Dancing with the Stats

Trump says this, Biden says that, Fox says this, MSNBC says that, and on and on we go, lost in a fog of competing paradigms.  With no real anchor in reality we continue to make decisions based on our perceptions and beliefs.  It is as though we want to go to Mars, but some argue Mars is a myth or a liberal conspiracy and we have never really sent a rover there, while others argue it is the 4^th planet in our solar system and we know exactly where it is and yes we have landed rovers there.  How do we resolve these issues?  How do we clean up our current political mess?

Here’s how:  We speak the truth.  We identify the truth.  We separate the truth from the lies and make it clear to all what is what.  In my humble opinion and limited brain power it appears to me that unless we can all agree what is truth and what is fiction we will never escape our current crisis and will lapse deeper and deeper into divisiveness and vitriol, doing from the inside what our enemies wish they could do from the outside.  We must stop our current cannibalism if we are ever to return to being the land of the free and the home of the brave.

To say such implies that there is one truth.  There is no such thing as alternative facts.  There is no such thing as multiple truths.  There are alternative beliefs and those beliefs purport to be the truth, but facts must mean more to us that beliefs or we are doomed.

I spend a great deal of time fact-checking what I hear from the players and the media.  It is very discouraging to learn how many in the public arena simply lie.  Until we can convince each other that these sources tell the truth and these sources lie we are at risk.

How do we identify the truth and separate it from lies, opinions, falsehoods and beliefs?  We follow the successful model of reality TV shows, that is how.

We identify a panel of experts.  Democrats, Republicans, political scientists, economists, evangelicals and those who maintain fact checker websites.  This panel is convened every evening from 7:00 to 9:00 to review what the “news” is broadcasting and what the politicians are saying.  Scrolled across the bottom of the screen is the panel’s conclusion regarding what the presenter is saying:  False, misleading, opinion, truth.  Then as time goes by the panel is rated based on their accuracy in identifying the truth.  Some may bat 1000, some may earn a mere 10%, but we will know.  And we say any panelist who fails to achieve at least 50% accuracy is removed from the panel.  It is like American Idol with the judges being judged as well as the performers.  Meanwhile, the sources of the information also get a rating.  Trump may get 5% and Biden 90% truthful statements, but we will know.

And I suspect there would be a constant scroll at the bottom of all Fox News broadcasts that says, “This show is for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as reporting facts.”

Surely the producers of Survivor, American Idol, America’s Got Talent, etc. will recognize the possibilities here.  It could be called Dancing with the Stats or whatever.  But if we knew, really knew, who was lying, who was stretching the truth, who was simply voicing their opinion and not facts, and who was speaking the truth, then as a nation I believe we can escape this quagmire.  We will be free once the truth is known.

Or is that just too Pollyanna?  My experience has been that when MAGA’s are confronted with truth they retreat to name calling and their minds close even more.  If the truth will not set them free then perhaps the voting booth will.  I even doubt that, however.  The MAGA’s won the last round of elections and they are still fearful and still mad.  Geeze.

The Dangers of Socialism

The word “socialism” is tossed around so often, usually with strong negative connotations, that it seems appropriate to catch our breath and examine the term and application.

Socialism is an economic system in which goods and services are provided through a central system of cooperative and/or government ownership rather than through competition and a free market system.  (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/socialism.html)

Simple.  It is not free enterprise.  It is not privately owned and funded.  Employees work for the community.  The government dictates the goods and services.  It is funded by tax dollars, not supply and demand.  It is not a totalitarian government.  It is an economic term, not a political term.

Some examples might be helpful.  In my small rural town we have several feed stores.  They are owned and operated by individuals (or partnerships, or corporations).  The owners decide what goods will be offered and at what price, and the owners decide whether to hire more people or not and what to pay them.  Free enterprise.  Not socialism.  Increasing or decreasing government regulation of the feed stores does not make it more or less socialistic because it remains a privately owned and operated enterprise.

In my small town water emerges from my pipes when I turn on the faucet or the sprinkler or the shower or the washing machine.  I have no choice regarding the source of the water.  It is not like I can select this water company or that water company.  Everybody within the city limits gets the same water.  In fact, citizens cannot drill water wells if they live in the city and have public water available.  The cost of the water is determined by an elected governmental body.  The equipment to provide the water is owned by the local government.  The employees of this public works division are paid out of tax dollars.  The point of the operation is to provide quality water to everyone in the community, not to maximize income of the water department.  The water department in my small town meets all the criteria of a socialistic operation.  The government owns and operates the water service.  It is regulated and must meet certain standards, but what makes it socialistic is that it is publicly owned and operated.  It is a public works.

