COLLUSION OR FRAUD

The Trump administration is on a victory tour, shouting they have been TOTALLY vindicated, although the Mueller Report has not been examined in public.  Trump, himself has already determined to obliterate more of Obama's legacy.  His policies are in major ways against the best interest of his voters.  To me it seems likely his supporters are either at least tolerant of racist views and/or are upset over progressive social freedoms.  If a lie is repeated enough it is believed.

My understanding of collusion is vague.  It has to be proved that there was a criminally coordinated effort to bring about a result.  Of course all successful election campaigns involve coordinated efforts, but if we like the end results the efforts are acceptable.  In the carefully worded summary it was concluded there was no collusion with the Russian government.  Michael Cohen had already pointed out that Trump didn't feel the need to be direct in order give direction.  The summary did concede that obstruction has neither been proved or disproved.  Apologists state that since there was nothing to hide there couldn't be any obstruction which of course is nonsense.

Like most people I am dependent on what is brought to my attention by media and reinforced by how other people react to it.  None of the points I will raise are new, but they have not been denied.  If they don't mount to the legal definition of collusion I would shift my focus to the charge of fraud.

Well after the election we were told that Trump had been negotiating for a Trump Tower in Moscow, even though it had been strongly denied.  He is entitled as a businessman who quite likely thought he wouldn't win the election to carry forward his business.  One major problem is the lie about it.  Nobody can be sure of what really happened, but it seems this effort might have been all the Russian government needed to get some concessions.  Obviously Russian authorities were aware of this multi million dollar transaction and could understand that perceptions of significant numbers of American voters would be negative.  After the official denials of Trump all they needed to do was threaten to reveal the truth.  Possibly they had other points to operate with.

Paul Manafort as a campaign manager (with a history of supporting Russian interests specifically against Ukraine that wants stronger relations with the West) gave polling data to an associate of Putin. There was no point to the effort if this information was not going to be used.  Apparently the Russians used several tactics and seemed to be aware of leveraging situations.  Efforts were made to switch Democrat inclined voters to third party choices.   That was by itself instrumental in shifting the Electoral College to Trump.  Naturally they amplified Trump's rhetoric and likely targeted it. 

This is not meant to be all inclusive of Trump's ties to Russia.  It could be argued that Trump was just duped by Putin.  Putin is very openly expanding Russian influence.  He strives against NATO, the EU as well as democracy in Venezuela and Syria.  Trump's behavior is definitely unusual and mostly supportive of Putin own grievances.  Trump's ego is oversized and to a great extent is admired by too many.

The Republicans have used tactics to diminish accusations and innuendo.  Commonly they deny and when caught, spin. As more facts come out it seems there were very significant contacts.   Many, but not all Conservatives are overlooking a great deal about Trump, but realize they have an opportunity to  do things mostly opposed by the population such as lower high end taxes, cut social programs, and in some cases tighten up and abolish abortions. 

The Washington Post took up the challenge of tracking the lies of Donald Trump.  It is such a large and growing number that most of us don't bother getting the exact number.  I plead guilty, but recall it is something over 8,000.  You could quarrel with the definitions used, but even Trump supporters concede he likes to lie, but it is all in a good cause.  In my humble (?) opinion these lies were not for a good cause, even for many who thought fervently they were.   Muslims, Mexicans, blacks and gays are not responsible for their lot in life.  The greed of the 1% and automation are much more serious.

Climate change is real and Trump has brushed it off with distortions and misinformation.  He lied to coal miners, but they wanted to believe him rather than Hilary Clinton who pushed for job retraining.

Tax cuts were supposed to benefit everyone, but the very wealthy gained the most in absolute terms.  The cuts most certainly didn't pay for themselves and in fact are already ramping up deficits that Republicans know will have negative effects.  They also suggest cuts to safety net benefits and government services will solve any deficit concerns.  The rich got their rewards.  An earlier blog on dark money explains http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html

When someone has been conned they resist admitting it.  When someone is accused of unsavory motivations they deny it.  To most of us it is obvious Trump did not deserve to win and has been a very divisive and incompetent president who could lead to disaster of one type or another.

What can be done?  At the moment calmness is critical.  Avoid the Republican traps, while avoiding unnecessary concessions.  The Republicans under Trump are over reaching.  The more outrageous the Republicans efforts are the more likely they are to generate questions from those who have been lied to.  Unless they can gain public support enough that Republican politicians fear for themselves impeachment rhetoric should be curtailed.  The Mueller Report, if ever revealed in reasonable totality is likely to provide many points that will put Republicans on the defense, but may not be enough for immediate action.  That leaves the 2020 election.  The Democrats already have the policies that most Americans prefer on health care, abortion, infrastructure, gun control, etc. and importantly more credibility.

