Coronavirus, Bias, Etc.

This year has changed my opinions on human nature, but it's hard to really explain how or why.

Mostly because I hadn't actually thought we were all that logical in the first place. I mean, I adore people. We're quirky, and weird, and have the potential for astounding acts of kindness and sinister acts of selfishness... but we're not actually all that good at logic. This is not to say we're terrible, we've got some great advantages in other ways. Pattern recognition, quick decision-making. All things that have allowed us to survive over the years. Logic is important, and worth striving towards, but mostly because we should try to be aware of when we're not being logical.

That's one of the first things Sudoku teaches you. When you're in there trying to figure out what number fits in the square, if you go with your instinct and put in a number that feels right - you're probably wrong. You absolutely have to have some basis for deciding what number fits in the square, if not you'll screw up the game and lose.

Pattern-recognition, giving personal anecdotes more weight than statistical analysis, confirmation bias and using emotions to decide which facts we believe (rather than science) - they're all pretty typical human behavior. Awareness of when we do this makes it easier to recognize and correct for it. And logic is ultimately better than the alternative. (There's a whole discussion I could have on belief systems, and the ways belief systems reinforce themselves when something seems to prove them wrong, and the role science can play as something different and also the same. That is, science has the potential to self-correct and focuses on evidence... but there are also scientists who use it more as a belief system, with all it's flaws, so that commonly accepted science is sometimes wrong. More research and experiments and scientific studies can eventually correct for that, though. Not in the way that evangelical Christians explain away something they assume God isn't behind - like a political loss - as 'the work of the devil', either.)

So anyways. We're not all that logical, and I've known that for a while, so I'm not exactly shocked by the multiple examples of this that 2020 has given us.

And yet...

And yet I had expected better. I don't know, I suppose I'd thought death and dying would be a huge wake up call. That all those biases and anecdotes and whatnot might affect people's thinking for politics in a normal year, but 250,000+ dead would matter.

Stalin said that "the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." I have never liked the cynicism, lack of empathy, and sheer evil behind a statement like that.

And yet, as goal posts have moved and the death toll continues to rise, I think there is more truth to that then I want to admit.

I have seen what I had previously thought were somewhat credible news sources publish the worst and stupidest assessments of coronavirus. I mean, I'm not an epidemiologist myself, so take it for what it's worth... but even though illnesses do appear to rise, and spike, and taper off that's generally either because it spread so far and wide that it's hard to find new people to infect, or because of actions taken to stop the spread. So when one of the earliest and most widely publicized predictions for coronavirus decided to use the Chinese experience to model the data, well. Our experience would only mimic the Chinese one if we had taken the same sorts of actions. 

If we weren't quarantining, and testing, and doing what China did to control the virus then why the hell would you think our coronavirus infection rate and death rate would follow the same trajectory?!?

And okay, again. I'm not an epidemiologist and the articles don't go much into the nitty gritty. Maybe the models took that into account? (Though given how wildly wrong the predictions I linked to were, it seems like they either didn't - or assumed the US would lockdown to a degree that hasn't happened.)

As with so much in life, these wildly inaccurate predictions have already been forgotten. And yet they served their purpose. That is, they were published during the height of uncertainty, and gave people looking for a reason not to freak out something to cling to. Gave decision-makers cover for saying 'it won't be that bad, don't worry'...

And here we are, over 250K dead. And it's just a statistic.

I know part of why that is. Part of it is our human tendency to rely more on anecdotes and personal experience. I mean, nobody in my immediate family has been diagnosed with covid yet. Nobody I'm close to. I think I had one facebook friend, a rather loose acquaintance, who tested positive and told everyone.

If all I went by was my own personal experience, I would probably think coronavirus was overblown.

However.

However, statistics matter. However, for as lucky as I have been (so far), there are others who have seen coronavirus sweep through their entire family. 

However, it shouldn't have to affect me personally for me to care, or take it seriously. With the way exponential growth works, by the time its hitting me and mine it'll be far too late. 

However, we all should be able to learn from other people's experiences, so that it doesn't take the loss of someone we care about to make us change our minds.

I don't know how much of our current situation is because of the absolute disaster of our national leadership and how much truly is human nature. I can't help but think it's worse, though. There probably would always be people who think it's overblown, and refuse to wear masks, and all that... I've seen some articles about the Spanish flu that show as much. I just don't think it would have been as widespread if we didn't have the President of the United States refusing to wear a mask and giving out massive amounts of disinformation. 

Which brings us to today, in a sense. Because the issue has become so polarized that there's pretty much no ability to talk to each other. We live in vastly different worlds, with vastly different ideas of what's going on, and it's hard to see how and when we'll ever have a shared reality again.

That's the strange part, to be honest. I had thought that people dying would be an indisputable reality. I had always thought the notion of 'truthiness' and a post-truth world was pretty much bullshit. It works for philosophical things ungrounded in reality, but again - dead bodies are pretty much indisputable. Dead is dead, you can't pretend that they didn't die (though you can apparently say that it was pneumonia, or the regular flu, or a stroke, and pretend that it wasn't actually covid that killed them. And most people aren't comparing the current overall mortality rates to previous years to realize that there's a ton of unaccounted for deaths. And if you do make that point, they then argue that those unaccounted for deaths come from the lockdown.... even though I think we would have noticed thousands more people dying of suicide or whatever it is they think the lockdowns are doing to get people killed.)

Florida, by the way, is one of the worst for fudging their data and pretending everything is fine. I've been monitoring the state because I'm wondering how long that will truly last. Surely people are noticing that a lot of people are dying? Even more than can be accounted for by the number of covid deaths? 

Then again, on an individual basis maybe there's no reason to. They don't know anyone who actually died, or accept that it was for non-covid causes, or something. (Whenever I check for Florida covid on twitter, there's almost always some sort of misinformation push. Most recently it was some Federalist article saying Florida is doing better than Illinois and wondering why mainstream media drags Florida so much... and it's no use telling them how badly Florida is lying with their statistics.)

It's the degree of willful blindness that bothers me, I think. I've long accepted that partisan bias and confirmation bias means that there's always someone extreme on the edges. But I've seen even people I thought were reasonably good at critical thinking buy into some of the worst arguments.

And, like... I sympathize. I really do. I hate sounding all doom and gloom (and considering we've gotten this far, I have considered revising my estimates. Then again, we seem to be facing the worst parts of the epidemic now. As expected, more and more hospitals are nearing capacity... and people have gotten exhausted of social distancing, the holiday season is coming up, the weather is turning colder. The crazy thing is that a vaccine is right around the corner, and if we'd had halfway decent leadership a lot more people would have survived long enough to see that... which is also maddening if you think about it. But there's almost no point dwelling on it right now. If things get bad enough that might change, but for now... well. Not a lot to do about it.)

Anyways. I remember how strange it felt in March, when I'd  investigated enough for my own satisfaction and expected a long period of lockdown to come. My Little had a school dance, and I had a sinking feeling I knew how awful the next few months would be and privately decided to hell with it all. I was going to help her and her friends make some good memories, something that hopefully would give them a bright spot to look back upon in the months to come. So one of her friends couldn't afford to get a manicure? I'll pay for it, why not? And they want to eat out for lunch? Sure... no problem. Kid needs a ride home after the dance? I gotcha. (I do think it worked, though I'm pretty sure none of the girls realized how much thought went into it. They were shrieking and giggling and goofing off and being teenaged girls just like they should be.)

