New Year's Predictions

David:
Well, another year has passed. What do you think the next year has in store for us? What are your predictions for 2017?

Doug:
How could anyone have any idea what 2017 will be like? Our President-Elect continues to hold rallies, and uses Twitter to throw out 140 characters of misspelled, scary quips. I really have no idea---and having no idea makes for uncertain times. I am not hopeful.

David:
But many Americans are hopeful. Especially small business owners.

Obamacare will disappear. A new health-care system will replace it with a whole new world of insurances available on the internet across state lines. You'll be able to compare prices and benefits while sitting at your desk at home. There will be sites that will review different companies and policies to allow you to get just what you need. It will be much better, and much more affordable. The new version of health-care reform will fulfill the promises that Obama put forth, but failed to deliver. It may prove that we had to experience the failures of Obamacare to really decide what we truly needed.

Doug:
The only thing that will ever make healthcare much more affordable is to make it cheaper. And the only way to make healthcare cheaper is to regulate costs. But that won't happen for many years.

David:
Not true at all. You can look at procedures that are purely elective for example. Corrective eye surgery or plastic surgery are not covered by insurance, so there is competition within the marketplace. Prices for those procedures continue to drop because of that competition. When people know the costs, and they have skin in the game, they shop around. Of course, that won't work for everything. Emergencies will still occur, and you'll go to the closest emergency room.

You might be careful about your suggestions. Now that the cost of higher education has the attention of Washington lawmakers, regulating the cost of higher education may become a reality. I predict there will be legislation this year addressing the costs of education in some fashion.

The economy will continue to improve. Businesses will begin building new plants and factories here at home, and even foreign companies will follow suit. The main reason for this will be simple logistics. If you can build the goods here and sell them here, you save shipping costs. If taxes are lowered, and expensive regulations minimized, the climate for growth will improve. Economic growth this year will exceed 3.5%.

Doug:
Without an increased minimum wage, many Americans won't be able to buy stuff. Without a strong middle class, we won't be making products for us, but for other countries.

David:
I don't believe there is any data to support what you've just said. America is currently the largest importer of goods in the world. We have huge trade deficits. Getting more people to work will not decrease that, but expand that statistic.

Moving on. Cable companies will expand the trend of producing their own productions and original programming. We'll have more options for what we watch. The downside will be fewer programs or events that draw us together as a society as in the past.

Doug:
I think there will be increased public protests. That can draw us together as a society.

David:
Why would there be more protests? You've already set your mind to being unhappy with the way things are. That sounds pretty bitter, with a dose of sour grapes.

2017 will be a gloomy place in the Doug Blank paradigm. Come on over to the land of hope and change once in a while. And this time around, we'll see if the change part of the equation comes to fruition.

Virtual reality will also expand in new and different ways. Devices like Google Glass will find new and interesting ways to entertain us, and we'll develop new and useful ways to use the technology for business.

Doug:
I think you are right about VR. But the big technology breakthroughs in 2017 will be in what is now called "Deep Learning"---neural networks that can learn patterns and associations between anything. This is what I did my Ph.D. research in, so this is one thing to look forward to for me, personally. But it may also lead to many people having to look for new jobs as automated systems take over tasks like truck-driving.

David:
The US will become energy independent, and the gas and oil we produce and export will limit the ability of Iran and Russia to exert their influences around the world. Cheap energy will also provide the people in struggling third-world countries a better life. We will certainly finish off some pipelines that have been put on hold, not for real reasons, but just for politics. It will be safer to transport oil and gas through those pipelines than over the road or by train. Many of Obama's regulations limiting exploration and energy independence will be undone.

Doug:
Nuclear proliferation? World war? Increased harassment of minorities? Increase in pollution? Decreased funding in federal science initiatives? Heightened aggression against predominately Muslim countries? Erosion of the press? Collapse of public education? Incompetence in the Trump administration leading to unexpected consequences? Scary times ahead.

David:
We've already seen increased funding for science in the field of medicine. The bipartisan bill just passed, so that prediction of yours is already reality. And last year we saw an increase in general science funding, particularly for NASA.

Doug:
Oh, sorry for the confusion: when I make a prediction, I usually am referring to the future. I think I see why there is so much hope if you get your news from Trump's Twitter feed: he takes credit for hope and progress that he didn't have anything to do with. I am all for hope, but not if you don't understand where progress comes from.

David:
Trump didn't have anything to do with the funding for research, and he didn't take any credit for it. It just is the reality of the world. Progress doesn't come from big government.

A University of Michigan poll indicates more Americans have hope for the future now than they have for the past 10 years. I have more hope. But I predict  liberals will continue to try to put roadblocks in front of every effort to make things better for average Americans this year, if it hurts Trump in the process. All of their "we'll all get along after the election" rhetoric will be proven to be a load of hogwash. I hope I'm wrong about that, but it's looking like that's my one prediction you can take to the bank.

Carrier Bailout

Doug:
What do you make of Trump's Carrier deal?

David:
Keeping jobs in America. That's what he promised to do. Now, he's doing just that. That's a good thing, right?

Doug:
But not at any cost. It seems that Trump has proposed giving Carrier a 7.5 million dollar tax break in order to keep them from leaving. That sounds like "crony capitalism" and "corporate welfare" to some. Isn't that the opposite of what he was saying when he threatened Carrier with a 35% tariff?

David:
No.

Crony capitalism is using your power to make special deals for your friends and donors. In this instance, Carrier was leaving the country and taking all of their jobs to Mexico. The reasons they gave were high taxes, over regulation, and the high costs of labor. Those jobs were leaving right now. To save those jobs, a deal was struck to alleviate those overhead costs. In other words, if the government is going to create an environment that forces companies to move elsewhere, then the government can ease that burden. But the economy is a fluid dynamic. Once taxes are cut, and unnecessary regulations are lifted, other companies will lose the incentive to move. Deals are being made right now, because they need to be made right now. But that will not always be the case.

The tariff threat is for companies that do move out. If you take jobs from Americans, you will pay a penalty trying to move those goods produced outside of the country back in. The message is that you should just stay here in the first place. And Trump is still making that same threat.

Doug:
Then you disagree with Sarah Palin. But wouldn't it be better to treat all companies the same, rather than picking some that get rewarded with tax breaks and others that don't? Otherwise, isn't the government picking and choosing winners? Weird... I'm actually agreeing with Sarah Palin, and you are disagreeing with her. The world turned upside down.

David:
Economics is complicated with many variables, and it leaves much room for variations in opinions. There are so many variables that continually change that there probably is no completely right answer to a lot of issues. And yet, people get very heated up and insist they have the only "right' answer. Unlike us....

Doug:
It looks like Carrier threatened to move jobs out of the country, and in response it got a tax break. Won't all companies start threatening to move jobs out of the country? It doesn't seem like this is what we want politics to be. Unless this is really about the drama, the excitement of the "deal." Perhaps this deal makes a better sound bite than it makes policy.

David:
Trump isn't even the president yet.  As I said, Deals are being made right now to save jobs in the best way possible right at the moment. As the dynamics change, different deals will likely be made. Companies already ask for tax breaks, and compete with different states and cities for the best deal to build companies or factories. That's not new. You make it sound as though Trump invented the idea.

Doug:
But the future does not look good for employees of Carrier, and doesn't look like the tax breaks will be a good payoff for Indiana taxpayers. Carrier has said that it will invest 16 million dollars into the plant. That will mean more automation, resulting in losing some of those same jobs. So Trump is actually giving them money to automate more jobs.

David:
Seven million dollars to keep a thousand people working is a great deal for Indianapolis and Indiana. Not paying anything would be better for sure, but the economy needs people with jobs to spend money to stimulate the economy. All of those people losing their jobs create a burden on taxpayers and the economy.

