The Worst CV-19 Hot Spots are not Always Obvious

Here is the map we are all used to seeing.  It shows the total number of known CV-19 cases by county.

We all see what we expect to see.  CV-19 is worse in urban areas.  That would be obvious.  Right?  More people close together means more chance to spread.  It just makes sense.

Here is a map you will probably only see if you go looking for it.  It is CV-19 cases per capita per county.  Suddenly some areas that are pretty rural come jumping out at you.

If you think that because you live in a rural area that this disease won't reach you, this map argues otherwise.  While urban areas still seem to be at the fore, there are some notable rural areas that show up.  That dark spot in Idaho is Blaine County.  Population is around 23,000 for the whole county and yet they have 473 reported cases as of April 16.  That dark spot in South Dakota is Minnehaha Country where the Smithfield processing plant is located.  Of the 1000+ cases in the county 600+ are from that one plant.  I'll let you look up what happened there.  It is not pretty.  It does show what can happen if you don't take the proper precautions.

I pulled the map and statistics for USAFacts.org.  The number of people from the plant that are infected I pulled from an article in USA Today.  If you want to read about what happened at that plant I suggest this article from the BBC.

Holy Week During a Pandemic

It’s Good Friday, and I can’t help thinking that maybe we should be looking at things from a little different perspective this year.

Year after year we come back to the story of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, and year after year we are pulled into the familiar dramatic story, and our focus is on all the usual players, Jesus, the religious authorities, Pilate, and Herod.

Perhaps this year we might want to change our focus.

The Apostles and others have been swept up in this new thing and everything seemed to be going well. Their leader was getting a lot of attention. The reviews were good.

It’s good to get in on the ground floor of the next big thing.

Sure, he attacked the money changers in the temple and has confronted a lot of authorities about things this week. That was worrying at the time, but he seems to have come through that bigger and stronger than before.

Thursday night they had a nice meal for the inner circle. He said some things that they did really understand. Some of them sounded kind of ominous, but he could be like that. Give it a little time. He would keep explaining it different ways until they got it. That's how it always was.

What’s better after a big meal than to take a walk over to the park and just hang out for a while.

And then the bottom falls out.

He’s taken away, and out of fear they scattered. If they stayed together they were more likely to be recognized and pulled into the same terror that was about to consume their leader. The power coming after them was something they could not fight. It came out of nowhere. They couldn't protect each other, so they scattered. They were safer apart. They scattered into the night.

As Thursday night became Friday the terror continued. Alone or in twos and threes they would wander close enough to see what the terror was doing. They needed to witness what was being done to their leader. They needed to understand what might happen to them and try to figure out what it meant. But always alone, or in twos and threes. Getting too close could draw the attention of the terror, and they too could be consumed.

By late Friday afternoon, it was impossible to believe that they would ever be together again.

As this pandemic progresses, we’re all forced to keep our distance so that it doesn’t consume us, our family, our friends, and our communities. We want to gather together and feel the warmth and safety that brings when we’re scared. But this time, that might make the terror notice and come for us.

And like the Apostles so long ago, it can be hard to believe that soon, we’ll all gather together again, the world will change, and a whole new journey will begin.

Causes of the U.S. Civil War

A friend of mine recently bemoaned the taking down of statues of historical personages.  The idea being that we shouldn’t be destroying history.  When I questioned which statues he was referring to, he offered up the Civil War Confederate statues as an example.

Now those who know me would know that I’d bring up how they’re displayed without historical context.  I brought up how they were largely funded by an organization that was trying to glorify the old South.  I brought up that when you consider the period they were built, that they were likely more a reaction to the growing civil rights movements then an effort to honor the men they depicted.  They were built to honor the cause they fought for not the men.

I stated that the cause in question was slavery.  He put forward that it was State’s Rights.

