shone lasers at federal agents and at security cameras surrounding the building, in an effort to block their view of the crowd. Several fires have been set near the courthouse, which federal officials have said could spread to the building and harm the agents inside.
    • Some protesters in Seattle lit several construction trailers on fire at a youth detention center, smashed windows of businesses and, according to the police, injured Seattle police officers with explosive devices. The Seattle Police Department released partial body camera video that showed explosions erupting near officers and photographs of cuts and burns suffered by officers that they said were from explosives set off by the protesters.
  • Protests erupt at Portland police building, mayor’s condo (August 29, 2020; AP)
    • Fires set outside a police union building that’s a frequent site for protests in Portland, Oregon, prompted police to declare a riot early Saturday and detain several demonstrators.
    • As officers approached to move demonstrators away from the building and extinguish the fire, objects including rocks were thrown at them, police said. Multiple officers suffered minor injuries, according to the statement.

Violence at the protests has been primarily due to gangs, local groups, and extremists across the political spectrum, not the protesters

There is no evidence linking Antifa or any other organized left-wing movement to the violence and riots.

  • Scant evidence of antifa shows how sweeping the protests for racial justice have become (June 13, 2020; Washington Post)
    • Despite warnings of antifa incursions in scores of cities, there is no evidence linking outbursts of violence to an organized left-wing effort. And those associated with the autonomous groups that went up against far-right figureheads four years ago — and whose roots go back to earlier left-wing causes — say there is no such centralized organization.
    • Federal and local arrest records in dozens of cities make virtually no mention of antifa. Law enforcement officials who had braced for the purported invasion of antifa militants in cities large and small now mostly acknowledge the threat has not appeared.
  • Who caused the violence at protests? It wasn’t antifa. FactChecker. (June 22, 2020;Washington Post)
    • Antifa is a moniker, not a single group with a clear organizational structure or leader. It is a decentralized network of activists who don’t coordinate.
    • Seth G. Jones at the the Center for Strategic and International Studies reviewed protests in more than 140 cities and spoke with U.S. officials within the joint terrorism task force. Most of the violence, Jones said, was committed by “local hooligans, sometimes gangs, sometimes just individuals that are trying to take advantage of an opportunity.”

Right-wing extremist groups and various opportunists have incited violence online, often disguising themselves as Antifa.

Right-wing extremist group have been directly involved in violence at protests

Protests are now becoming more violent with armed groups on both sides of political spectrum fighting each other

Police response can exacerbate the situation and turn protests violent.

Self-styled militia have exacerbated the violence, often with the tacit approval of authorities. President Trump has refused to denounce a vigilante shooter who killed two people in Kenosha.

  • Activists: Militias tolerated, Kenosha protesters arrested (August 29, 2020; AP)
    • Officers in Kenosha watched a group of people fill cans at a gas station, hopped out of black SUVs with guns drawn, shattered van’s passenger side window, pulled a person out, and took 9 members of Riot Kitchen into custody (Seattle-based organization that serves food at demonstrations)
    • “There has been no respect for anybody’s civil rights,” said Isaac Wallner, a 30-year-old Kenosha activist. “It’s been a police free for all. They do whatever they want.”
    • Earlier in the week, sheriff’s deputies shot pepper balls at protesters and arrested them when they failed to quickly leave after being told they were breaking curfew. But officers in an armored vehicle with “Sheriff” on the side were also recorded at night tossing water bottles to men carrying rifles. “We appreciate you guys. We really do,” someone can be heard calling from the vehicle in a video of the exchange.
  • The Thin Blue Line Between Violent, Pro-Trump Militias and the Police (August 28, 2020; The Intercept)
    • In a video that took place before the shooting, Kyle Rittenhouse is seen interacting with law enforcement in an armored vehicle, accepting a bottle of water as thanks for the efforts he and others in a group of armed vigilantes were putting in. An officer in the vehicle says over a loudspeaker: “We appreciate you guys. We really do.”
  • Trump supporters fire paintball pellets at opponents, use bear spray (August 30, 2020; The Standard)
    • The pro-Trump rally’s organizer, who recently coordinated a similar caravan in Boise, Idaho, said in a video posted on Twitter Saturday afternoon that attendees should only carry concealed weapons and the route was being kept secret for safety reasons.
    • Videos from the scene showed sporadic fighting, as well as Trump supporters firing paintball pellets at opponents and using bear spray as counter-protesters threw things at the Trump caravan.
  • Kenosha Shooting Suspect Faces Homicide Charges In Protesters' Deaths (August 27, 2020; NPR)
    • Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager accused of shooting and killing protesters in Kenosha, Wis., has been charged with six criminal counts including felony charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
    • Rittenhouse is accused of killing Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old father who leaves behind a fiancĂ©e and young daughter, and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, a volunteer street medic.