The Constitution is not serving the interests of the Americans.  Twice the Electoral College has delivered a problematic regime which will take decades to undo--thinking of the judiciary system and America's international reputation.  For many other nations there will be a fear that a subsequent administration can undermine whatever progress a new administration can offer..

One thought after hearing constant justifications for the 2nd Amendment is that something similar should be articulated for education.  Early on the American government without a national army realized they could be attacked when they were unprepared.  Some would argue the second amendment was enacted to protect the citizens against the government, but I contend more important was a concern for national defense.  Today it has been interpreted with help of lobbyists that Americans must have access to military level weaponry.

On the other hand what Americans need much more to preserve real democracy is education.  It seems conservatives are always ready to cut public education, especially perceived non job skills.  Not sure what concrete proposals should be included, but budgets and non political supervision are critical.  If the Americans prefer to believe Trump, the selfish, egotistical entertainer then it must be admitted they deserve him, but the rest of us (I am proud to be Canadian) don't deserve him.

Just a review of those who helped put Trump in position:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html

A better way to deal with sick shooters

Like everyone I was stunned by the recent shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand.  My son lives in New Zealand, but he lives on the North Island.  He did have a teacher colleague who was in lock-down in Christchurch.  My cousin Linda was actually on the South Island and had been in Christchurch a bit before and as I write this she and Derek are back in Christchurch before they head back to Canada.

Derek was the first one to get my attention posting on Facebook something about one of the victims--the first one who actually greeted the shooter.  Another Facebook post from Derek was about one of victims who had tackled the shooter resulting in his death and that of his son.  I shared one of them and am pleased that some of my friends shared it a little bit further and before too long I could see other people had picked up the posts from other sources.

Then Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand Prime Minister had posts up saying that she would never utter the name of the shooter.  It might be recalled that several shooters in the past credited earlier shooters with inspiring them.  To some sick people the shooters were portrayed as some weird sort of hero.  There are many factors mostly not understood that result in mass shootings and it seems the general public knows more about the shooters then they do about the more numerous victims.

Hopefully this latest shooting will start to reverse the publicity--it should be more about commemorating the victims than the sick belligerents.  We need to understand what causes a particular person to commit such horrid deeds.  We need to be able better to predict who is more likely to emulate earlier shooters and decide what steps can be taken to minimize the danger.   This is now a global concern and needs to be taken with co-operation between all national authorities.

What we as individuals and particularly politicians need to be more careful of is not to publicize sick people, but remember the victims.

Jacinda has set a good model of what should be done.  I can't resist mentioning that Donald Trump was pathetic.  How they were each elected was a contrast and might have another lesson.

Donald Trump was elected with less votes than his main opponent Hilary Clinton.  In some jurisdictions there would have been a run off if no candidate received 50% of the votes, but the American system was set up with critical input from slave owners that allows disproportionate  power to smaller states.  The contest allows for strategies that take advantage of voters who are unhappy about something and whose vote can be leveraged.  Actually everyone is unhappy about something, but the Republicans have mastered stirring up social concerns that actually disadvantage minorities who can be targeted to enable getting power for their conservative economic agenda.

New Zealand offers a proportional system that means a significant fraction of votes are split among parties rather than geographically.  As it happened Jacinda's party only accumulated the second most votes, however the party that finished third felt more in alignment with Jacinda's party and agreed to support the more liberal party of Jacinda's.  Obviously both parties joining together had to be willing to share power and be willing to compromise some of their policies.

The voters in New Zealand's system made a better choice, but not only for themselves, for the whole world.  We need more examples like Jacinda Ardern.

I wanted to get this off my chest before the next crisis has its own urgency.

FARSIGHTED

We make dozens of decisions every day, but some decisions are too complex to be resolved without study.   There are many books that advise http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/08/decisions-are-path-to-success.html  Johnson delves into what he calls "complex decisions," the ones that can change our lives and deserve careful deliberation.

As he recommends stories as a path to understanding Johnson tells us a few examples.  The decision process to kill Osama bin Ladin was very complex and serious.  The Abbotabad  decision benefited from previous mistakes.  We are taken back to a mysterious bit of information that only indicated that an important person might live at a compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan.  Although it was early speculated that this might be where bin Ladin was holed up, the danger of being wrong was critical. At each step of the process multiple opinions are sought and teased out with many choices being eliminated.

