-
Sexual Harassment: America You're Not What I Thought
If you live in America, everyday, it seems, brings another allegation of sexual assault to the publics attention. For instance, after finding out last week that NPR’s Senior Vice President for News resigned over sexual harassment claims dating back 20 years, I open Google News to find that Dustin Hoffman is now being accused of sexually harassing by a TV producer. (the interview of NPR CEO Jarl Mohn by Mary Louise Kelly is amazing, do listen to the segment). These allegations are in addition to recent stories about sexual harassment by Bill Cosby, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and, sadly, many more.
As a man, I’m deeply saddened and appalled that my sex includes such vile creatures. But I’m also surprised. I’m disappointed to report, that I thought sexual harassment, while still around, was far less prevalent than it appears to be. Particularly in the workplace. I have had several conversation over the last year pushing the idea that we have reached the end of workplace explicit discrimination based on sex. Instead, I truly believed that we had entered an era where the gender wage gap was no longer a result of outright discrimination, but instead was a systemic issue. I believed that women were paid less because they opted for more flexible work schedules instead of career advancement to take care of and have children. There is evidence for this sort of perspective, and I still think it’s true. This was the conversation that I thought we should be having. How can we allow for more flexibility in the workplace so women and men can both provide for their children and still advance their careers. But after all of the sexual harassment claims and the #MeToo movement, my perspective has changed. While I still think that in some way we need to address workplace flexibility, I now am much more concerned with how women are treated in our society and I am appalled that I have given so much attention to the systemic wage-gap theory and avoided how poorly some women are directly treated by men.
And unfortunately, as much as I want this story to be about the women, the victims who have been wronged, for me my transition in perspective has come from the Men who I know in my life. Since the election of Donald Trump, men that I know have routinely been apologetic of Trump’s statements that brag about sexual harassment. When Donald Trump’s “they let you grab them by the pussy” comments came to light, I had friends say that it was common place, that “we all do it”. When I replied: “yeah we can say bad stuff, but we never locker room talk about sexual harassment”, they all awkwardly laughed and shrugged as if to say, “come on, we all do it”. Unfortunately that ended the conversation. Let’s be clear, I think women are beautiful. I have said so much to my friends in private. And I have been a horny young man who has talked about wanting women. All of those things are OK. But there is a big difference between being attracted to women and being OK with, or even talking about, grabbing a women, or using a women. Comments and actions from men who condone sexual harassment across the country should be whole heartedly condemned, not awkwardly shrugged off and excepted.
And that isn’t the only story, just two weeks ago I had a guy at a wedding try to tell me that he slapped a girls ass (a coworker of his, and a friend of mine), and she was pissed. He thought she was over reacting. At the time, I was complicit. I should of said something, but I didn’t. I just awkwardly shrugged my shoulders and laughed in discomfort. Men have to get to the point where we no longer tolerate our friends oppressive behavior. Women have been crying out for decades. Only to have men, who in public are supportive of women, in private shrug off even the ugliest comments.
These events and the mounting allegations in the news, have left me wanting to issue an apology to all of the women who I have mansplained the real issue with the gender wage gap to. I stand by what I think of the wage gap and I still want to make the work place more flexible and accommodating to both men and women who have children. But I completely revoke any time that I said that workplace discrimination was a thing of the past. I hope you can forgive me for being such an insensitive ass. I suspect I have talked with some women, who have been sexually harassed in the workplace, about this topic. And I didn’t understand why they were so pissed. Now I understand. Now I see the problem. And I am sorry to you, those who I have ignored because some stupid study says there is an average that means absolutely nothing compared to you, who have had to be treated like shit by a man. I now know sexual predatory men are out there and a prevalent component of our society. And I will try not to be silent for you.
-
My Friends Want to Write Too
Twice a year my friends and I gather in the desert for a celebration. We named this gathering “The Perversion”. This past weekend was the 10th bi-annual (I think). Really, the gathering has nothing to do with being perverted, but instead is more about bringing friends together who have moved away or we don’t have time to see because our lives have gotten so busy. People dress up in costumes (hence the name), we make tacos, we have a huge campfire, and we usually accomplish at least one major adventure (climbing, hiking, canyoneering). Great fun is had by all.
This year, I took the opportunity to pitch my idea of creating my own magazine to the group. There were about 30 people there that I could pitch it to. We also were all drinking beer, so it took away some of the edge of putting my idea out on the open market. I didn’t pitch it to all, but a select few who I thought would be interested.
Over the last year, I have hesitated to pitch my idea to too many people. Sometimes people who first hear of it are really excited about it. Other times, they are not. Actually most the time they are not. So many people don’t have the urge to write and don’t necessarily understand why anyone would want to write for fun. And that is before you get to the publishing part. Some people like to write, but putting their ideas on the internet is “dumb”. Writing, for most, is a skill they use at work, don’t particularly like and do not care to do on their free time. I think they are insane. This blog is literally an outlet for me when I feel the urge to write. My urge comes and goes throughout the year, as you can probably tell by my post history, but it always comes back, and I am always excited about writing.
At the perversion, I found out that not all people hate writing. I spoke with three people who were particularly excited about the magazine: Steve, Bonnie and Aaron. Steve shares the same passion I do for writing. He spends free time daily writing ideas down. He also shares my want to get his ideas out in the world. Steve had several article ideas that were ready for creation. Bonnie is a journalism major and wants to write. And Aaron, although maybe the least enthusiastic, is probably the most valuable person I talked to. He is a longtime editor for pretty big newspapers. He currently works for the Sacramento Bee. His lack of enthusiasm was no doubt a result of the fact that he edits for a living.
By no means do these additions to my writing team guarantee the success of the Magazine. But at least now I am on my way to getting a group that can provide some content and get the publication off the ground. Aaron will help make sure that the content is good. I have two more writers too, that makes seven total now. Now we just need to make this passion tangible.
Good Luck to Us!
_M
-
Einstein's Letters
There are not many notable people in history that are remembered as fondly as Albert Einstein. For good reason too. Einstein published over 300 papers in his life and developed the theory of relativity, one of two pillars of modern physics. Though, Einstein is remembered so fondly for more than his scientific achievements. I grew up with a picture of Einstein on my wall with a quote:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
I’m writing all this because this morning I read an article about how a notes the Einstein wrote are up for auction. Some of these notes he gave to friends, others he gave randomly as tips to a courier in Tokyo:
“A calm and modest life brings more happiness than the pursuit of success combined with constant restlessness,”
This was from a letter Einstein wrote in 1950:
“If God has created the world, his primary worry was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us,”
The man could say a lot in so very few words.
-M
-
Charlie Sykes is a good American
I’ve been critical about Charlie Sykes in the past (see here). Mr. Sykes is a former conservative radio host who has come out, in a big way, against the Trump wing of the Republican party. My original criticism mainly stemmed from the fact that Mr. Sykes had fed the Trump wing of the party during his 23 years. And only after Trump’s election did he stop adding to the horribly putrid talk radio environment unique to the American right. It is good that he is now realizing his follies, but his follies have become catastrophic.
Despite my criticism, I continued to follow him on twitter and I occasionally read an article he wrote or an interview of him.
