Outside Media, Outside Spending

I am a Georgian, and I don't like how long its been since I lived full-time in my home state. I subscribe to and read the news from my hometown (Decatur just agreed to buy a lot of land from a historic children's home and got named as a "good suburb" by some website), and keep up with friends in Atlanta who have seen multiple interstate disruptions in the past few weeks. I see high school classmates when I do get back, and I treasure the wonderful upbringing I had, flavored by places all across Georgia: Savannah, Jekyll, Cumberland, Rome, Athens, Valdosta, Columbus, Warner Robins, Augusta, Amicalola Falls, and the main trails in North Georgia maintains by the Georgia Appalachian Trail Club.

I say all this because despite my residency in DC for this tour inside the government, I feel much more like a Georgian than a "District of Columbian" or whatever the right term is, and the amount of outside spending and interference in the 6th district astounded me from afar, while the press coverage all seemed focused on the horserace and not the real, substantive issues that matter for the people voting. I heard of buses chartered and plane tickets bought so people could fly in and canvass, and the amount of paid media has apparently been choking mailboxes for weeks, while robocalls have swamped phone lines.

Ugh. I accept that "ground game" matters in politics, but persuasion should matter so much more - which is why volunteer phone calls and canvassing are the best form of political work. But so often, the "scripts" for volunteers treat the political landscape like its fixed or frozen, instead of being responsive to people as they read the news and keep up with events. When things are so nuts that a Georgian from outside the 6th district (native of the 4th here), living in DC, starts feeling a little resentful of all of the outside nonsense, you know its bad. The national press seemed so interested in a certain narrative that they turned a 30-year-old never-candidate into the effective incumbent.

Anyways, I think there's work we can all do, wherever we are, to support and oppose important policies. Let's let the Georgia Sixth make its own decisions, please.

Mario Rubio on the importance of respectful debate in the Senate

Why I am #NeverTrump: The List

This is a list of factual quotes and statements about Donald Trump, built on this blog post by Scott Aaronson. I consider each of the below to be individually disqualifying. It was originally posted on June 26, 2016 and last updated on August 11, 2016.

I would encourage folks on all sides to reach out to people you don't agree with and engage with each other. If we don't talk with each other and listen to each other, our political ecosystem will continue to get worse.

1. He’s advocated ordering the military to murder the families of terrorists - an ineffective war crime.
2. He says that the national debt could be “paid back at a discount”—implicitly treating the US government like a failed casino project, and reneging on Alexander Hamilton’s principle (which has stood since the Revolutionary War, and helps maintain the world’s economic stability) that US credit is ironclad. He's advocated for trade wars.
3. He’s said peaceful protestors at his rallies should be “roughed up” and “carried away on stretchers” among other quotes supporting violence. He said he wanted to hit some of the speakers at the democratic convention, one "so hard his head would spin."
4. He’s said “libel laws should be opened up” to let him sue journalists who criticize him and blacklists press organizations from his events because he doesn’t like their coverage. 
5. He’s repeatedly expressed admiration for autocrats, including Vladimir Putin, as well as for the Chinese government’s decision to suppress the Tiananmen Square protests by arresting and killing thousands of people. He parrots Russian talking points (video) about their invasion and rigged plebiscite in Crimea. 
6. He’s proposed a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslims entering the US, preying on fears of Syrian refugees fleeing war. His idea is impossible and unconstitutional to implement. The few Muslims who have done violence in the US recently were/are American citizens. He recently said the ban would be country specific.
7. He said that he would walk away from the Paris accords (while lying about them) and that the entire concept of global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese (see 50 more tweets here).
8. His real estate management corporation had to settle a case about discrimination against against blacks, Puerto Ricans and other minorities where the government alleged it was “quoting different rental terms and conditions to blacks and whites and lying to blacks that apartments were not available.” He was quoted as saying about blacks and jews, “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.” (More along these lines here)
9. He lies about the US to undermine American morale and routinely makes up numbers in his speeches. A recent speech four days ago required a 1641 word fact check from the Associated Press because his statements had "only passing acquaintance with reality." In reality, America is generally doing well compared to recent decades.
10. He embraced and supported baseless conspiracy theories that Obama was born in Kenya (lying about doing any investigation) and repeatedly suggested Obama is secretly Muslim. The day after his RNC acceptance speech, he repeated a debunked rumor that Ted Cruz's dad was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald. He demonstrated a history of this in a 2007 deposition that called him on his lies. 
11. He put his name on schemes that defrauded Americans, such as through Trump University, which scammed people through “bait and switch” tactics under Donald’s personal marketing. When a judge ruled against him, he said the judge (a Hoosier from Indiana) was biased because his parents came from Mexico.
12. He has threatened blackmail against people who spend against him, threatens defeating politicians who criticize him, and groundlessly sues people who criticize him. His team strong-armed GOP delegates who wanted a roll call vote at the convention. He intends to fund Super PACs specifically to defeat people who chose not to toe the line and endorse him in their future races.
13. He’s shown contempt for an independent judiciary and the separation of powers foundational to American government. He's shown contempt for the public by lying about his record and doubling down when confronted.
14. He can't seem to take criticism without petty sniping at people. When it was noted he had golfed with Mike Bloomberg, he said "I hit the ball a lot longer, and a lot better." When a Marine general criticized him, he said "You know who he is? He’s a failed general" referencing a role the general had after retirement from a successful career in the military.
15. He said "The beauty of me is that I'm very rich." He’s bragged about affairs with married women and publicly cheated on his first wife, though recently claimed to be a born-again Christian and has said he favorite book is the Bible.
16. He’s gullible and prone to repeat baseless claims; for example, he said “the President of Mexico is purposefully sending criminals to cross into the United States” because a border guard told him so. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on 9/11. He thinks the European Union (founded to prevent another devastating war) was actually created to "beat the United States."
17. He has absolutely no experience in public office and refuses to release his tax returns so we can actually examine his business record (though he first promised he would release them). His policy positions (such as support for immigration reform, abortion, and gun control) were reversed in the campaign without reason or deliberation.
18. His foreign policy statements have needlessly alarmed our allies. For example, he’s proposed walking away from the US’s defense alliances, which would probably force Japan, South Korea, and other countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals and set off a new round of nuclear proliferation.  He's said he will not honor our treaty obligations to defend NATO allies and will abandon eastern Europe to Putin.
19. He thinks he can solve a long-running and deadly conflict between the Turkish government and Kurdish people with "meetings" (no further details) and says the US should not advocate for civil liberties internationally. Generally, he promises outcomes without any offering any strategies to accomplish those outcomes.
20. When a gold star family who lost a son in Iraq criticized him via a speech by the father, Trump's response was that the father was "very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me. If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.” She did not speak because discussing the matter is so painful for her.
21. He said, on ineffective waterboarding torture, "I like it a lot. I don't believe its tough enough." He has said even “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.”  He is ignorant that torture puts our own troops at risk and betrays our fundamental values when we catch and torture the wrong person. 