Trump’s rhetoric is inciting violence

  • Former DHS Official: Trump Pouring 'Fuel On The Fire' Of Domestic Extremism (September 2, 2020; NPR)
    • Elizabeth Neumann, former assistant secretary of counterterrorism and threat prevention at DHS and lifelong Republican, reported that Trump is pouring “fuel on the fire” of domestic extremism
    • Trump’s rhetoric has led to increased violence
  • Trump suggests Wisconsin protest murder suspect Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense (September 1, 2020; CBS News)
  • A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as inciting violence (May 30, 2020; ABC News)
    • "When the looting starts the shooting starts.”
    • "These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"
    • "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!; LIBERATE MINNESOTA!; LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!"
  • My Words Led to Violence. Now Trump's Are Too (August 6, 2019, Time)
    • Commentary by Rev. Rob Schenck is an evangelical minister and former activist for Operation Rescue and other national anti-abortion groups
  • There are no lone wolves (August 4, 2019, Washington Post)
    • Opinion piece by Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security and faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
    • "It is too simplistic to blame President Trump and his inflammatory rhetoric for the rise of white-supremacist violence. But that doesn’t mean his language isn’t a contributing factor. Historically, racist ideologies don’t die; Nazism survived World War II, after all. They just get publicly shamed. Communities evolve to isolate once acceptable racism or xenophobia. But they can also devolve back to hate."
    • "Public speech that may incite violence, even without that specific intent, has been given a name: stochastic terrorism, for a pattern that can’t be predicted precisely but can be analyzed statistically. It is the demonization of groups through mass media and other propaganda that can result in a violent act because listeners interpret it as promoting targeted violence — terrorism. And the language is vague enough that it leaves room for plausible deniability and outraged, how-could-you-say-that attacks on critics of the rhetoric."
Posted by at No comments:

Let Talk Messaging

Let’s talk messaging.

NPR recently reported that voter support for Black Lives Matter is decreasing while concerns about rioting and violence is increasing. Even worse, Trump’s message that the rioting is directly related to the peaceful protests is increasingly gaining purchase. A civiqs.com poll showed that support for BLM hit a peak favorability rating in early June, but support has declined since then while opposition has increased. Voters are buying into the message that violence and rioting are directly related to protests against police brutality. Trump even defended Kyle Rittenhouse, suggesting that the 17-year old terrorist “acted in self defense.”

We need a counter message.

How can we assuage John/Jane Q. Public’s fear of violence while still keeping the issue of police brutality and systemic racism front and center? Nuance and ambiguity are the enemies of communication. We need a message that is concise but clear. Something as powerful as “Yes we can” or “Build Back Better” (which I am liking more and more) without the potential for misinterpretation and fearmongering of “defund the police.” We need to send the message that Democrats and Progressives want peace, but not at the expense of a police state. We need to show that the real violent perpetrators are right wing zealots and opportunists.

What do y’all think of the following?

  • #OrderWithoutOppression
  • #StopRightWingViolence

Do they work? Should they be edited/adjusted/scrapped? I want some constructive discussion here on how to perfect the messaging.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Mayor Pete’s Hidden Numbers

Numbers have meaning.

As I sit here, 97% of precincts have reported in on the Iowa Democratic Caucus, and Buttigieg and Sanders won a statistical tie for State Delegate Equivalents or SDEs (Buttigieg 26.2%, Sanders 26.1%). Sanders edged Buttigieg out in second alignment vote totals (Sanders 26.5%, Buttigieg 25.0%). Following the frontrunners in SDEs were Warren (18.2%), Biden (15.8%), and Klobuchar (12.2%). Although many have criticized the Iowa Caucus as 1) not representative of US demographics, and 2) a bizarre non-Democratic system that does not reflect true voter preferences, there is still much to unpack from the results.