You sound so sad for these employees, and yet you support raising the minimum wage, which studies show does lead to more automation and the loss of jobs. Not all of the jobs at Carrier will be kept, and that information was part of the original announcement. I'm still glad that a thousand Hoosiers will still be working in Indiana, rather than joining the unemployment lines due to bad policies followed by the past administration.

Doug:
I am sad for those employees that lose their jobs. I am also sad for anyone who works but doesn't make enough money to live on, while their CEOs make millions of dollars. Raising minimum wages does not lead to automation. Automation is a natural progress of industrialization. And it isn't 1,000 employees---it is 730, with 700 still heading to Mexico.

David:
Which is it? Is Carrier using their money to eliminate jobs, or is automation a natural progression that has nothing to do with this conversation? Raising the minimum wage directly leads to more automation and job losses.

Doug:
I don't know why you think that the natural progression doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. It has everything to do with this issue, and Trump can't stop this progression. Carrier knows that. Trump knows that. Everyone knows that. (Oh, and the raising minimum wage makes a stronger economy, regardless of what blog you cite.)

David:
Go tell it to the kiosk at the fast-food place. I'm sure it will listen to your argument much better than the worker it replaced when that worker became more expensive than the machine. Maybe it will be programmed to show empathy.

Doug:
It isn't an argument, but just a fact: jobs change over time. Thinking that you can argue against that fact is wishful thinking. The last election was also based on such wishful thinking by many people.

David: Your mixing up some numbers, which is easy to do as the national media has also been pretty careless with their tabulations. There are 1,000 out of an original 1,400 jobs saved at the Indianapolis plant, which is the only thing Trump and Pence were talking about. There is a separate Carrier plant in Huntington, Indiana that will lose 300-350 jobs that are still moving to Mexico.

Doug:
As WTHR reports: 730 jobs at that plant will stay, and 700 from another plant will be lost.

And you didn't mention Sarah Palin's complaints about the government picking winners and losers. For example, you didn't mention that another company just down the road from Carrier wants a deal. This is interesting from our perspective because this company, Rexnord, has its Indiana plant on the old Blank Homestead:

Right: current Satellite image from Google Maps. Left: Map of old Blank Homestead around 1880. The Rexnord Indiana plant lies directly on the old farm.

Our Blank ancestors bought the farm (so to speak) on Rockville Road in the 1850's. It was from this farm that one of the daughters (Katherina Blank) used to go into the big city (Indianapolis) and work as a waitress. She met her husband there, and had children and grandchildren, one named Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Should Rexnord get a deal to save their plant too? At what cost? At any cost? Drama! Theater!

David:
Indiana has been trying to make a deal to keep Rexnord just where it is, on the old Blank homestead. The difference here seems to be that Carrier was based in Indianapolis, and is a local company that really wanted to make a deal to stay, but was having trouble financially justifying staying here. Rexnord is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and doesn't have the local ties to Indy. All states are currently trying to make these types of deals. Once the corporate tax rates are decreased (from one of the highest in the world) and regulations are decreased, it will be an easier task. It's not drama, just financial reality.

Doug:
Those are Indiana jobs being lost. Why is one set of lost jobs "financial reality" and the other worth saving? It is really like a soap opera... one has no idea what will happen, nor why. Perhaps the King will grant your company a wish, if you ask nicely.

David:
All jobs are worth trying to save. Not all of them will be saved.

Carrier attributed the better climate for businesses as the main reason they're staying:

The company attributed its decision to the incoming Trump administration and financial incentives provided by Indiana, which is something of a reversal, since earlier offers from the state had failed to sway Carrier from decamping to Mexico.

"Today's announcement is possible because the incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate," the company said.

(Quote from FoxNews)

Doug:
Here is a weird opinion I've never heard before: "Rev. Franklin Graham told CNN’s Carol Costello that he backs President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to bring back manufacturing jobs because people are not proud of modern jobs in computer science."

What? Four out of ten of the hottest jobs (if you have a Bachelor's degree) are in computing. “They don’t want to be a computer programmer!” Graham continued. “They want to do the same job as their fathers and their grandfathers. There was pride in the manufacturing and the building. And we’ve taken all that away and it’s sad.” Is this some new class warfare? Some new identity politics?

The other weird aspect of this story is that President-Elect Trump has tweet-attacked Chuck Jones, the president of the union at Carrier:

Jones has only tried to keep even more of the jobs in Indiana. It doesn't seem useful to complain about Jones for doing his job. Unless this is all about the drama.

David:
I don't know what Graham is talking about, exactly. It is sad that entire communities in coal country have been put out of business by President Obama. He stated at the outset that he planned to bankrupt the coal industry, and has largely been successful. Thousands of families lost their livelihoods which were based on decades of family traditions. Technology is the wave of the future, and many would certainly like to be a part of that developing business sector. But it's not for everyone.

Doug:
Obama killed the radio star! I don't think the government should be picking coal mining over computer programming. But maybe there is a role for Graham in Trump's cabinet.

David:
If I made a deal to save jobs that were all going to be lost, and a union official starts ranting that I'm a loser because I didn't save all of the jobs, I'd have a few words to say, too. The United Steelworkers Union didn't save those jobs. Chuck Jones didn't save any jobs. He lost them all.  If the best deal you can make on behalf of the workers you represent is to get them all fired, then I agree with Trump - you're doing a terrible job.

Doug:
If I gave you 7.5 million dollars and you "saved" 700 jobs, but only for a short while, then I am a loser, and you made even more money. I feel really bad for all of those workers, especially Chuck Jones. Surely you can understand that he truly cares for those employees and only wants the best for them?

David:
I do agree. His job is to make the best deal for workers. His job is not to get them all fired.  He's making the wrong argument by saying this is about the numbers of workers. We might agree that the real  issue is Mexico only paying their workers less than $5.00 / hour. How are American workers going to compete with that? It's a much more complicated issue to try to keep plants from relocating. Trump's tariff threat is one of many ways to equal the field (and probably not the best plan).

Doug:
Ah, you begin to understand what Obama has been wrestling with. You want American workers to make enough to live on, but you want American companies to stay here. Well, I don't think the lower end of the wage earners are going to be able to sacrifice any more. If a company's CEO makes a butt load of money, and they move their plant to another country, then they should get no support from our people or government. I would not give them 7.5 million dollars more, unless they showed some serious cuts at the top.

David:
Obama has been wrestling with the issue? What has he done? Nothing. Trump has promised to make changes to lower operating costs, and he has promised to make it more expensive to bring those goods back into the country. Carrot and stick. I don't know if those are all the right moves, but it evens out the playing field a little for companies that are looking to locate or relocate their businesses.

Businesses all across the country are feeling better about the future. The stock market is booming (which means our 401-K's are growing). Even Apple is now talking about building an assembly plant here in the US. I'm certainly happy for the average working men and women who will now have a happy Christmas over at the Carrier plant. I hope Trump is able to save the jobs of more average Americans.

Doug:
I had heard that businesses were people too, my friend, but now you tell me that they can feel? And they are feeling better? Don't know why they were so sad as their profits have been near record highs. Maybe they just want their poor owners and CEOs to be happy too. Trump sure is getting a lot of praise from you for this theater. I don't remember you ever mentioning Obama's work on jobs and employment. With the latest report the economy added 178,000 jobs in November, extending the longest streak of total job growth on record, as the unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent. That is much better even than what Romney was promising. Obama should take a victory tour.

David:
But using Chuck Jones' argument, he did a lousy job because he could have done better!

I think we can both agree that any time American jobs are created, things are moving in the right direction. There are still many struggles ahead, but let's all pull together to keep the trend going.

Blank Verse : Merry Christmas

This is a Special Edition of Blank versus Blank. This post is the presentation of a single side of an issue. Because it is only one perspective, we call this a Blank Verse.

This Blank Verse is presented by David.

