Blog entry 9 - On being Factful

Blog entry 9 - On being Factful

I just finished a very interesting book.  Factfulness - Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think, by Hans Rosling.  I found it very interesting, and of deep concern.

I highly recommend this book, by the way.  I also highly recommend reading, in general.  It promotes thoughtfulness; watching stuff on TV and online tends to promote more knee-jerk responsiveness than thoughtfulness.  Unless you're watching Cosmos or Planet Earth or something...

Among the other things it talks about repeatedly are 13 questions, multiple choice, about the global situation.  Spoiler alert: On a global basis, we tend to think things are much worse than they actually are.  I took the quiz, and got 4 right out of the first 12 (the 13th would be a gimme to most informed people).  Hans points out that _chimps_, randomly, would get 4 out of 12 right with 3 choices per question.  And that the average overall, globally, is 2 correct answers.  For just about every type of person.  The less "informed", probably the better they do.

One point that he makes in his book is that we're prone to hear negative stories and generalize them excessively.  Girls aren't allowed in schools in Afghanistan?  We conclude that's what "the undeveloped countries" are like.  It's hard to get inoculations for kids to parts of the world?  Is that common?  It turns out it truly isn't.

I'm a world traveler.  Not like my friend Ed - I've never been places where I carry rocks to throw at feral dogs - but I've been to China, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Turkey, Croatia, Italy, France, Belgium, Norway, the UK, Ireland, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, Luxembourg, Germany... I've seen people scavenging for food in garbage piles, and been in a bus in a foreign country stopped by guys holding assault weapons, and seen people whose houses were essentially built with piles of rocks.  I didn't ever volunteer for a Peace Corps assignment or anything, but I think of myself as interested, and at least somewhat informed.

And my view of the world is probably, essentially, 30 years out of date.  What I was taught in high school, what I thought of as base information, is truly not valid.

The world has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, according to Hans.  And he had numbers to back it all up.

(Hans died last year, hence the past tense...)

Why does this matter?

I doubt that we, as Americans, are truly much more informed about our own country, in terms of factuality.  For much of the same reasons.

We're driven by fear of things that aren't very probable.  Republicans were apparently driven by fear that Obama would take away his guns.  Democrats are driven by fear that Kavanaugh will take away abortion choice.

We are deeply influenced by recent events, and miss the long-term trends.  Democrats and BLM get upset about police violence against black victims - is it much worse than it was before, or has it always been bad and now we just are more aware of it?  Republicans are upset about immigrants committing crimes - are immigrants committing more crimes than other people, or are there always people committing crimes in every population?  Aren't things actually getting better, on both sides?  Crime overall is down; misbehavior by police is being publicized, and people are being sued and losing, when they misbehave.  Maybe not enough.  Maybe things aren't improving quickly enough.  But the long-term trend has been positive, in general.

We're called to urgently take action because of some artificial deadline.  Republicans _had_ to confirm Kavanaugh before all the facts were understood.  Democrats _have_ to retake the House in 2018 or America will cease to exist as a democracy.  In fact, those short-term priorities can distract us from making reasonable decisions.  Hans relates a story where a road is closed to try to protect a city from a potential outbreak, which leads people to take boats, which capsize, and 18 people die... because they needed to do SOMETHING, RIGHT AWAY.  Cases that come to mind for me are Kavanaugh, and Iraq, and Al Franken resigning... and almost all the Republican actions for the past 2 years.  If they didn't feel like the clock was ticking, wouldn't they have actually welcomed discussion and debate instead of unilaterally reducing national monuments, rolling back environmental protections which will end up sickening and killing people, confirming a justice who will be in grave danger for the rest of his life of being impeached, supporting a President who does not truly share the values of the rest of the leaders of his party, ... Note that Democrats were just as eager to invade Iraq as Republicans were, it was framed as "We have to take action!", when we DIDN'T have to take action, Saddam was completely contained, and he wasn't involved in the terrorism anyway.  I think Republicans have _institutionalized_ lack of foresight/lack of discussion/promoting a sense of urgency to support actions they want to take, but there are certainly cases of it by Democrats too.

I wanted to take a step back and examine my beliefs and my values.  And I want to do so on an ongoing basis, rather than taking core beliefs for granted.

I started this blog because of my unhappiness... ok, anger... that we, as a country, were willing to have a Supreme Court justice confirmed who committed perjury.  I remain dedicated to that.  But, stepping back, I understand that we've probably had Supreme Court justices who were bad men before.  Perjurers.  Attempted rapists.  Probably worse.  We do have information on which to base Kavanaugh's perjury, at a minimum.  But either our Supreme Court is strong enough to deal with 1 bad man... or there are more bad men there that we failed to keep off it before.  Either we have a certain trust in our institutions, regardless of how much Republicans are intentionally damaging/deconstructing them, or they weren't very strong to begin with and we need to improve them.  Sure, Republicans are intentionally chipping away at a dam that was supposed to protect us all, but we are LETTING THEM DO IT!  And we really ought to help them understand that, when the dam breaks, they too will drown.

Hans talks in the book about how climate change is a real and ominous threat... and yet he refused to help Al Gore "sell" it as more dire than it actually is.  I don't know if climate skeptics ought to read this book because of that anecdote, or whether they need to avoid it because factfulness would destroy their opposition to doing something about it.  Maybe their heads would explode.

Hans said we should teach people that cultural and religious stereotypes are useless for understanding the world.  That goes for everyone who talks about the "other" side negatively, or talks positively about their own side in comparison.  Republicans with knee-jerk talk about "the left" as if they're the enemy... and Democrats with knee-jerk opposition to all Republican stances.  I know, this is VERY hard to do properly since there are so many awful Republican stances, but they should each be examined and opposed based on the individual case rather than simply because of the party that is proposing them.  Some kind of retirement reform will be necessary as the working population shrinks and the retired population grows.  Some kind of medical benefits control will be needed as medical costs continue to rise and people live longer with more ongoing medical issues.  Personally, I think we will need to recognize that it's better for older people to choose to die than to spend huge amounts of our money keeping people alive who really want to die.  Personally, I think it's absurd to take religious steps to prevent people from ending unwanted pregnancies.  I could go on and on, but it's getting late, time for bed.  Time for more thoughts later, I trust...