In following him, and since writing my original article, I must say, I have come to admire Mr. Sykes. I still don’t agree with his politics, but in contrast to his radio show self he has found humility, often questioning his original beliefs openly. I think questioning ones self and your political ideologies, regardless of your party affiliation, is a characteristic of any good American. We should all follow in Mr. Sykes’ lead.
Here’s an excerpt of a recent interview of him in Slate:
[Interviewer: Isaac Chotiner] Let me ask you then, because every psychological or political social science experiment you see shows how much partisanship drives how we think about things: Has your kind of awakening about Trump and the Republican Party changed the way you react either rationally or emotionally to other things? Like if you’re following a debate on ending Obamacare, which I’m sure you were never a big fan of, do you find yourself emotionally reacting to it in a different way than you would have five years ago, even though maybe your ideology about health care and the free market hasn’t actually changed?
[Mr. Sykes] Yes. Very much so. The shock of Trumpism has made me rethink what the conservative movement was about and who our allies were, and what our assumptions were. So yes, I do. And once you step out of the echo chamber, once you step out of the bubble, it’s kind of liberating. I actually find it’s incredibly liberating to break out of the chrysalis of having to defend the tribe.
I was a strong critic of Obamacare, but I’m able to step back and go, OK: Are we seriously going to blow this thing up when they were voting on it, without having any hearings, without having any discussions? Do you understand how this will affect people’s lives? I do find that if you step back, and if you’re no longer invested in tribal loyalty, you’ll have a very different perspective, both intellectually and emotionally.
[Interviewer: Isaac Chotiner] When you look at the title of your book, do you think that was a brain fart? How much of the stuff that you did, do you in hindsight see a signal?
[Mr. Sykes] Look, I definitely did not intend that to be a racial connotation, but I can understand how people might misinterpret it. That book, for example, at least half of it is about corporate welfare and Goldman Sachs, and that sort of thing. In retrospect, I can understand how if people were looking for that type of a signal, they might have interpreted it that way. That is part of the rethinking I am doing here.
The whole interview is very worth your time. The interviewer, Isaac Chotiner, asks some great questions.
-M
-
The political geographic divide
Right now there is a divide in America. Politically, America is more partisan than at any other time in recent history. This division is represented as much by geography as it is by the countries wedge issues: abortion, immigration, healthcare, etc. Today I want to talk about the geography part of our divisions. I”m a rural resident and a progressive. If you pay attention to the national media, you may not know that people like me exist. But we do, and we are here in larger numbers than you might think. This hole conversation about partisanship and geography are so confusing to me. To me, rural america isn’t as republican as what the rest of the world sees.
So what does the divide look like on a general level? Republican leaning individuals overwhelmingly live in counties with low population densities (rural), while Democrats overwhelming live in areas that are more densely populated (urban).
I find this a bit puzzling because I am a progressive independent living in a rural county in Colorado that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. Needless to say, I don’t understand this geographic division. I don’t understand why Democrats overwhelmingly flock to cities. And I have no idea why rural Americans are so afraid of progressive ideas that are often adopted in cities. I saw somewhere recently that Democrats generally favor walkable communities, while rural residents favor space. This also makes no sense to me.
So yes, I am a rural Democrat. A combination of words that you would never expect to hear if you pay any attention to the national press. I am not your typical rural resident, who when interviewed are almost always republican, have a drawl, and angry about something involving immigrants, gun control, the confederate flag, their rights or Obama. To the contrary, I think Obama was one of the best presidents in recent history, I am for immigration reform, I believe in a well regulated free market, I don’t own a gun, I am a scientists by profession, I want to increase taxes to fund universal healthcare and free college tuition, and I am not religious. I also happen to think Donald Trump is a scar that this country (or insert world, maybe?) will likely not get over for at least a generation. You could say, at the very least, I am not what gets portrayed in the media as your typical rural resident.
At the same time, and in spite of how much I may disagree with my neighbors on a host of issues, the geographic political divide is so confusing to me. Even though I don’t politically align with my geographic location, I genuinely love living in a rural community. People who live in rural America are friendly to everyone. It is amazing how many people who have visited me are amazed at how friendly everyone is. It’s a sense of community that I’ve never experienced when I’ve lived in the city. People who live in rural America share a lot of the same interests that I have. They love the outdoors, they enjoy fishing and riding bikes. One of our very conservative county commissioners is even a certified yoga instructor. Most people, although not all, believe in local organic farming and ranching practices as well. I always find it weird, when I talk with conservative people at how much wants are similar to progressives. The interesting thing is that even though they want the same things as progressives, they come to a very different conclusion on why things are wrong or how to change things so they will work well. It is like there is no truth anymore. Everyone, me included, also appreciate how wide open it is. My wife and I have an amazing 35 acre parcel with our own canyon and pond. The land is affordable, too. Our 35 acres cost a fraction of what most people pay for a single family home on a small lot in the city. We never have to put our dog on a leash and we rarely have anyone bother us. I can walk naked in my front yard if I want and no neighbor would see.
And we are not the only ones in Rural America voting for Democrats. There are more than one would expect. Looking at county level voting data from the last election, almost all rural counties have at least a 20-30% who voted for Hillary Clinton. You would never know this if you listened to even the most nuanced new sources. Indeed we are the minority, but we are here.
I guess what I’m trying to say is: if you are a Democrat and you want a few less conveniences and a bit more space, come to rural America. There’s a bit more diversity than you might think. I’m also trying to say, if you are a reporter and you want to report on something a bit different, find a hippie farmer in rural America that voted for Hillary Clinton. There’s more of us out here than you than you lead the rest of the world to believe. And, last but not least, I’m saying rural America is a wonderful place full of Trump, Hillary, Stein, and Johnson supporters. Don’t put us in a corner, we don’t deserve it.
-
How are Political Pundits So Certain?
Let’s imagine that in America today there exists a person who is neither a democrat or a republican. Let’s also imagine that this person is extremely well read, but is not a political scientist, so they don’t have a good understanding of how policy changes lead to on the ground change. And let’s say this person has a pretty healthy media diet. With how partisan our country has become, and as a result, how partisan our media has become, this person would have a hard time figuring out what is fact and what is not.
If you consume information on the right and left, like I try to, you begin to realize that almost everyday with every political issue the right and left media core almost completely disagree on everything. It’s true, there are media outlets who play it right down the middle and don’t take a side. And these outlets seem to be the most trustworthy in my opinion. But at the same time if you only read the centrist news outlets, you may get the impression that some issues have good arguments on both sides. Take climate change for example. It’s real, it’s happening, and it is most likely going to be catastrophic. But, people have doubts because the media for so many years reported it as if those who didn’t “believe” (using believe for a reason) in it, had as much of a case as the scientist who had been studying it for years. When they didn’t.
Because “balanced news” has its flaws, in my opinion, it is good to consume “sided” news. But here is the problem, they are way too predictable. They don’t seem to start with: “let’s look at the evidence, see where it takes us and report on our findings”. Their editorial meeting most likely goes like this: “The left (substitute right as needed) is wrong, lets find a way to prove it with this issue”.
To prove my point I think it is helpful to look at some examples from two online journals that I read regularly. On the right we have the National Review, which I occasionally am very impressed with, but often not, and on the left we have Vox, people I listen to obsessively, but sometimes feel like they are turning into the Fox News for the left.
The National Review on the Right
Title: Trump Was Right to End Unconstitutional Obamacare Subsidies
Tag Line:
They were never lawful because Congress never appropriated the money.
