The Great American Hoax Hoax

Perhaps the most obvious hoax on the American people is that which claims that most news reports that oppose their beliefs are hoaxes while none of the reports that reinforce their beliefs are hoaxes. There are many examples of this phenomenon, of course. One that continues to thrive in July of 2017 regards whether news reports of a Trump-Russia connection are a hoax. Whether we are labeling these reports as humorous deceptions or malicious deceptions, there are informative news reports that present verified facts; they are not "hoaxes."

I’m not sure whether many people are amenable to changing their mind about whether the news reporting on the Trump-Russia connection is factual. It’s extremely difficult to let go of a belief that any of us have embraced. If you aren’t interested in knowing information that might question the Russian-Trump "hoax" belief, I respect that. I know I have strongly held beliefs that I’d have a hard time giving up. I believe that direct statements and observable actions by politicians tell us what these people are saying or doing; anything else is a secondary source that is likely to cherry pick “facts” or is a theory about what we don’t actually know to be true. Sometimes those primary sources are telling the truth, but all you can say about what they’ve said is “this is what they said; this is what they observably did.” I’d have a difficult time changing that belief about primary “evidence” being the best source of information! I also believe that conspiracy theories are damaging the U.S. as a nation and that the Russians are exploiting this phenomenon. At least that’s what I’ve heard a Russian operative say in a recorded interview.

I’m thinking we might want to consider what Donald Trump, Jr. has shared directly of his email messages and his personal comments rather than citing the “reprobates” at CNN, for example. To wit: He tried to collude with Russian operatives to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton but (at least as of July 15th) claims he got nothing and instead was lobbied to lift sanctions on Russia. Both activities are illegal; neither attempt by the Russian operatives was reported to the CIA at the time. Someone left that room with a folder of papers that arrived with one of the Russian operatives who attended the meeting. Who took the papers had not been confessed as of July 15th. There should be no speculation but a lot of further investigation.

President Trump is now saying that, yes, the meeting took place; yes, his son and son-in-law (and others) were eager to know what dirt the Russians had on Clinton. However, Trump, Jr. did not do anything wrong. “Opposition research” is the name of the game in politics, and Trump, Jr. didn’t realize it was illegal to deal with the Russians on this. (The Trumps are new to politics, after all, say the apologists. For the rest of us, ignorance of the law does not confer innocence.) Jared Kushner has gradually added over 100 incidents in which he met with Russians when providing his security clearance application form. The additions have come after he was given a security clearance. Reports of these situations are not hoaxes. Trump, Jr. and Kushner have acknowledged these facts. That they did not report these facts in a timely way is not proof that they did or did not know it was wrong to deceive. Knowing the intent for the deception (or oversight) is extremely difficult to prove, so jumping to conclusions about innocence or guilt about intent is not appropriate. However, it's what they did that matters.

Back to one of my beliefs: Avoid all second-hand sources, whether it’s CNN or FOX, Hannity or Maddow. Look at the collection of email exchanges that Trump, Jr. released and clearly stated are what went on (including his “I love it!” statement regarding Russians interfering with U.S. elections). Listen to what Trump, Jr. and the others who attended that meeting are saying about what transpired. Even information about who was in that meeting has been released like a slowly dripping faucet that needs a new washer. There may be more details coming, but Trump, Jr. has already made it clear that there is a “Trump-Russia thing” (to quote Trump, Sr's term).

All of the intelligence agencies in the U.S. government had independent investigations regarding whether Russia (via operatives or directly with Putin’s leadership) interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections (not just with the presidential election). All of the intelligence agencies came to similar conclusions: Russia did interfere and they know many of the situations where this took place (e.g., state elections as well as federal). It is not a hoax that Russians interfered. It is almost surely not true that all federal agencies are in collusion against Trump and, therefore, are going after an innocent Russia or an innocent member of Trump's entourage. Look for transcripts of summaries of those reports; listen to the directors’ public comments on the subject.