Blog entry 8 - Learning more about real-world politics

Blog entry 8 - Learning more about real-world politics

I participated in a webinar today from Indivisible, covering GOTV (Get Out The Vote).  It was interesting, and I wished I had taken it before canvassing on Saturday.  Instead of just handing out flyers, we could have engaged more, convincing people to vote who were on the fence.  Ah well... it's something I can get better at, clearly.  And I'm in this for the long haul now.  I hold no illusions that this country will be pulled back on course in a short period of time.  It's taken the Republicans a very small amount of time to do a lot of damage, but healing it will not be so fast.  In many ways, we've essentially been set back to where we were in the '90s.  At least, that's how it feels to me.  Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves forward.  But there's no divine right that America ought to somehow always advance.  Sometimes, we go backwards, and that's the way of the world.  I look at bright signs, like the fact that every other country on the planet is at least acknowledging the importance of addressing climate change, and that large parts of the US are doing so as well.  Progress isn't linear, nor necessarily in the right direction all the time.  But, if we keep trying to do better, eventually things will improve.  And our day-to-day lives are quite good.

I'm currently reading Factfulness, a book that Bill Gates highly recommends.  Maybe it's rubbing off on me a bit.  I'm convinced of the immense progress that has been made worldwide.  Sometimes with assistance from the US, but not always.  It does give me hope.

Blog entry 7 - Thoughts on action

Blog entry 7 - Thoughts on action

Today was the first day I've visited a Democratic Party campaign headquarters.

Today was the first day I've canvassed for a Democratic politician.  (Jamie McLeod-Skinner, who is a Democrat running for our representative in Congress against Greg Walden, who I do NOT support.)

(I've worked phone banks and canvassed and placed lawn signs for school bonds and library bonds before, but not for a party-affiliated politician.)

I had wanted to take action of some kind, and, now that I've done it, I am glad to have contributed.  But I am not convinced that we made a difference.

Kathy and I went out together, visiting the homes of 46 voters registered as non-Republicans.  Most of them weren't home.  A couple were enthusiastic supporters of Jamie McLeod-Skinner already.  A lot of those who were home were undecided.  And it turned out that a surprising number were not actually the voters who were on our list.  Apparently, Bend has lots of cases where people are renting out their houses, perhaps not fully legally.  In terms of rallying support for our cause, it did not feel like we made much of an impact.

Perhaps the most concerning interaction was with a guy working on one of the houses.  We asked if he was voting, I actually don't remember his answer.  We handed him a flyer, and he said he wouldn't vote for a Democrat, they were all controlled by the Clintons, and they were attacking Supreme Court justices, that Ford was actually lying about lie detector tests and had coached other people for 8 years on how to defeat lie detector tests.  We decided not to engage with this guy, but I really wanted to ask him whether he had watched the testimony, and ask if he was completely certain who was lying and who was telling the truth.  I doubt it would have mattered to him.  He had his worldview, and it was not changing, no matter what.  Central Oregon is filled with people like him.  I doubt McLeod-Skinner will be able to win with people like that in her district.  Still, it's worth making the effort to inform people who haven't made up their minds yet.  We'll do what we can, and we will see what happens.

I doubt canvassing and phone banks and such will sway more than a very small percentage of voters.  How DO you reach people effectively?  I also doubt the TV and radio ads truly help.  Maybe the right course of action is to just go down to bars and talk with people one on one.  On the other hand, maybe that's a great way to get into a fight.  Hmm...

Blog entry 6: Productive discussions

Blog entry 6: Productive discussions

My friend Andy posted a comment on an earlier blog entry: “Q: if drone strikes are abominable to you, Scott, does that mean you vigorously opposed Obama in 2012 and campaigned for his opponent? I think not.”.  I would like to explore his comment in-depth.  It may take multiple posts.

What are the differences between conversations, discussions, debates and arguments?

We have these sorts of interactions all the time.  (Andy and I do, but I think it’s common in today’s world.)  We may have conversations, that are simply sharing of information and opinions that are completely inconsequential, probably forgotten 5 minutes later.  We may have discussions, which are probably around a variety of topics, but which may have a central theme of some kind.  We may have debates, which, in theory, have a mutually-understood and perhaps explicitly-identified topic, often formulated as a question, intended to reach an answer that may or may not be convincing to people whose minds had not been made up (and even sway people whose minds HAD been made up).  And we have arguments, which essentially are not even pretending to convince the other side, but are expressing our displeasure about people who we see as attacking us.  I may be missing some important types of communication, but these seem inherently different to me.

One of the hallmarks of our polarized times is that we can’t seem to have discussions anymore with people who don’t share our beliefs.  Discussions become debates, debates become arguments, and we all end up shouting at each other.

I do not see Andy’s comment as intended to be a discussion.  I don’t even see it as a debate.  I see it as an argument.  If I interpret it as part of a discussion or debate, though, it would be useful to figure out what Andy is trying to say.  I’m in tech support, and part of my daily job is to answer the question “what problem are we trying to solve.”  Maybe it will be helpful to apply that here:

What question or statement is Andy making, consciously or unconsciously?  Here are some possibilities I see:

“You claim we lost our way, and drone strikes are an example.  I think we did NOT lose our way.  I think drone strikes are good, and I’m proud of them, I’m defending our country and drone strikes.”

“You are being a hypocrite if you say that we lost our way and you didn’t take action 6 years ago.  I hate hypocrisy.”

“Let’s shift this discussion to criticize Obama, who isn’t directly relevant to anything that has been mentioned and isn’t currently in power, because I really like criticizing Obama.  Attack the other side!”

“Let’s shift this discussion to criticize Obama, because I’m uncomfortable with any criticism of those who are currently in power, yet I don’t actually want to defend them.  Deflect!”

Fine, there’s a spectrum of conversation/discussion/debate/argument.  What’s so awful about arguments?   Are debates better than arguments?  Are discussions better than debates?

I certainly don’t see arguments as constructive.  They don’t truly change people’s minds.  All they do is escalate the conflict.  I’ve been characterized as conflict-averse, and I think I’m _argument_-averse, but I embrace the search for solutions.  I’m human, I tend to push back if I’m pushed, so I cop to sometimes arguing.  But that’s not my objective.

