The Curmudgeon Speaks

I obviously struggle with my reactions to the things Mr. Trump says on Twitter. In an effort to explain my reaction to myself, I have spent some time thinking about just what it is that annoys me. Here is what I have decided.

Have you found yourself involved in a conversation with someone who makes simplistic pronouncements you find ridiculous? I am imagining a situation in which I end up sitting next to someone at a bar who wants to make conversation. This person says things I know are erroneous, simplistic, and poorly informed. These are the types of statements made by someone with just enough information to be dangerous. Not wanting to argue or appear elitist I seldom engage to respond.

This is the type of reaction I have to Mr. Trump’s pronouncements about hacking, computers, or climate change. I both think I know more about these topics and I think the true experts on these matters agree with me. Unlike the random guy at the bar, I make the effort to respond in this case because Mr. Trump has an audience that accepts whatever he says. I don’t want such comments to go unchallenged. Twitter makes all of this far worse. The required brevity of a Twitter statement limits what can be said and provides little depth allowing the insights of the author to be evaluated.

Here is what bothers me even more. I doubt Mr. Trump is as uninformed as he seems. Surely, he has handlers who offer him more sophisticated information. What concerns me is that Mr. Trump understands that there are many folks out there who want to believe the things he says. They recognize that “experts” take positions different from Mr. Trump, but he offers them an excuse for rejecting expert opinion as elitist.

All I can suggest is that expert opinions be seriously considered. When Mr. Trump offers comments on building a large building, I would defer to his expertise. When Mr. Trump offers comments on what makes a successful reality TV show, I would defer to his expertise. There are individuals I have far more faith in when it comes to national security, technology, and science.

There are certain issues in this past election I refuse to get over. I am not one of those who thinks focusing on the positive is the remedy to a bad situation. Ignoring things that are truly wrong is being irresponsible.

The climate change deniers are a group now championed by our next president that must be opposed. I understand that accepting reality is inconvenient in the short run. By ignoring science you can promise that coal miners that they will get their jobs back. You can argue against government regulation in situations when industries find such regulations reduce profits and involve oversight. You can ignore subsidizing new industries when there is opposition from existing industries and when tax money might be involved.

You cannot trump science. You can ignore reality while it is convenient and few are presently impacted by long-term trends, but this self-serving approach only creates a more damaging future others will face.

My most recent political annoyance concerns the Department of Natural Resources in Wisconsin. They have changed their public statement on climate change. I have no illusions when it comes to such state agencies. I worked with Game and Fish in North Dakota for years and learned that such agencies while supposedly basing practice on scientific principles were very responsive to politicians. If political pressure says the science of climate change is not approved, you find a way to hedge or pander and back away from your principles. Now the official position of the Wisconsin DNR is that climate change is a controversial scientific position. I guess they did not bother to ask the scientists.

Just be sure I checked to see what the University of Wisconsin might have to say about climate change. I was heartened to learn that UW is home to the Nelson Institute – Center for Climactic Research. The Center contends”

Out partnership with the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) offers a model example of how university researchers can engage with decision-makers in the public and private sectors.

I wonder if the governor and state legislature know that this is going on.

BTW – reread my title. Get it?

Mr Zuckerberg, this is the other Mark.

What did you think you were creating when you first developed Facebook? I saw the “Social Network”, but I was told it was not true. I am glad you did not steal the Facebook from the Winklevoss twins because that would sour all of those young entrepreneurs out there who thought you were the perfect example of the American Dream. Did you ever graduate? I think people should graduate. I did like your recommended book list from last year. I guess that is a different way to educate yourself. It must be difficult to find time to read with all of the other things you must do. If you need any suggestions for more books, just let me know.

Some people call those of who read a book or two elite. They don’t mean it in a good way. What is up with that? There are ways to get help if you cannot read. I am thinking with all of your money you would even be willing to find a way to help those who struggle with reading. Just a thought. I know you like to be helpful. Maybe audio books would help. You can sometimes get them at your local library if you cannot buy them yourself. What do you think? Did you listen to any of the books on your list? I know getting through a book takes more time, but some people like to listen when they drive. I suppose you don’t have to drive.

I have tried your social service several times and I am having trouble sticking with it. Perhaps you like it just like it is because you evidently have attracted many users. I have one idea I think would help and would allow you to keep those people who like it just the way it is now.