CNN has been accused (and found guilty) many times of rushing forward with a story that is unconfirmed in order to have a larger audience. That they pushed forward with a Trump-Russia story before we had the facts we have now would not surprise me, but the timeline suggests that CNN’s Van Jones spoke before having the facts that were revealed the week after his sidewalk comment that there was little substance to reports of the Trump, Jr. meeting with Russian operatives and less substance in Democrats’ response to what was known at that time.

Many Americans believed that those closest to Trump and his campaign would not have met directly with Russian operatives, but now know they were wrong. CNN’s Van Jones could have been post-rationalizing about his nothing-burger comment on the day after O’Keefe published his edited version of Jones’s dialogue. However, the nothing-burger comment and its post-rationalizing was made before all the factual revelations came to light. At the time of the nothing-burger comment, a lot of people thought that Liberals were attempting to light a bonfire without any wood. Jones was apparently one of those people. And, let’s face it, the Democrats are not getting out a coherent message that people are listening to.

Believing this hoax theory after the Trump entourage's confessed activities were made public is amazing, but not surprising. It’s a belief that some Americans are holding on to, though fewer since Trump, Jr's statements indicate that there’s a lot of burger in that sandwich.

Can President Trump "make America great again"?

“Great again.” The question is, how will we measure “great” and “again”? What were the halcyon days of the United States and in what ways?

The GDP Definition of “Great”— The White House, despite all its internal, warring factions, is defining “great” strictly in terms of economics: GDP, job numbers, and Americans’ disposable income (a questionable indicator of The American Dream). You would think that by paring down the dozens of issues that affect the U.S. and its people to these three would make it very easy to be “great.”

The Historical Definition of “Again”— But maybe, not great again; even during the Reagan years, people in the bottom tiers of the U.S. socioeconomic classes were struggling, some kinds of taxes were replaced by other kinds of taxes. Unemployment tends to follow international economic swings, so the fact that things actually got worse while Reagan was president is somewhat similar to what President Obama inherited as the globe was taking an economic dive (in large part due to financial institution over-extension with debt offerings). Again? Under FDR? Truman? Nixon? Reagan? Bush #1? Bush #2?

The 2017 Federal Budget Definition of “Great”— Almost every issue is now framed in terms of theories about what will make the U.S. GDP grow faster than that of other countries. The exceptions are increases in military funding, Dept. of Homeland Security funding, and a $1T investment in “infrastructure” (to be a shared expense with businesses that participate). “The Wall” is based on a different theory of economic benefits vs. the cost of construction, maintenance, and staffing. Drawing from the White House budget document, we can see the places where Americans can expect less:

• Major reduction in healthcare insurance availability and in healthcare services available.
• Reduced and eliminated financial institution regulatory oversight (reintroducing the circumstances that led to the financial institution collapse of 2007–2008)
• Substantial reduction in access to Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, temporary financial assistance (aka “welfare”), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program for families living in poverty
• Substantial reduction in government oversight/administration of student loans
• Substantial reduction in funding for teacher training, after-school programs for children living in poverty, and programs designed to give children living in poverty and those with disabilities or other learning disadvantages a “boost” in completing their education and being prepared for post-high school education/training; move from support for public schools to greater support for private and religious K-12 schools
• Reduction in support for farmers/agriculture (plus the elimination of much of the workforce that plants, tends, and picks the crops)
• Reduction in retirement benefits for federal employees (other than senators and House representatives)

The devil is in the details. For example, a quick look at the spreadsheet in the budget document shows that the federal deficit decreases as percent of GDP for a couple years, and then it increases as percent of GDP. Another issue is whether the targets for these reductions are achievable. As an example, look at reductions in Medicaid as a way of understanding what’s behind some of these cuts. The major fraud committed with Medicaid comes from healthcare providers. (In Medicare, the major fraud is split between insurances billing for services not received by patients and healthcare providers delivering treatments that are not needed or are over-billed.) However, the “remedy” being offered in Congress and the White House is to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid. It’s not clear how remedying something other than the root cause of the problem will make things great for anyone other than those insurance companies and healthcare institutions that are unscrupulous.
And then there’s this: The theories about rapid GDP growth for middle- and working-class Americans and for the working poor are based on a premise that has been proven false: When corporations make more profit, their shareholders benefit, especially if they don’t expand their workforce. By law, corporations are required to maximize shareholder returns. The stock market rise is based on the belief that corporations will continue to make record profits, not that they will expand their workforce.