The problem with debates is that, to truly be successful, they have to focus on “a question”.  And there’s disagreement about what that question ought to be.  Essentially, there needs to be a debate about what the debate is.  And people who think the question misses the point will always be motivated to push the debate to another topic.  Discussions seem like a more desirable objective to me.

The Kavanaugh confirmation was an excellent example.  On the surface, it seemed like an incredibly simple question to debate: Should Kavanaugh be confirmed?  It certainly FELT to me like a simple question, which essentially boiled down to: Will Kavanaugh act as a good Supreme Court justice?  Which then veered into Is Kavanaugh an honorable person?  And then Has Kavanaugh been demonstrated to have committed sexual assault?  And ultimately Should Republicans be allowed to confirm someone despite his being accused of / committed sexual assault?  Ultimately, people took sides.  People argued.  There was less and less opportunity for debate or discussion, there was more and more polarization.

What can we do to shift arguments to debates, and debates to discussions?

THAT, in my opinion, is the really important question.  Part of it is listening.  If we truly listen to those who we disagree with, AND those who we agree with, and allow ourselves to think critically instead of succumbing to knee-jerk reactions, I think it encourages discussions and discourages arguments.  AYSO coaches training talks about making sure that any criticism you offer is sandwiched between 2 compliments.  This is incredibly hard!  I suck at it.  I tend to focus on “what should we do to make things better?”, which is constantly finding and expressing negativity.  I take good things for granted, they’re already good so why should we change them?  I welcome people who provide constructive criticism to me.  But it helps me hear it if it is framed as a discussion rather than an argument.

What ARE the differences between hypocrisy, inconsistency, complex situations, and changing your mind?

One of the arguments that Andy has made (along with others) is that Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct, but so was Clinton, and Democrats defended Clinton, so therefore Democrats ought to defend, or at least not attack, Kavanaugh for something comparable.  And that therefore they’re hypocrites.  I’ve always found this kind of argument incredibly odd, since it can be turned around exactly to the other side: Republicans attacked Clinton for his sexual misconduct, yet they aggressively defended Kavanaugh and attacked Ford.  And Andy essentially appears to be attacking me for hypocrisy, based on his accusation that I ought to have campaigned against Obama “vigorously” if I dislike drone strikes.  While I disagree with the drone strikes – if we wouldn’t support them in the US, we ought not support them elsewhere in the world – I think that I’ve opposed them equally over time.  I happen to have been consistent regarding drone strikes.  I don’t think anyone can accuse me otherwise.

However, I have become more politically active over the past 2 years.  Funny thing!  I’m much more passionate about the areas that I consider significantly worse than they used to be.  I think I’ve responded to the world changing around me, which is pretty much what humans ought to do in life.  I certainly don’t see that as objectionable.  I was quite unhappy with much of what Bush did while President, but I took no real action.  I was happy with Obama as a President, but was unhappy with Congress at that time, yet I took no political action (other than voting).  I’ve responded to changes in the world around me.  In my opinion, I’ve grown wiser.

I’m sure there are other accusations that Andy could make against me where my opinions would be less consistent over time, and that would potentially fuel a charge of inconsistency or perhaps even hypocrisy.  I think it’s important to recognize the differences between inconsistency and hypocrisy.  Inconsistency is almost a built-in part of the world.  We invaded Iraq because we were convinced that they were a threat.  We’ve been convinced that North Korea was a threat, but we didn’t invade them, because there were other factors to consider, like the threat North Korea poses to South Korea – to a large extent, we invaded Iraq not because it _was_ a threat but because it _wasn’t_.  But inconsistency and hypocrisy are different, in that hypocrisy means treating yourself or those you hold dear differently than strangers or those who you consider enemies.  Donald Trump was hypocritical when he opposed immigration yet Melania’s relatives were allowed to become US citizens.  Senate Republicans were hypocritical when they insisted that Kavanaugh be believed because there was no proof yet Ford was not believed because she had no proof.  McConnell was hypocritical because he insisted on not voting on Garland but insisted on rushing the vote on Kavanaugh.  Being inconsistent is not normally considered a moral failing, but being hypocritical is definitely seen as a moral failing.

I think it’s important to consider the difference between hypocrisy, inconsistency and changing your mind.  I would hope that we do think differently as we gain knowledge and wisdom, and that our opinions change.  For instance, when I was younger, I absolutely believed that the death penalty was appropriate for certain crimes.  While I still think, in the abstract, that people who commit horrific crimes deserve to die, I no longer believe that the state ought to carry out executions.  There are too many cases of innocent people being killed, exonerated years later in some cases.  There are too many cases of eyewitnesses who testify against a defendant who is later exonerated by DNA evidence.  People make mistakes.  And an execution is simply impossible to undo.  That’s one example I have where my opinions have changed.  Does that make my earlier opinion wrong?  It means I’m open-minded enough to consider different ideas over time.

Considering all this, I see no need to apologize for not vigorously opposing Obama regarding drone strikes in 2012.  I certainly don’t see it as any kind of inconsistency.  And I don’t really see it as relevant to my overall point.  I do hope that, rather than arguing over some kind of tangential-at-best topic, we could discuss questions that matter today, about people abusing power today, who may be countered by midterm elections in less than a month.

It’s been a busy day, I haven't done much politically today.  I turned down a request for more help from Doctors Without Borders, because we’re giving to political campaigns at higher levels than I had planned.  I deeply suspect that we will donate more to political campaigns than any tax savings we might receive from the Republican tax giveaway.  Which is fine… but we’re giving to enough non-political causes for now, and I want to focus on reversing these terrible situations.  Republicans depriving Americans of their right to vote.  Republicans forcing a bad Supreme Court justice on us.  Republicans supporting Donald Trump in his mis-management of our country.  I have 1 month to make a difference in the midterm elections, and just over 2 years to make a difference in the next Presidential elections to replace Trump with a Democrat, and just over 4 years to complete a full cycle of Senate elections in which I hope to drive a comprehensive Democrat majority in the House and Senate.  There’s a lot to do.