First Paragraph:
It’s a sad sign of our times that the constitutionality of any given government action is now seen as a wholly secondary consideration, subordinate to politics and arguments about politics. And so it is with Donald Trump’s necessary decision to halt federal payments of cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies.
The jist of the article is that cost sharing payments to insurance companies that are part of the Affordable Healthcare Act were never appropriated by congress. In other words, payments made to health insurance companies from the president are illegal because congress never voted on them and only congress has the ability to appropriate funds. A district court judge agreed with this opinion, siding with the house of representatives when they sued to stop the payments.
I think this is a pretty strong argument. I don’t think the payments are legal. But there are a few blind omissions in this article and the editor eludes to them towards the end of the article.
Every two years we elect the entire House and one-third of the Senate. There is thus a constant potential check on government expenditures. The fact that Congress rarely checks that spending makes its power no less legally real nor any less constitutionally necessary. And, by the way, judges do not exist to correct subjectively determined deficiencies in the elected branches’ policy-making.
David French, the author of the piece, is basically obscurely saying that congress has done a terrible job appropriating spending. I’d even argue that congress has been intentionally blocking spending that would anyway make Democrats look good. This isn’t governing, its spiteful bullshit. Despite this, the funds are still illegal. He also says, if the democrats want this fixed they either need to make a deal or elect more officials.
You can read the whole article here.
Vox on the Left
Title: Who’s going to be hurt by Trump’s new attack on Obamacare
Tag Line:
The real-world consequences of ending cost-sharing reduction payments.
First Paragraph:
President Trump has decided to stop key Obamacare payments to health insurers, adding yet another element of uncertainty to the health care law’s future.
The 10 million people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces will now be subject to another rash of headlines about how the Trump administration is undermining and changing the law — with open enrollment less than three weeks away.
In contrast, this article doesn’t even mention the constitutionality of the payments. Instead if focuses on outcomes, which it describes in four parts which sum up the article nicely:
- Eligibility for Obamacare’s financial assistance hasn’t changed
- People who qualify for the ACA’s subsidies and discounts are protected
- People who don’t receive assistance bear the brunt of price hikes
- Known unknowns: any new premium increases or insurers leaving markets
The biggest issues are the last two. A big gripe with the ACA already is that it didn’t give enough support to people who are relatively well off, but don’t make that much; those making more than 65k or a family of four making 125k. This group may see it’s premiums rise due to the payments being stopped because they don’t qualify for a subsidy.
Another problem with this move by the Trump administration, according to the article, is that it will likely hurt insurance companies. This negative effect may result in companies leaving the ACA marketplace or increases in premiums. These in themselves are not that bad, but changes in general bring uncertainty to the health insurance market, which the market doesn’t need at the moment given how unstable the markets have been over the last 3 years. (As I’m writing this, health stocks are plummeting an ominous sign for health care markets).
You can read the whole article here.
Certainty
So we have two pieces talking about the exact same policy event, that literally have nothing to do with each other. I guess this is good in the universe of ideas. If you are a reader of both you can look at each argument and decide which is more important.
- Payments are unconstitutional and should be stopped.
- Payments stabilize the market and ending them has a lot of uncertainty.
Do you think market stability is more important, or do you think that adhering the the constitution is more important?
Regardless of your answer, it bothers me that neither of these articles mentions, even briefly, the others point of view. Both arguments seem to be important. And there are trade offs to having one opinion over the other. But each outlet seems to be so certain that their view is more valuable than the other that they refuse to acknowledge the true complexity of the issue. Maybe this is the case because readers have a hard time understanding nuance. Maybe it is because both sides are too partisan to see a trade off.
I can’t help but think it is articles like these that make for a confused, tribal public and a public that largely has different values and opinions. No answers here though, just more questions.
-
The Divide
I just had one of my best friends from Park City, Utah, visit. Accompanying him were three others from Park City. They came to ride bikes and check out Dolores, where I live, and Durango, where my good friend and I attended Fort Lewis College together. It amazes me that even though, my friend and I have spent most of the last decade apart, we don’t miss a beat when we are together. I am also reminded that my life is so very different from most people in the United States. I live on thirty five undeveloped acres, in a house that most people wouldn’t eve classify as livable. My friends, could care less about nice cars or clothes. We are broken off from most of Americas culture. But yet, we can still drink beer, laugh and enjoy those that are so different from us.
Park City
Park City was an extremely wealthy town when I grew up in Salt Lake City in the 90s. With the tech boom that they have experienced over the last 10 years, it has become even wealthier. Needless to say, culturally, even though my visitors are very similar to me, politically, demographically, and, some of them at least, financially, there is definitely a divide between me and them.
It’s a bit hard to explain. We are all the same age, yet all of them are married and have children. Their wives are all stay-at-home moms. When my wife was talking about the patriarchy one of them winced and another admitted that “they didn’t know what that was” until my wife told them. They all live in large expensive houses, have nice cars, and are mid to high level managers at tech or outdoor companies (one sold real estate).
Dolores
I couldn’t live in a world more different then theirs. Most of my friends, despite being in the same age bracket, are just getting married. Only one of my friends has a child – who is only four months old. A couple of my friends own houses, but most of them are fixer-uppers and the rest rent. I live in a barn. No one drives a nice car.
And yet, all of these gentleman I would consider friends. They are stand up people, we enjoy the same outdoor activities, we are interested in the same things. Politically, we align. We all work 9 to 5 and enjoy playing outside when we have time off. We live such different lives, but manage to be the same, somehow.
The Cultural Divide
I don’t bring these differences up to stand on a high horse. Instead, I bring them up as a personal, relatable look into the many cultural divides that our country and world endures and, I’d argue, thrives on. It has always been amazing to me that so many people with so many different values and lives manage to live in the same country, cohesively.
And yet, the divide above describes one of the smallest separations that our country endures. Many divides are far greater. The separation between rich and poor, for example. One, the rich, live a lives so cartoonish, you would have to live it to believe it. They can do pretty much whatever they want. They can get away with sexual assault regularly for decades(examples: 1, 2, 3, 4) for example. The other, the poor, knows nothing but limitation. Each day is a bit harder than the last. Everyday they are more likely to experience something that will do irreparable harm to their lives and their future.
But the system moves on. I, for one, would like to see the divide between rich a poor shrink, so that bad days don’t turn into bad lives for the poor. Even if that means that a smart businessman looses some of their luxuries that they may have arguably earned. That is not the point of this story though, the point is that, in a world with so many different people, cultures, dreams I write this rambling note optimistically. There are many differences in the world. And yet, the world keeps turning, and more and more people move out of poverty, have access to health care and attend school. We somehow do all of this, with so much diversity. It is a wonder to behold that we manage to, somewhat peacefully, move the world forward, inch by inch, child by child, while living our very diverse lives.
-
Today Perfection Dies in my Writing
Today, perfection dies for my writing. I’ve written a lot over the last year. Probably more than anyone that I know. I have published two blogs, including this one, written in a journal and written online. Amazingly, and in spite of my negative view of my writing, I’ve gotten much better. But, I still don’t like my writing, I don’t think I have clear thoughts, I don’t think my work is worth reading and I sure as shit don’t publish most of what I write. I’m afraid that if someone reads my work they won’t think it is good, and they will never read my work again. I’ve been hoping that somewhere along this journey of writing for the last 3 years I would have perfected the art. But I haven’t. Some days these keys evade my want to make something.
