I see so many people discussing what went wrong for the Dems in 2016. But most are written by journalists, so they miss (imho) their own role in what went wrong.
Imagine you're watching an NBA basketball game, and one team is being called for every infraction, but it turns out that most of the calls end up inconclusive, it just appears that they might have been thinking of doing something that could be seen as inappropriate, but probably not illegal, or even dishonest.
On the other hand, the other team is not only fouling a lot, several times on every play, they're also getting hauled into court for committing crimes on the court, not crimes of the sport, but actual legal crimes. And when they explain what they're doing, they commit technical fouls, back in the game.
And in the crucial final minute of the game, they call the first team for a huge blatant foul, but then the call is reversed, but after the game is lost. Oh well. Shit happens.
I think that's a pretty good telling of the role the press played in the 2016 election. They could have run Trump University ads showing the candidate selling snake oil. Caught red-handed. And then explain the devastation he brought to Atlantic City. Show how his employees and customers feel about him as a businessperson, since that's how he's presenting himself. Very germane to voters. They probably would have helped us understand what it would be like to be governed by him. Give us some idea how to view what he was saying in his stump speeches.
That's the story journalism missed. Show us what a Trump presidency would be like. Be the Consumer Reports of the executive branch of government.
Will I lose Medicare or ObamaCare? Will my kids have to fight in a war? Will banks be free to suck all the value out of our property, so they can buy themselves bigger estates and yachts? We have to figure this out, it's important, and that means if you're doing your jobs, you have to help us do that.
I'm not saying the journalists are bad people, or if I would have done better in their shoes. The NBA has never seen a team like Trump/Pence in 2016. But it's good to really look at things dispassionately, to see how you all can do better in the future. And for that imho you have to listen to how your work was viewed by others, not just by asking other journalists.
PS: I have to call out the New Yorker for doing an outstanding piece of journalism that tried to give us a sense of what a Trump presidency would be like. I think it is the single most valuable bit of writing in 2016 politics.
PPS: It's hard to analyze a story in which you are a central character. You're likely to miss your own role. See Do you have a Head? for a kids game that illustrates.
Oh there he goes again with the lying and weak ego etc, only sometimes it's strategic, and you have to pay attention to all of it to see if you can figure out how it furthers the Republican cause.
So when Trump talks about millions of illegal votes, let's play Jeopardy.
Trump Paranoia for $1000, Alex.
"It's the idea behind millions of forged ballots."
What is massive new voter suppression?
Correct! We also would have accepted the destruction of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Winning the White House and both houses of Congress give the Republicans a lot of new ways to disenfranchise voters. They don't even have to convince anyone that there was massive voter fraud, but if you have the chance, why not. It makes the voter suppression go down easier, for the people whose votes are not being suppressed (i.e. reliable Republican votes).
And no, they're not going to try to keep people in California from voting. This is strictly for pivotal purple and purpleish states like Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, that are sometimes red and sometimes blue. The goal is to make them permanently red, and give the Repubs control of the White House basically forever, the same way they gerrymandered their way into control of the House.
It's the opposite of the Hanlon's razor rule that says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." With the Repubs, you should always look for the malice. It's there, and it's usually not very hard to find. In this case, they're setting us up for massive disenfranchisement and a Republican lock on the White House.
People used to say George W. Bush is stupid, but I always thought he was smart. Same thing with Trump. No way someone gets to where he is and is stupid. He's plotting and scheming, and has lots of experience and has a sense of which bets are worth taking. So when he says something that appears random, it's safer to assume that it's not.
For background I recommend this episode of the Slate daily podcast. It's an interview with Bruce Ackerman, a professor of constitutional law at Yale. It's depressing for sure, but you should hear what he thinks is happening.
Also enlightening is this Fresh Air podcast from last summer laying out how the Repubs were suppressing the vote for the Nov 8 election. This clearly played a role in the Trump win.
We need an "underground railroad" for facts and ideas.
Maybe a new editorial product from the Washington Post or NY Times?
If we could crack that nut, we could create a union of people who want accurate information that isn't Republican or Democratic or in a red state or blue.
We may disagree on policy but we agree on basing our thinking on facts and intelligence. The scientific method. There still are plenty of us. And we have the tools to do it.
Maybe this is something librarians can help with? They're distributed all around the country, and they certainly believe in these principles.