Blog entry 5 – Propaganda, truth, and critical thinking

Blog entry 5 – Propaganda, truth, and critical thinking

In many ways, Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings were yet another instance of people essentially being told “believe me, don’t believe my opponents”.  To some extent, on both sides.  “I believe Kavanaugh” or “I believe Ford” were repeatedly stated.

Can we examine our beliefs more critically?

I certainly think we can, and should.  Compare “I believe xxx” with “trust but verify” or “question authority”.  Which seems stronger, a better basis for making decisions/forming opinions?

Apply this to Kavanaugh.  On one hand, we will never truly know what happened in that bedroom decades ago.  It’s not 100% certain that Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s memories themselves, or those of anyone else “involved”, could be trusted, even if those people were 100% honest.  People have been hypnotized or traumatized to believe in memories of things that never happened.  It’s not necessarily a sign of lying.  Our minds protect ourselves from painful or dangerous memories.  Oliver Sacks had an example of this, where he has vivid memories of an attack during the blitz, but he wasn’t there – his brother described what happened later, so vividly that Oliver’s mind remembered it as his own memory years later.

So, set aside what we _don’t_ know, and instead look at the self-consistency of the statements and demeanors of the participants.  I’ve mentioned earlier all the ways that Kavanaugh was lying.  At least some of those are self-contained lies (he cannot both have been at a gathering with Judge and a couple other people, and also had it never happen).  Others are deflections from questions that he didn’t want to answer (have YOU ever blacked out after drinking, Senator?) (descriptions of himself as a model student, who of course wouldn’t ever misbehave, to avoid answering questions posed directly).  Any belief that one might have had in Kavanaugh’s innocence ought to, at a minimum, be challenged by these actions.  Meanwhile, Ford’s testimony is incredibly consistent.  Her words and her demeanor are self-consistent.  She doesn’t remember everything, but that’s not surprising about an event she has presumably tried to forget for the past 36 years.

How does this relate to propaganda?

Conservative news sources was constantly hammering presumptions and untrue statements at us.  Trump was, of course, one of the leading voices, going on and on about how Kavanaugh was being attacked politically with baseless claims, and he was sure of Kavanaugh’s innocence.  You can claim that he was merely sharing his beliefs… but they had no foundation in fact.  Ditto for the Senate Republicans who pushed the timetable forward the more questions were raised, and who repeatedly said that they would hold the hearings and THEN confirm him – essentially signaling that the hearings were intended merely as window dressing.  All the conservative news outlets stated untruths about Kavanaugh’s innocence, stating that all of Ford’s witnesses said there was no gathering like she described, when that was not, in fact, what they said, and at least 1 of those few people said they believed Ford, and another was Judge, a co-defendant in Ford’s accusations.

Was this limited to Republicans?  Is propaganda, and lack of critical thinking, partisan?  Are Democrats immune from this?

It wasn’t _limited_ to Republicans.  There were certainly ample Democrats who professed that they disbelieved Kavanaugh and believed Ford, with both, as far as I can tell, being based on wishful thinking rather than actual analysis.  I received emails about fighting Kavanaugh before any of the accusations against him, and those sources were quite happy to just on the accusation bandwagon for their own purposes.  I’ve received critical comments from both sides when I’ve made points about looking at the testimony and the situation carefully.  Maybe everyone everywhere gets critical comments from both sides, I don’t know.

People keep talking about “truth”.  Is there an objective truth?

It is clear to me that, examining possibilities, one can usually identify lies.  I often don’t know what is really true.  But I have been able to discern untruths.

The really tricky thing is convincing other people of what’s untrue.  I’ve read suggestions about placing bets, and about having neutral arbiters trusted by both sides.  I haven’t found that to be incredibly useful so far.  If anyone has any advice, I would be interested in hearing it.  Maybe, after the dress color thing on the internet, people truly do believe that black is white, that lies and truth are just dependent on where you’re standing.  I abhor that idea.  I think that the world is full of gray, rather than stark black and white.  But there are statements that are wholly untrue, and people who claim they are wholly true are damaging themselves, their community, and our country.  They ought to be opposed.

Another day of little action.  I’m hoping to make more progress this weekend.  I plan to sign up for an Indivisible phonebank training webinar on Tuesday evening.  Then there will be 6 opportunities to do phonebank calls after that on their schedule.  I’ve done phonebank calls for local issues before, but not for candidates in other states.  If anyone has any experience with this, please let me know.  Thanks! 

Blog entry 4 - Support for Kavanaugh's confirmation

Blog entry 4 – Support for Kavanaugh’s confirmation

Although it pretty much feels like it to me in this case, I understand that nothing is truly black and white.  Here are what I perceive as objections to my criticisms.

Kavanaugh’s reputation was destroyed by these baseless accusations against him.  Any other Supreme Court nominee will be unwilling to accept the nomination if this kind of practice is allowed.  Isn’t this sufficient justification for Kavanaugh to have been confirmed?

First of all, Ford’s accusation apparently was “basefull”.  A baseless accusation isn’t one that hasn’t been proven, it’s one that is made up, with no basis in truth.  I truly doubt Kavanaugh would have behaved the way he did with a baseless accusation – his behavior seemed clear to me to confirm that he was hiding something, refusing to answer direct questions, turning questions back against the questioner, deflecting questioning, and ultimately being protected from the prosecutor’s questioning by his supporting senators, who themselves deflected the discussion from his testimony.  Kavanaugh has been accused of a lot of other bad behavior, and I, for one, have an extremely hard time discerning which accusations are baseless and which have merit.  I understand that at least 1 accusation was identified as false, pretty quickly.  That doesn’t make them all false.

Second, with the understanding that we have reasonable expectation that at least some of those accusations have some validity, Kavanaugh chose to continue forward with his nomination rather than withdraw it.  In many other cases like this, the nominee would simply withdraw.  The severe damage to his reputation is largely his own doing.  Unless you truly believe he is lily white and perfect, and that NONE of what he was accused of has an ounce of truth, he treated this as a battle he chose to fight.