Today, all of those thoughts need to die. I will never improve if I don’t show my work to others. If I don’t give myself the room to make mistakes or suck or make something great. When I started taking pictures 10 years ago, my photographs were pretty bad. I’d make the occasional lucky shot every 1,000 photos or so, but really my photographs sucked. Today, I can get back from shooting 100 photos or so and have 5 to 10 that are worth editing and sharing. And sure, sometimes I take dud rolls, but I can definitely see how I have improved.
It’s time I give my writing the same chance I gave my photographs.
-
13 Ways to Strengthen the US Economy
There’s been a lot going on lately in America. In particular lot of bad things have been happening, and the news is filled with these bad things. So I was delighted to read a short article by Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) on “13 Ways to Strengthen America’s Economy”. It wasn’t bashing anybody or raging about how f#*ked we are here in America. Instead, it was an article that put forth 13 ideas that could (or could not depending on your view) move this country in a positive economic direction to discuss and debate. Thanks Noah. You can find it here.
Stand Outs from The List
No. 1: Universal Healthcare No. 8: Stronger antitrust enforcement No. 9: More research funding No. 11: Child Care Support No. 13: Federal housing for the homeless
I think the whole list is pretty good and he gives a rational for each in his article, I highly recommend reading it.
One Thing to Add
I would have added at least one item to his list: Campaign Finance Reform. It seems that in order to have a functioning economy in a democracy, the people have to trust that their politicians are representing their best interests. Right now, in a America you are seeing the result of our political distrust with the election of Donald Trump. Right or wrong, Trump would never have gotten elected if people had not lost faith in their political system in America. Ezra Klein had a good discussion with Zephyr Treachot on the subject and they discuss in detail the problem and some very interesting solutions.
Comments Debate
In a closeout statement, Noah states:
This list of policies is eclectic. It draws on ideas from multiple ideologies, from social democracy to free-market neoliberalism to industrialism.
One of the comments argued about Noah’s definition of liberalism and how it was wrong. Given, I’m not an economist, I thought it would be good to define it here for myself and you. It is not very intuitive and I think many will find it means the opposite of what they think it means.
Neoliberalism: refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. (from Wikipedia)
-
Damore's Sexist Google Doc
Over the last several days a Google doc has gone viral titled “Google’s Ideologic Echo Chamber”. In it the author, James Damore, makes the case that Google’s left leaning bias and handling of diversity is counter productive. In a TL;DR section in the document he statesting: ” Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business”.
Mainly, his argument centers on how conservative ideas are not allowed at Google saying: “Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.”
I could see how this would be a problem at Google. I would imagine that working in very liberal San Francisco might be a bit one sided. And I would agree that Google should fight the binary political tribalism that we’ve allowed to grip this entire country over the last decade.
But where Damore looses me is in the example of conservative ideas that he uses: sexism.Damore argues that sexism is justified because women and men differ biologically: “On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways.” What Damore doesn’t understand in some ways gender is poorly understood and in other our understanding is much more flexible than he portrays. And it is very difficult to tease out what traits are culturally caused and what traits are biological. Nonetheless, in his doc, Damore connects so called scientifically supported differences in traits to women being worse at certain things in the workplace: “This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.” He does this by making an inferential leap from biological differences straight to sexism with no evidence to support the connection. Sure this is wrong because it is wrong. Even if women are worse at certain things (which I do not think they are) wouldn’t a just society strive to bring them up and not relegate them to “jobs that fit their traits” as Damore suggests?
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Are we so hell bent that we would demean our fellow citizens telling them” sorry you’re too people oriented for this job”? And even if biology did support Damore’s claims, is it still not sexist to treat genders differently?
But to move beyond all of that, there are two really good reasons why Damores argument is absolute horseshit:
- Damore makes a mental leap inferring that biological trait differences lead to women having a harder time “negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading”, a connection not supported by the literature; and
- the evidence Damore uses to support his claims is inconclusive.
Mental Leap
So let’s say for a moment that Damore is correct, that we know that women have certain traits that differ from men and these traits are not a result of culture but of biology. How do we know if those traits are better or worse for leadership? Damore claims that women, on average, have more “openness”, “extroversion”, and “neuroticism”. He then makes the leap that these characteristics make women more anxious, worse at handling high stress jobs, and worse at gaining status and leadership within their workplaces.
At least for leadership, this connection, is not supported by research. In one meta-analysis, reserchers found:
*Overall, our results linking personality with ratings of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors were weak. Judge, Bono, et al. (2002) noted that the Big Five explain 28% of the variability among ratings of leadership emergence and 15% of the variability among ratings of leadership effectiveness. In our study, the Big Five explained 12% of the variability in charisma and only 5% and 6% of the variability in ratings of intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, respectively. In another meta-analysis on the dispositional basis of leadership perceptions, Lord et al. (1986) found that masculinity was the strongest personality predictor of leadership perceptions, explaining 11% of the variability among leaders (the other traits they examined had R2 s ranging from .02 to .05).
This doesn’t make a good argument that personality traits are well connected with leadership. So Damore’s assumption that women are worse at leadership due to their traits is shaky at best. But he claims it nonetheless, so that “conservative” ideas that need to be talked about are herd? But it doesn’t even matter that there is no connection between traits and success in the workplace because the science that suggests that traits are biological is also extremely week.
Evidence Linking Gender to Traits
To make an argument that traits lead to certain outcomes, it would be best if you first were rock solid in your determination that the group you were assigning traits to, actually had the traits. Damore, in his doc, doesn’t do so. One study he cited states:
Research on gender differences in personality and interests typically relies on data from standardized tests. Because such tests use self-report scales, their scores may be influenced by social stereotypes, social desirability response sets, and self-construal processes (See Feingold, 1994; Guimond, 2008).
Another source concedes:
There are many forms of bias in personality measurement and some of these biases are very difficult to quantify (Cheung & Rensvold, 2000; Grimm & Church, 1999). For example, it can be difficult to determine whether self-reports reflect role requirements, intrinsic differences in personality traits, or some interactive combination of both.
and that:
In more traditional and less developed cultures a man is, indeed, more like a woman, at least in terms of self-reported personality traits.
Combine these cited caveats with the fact that psychological sciences are in the midst of a replication crisis and you begin to paint of picture of psychological science that is less than conclusive.
So, we have a large step of from biological traits to outcomes and a lack of science behind the actual traits.
The Real Point
Despite Damore making a crap scientific argument, this is still all bullshit. Damore is saying that by telling women that they have traits that make them worse in some areas, particularly areas highly respected in our society (salary, being heard and leadership) will somehow actually help them. But in reality a company who condones this sort of sexist rhetoric, will not attract more women. If I were a woman and someone I worked for told me that because of my biology I’m going to be less successful at this company than a man, I would tell them to “GO F@%K themselves”.
The fact that Damore is requesting that google re-think its “left” echochamber of empowering women in the workplace and instead strive to put women in their biological place, is absurd. And I think Google did the right thing by firing him and rejecting his ideas in their workplace.