  1. The Media doesn’t know how to treat either Sanders or Buttigieg fairly. Although Sanders’ war with the media goes back at least to the 2016 election, Buttigieg is not getting a fair shake either. He is constantly labeled a “moderate” by the media, even though his platform and his constituents belie a much more complex ideology. Bill Mahr, in a recent interview with Mayor Pete, said, “let’s be clear, you’re a progressive. There isn’t a Democrat in this race that isn’t an honest progressive.”

    However, the media can’t bear a political upstart. While both Sanders and Buttigieg claimed some semblance of victory before the official Iowa Caucus tallies were released, Buttigieg, received the lion’s share of criticism for jumping the gun. Buttigieg said, “Because tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality. So we don’t know all the results, but we know by the time, it’s all said and done, Iowa you have shocked the nation. Because by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.” Exuberant? Definitely. Presumptuous? Maybe. Disingenuous? A resounding NO. And yet, in consistent tones, the headlines decried his eagerness as braggadocio at best and cheating at worst.

  2. More voters in Iowa see Buttigieg as a viable second choice, bolstering his argument for electability. Although Sanders started out with a higher total vote count, Buttigieg’s numbers went up 3.9% after alignment compared to Sanders’ realignment of 1.8% and Warren’s realignment of 1.7%.
  3. In a representational democracy (such as ours), Buttigieg has an advantage over Sanders of being able to reach a greater swath of Americans. Buttigieg won 58 counties in Iowa, Sanders won 22 counties. Yes, Sanders won a greater share of the popular vote, but in the general election, the question is can he also win the rural areas.
  4. The “gender advantage” of the American electorate favors Buttigieg. In 2016, women made up a greater share of the electorate than men (55% to 45%). Buttigieg did better among women than men (24% vs 21%). Sanders did better among men than women (26% vs 20%). Not surprisingly, Warren also did better among women (18% vs 14%), which will only help her if she can get her overall numbers up. Biden did equally well among men and women (16% vs 16%).
  5. Buttigieg reaches a greater variety of age groups. As expected, Sanders’s voters skewed very young (48% of age 17-29 year olds, 33% of age 30-44, 11% of age 45-64, 4% of age 65+). Biden voters skewed much older (3% of age 17-29, 5% of 30-44, 18% of 45-64, 33% of 65+). Buttigieg and Warren had a much more even spread among age groups. For Buttigieg, the numbers were 19% for 17-29, 23% for 30-44, 26% for 45-64, and 21% for 65+. In the 2016 election, voters age 30-49 made up 30% of the electorate vs. voters age 50-64 who made up 29% of the electorate. We can go round and round on the numbers here, but the key message is that Buttigieg (and Warren) doesn’t only reach a single age group.

Of course, all this number crunching and interpretation is really nothing more than early conjecture As of now, Buttigieg only has 0.46% of the 2,376 delegates needed to win a majority, and the polls have not been terribly kind to him. Much ink has been spilled on Mayor Pete’s difficulty attracting African American voters. Furthermore, the momentum he had hoped to gain with an Iowa win was killed by the horrible screw-up in caucus vote reporting.

Nonetheless, there is deep meaning hidden in the Iowa numbers. With a creative visual arts team, brainy informatics wizards, and some solid campaign messaging, perhaps he can use this to argue a strong case for electability.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Two Questions No One Will Ask

America Dissected, a provocative podcast on the politics of healthcare, discusses how and why our healthcare system is so diseased. The host Abdul El-Sayed outlines five causes for this dysfunction:

