The Curmudgeon Speaks

I listened to Donald’s presentation to the UN General Assembly. I tried to imagine how the folks I have met in other countries would understand his message. The eschew globalism, embrace patriotism comes across as we are special and you are not, we got ours, too bad for you. If this was the message you received would you interpret it as a realistic appraisal of your personal failures, your lack of will or laziness, or would you be resentful? This message whether presented to other countries or to the folks who struggle in our own is not well received. Let’s all at least start with this. What is that expression from “The Gambler” – don’t count your money when you are sitting at the table.

Unfortunately, It is more than this. This message is unfair and biased from a position of privilege and self congratulations. It is blind to what others are up against while believing we personally overcame great obstacles and worked harder than others. It is a great way to assure enemies will be created. This is not the position taken by great leaders or even mediocre leaders with some insight into human behavior. it is also not a position taken by great countries.

I decided to spend time today supporting the Global Climate Strike. As I am retired and unemployed, striking is not an option. What I can do is spend some time voicing my opinion. I have already attempted to identify information sources that educators may find useful in their classroom discussions of the climate issue. I use this site in a different way and I can be more direct here in addressing issues that are often avoided in educational settings.

The Trump administration has established a history of appointing individuals to political bodies that undermine what logically would be the intended purpose of these government bodies. The appointment of Betsy DeVoss, a proponent of alternatives to public education, to head the Department of Education makes a good example.

One would think that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would prioritize protecting the environment. This is what the title of the organization proposes the purpose of the organization to be. Protection often requires the proposal of requirements that come in conflict with the opportunities assumed by others. Agencies must recognize these conflicts, but the mission does not really change. You can’t actually protect something you are charged with protecting if you ignore behaviors that are damaging. You can’t protect highly populated cities from pollution if you act to remove policies that reduce polluting emissions.

So, what about the Environmental Protection Agency? One component of how this agency operates is to rely on a Science Advisory Board. Again, what is it one might assume from the label associated with this board? I would assume that the members of this board would be the best scientists available. Again, not under the Trump approach to decision making. Why add the best scientists available to a committee if their expertise would result in advice contrary to what you would want the advisory board to offer as advice? See this analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists. So, it turns out that the EPA is biased by a political agenda and does not take protection of the environment as its primary responsibility and it turns out that Science Advisory Board is not really offering advice based on the best science.

Your Trump logic in action. Beware that you interpret labels as meaning what the words say they mean.

Labels seem to matter in politics. Individuals look to the label associated with a candidate often, it seems, rather than considering the specifics of the candidate’s position on specific issues. Republicans seem to use “socialist” in this way. I don’t really know what would be the equivalent from the Dems perspective so you will have to supply your own.

As I understand the term it implies something about government control. From this perspective, Republicans believe Democrats want to tax at too high a level in order to offer government sponsored programs some of which are argued to be unnecessary and to impose regulations that limit the opportunities of businesses, industry, and individuals. So, it seems being for or against socialism has to do with financial contributions expected from citizens and limitations placed on all. In both cases, the expectations of sacrifices (contributions and limitations) are assumed to provide benefits, but who benefits and who sacrifices seem to be at the core of disagreements.

Once you define things in terms of contributions and limitations, labels to a certain extent disappear and whom is affected become interesting to observe. For example, the present administration has taken on trading partners (China, Canada, Mexico) claiming the U.S. is being taken advantage of. Part of the issue is the amount of money and goods moving in each direction with the complaint that we sent more money for goods out than we take in. China adds the issue of theft of intellectual property with tariffs being used as a punishment rather than a way to control the movements of goods and money. Here is a thought on the desired consequences of these actions. The cost of goods paid by U.S. citizens will increase. The impact will be negative for those of limited means with benefits to those owning the means of U.S. production and those who work in who work in some specific industries. Those in other industries (e.g., agriculture) will be hurt. My point is that local capitalism can also increase the contributions required of citizens within countries that think this way. Those who pay the cost (a tax if you are willing to think of the increased contribution in this way) will be those with limited means.

