GDP Down Huge, Lets Tweet about Delaying the Election...

This morning the US 2nd quarter GDP data which was expected to be bad was released.  It was in fact bad, 9.5% decline for the quarter or about a 33% decline on an annualized basis.  Within minutes the Potus tweeted about "delaying the election".  This is yet another example of Trump's classic strategy to own the news cycle.  In this case to distract from the economic hole engendered by the Covid abetted by his horrible policy responses.  Do not fall for it.

Professor George Lakoff has outlined for years how Trump attempts (and frequently succeeds) in manipulating public attention.  I have said to friends over the past four years, Trump is many things mostly bad but one thing he is for sure is a PR guru, a carnival barker on the level of PT Barnum.  One prescription Lakoff offers is to avoid repeating Trump's messages (i.e. tweets) as doing so plays into his hands for blasting out his message.  So one will never find me grabbing his tweets regardless of how sulfuric they might be.

Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est La Meme Chose: 1964 Alabama MLK Speaks with a Stranger

New Yorker re-printed this article from August 1964 in which one of its reporters followed MLK and his staff through Alabama.  The reporter related a polite exchange between MLK and a fellow passenger.  What struck me was the arguments the passenger used 56 years ago have not changed today amidst renewed agitation for improved racial relationships. The arguments:
1) agitation is not necessarily christian as it risks “incitement” and will do “more harm than good”;
2) that protests “may help the Communists” and finally
3) any federal government involvement could lead to a “dictatorship”

One hears all of these themes currently amidst the BLM protests- “They have Marxist ties! The protests are destroying things! I tell my friends tests are meant to make folks uncomfortable.  And while criminality has occurred, those who oppose reforms are knowingly and at times maliciously conflating the “protests” with radical (left and right) elements and with criminal elements who have looted.  But mostly those who oppose reforms just do not want to address reforms, they are reactionary and wish to continue or even rollback the status quo.

MLK and many of supporters were continually harassed due to their alleged “communist associations” and while a supporter here or there might have had a loose association for the vast majority it was innuendo in an effort to deflect and restrain racial progress.  And if no rules were broken little change would have occurred as the rules while relevant are built by majorities to enforce status quos.

From the August, 1964 piece:  “…I happened to fly from Atlanta to Jackson on the same plane as Martin Luther King…Across the aisle from King, there happened to be sitting a stocky, nice-looking young white man with a short haircut and wearing Ivy League clothes. He looked as if he might have been a responsible member of a highly regarded college fraternity six or eight years ago and was now an equally responsible member of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of a Southern city that prided itself on its progress. About halfway between Atlanta and Montgomery, the plane’s first stop, he leaned across the aisle and politely said to King, in a thick drawl, “Excuse me. I heard them calling you Dr. King. Are you Martin Luther King?”

“Yes, I am,” said King, just as politely.

“I wonder if I could ask you two questions,” the young man said… “I happen to be a Southerner, but I also happen to consider myself a Christian. I wonder, do you feel you’re teaching Christian love?”

“Yes, that’s my basic approach,” King said. “I think love is the most durable element in the world, and my whole approach is based on that.”

“Do you think the people you preach to have a feeling of love?” the young man asked.

“Well, I’m not talking about weak love,” King explained. “I’m talking about love with justice. Weak love can be sentimental and empty. I’m talking about the love that is strong, so that you love your fellow-men enough to lead them to justice.”

“Do you think that’s the same love Jesus taught?” the young man asked.

“Yes, I do.”

“Even though you incite one man against another?”

“You have to remember that Christ was crucified by people who were against him,” said King, still in a polite, careful tone. “Do you think there’s love in the South now? Do you think white people in the South love Negroes?”

“I anticipated that,” said the young man. “There hasn’t always been love. I admit we’ve made some mistakes.”

“Uh-huh. Well, let me tell you some of the things that have happened to us. We were slaves for two hundred and fifty years. We endured one hundred years of segregation. We have been brutalized and lynched. Can’t you understand that the Negro is bound to have some resentment? But I preach that despite this resentment we should organize militantly but non-violently. If we organize non-violently, we can show the injustice. I don’t think you’d be talking to me now if we hadn’t had some success in making people face the issue.”

“I happen to be a Christian,” the young man repeated.

“Do you think segregation is Christian?” asked King.

