Rule for Today: Read Only Curated News

Here is a simple rule for maintanning sanity and undercutting attempts to destroy our democracy.

Read Only Curated News

It is that simple.  Read only news sources that take some form of responsibility for what they publish.  Eve Fox, hardly neutral, takes some responsibility and is concerned with reputation.  Not so Breitbart.

Unsubscribe to any and all automated gregators — they are too subject to being fooled by waves of false news.

As to news referrals on Facebook and the like – even if apparently from people you know, ignore unless they are pushing something from a curated source.  (Personally, I would like Facebook to allow one to list the sources that you want to hear about.)

These steps will not stop false news, but should significantly reduce the false news multiplier that the internet provides.

 

 

Advertisements

Could Obamacare Repeal Split the Union Apart?

Then the Supreme Court decided Dred Scott, I doubt that they intended to split the Union apart, probably the opposite.

When Chief Justice Roberts engineered the decision that allowed states to opt out of the Medicare expansion, I suspect that he too had no such intent.

But that may be the consequence.

As the data on state budget implications of the Repeal making its way to the Senate becomes frighteningly clear, it is starting to seem as if the result will be to put opt-in (generally blue) and opt-out (generally red) states on fundamentally economic and political paths.

In Blue states, the economics and politics will do deep damage to the Republicans, with likely single party domination in many more blue states.  The reverse will be true in red states, at least until the voter rolls expand — and every effort will be made to prevent that.

At what point, with the states divided into single party red, and single party blue, how long till various forms of secession start to be appealing to both sides?  Remember that the right’s obsession with state’s rights tends to blind them to the advantages of the Federal role.

A frightening prospect.  But when one party stops representing a huge swathe of the country, that is what happens.

 

 

 

 

 

Great Article on Why the Left Gave Up Violence

The Washington Post has a great article on why the left gave up violence.  The two first are basicially that it is counter-productive, and that there are better ways to get change.  Te other however, is much more interesting, and worthy of much thought:

The third and most important reason for giving up violence can be found in the new makeup of the American left. Emerging out of the rubble of the 1960s, the modern left, which coalesced around George McGovern’s quixotic 1972 presidential run, effectively represented a gathering of fugitives. African Americans, Hispanics, women, gay men and lesbians, Native Americans, and workers: These long-ostracized groups, which came to replace the New Deal coalition anchored by the white working class, were the very peoples against whom violence had been done for so long. Their painful histories made them instinctively averse to, and intolerant of, political violence. Those who had survived lynchings, beatings, bombings, sexual violence, forced removals and economic exploitation were least disposed to employ them in return. In 1972, those groups were often on the far left, but they eventually became the spine of Barack Obama’s electoral coalition.

Even while the fringes of the left were drawn to violence by overwhelming frustration (not to mention FBI provocateurs), most were profoundly ambivalent, probably in major part for these reasons.

It occurs to me that the only way the right seems to have to respond to those whose claims and philosophy has been shaped in part by a family history of being at the very least at risk of being victims, is to embrace their own victim-hood — and the facts just do not support those beliefs.

This also suggests that the left might be better than we fear at reaching out to the right self-perceived victims on the basis of common “victimhood.”  At a minimum, in individual conversations, those on the left can tell stories that might create some sense of sympathy.  Of course, the sociopaths (like the Donald) will never feel any such empathy, but I simply refuse to believe that 30% are sociopaths.

And, a society built on an understanding of the risk of victimiztion would surely be a better one.

 

 

Could Trump’s Bizarre Cabinet Meeting Be Part of His Overall Obstruction of Justice Pattern

Bizarre cabinet meeting, in which all members effusively praise Trump.

Brilliant satire from Chuck Schummer.

 

And, the 25th Amendment says that certification by a majority of the Cabinet is a step in the process of removal for inability to perform duties.

The Cabinet command performance has surely just made it harder for the Cabinet to make sure certification, and the question is whether this was done with intent.  If so, yet another part of an abusive pattern of hanging on to office.  To continue an obstruction pattern, you have to stay in power.

I would note that the Amendment provides Congress with the power to name an alternative body to play this role.

 

 

Lobbying and Campaigning Rights for Nonprofits

So, if religious groups can have a tax exemption, but are not resticted in their campaign and lobbying activities, surely it must be unconstitutional to deny the same rights to nonprofit organizations.  That would both be content based discrimination and establishment of religion.

That might lead to more than Trump bargained for today.

Be careful what you wish for.

NBER Report Suggests We Should Not Blame Polarization on the Internet.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has long been a highly respected and independent source of analysis on economic and statistical matters.  So it is well worth paying attention when they focus on the impact of the Internet on polarization.

A recent Report concludes:

We find that the increase in polarization is largest among the groups least likely to use the internet and social media.  .  .  .  Across intermediate age groups, the growth in polarization is consistently higher among older respondents. Polarization increases more for the old than the young in eight of the nine individual measures. A similar pattern emerges for groups of respondents divided by our broader index of predicted internet use.

The paper admits that there may be ways of explaining the phenomenon to dissolve the inconsistency, but, given its breadth of measures, that seems unlikely.

Indeed un-linking Internet access statistics from polarization does not exclude the possibility that the existence of the Internet incentivizes the taking of extreme positions, and that those incentives work on populations regardless of their internet access.  It may be, or example, that what the Internet did was make it possible for marginal voices to be amplified much more by mainstream media who reach lower information people.  In other words, we would be worse off without the Internet.

However, when you think about it, the “beauty” of the “Internet did it” meme is that no one needs to take responsibility.  Not the commentators, not the politicians, not the newsfolks, not the religious leaders.  Not the increase in inequality, not the massive insecurity, not the reduction of need for those with traditional blue collar jobs.  Not the increasing costs of housing and education and the impossibility of getting both.

Holding people responsible for what they say and advocate — and what they said yesterday, and weeks, months and years ago is easier than ever before.  Understanding economic change should also be easier than ever.

So, while the Internet alone may have some second order effects, its much more important to look at the big picture of ideas and leadership.