I don't plan to post much more on this blog or other social media about the election - my job occupies a lot of time, and I don't want to distract from that work. You can see other articles I'm reading in this custom blog/feed that excerpts posts I find worth checking out (though I often don't endorse them). I do plan to get out of the online echo chamber and volunteer on my personal time (though I won't help do anything involving fundraising). This election is more important than a tweet or a blog post - go talk to some people.

A quick thought

Throwing judges out of office for a single unpopular decision may be reasonable in isolation (or valid in a specific case), but sets a horrible precedent for when the popular opinion isn't on your side.

"Free Stuff" vs "Freedom"

The GOP meme that people voted for free stuff is annoying, false, and harmful to the workings of the democracy. It's also being pushed pretty hard right now.

The Wisconsin Recall

Quoth my fellow Williams grad Emily:

When Barrett conceded, I started crying. Not because I necessarily will be affected by Walker’s horrible excuses for policies, but because my students will be. My students depend on BadgerCare and WHEDA. Their parents are overwhelmingly either a) unemployed, b) on a fixed income, or c) working in jobs that benefit from union support (i.e. janitors, factory workers, etc.). 

This morning, my 3rd graders (3rd graders are 8-9 years old, FYI) had an intense discussion about Walker and Barrett. They decided unanimously that if they could vote, they would vote for Barrett. I had to pretty much sit out this discussion due to my AmeriCorps restrictions on discussing politics while on the clock. One student said, “Walker doesn’t care about anyone but rich white people.” Another student asked me, “Will you lose your job if he gets reelected?” Then they decided it didn’t matter, they didn’t need to worry - Walker would be recalled.

They believed in the democratic process. Believed. I doubt that they will still believe tomorrow morning. And for this reason, among many others, I cry for them.

 I don't agree with a lot of the above, but it is true that Walker's strategy wasn't about uniting anyone, but instead the cold calculus that he would win the battle against public sector unions. That sort of choice has a cost - seen in these 3rd graders.

Let's get one thing straight

"Internal deliberations of the executive branch" do not constitute due process. Particularly when it comes to ordering someone killed. Shame on Obama.

Confusing Me

Why is the SEC investigating JP Morgan Chase for losing a bunch of money? That happens sometimes; part of capitalism, right?