“I was anticipating that,” the young man said. “I don’t have any flat answer. I’m questioning your methods as causing more harm than good.”

“Uh-huh. Well, what do you suggest we need?” King was able to say “Uh-huh” in a way that implied he had registered a remark for what it was worth and decided not to bring up its more obvious weaknesses, but he and the young man did seem genuinely interested in each other’s views.

“I think we need respect and good will,” said the young man.

“How do you propose to get that?” King asked.

The young man hesitated for a moment and then said, “I don’t know. I just don’t agree that it does any good to incite people. I know there’s resentment, and you’re able to capitalize on this resentment and create friction and incite discord. And you know this.”

“I don’t think we’re inciting discord but exposing discord,” King said.

“Well, let me ask you this,” said the young man. “Are you concerned that certain people—well, let’s come out with political labels—that this plays into the hands of the Communists?”

“I think segregation and discrimination play into the hands of the Communists much more than the efforts to end them,” said King.

“But it’s certainly been playing into the Communists’ hands since you and the others—as you put it—started exposing what was there. There’s certainly more attention given to it.”

“Don’t you think that if we don’t solve this the Communists will have more to gain?”

“I think much more progress was made between the two races before the last few years, when you and other people started inciting trouble between the two races.”

“What is this progress?” asked King. “Where was the lunch-counter desegregation? Where was the civil-rights law?”

“In good relations,” the young man answered.

“Good white relations,” interrupted Vivian, who apparently felt unable to keep out of the argument any longer.

“Well, I just wanted to ask those questions,” said the young man. He seemed ready to end the discussion.

“Uh-huh,” said King. “Well, I’d like to be loved by everyone, but we can’t always wait for love. Maybe you ought to read my writings. I’ve done quite a bit of writing on non-violence.”

“Well, I think you are causing violence,” the young man said.

“Would you condemn the robbed man for possessing the money to be robbed?” asked King. “Would you condemn Christ for having a commitment to truth that drove men to crucify him? Would you condemn Socrates for having the views that forced the hemlock on him? Society must condemn the robber, not the man he robs.”

“I don’t want to discuss our philosophical differences,” said the young man. “I just wanted to ask you those questions.”

“Uh-huh. Well, I’m sorry you don’t think I’m a Christian.”

“I didn’t say that.”

“Well, I’m sorry that you don’t think that what I preach is Christian, and I’m sorry you don’t think segregation is un-Christian.”

King turned back to his paper for a few moments, as if the conversation had ended—without progress but with no animosity—and then he looked up and said to the young man, “What do you think of the new civil-rights law? Do you think that’s a good law?”

“Well, I haven’t read it, but I think parts of it just carry on the trend toward federal dictatorship.”

“You sound like a good Goldwaterite,” said King, with a slight smile. “Are you going to vote for Goldwater?”

“Yes, I expect I will,” the young man said.

“It’s too bad you’re going to back a loser, because I’m afraid we’re going to hand him a decisive defeat in November.” King’s tone was light; he might have been joking with a long-time neighbor who had always been a member of the opposing political party.

“I’ve voted for losers before,” said the young man.

King turned back to his reading, and Vivian said, “What do you mean by federal dictatorship?”

The white man didn’t seem anxious to take on a fresh adversary, but he replied, “I think everything should be done at the lowest level of government.”

“How about all the federal hospitals? The roads?” said Vivian. “You say you want the federal government to stay out of everything unless it has to do it. That’s why you have those hospitals and roads in Georgia, because Georgia was too poor to pay for them. Do you know how much more Mississippi takes from the federal government per person than it puts in? You didn’t start talking about federal dictatorship until it came to race—”

“Are you asking me a question or making a speech?” said the young man.

“Both,” Vivian said.

King looked up from his paper and smiled across at the young man. “We’re all preachers, you see,” he explained, and then turned to discuss something with Mrs. Cotton as the young man was making a point to Vivian…

“There’s no need to debate this,” the young man said finally, and he began to look out the window. At Montgomery, he walked off the plane.

“What do you think of that?” King asked, shaking his head, as the white man left. “Such a young man, too. Those are the people who are rallying to Goldwater. You can’t get to him. His mind has been cold so long there’s nothing that can get to him.”