-
Rural America is Falling
I was listening to our local radio station yesterday KSJD. They have a great show called the Big Fat Farm Show. The show is an example of perfectly executed small town radio. A local host talks with a local agriculture specialist about timely topics. They tend to cover beef prices, the drought, agricultural bills in congress, soil, etc.. But they also tackle bigger issues, climate change, international agricultural trade, things that are bigger than rural America. In my opinion the show perfectly shows the power of local public radio.
On a recent show, they talked about an op-ed from the New York Times about a visit to the rural America by a sheep farmer from Matterdale, England. As the sheep farmer talked about his visit to rural America, he noted that in most things, England tends to follow the lead of America. And in this, he feared that England would soon follow and share the plight of rural America’s movement away from local farms and ranches toward larger more industrial agriculture. This movement, or industrialization, has largely been absent from recent talks about the decline of rural America, a topic on the minds of most after the 2016 election. Much, however, has been written about the fact that rural America has declined (1, 2) and the political ramifications of that decline. Most of the blame, probably rightly so, has been placed on globalization. Other’s though, particularly those from coal or oil and gas producing areas have blamed regulation. Many think rural areas in crisis largely lead to the election of Donald Trump.
It’s interesting though, the decline of rural America brought to power the party of bring yourself up by your bootstraps, the Republicans. They are against social programs because they think that they disinsentivise work, and they hate regulating the free market. But what I don’t understand is rural America is living in a bring yourself up by your bootstrap moment. Free trade policies and the free market have decreased the number of jobs in many small towns. Low skilled labor has moved to where it is cheapest, namely, not America but places like China. And when agriculture is concerned, small farms have been outpaced by larger, more efficient, more profitable large scale industrial farms.
So, why haven’t those communities, who have lost so much, turned their plight around? They can’t. Economists and politicians over sell that job losses can be replaced with better training or moving. But in reality this doesn’t happen. Right now so many small communities across the country are suffering from opioid addiction, higher suicide rates, more single parenting, etc. as a result of declines in employment. The reality is, people don’t actually pull themselves up by there bootstraps, they flounder.
And rural America tried to elect a president who would help them, Trump. He said that he would bring their jobs back and give them healthcare that was cheaper, make Mexico build a wall to decrease competition for the few jobs they have left. Alas though, with the introduction of the Trump’s first budget and congresses American Health Care act, it appears this will not be delivered.
It’s important to note, some communities will pull themselves out of this troubled time. The rural community I live in has done alright. Mostly I think, because we live right next to Mesa Verde National Park and have public lands all around us, bringing a constant stream of tourist cash into our economy.
But other communities have not been so lucky. They continue to struggle. Research shows that when jobs leave rural communities, they have a really hard time recovering. Communities with fewer employed males suffer from increases in drug addiction, suicide and single or separate parent homes. These effects can last even after economies rebound. Think of the intercity communities riddled with poverty and drug addition (crack epidemic) in the late 80s and 90s. Those communities are still dealing with the effects two decades later.
This brings me back to our sheep farmer. If America is going to lead the world on an agricultural path towards forgetting its rural communities, we are doing just fine. But if we want to support our rural communities, which Trump supposedly campaigned on, we need to start prioritizing support to these communities. Despite that so many believe the bootstrap fallacy, it is just that, a fallacy. If we do not intentionally support these communities they will continue to be a blight for the millennial generation.
-
Steve Bannon
Like many of you out there, I’ve been infatuated with the current political unraveling in America. This morning, I read a fascinating piece on Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s Chief Strategist. Definitely worth reading the whole thing, here. Some Excerpts:
If there is a political vision underlying Trumpism, however, the person to ask is not Trump. It’s his éminence grise, Stephen K. Bannon, the chief strategist of the Trump administration.
Bannon’s political philosophy boils down to three things that a Western country, and America in particular, needs to be successful: Capitalism, nationalism, and “Judeo-Christian values.” These are all deeply related, and essential.
he baby boomers, Bannon says in a lecture given to the Liberty Restoration Foundation (LRF), failed to live up to that Burkean responsibility by abandoning the tried-and-true values of their parents (nationalism, modesty, patriarchy, religion) in favor of new abstractions (pluralism, sexuality, egalitarianism, secularism).
Comparing the current crisis to events like the Revolutionary War and World War II, Bannon appears to believe that the US is heading inevitably toward violent conflict. This interpretation is backed up by other statements from and about Bannon.
More recently, he told the New York Times (paywall) that the media “should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.” He added: “I want you to quote this. The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”
Even before he took charge of Trump’s campaign, in Aug. 2016, Bannon’s philosophies pervaded its rhetoric. If there was any question about the role his views would play in the Trump administration, the last two weeks have made it clear: The president’s leadership hangs from the scaffolding of Bannon’s worldview.
-
How Statistics Lost Their Power
A good article by William Davies of the guardian on how our relationship with statistics is changing. Excerpt:
Rather than diffusing controversy and polarisation, it seems as if statistics are actually stoking them. Antipathy to statistics has become one of the hallmarks of the populist right, with statisticians and economists chief among the various “experts” that were ostensibly rejected by voters in 2016. Not only are statistics viewed by many as untrustworthy, there appears to be something almost insulting or arrogant about them. Reducing social and economic issues to numerical aggregates and averages seems to violate some people’s sense of political decency.
Nowhere is this more vividly manifest than with immigration. The thinktank British Future has studied how best to win arguments in favour of immigration and multiculturalism. One of its main findings is that people often respond warmly to qualitative evidence, such as the stories of individual migrants and photographs of diverse communities. But statistics – especially regarding alleged benefits of migration to Britain’s economy – elicit quite the opposite reaction. People assume that the numbers are manipulated and dislike the elitism of resorting to quantitative evidence. Presented with official estimates of how many immigrants are in the country illegally, a common response is to scoff. Far from increasing support for immigration, British Future found, pointing to its positive effect on GDP can actually make people more hostile to it. GDP itself has come to seem like a Trojan horse for an elitist liberal agenda. Sensing this, politicians have now largely abandoned discussing immigration in economic terms.
-
Vote With Your Outdoor Dollar
With the enactment of the Bears Ears National Monument by the Obama administration, Utah politicians have done their damnedest to fight the new designation. A recent op-ed (1/10/2016) in the Salt Lake Tribune by Black Diamond founder Peter Metcalf offers a warning to political leaders who are trying to damage the outdoor industry. His recommendation, move Outdoor Retailer from Salt Lake, where it currently resides, to a state that is more friendly to the public lands and the outdoor industry. Outdoor Retailer is the largest outdoor convention in the country with approximately 50,000 attendees to both the summer and winter editions. Moving it would be huge hit to Salt Lake Cities economy.
Political officials rationalize their actions with false truths, fictional ideologically based narratives and fear-mongering. They neglect the critical role public lands play in boosting Utah’s economy, making the state a great place to live, work and play. They even fail to understand that four of Utah’s five iconic national parks, which are the economic engines of their regions, were created through use of the Antiquities Act — as was Bears Ears National Monument.
This agenda is antithetical to our industry, let alone the majority of our citizens regardless of party affiliation. By our industry’s twice-annual trade show remaining in Utah, we are actually complicit collaborators in our own demise. It’s time for the industry to again find its voice, speak truth and power to power while making it clear to the governor and the state’s political leadership that this trade show will depart with the expiration of the current contract in 2018 unless the leadership ceases its assault on America’s best idea.