The more I think about it, the better I like libraries being the focal point for a people's news system. Even better, have students staff it. Keep an eye on what's going on in your community, and let us know what you see. I started a student newspaper when I was in high school (many many years ago!) and I remember it can be done, and it's a lot of fun. And you certainly learn a lot.
The big news story of 2016 is The Voter Who Elected Trump.
Yet the news orgs have snapped back to business-as-usual.
They tried to cast Trump as the standard-issue Republican Party candidate for president, but that never worked. They're now going to expend serious energy making him fit into the role of President of the United States, and this time with the help of the Constitution, they will probably have a bit more success, which will encourage them to keep on the path they're on.
And that's fine, but it isn't furthering the story-of-the-year.
This should be a long-term redirection for news orgs. Shifting the focus of news from all-coasts-all-the-time to centers throughout the country. The first step is to build a new hub mid-country. I suggest Flint, Michigan. The host would be Michael Moore of course. And he would invite on anyone he wants. He could invite people from NY, DC, LA, SF or Seattle, but they'd have to travel to Flint to be on the show. The idea is to shift the center.
America is changing. Has been changing for a number of decades. But journalism has tried to keep things constant. I once described this to my then-colleague, Jay Rosen, as picking up a box from one place and putting it down in another, without considering that the box shape might not be the right one for now.
We have to bring new people into the conversation. That's the message of the new age. It should have been done smoothly, by hosting blogs at the big news orgs for people who were newsworthy on their own, to go direct to the readers. But they wouldn't do it. So it happened on Facebook and Twitter. But as we see, the social media services, with their limits, are not good containers for intelligent discourse. And we need to include people who previously we didn't. Again, if the news orgs don't do it we will have to do it ourselves.
We were sitting at a table at Berkman Center, which was located on Mass Ave in Cambridge at that time. For some reason I think the table was outside, but I don't think there actually were any outside tables at that building. Memory is not perfect.
It took a while for me to get going. Here it is. The sound quality as you would expect from Chris was outstanding. Hopefully now it won't be so hard to find. ;-)
Also, later that month I wrote a longer post about Chris's podcast, which I called a "weblog for the ears." This is before we settled on calling them podcasts (that didn't happen until Sept 2004).
This is a longish podcast (18 minutes).
I start with the story of the Trump voter on Delta airlines who gave a speech and was banned for life. I thought he actually had something important to say, if we listened from a different point of view. This is the tweet I wrote about it.
The guy ranting on @delta flight was saying (rudely) "Fuck you, I'm powerful," after his whole life hearing "Fuck you, you're powerless."
Then I talk about the three episodes of the Run-up podcast that every voter imho should listen to.
And the reality of war, it feels great when you're starting war. Ending wars is harder. The misery lasts a long time, with lots of death and suffering.
We have cartoon-character images of each other, that aren't real. That's how wars begin, by making enemies of people who aren't actually enemies. By objectifying people.
It's pretty clear the new leadership wants us to be fighting with each other.
Simple things we can do -- news orgs can have shows originate from the middle of the country, Kansas, Alabama, Michigan, Utah or Arizona. Let us hear directly from the people who voted for Trump, who is on track to become the next president unless the people flex their power, again.
Interesting thought. I think any NBA coach would be a better president than the one who was elected. I explain why I think that. I think the guy on the Delta flight would be a better president! Not a joke.
There really isn't any time to waste. Trump voters, you are powerful. Your message has been received.
Listening, now, is actually the key to digging out of the hole. Later it won't be as easy.
PS: If you can't get through the NYT paywall, I'm told you can listen to the podcasts here.
The Run-up podcast did something along the lines of my Nov 14 proposal to create connections between red and blue state people.
They did three podcast conversations between friends and family members, each of whom voted for different candidates.
Each conversation is incredibly revealing, they can be hard to listen to, because you see the problem, and one of the two people doesn't. I imagine that if you voted the other way you see a different problem. This is the place where we need to listen, try to understand, and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
I feel this is the kind of grounding we need, all of us, to just listen to each other, and the Run-up people have done something great here. Highly recommended.
Continuing to argue on Twitter and Facebook is only going to make things worse. There's an incredible frenzy of petition-signing, money-giving, ranting, but we're way past the point where people need releases, it's just activity for the sake of being active. What we need is, imho, to get reflective, and think about what we want to happen. Listen to ourselves fully and then try to listen to each other.
