Why Trump Is Doing So Well–in Song

Dumpster Diving for the News

One of my mentors, Ron Dart, made a humorous comment about the propensity for certain people to read odd religious literature in the search for "truth." He called it dumpster diving. In the same way people "dumpster dive" some news outlets looking for the latest political or world news. The effect is the same in either case. Some people find a piece of crap, and decide to eat it.

Let me give you an example from someone who I usually agree with, Paul Craig Roberts. It was noticed that Belgium was buying a lot of US treasury debt all out of proportion to what it should have been able to buy. Obviously a straw buyer was involved. The usual explanation was that the Chinese or the Russians were using Belgium to hide their US bond purchases. Roberts, a former assistant Treasury secretary and former editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, came to the bizarre conclusion that the Federal Reserve was the real buyer. No proof was offered, and in fact despite Roberts' insistence, such a purchase, if secret, would have been illegal. Here is his defense of this. 

With the recent chaos in China and the need to sell treasury bonds, it is now known that it was China who bought the U.S. Bonds through Belgium, as it sold lots of bonds to protect its currency, the yuan. Roberts was wrong, in fact he was stupidly wrong. Anyone who paid attention to him was dumpster diving for truth.

One should only read traditional news outlets. Well, er ... not so much either. They are better, but the way traditional news is manipulated is that the "gates" of the nightly news casts are controlled by people who think the same way, and the result is that unless a story fits the meme that is being advanced it does not get broadcast.

In the case of Roberts, the issue involved is called confirmation bias. Since a large number of readers of Roberts, maybe most of them, despise the Federal Reserve, anything said against it will tend to be believed. Since I am suspicious of the Fed, I need to be more careful than usual when I read about it. Roberts' error in the article on the bond purchases was an example of confirmation bias on Roberts' part.

So the only solution is to understand that we have confirmations bias tendencies. The only solution is to read different viewpoints on any subject one is interested in. While our individual biases will still exist, if we read widely, we might better recognize them and not deceive ourselves.

Frail Grasp of the Big Picture

One of my favorite  songs is the Eagle's  "Frail Grasp of the Big Picture." The song tells us about the modern civil religion that combines a pseudochristianity with various Americanisms like praying before football games. The lyrics say "He presides over football games." Does  God preside over football games? Putting it that way makes such prayer seem silly--as it should. But I am reminded of this song with regards to the Kim Davis hoopla. 

A Kentucky county clerk who has become a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage  was jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses to gay couples. The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained for contempt of court and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release. Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage

Why does Kim Davis remind me of the song? Before I answer that question let's talk about a fallacy that is often used in political discourse that I need to be careful to avoid. It is called "Argumentation to the Man," or for those that like Latin, ad hominem. Wikipedia describes it this way: 

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

There are some aspects of Kim Davis' life that bear on the issue. As in the Wiki definition, to point out personal details of a person's life is not necessarily an ad hominem argument if those facts relate to the subject in question. 

According to an article in US News and World Report, Davis, who is now 48, married her first husband Dwain when she was 18, and they divorced in 1994. Five months after that divorce, she gave birth to twins. The twins' father was Thomas, a man who would later become husband number 3. However, instead of marrying Thomas right away, she married Joe, husband number 2 in 1996. Joe adopted the twins. In 2006, Davis divorced Joe and married husband number 3 (Thomas) who had fathered the twins. But in 2008, she divorced Thomas and RE-married Joe. 

In other words, her current husband, Joe Davis, is, all at the same time, her second husband, fourth husband, current husband, and ex-husband. 

Why is ANY of this relevant to the county clerk situation in the news? 

In insisting she is unable to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, Davis would cite the following scripture. 

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them. Leviticus 20:13. 

Thus Davis insists she is unable to issue a marriage license lest she be seen by God to be approving "an abomination." 

This makes sense logically. However...just one Bible book later, in Deuteronomy, we read this in chapter 24:  

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife, 4Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD. And thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Maybe I am easily amused, but considering the Hebrew word in the original biblical writings for abomination in Leviticus against homosexuality is the same word used in Deuteronomy against this kind of remarriage, it seems to me that if Kim Davis had been county clerk at that time of her remarriage to her second husband she could not have issued a marriage license to herself.

And while one could assert that Kim Davis had been "forgiven" for all her past sins when she became an Apostolic Christian...her marriage to Joe is still, according to the passage in Deuteronomy, an abomination. Just as most Apostolic Christians would consider that a homosexual could only be forgiven for homosexual acts if he quit doing them, it would seem that Kim Davis would be required to abandon her "abominable" marriage to Joe in order to be forgiven. (Which, of course, would require another divorce.)

Considering the lack of marital fidelity in the Christian world, how would the reaction differ if Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced people? After all, some do have a religious belief that forbids remarriage after divorce. For example, could a Catholic county clerk (an elected job ... Kim Davis was elected to her position) refuse to issue a marriage license to any divorced person who did not have permission of the Catholic Church to remarry? The logic would dictate that that clerk could, and even should, refuse to issue the license. 

So arguments about Kim Davis’ looks is ad hominem, but talking about her argument isn’t. So no, pointing out the inconsistency is not an argument to the man. Those who are getting all hot and bothered by this case need to ask themselves why. Would you feel the same way if a clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced couples? 

So it seems to me that many have a Frail Grasp on the Big Picture. 

Here is a cover of that Eagles song.

(Those interested in the legal aspects of this case can read Eugene Volokh. Since Davis is not refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays, only refusing to issue them if her name is on them, it seems to me that the Federal judge overreacted. This will be solved with an executive order by the governor or a change in the law which requires Kim Davis signature on marriage licenses.) It looks like she has been released while this post was being prepared.