We’re already great! The U.S. is already great. In fact, in many ways, it’s the best it’s every been… even if you just look at GDP. Yes, the U.S. can get even better, but that’s different from claiming it’s not great now and it will be later. Unfortunately, “Make America great again!” has a sound bite advantage over “Make America even better than it’s ever been!” American nostalgia for what never was is infamously resistant to facts.

U.S. Quality of Character— Since the November election the rest of the world has been judging the U.S. more harshly. They had their frustrations with G.W. Bush and Barack Obama— frustrations that pale in comparison to what they’re feeling now. They’re judging the President and the 63 million Americans who voted for him because the White House’s notions of what makes a “great” country should include a lot more than GDP.
Let’s assume that a “great America” has something to do with the “quality of character” of the nation in the way that it treats its citizens, residents, and world neighbors. Quality of character includes being

• honest & prudent
• self-disciplined in behavior
• respectful of others
• collaborative
• well-informed
• generous/benevolent
• dependable
• persistent & consistent
• principled (making decisions and behaving based on fundamental ethical principles)
• benevolent/generous (of spirit and deed)
• responsible (taking responsibility for one's words and deeds, plus looking out for all Americans, in our case)

In other words, for the U.S. to be “great,” its leader(s) need to have these qualities of character. Of the eleven characteristics listed, President Trump demonstrates about one (persistent but not consistent; principled in some ways and lacking integrity in others— awarding 1/2 for each).

Quality of Character and Treatment of Americans— Further marginalizing people living in poverty, including the working poor (67% of those on Medicaid), taking funds from the public schools that working-class and poor families must depend on for a quality education, and increasing the financial assets of the upper class disproportionately more than that of the middle- and working-classes are actions that are contemptuous of many, if not most, Americans. This is a consistent mentality: The wealthiest nation on Earth should do whatever it can to accelerate its economic growth, even at the expense of others. And the wealthiest individuals in the U.S. should do whatever they can to accelerate their financial growth, even at the expense of the rest of the nation. This is not a mentality we normally associate with a high quality of character. It is selfish in terms of assets and power. It applies to many in the current White House.

Quality of Character and Treatment of Allies— Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency, he has maligned, snubbed, and disrespected U.S. allies and their leaders while praising despots like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Rodrigo Duterte. His profound deficit in knowledge about world affairs is not just a deficit in being "well-informed"; it is actually a deliberate preference not to know the facts: He would not attend intelligence briefings after the election, deeming them a waste of his time; he says he does not like to read and prefers to base decisions on his “gut.” In a meeting with President Xi Jinping, Trump volunteered that ten minutes spent talking about North Korea introduced him to some of the complexities in dealing with Kim Jong-un and that government. (And that statement was given the same importance, by Trump, as noting that the chocolate cake they’d had was “fantastic.”) However, it is not just Donald J. Trump who is treating allies with disregard. There are others in the White House who are rabid nationalists (not just Steve Bannon, by the way). To be clear: Most members of the U.S. Congress, especially the Senate, recognize the importance of respectful and tactful international relations… especially with allies. They, too, represent the nation and, in that capacity, their quality of character should be acknowledged, at least in that regard.

Can President Trump make America great again? Probably not, unless we consider only GDP and not who within the U.S. benefits from that. Surely not, if we consider the quality of character of the nation’s leadership and the nation’s domestic and foreign policies.

Believe it or not, our global climate is changing.

Talk is that there’s no proof that our global climate is changing much at all. Talk is that, even if the planet’s weather is changing, it’s only a natural variation—not caused or exacerbated by changes in human behaviors.  Some U.S. Congress members proudly say, “I don’t believe in science."-- as if modern scientific research were part of one huge, globally-coordinated conspiracy to trick people who aren't scientists. 