I have to admit, I don’t completely understand how Utah officials are so opposed to public lands designations. Yes, they have to potential to impact non-renewable and the livestock grazing industries. But that is not necessarily the case with a National Monument designation. Canyons of the Ancients National Monument has both grazing and oil and gas.
Public lands have practically made Utah what it is today. Moab would not exist without Arches, Canyonlands and the BLM. Springville would be a spec without Zion. Salt Lake City’s tourist industry would be a fraction of what it is today without the Ski areas leased from the Forest Service in nearby canyons. And I would think that a huge driver in why Utah is one of the fastest growing states has a great deal to do with its public lands and recreational opportunities.
Than again, Utah has done a great job attracting large businesses with tax credits and incentives providing jobs. Similarly, very few incentives exist for small businesses within the state. The incentive for many, it seems, is the outdoor opportunities that Utah is now fighting.
All of this makes me wonder if Utah is in a bubble that it can’t sustain. It seems like they give tax breaks to big businesses that are paid for by small businesses. As America is finding out this election, taking advantage of the middle class, can lead to some severe consequences. Time will tell.
-
Goals 2017
This blog started on December 11, 2016. Since then I’ve written 7 posts. Two I’ve started and will be coming out shortly. If you include this post, that will be 8 posts finished and 2 started in about 22 days. Not bad.
I started this blog because I have an urge to write. Writing is something that I have always enjoyed doing, but never really thought I was good at. I’m a firm believer in practice. The only way to get really good at something is to do it a lot. This blog is my practice.
There are also so many ideas in my head. I tend to think I think a little differently then some and I’d like to get my ideas out of my head and onto paper (or screen).
To make this site better, I thought that it would be good to make some concrete goals for the year. These goals will be a mix of personal goals and goals for the site. You can’t have one without the other in my opinion.
Publish 39 Posts
39??? Where did you get 39? At first I wanted to publish 52 posts, one post for every week of the year. I decided this would be a little too ambitious for my first year and I want to focus on quality, not quantity. So I reduced that number by a quarter 52 * .75 = 39.
Read 12 Books
I had the same goal last year and only made it to 7. This year I want to try again. Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Russell Hochschild is first up, followed by:
- Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall
- The Other Slavery by Anders Resendez
- House of Rain by Craig Childs
- The Attention Merchants and the Master Switch by Tim Wu
That should get me through Mayish. After that I’d like to read some fiction. Any suggestions?
Publish an Online Magazine.
This is a little out there and the details are just starting to form. There really is no draw back to trying though. I might write a bit about it here.
Get Outside….and Watch less TV!
I spend incrementally more time in front of a computer these days. I like the idea that at least one to two days of every week is spent completely outside with no digital stimulus (no headphones nothing).
That sounds like enough. I don’t want to get too excited and make goals I can’t finish. Happy New Year. Here’s to 2017.
-
The content I love
The internet has given the world an endless sea of content. Some is good, some is terrible, some is true, and some is thoughtful. This is the content that I love.
News
- National Public Radio - Morning edition and All Things Considered are an important part of my day.
- The New York Times - Immediately after the election I purchased a subscription to the New York Times. I decided that add driven content comes at a price and paying for good content is important.
- Quartz - Figure driven reporting that never tries to be the first to report something.
- The Wall Street Journal - Admittedly I don’t read the Wall Street Journal. However, it is to the right of the New York Times and I think it is important to have a foot on both sides of the political line.
- Vox - Vox’s reporting on the Affordable Care Act by Sarah Kliff was and continues to be Amazing. Ezra Klein, the Editor and Chief, is also someone who always expands my perspective.
- FiveThirtyEight - Five Thirty Eight brings a data driven approach to news - something more news outlets should strive to do. They were very good at polling the presidential election and their reporting on guns is amazing.
- Marginal Revolution - This blog is my latest find, thanks to the Ezra Klein Show. It’s written by Tyler Cohen. He has a way of putting things that I think about into simple easy to digest short snippets. Don’t expect anything polished. Just thoughts and quotes. Awesome.
- High Country News - The best reporting on issues that we face in the west, hands down.
- Sagebrush Altered - Ahem
Podcasts
There are a ton of great Podcasts out there. This list is by no means comprehensive. Here I’ll focus on podcasts that I enjoy that I haven’t heard many others recommend.
- The Weeds - An in depth policy podcast. The three hosts Ezra Klein, Sarah Kliff and Matt Iglesias do a great job getting into the political weeds on a wide range of topics. They are particularly good at bringing complex issues down to an understandable level.
- The Ezra Klein Show - Ezra interviews really smart people and he asks great questions.
- More Perfect - Another great podcast from the folks at Radiolab. Each episode covers a supreme court ruling. It will change how you think about the law.
- Revisionist History - Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast that aims to change the way you think about history. Each episode tackles a moment in history that you think you understand but don’t.
- NPR Politics Podcast - This one single handedly got me through the election.
- A History of Oil - This should be required listening for everyone. It explains so much about how the world works. Oil is indeed the product that shapped our modern world.
- The better known podcasts that I really enjoy:
- Freakenomics
- Radiolab
- This American Life - The episode on Hillary Clintons email server is a must listen.
- Planet Money
- Serial
I hope you enjoy these as much as I do. I also like to read books, but do it far less than I should. Although it will be short, I’m working on putting out a list of books that enjoyed reading this year.
Happy new year!
-
Thoughts on bringing the US back together.
An interesting perspective on our culture and how it relates to economic success. Tyler Cohen for Bloomberg writes:
Religion
Cultural problems are not usually well suited for top-down, designed solutions, but nonetheless two ideas come to mind, both of which involve a shift in the zeitgeist rather than planned policies.
The first is that the case for religions, in particular strict religions that proscribe substance use, may be stronger than we had thought. Although I am not myself religious, I find myself wishing for a religious flowering in more parts of the U.S., and I do mean actual adherence to the doctrine, not just lip service. Without substance abuse, and with lower rates of divorce, the social and economic problems of these regions would be less severe. In Utah, for instance, where an unusually high percentage of the population is Mormon, alcohol abuse, drug abuse and broken families are all much smaller problems. Utah also has a relatively robust middle class. Even with imperfect adherence, and for religions other than Mormonism, religion seems to boost social capital and individual outcomes.
As a person who is an atheist, this view is a bit hard to swallow at first, but interesting non the less. It does seem that for some religion is a connection to their structure and community. This community provides opportunities in life and a natural check for the things that ill us. The fact that you will have to face those in your church at some point will undoubtedly make someone think twice about posting racist content on social media. It may also help someone get help for an opiate addiction.
A Country Divided
A simple question is this: When you wake up in the morning and start to ponder your day, can you really imagine that, on key issues, “the deplorables” (whomever you might identify them to be) might be right and you wrong? And are you reading and promoting thinkers who encourage such open attitudes? If that is the case, the cultural dialogue in this country eventually will prove to be richer and rewarding, to the eventual benefit of us all.
This echos what the premise of my previous article, My Neighbors. It does seem that too many have become much too entrenched in their “side”. This divisiveness in our society cannot be improving any situation.
Also check out
Tyler Cohen’s blog, Marginal Revolution. He has a really great perspective on so many subjects.