It's sort of the same feeling now, tbh. I expected we'd reach a tipping point earlier. I mean, I knew we'd be in lockdown for months... but I hadn't really expected it would be eight months and counting. I hadn't expected it to take so long to get to the more remote parts of the US, either.

The vaccine is right around the corner, and maybe it won't ever get as bad as I fear. 

On the other hand - as I've said. More and more people are talking about hospitals that are maxed out. Staff members that are exhausted and unable to keep up. People who need treatment and no beds are free - not just for their hospital, but anything in a two hour radius. 

And we just had Thanksgiving, where there's still a large portion of the population that doesn't take coronavirus seriously. That's on top of election day, and people celebrating Biden's win (mostly masked, thankfully) and MAGA folks protesting...

All signs point to a terrible, horrible, and dark winter. 

And nobody wants to hear it.

Thanksgiving

Turkey turned out pretty good, did a Zoom with the family so it still felt like we were celebrating together. Turkey carcass is in the stock pot, and I'll probably be eating leftovers and making turkey soup over the next week.

Trying to spend the day actually, you know, giving thanks. Less doomscrolling or worrying about things that'll still be there to deal with tomorrow. Read the latest book in a series I enjoy. Overall, not a bad day. 

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

On Realism - Well, My Kind of Realism.

 I want to pontificate on a few things, though to be fair it's the sort of thing that should probably have proper studies done, so take it with a grain of salt.

I have heard people say that whoever spends the most money tends to win elections, but I wonder if that's mixing up correlation and causation. 

I say that, first of all because once I've made up my mind about a candidate it really doesn't matter how many ads I see or hear... it's not changing my mind. I also vaguely recall someone saying all the out-of-state money going to help with the Georgia run-offs may actually do more harm than good. (I did not get any details on how or why that may be, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.)

So if money is associated with winning elections, but ads and the like may have only a marginal effect, how are they related?

I think a case could be made that money is a marker of enthusiasm and support for a candidate, though I'd want to see studies done on that. And on whether the source of the money makes much of a difference. If I recall correctly, Obama raised a great deal of money because a lot of people donated small amounts. He was charismatic and people were enthusiastic. Would someone who raised the same amount of money, but mostly from large donors, show the same sort of results?  Does enthusiasm among the people who can afford the large donations matter the same as enthusiasm among the vast majority who can't? Idk, that's the sort of stuff you'd need to have studies for. 

I brought that up because I was thinking about realism. Or rather, about people who believe that underneath everything (sometimes very well hidden) decisions are made by the ones who can control brute force. The monopoly on violence that a state must hold, as just one example. This is the type of analysis that focuses mostly on hard power and military strength. 

But here's the thing - does a correlation between controlling brute force and being able to achieve your goals necessarily mean causation?

Bear with me here. There was an episode in the anime Samurai Champloo where our wanderers end up in a town that was mostly controlled by the mafia. There was an 'old school' mafia leader. A criminal, yes... but he also believed in taking care of his villagers. He was mostly supplanted by a newer, rougher, more violent leader. What was interesting, to me at least, was that at the end of the show one of the men switched loyalties. Even though the old leader seemed to lose everything (and iirc even died, so really it was switching loyalty to his son), during the course of the show his former follower realized that he valued the old ways more. That he didn't like this newer, more brutal leadership. 

That's what I get at, when I talk about how leaders can only lead where people want to follow. Where the relationship between leader and led is complicated, and not a one-way street. And it's also how we choose the world we want to live in.

It's easy to think that the hardass, the one willing to brutally put down any resistance, is the one who 'faces reality' and will win. And people will join up because they like being on the winning side, or they're afraid of being targeted, or for whatever reason. It's 'realism', and in that view the 'strongest' (which often means most brutal) wins.

But we are cooperative and social creatures, and the pack of wolves is often capable of taking down a larger opponent. Whoever draws the most people generally is more powerful.

And as Seth Godin says, "Through your actions as a leader, you attract a tribe that wants to follow you."

People want to follow people that give them a sense of purpose, an idea that they are helping create something better. Following power for power's sake is, in many ways, depressing. What does it matter whether this bully or that one takes over? What vision of a better future are they offering? 

If you think that only someone willing to be forceful can get things done, and you choose to follow that forceful leader... you create a world where that is exactly what happens. 

If you think things like justice, honesty, and truthfulness matter and you follow a leader who supports that... then those are the people with the largest pack of wolves and they have a better chance of making it happen. You create a world where it really does matter. 

You, me, all of our decisions together collectively make that happen.

It's way more complicated than that of course, and there are constraints that come when you decide these 'soft' things matter. Like expecting justice to be blind, and nobody should be above the rule of law.

I brought all that up because of all this talk about a 'coup' that's been going on ever since Election Day. I don't want to go into all the political and legal things going on right now, or all the court cases and failed evidence.

I wanted to discuss that so-called 'realist' way of analyzing a situation that looks at the crude basics - brute force. 

In most countries that would be the military, which is why whoever controls the military can often succeed at taking over a country. Also why history is littered with military dictatorships (and also dynasties that were overthrown by their military class. Like the Mamluks.) Luckily for us we have a very strong tradition of an apolitical military. One that swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and values our citizen soldiers as citizens as well as soldiers.

In other words, various figures in our military have consistently sent quiet signals over the last few months that they're not going to get involved in any sort of dispute. Like one over the election. (And so much of this has wound up in court, which makes it rather esoteric and hard to follow for those of us who aren't lawyers.)

If someone wanted to take over our country and couldn't use the military, there's not actually a lot of other choices left. You might get somewhere with the various militias (and although I know there's been some debate over whether they should be called that, but I'm thinking about how we called Muqtada al-Sadr's armed supporters a militia. They're not terrorists unless they're actually using terrorist tactics. A bunch of people carrying weapons and with some sort of structure for command and control is more like a militia. Unless you want to go with 'gang', I suppose.) 

Anyways, you might get somewhere with militias and armed supporters, but you'd still need some sort of coordination and communication. After all, what should they target? Where? Who? (and how would they pull anything off in time, considering the levers of state power that would be coming at them.)

Somewhat the same, but not, would be private security forces. I've heard people say that companies like Academi are actually somewhat similar to the professional mercenaries of medieval ages, though our current use of the term 'mercenary' gives that a connotation that isn't meant by the comparison. Seems like a stretch that they'd be used like that, though. And it would still require communication and coordination (or rather, command and control?).

There's also the possibility of outside forces, I suppose. I mean, you'd have to get our existing military to stand aside while you brought them in. And you'd have to have absolutely no morals whatsoever, and be a traitor to the country... but if you had all of that you could probably invite in foreign support. (I'm not talking about advisors and forces requested through official channels. Like the Germans and French that helped our revolutionary forces fight the British. There's a difference between asking aid to help fight off another foreign power and asking for aid to take over your own government against all it's laws and traditions.)

Anyways, all of those should have pretty obvious warning signs if you know what to look for. The gist of all of that is that our current troubles will probably be decided in a court of law. Courts which have rather consistently thrown out most of the Trump team's cases for a rather shocking lack of evidence.

I Can't Even...