My main issue with your product is that most people really don’t have to think much to add content. Getting people to think is very important to me. Since you take the time to read many books, I conclude it is also important to you. I think it is great that people post pictures for grandma and grandpa. I am one of these people myself and from time to time I like looking at pictures. I get to see my grandkids in person so this service is not nearly as important to me it is to other grandparents. I enjoy a great quote from time to time, but I would still rather have people come up with something interesting themselves.

It is the political stuff I find most annoying. I would really like to talk to people about their political opinions. This is likely a time in our history when this is very important. I think other people have some very crazy and misguided ideas and I would like to discuss our differences of opinion. However, I first want to be certain those other folks have actually thought about what they claim. I cannot be certain because they seldom say much themselves. They mostly just forward things that others have said. This is too easy. If you want to take a stand, you should have to at least explain your position.

Mr Zuckerberg, there is already an app for those with little to say. Twitter is great for forwarding pithy sayings and providing links to the comments or web sites of others. I know that Twitter kind of has the “what that person said” market cornered, but I have faith in your ability to compete. I know you and your minions are gifted programmers so here is my suggestion. Create a feed based on whether a contributor provides more than 140 characters of personal information. The short contributions could be your way to compete with Twitter. You could call it the – “what that person said” feed. The feed with more than 140 characters could be called “my contribution”.

Thanks in advance for considering my proposal. I know you always searching for new and more productive ideas. Congratulations on the success of your startup. Have a great holiday.

The other Mark

It snowed last night, but the wind was light. Now comes the cold with a prediction of -20 within the next day.

The morning news carried the story of this businessman complaining that Minnesotans delight in accounts of the snow and cold giving others the impression this is not a welcoming place. The curmudgeon way of explaining things is often misunderstood and I do not want to be part of the problem. I will try to change my approach. I want to be part of the solution.

Come on up. I need someone to shovel off my deck.

President-elect Trump claims to be open-minded when it comes to the scientific evidence on climate change. Just what can that mean? When the scientific community claims that they have come to an agreement on a phenomenon and a nonscientist decides to question their position because he or she is open-minded on the issue, just how should one who believes in science react. Uncertainty can be found among some who question the holocaust, the landing of Americans on the moon, and the existence of dinosaurs. Even acknowledging some types of uncertainty as deserving serious consideration is typically a sign of ignorance, but in this case it is more likely a justification for unjustified, sometimes popular, and convenient actions.

When actions are taken as a consequence of this type of open-mindedness, these actions need to be examined carefully. The science on climate change may be an inconvenience for certain sectors of the U.S. economy – sectors that were made promises during the campaign. Rather than accepting the science behind climate change and proposing that addressing these problems could offer new opportunities for research and development, it was easier to dismiss science and mislead those in the population willing to take a short-term and self-focused view.

Mr. Trump has a way of doubling down on positions that receive criticism. Good leaders should be able to admit when they are wrong or make mistakes. To consider oneself as above error exposes those you are responsible for to serious consequences.

In response to criticism of his position on climate change, CBS news reports the following:

His comments came just days after his transition team created a questionnairewith 74 questions for Energy Department officials to identify employees who had been involved in international climate talks over the last five years, as well as employees who have helped develop Obama administration climate policies.

Why make the effort to carefully identify those in positions of influence who hold positions different than your own? At best, this seems like a course of action intended to avoid unfortunate confrontations with expertise. At worst …. here is where you get to create your own conspiracy theory consistent with such behavior.

I have this gift or curse that brings to my attention the inconsistencies in the world.  I was confused by these instructions when trying to pay for gas. Take a look at two visual representations of how to insert your credit card. Noticing such things does not necessarily do me any good. I used my credit card to pay (assuming the reader instructions should take priority over the pump instructions). I took the picture because I thought it was funny. Later, it occurred to me that this may have been a skimmer.

Earlier this year, the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University found that 8.4 million (more than 70%) of the 11.6 million jobs that had been created at that point in the U.S. since the Great Recession went to people who had earned at least a bachelor’s degree. High school graduates got only 80,000 of those jobs, a mere 0.7%. “The recovery has been virtually nonexistent for less-educated workers,” the authors wrote.

I recommend this opinion piece from Market Watch attempting to explain the educated-related disparities in the 2016 elections. The op-ed proposes that it is education more than political perspective that is responsible for the intense divide we are now experiencing.