There still is a huge amount of power with the people, but it's diminishing. We're always one step behind where we need to be to avoid heading further over the cliff. So please take some time with yourself, go for a walk, sit on a bench, with your phone turned off. Breathe.
What you do in the next few weeks matters an awful lot.
Follow-up to Friday's post.
The thing that's really hard is styling.
If you just want bold or italic, you have to bring in the heavy machinery.
Since the last time I looked however, the machinery has been nicely packaged thus..
It works. Still filled with mystery, but I have something interesting working, but far from complete.
Funny, after listening to his music all these years, I had never heard him talk.
He sounds like my friends from childhood. We're like cousins. Who knew.
And the guy is funny and he's just like someone who could be your friend.
Except he's made some of the best music ever.
I'm interested in tools that generate what I think of as "Twitter Text".
Here are a few examples.
Each of them presents a quote, as a bitmap, obviously rendered through a template.
I'm wondering what kinds of tools exist for creating these?
I imagine some of them are done in Photoshop, but I'm thinking of a text editor that automatically generates them.
I've turned on comments on this post, looking for links to existing products, experience using in-house tools, etc.
The Washington Post ran an op-ed by Larry Lessig on the Electoral College today. This is a very important piece. He says something that very much needs to be said, and heard. If you can access the piece through their paywall please do. But this piece is so important, I'm reproducing it here in full, so everyone can read it.
By Lawrence Lessig.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves.
The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.
Many think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.
So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?
Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 votes). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent.
In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others. Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.
Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.
In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.
I'm on a TV news budget. No more than one hour a night. That generally means I watch Rachel Maddow. Sometimes Chris Hayes.
There's a lot of fussing about What Went Wrong, and the irony that Hillary got more than 2 million more votes than Trump and that number keeps growing. Given those numbers, it's kind of obvious that a lot went right. That's first. Don't overlook that.
Second, I think you can figure out what the difference was between 2012 and 2016 without me saying it, but people can't seem to make the words come out of their mouths, so I will say it for them.
2012: A charismatic campaigner against a guy with a stick up his ass. The charismatic campaigner won. Pretty much the same thing in 2008, btw.
2016: A charismatic campaigner who said a lot of shit that made educated people look away in horror, vs a smart candidate who was careful not to say anything that would make people mad at her (for good reason) and would have been a great president (imho) but (key point here) is a poor campaigner. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say Hillary was at best a 3. Very often a 2. The charismatic campaigner, as always, won.
People love stories. They love to cheer. Elections are tribal. We want to feel like we belong to God's Own Tribe. We have right on our side. But those are just words. What's actually going on is body chemistry. When you feel part of a winning tribe, you get oxytocin in your blood which is basically heroin. It feels great. It's like falling in love. A lot of people got that from Trump. And if he weren't so transparently ignorant and unsuited for the job, and racist, he probably would have inspired a lot more people to vote for him.
Hillary? I supported her all the way, but I always hoped people wouldn't notice how awkward she is on the trail. No confidence in herself. In the debates, she was fantastic. That's her element. But getting a crowd off their feet, yelling and cheering, she isn't a natural. In that sense Bernie was a better candidate. Not saying he would have won. I don't know, no one does.
Moral of the story. If you think your candidate can't campaign, have a straight talk with him or her, and tell them they have to step aside, because they're going to lose and that does no one any good.
Now that said, there's no upside in blaming anyone, making them feel bad, tarnishing them in history. Leave it alone. But you must tattoo the lessons on your forehead so you never forget. Campaigns matter. Gravitas matters. Confidence, storytelling, building a tribal presence, they all matter. Body chemistry matters.
Which brings me to the dazzling Rachel Maddow. She can tell a story and make you cheer and stand up and say YEAH. The feeling is I want lots more of that. She has a natural ability to get the tribal oxytocin flowing. She's a fantastic, passionate, super-smart, high-feeling, earnest, learned, inspirational story-teller. High integrity, honorable, she cares, and you can tell. She would do well, imho, if she decided to run.
This is the second part of my Thanksgiving message.
Yesterday I said let's have a nice Thanksgiving.
Today I add, forgive everyone you possibly can.
We're all having a tough time.
What if everyone decided to be nice to everyone else from now until we have sorted out this political mess? Let bygones be bygones. Nothing is accomplished by blaming other people. We need to be creative about getting in front of our problems. And grudge-holding is only holding us back.