I heard mutterings about Georgia Trump supporters writing in Trump's name in the run off election, and dismissed it as some of the typical wild fringe stupidity out there. I mean, much though I think the current Senate Majority Leader has to go, it seems remarkably stupid for Trump supporters to deliberately split their ticket and hand a win to the Democrats.

And then, today, I heard about some shadowy group associated with Roger Stone that's seriously pushing this. 

Supposedly. Maybe. There was also a report that they denied it.

As with far, far too much in the last four years reports are conflicting, and who even knows?

Its possible it's true, I suppose. The article's saying so indicate it's a move to bully Congressional Republicans into doing something (what I don't know. They don't have the authority, jurisdiction, or even any sort of historical precedent) to save Trump.

It might not be true at all, but if it is... 

Just how desperate are they? They really pulling out all the stops here. Hell, they're pulling out stops that nobody ever knew existed.

On the one hand, well. It looks more and more like we're on track for Biden's inauguration. Maybe this sort of stuff really is the last frantic gasps of the Trump presidency. 

On the other hand, if they're truly that desperate (and why are they so desperate to keep Trump in power?!? They're honestly acting as though losing is the end of the world. That's seriously abnormal when midterms are only two years away, and Biden would be up for reelection in four. It makes me wonder if the claim that Trump is afraid of facing a slew of lawsuits once he's out of office is true.)...

If they're truly that desperate, and pulling out all the stops... 

Then what crazy things will they resort to next? 

Trump, Cont

 I brought up my personal rules of thumb in the prior post, because when it comes to Trump people are all over the map.

I have heard people argue that he and his administration are all incompetent buffoons, and no threat. That they're sinister manipulators, deliberately exhausting us with scandal after scandal. That Trump wants to start his own news network. That he's afraid of losing his immunity from prosecution, and thus will do anything to stay in office. That he's trying to take on the 'deep state' and a cabal of satanic pedophiles who drink the blood of innocent children. That he's a fraud, and that you really have to watch out for the manipulative masterminds using him (said manipulator could be Putin, or Stephen Miller, or Mitch McConnell, or someone else).

All of these, btw, have very different meanings for our current situation. Is the buffoonery in court something we can safely ignore? Is all this fuss and furor simply the Republican Party humoring Trump because they're too afraid to tell him he lost? Or do they seriously think they can overturn this election, and how far are they willing to go to do it? How much are they riling up the base because they're fools who put a short term win over the long term good of this country, and how much is the tail wagging the dog? 

Truthfully, I look forward to Biden taking office because it's been like this for four. fricking. years. All rumor and speculation and nobody really ever seems to know. It's exhausting, whether that's deliberate and drawing from Putin's playbook or not, and I'm really rather sick of it. There has been so much crap that eventually gets pushed aside and forgotten because of whatever the next big scandal is, and it just keeps on happening over and over and over again. I'm tired of it. I want it to go away. I want Trump to fade into obscurity and I never want to hear about him ever again. (That's not happening, I know. I just wish it would.)

There's always been a hefty amount of speculation about what goes on in a president's court, but the speculation surrounding Trump and his team is on a whole other level. 

Which makes it very, very hard to evaluate much of anything. (I suppose I probably ought to read some of Woodward's books about the Trump administration. I generally haven't bought books like that before, but I do like articles that have that sort of insider view. Mostly because they contain pieces to add to my puzzle, if that makes sense. Like... I care less about the political stance - though that does matter - and more about what sort of decision-making team they're building. Are they surrounding themselves with yes-men and loyalists? How do they handle bad news? Do they micro-manage? Are they surrounding themselves with people like Rumsfeld and Cheney? Do they have a kitchen cabinet? I can't really describe what I'm looking for, specifically, just that every so often I stumble across something that feels like an important piece worth noting.)

Much of the problem is that Trump, more than any president in my lifetime, evokes the hope and fear that generally clouds people's judgment. 

I started off with the 'hope' because even though I've grown convinced he won't fulfill those expectations, many of his supporters hope he will. They want him to stop the forever wars, stop us from losing jobs overseas, stop enabling a system that ignores and marginalizes average Americans... there's a lot of stuff he tapped into in order to get the support he has. (It's just that most of them are so blinded by that hope that they ignore and dismiss the many, many signs that Trump isn't their guy.)

The flip side of that is fear. You all are probably familiar with that, too. Fear that Trump is another Hitler in the making. That he is far more clever than people give him credit for, and is using that cleverness maliciously. That he will launch a coup, if he hasn't already, and destroy the democracy we hold so dear.

Getting at the truth is hard, if not downright impossible. For as much turnover as he's had with his staff and as much as they do leak to the press, all it seems to do is generate more and more conflicting reports... so it tends to add to the confusion and uncertainty rather than really help.

I'll also admit that I've disliked Trump since well before he ever ran for office. I've never watched The Apprentice, and I never wanted to. He gave the impression, to me at least, of the typical mistaken image of a 'great leader' that I would actually never want to work for. He reminds me of the Jim Collins books How the Mighty Fall and the description of the 'white knight CEO' type that companies hire as they tip into failure. All that "I alone can save you" BS, when what we really need is the type of leader who says "together we can ____"

But... I never watched his show, so it's not like I have much to make that evaluation with. I have read various things over the years, though. Like the contractors he hired and then stiff to work on his hotels. And how he tended to use his money and power to bully them with litigation (since most of these hard working contractors can't afford a sustained legal effort).

While I don't have any direct access, the picture I've built over the years is of someone who is angry, petty, and vindictive. Unpredictable, too. Rather a bully, with no concern about 'norms' or 'conventions' or any sort of morals I've been able to find. Very transactional. He lives in that 'I got mine, how you do' world I've described before... and if he does you a favor he expects payback. Like the way he threatens federal aid to state governors he doesn't like. 

We've had people for years talk about when he'll start acting presidential, when he'll be more 'normal'... and although  he manages to tone things down for a day or a week or so, it never lasts. This is what we have, this is who he is, and every time you expect him to act like a 'normal' president you will be wrong.

I have no idea what he's thinking. More importantly, I think his only limit comes from the people around him. And given we've seen the Republican Party roll over for him, repeatedly, I have no idea what that means. Oh, and I do think there's some fishy stuff going on with the Christian conservatives - the DeVoss, and Erik Prince, and Bill Barr types. Sydney Powell is apparently one of them, too. Heck if I know what they're up to, other than that I don't think it's anything good. 

At least the military is one of those limits (and thank God for our history of being apolitical, and swearing to the Constitution rather than an individual. Realpolitik focuses on the underlying ability to use force to support your position. It's... misleading I think. For reasons I'm not ready to write about right now. But there's an element of truth to it in that the ability to control the military and use force to win is often a deciding factor. That's why military coups happen so often in history... and also why our norms and traditions of the citizen soldier matter. It's also interesting how our presidency, for all the power and resources available for foreign policy and international relations, actually has quite strict limits domestically. That is by design, of course. But we talk about 'most powerful man' and 'leader of the free world', and yet state governors can and have essentially told him to f___ off. Generally more politely than that, ofc.)

All of which is a long and complicated way of saying - I don't know what the heck is going on, but it concerns me. Especially since it's now been a couple of weeks since the election and there is still no sign that Trump and his supporters have accepted his loss. 

And I won't rest easy until Biden is inaugurated in January.

Some Rules of Thumb

 I was going to write some more on Trump, and what I think is going on post-election... but in typical fashion everyone's assessments are all over the place.