Super Tuesday

This is a horrible night for Mitt Romney. It's not devastating (he'll barely win Ohio), but it's really not good. Romney can't close this sale, and every state he wins via massive negativity is one that will weaken him in the long run.

SOTU

The State of the Union is a long speech, and a chance to talk directly to Americans.

But when I don't remember anything an hour later except the slogan "Built to last," there's a problem. This speech didn't bypass the media filter - it requires it, and takes advantage of populism to get applause that's not deserved. I wanted a smart speech. What I got, for the most part, was a cynical one.

Hahahahahahaahahaahah

New Debating Rules for Moderators

1. Do not quote the candidates on stage. They are in front of you and can speak for themselves.
2. Do not get into a back-and-forth with a candidate except to clarify or restate a question.
3. Establish a clear method of delegating speaking time. Those who speak quickly in the debates should get more questions and/or time at the end.
4. If you served in a Democratic presidential campaign and the subsequent White House, you don't have standing to moderate anything except a Democratic primary debate.
5. The less you talk, the better.

With a hat tip to the worst offender for this crap in '08 and '12, ABC News.

Christians Protecting Muslims in Prayer during Egypt Protests

This is protest.

(reference)

Courage

Not convinced

This picture is making the rounds on Facebook, but I'm not really a fan. The information Assange shared was gathered under conditions that it wouldn't be distributed. The information you put on Facebook is given under terms of use that are much more open. This picture ignores the role of the individual - you don't have to use Facebook.

Is Assange good? I'd say its a mixed bag. Wikileaks had a good thing going as a distribution mechanism to newspapers that would vet the content, but allowing the unencrypted files to get distributed (however much not intentioned) was damn foolish. Wikileaks is a target because it annoys powerful people, yes, but also because of Assange's style and ridiculousness. His goal is to remove privacy from deliberations behind closed doors - but we need those. Sunshine is a disinfectant, but it can also kill deals that need a little bit of time to grow.

Thoughts on the value of higher education

Written originally for a friend, on the subject of the usefulness of analysis:

I'd suggest this metaphor: On the Sing-Off, groups perform, sometimes well, and sometimes poorly. One of the best groups, Afro-Blue, does lots of complicated jazzy stuff that is AWESOME to listen to, but I have to read online review to understand how they constructed all of the crazy chords in the arrangement. There's a lot of difficult-to-learn theory in what they do. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHmjR1-vUpU&feature=related)

On the other hand, anyone can tell when a performance works - its obvious, and the talent that leads the base in that performance to be so awesome at improvising isn't learned - its grown.

So there's a triad here: everyone can tell if the song works or not; talent (and practice) determines if you can sing it, but education is required to understand what's going on in a communicative way.

Your talent to theorize is different than having real interactions, and different than being able to make rational judgments about the world around you. You can have a constructive voice with just those two, it's true: but there's no learning without the other third; no ability to see, long-term, how things have changed and shifted, and to predict from there the lessons that the first two talents can apply in the future.

Do we need music, or musical training to survive? Nope. Do we need voyeuristic operas? Not really. But are they worth doing, by someone? I'd say so.

And in choosing our leaders, within our own communities and within the wider cities and states and countries we identify with, pragmatic ability and common values might be the most important, but scholarship and study make for valuable components as well. The more stuff our leaders know, the less time they need to spend understanding the complex issues that reach their attention and the more time they can spend leading.

Continued, on the split between educating to do "stuff" or to understand stuff."

The academy is the only professional group in America that gets to take a crack at "everyone" (at least, those who want access to the wide opportunities that a college degree provides in terms of credentials). Ministers used to be the same way - everyone was supposed to go to church, but that role has disappeared. Coaches also only serve a portion of the populace. Only our professors remain.

Out of that comes a dual responsibility - to train and equip *everyone,* and to train and equip those who will join the academy. In a real sense there are two brands of success: the "actual" (and I mean that word in terms of "acting") and the theoretical. Williams has, perhaps inadvertently, promoted both separately: the JA variety for raw social effectiveness (in theory), and the Oxford variety for ass-kicking thinking.

In that way, Williams facilitates both the networking that some of our peers seek and the thinking that we're all "supposed" to be studying, even if its only a true priority for some of us. A lot of me is in the former category - I loved doing things at Williams, and discussions like this, but sticking to established formulae was hardly enjoyable; my largest conflicts were with history books that didn't do what I thought was useful. I picked a fight with the discipline and lost.

But that was fine, for me, because I still learned and grew from the course. I don't want to be a professional historian.

So Williams the institution celebrates its "successful" alumni, and invites Cory Booker to speak at graduation. Williams the faculty DOES NOT approve of the trustees' honorary degrees (and has told me), and celebrates research and so forth.