  1. Healthcare is a business. Multiple industries profit off of people only when they get sick, so patients pay for “healthcare” rather than for the “health” that they actually want.
  2. Illusion of choice. With fewer and fewer medical providers, particularly in rural areas, patients are stuck with whatever is available.
  3. Upselling. The same people who tell us what is wrong with us sell us on the solution to fix it. This inevitably incentivizes prescribing unneeded and expensive tests.
  4. After-the-fact reimbursement. Third-party payer systems leave patients asking insurance companies to pay for healthcare costs after the services have been delivered, which runs the risk of leaving the entire burden of cost to the patient.
  5. Cost. Costs are out of control, and instead of finding ways to reduce the cost system, payers and healthcare providers find ways to pass on the costs to patients.
El-Sayed then goes one to compare three potential policy solutions offered by the 2020 Democratic candidates to address our failing healthcare: Public Option, Medicare for All, and Medicare for America. In brief, Medicare for All extends the existing government Medicare system to everyone, the Public Option allows people to buy into either Medicare or a private insurance plan, and Medicare for America does something in between. To be clear, all of these are more progressive than the existing Affordable Care Act, and much, much more progressive than any plan the Republicans are offering. El-Sayed suggests that the Public Option would likely be cheaper than private insurance and might eventually out-compete private plans over time. However, he warns that under the Public Option some people would still be priced out of the market and left without any healthcare at all. Furthermore, doctors and hospitals could choose not to accept the Public Option and only see patients with private insurance.

Medicare for All (MFA), he argues convincingly, is the only way to solve our country’s healthcare woes. MFA is a single payer health plan that would extend healthcare to everyone in the country. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies would remain private, while the government becomes our public insurer. The cost of the program would be borne out by some combination of taxes, but if done properly, this system would eliminate copays and deductibles and cover all healthcare expenses. Simply put, MFA would eliminate the problems of healthcare as a business.

Given all of this, why wouldn’t all progressives support Medicare for All? As Senator Warren commented, “I’ve actually never met anyone who likes their health insurance. I've met people who like their doctors. I've met people who like their nurses. I've met people who like their pharmacists. I've met people who like their physical therapists. What they want is access to health care.” Supporters of the far left candidates are not only annoyed at the rest of the electorate for dismissing MFA, but genuinely perplexed by anyone’s hesitation.

Except, well, here’s the thing. Actually two things. Two big things. Two key questions hang over the entire healthcare debate and no Democrat wants to give them voice, at least not directly.

  1. Who do people trust, big business or big government?
  2. How much are people willing to gamble on getting NOTHING?
For years (and years and years), progressives and conservatives have tackled the first question. Does the solution to our country’s economic woes lie with an uncontrolled free market, a government welfare state, or a corporate welfare state? Conservatives argue that a competitive free market is essential to our democracy. Progressives argue that government support and oversight is necessary to help the poor and control the baser instincts of corporate greed. Oligarchs argue that government should only be used to maintain the power and riches of the already rich and powerful.

MFA requires complete trust in the government. Despite a reliance on government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, despite worrying about corporations incentivizing profit over public good, despite some beautifully outlined villains in the healthcare debate in the form of Big Pharma and Big Insurance Companies, PEOPLE DON’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. A recent Gallop poll reported that 60% of surveyed Americans have “not very much” or “no confidence” in the government to handle domestic issues. Compare this to 29% in 1972 and 33% in 1998. Until Democrats face this deep-seated mistrust head on, MFA is a non-starter, no matter how many poor people lack basic healthcare. Republicans will seize on this doubt and suspicion and kill any attempt to socialize medicine.

This leads to the second key question that no one wants to discuss. Given the immense challenges in passing MFA, how much are voters willing to gamble on destroying what they already have? Assume for the moment that candidate X wins the presidential election and decides to push forward an aggressive progressive healthcare plan that will effectively eliminate the insurance industry, lower pharmaceutical profits, and disincentivize hospital upselling. The Healthcare Industrial Complex would rain down on this president with fire and fury the likes of which even Obama didn’t see with the Affordable Care Act. The disinformation scare campaign would be rapid, intense, and brutal, and legislators would scurry for the hills. Once the dust had fallen, the ACA, if it survived at all, would be on life support, gasping for air.

Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps our country would fight the entrenched momentum and rally behind a progressive agenda to deliver a healthcare system that would truly cover all Americans. Perhaps a system could be put in place that would salve all the wounds of the Public Option.

The question is, how much are you willing to gamble? Are you willing to bet it ALL on the BEST plan or bet just a LITTLE on a GOOD plan? Do you have a safety net in place but believe there is a better way forward for our country, or are you afraid to give up what little medical coverage you already have? Like any day at the casino, it all comes down to what is in your pocket as well as what is on the table. And a lot of people with plenty in their pocket are asking a lot from people with very little on the table.