In fact, if anything resulted from the hearing, it’s that Ford’s testimony was discounted out of hand by the Senate Republicans, and by a large part of the country.  The person whose reputation and livelihood has suffered deeply is Ford.  She lives in Palo Alto, and she and her family can’t go home.  Unlike Kavanaugh, she has no security.  She has received death threats.  Those who are worried about reputations might spare a thought for Ford’s.  She never had anything to gain personally, and much to lose.  And, despite all the #MeToo comments, I think many victims of sexual attacks will conclude that their reputations would be destroyed if they step forward.

But I can certainly envision people being accused of things baselessly.  I definitely think that’s a bad thing. I think people ought to care about whether accusations are true or not.  I just don’t think, on balance, that it’s Democrats who make baseless accusations in general, so having Republicans claim that politics in general will be demeaned by baseless accusations because of this precedent is actually slightly funny.  Maybe there’s something special about “baseless” sexual accusations.

Should Americans be so hung up about sex/sexual conduct/accusations of sexual misbehavior?

Personally, I think we waste a huge amount of time on judging people based on sexual preferences and accusations of sexual behavior.  In both directions.  We spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about whether same-sex couples have the right to have a wedding cake baked by a specific baker.  Or which bathroom someone should/must use/be able to use.  And we spend a huge amount of time worrying about a coverup of Trump’s extramarital affair(s).  Not my business.  Not my concern.  In this case, of course, Kavanaugh _isn’t_ accused of consensual activity, but of sexual assault.  He has become a symbol of all that is wrong with men for liberal women, and a symbol of all that is dangerous about accusations of sexual misdeeds by conservative men.  Both of those muddy people’s thinking.  It’s hard to picture that Kavanaugh would have been confirmed without a bunch of old white men (and 1 old white woman) seeing it as an unfair attack based on the distant past that wasn’t and would never be proven, mistakenly (in my opinion) seeing the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice as a symbol of justice for the concept of the presumption of innocence.

Seriously, though, does it really matter who is on the Supreme Court?  They’re just these guys.

That is quite true.  We do go through all this process to supposedly to select people who have the education, the experience, and the character to make final decisions about the laws in our country.  But they’re almost more like a jury than a judge in some ways.  They disagree about their decisions.  They actually benefit from those disagreements – that makes the court stronger.  A court full of people who thought exactly the same would be much weaker, would be seen as less legitimate.  And it’s impossible to distinguish between what the justices say that is based on law and what the justices say that is based on an underlying bias.  At the end of the day, they’re just people, and the court’s validity isn’t truly going to be destroyed by 1 guy who doesn’t belong there.  And that’s assuming it’s just 1 guy.

That said, the Senate is supposed to vet nominees.  They have a duty, officially, to determine whether a nominee is acceptable.  I, personally, feel they completely failed _me_.  And, without actually naming valid candidates to the Supreme Court, it brings into question the legitimacy of their composition, and, as a result, questions the legitimacy of their decisions.  I, personally, have felt that the Supreme Court has made important and controversial decisions that are important to this country.  When people are added to the court in a sham, kangaroo court, it diminishes our rule of law.  All those people who chant “USA! USA!”, what the hell are they chanting for if it doesn’t matter whether the Supreme Court acts based on the rule of law?  All these people who so proudly proclaim their support for the Second Amendment, as if it were handed down by God to Moses… is that just lip service for something they care about?  Do they actually, honestly love our country, our government, our constitution, our checks and balances of power?  If so… I would hope that, eventually, they would agree that Kavanaugh was a deeply flawed nominee who shouldn’t have been confirmed.

Won’t it diminish the court to remove _any_ justice, once confirmed?  Isn’t that a great reason to keep Kavanaugh, whether or not his confirmation was legit?

It probably will diminish the court’s legitimacy, if it’s seen as a political maneuver.  If it’s like the Republicans wasting time in Congress for 8.5 years trying to repeal the ACA.  And it WILL be seen as a political maneuver by some people.  Just as some people will always believe that Obama wasn’t born in the US, or that he was a Muslim (not that that ought to even matter!), or that he secretly hated the US and was working to destroy us somehow.  It’s certainly possible that we will never be able to correct this mistake without it making things even worse.  That’s been one of my challenges/concerns.  After 9/11, we got so upset, we invaded Iraq, we tortured people, we’ve assassinated people with drones, we lost our way.  And people still don’t accept that, they still think invading Iraq and torturing people and drone strikes were GOOD.  (As far as I can see, including people who think abortion is abhorrent because they value life so much, and who are convinced of the importance of honoring people’s religions.)  Maybe, ultimately, this is a case where we just let this mistake stand.  Maybe if we had done NOTHING after 9/11 it would have been for the best for us as a country.  But I look at 9/11 and think of the opportunity squandered.  We could have forged stronger bonds globally to combat terrorism through legal methods.  We could have had empathy from the rest of the world on an ongoing basis without the torture.  The world could have been better and stronger, rather than weaker morally and in terms of global cooperation.

I give myself points for continuing to share my thoughts in these blog posts.  But today was another day without much to show in the way of action.  I volunteered to help with some midterm election stuff, and I got a training video to watch so I can help by sending texts to voters.  But I still need to watch the video, and I haven't sent out any texts yet.  I guess there's got to be stuff I can do in the future, and I'm making a bit of progress.  But I will know that I've stepped it up a notch when I'm not just sharing my thoughts, but also my actions.  Cross your fingers!

Third blog entry: What lies did Kavanaugh tell?

Blog entry 3 – What lies did Kavanaugh tell?

Did you watch Kavanaugh’s testimony in defense against Ford’s accusations?

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVGIiiZXdl4&t=25861s

Kavanaugh’s testimony itself starts at 6:07.  If you haven’t watched it, I recommend watching it.

Why is it important to watch this testimony critically?

I’ve characterized him as lying comprehensively in this testimony, zooming past any threshold of acceptable levels of lying that I could stomach.  I think anyone who ever says “trust, but verify” ought to apply that perspective to his statements.  His testimony itself is contradictory – in 150 minutes, his statements convinced me that he was lying to hide something relevant to the charges against him.

What specific lies have been readily identified in his testimony itself?