What about government limitations (regulations)? Regulations tend to impose requirements intended to protect and safeguard. Emission standards would be an example intended to reduce pollution and damage to the environment. Yes, regulations of this type do increase the cost and expectations of production, but a judgment has been made that all benefit from the limited sacrifice in profit that are made by a few. Safety standards in work places would be a similar example. Rules intending to limit the ways in which financial institutions can take advantage of naive or vulnerable population would be another. Who pays – those offering the service because of higher costs or limited opportunities for profits. Who benefits – those protected? Consolidating the costs and benefits, it is again the most vulnerable and most needy would tend to benefit and those in better circumstances expected to sacrifice.

Some folks have taken to labeling him “Moscow Mitch”. This would not be my style. I have been trying to come up with a descriptor that captures my personal frustration. I am looking for just the right phrase to describe someone who is fearful of doing the wrong thing and of offending a benefactor. Mitch reminds me of a dog who has been beaten but still desires the approval of his abuser. Submissive Mitch. 

Yes, the pronouncement that President Obama would accomplish little during his second term despite the strong support of citizens and Mitch’s passive-aggressive unwillingness to bring the nomination of Merrick Garland forward for confirmation were bad. These inactions wasted the creative power of and public support for a transformative leader. These behaviors sparked the deep animosity and divisions that mark the country today.

It is Mitch’s lack of confidence in his leadership of the Senate that annoys me the most. Unless I have been misleading myself, Mitch should be in his position because the Republican Party holds the majority in the Senate. This should mean that a party line vote would decide any issue brought before that body. Why is it Submissive Mitch has to check with other parties before the Senate considers bills brought before it. Yes, some of the bills were passed by a Democratically controlled House. Still, if the Senators did not support the House-based positions, a vote should end the matter. 

Is Mitch really acting to accomplish a different goal. Is he blocking votes that would reveal Republican voters to their constituents? National polls clearly indicate citizen positions on gun control. Forcing Republicans to vote would clearly document whether these individuals come down on the site of citizens or the NRA. Whether it is Trump or Putin or the NRA, it is obvious who dominates Mitch McConnell. Time for a leader allowing citizens to have a voice through a Senate that makes decisions. 

I will not be posting for the next couple of weeks. Cindy and I will be traveling in southern Africa during this period of time. For several years now, I have offered comments on a blog devoted exclusively to the travels of our retirement years. I am uncertain as to the type of connectivity I will have for some portions of this time, but there should be plenty to photograph and write about. Later.

GrabeTravels

The election of 2016 taught us just how damaging targeted political ads can be. Political ads are a huge business and an important part of political campaigns, but the ads that appear on social media come with several serious problems. The most significant problem, in my opinion, is that voters are not aware that they have been targeted for what they see based on their past behavior and biases. Since targeted ads are not identified as such, the assumption that everyone is receiving the same information is damaging. You are being shown what someone believes will manipulate you without your conscious awareness of this intent.

I just read that Senator Wyden has proposed banning targeted political ads on social media. You would receive ads, but these ads would be ads distributed to all. I am skeptical that this proposal will receive serious consideration. A compromise I think would help would be to require that any political ad require the identification of the funding source. This is similar to what you experience on television. While not always informative because political action groups often have generic and positive-sounding names, at least consumers would have the opportunity to search for information about the organization responsible for the ads they view.

A second and more serious problem with the targeted ads and actually any political ad or meme is the sharing of this information. It is likely our friends share our biases and the constant sharing of content with a common theme within a group of similarly oriented individuals is that those in the group again fail to be exposed to content with a different orientation. Magnifying this problem is the tendency of sharing the content that is most likely to get attention and shares/likes. Hate and extremism are great ways to get attention.

Two of my online acquaintances recently contacted me to make certain I made the effort to view the NetFlicks documentary – The Great Hack. Both said something interesting in contacting me with this recommendation. Both said they were so upset after viewing the program that they could not sleep. Strange reaction, but it certainly encouraged me to take a look.