-
Rap
I saw Brother Ali this weekend. In 2004, it was his album, Shadows on the Sun that showed me that rap could be about more than gang banging. Ali’s performance was truly inspiring. As a white albino Muslim, you feel like you know who Ali is listening to him. Some of my favorites:
You might think I’m depressed as can be
But when I look in the mirror I see sexy ass me
And if that’s somethin’ that you cant respect then that’s peace
My life’s better without you actually
To everyone out there, who’s a little different
I say damn a magazine, these are gods fingerprints
You can call me ugly but cant take nothing from me
I am what I am doctor you ain’t gotta love me- “Forest Whitiker” - Shadows on the Sun
Another favorite..
Trapped in a history we don’t understand
Can’t remember how this blood got on our hands
Never been taught about the ugly past
Expecting God not to punish man
Our ancestors brought us control
We realize now that the cost was our soul
Got me feeling like an empty shell
Prison guard that inherited a cell
I’m desperate to find my place
Emptiness lies behind my face
Flowers only die in a vase
A heart only dies encased in a lie we call race
I hear the song but I can’t sing along
Some thing’s really wrong I can’t put my finger on
Terrified to admit it’s wrong
Cause I’m hiding in the ruins of a legacy that still lives on
Our identity is hinged upon the miserable myth we’ve been caught since we’re born
Until we mend what was torn
The debt of a sin lingers long after the victim’s moans
This is actually true
Now stop and imagine that’s you
Now stop imagining unravel the truth
And ask just who is it happening to
Everything that the passenger do the driver experience too
So if humanity is one then we all get burned when it’s hell that we’re traveling through- “The Travelers” - US
-
Who's to blame for our political tribalism?
In the New York Times this morning was an Op-Ed by a Midwestern republican Talk Radio host, Charlie Sykes. In the article, Mr. Sykes supports his stance as a member of #nevertrump and tries to figure out how his party supported someone who he despises. To explain much of what he sees in his party, Mr. Sykes credits binary tribalism.
In this binary tribal world, where everything is at stake, everything is in play, there is no room for quibbles about character, or truth, or principles. If everything — the Supreme Court, the fate of Western civilization, the survival of the planet — depends on tribal victory, then neither individuals nor ideas can be determinative. I watched this play out in real time, as conservatives who fully understood the threat that Mr. Trump posed succumbed to the argument about the Supreme Court. As even Mr. Ryan discovered, neutrality was not acceptable; if you were not for Mr. Trump, then you were for Mrs. Clinton.
This is an interesting take, particularly from someone so partison. It does seem that we have lost our political way. We have become so entrenched in our own political ideas that we have stopped seeing people on the other side of the political divide as coherent. Instead, so many latch onto a group, thinking that only their own political party has reasonable solutions to the countries problems and any other solutions would spell certain doom. Our politics are no longer about the battle of ideas, they are instead about staying loyal to those in your tribe no matter the quality or merit of the parties approach to governing. Or even worse, no matter how much it might negatively effect you!
I commend Mr. Sykes for his critical take on his own party. However, one thing I think is missed in the article is why we have become so tribal. In this, you see an omission from Mr. Sykes’s Op-Ed. We should all shoulder the blame for climbing further into our political corners, but Mr. Sykes, other talk radio hosts, and partisan media in general need to admit their influential roles in pushing us there. Some tweets from Mr. Sykes to prove my point:
UW Regents vote on free speech a clear rebuke to lefty UW-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank https://t.co/UWbZTH3K2J
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) December 10, 2015Sen. Ron Johnson: Obama Probably Thinks That We Brought Islamic Terror On Ourselves https://t.co/mvFU7pOcaz # via BuzzFeedAndrew
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) December 8, 2015The Left’s Assault on ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Revealed Its Anti-Christian Bigotry and Rank Political Posturing https://t.co/eAuzuVME5U
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) December 4, 2015The Left Prays After San Bernardino Shooting, To Its God Of Government - https://t.co/RCkhAh8yD8 via @FDRLST
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) December 3, 2015I find it odd, that a man would rebuke tribalism after publically publishing such statements. How can you call a liberal chancellor a “lefty” or tweet about “Anti-Christian Bigotry and Rank Political Posturing” without realizing that you are directly fueling our countries divide.
We need to move away from the all too common: “The left (or right) did it and its bad” to the more meaningful “this idea is bad and this is why” approach. This is not esclusivie to the right side of the political divide.
A few months back I was on a bike ride with a friend. During the ride, she exclaimed that she disliked religion because “religions were against abortion”. Even though I knew what she meant, it struck me. Religions are not against anything. This an important distinction. The people that make up a religion have a wide variety of opinions, even - most likely - about abortion. In grouping religious people and giving the group the opinion, you immediately attack a person twice. You attack them because of their supposed opinion and you attach the group that they are part of. In doing this you have created a situation where just calling yourself religious is bad because, in my friends mind, it implies that a person is against abortion. That may be the case for some, or even the majority, but it does not accurately describe the whole.
Similarly, Mr. Sykes attacks a the chancellor in his tweet above as a “lefty”. He has gotten away from what should matter, the decision that the Chancellor has made. Instead, Mr. Sykes groups the chancellor, attributing the bad decision that she was making, to the group. Those that read the tweet think that the Chancellor is bad not because of the decision she has made but because she is a “Lefty”. If Mr. Sykes has an issue with the what the chancellor is doing, he should say so and give a reason why. Instead though, he has chosen to group liberal people and bash them as such. This is very similar to what my friend has done with religious people. Abortion is the issue that she is worried about, not realigion.
starte here
In my experience it is almost impossible to discuss an issue, if someone feels that their group is being attacked. Fore example: “Why do republicans not like immigration reform?”. Contrarily if you address the issue exclusively, you may still get the same result as you did when addressing the group, but at least you are just getting a response to your issue.
Imagine
It will be hard to stop our tendency to group but we must do it. It is ruining our political discourse with each other.
-
Interviewing a Trump Supporter
Civility on display.
-
Podcasts I Like
A few podcasts that I think are worth your time. Somve very smart people here talking about the state of our country in fairly non-partison way.
Ezra Klein show with Francis Fukuyama
This one, more than anything I’ve ever heard or read, coherently describes many problems in government today. Some excerpts:
“I coined a phrase in the book — “vetocracy,” meaning “rule by veto.” And the broader argument is that the American political system has always made it very hard for the government to actually do things because it gives a lot of parts of the political system veto rights over what the system does.”
If you think about the problem in terms of identity, we have these people who used to be in the dominant culture in the country. And all of a sudden, all these other identity groups appear, and they’re getting affirmative action and seem to be getting government policy. And [they] say, “What about us?” Because being working class has put us at these huge disadvantages, objectively. I think that is the anxiety behind it, and you can’t just say, “It’s racism and bigotry.”
Ezra Klein show with Malcolm Gladwell
Malcolm Gladwell has written some amazing books about how humans work. If you haven’t read any you should - Outliers is a good place to start.
I think the internet, as it is presently configured, in 25 years or 50 years from now will seem like a very bizarre experiment gone awry. That the idea of building a system fundamentally for every human interaction that is incapable of defending itself is insane. I mean, insane …. Two years ago, the State Department server had to be shut down because there was Russian malware on it that they couldn’t get rid of. Snowden makes off with all of the diplomatic cables, and then OPM [Office of Personnel Management] gets hacked — every single file of every American who has ever applied for a national security clearance is in the hands of the Chinese. The federal government — the entire cyber apparatus of the federal government — is Swiss cheese. And we’re still having an argument about it being on her BlackBerry. If it was on her Blackberry, it’d be 100 times safer than on the State Department server. …. How long can this go on? At a certain point, we’re going to say: We need a new internet. The internet is a fuck-up! I don’t understand how no one sees this.