Where does that leave us? Is a cautious measured approach better than a radical restructuring? Not necessarily. Our healthcare system is horribly dysfunctional, and nothing but an economic revolution will save it. But until the Democrats are willing to acknowledge the unspoken risks, the gamble just might be too rich for our blood.

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Your Candidate Enters a Castle

A couple of months ago, a Gen X friend who is a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter lamented the centrist Democrats who complain about Sanders yelling all the time. “These complainers,” he commented, “are just outing themselves as people who’ve never known a Jew from Brooklyn.” Now as a Jew from the Midwest with family ties to NYC, I questioned his assertion. But the larger point was that to him, Sanders was channeling a righteous anger at the corrupt state of the world. As podcaster Paul Rieckhoff said, “if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.” My friend was right.

Another friend, a Baby Boomer, told me that he was supporting Joe Biden. He commented on Biden’s long history in government, his experience working across the aisle, and his affable personality. “Frankly,” he said, “I’m tired of feeling angry all the time. I feel comfortable with Joe.” He was right too.

No matter what rational or intellectual criteria we voters believe we are using to weigh each candidate's strengths and weaknesses, in truth, we apply our own non-intellectual determinants. Perhaps we lean toward the candidate that makes us feel angry or comfortable or hopeful. Perhaps we tilt toward the candidate we see as most radical or most practical. Perhaps we favor a white male septuagenarian or a female woman of color or a gay veteran millennial because we are convinced that particular person is the most “electable.” And since each determinant carries a different weight, it is near impossible to compare and contrast each candidate’s personality, experience, temperament, and policy on any standard scale.

Until now.

The best paradigm for classifying and codifying candidates comes from a model developed nearly half a century ago. I am speaking, of course, of Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D, the grandfather of fantasy roll-playing games, was created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson 45 years ago and is now a billion dollar industry worldwide. Although D&D gained an unfair reputation as an enterprise glorified by socially awkward nerds overloading on junk food in their parent’s basement (as best illustrated by Stranger Things), in fact, the game is played by millions of people worldwide. In fact, the hottest game of D&D in Los Angeles is hosted by actor Joe Mangiello, a man who himself appears to be the result of a particularly lucky roll of the character dice. (“Your barbarian approaches a castle. In front is a beautiful Columbian actress. What do you do?” “I marry her, you losers, and tell you all to SUCK IT!”).

Just like in a presidential election, D&D characters go on “campaigns.” Each character has experience points, a Class (e.g. Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Rogue, etc.), an Alignment (Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Evil, etc.), and Abilities: Strength (physical power), Dexterity (agility), Constitution (endurance), Intelligence (reasoning and memory), Wisdom (perception and insight), and Charisma (force of personality). The Abilities are determined stochastically, typically by rolling five six-sided dice, removing the highest and lowest roll, and adding the remaining three dice to create a value between three and eighteen.

What a beautiful way to capture a candidate’s strengths, weaknesses, personality quirks, and experience. In fact, I don't know why career advisors haven't switched to D&D attributes instead of Myers-Briggs personality assessments and questionable aptitude tests. Just imagine the conversations at the Department of Workforce Development. "Well, you have high Charisma, Dexterity, and Intelligence, but low Strength. I recommend a career in sales or marketing, or perhaps roguish thievery."

OK, I realize this is all a gross over-simplification, but for now, please just go with it.

In fact, I posit that these abilities could be redefined as “political” abilities, and each ability would comprise three determinants each worth six points. Each determinant stands in for a roll of the six-sided dice. For example:

I ran this experiment with the top five polling candidates: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. Scores were calculated based on external polls, published data, and, only when necessary, my own perceptions of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.

The advantage of this model is that candidate characteristics and personalities can be separated from their policies. In fact, policies are no longer endemic to the character of the candidate but are rather viewed as “spells” and given a maximum strength score of nine, just like in D&D. The strength of a spell is the product of the Degree of Change from the status quo (1= not change, 3 = major change) multiplied by the Level of Detail of the plan (1 = broad strokes, 3 = full details for funding). For example, a radical healthcare plan with a high level of detail on how to fund it might be a Level 9 Medicare For All spell, whereas a moderately funded climate change policy with little detail might simply be a Level 4 Clean Energy Revolution spell.