10 or 15 years ago I would have agreed with him.  10 or 15 years ago most of my knowledge on the Civil War came from the public education system, and my own reading on the military campaigns and battles of the Civil War.  Neither of those will prepare you to talk about the ultimate causes of the Civil War.

I’m going to say right now that I’ll ignore responses that quote general so and so saying he fought for his state, etc.  I don’t care what they said.  I care what they did.  We all know that people often say one thing and do another.

While I will cite a few specific resources, a lot of what I’ve read over the decades is not from my personal library nor was I keeping detailed research notes for citing in papers.

My own journey from partial buy in on the Lost Cause Mythology to a much better understanding of the causes of the Civil War began with reading one of Bruce Catton’s books.  Unfortunately, none of his books are in my personal library so I can’t verify which one it was.  My understanding of that argument is that for all the issues causing friction between the northern and southern states there was only for which there was no answer short of war:  slavery.

I’m not a professional historian, and I do have lots of interests that attract my reading time.  That said, I’ve made an effort to look for texts on the topic of the politics and economics that lead up to and drove decisions in the Civil War.   One of the best I’ve read recently is James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom.  It is an excellent single volume source covering from roughly 1840 until the end of the Civil War.

I’m not going to take time to put together a detailed analysis.  There are already many in print.  I will point out some specific cases that argue against some commonly presented “causes” of the Civil War.

First, let’s talk about the idea that the war was about State’s Rights.

On a simple level, Southern politician were always ready to argue State’s Rights during discussions about tariffs that might hinder the South but help growing Northern industries but happily supported any tariffs by the Federal government that helped the South but hindered the North.  For many State’s Rights were mutable depending on political and economic need.

Southern leaders were more than happy to use their clout in the legislature (where counting the non-voting slaves as 3/5’s of a person gave them more clout than if they weren’t counted) and their majority on the Supreme Court to institute the Fugitive Slave Act.  This act required assistance in recovering escaped slaves in every state and territory.  In states where slavery was illegal assistance was required in apprehending what was a free person in that state and sending them back to bondage as property in the South.  By any measure this was a huge impingement of State’s Rights.

As the war progressed the Confederate government would impose requirements on its’ states that many of them argued were impingement of their State’s Rights.  This includes items like conscription requirements, requirements to send state forces to fight with the main armies even when those states argued that the troops were needed closer to home, and providing resources such as food for the main armies when those states were having trouble feeding their own civilians.  In short, the Confederate government had no issues with impinging on the rights of those states that had left the Union and joined the Confederacy because they felt their rights had been abused.

Would slavery have died out on its’ own?

It’s true that in the decades right after the American Revolution many felt that slavery would die a natural death.  Many of the crops being grown in the South at that time were not particularly labor intensive so the advantage of using slaves was minimal.  The writers of the U.S. Constitution were largely of this opinion.  That was before cotton cultivation came to the South.  Cotton became a huge driver of the economy for much of the deep South, and Cotton was very labor intensive.  Slavery was very profitable in those regions.  While Lincoln argued for the containment of slavery to the current states that had it under the idea that it would eventually die a natural death, that death was nowhere in the immediate future.  And by immediate I’m talking decades.

Fighting for their way of life?

If you look at the way the press reported in the decades leading up to the Civil War, you might conclude that the modern press is relatively neutral.  I have no doubt that many Southerners that did not own slaves honestly thought they were fighting for their way of life.  It’s hard to picture how any of the issues going on at that time would have impacted the rural farmer subsiding on his own piece of land, but still some volunteered and later most of the rest were conscripted.

For the plantation owners and the cities that supported them the idea that they were fighting for there way of life may be more accurate.  A way of life is informed by and constrained by the economy that supports it.  If you live in Michigan you won’t have a way of life built around the cycle of growing and harvesting oranges.  No annual Orange Celebration for you.

But in the deep South where cotton was king, a way of life (and the economy) became focused around the big cotton plantations.

And now we turn to slavery.