So I figured I'd write about some of my personal rules of thumb and shortcuts for evaluating information.

I suppose I ought to give all the usual caveats - I don't have any special access, I'm basing it off the same sort of news articles and social media commentary that anybody can read. I might be wrong. 

These guidelines are.... well. Writing them makes them seem more solid and rule-like than they are in my head. I actually haven't thought that deeply about them? They're things I've picked up here and there, and I'm probably missing some of the complexity with what I write. Don't make them out to be more than they are. Oh, and the whole point of 'rules of thumb' and 'guidelines' and 'heuristics' is that they're not 100% certain. They're shortcuts in thinking that work well enough to be useful, but you have to be aware of the loopholes and caveats when using them. I'm probably not going to go into that in greater detail because it'd make this post lose (even more) coherence.

So. Right. On with it...

Honor Harrington, a science fiction character, used surprise to great effect in her various space navy battles. And surprise often doesn't come because there was absolutely no warning whatsoever. 

It comes because people ignore, dismiss, or fail to notice the warnings they receive. 

This is rather well known in the real world. Nations spend a lot of time and resources keeping tabs on each other, and the effort it takes to mobilize your forces and prepare them for battle is noticeable. 'Surprise' comes from making people misinterpret the signals they see. 

The classic example is 'training exercises'. Training exercises are a convenient excuse to prepare for war while providing a cover story that keeps your enemies from reacting to the threat in time. It's a rather well known possibility, though, which is why most nations monitor any sort of 'training exercise' very carefully. Especially ones close to international borders, which makes it hard to use it for genuine surprise any more.

We also have a very hard time evaluating threats when our emotions are engages. Particularly when we really, really hope something is true - or are very, very afraid that it's true. 

That's kind of how con artists and scams work. "Do this and you can get a million dollars," and people will pay that $200 fee because they want to believe the scam is real. "The IRS says you owe another $1000", and people pay the scammers because they're afraid it's true.

So what do you do when you can tell you're not thinking clearly? 

Recognizing when that happens is the first step. If you aren't aware that you're emotionally compromised, it's hard to do much about it. 

But... then what?

That's, well. Complicated. If I had to put it into words, I'd probably draw on my military intelligence training. I'll use a scenario I gave before - you're trying to defend a location, and the enemy is on the other side of a mountain. There are at least two different routes through the mountain and you don't know which one they'll use. 

You don't need to spend all your time debating which one is right or which one is wrong... 

What you do is you think about how you'll know what the enemy actually does. Maybe there's a location where they have to take either the right fork or the left fork. Or there's a place where they're pretty much locked into one of the choices. So you try to find a way of monitoring those places. Set up sensors, or looking posts, or plan to have a UAV fly over the area at various times. Whatever. The point is to make sure you have enough warning about whatever their doing to react.

In the same way, it doesn't actually matter whether your hope or fear is correct. What matters is thinking 'what sorts of signs are there that would let me know?'. And then looking for them.

It's a little bit harder to apply that to people than mountain passes, but that's the sort of mindset I'd look for. I also don't think you have to manufacture or create the scenarios that will let you know... because if you're around anybody for a long enough period of time, something will probably crop up on it's own.

It's more about really listening, and observing. Everything people do gives you data points, pieces of a puzzle that you can start fitting together.

Not that the puzzle is ever truly complete! That's one of the fascinating things about people - you can learn 90-95% of them within a couple of months, but you can spend your entire lifetime learning the other 5-10%. And still never really know.  (As an example - when I was an adult I learned my Mom liked giraffes. We'd had this giant paper giraffe when I was a pre-schooler, but I'd always associated it with my sister - who also liked giraffes. Mom mentioned that we'd had the giraffe because she was the one who liked them. This, ofc, meant that for years we were all finding and giving her various giraffe gifts. And when she died, we had a table full of them where we asked people attending the funeral to go ahead and take one. In her memory, and also to find homes for all the giraffes. I've got a few giraffe things around the house to remind me of her.... but the point was that I hadn't known that about my  own mother for years.)

The funny thing is, most people make up their minds about someone and then reject any of the puzzle pieces that don't fit. 

Again - most surprises don't truly come with no warning. They come from dismissing, ignoring, and failing to pay attention to the warnings we actually receive.

When someone does something that we don't expect? When we have that urge to explain it away or justify it or find some way of squaring that behavior with the image we've built of them in our heads?

It might be time to revise your mental image of who that person is. 

This can be both good and bad, btw. Sometimes I revise my personal assessments up. Sometimes down. Generally it's neither good or bad, just fleshes people out a bit more and makes them more three-dimensional. Like 'oh, okay. When they're tired and upset they can get a bit snippy. I'd never seen them act like that before, good to know.'

Like I said, don't make any of this out to be more than it is... and there's plenty of room for discussion on just what is considered a signal, and how much it should matter. (Like - how important is it to know how a potential love interest treats the waitstaff at a restaurant? How much does it matter that they tell a white lie to make someone feel better? Signals, and how much they matter, are a very personal judgment call.)

Changes in Higher Ed

I... Don't dislike the idea of forgiving student loans? But I'm also okay if they don't (going to Iraq really helped pay off my undergrad. I've got some debt from my Masters in Computer Science, but it's not ridiculous.), but I remember this.

I remember everyone being told to go to college. Get the degree. And then my brothers, their friends from high school, even some of my own classmates, though it wasn't yet known to be a thing... They couldn't get good jobs after college and were drowning in debt.

That history degree that was supposed to be a field where they'd hire people soon? Professors didn't retire, tenure became more and more rare, and adjunct pay has you living in poverty.

The expectation, divorced from changes in how college was financed (and how much more expensive it was, and how minimum wage hadn't kept up with inflation) screwed an entire generation.

But yeah. Taking in the debt was a choice, and the risks back 5hen weren't well known. But still a choice. 🙄

'Real' Americans

Someone on Twitter tried saying that they 'spoke for all REAL Americans', and then spewed some political BS.

I responded mostly by pointing out that I'm a real American, even a vet (I don't actually care to advertise it that much? But, like, most of the people with these political views really respect that so it can mean I'm not automatically dismissed as some liberal insult-of-the-day, so I'm not above using it). And that he didn't speak for me.

In thinking about it, though. I'm not sure that was the right tactic. Because if he claims to be speaking for 'REAL' Americans...

That implies there's what. Fake ones?

I suppose, to be generous, that attitude might mean he's drawing a line between legitimate votes and illegal ones (ie voter fraud).

But there's another, darker explanation. And it fits in rather nicely with the study I shared the other day.. Where support for certain policies changed when people were more aware of our growing minority population.

Its this idea that the only 'real' Americans are the ones who think like me. (and often, also, the ones who look and act like me.)

Those Detroit voters? Apparently not 'real' Americans. People who votes for Biden? Not 'real'. Throw those votes out, they don't count.

I made the point I did because that's pretty much BS. I'm a real American, and as a vet I can probably say I've done more for it than the person saying this. (unless they're also a vet, of course).

But there are plenty of other very real Americans. And it doesn't matter if they're a John or  Chad or a Karen or Becky. Or a Terrell, or DeShawn, Latisha, or Imani.