The results are interesting to say the least. Joe Biden, with his ability scores of S(15), D(14), C(12), I(13), W(15), C(13) leads the field in Strength due to his name recognition and endorsements but lags in Constitution due to the least number of days campaigning. Warren, with scores of S(13), D(14), C(17), I(15), W(8), C(15) leads the pack in Constitution but lags in Wisdom due to a lack of executive and general government experience. Buttigieg leads in Intelligence and shares top spots with Harris on Dexterity. Sanders is an overall balanced candidate; he doesn’t lead on any particular attribute but doesn’t lag in any either.

I investigated the healthcare and climate change plans (spells) as well. Not surprisingly, Warren leads the pack with a powerful Medicare for All spell (9) and six distinct climate change spells. Biden lags with a few relatively weak healthcare and climate change spells.

Now some may question my subjective analyses, and if so, they are welcome to recalculate and effectively “re-roll the dice.” However, the important lesson here is that no matter how strong your character, no matter how potent your spell, in the end, it will be the skillful application of ability, experience, circumstance, and occasionally luck that determines a successful campaign. A good supply of chips and soda couldn’t hurt either.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

On Pedantry

In a recent Omnibus podcast, hosts John Roderick and Ken Jennings discussed “pedantry," a slavish devotion to detail. When is it acceptable to correct someone else’s grammar, style, or facts? What does it accomplish? What is the potential damage to reputation and social construct?

The two hosts are both learned men, brains overflowing with “esoterica and wonder,” and yet neither was willing to defend undue displays of knowledge. Jennings said that as a smart kid growing up, he was very sensitive to being labeled a know-it-all. Roderick invoked Judith Martin’s Miss Manners as his guide to social acceptability. In the end, they both agreed that correcting someone in a social setting rarely changed the opinion of the infractor and only created uncomfortable situations. They then proceeded to illustrate how grammatical rules themselves are “arbitrary, made-up, out-of-date, or all three.”

Fine. I accept their premise that English is an evolving language, and as such, its rules are not necessarily set in stone. On the other hand, I respect the keepers of the language who see proper English as more than simply a vehicle for concepts, but rather an entity with its own rules, history, style, and prestige. Yes, English will evolve, but slowly and purposefully, not simply at the whim of practitioners of slang who are too lazy to learn the rules of engagement.

Wow. That sounded sanctimonious, even for me. Yet my point is that all “truths” crumble under too much scrutiny. For example, I have a relative who is quick to complain about the rules of grammar he deems illogical or outdated. This same relative (whose name I will keep secret, partly for privacy, but mostly to create a sense of mystery and literary tension) is quick to correct others when they mispronounce a word, misstate a fact, or misrepresent a concept. “You don’t understand,” he says in the imaginary discussion I am having in my head, “I am preserving facts, not classist rules that are irrelevant to the people actually using the language.” “Yes,” I respond in this imaginary debate, “but wrong is wrong. Who gets to decide which is the wronger wrong?” At this point, the conversation devolves into name calling.

Pedantry is certainly alive and well on the Internet. I would wager the most common word in Facebook comments is, “actually…” Everyone has their own personal unforgivable sin that MUST be called out. Everyone is a purveyor of the truth. But are they?

Take the following hypothetical statement.

"On January 1, 2000, on the first day of the millennium, me and Joan were literally over the moon that are friends brought our favorite cokes (A&W Root Beer and 7 Up) to our party to celebrate Russell Means, our favorite Indian activist."

Now, what did you want to correct first?

  1. Was it the improper use of “me and Joan”? [But that’s based on classist old-fashioned rules that do not affect ambiguity of meaning]
  2. Was it the improper description of the millennium as the year 2000 instead of 2001? [But that’s what everyone commonly called the year that all the digits changed over.]
  3. Was it the improper use of "literally," instead of "figuratively?" [But many people now use "literally" in a non-literal context.]
  4. Was it the colloquial use of “coke” as generic soft drink, even though “Coke” is a trademarked name and does not own A&W or 7 Up? [But that’s just a regional way of saying soft drink.]
  5. Was it the use of “Indian” instead of “Native American” to describe Russell Means? [But Indian is still commonly used to describe Native Americans, even in official government documents.]