The Southern way of life was dependent on the Cotton plantations which were dependent on slave labor.

How important?

To maintain a balance of influence between the South and the North the framers of the Constitution allowed slaves to be effectively classified as property but still count as 3/5’s of a person for setting the number of representatives from a state. 

To be blunt, what other property gets representation in Congress?

Later legislation would create a line.  Above the line no slavery.  Below the line slavery.  The line was set more with balancing power in mind than the actual economic viability of slavery in mind.  Some of the states just below the border had few slaves.  In some cases, if the state had voted on it, slavery would likely have been made illegal.  But the way politics works, while there were some slaves and slave holders in the states, you could expect some support on issues that might impact slavery.  Most of those states were also not really participating the industrialization that was sweeping the North so they could be expect to frequently side with the South on other issues.

The expansion of U.S. west of the Mississippi River threw everything out of balance.

There weren’t many slaves in Texas, but it was admitted as a slave state largely to maintain the balance.

The South wanted the line extended west to the Pacific Ocean to preserve Southern power in the Federal government.  They opposed legislation that would allow each territory to choose for itself even though that would seem more democratic and in keeping with State’s Rights. 

California was admitted as a free state.  From the Southern point of view that was the end to their ability to control the Federal government.  The fight over the territory of Kansas began.  It would be referred to a Bloody Kansas.  Wealthy Southerners would fund and arm forces to disrupt the territory government.  They encouraged slave holders to move into the state merely to change the vote.  So much for the rights of that territory to decide what kind of state it would become.

Southern influence and control over the Federal government rapidly waned in the decades just before the Civil War.  The North had a greater population and birth rate.  Immigrants largely avoided the South.  The norther industrialized cities offered greater opportunities for employment.  Much of the good land available for settling by immigrant farmers was in free states and territories that were going to become free states. 

Once that imbalance got high enough it was possible that those pushing for abolition could not only push for legislation that would curtail slavery but eventually pass an amendment that would eliminate it outright.  They decided to leave before that happened.

From the framing of the Constitution until the Civil War the South was fighting an erosion of power.  They needed that power to protect their peculiar institution.  The institution that underpinned their way of life.

How important was that institution?

In the decades before the war there were two main parties in the U.S.:  the Whigs and the Democrats.  While there were real differences on various issues between these two parties both had Northern and Southern branches.  The main difference between those branches was support of slavery.  Because of the strain between those branches each party would frequently act as two different parties.  The strain would eventually shatter the Whig Party.  The Republican Party would arise out of that breakdown.  The Democratic Party would continue to struggle with strain between northern and southern branches until the Civil Rights era.

Manpower was a huge problem for southern armies.  Part of the answer to that problem was conscription.  Exceptions were made for plantation owners and their overseers much to the disgruntlement of many serving soldiers.  It was one of the drivers behind the line “Rich man’s war.  Poor man’s fight.”  Why was this exception needed?  Wealth might explain the plantation owner, but there are other concerns that required exception for the overseers.

During the fighting south of Chattanooga a Confederate general in a council of war suggested that if they didn’t start arming blacks they would never win because of lack of manpower.  He was told to be quiet and never bring that up again.

The idea was considered by Jefferson Davis, but never enacted until far too late.  It was the last gasp, because their way of life required slavery.  The idea of an armed black man terrified them.  In fact, the inducement offered to slaves to serve in the army was freedom.  No one expected they’d be able to go back to being a slave on the plantation.  They simply couldn’t risk that the slaves might get the idea that they could be free.  That would destroy their way of life.

In summary, the pattern of support for various issues in the decades before the Civil War shows that support by Southern leaders for State’s Rights issue was dependent on whether it was beneficial to their way of life.   State’s Rights were not the reason for secession.  State’s Rights was just another way of saying protecting their way of life.  Their way of life revolved around slave labor.  That’s why they seceded.  Without slavery there is no secession.  Without secession there is no Civil War.