This article is pretty comprehensive:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

The specific lie, all by itself, that is most damning involves the calendar entry on July 1, 1982 that says “Go to Timmy’s with Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi”.  In the same testimony, he stated “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”  Ford alleged “I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall.”

As far as I can tell, this lie does not depend at all on the accuracy of Ford’s statement.  It is a completely self-contained lie.  Kavanaugh wrapped this up in its own little package, a fully self-contradictory set of evidence that he himself provided.

Is a single lie sufficient to impeach Kavanaugh?  Why?!

Yes.  Kavanaugh himself, earlier in his testimony, even stated that a single lie is sufficient to nullify all other testimony.  (I remember reading about it early in the hearings;  I’m sure I can find it if necessary.

Couldn’t Kavanaugh’s “mistakes” be attributed to the stress of the hearing?

Here is a list of lies elsewhere in his testimony:

https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

Kavanaugh has a history of lies.  Some of the lies during his testimony against Ford are obvious and compact.  Some of the other lies require additional investigation.

Do Kavanaugh’s lies indicate that he DID sexually assault Ford?

They strongly imply it.  He was accused by Ford of a sexual assault.  Among the things he stated in his defense were that he hadn’t attended a gathering of the kind she described.  But his calendar shows he HAD attended a gathering of that kind.  People whose defense is shown to be false are almost certainly hiding something.  It is ridiculous to claim that he was lying recreationally, for no actual objective.  Although, if he WERE lying recreationally, it is no less an impeachable offense.

Can Kavanaugh’s lies be used to convict him of sexual assault against Ford?

I’m no lawyer.  But I seriously doubt it, for a variety of reasons.  Even if there isn’t some kind of statute of limitations regarding an assault, there’s absolutely no physical evidence, nor can I envision a way that physical evidence could be discovered.  And Republicans are correct, it’s almost impossible to find Kavanaugh guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt with so many of the facts absent.

If that specific lie should be sufficient to find Kavanaugh guilty of perjury, case closed, right?  Why would anything else be needed?

Because apparently Republican politicians have convinced Republican voters that he DIDN’T lie.  That his statements are truthful.  IMHO, people might be convinced if they are exposed to more examples of his lies.  And possibly more examples of misbehavior, apart from his lies.  If there are more police records that haven’t been unearthed yet.  If there are more people who will testify that Kavanaugh misbehaved when drunk.  If there are more people who will testify that he was lying when he said he never blacked out.  (Although that line of investigation is tricky.  Demonstrating that he DID black out will mean that he was lying when he said he never blacked out… but then he could claim that maybe, yes, he had no memory of that gathering because maybe he had blacked out after all.)

And I suspect there will be at least some people who say "Lying is OK.  Everyone lies.  Clinton lied."  Some of those people will always say that.  But I hope that at least some will have some threshold of lies and misbehavior that Kavanaugh exceeded.  There are probably SOME whose moral relativism is constantly willing to forgive Republicans while seeking to constantly punish Democrats.

But, the FBI investigated!  So they didn’t find anything, and they found him innocent!  Right?

No.  First of all, the investigation was a sham.  Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh were even interviewed at all.  Who ever heard of an investigation where you don’t interview the subject of the investigation, or the person accusing the subject?  Nor did the FBI investigate many people who reported that they had information to share relevant to the case.  Even if they HAD, the fact remains that they reached no actual conclusions.  They shared what findings they had with the senators, who then chose what to do with those findings.  Of course, those findings were not made public.  But I’m pretty sure that Republicans would have found a way to release them if they had supported Kavanaugh, either legitimately or through a leak of some kind.  Democrats may have as well if the investigation revealed anything incriminating, so I doubt the investigation revealed anything useful.

Scott, you were all upset about Kavanaugh not being impartial.  Why aren’t you including his lack of impartiality as impeachable?

First of all, Republicans can claim that everyone saw his testimony, and, if his lack of impartiality had been of concern, the Senate would have had to take that into consideration when they decided to confirm him.  Second, they can claim he was under great stress, and that isn’t what he’s normally like.

Should Kavanaugh be impeached immediately, then?  Won’t Trump just nominate someone else?

I imagine so.  If Kavanaugh WERE impeached immediately, I presume Trump would still be President, and he has a list of other conservative justices that would be very similar to Kavanaugh (except, perhaps, for the sexual misconduct).  We might even end up with another Supreme Court justice who would be even more conservative.  Personally, it is not my objective to sway the balance of the Supreme Court back away from conservatives.  It is my objective to remove a liar.  Frankly, if Republicans in the Senate looked at this carefully, they might well conclude that it would be more useful to impeach Kavanaugh now and replace him, rather than risk having him impeached during a Democratic President’s tenure, since he’s so at risk for that.  For all those _other_ people who are calling for Kavanaugh to be impeached, I think a lot of them would be horrified by the thought of someone else more conservative than Kavanaugh.  The way I see it, Kavanaugh probably isn’t much different than Garland.

And I suspect that Republicans will still hold a majority in the Senate after the midterms.  I hope they don't.  Even if Democrats gain a majority, if Kavanaugh were somehow impeached, Trump would nominate the replacement.  Especially after all the outrage over Garland, I don't see how Democrats could justify not even having hearings and voting on nominees.  And this is all moot anyway, unless senate Republicans agree to impeach Kavanaugh.  Which I don't see happening short-term.

But Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court NOW.  Public opinion of the Supreme Court has been harmed dramatically by him.  It’s important to remove him to restore the honor of the court, isn’t it?

I think the damage has already been done.  And I’m not 100% certain respect for the Supreme Court will truly be restored by removing Kavanaugh.  Some people in this country will see it as a coup against the court, no matter what evidence is ultimately used to impeach him.  I keep going back to 9/11.  The twin towers have fallen.  Now is the time to try to prevent further attacks, and to try to build something wonderful in their place.  We cannot undo the damage that has been done.  But we can try to move forward rather than lashing out and making things worse.

I've taken no useful action today - I've just written this post.  Some days will be like that.  I'm happy to have made good progress over the past 3 days.  Thanks to those like Kris and Saul and Jay who have been encouraging to me.  If nothing else, this has helped me organize my thoughts.

Second entry: Why I see the Kavanaugh confirmation as a disaster, and what ought to be done.