The young man returned to the plane before it left Montgomery, but, with a quick, embarrassed smile, he walked past King and the others and settled in a rear seat…”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1964/08/29/letter-from-jackson

Things Are Better than We Think

Me:
Bill Gates once said and perhaps someone else before him: "We greatly overestimate what can be accomplished in the short run, but greatly underestimate what can be accomplished in the long-run"

Are things better than we think, I certainly hope so! Because there are some folks out there on my FB feed who think the end times are imminent...

From:  "Ray Kurzweil, the author, inventor, computer scientist, futurist and Google employee…

On the effect of the modern information era: People think the world’s getting worse, and we see that on the left and the right, and we see that in other countries. People think the world is getting worse. … That’s the perception. What’s actually happening is our information about what’s wrong in the world is getting better. A century ago, there would be a battle that wiped out the next village, you’d never even hear about it. Now there’s an incident halfway around the globe and we not only hear about it, we experience it.

Me: We live this every day on FB/Twitter, between Twitter accounts that can report every happening all over the world essentially instantaneously then those FB friends who seem to revel in violence, umbrage and grievance porn on FB we live in a different world.  Folks have lamented “media” for under-reporting good news for decades but they do so because the world is mostly good news and the bad stuff is what grabs folks’ attention because well it is mostly unusual.

On the potential of human genomics: It’s not just collecting what is basically the object code of life that is expanding exponentially. Our ability to understand it, to reverse-engineer it, to simulate it, and most importantly to reprogram this outdated software is also expanding exponentially. Genes are software programs. It’s not a metaphor. They are sequences of data…

How technology will change humanity’s geographic needs: We’re only crowded because we’ve crowded ourselves into cities. Try taking a train trip across the United States, or Europe or Asia or anywhere in the world. Ninety-nine percent of the land is not used. Now, we don’t want to use it because you don’t want to be out in the boondocks if you don’t have people to work and play with. That’s already changing now that we have some level of virtual communication. We can have workgroups that are spread out. … But ultimately, we’ll have full-immersion virtual reality from within the nervous system, augmented reality.

Me: Again this was written in 2016 but with Covid this dynamic, which the internet was already facilitating, has already accelerated.  What the true implications are, we cannot yet know.

On connecting the brain directly to the cloud: We don’t yet have brain extenders directly from our brain. We do have brain extenders indirectly. I mean this (holds up his smartphone) is a brain extender. … Ultimately we’ll put them directly in our brains. But not just to do search and language translation and other types of things we do now with mobile apps, but to actually extend the very scope of our brain.

Why machines won’t displace humans: We’re going to merge with them, we’re going to make ourselves smarter. We’re already doing that. These mobile devices make us smarter. We’re routinely doing things we couldn’t possibly do without these brain extenders.

Me:
Lets just say I know some folks that could use a brain enhancement and leave it at that...

https://www.geekwire.com/2016/ray-kurzweil-world-isnt-getting-worse-information-getting-better/

Sixteen Years Ago Tonight a Different Approach to Leadership

View from Abroad: the Arsonist

Der Feuerteufel- the arsonist (a president sets his country on fire).

Or if you prefer some UK perspectives:

Americans have had the privilege always to be naval gazers.  We are a large country with a huge economy so if an American so chooses one can for the most part really ignore the rest of the world (this is a condition that impacts Chinese btw as well).  Internationals pay at times more attention to what we are doing than many of us pay to ourselves.  This is the ultimate flattery.  A flattery that is draining away.

Those of us fortunate and curious enough to have traveled and done business internationally feel the angst our friends and colleagues internationally feel as our country devolves under the current national leadership.  Folks who have not had these international opportunities do not understand the reservoirs of goodwill the U.S. has built over the decades.  For all of our faults, America has been a beacon.  A beacon culturally, a beacon politically and despite our missteps a source of stability in maintaining order throughout the world.

An administration like Trump's abuses these relationships, squanders these reservoirs of strength and goodwill and opens the door not only to our adversaries but to those internationally for whom authoritarianism is appealing.  The good news these reservoirs and the need internationally for a country like the U.S. to be strong and helpful remains huge. But the reservoirs are not limitless.  We allow these reservoirs to dry up at own peril.

The challenge, of course, is our own president appears to want his fellow citizens to believe our country is on fire so that he can play the strong man and "do what it takes" to bring back his version of "law and order".  He is wrong, the country is neither on fire, nor in need of his authoritarian cosplay.

Life Amidst Covid: Umpire and Manager with Proper Distancing

Manager and umpire arguments in 2020 are just a tad different than normal.