An Open Letter to Anyone Considering Running for President in 2020 from One of Your Constituents

Before you start telling me about your positions on immigration, abortion, taxation, etc. there are a few things I need to know.  Some are easy.  Some are not.  I do recognize that you have to say what you have to say to get elected.  Therefore, I really won’t look at what you say as much as what you do now and have done in the past.

Here’s what I need to see:

Your pick for Vice President should represent a constituency substantially different than your core constituency.  This is one of the simple items.  It’s running for office in a democracy 101.  If you can't do this, you aren't likely to get elected.

You need to manage your campaign staff effectively.  If there’s a lot of turmoil and turnover in your campaign staff, why should I believe your management of the White House staff be any better?  If you can’t manage your own staff now, how are you going to navigate through the federal bureaucracy to get anything accomplished?

I will watch carefully the people you put on your staff and pick as advisors.  Do you gather to yourself the smartest and the best or those who will tell you want you want to hear?  Running the government of the United States is far more complicated than running a campaign and the ramifications of making mistakes are far direr.  I will pay attention to who you listen to and how you handle advice that runs counter to your own views and desires.

Are you committed to the presidential oath?  Will you support and defend the Constitution or will you put party or personal issues first?  Do you understand the office of the President of the United States is not something to be possessed, but a duty to be carried out?

Do you understand that each of the cabinet position, each department, and each agency represents a constituency?  Do you understand that the people you select for these positions tell us what you think about that constituency?  Do you understand that if you claim to want to unite everyone that you need to pick the right people for these agencies and then listen to them?

Will you pick to head the EPA someone passionate about protecting the environment?

Will you pick to head the Justice Department someone passionate not just about law, but about justice?

Will you pick to head the State Department someone dedicated to solving problems with other countries through diplomacy?

Will you pick someone to head the Defense Department a person dedicated to preparing the American military for the most likely current and future defense needs? 

Will you pick to head Commerce someone dedicated to improving American business in the long term?

Will you pick someone to head the Treasury someone who understands economics and works to protect the U.S. economy in the long term?

Will you pick someone to lead the Labor Department someone who understands that improving the life of the labor force is good for business and economy in the long run?

And so on for each department and agency.

Instead of telling me that you are for this and against that….. can you convince me that you’ll collect all the data you can, listen to all the input you can, and then make the tough decisions?

If you can convince me of that, you’ll have my vote.

Confederate Monuments and Erasing History

Confederate Monuments and Erasing History

For those who read this who might not know me, I have a huge interest in history and particularly military history.  As such I have a huge interesting in not erasing history.

What is the actual history?

While most historians would state that there were a variety of issues between the states and the Federal government at that time, slavery was likely the only one that required actual warfare to resolve.

Why?

The Southern economy was largely agrarian based around a plantation culture which depended on slave labor to function.  Keep that in mind.  One of the key features that could not be removed or altered without bringing down their whole economy was slave labor.

In case you think that’s overstated take a look at the Confederate Constitution.  It specifically included a provision that forbade the states from forbidding slavery.  There’s one right the states rights folks would not allow the states.

Late in the war when the South was desperately searching around for manpower for the army one general wrote up a proposal that would offer slaves freedom for joining the army and fighting for the South.  He was told to get rid of that piece of paper and not to mention the idea to anyone.  His superiors understood that to even float that idea risked fracturing the South and permanently doom the Confederacy.  The idea would resurface weeks before the end of the war when it was far too late to do any good.

Confederate government papers show how central slavery was to their cause.  Military leaders knew not to touch the topic ever though they desperately needed the manpower.  Please don’t tell me they weren't fighting for slavery.

So what do the statues commemorate?

The vast majority of the statues were raised during the Jim Crow era.  Another spike occurred during the Civil Rights era.

The Jim Crow era is of course a period where Southern whites not only were taking back power but were also ruthlessly stamping out any vestige of black power that had been gained during Reconstruction.