Much has been made in the past week of Donald Trump's Thank You Tour, which has now taken to calling itself the Merry Christmas Tour. Trump had said during the campaign that if he were elected, people would once again be saying "Merry Christmas". It turns out to be true. I've heard more people saying those words at work and on TV than I have in some time. (Actually, it's been about 8 years.)

Although there has not been any official banning of the greeting, we've all read numerous stories of school districts and college communities that either banned the greeting, or developed policies against it. All in the name of tolerance.

Studies and polls have shown that a  majority of Americans prefer the greeting "Merry Christmas" to anything else, such as "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings", but most Americans are not offended by either greeting. Even my Jewish friends admit they aren't offended by "Merry Christmas", in the same way I'm not offended if they offer a "Happy Hanukkah" to me. A cheery greeting is a cheery greeting.

But this election was partly about saying "enough" to political correctness, which was a driving force in trying to minimize or eliminate phrase. While some would argue that the increasing secular nature of our society was driving the change, many Americans would also argue that there has been a force, especially in colleges and universities, to push censorship of speech, especially if that speech is of  Christian values. So as not to offend anyone who is not a Christian, many schools and activists pressured administrations to develop policies that would limit Christian expression in any type of open forum.

From The Weekly Standard's Naomi Schaefer Riley:

Wilfred McClay, a historian at the University of Oklahoma who studies religion and culture, notes, "the cause of eliminating Merry Christmas from people's speech was actively embraced by only a few people, but their effect is magnified, and thus causes others to passively accept it."In this way, says McClay, the reluctance to say "Merry Christmas" (even by Christians he knows in Oklahoma) is symbolic not simply of a move to a more secular culture, but also of a culture that increasingly censors what we say. McClay notes, "Like so much else, it's now about controlling speech, and changing the culture by making more and more things unsayable. It now lines up with the inadmissibility of, say, talking about differences between men and women."

Just last week, Texas Women's University declared that "Holiday Party" was also unacceptable, as it "connotes religious tradition", which is apparently not inclusive. Seriously? The word holiday connotes religion? I suppose they don't realize that the name of their school is also not terribly inclusive. Oh well. 

They go on with their advice:  “Avoid religious symbolism, such as Santa Claus, evergreen trees or a red nosed reindeer, which are associated with Christmas traditions, when sending out announcements or decorating for the party.” I'm not sure what Bible version they're reading, that has Santa as a religious figure or Rudolph hanging out at the manger. It seems they don't just want to ban the Christian traditions and symbolism, but also secular and pagan influences. That seems a little overboard.  I suppose all of the students at TWU are supposed be hiding under their beds in their safe-spaces this Christmas. It would be a bit ironic if they wanted to ban "snowflakes".

It's this ridiculous, over-the-top political correctness that contributed to the Trump election. It turns out a majority of people in a majority of states just want someone to say what they really mean, and really mean it. They want to say Merry Christmas on the Federal Holiday of Christmas without fear of retribution. (I find it curious that President Obama's own White House Calendar has "Christmas" on December 25th, yet your local school district's calendar isn't allowed to print that word.)

It's not surprising, really, since 80% of Americans celebrate Christmas, no matter their religious affiliations, even if they are atheists. For the majority of Americans, Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Jesus, God's Son. And for many, it remains a celebration of giving, of experiencing the joys of family and tradition, and of peace.

Has Trump changed anything, really? Like I said, It sure seems like I'm hearing more people saying the words they really want to express, but it really doesn't matter. You can say Merry Christmas. Or you can say Happy Holidays with a wink, and I'll know what you really mean.  It's a sentiment expressing joy to you, and of peace and goodwill towards all. And in our troubled times, that's a good thing.

Merry Christmas.                                   

Fake News! Read all about it!

Doug:
So I'm wondering how you feel about the rise of fake news during this past election cycle?

David:
First, we need to identify just what is fake news. Is it made up stories, or is it a repeated story that is believed to be true by the reporter? Is it only stories that are purposely created based on nothing at all, or is a "tip" about information enough to make it "fake"?

Just what is fake news, specifically?

Doug:
Let's talk about the easy one: the stories that are obviously false. Should people be able to spread fake stories easily on, say, Facebook?

How to spot fake news.

David:
Fake news isn't new. Remember when we were kids, and The National Enquirer was at every checkout stand at the grocery store with a headline about "Elvis' Alien Baby Robs Bank!"? Even Mom used to buy it and read it at home. None of it was believable, but people were free to make up their own minds about the stories. No one stepped in to censor or otherwise force The Enquirer to cease printing their nonsense. It appealed to a certain demographic. Did anyone believe those stories? Perhaps a very few. Most just found it humerous or entertaining.

Doug:
Sorry, I didn't mean "obviously false" like "woman gives birth to chicken-headed baby". I meant "obviously false" in that if you do a bit of digging, it will be obvious that the news is false. For example, if many fact-checking organizations have shown evidence that a story is false, then what should we do?

David:
What do you mean the chicken-headed baby story is false? Here's a photo of the baby with the father:

Just kidding. We all know Elvis' baby was a tribble, not a chicken....

Now we're in a digital age, and anyone can publish anything and everything on the internet. But has anything really changed? Remember, there is a reason people mock information on the internet; "It must be true. I read it on the internet!" Should there be some standards to what you can say? Should you be required to authenticate every story before you re-tweet it? Who will make those standards and rules? Who gets to decide what's fake? Must we do anything, or keep doing what we've been doing since people started sharing information with each other: nothing. Most people are not stupid.

Doug:
I don't think it is a question of whether people are stupid or not. It is a question of whether it is a technology company's ethical and moral duty to attempt to help us keep the dialog focused on the issues, rather than being tricked by people that neither care nor participate in debates on our values. Google and Facebook probably already make many choices that effect what we see. Why not make just a few more choices to prevent this particular type of spam?

David:
I think it's safe to say we both agree that people should not believe fake news, or be duped into believing something that isn't true. And you are right that while in the past, there were not many opportunities for fake news to show up in print, that just is not the case today. The fake stories are also sometimes much more sophisticated, and sometimes blended with partial truths that make it more likely to fool people. I agree that even educated, intelligent folks can be duped at times. Even professional journalist can be fooled into sharing information that just isn't true on occasion.

But how to prevent it without being accused of bias or censorship? What if a story is 20% true? 40%? 75% true? What if a story is generally and factually true, but some details are wrong? What if the story is true, but important details are omitted? Do these constitute fake news, and should the sites carrying them be blocked? The reason I ask is that a fake-news site, when faced with losing access to social media, may adjust their news to "make the cut", so to speak. Add a little truth here. Add a fact or two there. Now they become acceptable, but still fake. What do you do with a parody site such as The Onion? All of their news is purposely fake for the sake of humor. Should they be blocked, or does satire deserve a pass?

I think Facebook and Twitter, as private companies, can do whatever they want. They are free to set whatever parameters they desire for postings on their sites. It will be interesting what happens afterwards, though. As we can already see, they seem to be hesitant (or perhaps cautious is a better word) moving forward to avoid being labeled as biased, or engaging in censorship.

Doug:
I think that there could be a board of advisors that could make recommendations to tech companies on how to deal with fake news. Perhaps labeling them as such (e.g., "parody", "fake"), or making it more difficult to share/link or access such pages. Currently, tech companies aren't being hesitant or cautious... they are ignoring the problem completely. They will have to be better stewards of our conversations, whether they want to or not. The truth is too important to treat in such a caviler manner.

David:
As long as you're not talking about some federal government agency using our tax dollars for this purpose, I think we can find some common ground. In the same way that these companies are free to restrict what shows up on their sites, they are also free to not restrict postings. Personally, at this point in the game, I say we should just educate folks about fake news and make it known what sites are fake, and let the buyer beware. Elvis (who now goes by the name Zaphod Beeblebrox) totally agrees with me.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

Doug:
Should one always respect the President of the United States of America? What does respect mean?