I had never thought about this before. Maybe we should start over, build the internet over from the ground up.
This American Life - 601 - Master of Her Domain…Name
As Americans we should not be upset about the fact that Hillary Clinton had a private server. However, we should be very mad that she, and many of her predecessors, needed a server because of how bad our government handles Tech.
“The way Hillary and her top aides dealt with her e-mails is indeed scandalous. It’s just a totally different scandal than people thought.” - Sean Cole “I think a lot of us thought that this was done out of sophistication. That it was done out of this very advanced Machiavellian understanding of federal records laws and advanced knowledge of computer technology. But by the time the FBI got done with all of these interviews, it becomes really clear it was actually done out of technological ignorance.” - Garret Graff
I hope you enjoy.
-M
-
My Neighbors
This election has been hard on me. As much as I try not to be a one sided partisan, my views lean toward progressive. I can’t think of anyone less progressive than Donald Trump. I’ve tried over and over in my head to try and figure out how and why this happened. Forget political ideology, the America I thought I knew would never elect a man who was so crude, mean and disrespectful. My America never would have supported someone who brings out the worst of America’s racist past, who mocks a disabled person, who so openly rejects people who are different. But they did.
Before the election I suspected that some would support Donald Trump just because they are republicans just like many liberals supported Hillary because they were democrats. I suspected that others would vote for trump because they were really frustrated with president Obama because there taxes had gone up or their they didn’t get a subsidy under the Affordable Care Act. And I knew that some people just wanted a white male in the White House. But I never suspected that the vast majority of white people would vote for Trump and that he would win based on this voting block. I thought that at some level, we would reject all of the terrible things that Donald Trump had done and stands for. But we didn’t.
I live in a conservative county in Colorado. The type of county that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. After the election, on more than one occasion, I have been in a conversation with someone who I never would of guessed is a Trump supporter - in the end though, they are. During these conversations I always find myself thinking in my head, “this person is too nice to be a Trump supporter” or “they are too smart to vote for Trump”. In the end though, these people are nice and intelligent people and they are fervent trump supporters. The truth is many of my neighbors, coworkers, family and friends who I never thought would vote for Trump, did.
How could I be so wrong about these people? I think of myself as a thoughtful ration person and I pried myself on being open and paying attention to other peoples opinions and beliefs. But several conversations I’ have had since the election have brought me to the realization that not only did more people vote for Trump than I ever would have imagined, but that more people voted for him that I know, like and respect. This fact has lead me to do a little soul searching. I find myself constantly thinking:
- “Is my view of the world correct?”
- “If my view of the world is correct, why did these people vote for Trump?”
- “What does Trump’s support mean for my future and the future of America?”
Is my view of the world correct?
The question: “is my view of the world correct?” is too large of a subject to cover as part of this post. But expect that posts over the next year will center around this question.
Let’s just say that I think people in America would benefit greatly if they would question their political beliefs more. It boggles my mind how so many people that I know adamantly pushes their side of the political line as if the subjects they are talking about are all a sure thing. As complex as the world is, it would seem that more people would question their political beliefs. People see so sure about how we should tax people, who we should help, who we should not, who is good and who is bad and, most frustratingly, what party is right. You so often hear things like: “Obama should have been harder on Syria” or “We should stop Muslims from entering this country” or “We should immediately remove all soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan” or “We should end all domestic drilling for fossil fuels”. To me all of these decisions will likely have large longterm ramifications that are difficult to predict. And it seems like these ideas are supported as stand alone entities, with little thought into their actual ramifications. I also don’t understand that given the fact that most people have jobs, how have so many people become policy experts. These issues are complex and very hard to understand, even for policy wonks. But yet, they are so often said mater of factly by those of one side or the other.
I’m just as bad as the rest. Recently I was reminded of how difficult it is to understand the consequences of policies while listening to The Weeds one of my favorite podcasts. In the episode they were discussing the potential outcomes of increasing taxes on the rich, something I have been an advocate of for a while. Until I listened to that podcast I had been basing my support of the policy based on a what I thought was a clear logic:
- Income inequality is increasing.
- This is a result of wealthier Americans having too much power in our society.
- If we raise there taxes this redistribution of wealth will sway the power back to those with lower incomes and gradually produce a better more even society.
- This will make people happier and more productive and increase the quality of living for Americans.
While some of these assumptions still stand, they are far from the complete picture. The episode made me realize, that I had strong beliefs about a subject that I had never done research on. I had to admit I had very little idea what the impacts would be of raising taxes on the rich (even now I still know very little, I’ve only listened to one podcast and that does not make me an expert). Despite this I was still a supporter of it.
It’s not that I think that everyone in America should stop having a political stance because we are all too dumb to vote. I just think that if people were more willing to question there own ideologies, they would not be so hostile towards others.
Why did people vote for Trump?
Why did people vote for Trump? To be honest, I don’t really know. The one thing that I can tell you is, I don’t believe Trump’s supporters are bad people. In fact (with only those in my community as evidence) I don’t believe that Trump voters are any better or worse than Clinton/liberal voters. Sure, some of Trumps supporters are crazy assholes (exhibit A), but I’ve met plenty of holier-than-thow liberals who are single minded assholes too (lots of people don’t think twice about pushing for the end cattle ranching on public lands, effectively ending employment and a way of life for millions of Americans).
Still it bothers me that a man that said so many terrible things was elected to lead our country. What does this say to our children or other countries? Sure I think we over do the politically correct culture, but not for the president. Remember the president of the United States. is supposed to be the leader of the free world. Not a bad example.
The Future
I keep trying to figure out what the next four years will look like. And I’m very worried about those that have been chosen to be leaders in Trump’s cabinet (I’m particularly worried about the nations open spaces and public lands). But I’m trying to keep an open mind. This is a time, as liberals, we get to test if we are right or wrong in our world views. After all there’s a good argument to be made that there are too many regulations in this country and that these regulations may be hampering the development of new industries and technologies. Maybe I’ve been wrong, maybe the Trump administration will be good for the U.S.? On the other hand, maybe he will be a disaster.
Regardless, now more than ever, it is important to remember that it is our neighbors who elected him.
-
What is Sagebrush Altered
So what is this Sagebrush Altered blog all about? To be honest, I don’t really know yet. I started another blog that was intended to be a platform to blog about my work as a wildlife biologist for the Bureau of Land Management. I’ll keep that blog going along with this one. However, writing about land management is better suited to a technical style which is less fun to do when you do it for work so often. I want to have an outlet where I can write more freely and be less professional. I want a space where I can enjoy writing more freely withouth the contraints of being scientific all of the time.
And so we have Sagebrush Altered. The name came out of the landscape that inhabitit. I live and work in the western United States, Colorado specifically. The vast majority of the western landscape is covered by sagebrush, an ecosystem that in the last 200 plus years has gone through an irreversable transformation. This transformation is similar to the transformation that is currently occuring in the communities in so many areas in rural America, a place that I love and live.
The general theme of this blog will be:
Ramblings in the rural American West.
subscribe via RSS