In 1995 I wrote a piece where I called for a new form of social behavior. Forgive everyone you meet. Let's love each other without reservation. It might help. ;-)
It's not like anyone gets out of this alive!
I have an idea for this Thanksgiving.
Let's give thanks to the the United States that is us.
Did you ever notice how the initials for the country are also our name?
E pluribus unum, it's on every bill -- Out of many, one. That's us.
So let's thank the United States.
The generous, diverse, upward-reaching United States.
The one that figures stuff out, makes things right, gets shit done and sets a table at the feast for everyone, no matter what color their skin, including white.
Say thank you to everyone and everything.
Remember what President Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Let's break the mold this holiday season and set records for acceptance and gratuity.
Let's have a nice Thanksgiving!
PS: Here's part 2 of my Thanksgiving message.
Sometimes you figure stuff out in four tweets.
#2: That's what's spooky about this political thriller our lives have become. The plot is rich and surprising. And we are in it.
#4: You think this was electronic chaos? It hasn't started yet.
I'd just add that the US isn't yet a failed state, but it's on it's way to becoming one. Trump as president, it can't end well. That's something we all have to face. The sooner the better, imho. (This part was not in a tweet.)
On Facebook, Scott Rafer writes:
"I've been trying to rationalize Mark Zuckerberg's behavior, and all I can come up with is that he is secretly pro Trump. He can't admit or too much of his workforce would quit starting with Sheryl Sandberg. But the behavior around defending Peter Thiel and denying the influence of fake news and Facebook's place in it only leads me one place."
Imho it's "more complicated."
He has to work with the new government, and if they're going to act like Russia or China, they're going to want to control what people say on Facebook. Zuck has been trying to work with China, so he knows all about this, far more than any of us.
Presumably Facebook in their negotiations with China has had to demonstrate the ability to control speech. Those features would not be turned on in the US, but Trump might want them to be, at some point. The excuse will probably be something like preventing terrorists from using Facebook to plan attacks, but it's likely it would be used to control dissent and keep the opposition disorganized and confused. His supporters too, for that matter.
Facebook is likely already communicating with the new administration, since they absolutely understand how powerful Facebook is. Of course they are even more powerful (Trump et al). So he has to be careful.
Facebook can thrive, for the time-being, without being in China (as they are), but they probably couldn't survive without the United States. He almost certainly is not in favor of Trump personally, from what I know about him, but if he were to act on that, or if it could be spun that way, it could be a disaster for his company.
I made a small change in the way the scripting.com home page is built which should result in it loading faster. I made the same change to happyfriends.camp. In both cases it was only the home page that changed, not any subordinate pages.
So, here are the two things to look for
The next step will be to make the same change for new story pages. I'm not going to screw with pre-existing stories.
The change is that I merged all the code inclusions into a single file, and all the styles. They are also all on scripting.com, so that also might help convince some virus apps that Scripting News, the oldest blog on the net, isn't trying to do some harm to your computer (seriously that's how shitty some of this shit is).
I've turned on comments on this post so people can report any problems or just say hi. Remember the comment guidelines. No blog-post-length comments, speeches, or opinions about people. I delete off-topic comments. ;-)
Facebook friends, one of the things you all could do to improve the news here is, if there is an IA feed, include the full text of the post in the web version.
People don't often click on links. This way they would have more info to go on, if they're trying to vet the quality of the news themselves, right here on Facebook.
This was a big disappointment for me with Instant Articles. I was hoping it would make the web and Facebook work much better together.
I wrote about this a lot earlier this year and the year before.
PS: This originally appeared on Facebook.
I read this piece in CJR, the story of Chris Arnade who spent a year embedded with Trump voters. Lots of interesting ideas.
We want our leaders to tell us why we're here, what we're supposed to do, how we can define, and then find success.
The best leaders give us a cause to join that gives meaning to our lives.
FDR did fireside chats where the talked the country through the depression and World War II.
JFK went on TV and said Let's go to the moon!
At some point climate change will get so tangible that it will be possible to rally the country around overcoming it, becoming a sustainable civilization.
I guess for some people Trump inspired them. It didn't work for me. I can't feel inspired when I'm feeling so much fear.
So now after this election, Trump said he wants to unify the country, but his appointments send another signal. Women, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Latinos, have much to be afraid of. He's not actually going to do any unifying until the fear fades into the background. And he's doing the opposite, he's stoking the fear.
Yesterday I wrote a piece urging the news industry to finally join together to produce a user experience with news that is at least equal to Facebook and only contains items from actual news organizations and bloggers.
