The Curmudgeon Speaks

Podcasts I listen to indicate that the Trump re-election campaign has made Facebook and television ad buys. I confess that I do not remember seeing any of these ads. I assume Fox News would be a likely outlet. I very, very seldom watch Fox News, but I do watch Fox sports because some of the teams I follow sometimes show up there. Maybe the ads show during the news programming and not the sports. I do spend some time each day on Facebook and nothing from the Trump campaign shows up. Why?

I am genuinely interested in Trump ads. Really. My motivation may be different from true believers. It bothers me if false statements appear in political ads and I tend to want to respond. Offer policy positions all you want, but don’t blatantly lie in a way I can identify and because I feel that I must respond.

The fact I don’t see these ads bothers me in a different way. If you see these ads and I don’t, we have each been categorized politically and this is not a good thing. Elected officials, especially those elected at the highest level, end up representing us all. In such cases, hidden agendas that play to some and are not apparent to all are a serious problem.

If you rely on Facebook for your news, you play right into this problem. You need to diversify your inputs. My suggestion is to pay for access to a quality local paper (paper or digital) and follow a quality national paper. My suggestion for a quality national paper would include the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. My definition of quality is basically that the paper employs actual journalists and is not primarily a source for opinions. Read opinions if you respect the author, but include in your reading journalists would report stories based on facts. See facts can be twisted or contextualized in different ways, but it helps if the opinions that follow start with facts. There are certainly many sources for opinion online and my attitude toward such sources is the same. Test the opinions you read against your best effort to read factual accounts.

You may regard these recommendations as outside your price range. You can access some articles from these sources through online sources (Google or Apple News). You will have to decide if these offerings cover a broad perspective – I can’t say. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post allow you to read a fixed number of articles each month without paying for full access. I typically reach my limit and expend this limit on articles I encounter in other ways (e.g., Twitter and Facebook).

We pay for an Apple+ news account. This is a reasonable way to obtain the Wall Street Journal and a range of other news magazines. If you read much, this is a pretty good deal.

I am not certain that most folks would associate Minnesota with apple corchards, but there is much in this state that would surprise people.

There are multiple orchards close to the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/Saint Paul/ suburbs) and these forms offer a wide variety of fun opportunities.

Apple orchards wanting to sell on site often also offer corn mazes and rides for the pickers and kids. The rides help get the pickers around larger farms and make it easier to return heavy baskets of apples to the cashiers, but also are just fun. The farm we visited pulled a hay wagon with a John Deere B. I drove this type of tractor through Iowa fields 50 years ago on our family farm.

I do like apples, but my favorite reason for visiting pick your own orchards is because they often sell baked goods. My favorite is the apple donut. This orchard had the mini version of this treat and they were purchased as quickly as the machine could make them.

Back to Minnesota apples. Probably the thing about Minnesota and apples that is the least known is that the University of Minnesota has developed some of the most popular apple varieties. The best recent example would be the honey crisp.

This orchard had many varieties to choose from. One particular variety brought back memories. My first job was at the State University of New York located in Cortland, NY. There was a Cortland apple. We were at this Minnesota orchard with our daughter who was born in the Cortland hospital. Her kids did not seem that impressed to learn of the connection.

The Republicans on the House committee seem to be trying a variant of the “tree in the forest” defense. If the President commits a crime, but Barr says the behavior is protected by executive privilege it didn’t happen. Translated using the philosopher’s question – if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, it not only makes no sound, there was no tree. I agree, it never made any sense to me either.

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.