Loss aversion is a greater fear than greed for gain and needs to be guarded against.  At some point in a complex decision we try to calculate the risks of something not working out as anticipated.

Uncertainties are certain to be found in complex decisions or as Donald Rumsfeld would say, there are unknown unknowns.  One way of dealing with them is to cast a wide net involving other contributors.  As much as practical scenarios can be constructed.  Simulations might also be tried such as the Pentagon rehearsing possible attacks on Abbotabad that modified their plans.

You might recall there was no buildup to the announcement of a successful mission.  They had also taken into account some of the consequences of the assassination.  They had booked an alternative supply route to Afghanistan a year in advance.  They had taken precautions to minimize the martyrdom of bin Ladin.

Charles Darwin was contemplating marriage, but had many concerns about what he would have to give up.   We know that he adopted a version of what has come to be known as the Benjamin Franklin method.  Other than him actually marrying we don't know his conclusion to the decision.  Later he faced another decision when his daughter Annie was threatened with a little understood disease.  Unfortunately the options were not well studied and she died forcing changes in both his and wife's lives.  He became less religious and open about it while he his wife found comfort in her religion.

Returning to Darwin to illustrate other points.  What surprised me the most was that the decision to publish his theory of Evolution took very long.  He wanted the fame that he expected, but not the notoriety that would ensue and not only create intense religious hostility, but upset his wife.  His wife eventually accepted her husband's lack of religiosity, but in the end Darwin was forced to publish his theory as a rival threatened to publish his similar theory first.

Another set of decisions came from reading novels in particular "Middlemarch." George Eliot wrote "Middlemarch that contains decisions with factors that clash with one another.  Towards the end Johnkson refers to the life of George Eliot who was born Mary Ann Evans.   Unlike Darwin who tried to decide between marrying or not marrying George Eliot chose a third option which was to live together with her partner outside marriage.  Her decision involved her writing career and her political ideals.  An earlier blog dealt with the importance of using stories to persuade people to make a decision:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/06/tell-to-win-offers-winning-formula.html

Throughout the many examples in the book, Johnson maintains that diversity of viewpoints is critical, obviously such as including both genders, age range, a variety of ethnic, experiences, etc.  A single viewpoint is often unable to see a full range of choices.  He criticizes gerrymandering as it groups people with a predominant ideological perspective. 

My take on Premier Doug Ford's decision to cut the number of Toronto city councilors.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/07/move-over-donald-trump.html 

Johnson suggests three complex issues that deserve careful analysis before making a decision: long term;  contact with extra terestial beings, immortality and artificial intelligence.  For some people the downsides are minor but in reality there are serious consequences to making a wrong  choice.  Scientists are now cautioning us against trying to contact beings from outside our planet as they would likely have superior technology and perhaps unkindly intentions.  Other scientists are concerned about artificial intelligence overcoming humans.  Immortality seems like a natural goal,that no longer seems impossible, but  it has difficult to assess consequences.

Of course for many of us we need a little help in making some decisions.  Sometimes we need a little help or we would like to "nudge" someone off the fence.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/01/can-nudge-help-you-make-better-decisions.html

In the acknowledgements he admits that he starting taking notes almost ten years before publication.  A lot of decisions along the way.  Everyone is compelled to make important decisions--what career path to pursue, who to marry, to find a purpose in life.  

The Death of Truth by Michiko Kakutani

Donald Trump has created an industry for writers and book sellers.
To most people I respect it is a great mystery why so many people admire him.  Michiko Kakutani is another who offers some more thoughts on the subject.

Michiko alluded to "Identity" a book Francis Fukyama felt compelled to write after his-earlier book "The End of History" had to be updated as Trump had set back the progressive path had been supposedly set in motion for civilization.
Some thoughts on Fukuyama's latest book (it is very good as well)  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/03/identity-new-force-in-modern-politics.html

The 2008 crash didn't hurt banks, but thousands lost jobs, while others suffered wages cuts and inequality increased.  The people's anger has been diverted with scapegoats such as Mexicans, Muslims, minorities socialistic thinking.  The role of de-regulations is ignored.  The coming issue of increasing automation and artificial intelligence is not brought up.  The 1% are steadily increasing their control while the masses are stirred up truly "fake news."

Gaining power has become ruthless with the first casualty, truth.   Lee Atwater, a Republican operative partially responsible for Ronald Reagan's success once said,  "perception is reality"   Among many other things Ronald Reagan deregulated media resulting in greater concentration of the message senders.  He also did away with service requirements and a fairness policy.  Broadcasters did what was intended, focusing on profits.  News became part of the entertainment package and changed to become part of the profit effort partly through sensationalism and partly through segmenting profitable niches.  Newt Gingrich quoted "As a political candidate I'll go with how people feel and I'll let you go with the theoretician."