Of course I've urged the news industry to do this many times before.
For many years.
Eventually Facebook filled the void.
And because for whatever reason Facebook doesn't want to take responsibility for the authenticity of the news sources, their product is now worse than useless, it is doing real harm, on a massive scale.
It's time for the news industry to combine their flows into one, using the same metadata that flows to Twitter and Facebook, and produce a stream where the fake sources can't get in.
I don't think this idea is understood, but I can think of one person who probably cares, who will understand, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post.
Can you help this idea reach him? (No spam please, only if you actually know him. I've never met Bezos myself.)
Please, let's get this together quickly. It won't hurt anyone's business model, and it will provide an alternative to the fast-becoming-truthless news world of Facebook.
PS: Here's a rough idea of what such a feed might look like.
It would be relatively simple to produce a web-based feed, outside of Twitter or Facebook, that includes only stories from vetted news orgs. That doesn't mean that their stories are true, just that they are making their best efforts to produce real news.
There's no time to get into a deep philosophical discussion about this. I know all about the flaws of the press. But there's a world of difference between their product and some of the pubs people are relying on for news. Sort of like the difference between the flaws of the two candidates we all just voted for, that were covered so inadequately by the press. (Ironic isn't it.)
I'm calling on the news industry to work together solve this problem. The technology is there now. We have to help readers find reasonably reliable sources of news. The technical problem is already solved. All that's needed is the will to create the system. It is not hard to do what Facebook does in aggregating news.
Relying on the tech industry to distribute news has had terrible results. The news industry must do its own distribution if the resulting product is going to be worth anything.
Each news org has been a silo. We need a platform that combines the flows of all the silos. Not full text. Just abstracts and images. The tech and knowhow are here now. It's long past time to act. We all feel the urgency. Work together. Now.
You must be feeling by now what Ben Franklin expressed so well in revolutionary days. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
PS: I posted a follow-up.
Check it out for yourself at thesaurus.land.
BTW, to programmers who are tuned in, this is a demo of an outliner being used to browse a networked data structure, the graph of synonyms of the English language.
People made fun of Trump, saying he could never get the Republican nomination. Then they made fun of him saying he could never win the election. At this point, you must see how pathetic it is to make fun of him.
Something is dying on December 19. Let's at least mark it with our presence.
I want the electors to know that if they want to vote for a different candidate there are millions of Americans who support them.
This is part of the Constitution. Don't believe any pundits or journalists who say this can't be done.
And if you know Michael Moore, please ask him to listen to this.
We need to get this idea out there. The president is still Obama, and our freedom of assembly should still work.
This is the most potent political tool left to the citizens.
Let's be smart now, and stand up for America.
PS: Here's a spreadsheet with the capitals of the 2016 red states.
I'm a big fan of the West Wing Weekly podcast. I've tried tweeting the hosts, at times, without acknowledgment. Occasionally I have what I think is a good idea for them, or a word of encouragement. Unlike other fans of theirs, who they talk about on the show, I never have a harsh word. I love the show and the two protagonists. I'm not only a fan but I'm a supporter. (I have a lot of experience with podcasts going back to the early 2000s, and I know how kvetchy fans can be.)
So I'm going to try writing a short blog post and send them a link because they really need to hear this!
At the beginning of the show that came out today they explain that they recorded it before the election and it's clear that, like many of us, their world is rocking because of the result.
What I want to say is that The West Wing is the antidote. It's the escape. Let me explain.
When the show ran originally we were in the midst of the Bush II presidency. It was a real nightmare. He bumbled through wars and tax cuts, the economy first shuddered and then collapsed. Hard times in America! Watching The West Wing gave us a chance to escape for an hour a week in a White House with a cranky but eloquent Nobel laureate as the president, and a staff of the best and brightest of their generation, all speaking words written for them by the ironic and warm-hearted Aaron Sorkin.
I've proposed elsewhere that the Trump presidency offers a great chance to reboot the West Wing franchise. This time it should star a young attractive POTUS who is constantly fighting battles with an obstructionist Republican congress, but still manages to be a wonderful president. He is always being pursued by a crackpot who questions his birthplace and legitimacy as president. The White House is staffed by various bright young smart people who are always doing zany unpredictable things, but you know their hearts are in the right place. If we manage to survive the Trump years, at least we can do it with a certain amount of comfort and hope for the future.