The same thing is true for our local police department, and the county sheriff’s office, and the DPS, and the Texas Rangers and the National Guard.  They are all public entities governed by elected bodies.  They are not private enterprises.  The employees are paid from tax dollars.  The equipment is purchased with tax dollars.  Law enforcement is a socialistic enterprise.  It is not a free enterprise, privately owned.  There are private security companies that are not socialistic.  But they are limited in what they can do.  Law enforcement meets all the criteria of socialistic enterprise.

The same thing is true for our local public schools.  Schools are governed by local school boards, state legislatures and the federal government.  The buildings are owned by the community, not the principals or the coaches.  The employees are government employees paid from tax dollars.  Education is a right prescribed by the state constitution and is a socialistic enterprise.  The mission is to provide quality education for all kids, not to make a profit doing so. 

If the operating expense and the salaries are paid by tax dollars, if an elected governmental body defines what is to be produced by whom, and if the capital assets are owned and operated by the public then the operation is a socialistic operation, not a free enterprise or private sector or market driven operation.

We have always had a large number of socialistic operations in our country.  Our armed services, believe it or not, are a socialistic operation, as is our highway system (for the most part), our waste water systems, and our justice system of courts, judges, jails, etc.  Any service you can name that is funded by tax dollars and where the assets are publicly owned is a socialistic operation. Our military and law enforcement folks defend democracy via a socialistic organization.  That may be hard for them to swallow, but the economic term for their organization is socialism, and the political term for our country is representative democracy.  For some reason we seek to hide that reality and refer to what these government employees do as serving their country or community.  And that is true, but the service they provide is socialistically organized.  Thank you for your service is sincere for the military, law enforcement, teachers, firemen, public works employees, etc.

(As an aside, there is an entrepreneurial trend attacking our public services.  These private sector folks want to get paid with tax dollars too.  So, they have initiated charter schools that take tax dollars but are not publicly controlled, private prisons, security forces overseas, etc.  Each of these are efforts to avoid the government controls while getting rich on tax payer dollars.  No, I do not support any of these schemes, especially when we continue to hear about corruption and failure to perform by these entities.  Everyone who says government should run like a business is arguing that some people should get rich from tax dollars.)

So, what is the danger of socialism?  Clearly, the more operations in our country that are assumed by the government the fewer the private sector jobs and profits in those areas.  And vice versa, the more socialistic operations are converted to private sector operations the more private individuals will grow wealthy while the quality of the service declines.  How can I make such a broad statement?  Simple, he says rhetorically.  The motives are totally different.  If my motive is to make a profit then I will seek ways to cut costs. If my motive is to provide a needed service I will work long and hard hours regardless of the salary to accomplish my motive.  Public sector operations are phenomenal.  We call the private sector operations phenomenal if they make their owners rich. 

Plus citizen influence on socialistic operations is much higher than on private operations.  If I am unhappy about my local water service I can show up at City Council and complain.  It is at the public meeting of this elected body that decisions are made.  In the private sector we are not sure who is making the decision, or when or where.  We can often take our business somewhere else, but that means we change, the business doesn’t change.

(As another aside, human beings are not socialists.  Some humans may support socialistic operations more than private sector operations, but the person is not a socialist.  I doubt that one could find a person who would be willing to do away with all the privately owned and operated restaurants so that the government could run community based food service for all.  Ugh.  It is the private sector that provides choice, not the public sector.  When I call 9-1-1 I do not pick which enforcement agency shows up.)

Perhaps now we can have an adult conversation about health care.  Currently health care in the US is a private sector operation and all the evidence says that the quality of our health care is declining, large numbers of people are not receiving appropriate health care, and health care providers, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies are growing rich.  OK.  So, do you want health care to be a public service operation or would you prefer to leave it in the hands of the private sector despite the evidence that it is run for profit and not for service?

For me, the real danger of socialism is that we do not look at converting those operations in our private sector to socialistic operations for the benefit of all and the loss of millions for the few.  All the industrialized nations that have followed such a path are generating higher standards of living than we are and are healthier than we are.  But if your response to the term socialism is visceral and not logical you will never see it that way.

Fascism is a much larger danger for our nation, but that merits another post.

When Did it Become OK?

I must have missed all the announcements because I do not understand how or when the following happened:

When did it become OK to lie?

When did it become OK to mock others?

When did it become OK to renege on your word?

When did it become OK to publicly express racism?

When did it become OK to put women down in public?

When did it become OK to take pride in bigotry?

When did it become OK for our leaders to engage in adultery, sexual assault and funding a cover up?

When did it become OK to praise infamous dictators who are not our friends and insult our allies?

When did it become OK to say something not nice rather than say nothing at all?

When did it become OK to claim Christianity and move to stop feeding the poor, clothing the needy, welcoming the stranger, healing the sick?