In addition to her normal volunteering as editor of this blog, Pam Dewey contributed to this blog post.  

Donald Trump and the Bandwagon Effect

I searched for the dumbest Trump photo I could find, note that this is a technique to ridicule him-it is propaganda.Why is Donald Trump doing so  well?  

One reason is that America is broken and Trump is about the only candidate saying this. So many voters are willing to "put up with" his oddness. 

Middle class income has not been going up for years, some think decades. Many think that the reasons include foreign imports driving down prices, making manufacturing unviable for many products in the US, and illegal workers driving down the price of labor. As these are Trump's main issues, this is bound to help him. I even agree with him on these issues. But how can I vote for anyone who suggests invading Iran and stealing its oil? This is certifiably crazy. 

Another factor in his popularity is the Bandwagon effect. Things become popular because they are popular.

Here is how Wikipedia describes it: 

The bandwagon effect is a phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases the more that they have already been adopted by others. In other words, the bandwagon effect is characterized by the probability of individual adoption increasing with respect to the proportion who have already done so.  As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

In other words Trump is popular because he is popular. 

If you honestly think that Trump is the correct candidate, and you vote, who am I to tell you not to support him? However I do point out the bandwagon effect in order for this support to be honestly considered without the hype. Remember that many are trying to play you for their own purposes. This includes Trump. Do not fall for the bandwagon template. Think for yourself. 

The Museum of the Russian Revolution of 1905

Barricades in MoscowThose of you who remember your high school history might be saying to yourself: "Doesn't he mean the Revolution of 1917?"

No, there actually was a revolution in Russia that failed in 1905. Here is the Wikipedia discussion of the causes of that revolution:

According to the author Sidney Harcave, who wrote The Russian Revolution of 1905, there were four problems in Russian society at the time that contributed to the revolution: the agrarian problem, the nationality problem, the labour problem, and the educated class problem. Taken individually, these issues may not have affected the course of Russian history, combined the problems created the conditions for a potential revolution.

"At the turn of the century, discontent with the Tsar’s dictatorship was manifested not only through the growth of political parties dedicated to the overthrow of the monarchy but also through industrial strikes for better wages and working conditions, protests and riots among peasants, university demonstrations, and the assassination of government officials, often done by Socialist Revolutionaries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_1905

There were some reforms as a result of this uprising, but since there was another revolution in 1917, it was not enough.

We more or less stumbled upon the museum while we were walking in Moscow and leaving a Church (the ladies having to stay outside as they had no scarfs. For those interested in this Biblical issue click here) Igor mentioned that a house we walked by was where the Revolution of 1905 was planned. Next door was a museum and Diorama. We returned after our boat ride and saw the museum.

Bloody Sunday In St Petersburg I most enjoyed the paintings that depicted the city and the society of 1905. It also included a large number of artifacts from that time–a printing press, beds that would have been used by workers (they did not look comfortable), and lots of other artifacts too numerous to mention. There were also rooms that had items from the Great Patriotic War (WWII to us) and a large room dedicated to the uprising in Moscow that ended communism in 1991 by opposing a military-led coup against Gorbachev. (I will talk about this later.)

Most impressive was the diorama of the Revolution. In a large room, and done in various scales to show distance, was a layout of Moscow in 1905. Except for when we are kids and we do dinosaur dioramas, and the occasional Disney diorama desperately in need of refurbishing that we might see, dioramas are a lost art for Americans. We were seated right in front of a reconstruction of a barricade.

There was sound effects, and lights of the various things that happened on that day. The narration was in Russian, but it looked impressive. After the Russian version, there was a delay and the Russians left. We stayed and the English version was played just for me. While it was shorter, it was also impressive.

The assistant director then gave us a private tour of the rest of the museum since I was English-speaking and he had a modest amount of English. Mostly he read from an old script in English for me to explain the various exhibits. While traveling in Russia does present linguistic difficulties for an English speaker, the Russians go out of their way to be helpful, and the private tour was a prime example of this. Click here for a brief description of the museum.

One interesting thing that happened was that the narration in English talked about the workers, and solidarity and so on, typical soviet propaganda as the narration was written before the fall of the Soviet Union. But the more I thought about it, the less like propaganda it seemed. Does anyone doubt that workers were mistreated in Russia in 1905? Not if you have any sense of history at all.

Of course American workers were well treated at that time! Oh...wait...I just remembered a variety of blog entries that the beloved editor of this blog, Pam Dewey, has done on the treatment of American workers at March on the Tsars Winter Palace. As you can see from the above painting it did not end well. roughly the same time as the Revolution of 1905--it was not pretty. A sample:

"Pinching Pennies--'til They Screamed" (Expose' of horrific working conditions of young women employed in Department Stores in New York City, from McClure's magazine in 1910)

"Plausible Deniability" (Overview of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City that killed 146 people, most of them young women 16 to 23, caused by hellish working conditions)

"And a Little Child Shall Lead Them" (Five-part series on the horrors of Child Labor in America around the turn of the 19th/20th Century)

This is leading me to return to a subject I talked about on occasion before my blog's hiatus. I have talked before about what I call templates, or ways of looking at the world that we all use. These can be helpful, but they can also lead to error. If we accept the propaganda we read without critical thought, we will end up parroting what we are supposed to believe.

Would I have been on the barricades fighting the Tsar? I am not sure. But will you join me on a metaphorical barricade as I begin to talk about the templates we use and propaganda?