The Civil Rights era again challenged white power as blacks often with the assistance of the Federal government attempted to claim some power over their lives and communities.

Many of the statues and monuments were raised as a way to gather white power and to start telling the myth of the Lost Cause.  They started telling the story that the Civil War was not about slavery.  It was a noble cause to save the southern way of life.  It of course ignores the fact that the way of life was dependent on slavery.

So what do I as a Northern White Male make of this?

When I toured the fields of Gettysburg and saw the statue of Robert E. Lee there I saw it in context.  A battle happened here.  This was the leader of one of the sides of the battle.  By all accounts a great general who got the most out of his army.  Gettysburg was not his finest moment, but no other general would have gotten as much out of that army as Lee did.

When I see a monument in a Chicago cemetery to the 4000 confederate soldiers that died in a nearby POW camp, I see it in context.  Near this spot 4000 men died hungry and in filth because that’s simply the way POWs tended to be treated then.  They signed up to be soldiers, but they didn't die like soldiers.

When I see a statue to Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, I see it in context.  It was an attempt to rewrite history.  In effect to erase history and replace it with myth.  I see a symbol of the Jim Crow era and those who fought against civil rights.  If everybody saw it that way I’d say “leave it up!”.  But the truth is, those who marched to protest taking it down, don’t see it that way.  They see it as a monument to white power.  They see it as a monument to the myth that replaces the history.  They see it as a monument to their superiority.

What do we do with obvious symbols of hate?  We tear them down.

An Open Letter to My Friends and Acquaintances Who are Donald Supporters

Before I go into why I cannot vote for Donald there are some things about me you need to understand first.

1. I am male.  I am white.  I am protestant.  And yes, much of my background could be termed anglo-saxon.
2. I have in my life voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Socialists.  I vote issues and values not party and ideology.  I vote for people with solutions.
3. I look carefully at who the candidate surrounds themselves with.  Especially when it comes to executive offices.  Who they bring on their staff tells you a lot about what they really value and how willing they are to bring dissenting opinions to the table.
4. I understand that every word a politician says is designed to create impressions in the listeners.  Fact is less important than impact to them.  I get it.  Even a politician who really has the public interest at heart has to stay in office to achieve that.  To stay in office they have to shade the truth.  So everything must be fact checked and critical thinking must be applied to every idea they bring to the table.
5. The rules of politics haven’t changed in 5000 years because human nature hasn’t changed in 5000 years.
6. One of my core values is that a person should be treated as a person.  Not a statistic.  Not a nuisance,  I get that there are bad people in the world, but as soon as you use the word “them”, as in “us vs. them”, you dehumanize them and give tacit permission to treat them as less than human.  Before you do that it better be because of what that person has done, and not be because of some perceived groupings they may belong to.
7. One of my core values is that the community is best served when each individual is given the best chance to maximize their talents and become the best person they can be.  When people are deprived of education opportunities the community is lessened.  When people are unduly burdened by the community the community is lessened.
8. I believe in the power of knowledge and ideas.
9. I believe that if you don’t control your emotions others will use them to control you.  I am not saying be emotionless.  I am saying they you need to be in control of your emotions and apply critical thinking to be certain they’re taking you to a place you really want to be.  We are social creatures.  Emotions are easily swayed through various techniques used by leaders and con men of all sorts.  If you are not in control of your own emotions, others will use them to control you.
10. I believe the U.S. Constitution works not because it’s wonderfully crafted system, but because every day bureaucrats, judges, legislators, etc. are forced by the expectations of the community and the openness of information flowing to that community to not stray too far from the norm.  That norm can of course changes over time as the tensions between the various groups change the way society sees the world.  If those tensions get unbalanced it’s possible for that norm to swing far and fast.  Depending on the nature of that swing it could lead to actions that break the system
11. I believe that ignorance breeds fear.  Fear breeds hate.  Hate breeds violence.  Violence begets more violence until only the will of the strong remains.