Or Syed, or Mahmud, or Rajasekhar, or Saraswathi. Or Tomer, or Esther. Or have last names like Nguyen or Park or Hashimoto or Lee. Or Wojtowicz,Valentino, and Romano. Or Blackfoot. Or Rodriguez, Garcia, and more. 

They're all 'real' Americans. US citizens living here. 

Heck, I was remembering the other day Chinese workers helped build our railroads some 150 years ago, and I'm sure there are Asian Americans whose families have been living here longer than Trump's. 

And their legal votes have just as much of a right to be counted as any other's. 

Curious

On the one hand, I never expected Trump to gracefully take the loss, and we've seen already that the Republicans have tied themselves to him hook, line, and sinker.

On the other, the nonstop shenanigans are beginning to reek of... Desperation. 

This seems far more than just aiding and abetting Trump's political theater. Or immoral politicians putting party over country (though there's that, too).

The willingness to undermine the legitimacy of the election, the type of accusation that also undermines Republican wins has always been a short sighted and destructive act that most of our politicians have been wise enough to avoid. Hell, that's why I gave kudos to Al Gore ages ago. For conceding in 2000. 

But pressuring Georgia's secretary of state to throw out legal votes?

And I hear now of some county in Michigan that divided on party lines about certifying the election results. 

This is not normal. They honestly think what - that they can force states to pick electors that will completely ignore the votes in their state in order to pick Trump?!?

Are they all trying to create a civil war?

Do they have a patriotic bone in their bodies? (well, the Secretary of the State in Georgia seems to).

Has someone lobotomized them and taken all their brains?!?

What on earth could possibly be so important that they would go to such lengths?

Its like they seriously think they'll never win another election, and at this rate that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

A Moment to Appreciate the Absurdity

The sheer absurdity of current events sometimes gets me. 

I mean, it's very concerning for the President of the United States to tweet "Liberate ______" for various states. 

And one of his men tweeted that people in Michigan should 'rise up'. 

Like, others have already pointed out that these are practically the definition of sedition. Though how could you possibly try a sitting president for sedition? Maybe it's for the best that people seem to be taking this as the usual political theatrics... 

But even though it's serious and concerning, I can't help being struck by the absurdity of it all. I mean... He's the POTUS. He's the head of our nation. Isn't he kinda trying to incite rebellion against..  Himself?!? 

I mean, sure. Not really. The states have a lot of independence (hence United States) and he's really trying to incite people to rise up against their state leaders. And Democrats, I guess. But, like, normally things getting out of hand is a sign you've failed as a leader? 

Anyways. Thank God we've got 50 states with their own governors who don't actually report to the president, and who are in charge of their elections. The mishmash of responses to covid are far more of a problem, and show why the federal government has grown so powerful (for under most presidents helping manage that coordinated response. And the ability to give and withhold federal funds means many states will generally do what the federal government wants)

Still, very strange for our head of state to try and encourage people to 'liberate' anything under his rule. 

A Nice Summary on the State of the Election

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-hard-it-overturn-american-election

Wild Speculations

The election is over, and Biden won.

And the Trump administration has made it increasingly clear that they will not accept the results. On the one hand, it's hard to imagine what they could do to change anything. They lost, that's it. 

However, I have never seen Trump concede. And he seems far more likely to double down. 

I've been doomscrolling again, and on the one hand I think remaining calm is probably the best option. (Besides, if people get rowdy it gives Trump an excuse to order troops around. And SecDef Esper is now oh so conveniently gone,so it's unclear whether Trump has installed loyalists who are more loyal to Trump than our traditions and constitution. But, well... I don't know enough about anything going on there right now, and there's not a lot I could do even if I did).

I've heard that Q has gone dark, and bits and pieces I've heard about them got me thinking. Like, there's some whole 'ten days of darkness' which, even though Q has practically always been wrong, could mean Qanon supporters will do or expect something this weekend. The 13th or 14th?

I was, also thinking of their ludicrous belief that Trump cares about child pornography. Except then I remembered that Russia likes to use that accusation against their political dissidents. So... Is Q a deliberate misinformation campaign, and how much of it is coordinated with Trump and part of the playbook?

I am, ofc, in no position to verify anything. It's pure speculation. 

But I hate to think that what's about to go down rests entirely on the integrity and moral strength of unknown people in the military, Department of Justice, FBI, etc.

And Congress... But after four years it's hard to have much confidence in them.

And the media, which. Well, not all news organizations are created equal. 

Extras

Given where I left the previous post, it may sound like I was headed in the direction of 'economic uncertainty'. I don't think that's quite right. Also, probably need to say more about racism and immigration. And religion. 

But it's a lot, so maybe another time. For now I wanted to share a tweet that captures a feeling I've seen a couple of times already, and feel the same - 

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1325259197378940930?s=19

I generally am critical of whoever is in power,and I'm sure I'll be criticizing Biden just like I have Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton. 

And I look forward to doing so. 

On Trumpism

 They have finally declared Biden the winner, and I wanted to take a moment to just appreciate that.

Breathe deep. Relax.

Tomorrow we'll still have the same problems. We're seeing over 100K new coronavirus cases a day. I'm sure there'll be some sort of backlash from Trump's supporters. Biden is not a perfect candidate, and the factors that have led to resentment of 'the establishment' are all still there. And Trump - well. He's never conceded when people think he should, and has a tendency to double down. I will not even try to predict how we will act, but Jan 20th is a long ways away.

But for now, for today, I just want to appreciate that there's an end in sight. I'm really rather sick of the constant stream of scandals and missteps that have dominated the news for four years, and I am looking forward to what I hope will be a very boring presidency. (Or as boring as you can be when you take over during a raging pandemic, with severe economic issues, and a nation so divided people have been joking about civil war.)

I also decided it was time to try jotting down my thoughts on why some people support Trump. I think of my uncles (conservatives, Christian, one if not both of whom listen to Rush Limbaugh), and my step-brother (from when Dad remarried about seven (?) years ago, so we didn't grow up together or anything. Blue-collar, rural Indiana... Trump supporter.) And the former coworkers and colleagues I'm facebook friends with. I understand why most people have cut out such people from their facebook feeds, but I feel doing so means you wind up in a echo chamber, and I wanted to hear the different opinions out there. Besides, you can't change minds if you don't have any sort of communication at all. Oh, and there's also some distant relatives from my Dad's side.

I think about the people I know, and I feel dismissing them all as 'uneducated, racist, and gullible' is... overly simplistic. You're definitely not going to be able to stop support for Trump, or another like him, if you start off thinking that. Partly because the people you're trying to persuade can tell you think poorly of them, so they're not going to listen. 

Many have already written them off (and vice versa), which is part of why we are living in a world with two completely different worldviews. Both of whom consider the other side to be delusional. 

For the 'uneducated' bit, quite a few of the Trump supporters don't have degrees, that's true. Though as I've mentioned before I don't think that has anything to do with intelligence. By the way, I might have a college degree... but I don't know diddly squat about fixing a car problem, or home repair, or construction. My new step-family does, and can be quite knowledgeable about that sort of thing. 

But even aside from that, my two uncles both have college degrees. They're engineers, STEM type people, and definitely not dumb. 

The 'racist' label... well. It's complicated. They're not overtly racist, none of them. At least I haven't ever heard any of them say something obvious. However...