And even if they don't reboot the West Wing TV show, at least we still have the podcast! Keep up the good work Josh and Hrishi. You are not alone. ;-)
PS: I also proposed during the campaign that someone offer Trump a starring role in a reboot of the West Wing. Somehow I think that's more like what he wanted. Too late now. (Maybe not?)
PPS: I've written about the WW quite a few times previously.
PPPS: Geez I'm far from the only person talking about this.
I swore off cable news, but tonight I cheated and watched Rachel Maddow. Learned what a sanctuary city is, a good smart thing. Immigrants can call the cops without fear of being deported. So crimes don't go unreported. So police can help keep the peace. Such a humane and smart thing. A matter of public safety as the mayor of Minneapolis told us.
And they had a Somali woman who had been elected to the Minnesota state Senate, the first in US history. There was another segment on how cops in Arizona had used traffic stops to turn people over to immigration, and the guy who designed their law, and Alabama's, is now in charge of immigration for Trump. Both were declared unconstitutional.
But the mayor of Minneapolis says her police department isn't going to help the Trumps round up immigrants in Minneapolis, and it doesn't matter if you cut off federal aid. That's a problem we can deal with, said the mayor. I cheered. It's the usual Republican assholery. And lazy entitled white people who vote for them.
Made me embarrassed to be white. As usual the immigrants are kicking ass, sending their kids to college, starting businesses, keeping their neighborhoods clean and safe, and the fat-ass white people just sit around complaining on their fat entitled white asses.
Sorry, that's how it looks to me. You all are always saying how we look to you. Deal with it. ;-)
I'm tired of coddling lazy fat-ass good for nothing white people.
They also showed Trump's rally in Minneapolis in the last days of the campaign, telling more lazy entitled fat-ass white people that their lives suck because of the Somalis. They cheered enthusiastically. I guess being white is so depressing for some people they can only feel good if you put down people with darker skin. As if that mattered. Don't they see how pathetic they are?
BTW, I did a Twitter poll asking how many Republican senators would switch to the Democratic Party in Season 3 of the new Trump reality show. I wanted to put the idea out there. I actually think there will be a realignment of parties. You know it happens, Repubs do turn into Dems. I think a lot more of that is going to happen than people realize.
And the fear of the New Repubs being the second coming of Hitler, I'm thinking they're more like the Fascists Who Can't Shoot Straight. Laurel and Hardy Meet Autocracy. The Keystone Kops of Totalitarianism.
It's very wrong for Facebook to not take an active role in getting fake news stories off the site or at least appropriately and clearly labeled as probably humor or a scam.
The company goes to such extremes to prevent people from using fake names or impersonating others, why would it allow sites to pretend to be real news sites when they're scams?
This is a cross-post of a post on Facebook. Please comment, share and like that post. Thanks.
I remember in 2008, after the crash of Lehman Brothers, and after the Treasury secretary let them go out of business, and watching President Bush look completely lost, waiting for the next domino to fall, as the financial markets had frozen, no credit was flowing.
Huge tankers were stuck in port with no funds to cover their fuel.
I had just come home to Berkeley from a New York trip where I wasn't sure if I wouldn't be stranded in NYC because the economy had crashed. I remember looking at the headlines of the Times and Daily News and feeling like I was living in a movie, this didn't feel real.
I was driving on Solano Ave in Berkeley with my friend Tori, and noted how normal everything looked. All the shops and restaurants were open. People were out on the street. I wondered if it would all be there a year later. I asked Tori if she thought it would. She said yes. I made a note to remember that. And it seems I have. (She was right, btw, it all was there a year later, as if nothing happened.)
I told that story to a young friend at dinner last night. We're all worried about what's coming next. We're pretty sure that our current president, the one who took over for Bush, could get us out of most crises, as he did then. But the Republicans now taking over are going down the exact same path that led us to the financial collapse of 2008.
They aren't even in office yet, but you can see the tax cuts coming, and dramatically increased spending. All of a sudden deficits aren't a problem. We suffer for years of deprivation and an unmanaged economy because the Repubs obstruct in Congress, until they take over, and now the checkbook is out, the credit card is about to be maxed, and you can be sure their friends and probably POTUS himself will be on the receiving end of our largesse. All of a sudden future generations be damned. Run up the deficit. Send more of future generations' money to the 1% of the 1%.