David:
I suppose I would separate the office from the person. If the President is representing the people, with the full support of Congress (the people's representatives), then I think that person is deserving of our respect and support. If the President oversteps his bounds, and acts outside of his Constitutional role, then perhaps not. But that can easily slide into a very grey area.

Doug:
That sounds a lot like B.S. to me. It sounds like you are trying to thread a needle so that you don't have to respect Obama, but should respect Trump. Grey area? That always means that you can decide one way or the other based on nothing. Stepping outside of the Constitution is for the Court to decide, not Breitbart.

David:
I was actually only thinking of Trump with that analysis. He may actually live completely within a grey area, sometimes with support from one side, and sometimes with support from the other. At times, he has found himself in the middle (or perhaps outside) with no support from either. The short answer is: You can respect the office, without respecting the occupier.

To quote Merriam-Webster:

Respect

-a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.

- a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way

-a particular way of thinking about or looking at something

In the past 16 years, our polarized society has not really invoked the first definition when it comes to dealing with the person inhabiting the White House. Social media has made this worse and a lot meaner. Even the status of the office itself has taken a beating. Politics is starting to mirror sports. Are Tom Brady and the Patriots a bunch of cheaters? Depends on if they are your team or not. Republicans and Democrats are acting more like rivals, rather than two squads in a practice scrimmage, who are actually on the same team.

Doug:
Listen to yourself, man. Then imagine that you should have been saying those things over the last 8 years. And, speak for yourself. I think Obama has been one of the best Presidents that our country has ever had. Did you see Clinton's gracious concession speech, and Obama's gracious welcoming to the White House? To the man that started his presidential run by claiming that Obama was born in another country. After he had been President for 4 years. Obama has been gracious and professional for 8 years. More gracious than I could be.

David:
He lashed out at Republicans in every single speech he's given for 8 years. He's lectured Conservatives about why they are wrong. And instead of working with all of Congress, he passed his own executive orders, and then blamed Republicans for making him do it. Arrogant is the word that comes to mind. Arrogant and condescending. And in every election since he took office, Democrats have lost more ground. Ask yourself this, are Democrats better off now than when Obama took office?

Doug:
History will show him not to be the evil, arrogant character you have painted. I have heard of rose-colored glasses. I think you have viewed Obama with poop-colored glasses for 8 years.

David:
I think you may be looking at his presidency through beer goggles.

Doug:
I'm always willing to consider the possibility. But I just don't see any evidence that he has "lashed out" during any speech, let alone "every single" speech.

David:
Take a gander through his speeches during his presidency. You'll be surprised how frequently he blames Republicans for whatever it is he's talking about.

He himself admits the reason he's being so gracious is that is how the Bush administration treated him when he came into office, graciously. He appreciated their treatment of him, and responded along the same lines. That's how it should be for a president passing the torch. But remember the last time the Clinton's left? All of the "w" letters had been removed from computer keyboards? Nice. And petty.

Doug:
Horror! And he is gracious because it is Bush's fault? Ok. Can you respect a regular person that is an affront to your sensibilities? They don't hold any particular position. Do you have to listen to them? Should you interrupt them when they are speaking?

David:
Like it or not, Trump's the president now. Republicans hold all of Congress. Republican control more state legislatures across the country, and have more governors than ever before. Trump may not speak your language, but apparently your language doesn't resonate with middle-class America. Or maybe all of those regular people and their ideals are an affront to your sensibilities.

Doug:
If 100,000 people had voted differently we would be talking about President-Elect Clinton. And keep remembering that more people voted for Clinton.

David:
Ah yes, I'll remember that 100,000 people didn't vote for Clinton where it mattered most, in the middle-class across the rust belt.  She isn't the president, and never will be. The people have moved on. But, apparently Clinton has not. After she was "horrified" that Trump said he might not concede after the election if it were close, she has now rescinded her concession, and is happily joining Jill Stein in their recount efforts.

Doug:
Some people have moved on. The majority of people (those that voted for Clinton) are mobilizing.

And why are you telling me about my sensibilities? All I did was ask some questions to try to understand how you feel about respect? Does one need to respect the national anthem of a country? The flag of a country? Or is attempting to force obedience in the name of respect just an attempt of controlling people?

David:
Mobilizing? Perhaps we need to revisit the beginning of this blog. You have asked what respect means, and have criticized me and conservatives for not being completely behind Obama. Mobilizing doesn't sound like a respectful move. (As an aside, it appears a good portion of those that are "mobilizing" didn't actually vote for Clinton. They didn't vote at all.)

You have many sensibilities and strong opinions, but many wrong beliefs as well. The same can likely be said for me. On the one hand, you feel that people from opposite ideologies should stop and listen to each other. I agree with that sentiment. To understand each other, we need to reach out to the other side. Even though it is perfectly legal to burn the flag, you must realize that there are many Americans that hold the flag to be very important and sacrosanct. Military families especially treasure the flag as an emblem of their loved ones who have died. So, to burn the flag certainly won't win any of those people over to your side. Burning the flag, or sitting during the National Anthem, is "an affront to their sensibilities". If your goal is to win people over to your viewpoint and to bring the country together, then you should dissuade protesters from behaving this way. If for no other reason, it's strategically damaging to your cause. Look how the last election turned out. The authoritarianism of the left lost.

I would also criticize people who bring guns to rallies. Unless it is a rally specifically to protest gun rights, bringing a gun to any other rally (even though it is legal) only serves to inflame the left and doesn't win anyone over. It's sticking a thumb in their eye. Strategically it isn't smart. IS also isn't respectful.

Doug:
Reach out to the other side? Where did you get that? We need to freaking argue about the policies and push for what we believe in. Obama barely won. Clinton barely lost. Is there a deep meaning in those two outcomes? I don't think so except that the Democratic party needs to explain our policies and their impacts better.

Ask a question, get a lecture on how I feel. That is probably not going to help you understand how I actually feel. I'll tell you: I am confused. Are you arguing that you want to understand why someone would want to burn the flag? You want to know why someone would want to kneel during the national anthem? I understand those desires (hint: it isn't hate, it is frustration). I also understand why people think that the flag and anthem are sacred, and I disagree with them (hint: they are not sacred).

David:
So, just to understand, if someone on the left is protesting, it's not hate, but frustration. If the tea party protests government spending, it isn't frustration, but hate. If I say something that inadvertently offends someone, I'm supposed to apologize for being insensitive and should go to some special government-mandated training classes to weed-out my micro aggressions, but if you burn the flag in front of someone, knowing they hold it to be sacred, they should get over it because you disagree with them. Do you not see how twisted your logic is?

I'm listing what you have said in the past. I have no idea how you feel, and didn't comment on how you feel.

Doug:
You wear me out. You just said: "you feel that people from opposite ideologies should stop and listen to each other." You presume to understand what the other side is thinking without asking. It is dangerous to assume to know, and even more dangerous to not even recognize the difference between what you presume and what is true.

David:
I'll correct my statement. You have said (as I have also said) that people from opposite ideologies should stop and listen to each other.  When someone says something, it is reasonable to assume they mean what they say. My mistake. Are you now saying that you don't really believe (or feel) people from opposite ideologies should listen to each other? Or is it only when when you win an election the other side should stop and listen, and when you lose you believe the correct response is to mobilize and argue?

Doug:
I'd be glad to tell you how I feel, but I don't think you care judging by your questions. I think you'll just be happy imagining what I must be feeling.

David:
Chuckle. You're upset I said how you might be feeling, and then tell me how I'm thinking. We might be related after all.

Doug:
And yet we are moving on without you actually caring. We are related, but we are definitely in different places now.

David:
And now you assume to know what I care about. Geesh!

I'd say that the left's attempts during the past 8 years to squelch dissent by declaring conservative ideas as hate speech, and lumping conservatives into the same boat as the KKK is trying to force obedience. People got tired of being preached at, but since you belong to the Church of Leftist Ideals, you didn't notice that your ideas were not resonating with blue-collar workers that were left behind in the push for globalization. To be respected, you need to show respect. President Obama has never respected Republicans.