I don't know about them, specifically, but I think about this study from a couple of years back. The study wanted to disentangle how much of white attitudes towards welfare had to do with belief in 'small government' and self-sufficiency, and how much was racism. So they asked people about their beliefs. But they randomly made sure some of the subjects were fed information on our growing minority population. The whole 'browning of America' that we get the occasional article on. 

And what they found was that participants who were told that we're growing more diverse wound up supporting welfare policies less. 

The problem with a study like this is that it doesn't really say what goes through people's minds. Heck, they probably didn't even think about it. It was probably not logic, nobody went and said "Wow, America has fewer and fewer white people. I don't think I want to support policies that are going to help my fellow Americans." (And I'm sure they immediately connected 'welfare' with the 'black welfare queens' of the Reagan era, even though the beneficiaries are still primarily white.)

This is what people mean when they talk about covert racism, or hidden racism. The people involved don't consider themselves racist, and will deny it quite loudly. But when given information about race, it influences what policies and public programs they support.

I have my own guesses about what's going on here, but it's not like I've done any sort of scientific study. No survey, either. I'm basing it off what I know about people in general, and my own experiences in our society.

First, I wanted to point out another way you see that subtle influence. It's related to what I said before, that when I hear people judging others it tends to get my back up. Consider fashion, and clothing. Style. Good suits with good quality cloth. Tailored neatly to your personal measurements. Designer handbags. Shoes...

Yes, they look nice. But what they really do is signal that you have money. That you can afford those designer clothes, afford to have someone tailor your clothing to you personally. And so everyone who is judging you off of what you wear, or your weight, or your haircut... is judging you on superficial crap. 

I'll take someone in sweatpants and t-shirts over someone in an Armani suit... if they're kind. (Smart, funny, and good-looking is nice too.) 

I'll take someone driving a beat up old car over someone driving a Lotus, or a Bugatti if they are caring and empathetic. (I suppose you could have someone driving a nice car who's also caring, empathetic, and kind. Studies show people grow more selfish the richer they are though, so the ones who manage it are something special.)

And if you're going to judge me for that crap - for what I wear, or drive, or how my hair is styled - that says something pretty bad about your own values and personality. (Politicians have to worry about that because they have to get elected, and a lot of people are judgy... which sucks. Because that's part of how we got Warren Harding, and it's part of why politicians in the age of television generally look better than average. The best candidate might be the ugliest person in the world, and they'd probably lose the election because people won't see past that. There's a kind of disturbing study that talks about how the tallest candidate wins elections, and it's sad to think who elect would be based on something so completely unrelated to competence and capability.)

So anyways... you see something similar when it comes to race. "Oh, I'm not racist. I just don't think they should be wearing those clothes. I don't need to see their underwear."

Or we pressure them to change their hair. Afros are too much, you see. 

I haven't seen the movie The Pursuit of Happyness, I probably ought to since I've mentioned before. From what I heard, though, it shows how a black man (played by Will Smith) succeeds in business... and part of what he had to do was act more like a white man. 

What parts are truly essential and universal to success, and what is required because if you don't perform white the judgy people will hold it against you? Does an afro really say absolutely anything about someone's competence and capability of doing the job? Would a mohawk?  Or undercut? 

What about tattoos? Do you really think someone is a better or worse lawyer if they have a visible tattoo?

I'll just leave that to sit for a bit. I brought it up more because it points out something else. It points out the ways we signal in group and out group. 

And I think the changing attitudes towards welfare are because many of us still put minorities in an 'out group'.

It's also because our nation has grown so large that we can label entire states 'out group'. 

'Why is my money being sent to the education department in Mississippi?' or 'Why should my tax dollars go to people in Caliornia?'

The funny thing is. Well.

The funny thing is we all love a sense of community, and that on the local level most of us believe in helping each other out. (Or maybe that's just my family and those like us. Since my grandparents are farmers, and farming communities tend to be like that. The whole tit-for-tat just turns into helping your neighbor, since you never know who might have a tractor break down and need a hand. You help them, next time they help you, and it's not even worth trying to keep score.)

Like, part of what makes modern society so alienating is that many of are missing that. It's lonely, and isolating, and men especially tend to die earlier because of it. 

Our federal government is, in some ways, too large to get that shared sense of community. For most of us, that is. And so welfare seems less like us helping out our neighbor and more like some outsider forcing us to give up money so that they can hand it over to a stranger. (FYI - during this pandemic my local community has a facebook group where people sometimes help each other out. I'm also on a mailing list, and every so often there's a request for someone to deliver food, or water, or pick up prescriptions for the homebound. Because in this time of crisis we want to come together and take care of each other. But people don't think that a federal welfare program can be pretty much the same thing. Some of that is because of how alienating and dehumanizing the bureaucracy behind it all is, and some of it is because we see Washington DC as an entirely different world. 😄)

To bring this back to Trumpism, then...

The world pretty much sucks right now. Or rather, my generation grew up hearing that social security would probably be gone by the time we were ready to retire. Climate change was out of control. We did what we were 'supposed to do' and went to college and took on student loans, and then found that college had grown significantly more expensive and the jobs we got when we left didn't pay nearly as well, so many of us were hampered by student loans... Which also meant they didn't have the resources to pay for a house, or do many other things that used to be markers of adulthood. (I have been a bit of an exception here, purely because of my military service and a bit of luck.)

The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, people are swamped in debt and can't afford to buy homes...

And then the boomers responsible for this mess call millennials spoiled and blame them for failing to launch. (I have to switch phrasing here because I'm actually Gen X, as much as these things matter in the first place, and some of this is related more to my older millenial brothers and the experiences they and their friends went through. Millennials, btw, who are starting to reach their 40s now.)

The older generation, well. They had the Civil Rights Movement and have done some good things, but they're also screwing us over, and we're the ones who are going to have to pick up the pieces.

It's hard enough for those who went to college, but it's also pretty hard for the ones who didn't. Who see the good paying jobs go away, whether it's because of automation or offshoring. Who struggle to have a good life, to raise their families and make ends meet. 

All of whom feel like the powers-that-be don't give a shit about changing. They make money by offshoring, they have no problems finding a good paying job. They don't have to worry that they're one car problem, or health problem, or stroke of bad luck away from bankruptcy. Politicians worry more about the big donors. The corporations, the oligarchs. And the media? The mainstream media walk in those same circles. They don't care about the average American, and when they come do a report in 'flyover country' it's almost like they're anthropologists narrating as they study some sort of backwards (another judgy thing) tribe. 

None of them actually work for the average American. Republican or Democrat. Nor journalists. (Though for some reason they actually think Fox News does? They'll call the people who still watch mainstream media and say you can't trust them, but then turn around and act like sheeple themselves. smh.)

Most of what they talk about in DC is obscure, and seems irrelevant. (I say seems, because quite a bit of it does actually trickle down to impact us... but it tends to be done in such a way that it's easy to confuse cause and effect. For example, I didn't learn until graduate school that Reagan's policies led to a growth in homeless people.) 

There's also an element of pride at work. After all, there is something to be said for earning your own way. For working with your hands. For creating, and being able to see the fruits of your labor.

People don't want charity. Or a handout. They want that good paying job where they can work hard, pay off their debts, and have enough for their hobbies or a nice vacation or something.

Except those good paying jobs are harder and harder to find, especially if you don't have a college degree. Family farms are more and more rare (I have some second cousins that still do, but most farms are now run by big business), coal mining jobs are going away. Factory jobs need fewer and fewer people, for the reasons I mentioned above.