The Great Hack explores the role of Cambridge Analytica in the U.S. presidential election of 2016 and in the Brexit controversy in Great Britain (trailer). I slept fine after viewing, but not because the content was not disturbing. I have followed this issue closely and read multiple books and articles about the specifics. I label the problem as one of bad actors taking advantage of surveillance capitalism and I have written frequently about this topic. Politicians are a great example of this type of exploitation.

What I have found interesting is that so few people I know seem upset about this problem or maybe even believe that it exists. I tend to think they don’t understand, don’t educate themselves, and prefer not to think deeply about their own behavior as it relates to purposeful media manipulation. Perhaps a video presents the same information in a way that engages the viewer and is more likely to have an impact. Hence, if you have NetFlix, put this documentary at the top of your list.

One of my tech friends and I have been writing back and forth considering what people might do to protect themselves from being influenced with their awareness. I hope this is really the problem. I have begun to think of the surveillance capitalism approach as “telling me the story I want to hear”. Our choices over time allow these companies to identify our views of the world and feed these biases with the information we are most comfortable consuming. Accepting we are biased is part of the problem, but the major problem that is being exploited is that we are mostly unaware that this weakness is being used against us and this is happening while we think we are receiving informative content.

Here is the list I offered my colleague:

• I try to use the Brave browser. There are several ways to block cookies especially 3rd party cookies. I like the Brave system because it still allows a way to compensate content creators. 
• I use a VPN – this allows me prevent my ISP from knowing what I browse. 
• I try to distribute my social media activity across multiple platforms. Facebook is for political opinions
• I also use multiple search engines. DuckDuckGo with Brave. 
• In the end, I and everyone else must understand that others are working to influence us in multiple ways. I try to cross checks things. The new phrase to describe this is lateral reading.

The documentary has had a noticeable impact as those implicated have begun to discount the message even threatening legal action.

Moscow Mitch? I had thought that the Democrats were above resorting to Trumpian tactics, but I guess they have figured out what works. Moscow Mitch is trending and it appears the Dems have finally found a way to get McConnell’s attention.

I think this is sad. What I read online makes me both sad and angry. I spend a large portion of the last part of my career encouraging educators to take advantage of the authentic audience the Internet and social media allow to offer kids and adults a way to participate in public discussions. I don’t blame the Internet for what has been revealed about human behavior and standards. I have come to the realization that this is they way people have always been. It was just not as evident. Christian evangelicals embracing a pussy grabber, allowing children to be taken from parents and locked up at the border, and now Moscow Mitch.

Ilhan Omar is my representative. I voted for her and I voted for Hillary. My kids were more involved in her campaign. She won easily in our Minnesota district. I was aware of the conspiracy theories associated with Omar’s citizenship and admit I have no evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the conspiracy theorists have not offered any evidence allowing the Republicans in our district to actually contest the granting of her status. Until proven otherwise, this seems very similar to claims made about Obama.

I bring Omar up because I do follow issues that bring her name to the news services. Ever make the effort to read the comments that are added to these stories? Few comments have anything to do with the issue at hand, but people assume they have the right to say all kinds of disgusting things about Omar. Who are these people? How were they brought up and how were they educated? Do they actually have any facts and even if they assume they do is this really the kind of statements they would be proud to show their mothers, fathers, or kids?

I know some of the people I read making these kinds of statements on Facebook. I follow them because I went to high school with some and I know they at least completed that level of education. I see them write on a page associated with our high school things about the teachers they admired or who made a difference in their lives. Then, I see other things they say. I wonder if their teachers would be proud.

I am more than eager to engage with people online. I will openly say when I think they are wrong and more recently when they are forwarding things to their friends and readers that are factually wrong. I don’t say anything when they say things that are disgusting, racist, etc. I try to be factually accurate in position that I take and if called on a position I want to debate the position based on facts. This is the position that I take.