One of these days we won't survive a Republican-induced crisis. Right now, if Tori were here, I wonder what she would say (I'll send her a pointer to this story). Will the lights still be on one year from now? Me, I'm not so sure. ;-)
A great scene from The West Wing...
It sobered me up. We're all worried that the new #2 guy at the White House is a racist, but we were looking at the wrong thing. It's like CJ says, it doesn't matter if you can swim, the fall is going to kill you.
If that's really the team, Trump, Priebus and Bannon, then you don't have to worry what kind of person Bannon is. They're going to be overwhelmed the moment they get to work.
President Obama did a press conference before heading to Europe. It was so impressive, his grasp of all the issues, foreign and domestic, wars, health insurance, everything. Not a single gaffe. They were tough questions. Makes you wonder why he can't just do a third term. I don't think anyone thought that about George W. Bush when Obama took over. As I recall, Bush was asking for help before Obama took office.
Read this Matt Yglesias piece for the full picture. This is a case where the headline doesn't do the story justice.
I've seen this happen before with a server I inherited. The domain, weblogs.com, was redirected, and immediately it crashed and wouldn't come back up. Too much traffic. That's what awaits the Trump team when all the urgencies of the world arrive at Priebus' desk, who's much better suited to be political director (Josh Lymon's job) than chief of staff (Leo McGarry).
Hopefully at some point one of the Trump team notices that they aren't ready to do the job, and asks for help from someone who has run a White House. Then they can start building a team. And hopefully someone tells the new president he can't have an neo-Nazi in his White House.
Here's an outline that describes a new kind of online system, one that I discuss at some length in a podcast late last week. You might want to listen to that podcast if you find the idea described here interesting.
1. It's not a community. We already have community systems, for example, Twitter and Facebook. We already know what they can do.
2. It pairs people, one from a red state, one from a blue. Think of them as electronic penpals.
3. They have similar backgrounds. For example, both are teachers, with two kids, living in a suburban neighborhood. So they recognize facets of each others' lives. Or a divorced truck driver paying child support in Georgia is paired with one in California. A programmer in Salt Lake City with one in Boston.
4. No minds are changed. Very important point. This is not about talking someone into agreeing with your conclusion. It is, however, about understanding their point of view, the things they are passionate about and why. How each of you reached different answers to the same question.
5. The system chooses the pairings. Two or more people may arrive together, for example members of the same family. If you already know the person you're communicating with, you may have formed opinions about the person. We want you to start fresh with a clean slate. No baggage.
6. Communication is via email that is passed through a proxy. So the system operators keep and can read a copy of all communication, and can ask both of you questions, or suggest topics to discuss. We may be reading what you write, so we can better understand what the differences are and where there might be points of agreement.
7. Nothing will be made public, unless both parties agree.
6. We ask you to try to compromise where there are strong differences. We all compromise all the time. But we go back and forth between extremes. Maybe we can find a middle ground that we can agree to long-term.
9. A personal comment. I suspect we will find there is agreement in important areas, like taxes, health care, education. One thing we learned about in the election of 2016 is that citizens on both sides pretty much want the same thing. We've been forced onto different sides by the political parties. Unnecessarily, and with very negative consequences. At this point the qualities of the candidates are irrelevant. The election is decided. Now we can try to reach compromises and possibly find agreement that was below the surface.
The only goal I have in proposing this is learning. I think it's possible we can change politics at the citizen-to-citizen level so we are not so manipulated by the (my opinion) ridiculous and exhausting process we currently use in the US to decide our leadership.
I watched this interview that CNN reporter Van Jones had with a family in rural Pennsylvania before the election. It's a good first step. Let's get person-to-person. It's easy to hate people you don't know, but once they become real people, the kind of person who would help if your car broke down, it's hard to think of them as anything but good warm-hearted Americans. Period. No qualifications.
We, who voted for Hillary Clinton, are also good people. And we're hurting now, because we're worried about our future. You all elected the new government. We understand. You say we didn't listen. I believe you. But we are listening now, and we will be listening for at least the next four years.
We are very scared about what the government will do to us. This is a fact, not in question. Good people like Warren Buffett blow right by that. It's nice that he is 100% optimistic. But that does nothing to quell the fear. He's a white Christian living in Nebraska. He might not have anything to fear.
People say not to pay attention to the hate speech, but if it were targeted at you, you wouldn't be able to do that.
Now is the time for the people to get together. This podcast is my first step toward that. I'm not asking you do anything other than listen. Thanks.