Which was the worst offender? What was the “wrongest wrong”? Who gets to decide? Pedantry is definitely a minefield, not just in how we correct, but in what we correct.

And yet, some statements do call out for public response and correction, particularly when they are expressed by those seeking unabashed self-promotion, spreading dangerous myths, or simply trolling. For example, take the following hypothetical statement:

“You know, it’s amazing that Barack Obama played more golf than any other president, considering that he was a foreign-born, Muslim, socialist.”

Even I am screaming at the computer right now, and I wrote the damn sentence.

So, maybe pedantry does have its place and time. Maybe some truths are immutable. Maybe we should all become defenders of veracity. Or perhaps “truth” itself is a malleable social construct, subject to the shifting tides of perception.

Actually…

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wheat and Chaff

Let’s face it. Progressives in the country are in Trump sensory overload. There are too many lies, too many offensive statements, too many destructive policies, too many incompetent appointees, that progressives end up re-Tweeting the latest offensive statement and miss the consequential story.

The latest Trump quote about Jewish people who vote for Democrats showing, “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” is a prime example. Yes, it is horribly offensive. Yes, it is divisive. Yes, it is controversial. No, it is not really news. He was offensive yesterday. He’ll be offensive tomorrow. Today just plots to the same trend.

However, the Trump administration move to detain migrant children and parents longer at the border should give everyone real pause, and this should be sparking comments from every Democratic representative and senator, every religious group with progressive ties, everyone who has a conscience. But it barely registers a blip.

Frankly, if we want to separate the wheat from the chaff, the distraction from the content, we need to bucket all the Trump stories into 7 categories, and report them on a daily basis. The categories are:

  1. Trump states/restates something offensive
  2. Trump lies
  3. Trump does something consequential that pleases conservatives
  4. Trump does something consequential that (should) anger/annoy everyone
  5. Trump appointee does something consequential that pleases conservatives
  6. Trump appointee does something consequential that (should) anger/annoy everyone
  7. Other Trump news

My test for whether a headline would anger both conservatives and progressives is I substitute "Obama" for "Trump", and predict the public response.

For example, I scanned the headlines from August 20 and 21 in the Washington Post to better understand what our president was up to in the last two days. Use these to better organize and galvanize your anger.

TRUMP STATES/RESTATES SOMETHING OFFENSIVE

  • Trump: Jewish people who vote for Democrats are showing ‘great disloyalty’ or ‘lack of knowledge’
  • Trump quotes conspiracy theorist claiming Israelis ‘love him like he is the second coming of God’

TRUMP LIES

  • Fact-checking President Trump's remarks on the economy
  • Trump attacks on Google recycle baseless claims

TRUMP DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT PLEASES CONSERVATIVES

  • Trump officials move to detain migrant children and parents longer (Trump administration moves to end limits on child detention)
  • Trump tells NRA chief that universal background checks are off the table (Trump insists US already has ‘strong’ gun background checks)

TRUMP DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT (SHOULD) ANGER/ANNOY EVERYONE

  • In Denmark, surprise and fury after Trump cancels visit over Greenland (Danish lawmakers furious at Trump’s cancelled visit, as prime minister voices regret)
  • Trump is ramping up his economic double-talk to tamp down recession fears
  • Trump acknowledges China policies may mean US economic pain
  • Trump again floats E.U. auto tariffs
  • Trump renews call for Russia to be readmitted to G-7

TRUMP APPOINTEE DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT (SHOULD) ANGER/ANNOY EVERYONE

  • After Trump blames mental illness for mass shootings, health agencies ordered to hold all posts on issue

OTHER TRUMP NEWS

  • As Trump tries to end ‘endless wars,’ America’s biggest Mideast base is getting bigger
  • Trump confirms he’s considering a payroll tax cut amid mounting economic concerns
  • Trump and Maduro confirm talks between high-level officials
  • Trump looks to discuss defense, energy with Romanian leader
  • Trump on Afghanistan: ‘We’re not supposed to be a police force’
  • Trump: ‘Kashmir is a very complicated place’ (President Trump on Aug. 20 said he would do his “best” to “mediate” in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.)
  • Trump considering State Department official (Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan) for Russia post
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)