So now that I’ve told you a bit about what drives me, let me tell you why I could never vote for Donald.  Note that this is not about why I’ll vote for person x, y, or z instead.  This is squarely about why I cannot vote for Donald.  

In no specific order;

1. The man publicly belittles people.  From making fun of a reporter with a disability to questioning the fairness of a judge who ruled against him to the awful things he’s called various women to the infantile names he calls his opponents, he constantly proves his disdain for anyone that doesn’t tow the line.
2. The man actively threatens people.  During the primaries and that period leading up to the convention I lost count of the times I heard statements from him that followed the formula “Person X and I will get along fine.  Or there will be problems.”  Listen carefully and you’ll hear it all the time.  Again disdain for other people and their opinions.
3. The man has actively incited violence.  No, he’s not fully responsible for some of things his supporters have done, but when you actively court certain portions of the population, you can’t claim no responsibility when violence occurs after you make public comments like fondly remembering and pining for times when protesters would have been taken out on a stretcher.
4. The fact that he has some business failures in his past isn’t a problem.  Most successful entrepreneurs do.  But the truth is this “successful” business man used bankruptcy laws to leave employees, contractors, and creditors in the lurch while he walks away with millions.  It may not be illegal, but it’s not a style of business I like, and if he tries to use those same methods as President, we are the employees, contractors, and creditors that will be left in the lurch.
5. The truth of the matter is some of the businesses he’s associated with are outright scams.  
6. When asked for any info about how he’ll do the things he says he’ll do, he basically says “trust me.”  Trust in this case needs to be earned, and in light of all the other points here, he hasn't earned my trust.
7. Much of what he says he’ll do will actually be counterproductive.
8. It might be funny to say a reality star doesn’t care about reality, but he constantly cites “facts” that have been debunked and denies real data.  If challenged he may tap dance a bit.  He may issue a “what I meant” kind of statement.  Then he goes back to citing them.  He doesn’t care about what is real.  That’s a very bad thing in a president.  If you can’t deal with reality then you can fix it, etc.
9. If his ideas are challenged he doesn’t defend them, he tap dances, attempts to distract, and if that doesn’t work he attacks the challenger personally.  It may make for interesting TV and interesting campaigning, but it’ll be lousy for geopolitics.    It’ll also make for either a totally dysfunctional federal government or one that’s shoving his ideas down our throats and leaving us with the bills.
10. When he refuses to release his tax returns, when he refuses to tell you how he’ll accomplish things, when he refuses to tell you the source of the information he spouts, he’s telling you he doesn’t trust you with the information.  A person deserves some privacy, but when someone wants to become the leader of the greatest country in the free world, to be trusted with decisions that could mean life or death, we who will invest that person with that power deserve to know more.  There’s something Donald doesn’t want his supporters no know.  As one of my favorite quotes says, “Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
11. When in front of a crowd he frequently becomes unfiltered.  His supporters seem to love the idea that he says what he thinks.  They may not like it when he alienates our allies and isolates the U.S. from the world economy and there are even less jobs.
12. It’s plain from the RNC that the theme for the campaign is going to be fear.  They’ll be focusing people on both outside and inside threats instead of the real problems.  They’ll stoke the fear because those emotions can be used to control people.  The answer to fear is knowledge.  But as stated above, Donald doesn’t care about the real data.  He cares about his goal.  He doesn’t care about the long term cost to others.  He doesn’t care that the long term cost of stoking the fear is likely to be violence.  He cares about his goal.
13. Ask him about where the ideas come from, he knows people.  Look at his history, both in the campaign and before, and it’s clear that he selects people who will tell him what he wants to hear.  Someone sitting in the oval office needs someone to argue the other side.  They need someone willing to butt heads to be certain we’re not all running off a cliff. Kennedy had someone playing that role through the whole Cuban Missile Crisis. It appears that Bush didn't have someone playing that role during the process that lead up to the invasion of Iraq. I don’t believe Donald will tolerate let alone welcome such a presence in his office.
14. He has no respect for any norms.  Don’t get me wrong.  I like to think I’m a think outside the box kind of guy, but I do understand that tradition holds a community together.    I understand that often the unspoken rules are more important than the written ones.  Donald doesn’t care about the unspoken rules.  He doesn’t care about the politeness that smooths over social interactions.  He doesn’t care about the behaviors that protect constitutional protections.  He only cares about his goal.
15. To be perfectly blunt, I only think he cares about the common man for the votes.  Someone who has grown up in wealth, was given his wealth, and shows the kind of attitudes I’ve discussed is very unlikely to understand the common man.  He will be pursuing his own goals. Not yours.
16. I appreciate the Donald supporters who admit that the appeal is a “strong man” leader type.  That is the image he tries to sell.  The big, tough, successful leader who is the only one who can save the people from the troubles that beset them.  It’s a classic scenario repeated many times in history.  Often it can bring stability and peace for a time by suppressing dissent.  But a government that only prizes the well being of a portion of the society can only keep the lid on so long.  The end result is almost always bad for the society in question.  I’ll take the rule of law over the rule of a strong man leader anytime.  I suspect most people who study history would agree.
17. When asked about being great Donald consistently points at his wealth as a sign of his greatness. I don't equate wealth with greatness. Being good at accumulating money or being born into is not a sign of greatness or divine favor. It isn't having or getting wealth that makes you great, it's what you do with the wealth you have.