Doug:
I'd be interested in hearing about "conservative ideas" that were interpreted as "hate speech."

David:
According to the left, saying that someone with a penis should use a men's locker room is called hate speech. Arguing that religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution is called hate speech. Arguing that life begins at conception is hate speech. On college campuses, just writing "Trump" in chalk is considered hate speech. Believing we should secure our borders is hate speech. Saying, "I believe the most qualified person should get the job", is now considered hate speech. Conservative speakers aren't even allowed to give talks at college campuses because anything they say is considered hate speech. Please don't play dumb.

Doug:
Everything is black and white when you describe it. Why would there be any confusion? Could it be because the world is not so black and white as you pretend? But the KKK is in your boat, like it or not. And so are the white nationalists, and the white supremacists. We're going to have to do some study to know the difference between all of the variations. I don't blame you for the fact that they got into your boat. But only you can kick them out.

David:
Trump condemned them. "I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn them". What else do you want?

Doug:
It would be really cool if Trump spent as much time complaining about white nationals as he does complaining about how SNL impersonates him. Do I think he has his priorities backwards? Yes.

If I did belong to a Church, I would totally go to the "Church of Leftist Ideals" if you mean a group that is interested in feeding the poor, increasing diversity, protecting women's choices, giving everyone healthcare, welcoming immigrants, social justice, treating others with respect (e.g., political correctness), giving homes to the homeless, social security, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps those Identity Labels don't scare people the way the used to?

David:
You say that as though conservatives don't believe in any of those things, don't support those things, or subscribe to the opposite of those things. I may believe in a different means to effect those things, but that does't mean I don't support variations of the same goals. (Give a man a fish, or give a man a fishing pole. Both have the goal of feeding that man.)

Doug:
I didn't say anything about you. Why do you assume that if I say that "I believe in X" that you feel that I imply that you don't? All you have to say is "I agree with you." Oh, but then I guess you'd be saying that you agree with some of the ideals of the Church of Leftist Ideals.

David:
Solving the problems you listed are common goals to most Americans. The idea that conservatives don't believe these things, which the left constantly accuses us of, has led to election defeats across great swaths of the country.  People get tired of being accused of something they aren't. As I mentioned, it's the solutions to these problems that creates friction. The devil is in the details, whether you're in a real church, or the Church of Leftist Ideals.

Doug:
"To be respected, you need to show respect." How do you think most other kinds of people (non white males) find Donald J. Trump? Do you think he shows them respect? Should they show him respect?

There it is: you feel disrespected by your President, and you give it back. Why do you feel disrespected? Because he believes differently? Because he is smarter? Because he believes that he is better than you? As Trump is demonstrating, you can be direct with your disrespect, and then it can be a rallying cry. Even if you believe that Obama really did disrespect you, you have to admit that he tried to hide it. Perhaps that is another reason to dislike him: he isn't honest with his disrespect?

But what I am really interested in is the phrase "Obama is not my president." Did you ever say that, feel that way, or hear others say it? If so, how does that make you feel?

David:
Never said it, and never felt it, although I know many who did. He was the President. He was the President of the USA. But he totally discounted the ideals I hold dear. He did not incorporate any Republican input into Obamacare, and then lied to us to get the bill passed. He took religious groups to court to force them to bend their beliefs. He threatened to withhold funding from colleges and universities if they didn't follow his gender philosophy. He promoted the idea that the color of your skin means more than the quality of your character or merit. He pushed globalism at the expense of rust-belt workers. And he pushed his agenda with a smarminess and condescension that was completely disrespectful of my beliefs. He never acted like he was President of everyone. He was the President of the left. Both Obama (and you) have said the problem was "messaging". The problem was that he lectured me about why I was wrong, rather than engaging in dialogue. He lectured me that my beliefs are wrong, and his are right. He imposed his will, often skirting Congress. He never governed with consent, but forced his beliefs on half of us. If you really want to try to understand what I'm saying, read through these quotes, and see if you can find why conservatives might be aggravated by some things he has said, and the attitude he conveys.

Doug:
It doesn't sound like you respect President Obama, and I think you don't understand how much Obama really did try to work across the aisle. But you can believe whatever you want. I read all of the "quotes"...some were indeed gaffs, others he didn't actually say, some were misrepresentations, and others were things I completely and 100% agree with. But I think you would probably agree with many of Obama's other statements. Not everything he utters appears on the "25 Most Obnoxious Things List". In fact, if those are the worst things he said over 8 years, then I don't see what the problem is. Trump's list would be much more terrible already, if you only look at the 25 most obnoxious. And no one would have to misquote, or cleverly edit his statements.

David:
And that is why you will never understand what really happened in this election. You believe he tried to work across the aisle? He invited some Republicans to the White House in his first two months in office, discounted all of their ideas, and never had them back (except for a golf game and two (2) meetings with John Boehner). He met more often with Putin, and spoke more highly of him than of Republicans. You can distill all of those quotes into either illustrating no big deal, or you agree with them. You don't understand at all what it really is that I find wrong with the left, or why I would not respect President Obama. Not even a smidgen.

Doug:
As usual, you compress what I said into what you expect to hear. You discount people based on caricatures. That is your loss.

David:
Ditto. Maybe it's a genetic trait.

Doug:
And also as usual, I'm going to have to disagree with you: I don't think you have to respect the person, or the office (nor the flag, nor anthem). He will be our President, but I don't have to respect him. We'll see if Trump lives up to your image, or my image, of what Obama was. 

False Equivalency

David:
The term false equivalency has appeared with increasing frequency during the past election, but continues to show up in news articles and on Face book, primarily from liberal sources. What does it mean to you, and why has it suddenly blossomed on the internet and social media scene?

Doug:
Liberal sources? Sounds scary. Is there official paperwork one has to fill out to be an official liberal source? Do you also have the category "conservative sources" in your mind, too? or would that be a false comparison? Are "liberal sources" some random person's website? NYTimes opinion page? Are these sources teenagers from the Balkins? Or is labeling something a "liberal source" a way of signaling people how to think about such sources? Is this coded language?

David:
If you do a quick Google search of the topic, several media outlets have actually done special opinion reports on the topic. Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Paul Krugman at the NYT, Slate, and my favorite, Wise Women for Clinton, have all done pieces. I don't seem to find any posts that represent  conservative sites in the first few Google pages, however. I'm curious as to what you think on the topic.

Doug:
You are right that the term has appeared with increasing frequency. It didn't really appear until 1960 (an election year), and peaked again in 1980 and 2000 (both election years):



So, I guess it isn't surprising that it "suddenly blossomed" again this election cycle. But what is it?

"False equivalency" is when someone makes an analogy between two things as if they were the same, but are not. In a logical discussion, if two competing arguments that are not analogous but are considered the same then that is considered a logical mistake.

Of course, in regular discourse, people can make analogies between any two things. I wrote my Ph.D. thesis on making analogies. People can be quite flexible in their ability to see the similarity between any two concepts. This flexibility is the hallmark of human intelligence. But it can be used against you if stretched too far.

It seems that the term "false equivalency" appears in election cycles by critics of the press when lazy reporters attempt a poorly "balanced" discussion. For example, when Trump didn't show his taxes, some would say "yes, but what about some emails that were deleted." These two things don't have anything to do with one another of course, but the attempt is made to make them equivalent. The information in Trump's tax filings are still important and can still be revealed, which indicates that this really was a false equivalency. If Clinton had been elected President, those emails would still be deleted. There is no reasonable demand that we should be able to see every email ever sent by a public employee, and no reasonable analogy between emails and tax information.

David:
Though a quick review of past blogs shows you continued to introduce Trump's taxes into Clinton's email discussions. I guess no one is immune to false equivalency.