TV: FSMW
Stream: FSGO - https://t.co/einVSr6Rgw pic.twitter.com/kg7NAEo28h

— FOX Sports Midwest (@FSMidwest) July 26, 2020

The Ultimate Boss Move in Honor of the Late Regis Philbin

An Economics Blog Worth Following

Bill McBride at Calculated Risk plays economic numbers straight (i.e. without any apparent political or policy agenda).  Perhaps more importantly he does good graphs, which tell the story better than any narrative can.  One type of data in particular he offers is high frequency stuff (i.e. the kind reported daily or weekly as opposed to the lagged data such as GDP) which is particularly relevant as folks sort when and how our economy will re-emerge from the Covid driven slump.  If you are interested in our economic trends this is they person to track.  

https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/

Below are a couple of examples.

1) https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/07/six-high-frequency-indicators-for_20.html

2) These next two show our jobs situation or whether how massive a heart attack our economy has absorbed.  It is also useful to provide context when you hear a politician bragging about May or June job increases as that same politician was notably silent on the drop in March and April which was massively larger than the May and June increases.  If one has the data, then one can be on the look out for intellectual honesty, a trait lacking amongst many but not all politicians, sales persons, and managers etc.

When Friends and Family Embrace Trumpism...What to Do?

Short answer is I really do not know...

Have been following Bryan McGrath for maybe ten years so well back into the Obama years due to my own interest in national security issues.  He is a former naval officer that I believe makes a living consulting in that space.  He is a conservative of the traditional Reagan type (e.g. focused on national security and economic issues as opposed to cultural and anti-immigration stuff).  He is now a never-Trumper.

In his blog, while its headline purpose was criticizing yet another Trump self-serving pardon the part that caught my eye was him agonizing about his personal relationships in the age of Trump.

http://conservativewahoo.blogspot.com/2020/07/what-in-gods-name-are-they-thinking.html

"...The folks I used to huddle in the (metaphorical) foxhole with as we tried to get what I believed were principled conservatives and civilized human beings elected to the Presidency....people who turned their backs on integrity and honor in the pursuit of ephemeral political power, personal financial gain, or some combination thereof....are also uniformly silent. These are not reticent people, mind you. They are happy to speak out on what the view as Chinese perfidy, the hypocrisy of the NBA, or the Marxism of BLM (each of which by the way, they are correct about). But across the board, fear of Donald Trump and his incompressible base has rendered them limp, silent, feckless, and beside the point.

When I see them spouting off on social media about everything under the sun except the ONE BIG THING that they ignore, two things come to mind. One general, one personal.

First, I wonder if they realize how much damage they are doing to their own ability to be seen as competent and reliable voices of opposition when someone of the other party occupies the White House? They have so often surrendered the high ground to the man they've tied their fortunes to, that when the time comes for arguments to be made from it, they will not know where to go to find it. This is a serious point. Joe Biden and his team are going to have to be constrained from the right...but upon what principles will or can these people stand? Putting aside the emergency money voted as part of an economic rescue this year--this crowd silently assented as Trump knee-capped Paul Ryan and other voices calling for entitlement reform. When the inevitable call for increases in entitlement spending come, upon what arguments will they draw? Where will they find credibility? On free trade, they have willingly given the issue away. How can they reclaim it, in the light of 3.5 years of sliming it? Given the level of constant flat out corruption that they have enabled, how ever will they have the moral standing to point it out in others? 

The second thing I think about...is that I wonder what they think about me?... When these people see what I write, what do they think? Has my raving for four plus years convinced them that I am an unserious and unsophisticated person, that there is important work to be done and someone has to do it, that I am a naive waif who simply doesn't understand how the game is played? Have they long ago muted me so as a result? Has my constant reminder to them that not everyone turned their back on conscience and principle, caused them to question even one iota of their descent, or has it more likely caused them to tune me out as their self-image was strained? 

As I've written here before, I've lost friendships over all of this. There are some who consider this "sad", and an overreaction. They ask "why can't we all just get along?" and "is it really worth losing friends over?" My answer remains the same--my standards for friendship are so much higher than my standards for political affinity. You cannot be my friend if you shill for this, you cannot be my friend if you enable it, you cannot be my friend if you are so inconsistent as to repudiate core beliefs in pursuit of personal gain, you cannot be my friend if you defend the corruption and dishonesty and incivility and chaos. By doing so, you by definition do not possess the basic character necessary for being my friend.