I think Donald is a self aggrandizing narcissist who is attempting to achieve his goals by appealing to fear and hate.  His behavior is reminiscent of a bully or a petulant 4 year old. If you saw someone else's child acting this way you'd wonder what was wrong with the parents. If your own child acted this way you'd hopefully take action.

Regardless of what I think his goals are, if he becomes president he will have to take actions to appease the elements he has been courting.  If he does it’ll be very bad for women and minorities.  If he does it’ll be bad for the economy.  If he does it may well cause more violence as various minority groups fight back.  Pretty much a self fulfilling prophecy.  If he doesn’t appease the groups he’s been courting, they will feel betrayed and will likely act out violently.  When you sow fear and preach hate, you can’t be surprised when violence results.

History is quite clear on what happens when someone grabs power through fear and hate.

I’ve seen lots of bad presidential candidates in my life.  In my life I’ve voted for the losing candidate more often than the winner.  I know the system is actually set up to be inefficient to protect people from the majority.  But that only works when everyone plays reasonably close to the unspoken rules.

By using the campaigning techniques he’s using, Donald is the first candidate that I think has the potential to break the system.  I think the pieces are in place to potentially change this country in ways that it will never recover from.

That is why I will not and cannot vote for Donald.  You are allowed to disagree, but do not deny that the historical precedents are pertinent.  You also need to understand that every time you make an excuse for something he said that I’m thinking, “Are you lying to me, or are you lying to yourself?”

The Decision to Unfriend

Lately I’ve seen a number of posts on Facebook something like this:

If you’re wondering why I unfriended you, look at your posts.

If you advocated hate that might be why.

If you called for death to all that might be why.

If you support that might be why.

 If you….

We’ve all seen them, and I get it.  You jump on Facebook to interact with friends and families and you’re confronted with these posts that remind you that not only do some people think very differently than you, but some of them are filled with and motivated by hate.  Being quite about it is like allowing yourself to be abused, but speaking up is a lot like banging your head repeatedly on a brick wall.

Why put up with that kind of aggravation?

Why confront these people?

If you don’t, who will?  If you won’t engage with these people you will leave them only hearing the voices that got them where they currently are.  If you don’t present to them a different way, they’ll never see it themselves.