Doug:
You mean like when I said this:

Doug: 

Trump: "My taxes? We need to think like me! I will release my taxes when Clinton undeletes 33,000 emails."

You see, I was pretending I was Trump speaking, and having him make a false equivalency. 

David:
No, I was actually talking about the many other times you added Trump's taxes into a discussion, like the blog we did on candidate's health. Health and taxes. They don't really seem to be the same thing, do they?

Doug:
Which is it? Did I "continued to introduce Trump's taxes into Clinton's email discussions" or did I "add Trump's taxes into a discussion ... on candidate's health"? Are you trying to make a false equivalency on false equivalency?

David:
You added his taxes into just about everything, because somehow you believe showing your taxes is a Constitutional requirement. You weighed it very heavily in your criticisms of Trump. By your argument, you make a false equivalency everytime you introduce it.

Doug:
No, you're making a false equivalency again. Trump's taxes are import (especially now) to show that there are not conflicts of interest of investments. You wouldn't want some national policy influenced by a Trump business deal.

David:
Or a foundation's bottom line.

Doug:
There are no laws about general conflicts of interest for regular citizens, of course. But there are for people making decisions in our government.

David:
And the e-mail/taxes issue really is equivalent if you consider they are really about producing documents for the public to review for fitness to be the president or conflicts of interest. You feel that Trump's taxes show he's hiding something. Hillary deleted emails, which she was required to turn over by law, because many feel she was hiding something. Same issue.

Doug:
That is a great example about making a false equivalency: they are both documents! Therefore the same. You realize that she does not have to turn over private emails. But I like the idea that we need to see Trump's taxes. And to follow your logic, we need to see his foundation records too, in order to "review fitness to be president." But I have a feeling that we'll never actually say that Trump needs to show either.

David:
Do you realize he did not have to turn over private tax returns? Several of her "private" emails that were recovered contained classified government documents. So much for that excuse. What I'm saying is on both sides, these were examples of candidates hiding something potentially damaging. That made these two issues equitable.

Doug:
Not showing personal emails is not "hiding." Not showing your personal investments (like all modern presidents have done) is not equivalent in any way shape or form. Especially now! The election is over. Trump absolutely needs to come clean now, right?

David:
The election is over, so he needs to make sure there is no appearance of conflicts with his business. That won't be entirely or completely possible, but as President, he needs to make every effort to do so.

Doug:
So this is something that we really could agree on. But it isn't the appearance that bothers me...it is the actual conflicts of interest. Trump has said that he has no intention of divesting anything. He intends to make money on this Presidency thing. Regardless of any other bad decisions he (or his staff that he has been announcing), this could end up being a terrible outcome for our country. To me, this is protest-worthy.

David:
Then we're back to the emails indicating Clinton made personal cash as SOS, and had conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments. Perhaps we should continue the investigations. You've convinced me.

Doug:
Ok, as long as we treat the Clinton Foundation in exactly the same manner as the Trump Foundation. Let's do it. Something we can agree on!

David:
But why do you think that all of these articles appear in liberal or left-leaning sites, but not conservative? As I read through the a few of the articles, they all seem to believe that Hillary Clinton's foibles were mere mistakes, like misspelling a word, while Trump's issues were atrocities that the press glossed over. It appears to me that there really was no false equivalency if you were comparing the potential wrong-doings of two candidates competing for the same office.

Doug:
I think I see why conservative sites don't have articles on "false equivalency": they don't understand what it is. If you still don't understand why it was important to see Trump's taxes, then there is nothing that will make you understand why such a comparison is a logical error.

David:
It would have been important to be able to see his tax returns. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it appears that Clinton deleted emails she was required to save, and some that have been recovered had classified information on them. It would have been just as important to see those emails, or to have had them examined by an independent reviewer before deletion.

If you can't see that voluntarily producing private documents is not as bad as deliberately destroying government documents (which is against the law), then nothing I can say will show you those things are related issues. Both cases were failures to produce documents, and in both cases, those documents may have contained damaging information. Focusing only on one aspect of the subject limits your ability to see the equivalence. Of course it goes without saying that only liberals are smart enough to understand analogies and complicated ideas. Conservatives are too busy patching our overalls,  meeting at our racist, sexist, homophobic clubs, and polishing our guns to go get educations. We're lucky to have such smart overlords to keep us in line and tell us how to think correctly.

Doug:
You certainly have some inferiority complex. If I am an overlord, I am not doing a very good job.

David:
Which is why you lost the election. You were focused so much on Trump's taxes, you failed to realize  the middle-class didn't care about his taxes. They did care about the emails, for the reasons I listed above. While you claim the emails don't equate to anything at all, many Americans felt they illustrated her secrecy and dishonesty.

Doug:
The minority of people (who voted for Trump) may always believe that Clinton's emails contained conversations with the Devil and that they were "government documents" that they deserved to see. No one can control what they choose to believe. They can choose to believe false equivalencies. That is too bad. Perhaps there will be ways for people to see that things aren't always equivalent.

Did you ever stop and think about why the past elections always seem so close? Like you could split the votes in 2, and you get a near tie between Republicans and Democrats? Could it be that the creating false equivalencies on everything creates an uncanny split down the middle?

David:
I had assumed it was because half of the voting public believes differently than you, and half believes differently than me. This is not because of false equivalency, but because of true beliefs. If you just write off the other side, believing they just don't understand, then you'll never reach any middle ground. Sometimes, when you look through a different paradigm, things that you see as unrelated, become equal in weight.

Doug:
There are lots of "sides." Why would just about exactly half believe the opposite? I think it is because false equivalency tries to even everything out, even when they are not even.

David:
So you're saying that the media presents false equivalencies, to make superior Democrats appear to be equal to the lowly Republicans, and that causes the voting populace to be split down the middle? That sounds like false equivalency.

There are people who believe in big government, and people who believe very limited government is best. It seems there are an equal number of people in both camps.

Doug:
If reasonable people always tries to show "balance" when there is none, then it seems that a reasonable outcome would be artificial balance. That seems to make more sense than your argument: there just happen to be an equal number of people that believe exactly the opposite of each other.

David:
You and I both disagree. That means we balance each other. There is only a false equivalency in that statement if you believe your arguments weigh more than mine. Your last statement seems to illustrate the problem you face: Half of the country believes differently than you do. It's easier to believe that they do because the media, or social media, or something else has convinced them their ideas are worthy or equal to your beliefs, which they aren't. The reality is that the people who voted for Trump have beliefs that are equal to yours, and a paradigm of the world that is equal to yours. It's easier for you to believe that they are racist, sexist, and xenophobes, or some other label that you can disavow. They aren't any of those things. They are other, thoughtful Americans.

Doug:
But then why aren't there more Republican voters? Why does it equal almost exactly the number of Democratic voters? There seems to be something at working balancing into two equal parts.

David:
You and I disagree. There are siblings all over the country that also disagree. We mirror America.

Doug:
Another possibility (discussed in this video on a Mathematicians Perspective on the Election) is that the equal halves are caused by having about the same amount of money on each side, and spending it in places that are seen as threatened, and not put resources where the candidate is seen as being "safe". Perhaps. But I still think that always seeing an issue as an equal balance of pros and cons (even when there is no rational reason to do so) is a contributing factor. Could be an hypothesis to explore.

David:
Except in the 2016 election they did not spend the same amounts. Not even close.

Doug:
That doesn't count Trump's free airtime in the media. But you are correct, and I think misstated the video's hypothesis. I think what she claims is that money is only spent where needed, and need is only made when one is seen as behind in the polls in that particular area. If you dynamically spend money/energy only to get ahead, then the 50/50 split makes sense. This does indeed appear to be a viable hypothesis. But I still contend that things are even remotely close because of a general and pervasive belief in false equivalencies.