...and I mean this with all sincerity...I hope it was worth it. I hope your time in the sun was all that you'd hoped it would be, and that when President Trump rides off into glory after his term is over, you are satisfied with what you have accomplished and the price you paid. I hope the hobbling of the GOP was worth it. I hope the reinforcement of the GOP as a white, racist party...was worth it. I hope your repudiation of 20th century American conservatism was worth it."

Me:

Strong words but ones with which I identify (excluding the fact I don't necessarily agree with him policy wise on many things although the three topics he mentioned China, NBA and China and BLM will perhaps make interesting things to write about soon enough).  I wrestle with this topic constantly.  I wonder if it is merely me becoming more strident with age or is it really that Trumpism (and it is far more than just Trump and on a future post I will warn about what I believe is coming next which will be even more dangerous).  But I do think some things are changing for the worse- Reaganism despite its popularity opened some troubling governance issues, W Bushism was far worse and Trumpism seems capable of crumbling some American edifices in ways we had thought impossible.  

I will leave it there for now but needless to say I feel McGrath's pain.

Equivalence Arguments Are Lazy and Usually Wrong

Equivalency argumentation is prevalent in every day conversation as well as amidst the talking heads that dominate what passes these days for news shows.  

From the article:
https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them. For example, a false equivalence is saying that cats and dogs are the same animal, since they’re both mammals and have a tail. False equivalences...generally exaggerate similarities and ignore important differences...

The equivalence exaggerates the degree of similarity between the things being equated...The equivalence exaggerates the importance of the similarity between the things being equated...The equivalence ignores important differences between the things being equated...The equivalence ignores differences in orders of magnitude between the things being equated..."

Me:
"All politicians are shady (or corrupt or cynical or two-faced etc.)" is a very commonly referenced false equivalency. 

Arguably most politicians are a bit shady or cynical but stopping there is not only lazy but generally inaccurate.  Ronald Reagan did some shady stuff with Iran-Contra but it was not Watergate.  Bill Clinton was fellated extramaritally (and lied about it) near the oval office  but I would argue that was nowhere near as corrosive as the Russian related moves perpetrated by Trump as outlined in the Mueller report and other sources.  

Many currently believe Trump is merely a partisan Potus.  I would argue he is something worse, far worse. For example, many political appointees have baggage but few have as much or extreme as those Trump is trying to inject into our government (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/politics/john-gibbs-opm-kfile/index.html).

The result is too often folks argue with the "yeah but" or perhaps "but waddabout" or "they all do it" whatever that might be.  And that is as far as they go before feeling they have rebutted an argument and want to move on and accept the actions of their favorite politician. In the case of Trump, making appointments with personnel who lack qualifications, are more so than ever mostly not only partisan but about specific loyalty to Trump and frankly kinda or a lot kooky.

The article goes on to bring up the dreaded "false balance" starting with a great quote:

“If one person says that it’s raining and another person says that it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and find out which is true.”— Attributed to Journalism Studies lecturer Jonathan Foster

News talk is rife with false balance.  Fox in particular loves it.  Everyone knows Sean Hannity but perhaps folks are forgetting he started as half of the "Hannity and Colmes" duo.  The late Alan Colmes seemed nice enough but he was a poodle to Hannity's alpha dog but it permitted Fox to tout their alleged "balance".  Other networks do it CNN perhaps most famously. But a show that brings on credentialed proponent on one side and a kooky hack on the other achieves the daily double a false equivalence whilst pursuing false balance and that is why amongst many reasons these cheaply produced talking head shows are worse than worthless they are misleading.

I will end this post with these two grabs:

Some Background on this Blog

Much has changed since we on a whim in September 2008 began our tiny blog (if I recall the term back then was microblog). 

This blog was originally inspired by the nomination of Sarah Palin as the Republican party’s 2008 VP nominee.  At the time, it seemed nearly unfathomable that a person without any apparent intellectual curiosity, lacking visible knowledge regarding world affairs (or really much of anything other than grievance), who embraced a sneering disdain for science, with an obviously cynical embrace of evangelical christianism, and who embraced demagoguery as her primary campaign tactic could be a nominee for one of the two major parties.  But she was and in reality she was the canary in the coal mine.