When it comes to a conversation about Earth’s climate trends, some talk show hosts and "news" media conspiracy theorists make their impressive incomes by creating sensational conspiracy theories about scientific research that capture the imagination of millions of conspiracy-lovers. Professional conspiracy theorists have everything to gain and nothing to lose by coming up with these unsubstantiated theories. These popularity-motivated cynics have picked up on something: Many people have so little understanding of science that it is easy to exploit them. Most theorists' followers have no clue about the statistical methods used (legitimately and correctly) to analyze data; nor could they understand those analyses. So, it's easy to imagine that something their target audience doesn't understand could be presented as "suspicious."

For those who don't understand the research to then claim that it's the scientists who are suspect is... well... shameful audacity. Yes, there are a few unscrupulous researchers who take money from, say, the fossil fuel industry, pharmaceutical industry, tobacco industry, or either side of the agricultural products debate and conduct fraudulent pseudo-research. The so-called news media disproportionately latch onto these exceptions, leaving some audiences to assume that these are typical examples of how scientists draw conclusions rather than sensationalized exceptions. We cannot discredit the vast majority climatology researchers just because there are some researchers in some science disciplines with unacceptable professional ethics. 

Here's the deal:

(1) Global climate is changing. Overall, it's becoming warmer. Overall, global weather is becoming more erratic. Climate change does not mean that every year in every location the weather will be worse than the year before. It means there is a measurable trend in the changes. 

(2) Greenhouse gases, regardless of their sources, are contributing significantly to these climate problems. As the planet warms, sea levels rise and more low-lying land areas flood. As sea temperatures increase, some species are not able to adapt quickly enough; toxic algae blooms are more frequent and widespread. 

(3) Some potential sources of climate change are out of human control. Climatologists and those in related scientific disciplines research and analyze the correlation of those sources, including how human-generated greenhouse gasses contribute. Reducing human-generated greenhouse gases is within our control. 

(4) Rather than bicker about the causes, governments need to prepare for continued ocean elevation rise, increased flooding, and other increases in severe natural weather disasters. Those melted glaciers and disappearing Arctic Ocean ice aren't going to spontaneously refreeze anytime soon. In fact, the melting rate is accelerating. Nations around the world have decided to prepare for that future and to reduce the amount of air pollution they produce in an effort to lessen the severity of future damage to the planet.

(5) Human efforts at greenhouse gas reduction probably can't reverse all the damage that's already been done, but they could reduce the magnitude of change in the future. Those efforts most definitely will help... if they are adequate. Look at one photo of smog in Los Angeles in 1960 and another of the same valley in 2015 to see how aggressive efforts to reduce human-caused air pollution can make a positive difference. Los Angeles could not do anything about the Santa Ana winds or the fact that there are mountains surrounding Los Angeles, but that does not mean they should have thrown up their hands and accepted the smoggy “fate” of the region. They tackled the human causes and people there breathe more easily now.

(6) Greenhouse gasses come from an accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gasses. That combination of chemicals traps heat in our atmosphere. This atmospheric condition has been building since the Industrial Revolution but has accelerated steeply since the 1970s. Ozone-layer depletion is already resulting in increased frequency of skin cancer, cataracts/eye disease, and weakening of immune systems, all of which have occurred with the greater transmission of UV radiation that ozone depletion causes.

(7) Burning fossil fuels is causing a severe increase in the amount of carbon dioxide, which in turn is causing ocean acidification, which in turn benefits toxic algae while harming or killing corals and shellfish populations. The entire aquatic ecosystem has been thrown out of balance.

(8) Some of the air, land, and ocean pollutants and ozone depletion are the result of our agricultural methods, not our fossil fuel use. But that does not eliminate fossil fuels from the air pollution equation. It means that human-managed agricultural methods also need to be improved.

(9) Science does not work in mysterious ways. Even if a person can’t understand statistical methods or how “big data” about Earth’s climate is analyzed, they can understand the fundamentals of the scientific method. This is the method that climatologists and those in related sciences use to explore climate changes. There is nothing about the scientific method that one either “believes” or “doesn’t believe.” One might question the data analysis of a particular experiment and, therefore, question the conclusion. But that’s a single experiment that is in question, not the entire body of research, and certainly not all of science.