David:
Money in politics is an influential issue. On that, we can both agree. Perhaps we'll explore that more, and see if the Blanks can come up with a solution in a future installment of Blank Versus Blank. Join us next week!

Blank Verse: The Press Should Organize

This is a Special Edition of Blank versus Blank. This post is the presentation of a single side of an issue. Because it is only one perspective, we call this a Blank Verse.

This Blank Verse is presented by Doug.

SNL Skit on the Robotic News Cycle.

Doug:
A month ago---right before the election, my brother and I explored the Press. Since then, some things have changed: Trump is now President Elect. However, interactions between Trump and the Press have not changed. This is very troubling if you believe in a strong Fourth Estate.

This week I again saw the Press wrestling with how to report on Trump and his actions. In past elections, President Elects have followed established norms:

• releasing tax information
• divesting from business ventures
• removing any sign of impropriety between business and government
• arranging meetings (especially foreign government) through established protocols
• avoiding mixing family with political appointments

However, Trump is not following these norms. Mixed in with these troubling turns from tradition is Trump's side-show-style Tweets from his Twitter account. It is very odd in our culture for someone in such a position of political power to constantly be complaining about a specific newspaper (New York Times), Broadway plays, and protesters. 

The very real problem for the Press is: how do you report such activities? How do you give balance to concerns about white nationalists in senior staffing positions, and peculiar tweets ranting on private companies? In addition, Trump is not letting down on his ant-Press rhetoric. Apparently he give a 20 minute rant when he met with the Press on Monday Nov 21, 2016. Many of the Press thought that this would be a meeting to do a "reset"--- a fresh start. But, of course not. A double-down from Trump.

This is war, and the Press should fight back. Of course, I am not in media, nor in the media business, but just an academic. But I see some things that I believe could help the Press.

How to not fall into manipulative reporting cycle only focusing on the most sensationalist items? There is a limited number of inches in print media, and a limit number of minutes on TV news. But you can still cover everything! 

First, nightly news shows (such as All In with Chris Hayes, TRMS, and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell) need some coordination. I watched a huge amount of time spent on Trump's Hamilton Tweets across all three shows last night (Monday Nov 21, 2016). But not one of them mentioned other Trump news (such as the $25 million dollar Trump University settlement/tax write-off). There needs to be an editor across all of the news programs that prevents saturation of any particular story. If each show gets to pick what they find most juicy, then we don't hear about everything else. There is a lot going on in the world. Cover more items! And Rachael, some stories do not need 10 minutes. You can often beat that horse dead. 

I think the newspapers can do something similar. Newspapers should form a coalition. They should take turns with different stories. Again, if they all pick the same story, then we end up saturating, and play into Trump's tiny hands. They could even suggest reading other stories in other papers. There is precedent for companies working together in such a fashion: open source software. Open source software (also called "free software" (as in "freedom")) is software that competitors develop together. Newspapers should do some coordination among themselves to spread the stories between them. Of course there is the AP and UPI, but this could be a coordination at the highest level. 

Finally, the Press is important. The Press should cover itself more. I would like to read stories about why certain stories were done, and others not. What are the struggles behind the scene? What is it like attempting to cover someone so blatantly against the norms of our lives as Trump? How do you decide which of the many Trump stories deserve top billing? How are you going to pace yourselves over the next 4 years?

So Press, please organize, and fight back. We are all depending on you.

Thanksgiving or a Day of Atonement

David:
This week most of us will be meeting with family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving. Most of us will eat too much turkey, and spend the day watching football, or just catching up with relatives.

But should Thanksgiving be abolished, or turned into something else? Is it based on false historical stories to cover our past? This writer thinks so:

http://www.alternet.org/story/68170/why_we_shouldn't_celebrate_thanksgiving

Doug:
This week David will project his world onto all of us, and tell us that our world is just like his. Many people won't have food to eat, or will be protecting their native land, or protesting the impending dismantling of our democracy, or will have to work to make "Black Friday" be the fantastic day of consumerism that it is surely to be. Oh, but wait... a dissenting article? Could it be?

That is a well-written argument. And there are a lot of people who find the idea of the fictional "dinner with the Indians" to be a disgusting whitewashing of history. But, hey! Let's eat! All that P.C. B.S. makes me sad. No, not sad... angry! Make Thanksgiving Great Again! Quit mentioning genocide when we are trying to have a relaxing day off, and just pass the cranberry sauce. JK

David:
Two things. To use your favorite words, the article above is full of false equivalences, and outright untruths. Seriously, comparing 500 years of cultural conflict with the brief history of Hitler?  And second, many people just don't care to know the truth, or to look at things in context. In this blog, I thought we might evaluate the true story of Thanksgiving, and shed light on how events over the past 500 years can help us to be a better society in 2016.

Doug:
I think you misunderstood the analogy with Hitler. The author asks you to imagine that Hitler won, and centuries later they celebrate a Thanksgiving. It is meant to be a provocative "thought experiment." But I guess you have to understand it, and be willing to empathize, rather than dismissing it before even contemplating it. Can you imagine your descendants sitting down with the descendants of winning Nazis and giving thanks? Could such a thought experiment help one to see the "truth" of Thanksgiving?

Your storytelling should be interesting. But I feel a major episode of brotherplaining coming on...

David:
First, we should discredit the myth of the "noble savage". Before European settlers ever arrived in the new world, native tribes were in a constant and violent struggle against each other, particularly in our SouthWest and throughout Central America. Anthropology shows us that 90% of skeletons in that region have marks of violence and projectile points. The state of affairs before Europeans arrived was as 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes described it: "war of all against all."

Doug:
You know that people actually study this today, right? Did you watch a Disney cartoon? If you form your opinion of people by watching cartoons, or the Lone Ranger, then yes, you might need to update your caricatures. Read what you are writing. Do your words seem that different from humans today? Do you think indigenous people were much different from any society in existence today, including ours? But do continue with your unbiased myth-busting.

David:
There are people who study this. And they don't all subscribe to your views. From the book, North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, a compendium of papers from 14 leading scholars on the subject:

"These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life. 

Doug:
That is substituting the "myth of the noble savage" with the "myth of the savage savage" which is equally biased. My point was that reality is probably closer to our lives today.  But I do appreciate it that those authors are labeled "leading scholars" when they agree with you. When they don't agree with you, you might want to distrust their data, methods, and motivations. If the "number of leading scholars" determine their trustworthiness, then there are many topics that are settled.

David:
So, if a scholar or scientist doesn't agree with you, then you can discount their data and research. I'll remember that when we discuss climate change. Your opinion doesn't explain the 90% of skeletons that have marks of violence on them. I don't believe that is true of our lives today. I did a Google search of reviews of this book, and found only positive reviews from multiple university reviewers. I did not find any negative reviews of the work. Said one:

"As is often the case, myths do not die easily and it is doubtful that the conclusions reached in this book will be readily accepted in certain circles outside of academia, where they might be misconstrued as a sinister attempt to provide after-the-fact justifications for the Euro-American conquest of the Americas. To avoid such false accusations, the editors added a concluding chapter discussing the ethical issues raised by this book."

Now, back to history. In 1532, Pizzaro landed in what is now Peru to find the war-like Incan population halved by recent civil war. Had he arrived just a decade sooner, his Spanish forces would have been crushed by a much larger force than he found at that time.

Machu Picchu of the Incas

When Cortes arrived in Mexico in 1519 he found an Aztec empire flush with gold. The Spanish during the 1500-1700's were less interested in land, than they were with the riches and resources the New World could provide. Much like the Vikings in Europe, the Spanish were there for plunder, and plunder they did. Allying themselves with other natives who were hostile to the Aztecs, Cortes and his men spent 8 months inflicting losses on the once mighty Aztec nation. But Cortes didn't conquer the Aztecs with 500 Spaniards. He had 500 men and 50,000 Natives who were enemies to the Aztecs as his allies. When he returned a year later, smallpox and famine had decimated the natives, and the Spanish made quick work eliminating the remainder in brutal fashion. 