Back to Moscow Mitch. The label was applied because he has failed to bring legislation to the floor addressing Russian interference in the last presidential election. If you are the majority leader, why would you fear bringing important legislation forward. These are important issues and if you are in the right (at least is the way our political system works), your majority should reject the legislation. Easy enough. I have two thoughts on this matter. The discussion of such issues is evident to the public. Talking about Russian interference is an uncomfortable topic for the President as the facts are clear that it did happen and at least some of his campaign members were interacting with Russian actors in coordination. With all of the other things going on, it could be best to not have the public reminded of the facts of just how Trump ended up as the President. Then, of course, the Republican Senators would probably not want to go on record following this public discussion of voting against a bill intended to harden U.S. defenses against cyber intrusion. Such rejection would be hard to explain and embarrassing. Or, perhaps, since the Moscow Mitch bill which happens to be bipartisan might even attract a few Republican votes.

I was listening to a podcast from the TWIT.tv network [https://twit.tv/] and started to think about a conversation between host Leo Laporte and tech commentator Jeff Jarvis. They were discussing the ugly state of social media and how the present trend seems to have corrupted the original idealism of shining light on issues for the good of all. Leo said that he had become disgusted and given up closing his Facebook and Instagram accounts. Jarvis argued that “good guys” leaving would not solve the problem because many innocents would stay on and be influenced by the perpetrators of hate and fear.

Jarvis came up with an expression he said came from the corruption of UseNet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet]. As I remember his statement, it was something like “when all of the flowers are driven from the garden, all that will remain are the weeds”.

I am not at the point of abandoning my social media presence, but I am very concerned by what I read. I am connecting with a wide assortment of folks – tech influences, family members, college profs from my working days, people I have not seen since high school, but who have connected to me for one reason or another, a few politicians, etc. Out of this mix I experience the good and the bad (very bad). Sometimes when I encounter a meme I find particularly disturbing (often shared), I search back to see what else the original author posts. There is some real trash out there.

I am not certain what it is. Perhaps it is my past life as an academic and researcher in which I assume I should engage to argue a point to convince someone else of their misguided impressions. Perhaps it is simply outrage when I encounter someone perpetuating racism, misogyny, or outright lies. Depending on my mood, I have this urge to reply. Once you go down this rat hole, there is no end. Still, what about those flowers someone must defend?

Recent events (the attacks on Ilhan Omar) have finally forced me to some kind of decision. This is it. I must ignore the comments that I find offensive as much as I can. There is a free speech issue and taking on every person wanting to spew hatred is beyond my endurance. If you disagree and have the stamina, I encourage your full attention to this task. Good folks have free speech rights too.

What I have decided I won’t tolerate are statements that are demonstrably false. There is a claim I agree with usually attributed to Patrick Moynihan – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts (I think this is close). I intend to respond when I encounter something I can cross-check to determine as false.

What to say? The issue with truly evil people is that they don’t really care. The real problem is the interconnection among people that social media encourages and the disinformation amplification that occurs. False statements spin about within a network and are repeated over and over. So many people doubt that Russian disinformation and their bots could actually influence an election. How many false statements could they produce? The issue is not necessarily the original false messages, but the sending of such messages to individuals prone to believe them and to pass them on to others with a similar view of the world.

So, what do you say? I want a statement I can cut and paste when I encounter the type of statement I feel I have a right to address. Here is my first effort. 

If you are willing to promote memes without fact-checking, it would make sense to include in your circle of online friends some who do make the effort.  In this case, I will play this role. The statement you have posted is known to be factually incorrect. You could end up spinning in a circle of lies you and others come to accept.  

This could work for both Twitter and Facebook, but I decided maybe perceived as elitist. People wanting to believe something take any opportunity to discount a challenge to their actions.

How about something that is simpler?

The statement you have just circulated has been shown to be false by reputable fact-checkers. I thought you would want to know.

Reputable fact-checkers. I like Politifact [https://www.politifact.com/] and Snopes [https://www.snopes.com/]. Both services offer a judgment and explain what exactly about the claim is incorrect. I want to be sure of my facts.

Save the flowers

P.S. I am not certain I have the energy to apply my strategy to Donald Trump. His falsehood rate is too high. Here is the Snopes analysis of his comment about the popularity of Omar and Ocasio-Cortes [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-and-aoc-polling/}.