When did it become OK to reduce taxes for the most wealthy while threatening the livelihood and safety nets of the working class and the poor?

When did it become OK to claim your religious beliefs are better than others’ religious beliefs?

When did it become OK to shame protesters?

When did it become OK to attack the freedom of the press?

When did it become OK to drop off the list of the top 20 democratic nations on the planet?

When did it become OK to build walls not bridges?

When did it become OK for America to relinquish its role as world leader for human rights?

When did it become OK to ignore science and risk the planet?

When did it become OK to sexually assault women or men?

When did it become OK to spew nationalism and isolationism, rather than world leadership and global understandings?

Oh, that’s right.  It all became OK on January 20, 2017.

The Trump Taunt

We know Trump does not like the NFL and we know why.  (He purchased a USFL team and then filed suit against the NFL.  He lost and the USFL went bust.)  Here is another reason Trump could have for hating the NFL:  He would not survive the rules for good sportsmanship if he played for the NFL, specifically the rules regarding taunting.

Taunting of an opponent is a foul under N.F.L. playing rules and will be called by the game officials (15-yard penalty).  In addition, the taunting player will be fined and can be disqualified from play. Any flagrant acts or remarks that deride, mock, bait or embarrass an opponent are considered taunting.

Whoa!  Can Trump get through a speech without taunting? 

Most recently he has criticized and mocked Dr. Ford.  He has criticized John McCain, the fed, Jeff Sessions, a reporter with disabilities, a female news reporter, NATO, Obama, Hillary, New York Times, Washington Post, LeBron James, the FCC, the EPA, the EU, Jim Acosta, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.  The Times has documented 487 people and organizations Trump has derided, mocked or sought to embarrass on Twitter alone, not counting his public speeches.

If Trump played for the NFL he would have been fined to bankruptcy and disqualified from play.  Sad that we have a higher standard for the conduct of professional athletes than we do for the President of the United States.

Kava Naught

Every member of the US Senate must take an Oath of Office to be sworn in as an official Senator.  The Oath is simple:  “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States”.  I will argue that every Senator that voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh today as a judge on the US Supreme Court has violated this oath and should immediately resign their position, or be impeached.

The Constitution is not just the backbone of our democracy, it is where the soul of our democracy resides.  It is a living document.  It has been amended to re-shape our understandings as time, events and circumstances evolved.  Humans cannot own other humans.  Women can vote.  The government may not show favoritism to religion nor prohibit religious people from practicing their religion.  Discrimination is immoral.  Segregation is immoral.  The right of a free press and free speech is critical to the survival of our democracy.  All these elements of our core beliefs are embodied in this hallowed document.

The Supreme Court of the US is the final arbiter of what is aligned with our Constitution and what is not.  This court decides what is constitutional, what is not.  The people appointed to this position are appointed for life so that they will not be subject to the political oscillations that occur; so that they may judge aloof from the pressure of seeking majority support.  They are empowered to protect the weak and the minority.  That is why they have a lifetime appointment.  They by definition must be men and women of integrity, of honesty, of a sense of fairness.  And they must also be men and women of courage for the ruling of the Court may not be popular.  They must arrive at the bench after thorough review and vetting by the Senate to ensure on behalf of the American people that their confirmation of a candidate for the Court meets all these characteristics.

Brett Kavanaugh does not meet these characteristics.  There remains reams of documents the White House refuses to release regarding this man’s former role in the Bush administration.  A thorough review of the accusation of sexual assault was not conducted.  Key witnesses were not interviewed.  Clarifying his perjury was not accomplished.  Further, a man of courage and integrity would have withdrawn from consideration when it was clear that the controversy around his appointment was tearing the country apart, prompting protests and conspiracy theories.  A man of fair mindedness and honesty would not have perjured himself during the hearing process.  A man of wisdom would not have lost his cool and his tears during the hearing.  Only a man who is self-serving would have remained in contention for this appointment.  And in so doing proves he is not worthy of the job.

The fact that members of the Senate do not recognize that simple fact means they are unwilling to defend the Constitution and they must go.  They have placed our government, our citizens and our democracy at great risk by the appointment of this young, shallow man.  We deserve so much better.

Two Realities

The most disturbing conflicts to me today are the conflicts that occur when two realities collide.  In the US we have two realities.  I will call one of those realities “Reality” and the other reality “Pseudo-Reality.”  I assume we understand that there really is only one reality, so one of these realities must be false.  Clearly I will argue for Reality not Pseudo-Reality.

Let’s talk about Reality first.  More than anything else Reality is based on facts, on observation, on truth, on science and on math.  The list of Reality realities includes the earth is not flat, evolution is real, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, homo sapiens have been on the planet for over 200,000 years, 75% of the earth’s surface is water, global warming is happening to a large extent to human behavior, Santa Claus is a mythical figure, etc. etc.  Reality is neither liberal nor conservative.  It is the way things are.  It is real, verifiable, provable, observable, and mostly the result of scientific investigation.