And Trump...

Trump fed them what they wanted to hear. He promised he'd bring the jobs back. Promised he cared about the little guy.

Promised he'd 'drain the swamp', and get rid of all the corruption and big money that keeps our government from representing us, and turns it into something more like a foreign power.

I personally think he was full of hot air when he said this, partly because every time I looked into what actually happened he didn't follow through. But I understand why they wanted to believe it.

After all, people have the hardest time thinking clearly when something is what they hope is true (or are afraid is true.)

There's also Q, and some of the fantasies and delusions that seem to have seeped out even to people that I don't think follow Q.

This idea that Trump is some sort of white knight, a crusader for justice taking on the deep state. A fighter who will stop this inexorable slide into misery.

I don't feel I've covered everything, but I also don't feel like typing anything more. I'll summarize by saying - Trump, for better or worse, made them feel heard. Made them feel like he cared, and that he'd actually do something about all this.

I don't think he even came close to doing so, and those problems haven't gone away.

Food for Thought

https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1324337099961704448?s=19

On Law and Society

There's something I was thinking about after the latest Supreme Court Justice was confirmed.

The law reflects society. To a certain extent. What do I mean by that? 

I recall a story about a murder trial, I don't remember when exactly. Consider it set in the Appalachian mountains, in a Hatsfield vs. McCoy era. The jury acquitted the defendant, not because they thought he hadn't killed anyone... but because when they heard the case they decided the person he killed had provoked him and it was essentially justified.

I'm bringing this up because I wanted to talk about what we, as a society, accept. Back around the Brown vs. Board of Education era (or prior. I am fuzzy on the details as I try to remember something from a couple of decades ago, so bear with me) there was some debate about which way to take the civil rights movement. Some wanted to focus on the legal system and some wanted to focus on pushing for economic solutions. Iirc they mostly went in a legal direction, partly because slavery was enabled through the legal system. Hence court cases like Brown vs. Board of Education.

I think the results of that decision showed some of the strengths and weaknesses of it, since winning the court case and forcing de-segregation didn't exactly fix everything. When your parents and/or grandparents were slaves, and when the slaves were emancipated and your slave masters decide that means they can throw you out without any sort of compensation... where they decide 'hey, we no longer have to worry about providing you food and housing, or medical care, and we can just offer you a paltry wage and expect you to figure the rest of it out on your own', well... it's kind of hard to build up generational wealth that way.

The legal battles helped break down barriers, it's true. Just like having Jackie Robinson  become the first African American baseball player broke down barriers. (When every. single. employer. discriminated against you it's hard to get the foot in the door. Breaking those barriers down didn't magically fix everything, but at least some were able to get better jobs and start working their way up.) 

But there was also a lot of resentment towards what people felt they were forced to do. I don't necessarily want to get into the discussions on Affirmative Action and the like right now, as too many people think they know what it means already and the terms carry a lot of baggage right now. I'm also not trying to say it's okay, or should have been expected, or anything of the sort. Suffice to say it exists, and that resentment and anger has caused problems. I don't know enough to say whether those problems are better or worse than what would have happened if the civil rights movement had pushed more of an economic agenda than a legal one. What I can say is that we still haven't truly reckoned with the legacy of slavery in America, and too many of us resist hearing about it. At all. (I learned about a lot of things as an adult that I was never aware of, whether it's Sundown Towns, or the way banks refused to give mortgages for anyone living in black neighborhoods, or the way certain policies destroyed black families. Many of these problems have persisted well after the Civil Rights Movement, and most white Americans are barely even aware of them.)

But Kwame Appiah made some interesting points in his book Cosmopolitanism. Namely that what really changed was how white people saw black people. That they saw the abuses of white authority figures and saw that they were being done to people. People who have darker skin. People who look different. But people. Not any of the nasty terms racist people use to try and classify 'other' people as subhuman. (These past few decades have been eye-opening for how far we still have to go, btw. All I have to think about is some of the awful things people said about Michelle Obama - who always struck me as a very classy way - and the way they raved about Melania Trump. While I don't want to slut shame her for her pictures, I know that she in no way, shape, or form had a career that at any other time would have been called 'classy'.)

So here's the thing. While there are still a ton of problems, a lot has changed. And not just with Michelle Obama. More and more of us know people who are openly gay, and know that yes. They are people. More of us know people who are trans. I can remember my mother, well over a decade ago now, talking about a coworker who was trans. We know them, we see them, they are people.

So recent current events make this a scary time for those people who are threatened by attempts to (legally) put the genie back in the bottle. And that's perfectly understandable, and they have a right to be worried.

The part I wanted to hold out as hope, though, is that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, regardless of what laws get passed, more and more Americans do see these disparate groups as people. If a state tried to make homosexuality illegal again (and I think there are states that still have laws against sodomy), it's increasingly unlikely that the average person is going to bother calling the cops or prosecuting or trying to use those laws. Small comfort for the situations where someone does, and the fact that there are laws that could be enforced is problematic. Not just because of what happens to the person being prosecuted, but for what it does to undermine justice and the rule of law. (Marijuana use illustrates the problem. When even the cops look the other way on marijuana use, it means arrests and prosecution are handed out inconsistently and unfairly. The white college kid that gets a verbal warning can go on to have a fulfilling career, while the black kid winds up in the judicial system and spend their life dealing with the consequences of having a criminal record.)

This is also, btw, the problem with having top-down attempts at controlling people. Does anyone think that if they succeed at repealing Roe vs Wade that there won't be doctors performing abortions anyway? With plenty of people who disagree with the law and will aid and abet it? 

That making homosexual marriages illegal again will stop it? Especially when many businesses and hospitals have changed to adapt to them? 

The people desperately trying to turn back the clock have already lost, and they know it. The best they can do is create situations where average Americans will see people suffering from their rigid and out of touch policies. 

Someone pointed out how Florida went for Trump, and at the same time approved a $15 minimum wage. Just as study after study showed that many Americans supported Obamacare... so long as you didn't use that term. 

The frustrating part is that people form these hardened opinions on buzzwords (like Obamacare), and wind up saying they don't support things that - if you take out the loaded terms - they actually do.

I'm not really sure what this all means, or what the answer is. I just can tell that the people misleading their supporters like that are essentially setting us up for a lot of pain and suffering, and ultimately they're still going to lose.

Bible Quote

I think sometimes about 1 Samuel 8, when the Jews requested a king. God didn't really want to give them one, and described it as a rejection... But gave in and gave them what they wanted.

Some of that is the recurring theme in the Old Testament (ie they want to be like all the other nations around them, and keep wondering why God wants them to be different), but it also says something about human nature and our desire for... Authoritarianism? Having one powerful person in charge? 

I think you could argue that God doesn't want that for us, but He goes along with our desire for it. I know it's not really good to project modern ideas on ancient societies, but I like to think this shows that the 'divine right of kings' is more a man made thing that God humors us with, and maybe He actually prefers democracy. 

"He will take a tenth of your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day." 

Really, He's not an authoritarian and doesn't want that for us... But if we insist on it well, that's on us. 

Election Aftermath

 They're still counting the votes, and although it's looking like it'll be Biden we can't really say for sure.