Blog entry #2: Why is it a disaster to have confirmed Kavanaugh?  And, what ought to be done?

In my first blog entry, I said that I felt on 10/6 like I had felt on 9/11, when it felt like jumbo jets had crashed into me and my community.  We would Remember 10/6.  And we ought to take action.

It’s 10/8.  I still feel that way.

I’ve been asking myself:

Why is it a disaster to have confirmed Kavanaugh?

Was it a disaster because Kavanaugh is a bad man?

I, personally, have no deep knowledge of other Supreme Court justices.  I have no way of knowing that they are NOT bad people.  (I definitely have negative feelings about Thomas, and am confident that he lied during his confirmation hearings.  I disagree with his decisions and opinions in some cases.  But I would not go so far as to argue for his impeachment.)  I don’t see this as a moralistic “he is a bad man, so he shouldn’t have been confirmed because it rewards a bad man” thing.

Was it a disaster because it was partisan?

In these times, I doubt that any nomination, by either side, will be anything other than partisan.  Obama nominated Garland, an incredibly moderate justice, and Republicans refused to even have a vote on him (because they knew they could not justify voting against him).  Trump nominated Kavanaugh, whose decisions aligned with Garland’s well over 90% of the time, and conservatives hailed him as a fantastic choice, while liberals criticized him heavily.  I thought he was… qualified.  I did not become a rabid Never Kavanaugh person until his testimony defending himself against Ford.

Was it a disaster because Kavanaugh perjured himself?

Yes, that’s how I see it.  I can explore this in detail in another blog entry.  I don’t see how people can disagree with this.

Was it a disaster because Kavanaugh demonstrated that he is not impartial?

Yes.  I don’t see how this isn’t clear.  Judges should be impartial.  Kavanaugh is not impartial.  Kavanaugh should not be a judge.

Was it a disaster because Kavanaugh is a sex offender?

That isn’t my focus.  I think Kavanaugh lied in defending himself against accusations of sexual assault, and that lying in his defense strongly implies his guilt.  But I think perjury and lack of impartiality are sufficient reasons to not have selected him.

Even if it was a disaster, it’s over, right?  Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court.  Case closed.  Right?

Well… he CAN be impeached.  Republicans have spent the past 8.5 years trying to undo the ACA.  They certainly have felt passionately about that.  Those of us who think a lying partisan asshole ought to be removed from the Supreme Court certainly have the ability to tilt at windmills if we choose.

OK, fine, he CAN be impeached.  But, should he?

This is a bit tricky.  On one hand, a lying partisan asshole should not be making important decisions about our country; even once confirmed, he deserves to be removed.  On the other hand, removing a Supreme Court justice is fraught with peril.  What if Republicans decided to remove RBG?  Frankly, I think a long-term effort to convince REPUBLICANS that they made a mistake and ought to fix it would be optimal.  I hold out little hope of this happening short-term.

We’re talking here about punishing Kavanaugh for his sexual assault, right?

I’m not.  In my opinion, working feverishly to remove Kavanaugh as punishment for attempted rape confuses the issue.  Then, people will argue that he should NOT be removed UNTIL/UNLESS he is actually convicted of attempted rape.  And no court would, or should, convict him of attempted rape.  There is no evidence.  There never will be evidence.  The only extent to which Kavanaugh will ever be punished for attempted rape is by having over 100 million people know for certain he’s guilty.

Is it possible that Kavanaugh could act as a reasonable Supreme Court justice?

I know I will be extremely (pleasantly) surprised if he recuses himself from controversial decisions where he might demonstrate bias.  I will also be surprised if the liberal justices on the Supreme Court make statements supporting him.  That could defuse my concerns.  My bias against him has been strengthened the more I’ve learned about him.  I doubt that will change.

What would have to happen for Kavanaugh to actually be impeached?

Kavanaugh, in his testimony itself, perjured himself.  He himself has made self-contradictory statements, which ought to have disqualified him for any judicial position.  The Senate, in their infinite wisdom, did not deign to act on this – in fact, it deigned to act despite this.  The fact that they confirmed him anyway does not wipe away those instances of perjury.  No one can claim “Those lies don’t matter, the Senate officially ruled them OK.”  In fact, the senators who confirmed him, in many cases, stated “I believe him”.  Declaring that he lied in an impeachment process would be sufficient to ultimately impeach him… if the Senate could be convinced to vote against him with 67 votes.  Which either means continued, compelling attention to the fact that he lied sufficient to get existing Republican senators to vote for impeachment, or else convincing the US voters that he lied sufficient to get them to vote the Republicans out of office, and then have Democrats wield 67 votes to impeach him in the Senate.  Not an easy task.  Perhaps not even realistic.  But worth pursuing.  It will be beneficial, IMHO, to continue to complain about the lies he already told, and to reveal more evidence to demonstrate that they are lies.  For instance, I’m pretty confident there are many people who can attest to his misbehavior.  Perhaps there are pictures.  We already have some police records.  We already have testimony from multiple people.

Aren’t there more important, urgent issues to deal with in this age of Trump?

Probably.  However, this is the one that I, personally, find so egregious.  By voting Republicans out of office in general, we will make progress on multiple other fronts as well.  Keeping the focus on Kavanaugh’s lies may reap multiple benefits.

What actions can we take today?

I chose to join Indivisible.  I donated to them today, with a monthly ongoing donation.  (In general, I like committing to monthly donations, because it provides a predictable revenue stream for causes I support.  And, that way, I don’t forget to renew next year.)  I also volunteered to help with phone bank activities.  Thanks to Kris for recommending this!

And apparently Trump thinks that my views are an insult to the American public.  Meanwhile, he claimed that Kavanaugh’s confirmation proved he was innocent.  In case it wasn’t clear, that’s a lie.  Much like the lies that Kavanaugh told, such as his statements that the other people Ford listed as being at the party said it didn’t happen.  (Those were more logical fallacies than anything else, I guess – unlike his statement that he had never been at a party like that, when his calendar shows he had been, at least he was simply mischaracterizing other people as saying something they did not actually say.  It’s completely possible that Trump could be confused enough to say things that are misleading and untrue without knowing what he’s doing.  If Kavanaugh, as a judge, didn’t know what he was doing, it was scary incompetence sufficient to disqualify him, but it seems unlikely he didn’t know what he was doing.