I don't know if this is new, but it's new to me, and I love it.
"I am no longer accepting the things I can not change. I am changing the things I can not accept."
It's a new version of the famous serenity prayer, for the times we live in. America now has to fight for its core values. That may turn out to have a huge silver lining. We took a lot for granted, didn't know how good we had it. Another slogan, this one from a Joni Mitchell song, "You don't know what you got till it's gone." So true.
It was reassuring except he didn't talk about the hate. If you're a white Christian in the midwest, as he is, you view things differently from the rest of us.
You can feel it in NYC. People are looking at each other wondering if the other person voted for Trump. We have a whole borough in NYC that went overwhelmingly to him.
People are being very polite to each other. It's spooky. I want to tell them to snap out of it. You're New Yorkers! But..
People are scared. And we have to live with each other, and until this is resolved, there's going to at least be a lot of tension. If it erupts, and people are saying that it is erupting (not sure what to believe) then 100% optimistic is wishful thinking.
At this point in the post-election, it would be reasonable for the president-elect to tell his supporters to chill out on the racism, anti-semitism, etc, but not a word from him. The stories are awful.
Buffett should come to an ethnic area of NYC and do some serious listening. He might be a little more afraid. Cloistered in Nebraska, as he is, he might not see it.
In contrast, hear what NBA coach Gregg Popovich said. Like Buffett, he's a self-described rich white guy. But he sees the election very differently. I think we need to clear up all the race-hate stuff, before I give Buffett a pass on this. He's a good man, for sure, and he thinks he's doing the right thing, I have no doubt about it, but he's leaving a lot of other good people, Americans, out there hanging. Not cool, imho.
I've read two things this morning that are life-changing. That's pretty good for a Saturday. And it's possible that this piece too will be similarly interesting.
First, go listen to this audio interview with NBA coach Gregg Popovich. It's very fog-clearing and uplifting. He's an amazingly clear thinker and speaker. To be as successful in the NBA as he has been, you have to be.
But what can we do? Well the Electoral College votes on December 19. And while there is a tradition that they vote according to the way the people in their state voted, there's no Constitutional requirement that they do.
This suggests that if an alternative was put forward, that meets the objectives of most Trump voters, without the autocracy and hate, maybe we could make some nice lemonade out of this situation. (I would also want to get the approval of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, so that Democratic voters have a say.)
Coach P got me thinking in this direction when he asked the simple question -- why are we rushing into a transition. We could instead have another campaign after some serious compromising and win-win construction. Put forward John Kasich, perhaps. He sounds like a guy who would leave office after his term was up or if he lost a reelection bid. Almost anything is better than Trump (who just wants money and attention, why can't we give him that w/o the nuclear launch codes).
At this point who cares! Let's save our fucking country and sanity. Give Trump a Congressional Medal of Honor, Purple Heart and his own cable channel, no cost, for life. A Broadway parade and a hearty thanks from everyone in America for being a champ, and a good guy and a billionaire and a true patriot. This is what he wants. Give it to him. Give him more than he wants.
Vox doesn't think it's workable, but let's concede the new president is a Republican, not Hillary Clinton. To make this work, she would have to request that her electors vote for the compromise candidate. I think Kasich is a good choice. We know he has guts and it's pretty clear he loves America.
There's not much time to put it together, and a real campaign would have to be waged to make sure that the Trump voters know that we will implement the changes they wanted, and a lot of good things will happen. That's the lemonade part. ;-)
Thanks for listening.
The big story of 2016 was What a President Trump Would do. Paint us an evolving picture of such a presidency, for a citizen of the US, and a citizen of the world. I asked this question repeatedly.
Only one pub as far as I know did the story -- the New Yorker. It was a real eye-opener. I expected the author, Evan Osnos, would be on all the shows and there would be lots of follow-ups. Nope. Nothing. Back to the horserace.
When I asked why, the consensus was that the press expects Clinton to be the next president and are treating her thus. So now we have a full dossier (of mostly lies and trivia btw, the press calls these "narratives") on a person who will be a private citizen next year, and know almost nothing about the person who will be president.
That was the story. It was a real juicy one. You just had to take a deep breath and move through your fear. Once he had the Republican nomination, it could no longer be seen as a fluke, the possibility of his presidency had to be taken seriously. It wasn't.
PS: Here's my writeup of the Osnos story, in September.