It's the same fight other D1 schools with big athletic programs have with underfunded classrooms - our professors own the classroom, but the classroom is hardly the whole of the campus.

Some professors engage in the real; they come on Mountain Day and advise Dodd Neighborhood; they bring their children to Shabbat dinner so that I can chase the kiddos around. They step out of math and sociology into this world.

Others choose not to.

Likewise, some at Williams cared a lot about their GPA and others phoned it in. We were a meeting place between the doers, the consultants and leaders and organizers, and the learners. In some occasions, we have individuals that fit both categories, and they (you) can feel the split you describe. 

On Evangelism and Politics

Responding to this article:

Americans have always trusted in God, and even today atheism is little more than a quiet voice on the margins. Faith, working calmly in the lives of Americans from George Washington to Barack Obama, has motivated some of America’s finest moments. But when the faith of so many Americans becomes an occasion to embrace discredited, ridiculous and even dangerous ideas, we must not be afraid to speak out, even if it means criticizing fellow Christians.

"Evangelical anti-intellectualism" is, to me,  a false pairing. God gave us minds for thinking, and logic for reasoning: to assert that the mind is against God is akin to asserting that the heart is against God - both the mind and heart have done great good, and great evil. The mind has led to great scientific discoveries; it has also led to Eugenics and clever methods of thievery. Or hearts summon us together, and yet draw us to bad decisions, or to rise up in defense of a perceived slight with an assault that outweighs the infraction.

There are those among us who embrace Evangelism, and those who reject it. There are those who embrace the mind, and those who reject it. The groups are not the same, though I'm sure you can find a statistical correlation thanks to hidden variables. But the evangelism I speak of - loving, witnessing, and sharing one's love of Christ - is different than the political Evangelical movement. In that movement of fundamentalism, doctrine is king - regardless of the facts. I fear that, years ago, the leaders  of the Republican party are so worried about a small number of doctrinists attacking them that they fail to call white white and black black.

We are now at the result of that decision taken decades ago - where the absence of truth has allowed falsehood to run rampant; the farthest right can declare truths with impunity - "LET US DEFAULT" - without caring about the economic rampage that would result. This battle between doctrine and evidence is dangerous - but it is not evangelism.

That's the premise of this piece's authors; we only differ on the role of politics in today's Evangelical movement, and how far fundamentalism has infiltrated the Christian heart. Perhaps they are right; I can only speak for my personal experience. But that experience has showed me that fundamentalism isn't the issue - standard politics are the issue, such as differences about abortion, the death penalty, and other questions we wrestle with as a country.

Is there an evangelical "parallel universe?" Sure, but considering the depravity of culture today (Toddlers and Tiaras) in some places I could hardly blame communities for turning inward. We all do that, when we reject politics, the news, in favor of the local, the untainted. Do charismatic leaders manipulate their flock? Yes, but such men and women have always done this. To give a new name to an old phenomenon is not to make a strong argument.

It may appear more extreme now, but I see that as a sign of insecurity as young people turn away from homophobia and towards Christian pursuit of social justice. Just as it is always darkest before the dawn, the language of politics will become the most frightening before the revival of values and the reassertion of truth. There is so much that can be done in partnership, if we can ignore the voices from the verge that urge us towards clashes and their profit.

Could an Unmarried Woman Sink Obama?

That the title of this article, and some VERY creative spin. Let's deconstruct.

1. Barack Obama won, in part, because of his huge support in the 18-25 demographic, and in younger Americans more generally.
2. A lack of voter engagement and turnout could hurt Obama in 2012.
3. Young women constitute some young Americans.
4. Younger Americans tend to be unmarried.
5. Therefore, unmarried women were strong Obama supporters, and failing to turn out might hurt him.

A conservative/liberal epiphany

Reading Bobby Jindal's "Leadership and Crisis," (which is a decent book for the anecdotes, but nothing to write home about in terms of political persuasiveness - see "Audacity of Hope), I had a sudden thought:

Human nature drives our affairs, and its not always pretty, as psychology has showed. We as a species are capable mass rape, with slavery, with torture, just as we are also capable of loyalty, bravery, and decency. We have a range of motivations and methods to our mass thinking.

Conservatives see these motivations and seek to harness them - they are authentic, true, and powerful. Liberals see these motivations and imagine higher, purer ones - less authentic, but still true and powerful once nurtured. Witness the acceptance of all sexualities, the societal condemnation of racism and slavery. Each of these causes were taken up first by liberals, and achieved success upon the adaptation of conservatives.

In other words, liberals and the left are broadly like the US House of Representatives, and Conservatives like the Senate.

No doubt there are a million holes in this but (obviously) I think it was worth posting.