We see this pattern repeated numerous times through the history of the Americas: Explorers make landfall and interact with the indigenous peoples. When they return several years later, the Native populations have been decimated by plague or smallpox. Disease was the main killer of vast numbers of Natives during the 1500s-1700s.

Doug:
You say "explorers," others say "conquerors" but let's not let myths get in the way of a good story.

David:
Some say "myth" while others say "history". When things are written down, researched, and accepted by scholars, you can stop using the word "myth".

"Overall, hundreds of thousands of Indians died of European diseases during the first two centuries following contact. In terms of death tolls, smallpox killed the greatest number of Indians, followed by measles, influenza, and bubonic plague." ~ From the Navajo website, Native American Netroots.

Doug:

Quoting a diary is not usually considered a method of debunking myths. But the blog you quote is probably correct. But do you think because they were conquerors that it isn't also be true that Native Americans largely died from disease carried by the conquerors? Both are true.

David:
Ah. Now you're discounting Native American's take on these events. Even they can't be trusted if they don't fit your narrative.

But the story of Thanksgiving begins just after this time period in New England. Pilgrims landed in Cape Cod in 1620.  One year later, in 1621, half had died, and the remainder survived in part thanks to the Wampanoag Indians that inhabited the area. In that year, they did hold a three day feast which was known as a harvest festival. This was a celebration observed in England and brought along with the settlers. The Wampanoags were present at this feast, and outnumbered the pilgrims by a 2-1 margin. There were occasional days of thanksgiving, but this original celebration was not intended for that purpose.

The Continental Congress had proposed a national day of thanksgiving, but it was not until the mid-19th century that many individual states had adopted the practice of having an annual day just for this purpose. Lincoln was the first president to proclaim the last Thursday in November as a national day known as Thanksgiving, and has been celebrated every year since, with the date changing to the 4th Thursday in November in 1939.

Through those early years of settlement, the settlers and natives near Plymouth lived in harmony and cooperation. But not all colonies and their local natives were on such good terms. Warfare between Europeans and Indians was common in the seventeenth century. In 1622, the Powhatan Confederacy nearly wiped out the struggling Jamestown colony. Further north, English forces annihilated the Pequots in 1636-1637. 1764 marked the beginning of the French and Indian wars, which pitted the English against the French and their Indian allies, particularly the war-like Mohawks. You might use the term "immigrants" or "refugees" to describe the pilgrims. But that would mean the Natives were playing the role of nativists, trying to limit the spread of these immigrants. Yes, for your world-view, you should call pilgrims and Protestants "conquerors".

Doug:
Not to interrupt your story, but just noting that you like the adjective "war-like." How many wars do you need to start before we can use that word to describe someone? If someone invades one, or two countries, can we use the adjective "war-like" to describe them? Or is this a coded word that means other things? It is important to explore such word choice because it gives insight into biases, perhaps hidden ones that the speaker is not even aware of. 

David:
While there were over 300 Indian Tribes, the Comanches, Apaches, Haidas, Sioux, and Mohawks were known not as farmers, hunters, or nomads, but as warriors who raided other tribes for food, goods, and slaves. They began their training for battle as children. So, I believe it is safe to say those particular tribes were war-like. Much as the Spartans were war-like in ancient Greece. To be war-like means your society is in a constant preparedness for war.

Doug:
Ok, then you agree that our society is equally war-like. I just wanted to make sure that your use of the term "war-like" was just underlining the fact that their society was just like ours.

David:
I don't see many children in official training for war, here. I'm sure you do, through your special liberal-view glasses.

It was during the 1760's -1780's when the native tribes realized that the expansionist colonist were a much greater threat than the British military. The colonists had come to stay. In 1763, the Ottawa chief Pontiac formed a coalition of Indian forces and launched attacks against settlers. During the Revolutionary War, many native tribes joined with the British and established themselves as enemies to the Americans. After the war, many Americans had little regard for Natives, and saw them as a continuing enemy to expansion.

Doug:
Same as it ever was. This could be said today about the Dakota Access Pipeline and the inhuman treatment of Native Americans. 

David:
So you believe that the US government, under Obama, is treating the Native Americans inhumanely? What did you ask Obama to do about that? Because you do realize they are still under government control.

Doug:
I think our whole society treats Native Americans inhumanely. I thought that was what this week's blog was about? 

David:
It appears you are speaking for yourself,  the people you know, and the US Government.

It was after the war, when superior weaponry led to mass destruction of the Native populations, and it was really at this time where subjugation and/or destruction of the Indians became the policy.

The History Channel notes: "Suspicion and hostility, stemming from technological and cultural differences as well as mutual feelings of superiority, have permeated relations betweenNative American and non-Indians in North America. Intertribal antagonisms among the Indians, and nationalistic rivalries, bad faith, and expansionist desires on the part of non-Indians exacerbated these tensions. The resulting white-Indian conflicts often took a particularly brutal turn and ultimately resulted in the near destruction of the indigenous peoples."

Doug:
Ok, you convinced me: we should not celebrate Thanksgiving. 

David:
Thanksgiving is not a celebration of the unity between Indians and pilgrims. It is a day to be thankful for what we have. When Lincoln declared a National Day of Thanks, it was designed to bring the country together in unity. Even though we had been through a brutal civil war, we had much to be thankful for. Lincoln, and every president since, has used Thanksgiving Day as a time for reflection, thanks, and unity. You'd like to use it as a day to acknowledge and highlight differences. If you had a Native-American name, it would be Sour-Like-Lemons. The pilgrims had survived in 1621 with great help from the Native Americans, and they celebrated with thanks. Perhaps you have nothing to express thanks for, and perhaps that's because you have no one to express your thanks to. But you don't have to celebrate anything, because this is America. There were great struggles throughout our history, and numerous wars and strife, yet we, as a country, can still come together to celebrate the common virtues and values we share, and be thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy.

Doug:
I think I'll let your words stand as a reminder of how privilege tells people that they should be thankful regardless of their individual battles. 

David:
It's sad to think that you have nothing to be thankful for. You have a very heartless world-view. We can all find things to be thankful for.

Doug:
You tell em!

David: If you really want to help Native Americans, you should understand the plight they face today, not 200 years ago. We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs that completely rules most of the Native tribes as "wards of the Federal Government". They have the highest rate of poverty of any minority group,  suicide is the leading cause of death among Indian men, native women are two and a half times more likely to be raped than the national average and gang violence affects American Indian youth more than any other group. This has all been brought about by the US government managing their affairs. Perhaps you can spend your time Thursday lobbying the government to allow these American citizens to enjoy all of the rights the rest of us can be thankful for. At least the turkey you don't eat will be thankful.

Doug:
Weird, you forgot to mention "Standing Rock" in your soliloquy. You do realize that Native Americans are Americans, right? You literally just told them to be "thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy." 

David:
They have been US citizens since 1924, thanks to a bill passed by the Congress. However, they were not all allowed to vote until the 1970's. They still do not own their land, and cannot use their land for any purpose unless allowed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The land in question for the pipeline is not on their reservation lands. Even if it was, the use of that land is solely at the discretion of the US Government. They must protest, because under the law, they have no other recourse.While they are US citizens, they are not considered immigrants, but citizens from separate nation. They are a separate class.

As a side note, before anyone starts commenting about inaccuracies in my time-line or details, all of the historical information contained in this blog comes from Wikipedia, History.com, US History.org, and a multitude of Native-American sites from individuals and tribes. If something is amiss, write to them.

Doug:
I'm imagining that students could always add that disclaimer to their papers. "Don't blame the researcher for quoting bad sources, blame the sources!" In any event, may you, and everyone, have time this Thanksgiving to find some inner peace away from the external world, before we head back to our war-like (and necessary) battles.