I wanted to write something... well. I suppose it feeds into the Trump supporter post that I haven't gotten around to writing. Yet. And as usual I'll start with something completely unrelated.

Many doctors complain about how patients will google their symptoms and come to the office believing they have whatever they found on the internet. And I get that... I get how frustrating it can be when you've gone to school and learned all this amazing stuff about the human body, and then someone comes in and believes they have cancer because of a five minute internet search. Especially when that patient is wrong, and refuses to hear it.

At the same time, doctors aren't always right. Nobody knows what you're feeling, and nobody knows your health like you do. There are horror stories of doctors dismissing women's pain (because of menstrual cramps, say) when they really had appendicitis. There are studies that show doctors dismiss black women when they say they are in pain, and thus fail to treat them for deadly diseases. 

You are responsible for your own health, the doctors aren't always right, and if your doctor isn't taking you seriously and helping you heal then find another.

I used doctor-patient relationships in my example here, but is it any surprise at all that what I'm really talking about is expertise? 

The doctor has expertise, and there's a time and place for it. But the doctor is not always right, either. We should draw on that expertise and use it, but we shouldn't accept it without question. Especially not when what they're saying doesn't seem to fit our symptoms/situation.

I have said before that I consider myself independent, and the partisan attitude towards expertise captures some of why. 

On the one hand, I have a master's degree (two, really) and so I have a certain amount of expertise. I can be a bit of a data wonk, though I don't claim to be truly expert at looking at the raw data in scientific studies and picking out statistical errors. Still, I know more than most. 

At the same time, I served in the military, and I have seen firsthand that we have brilliant people who have never gone to college. I also know that I went to a public university, and that there are Ivy League elitists who probably wouldn't take my own opinions as seriously... which I find rather offensive and think reflects a great deal more on them (the snobby a-holes who are building their own little privileged bubble because they don't listen to anyone who's experience is different than theirs) than it does on me.

There are times when the 'experts' are wrong, and we shouldn't just blindly accept what they say. That goes for the Iraq War, and it goes for news journalists too. 

I get why people stopped trusting the mainstream media. I just don't know why the hell that translates into trusting Fox News, or other sources that aren't honestly any better. Really, it's better to have multiple sources of news so that the biases and spin become more obvious and you can sort of pick them out. People stopped trusting mainstream media, and it seems to have made them vulnerable for all sorts of crackpot conspiracy theories. 

I don't even necessarily like the mainstream media, but I absolutely hate the impasse we have reached in our political discussions today. That is, anything that doesn't support our confirmation biases is dismissed out of hand as 'not credible'. There's no point in doing any sort of research or making any sort of arguments, because we don't share any sort of common understanding of what is considered a reliable or credible source. (And, tbf, it does go both ways... I know a heckuva lot more about economics, for example, then some of my facebook friends and I can see a ton of problems with that article they just posted... but what's the point of trying to explain it all? Honestly if they'd wanted the truth they could easily have found it out themselves. Instead they choose to share articles that just reinforce their biases.)

I'm sure this makes me sound better than I am... I have my own biases, of course. There have been times I've seen a point made and said "that can't be right". But then I research it, and find out that it's more accurate than I thought. I try to pay attention to when I resist accepting something, since it's a sure sign that my own confirmation bias is at work. Which oddly enough is why I'm more confident in the opinions I do form.

For example, I know that I did not start out despising Trump (though I still thought he was worse than Hillary Clinton. And I don't think highly of her, so that's saying something). I thought the protests around his inauguration were premature and I wanted to see how he did at governing. But all I had to do was dig a little bit into any one of the many stories around him - the publicity stunt he did with Carrier that didn't save any real jobs. Things he said and did. 

He lies. He lies all the time. He lies so much that it's not worth the effort of fact checking any more, it's better to just assume he's lying from the moment he opens his mouth.

And he's always doing shady stuff. He doesn't separate out his personal business from the political from his role as a public servant. The Hatch Act? A wonky thing most Americans aren't even aware of, but an important symbol of this separation. Ignored... Hardly worth the paper it was written on.

Rule of law? Under this administration it's a joke.

And yet far too many of my fellow Americans have built up this idea of Donald Trump that has absolutely no relation to reality. My step-brother shared a meme on facebook where Trump was painted like a medieval Knight Templar, in armor and with a giant red cross. 

They honestly seem to think he's some sort of crusader for justice... I have no words. I don't even know where to start. 

What's interesting, though, is how that actually limits Trump. In a way.

That is, his supporters have built up this image of him... and they dismiss the things that don't match their image. It's sort of like how some of the English monarchists claimed they were doing things in the king's name, even when it went against what the king actually said he wanted. 

I think about that, with regards to when Trump tried to get them to stop counting votes this morning. Because his supporters for the most part just blinked and moved on. Just another wild and crazy thing Trump said, he can't be serious. Can't really mean it. Must be joking. Cue an uncomfortable laugh and silence, as the states continue to count their votes and everyone just sort of pretends it didn't happen. (Except, ofc, for his more... rabid supporters. There's a few here and there trying to pretend that the votes shouldn't be counted, and I'm sure Trump will lead with claims of cheating and there might be some real problems because of it. However, it's up to the state leadership - and state governors - to run their elections and certify the results and the counting doesn't stop just because Trump wants it to.)

This highlights something I've said before, about the relationship between the leader and the led. About how you can't lead people where they aren't willing to follow. 

Trump can say that the counting should stop all he wants, but people aren't following his lead on it. (Again, aside from some of his more rabid supporters who - thank god - are not in a position to enforce it.) 

If this was like in 2000, if the states in question are close enough we might see a recount and questions about that might - might - get sent to the judicial system for a decision. 

We waited weeks to find out whether Gore or Bush would be president. It's not unreasonable for the same to happen here... but only if it's close enough to demand a recount, or if there's some other reason to do so. 

A reason that has more evidence then simply the president's say-so.

I did have to throw in that caveat about 'if this was like in 2000', because there seems to be an underlying threat hanging over our heads that wasn't there in 2000. There's a real fear that people will turn violent if they don't get the results they want...

Some of the polls asked about that, and it seems most people are willing to abide by whatever results the process finds. But given what Trump has already said and done, I'm sure he'll be saying things to stir the pot. 

That's enough for now, though. I still want to delve a little bit deeper into Trump supporters, just not sure when.

Election Night

I don't think anything will be decided tonight, especially with the unprecedented amount of mail in and early voting, so I think I'll head to bed and try to sleep.

I've been thinking, off and on, of trying to write a post about Trump supporters. Mostly because, even though I would love to dismiss them with a facile label I know that the truth is more complicated than that. 

I mean, on the one hand I'm just horrified at how easily they ignore and/or dismiss all the warning signs regarding Trump. Also with the casual acceptance of the death toll from the coronavirus (and they claim to be pro-life?!?) 

Well, I won't get into it right now. It's the kind of thing I think I need an actual keyboard for and I'm not entirely sure what'll come out when I write. (The keyboard isn't just about typing faster. Typing on the phone requires paying too much attention to what I'm doing, whereas with a keyboard I don't have to think about typing and it's more a stream of consciousness. I don't always know what'll come out of it. I mean, I do find I make more grammatical errors that way... I don't catch a 'their' vs 'they're' etc. Idk, it's like the writer version of what happens when I really get into a book. I don't even notice the words, the story just sort of plays in my head like a movie.)