Tom Nicholls:  If citizens do not bother to gain basic literacy in the issues that affect their lives they abdictate control over those issues whether they like it or not.  And when voters lose control over these important discussions they risk the hi-jacking of their democracy.

Michiko made some observations after reading "Amusing ourselves to death" by Neil Postman.  Postman discussed the approaches of George Orwell to Aldous Huxley with respect to the predicted future dystopia.  George Orwell visualized a tightening of information through censorship, but also blatant distortion of reality  and most of us cynical future observers have adopted this viewpoint.  Huxley on the other had visualized a drug infused atmosphere where the pursuit of pleasure obscured awareness of reality.  Postman favored this likelihood.  Both scenarios assume the power at the top were immune from the truth. Postman was writing about the insidious role of television, but his observations are even more relevant today.  Read my take on his book:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/amusing-ourselves-to-death.html

One of Trump's heroes, Vladimir Putin is a master of lying. or maybe it is just a manifestation  of power.  Putin lies, denies and then brags about it.  Ukraine was a good example of how a powerful man can lie  One of Trump's methods from Robert A Heinlein, "  You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic."
 
One way to distort truth is the use of false equivalences.  If a fact points to a foul deed it is quickly pointed out that both sides are guilty so it is no big deal.  Science is belittled at every opportunity because all too often it suggests a change in policy is required.

Thomas Jefferson opined that men need to be governed by truth and reason.  A necessary requirement was a free press.  Tyrants seek to stifle a free press.

There are a few hopeful blimps the author notes.   The Parkland students  campaigning for greater gun control have forced a small retreat by established advocates for more gun freedoms.  They supposedly are too naive, but thank goodness they have persisted.

Last two sentences from the author:  "Without truth, democracy is hobbled.  The founders recognized this and those seeking democracy survival must recognize it to-day."

IDENTITY: A NEW FORCE IN MODERN POLITICS

Originally this book was to be reviewed shortly after reading, but work bogged me down and I ended up reading two other books before finding time for another blog.  Ironically I learned more about the the author Francis Fukuyama.  He is famous for "The End of History" which I had not read.  In it he apparently proclaimed that all history had led to our modern status quo which Francis thought was destined to boost democracy and progressiveness indefinitely  This new book was made necessary because Trump set history backwards.

Politicians have been trying to figure out how best to attract enough voters to get elected.  Francis Fukuyama explores the issue of identity which is a critical factor that some politicians understand better than others.

Economic motivation is rooted in the demand for recognition and therefore cannot be satisfied by economic means.  For many leaders it is felt that if the incentives are right a worker/citizen will be motivated.  Francis goes beyond that implying that people have come to recognize money is one important tool and not just because of what one can do with it.  Money is one marker of status. 

Back in 1974 the proportion of national output going to the 1% was only 9%, but in 2008 it had risen to 24%.  That was at the expense of the rest of the population and the victims were looking for someone to blame.

Fukuyama credits Martin Luther as one of the first Western thinkers to extol the inner self or the external social being.  Humiliation drove many movements with one of the best examples the French Revolution.  The growth of liberalism led to the free movement of labor.  Two of the most liberal nations, Britain and the United States were drivers of industrialization.  Ironically (?) inequality in developed world is most pronounced in the same two countries.

Simone de Beauvoir wrote that the experiences of women is not the same as for men and helped promote the idea to boost the status of women.  Over time other aggrieved groups, racial minorities, gays, transgenders who developed a conscience of being treated unfairly.  Fukuyama contends that nations need to develop national identities. 

United States was mostly settled by the British, but Irish Catholics starting immigrating around the 1840's.  Southern and eastern Europeans followed and were also resented.  In World War I many Germans tried to hide their identity.  In the 20th century and more so in the 21st, Mexicans and Muslims are becoming more noticeable and causing politicians like Sarah Palin to comment on the "real America" and Donald Trump wants to "make America great again."

Fukuyama advocates that minority abuses have to be corrected.  Assimilation has to be encouraged.  Economic stress needs to be mitigated as resentment starts with loss of status.  Social media facilities the formation of groups and also misinformation to spread.

Identity has been used to divide people, but it also can and has been used to integrate.  My little review necessarily skims over much of Fukuyama's arguments which are well worth reading.

After reading it was brought to my attention that Stacey Abrams rebutted some Fukuyama's arguments during her response to the State of the Union speech.