The opinion offered by columnist Howard Gold as strongly argued based on data (my reaction to the notion that everyone has opinions).

Exit polls conducted by the Pew Research Group showed that “Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree [was] the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980.

The article also makes the case that this is a world-wide phenomenon. I keep flashing on something Toffler said in “The Third Wave” (a book that is now at least one wave behind). Basically – the early stages of change are not only disruptive, but are marked by a yearning for an earlier time when things were imagined to be better but were not.

I cannot see economies reversing themselves. Technology has enabled globalization and production efficiencies that mean many occupations simply no longer involve the large numbers of workers that were once required. We want inexpensive quality goods and competition will provide these resources. Consider the demise of the family farm and the small town grocery store. You no longer hear politicians addressing the declines in these areas. Now, it is the manufacturing job. I keep thinking those who argue a business mentality be brought to politics would understand how this works.

In the 21st century, education determines people’s economic status and shapes their worldviews. There are plenty of exceptions to these “rules,” but in general the more education you have, the more opportunities you get, and the more income you make, the more likely you are to live in cities and have more liberal, cosmopolitan views.

We all probably have different opinions as to where things should be going. I see little future in consumerism and the production of more stuff. We are at the point that we benefit little and damage the environment by such goals. The world needs fewer workers unless there is something meaningful for workers to do. I see no way to accomplish this without lowering the retirement age and reducing income inequality. Without this combination we end up in a spiral of under-employed people generating stuff we don’t need in inefficient ways.

New economic news today indicates that the economy under the Obama administration continues to improve and the unemployment rate is lower now than before the housing bubble burst in 2007/2008. This is likely confusing news for those who voted based on their perception that Obama had done a poor job with the economy. These indicators should not be a surprise as the economy has been steadily improving.

There is a negative trend if you look closer. The manufacturing sector continues to lose jobs and this trend in the “rust belt” was the focus of the Trump campaign. The recent Trump claim that he had orchestrated the salvage of Carrier manufacturing jobs has been offered as proof of a strategy to reverse this loss of manufacturing jobs and seems to appear as a demonstrate of what Trump has in mind during his future presidency.

Here is the thing about manufacturing jobs. These jobs have been steadily declining for years. Improving technology is partly responsible. As companies have rebounded from the downturn following 2008, they have rehired fewer workers in certain areas. In part, the companies have improved profit margins by doing so.

Keeping manufacturing jobs in the U.S. through a combination of incentives (corporate welfare) and sanctions may save some jobs. However, it will also increase the cost of goods for the American consumer and for international customers buying American goods. The long-term impact on the economy is yet to be determined. Goods will cost more. The subsidies (lower taxes) offered to companies to keep jobs here must be offset in other ways (fewer services or increase taxes in other sectors). Subsidies to businesses have a way of benefitting the companies (owners and investors) as much or more than the line workers (note the results of the banking bailout).

As president-elect Trump has been saying – this is the way business works. Clearly, some will benefit. However, at the level of what is best for the country, any given outcome is part of a much larger system both internal to this country and internationally. I would not be willing to bet on trickle down. It has not worked before and the increased efficiencies provided by technology make it even less likely it will work this time.

Do I have the right to speak on topics for which I have some expertise or not? For educators, this can be a real question. I don’t feel the need to comment on issues such as the economy or maybe fracking with my students, but I do have things to say about net neutrality and school funding and charter schools. It seems fair that if the next President can consider putting someone in a cabinet position with limited general knowledge of the field and a pre-existing stance against public education, I should be able to speak and write on the topics I study. I do not work with impressionable 4th graders. I work with adult professional – graduate students who can think for themselves and have a responsibility to use the best data available to take positions on issues related to education. Educators at all levels need to take public positions on the field in which they work.Whether they involve students should be a matter of common sense. Be willing to take on the variables making the biggest difference.

Professor Watchlist is a site allowing anyone to turn in professors for being overly liberal and I suppose trying to corrupt students.  This may be the backlash attempting to remedy the education gap in the voting pattern of the past election.

I found that only one professor from UND, a recent winner of the top academic recognition given to UND professors, is the only UND prof listed on the site. I suppose you cannot nominate yourself to this database and I admit I do not have the credentials of the professor now listed, but I thought I would nominate myself. I submitted this blog of evidence of my liberal positions. No word so far.

This should be great and give me ideas for a least a month of posts. Elect Mark as a liberal.