If you do decide to engage with these people be smart about it.  If you aren’t smart about it, it will likely devolve into a bunch of yelling.  That will be frustrating for you and possibly a good thing for them.  They may be looking for a pulpit.

Those who know me know that I’m willing to challenge ideas people present online.   Those who know me really well probably have noted there are plenty of opportunities go by.

Here’s my advice on when and how to respond.

1)      Be smart about who you engage.

If the original post is not by someone on your friend list, don’t chime in.  Just because a friend of a friend was invited to the conversation and responded doesn’t mean you’re invited.  Uninvited guests are rarely welcome.

If it’s someone on your friend list then in theory they’re a friend or acquaintance and you know enough to decide if engaging them is worth the effort.

2)      Know what you hope to get out of the discussion.

I go into every discussion with the intent to make the person logically defend what they have asserted.  If they can put together a reasoned argument in support of their view I can live with that without having to agree with them.  I’ve probably also learned something.

If your goal is to make the person concede to your point of view, that’s an argument, not a discussion.  In this case nothing in post will be of use to you.

3)      Be clear about your own values and feelings before you start.  Speed is not important.  Clarity is.

If you can’t explain your ideas and your objections to their ideas clearly to yourself then you’ll never be able to make them understand.    Know what you think before you start typing and certainly before hitting post.

Know the difference between fact, feeling, and opinion. 

Facts should be supportable by documentation

Feelings are driven by values and emotions.  Everyone’s feelings are equally valid, but no one’s feelings are the reason why something should be done or not done.

Opinion should be supportable by logic.  Rational, intelligent people can have different opinions when presented with the same facts.  That’s normal.  It’s ok to have differing opinions, but you better be able to support yours if you challenge others.

4)      Stay focused on ideas, values, and logic.

Do not get involved with name calling.  Ignore it when it’s thrown at you and read everything you type before you post to make certain you’ve avoided language that they’ll take as a person attack.

Don’t challenge their feelings.  They feel how they feel just like you feel how you feel.

To challenge facts you need to have facts to cite.  If you want to challenge the source of their facts you better be able to defend the source of yours.

To challenge logic you better be familiar with critical thinking and common fallacies in arguments.

There is of course a two edge sword here.  The best way to develop these skills is to have these kinds of discussions.  You might want to find a friendlier environment full of people who love to discuss things to practice before taking on people in an open forum like FaceBook.

5)      Stay on topic and don’t allow them to change the topic.

If you’re challenging someone’s assertion that red is a shade of green don’t start discussing how red is an element of purple.

After carefully describing the color wheel and how colors work and blend, you shouldn’t be surprised when they say “not all wheels are round” instead of responding to your statements.  A common reaction when confronted with the possibility of being wrong is to attempt to change the field of battle.  You are allowed at that moment to ignore the statement and keep discussing red and green.

6)      Remember the audience.

Remember that the person you’re having the discussion with is not the only person listening.  Even if you aren’t getting through to the original poster you may be educating other people on the topic.  If you can keep calm and cool and on topic you’ll likely have a much bigger impact on the quiet observers.

7)      Remember you might be wrong or mistaken.

Don’t forget to listen.  You may find they have a point.  You may find that they use words a little differently than you do , and you’re not as different as you originally thought.

Be prepared to say, “Oh, I get what you’re saying.  You’re right.”  I can’t count how many times I’ve watched people argue who actually agree with each other.  They just couldn’t agree on language.

8)      Walking away is always an option

At some point the discussion may start going around in circles rehashing the same ideas over and over again.  Hopefully you’ve made some effort to move it forward, but there will be a point where you’ll decide there’s nothing more to gain for either party.  At that point it’s perfectly OK to declare that the discussion is running in circles and if no one has anything new to bring to the conversation that it’s time to end it.  Don’t say their too stupid to hear you.  Just simply move on.

It has been said that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Hopefully the above ideas will encourage you to confront bad thinking and ideas when you see them and help you do it effectively.