Pseudo-Reality rejects much of Reality.  More than anything else Pseudo-Reality is based on beliefs, opinions and attitudes.  The list of Pseudo-Reality beliefs includes the earth is flat, the earth is 10,000 years old, secret conspiracies are afoot, there are witches, warlocks, ghosts, demons, zombies and devils, Obama was a bad President, a Muslim and born in Niger, Hillary is a crook, global warming is a myth, evolution is just a theory, God actively interacts to select winners in American politics, Christians are right and every other belief system is wrong, if Fox News reports it, it must be true, etc., etc.  Pseudo-Reality is not based on fact, it is based on beliefs, attitudes, values and opinions.  Each of the beliefs of Pseudo Reality followers can be disproved by reality, but that does not matter to the ardent Pseudo-Reality follower. 

Confronted with Reality, Pseudo-Reality followers get angry, call the Reality followers derogatory names, and/or unfriend them on Facebook.  (I have wondered why after gaining control of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government that the Pseudo-Realists remain so angry.  They won!  And yet to hear their vitriol one would think they are a persecuted minority.  Me thinks they protest too loudly.)  To be called a snowflake or a libtard is not life threatening and likely even amusing when one realizes that faced with fact, Pseudo-Realists must resort to name calling as there is nothing else to say. Worse, some Pseudo-Realists will argue that there are two realities, there are alternative facts.  Some have said do not believe what you see and hear for it is not real.  Others have said there are multiple truths.  If one does not find this extremely scary I yield to their courage or ignorance.

A classic example of this is when Trump, King of the Pseudo-Reality crowd, announced that his inauguration crowd was the largest in American history.  That was not real.  In fact, photos of the event showed his crowd to be significantly smaller than Obama 1, Obama 2, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc.  One could in fact make the reality based argument that he had the smallest crowd.  But, his followers did not believe those facts, despite the reality of the photos.  Interesting that much later the White House photographer admitted that Trump had ordered him to photo shop the inaugural crowd pictures to make it appear that more people were there than actually were present.

Another example of this is when Trump announced he won the Presidency with a landslide election.  Again, this was far from the truth.  Not only did he not win by a landslide, Trump actually lost the popular vote and became the winner via the Electoral College.  3 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump.  Upon hearing these numbers Trump made a remarkable statement:  If he lost the popular vote it must have been due to voter fraud and he ordered every state to conduct an investigation.  So committed was Trump to making his Pseudo-Reality actual reality, he found a non-real reason for the reality.  After months of state level investigation 200 fraudulent votes were found.  Trump’s theory was false.  Trump’s picture of the reality of his election was false.  It was all Pseudo-Reality, not reality.  Sadly, many Trump supporters are desperate to show that the Psued0-Reality is real and even after learning the real numbers believe there must have been some kind of conspiracy to thwart their beloved leader from creating a reality that better fit his ego.  Not gonna happen in reality, however.

The Pseudo-Reality crowd is further helped by media outlets that feed Pseudo –Reality miss-information to the masses as though it was reality.  That does not work on those of us grounded in reality.  The current debate over Trump’s nomination should, in reality, not be a debate at all.  Kavanaugh has lied multiple times in the hearing, that is perjury and he should be withdrawn and prosecuted.  Kavanaugh is accused of sexual molestation.  That should be grounds for withdrawal.  Kavanaugh’s college buddies back the stories of Kavanaugh being a rowdy and aggressive drunk.  That should be grounds for withdrawal.  But the Pseudo-Reality crowd is convinced these facts are not real.  They believe these facts are a Democratic Party sabotage effort.  Would the Democrats love to see Kavanaugh withdraw?  You bet.  Is it a conspiracy?  Highly unlikely.  There is no such evidence, just wishful thinking and opinion of the Pseudo-Realists.

I do not know how to close the reality gap.  I do know that presenting facts in a logical, dispassionate way and urging the Pseudo-Realists to fact check what they hear has earned me the label libtard and I have been told to pull my head out of my butt.  Interesting.  I have yet to be confronted with another set of facts that reside in dispute to the facts I present.  I am confronted with beliefs.  I just get called names.  I have been unfriended.  It does not matter.  When Reality clashes with Pseudo-Reality it will be Reality that prevails.  Facts, truth, confirmation are not liberal conspiracies though the Pseudo-Realists want so much to believe they are.  Why, I do not know.  I do know that the 10 states in the US with the highest level of educational attainment all voted strongly for Hillary, and the 10 states with the lowest level of educational attainment all voted strongly for Trump.  Therein may lie another less pleasant truth.