 This is Day 2 after 10/6/2018.  I’m a subscriber/supporter of WTFJHT, where Matt has sent 400 daily emails so far regarding the Trump Presidency.  If he can send out an email each workday, I suspect I can keep writing about my unhappiness regarding Kavanaugh, and take various actions, for at least a little while longer.

First blog entry: Disaster of confirming Kavanaugh

(This is the first post on my new blog.  Welcome!)

Where were you on 10/6/2018 when Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court?

I remember hearing that he had been confirmed.  It wasn’t wholly a surprise.  But it felt to me like a seismic shift in this country.  It probably shouldn’t have.  But, like death by 1,000 cuts, you reach a point where you recognize you’re bleeding.

I do see this as the political equivalent of 9/11.  It’s something that ought to make you sit up and take notice.

What did you do after 9/11?

I know what I did.  Essentially, nothing.

What did you do after 10/6?

I would like to do something.  Take action.

What should we do?

Talk isn’t enough, IMHO.  I’ve actually talked a lot.  It’s not _bad_, it’s useful to hone your opinions.  But action is more important.

I would like to share questions that I have, and the answers as I see them.  Questions, because statements by themselves do not allow for discussion - statements are vehicles for disagreement and anger.  Maybe questions are too, we shall see.

Here are the types of questions I have (some of which I have strong answers to):

Should a man who is partisan and a comprehensive liar be on the Supreme Court?

(I believe NO.)

Did Kavanaugh’s testimony demonstrate that he is partisan?

(I believe, clearly YES.)

Did Kavanaugh’s testimony demonstrate that he is a comprehensive liar?

(I believe, clearly YES.)

Can Kavanaugh be removed from the Supreme Court?

(Yes.)

What mechanisms can be used to get Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, now that he’s there?

(He can be convinced to resign, which seems unlikely.  He can be impeached, with 67 votes in the Senate.)

What can be done to prevent more Kavanaughs from being confirmed in the future?

(Replace senators who chose to confirm Kavanaugh.)

How can we replace senators who confirm Kavanaugh?

(Register voters who are not registered, including those purged from the rolls. Take states to court that disenfranchise voters.  Support Democrats.  Oppose Republicans.)

How can we impeach Kavanaugh?

(Document his misdeeds.  Document his lies.  Document his partisanship.  Prepare the facts for an impeachment.  Find and support a champion to accomplish this.)

What actions can I take?

(Give money to help register voters.  Give money to support legal actions protecting voter rights. Give money to Democrats.  Join the Democratic party.  Demonstrate in public.  Write a blog.  Become active on Twitter.  Write to the local paper.  Talk with friends, share opinions.  Volunteer with local Democrats.  Take time, each day, to do something.)

How long will it take to effect change?

(Years.  Realistically, trying to get control of the House plus 67 Democrats in the Senate is a struggle that will require intense focus in 2018 to even retain existing seats in the Senate, possibly make reasonable progress in 2020, but even 2022 is unlikely to reach 67 Democrats.  Changing minds of the public and Republican senators is more feasible.)

Should we just move to another country instead?

(No.  This is my home.  I will not cede it to others.  No other place will ever be home as much.)

Are accusations of sexual misdeeds justification for removing Kavanaugh?

(That is not the basis of MY concerns, and I believe his lies are sufficient to justify his removal.)

Is Kavanaugh being attacked by unjustified liberal partisanship?

(To the extent that I demonstrate liberal partisanship now personally, I believe it largely driven _by_ Kavanaugh's confirmation.  Effect, not cause.)

If Kavanaugh is impeached, what happens to him?

(He shouldn’t be a judge.  Period.)

Will there be political consequences for impeaching Kavanaugh?

(Probably.)

Will this divide our already-divided country?

(Possibly, but it might pull us together, if done carefully.)

Aren’t there more important issues to address?

(Probably.  But we should not let this stand.)

Should Kavanaugh be treated so roughly?  Doesn’t everyone lie?

(He zoomed past my threshold of acceptable lies.)

Should Republicans be treated so roughly?  Doesn’t everyone make complex political decisions?

(They have failed in a fundamental responsibility, which they acknowledge is fundamental.  Until and unless they fix their mistake, they remain part of the problem.)

Don’t these things work themselves out?  Aren’t we getting better as a country?

(After 9/11, we invaded Iraq - we made a bad situation much worse.)

Aren’t we rational people making rational decisions?

(Demonstrably, no.  See Iraq, above.)

Isn’t this a lot more complex than I’m making this out to be?

(Sure.  But one should start somewhere.)

Isn’t Trump the “real” problem?

(No.  He’s another symptom.  He’s _a_ problem.  Solving Kavanaugh may also solve Trump.)

Those are the questions that have been keeping me up tonight.  As I write this, it’s 3:20AM, I have had trouble sleeping.

Actions I intend to take today, 10/7:

Create my blog (CHECK!)

Identify organizations that support registering voters.  Contribute.(CHECK! https://www.voterparticipation.org/, https://swingleft.org/, https://front.moveon.org/, https://www.wvwvaf.org/)

Identify organizations that oppose restricting voters’ rights in court. Contribute.  (CHECK! https://www.vote.org/, https://democraticredistricting.com/)

Identify Democrats in tight Senate elections.  Contribute.

Identify Republicans in tight Senate elections.  Contribute to their opponents.

Actions I intend to take longer-term:

Volunteer for Jamie McLeod-Skinner campaign for Oregon’s 2nd district to replace Greg Walden (Republican, awful incumbent).

Walk precincts?

Sign up to help during election weekend (CHECK! https://thelastweekend.org - good links to other sites)

Contact Ron Wyden’s office, identify opportunities to volunteer for my favorite Senator.

Contact Jeff Merkley’s office, identify opportunities to volunteer for my second favorite Senator.

Contact the local Democratic party, get involved.

Search for groups working to impeach Kavanaugh.  Get involved.

Write in my blog - detailed answers to questions like I posed above.

Respond to comments on my blog.

Write opinions for the local paper.

Encourage others to take action