Palinism became the dominant strain in the Republican party.  John McCain and his strain of social and economic conservativism balanced at times by bi-partisan relationships and compromise mostly has disappeared; replaced initially by the deeply cynical Tea Party (recall that allegedly out of control budget deficit?) and then ultimately of course by Trumpism.  A strain of American populism harking back to John Birch, Barry Goldwater and George Wallace which during its emergence following the McCarthy era in the late 1950s and early 1960s was regarded by most as beyond the pale.  Now it is mainstream Republican policy.

Another huge change since 2008 has been the evolution of social media away from things like blogs to new platforms.  In the fall of 2008 Facebook had roughly 100 million users worldwide, today the number approaches 3 billion.  Twitter was a tiny, largely unknown start up, today roughly 300 million use the service. Those are only two of the plethora of platforms that permeate our daily lives. The eruption of social media has followed (or perhaps it is vice versa) the even greater explosion in the usage of smartphones as now most can access information anywhere, anytime and document for better or worse one’s life with the push of a button.

Even in 2008 long form media (newspapers, magazines, news shows with actual reporting as opposed to talking heads spewing hot takes) dominated.  The means by which those media were distributed was migrating rapidly to the internet via websites and blogs but it remained recognizable to those who grew up with Walter Cronkite and a local newspaper.

No more, the traditional long form media model is decimated along with the access to actual journalism it provided.  Now hot takes, memes, and quick often bot generated stories are available on every topic known to personkind.  But often they are superficial and even more so politically biased focused mostly on generating revenue producing clicks.  Media owners have learned the same dynamics which sold those cheap trashy rags like the National Enquirer will sell news- fear, umbrage, violence, titillation, and most importantly conflict.  Depth, nuance, the pursuit of “truth” is too hard to do and take the reader too long to consider.  News has become infotainment.

Social media is a water faucet spewing data but little insight. This does not mean it is bad but it does mean it takes considerable skill to consume it well.  A well-curated twitter feed can be constructive and informative.  But social media also enables that guy from high school to grab a meme or link to some shady or disreputable website and make some outlandish claim thereby providing validation to his “friends” on whatever the topic of the day is.  Perhaps one of his other “friends” might try to rebut the link but the challenge is grabbing a link maybe took that first guy 30 seconds.  Concocting a reputable rebuttal; since now we are all on the same level, one’s credentials become irrelevant it is all about his link versus your rebuttal; takes time, it takes analytical chops and it must be carefully constructed.  Few have the time or inclination to engage in this merry go round especially since one knows that guy from high school is deeply invested in his positions because at this point he has been marinating a long time in the social media infused miasma of whatever political or conspiracy swamp (left or right) grabs him these days.

So that brings me to what I will attempt to do here.  There is a small groundswell back to blogging.  Why because FB and Twitter are built for short, snappy, aggressive and superficial information (or misinformation) sharing.  With a blog one can avoid the superficial hot takes, avoid grabbing a link or photo and saying there! They suck! Take that you ignorant confused moron (to be clear I am saying only I will try!). I will seek something with some more depth.  But I do so with great trepidation.

Social media has been very humbling.  To think one’s insights are worthy of being read is inherently arrogant.  I was used to being considered one of the smart folks in the room.  But no longer, social media levels the playing field as some random friend of a friend has no idea who you are you are just “Trey from Chicago”.  Even worse after having engaged with former classmates, colleagues and family who might have some context regarding me personally at this point they really do not consider my credentials relevant one way or the other, which obviously may speak to me not being nearly as credentialed as I think.  But it also speaks to how folks these days are devolving into tribes and regardless of the “facts” or the “truth” if something does not fit their tribe’s narrative they just will not care.  It speaks to how many seem to follow the Trumpian approach of doubling down on their tribal instincts, never reflect, never apologize just bull ahead.  This by the way is a tried and true PR concept most famously exhibited by Roy Cohn a person Trump greatly admires.  So we shall see.

A further note, this is just a hobby.  The production values here are very limited.  The blog detritus left over from 2008-2010 contains many broken links which will not repaired.  The format is messy.  Previously I had a fellow contributor, Ms. White.  Her stuff was mostly better than mine.  I have tried cajoling her into resuming her posting, thus far she chooses not to do so.  We shall see if this modest effort results in something constructive or merely yet another contribution to the swamp.