Out of Time

Back in November, 2018 I was inspired by the 2018 IPCC report to write a series of blog posts asking if we were doomed -- between the climate and the internet, the answer I came to was "probably, unless we choose to make big changes soon". Gloomy stuff.

The latest IPCC report says there is no more time. You can take your pick of summaries, takes, and analyses. You should read a couple of them, if not the actual report. You need to understand what they say, and what it means for you and your family.

But they all say the same thing: It's hot, and will be getting hotter. 

This is not good news for anyone, but it is particularly bad news for the young. The next 20-30 years will be increasingly dangerous, with storms, fires, drought, and sea level rise. Nothing can change that at this point. But if enough changes aren't made, the decades after that will be exponentially worse. 

As dark as my posts were, the 2021 IPCC report is arguably darker. Yet the bleak IPCC report does offer some hope, some positivity -- but it comes with a price: massive, sudden societal change.

The only question is whether humanity will take immediate and collective action to prevent the worst and avoid total catastrophe, or whether we will continue to do something between making the problem worse and not doing enough to have material impact.

After watching the last few months of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers prolonging and worsening the COVID pandemic, I am pretty sure I know the answer:

It is probably not going to happen. 

Billionaires in Space

Unless you avoid all news, you probably saw that Richard Branson made it to "space" a couple days ago, becoming the "first civilian astronaut*", or at least the first billionaire to commission a rocket(plane).

Richard Branson's public relations team did a full-court press over the last few weeks, and the media complied, running all sorts of stories trying to make him seem likeable, noble, and cool. Hey, he's dyslexic! He's quirky! He's doing this for you!

But let's be clear: that is public relations, which means it is so much dust and distraction, intended to shift our focus. 

Regarding this space stuff, all of these billionaires -- Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk -- are all pretty sickening. These guys are all doing this for the same reasons: dick-measuring, and trying to insure they're the first, and that they're in the history books for something other than being rich doofs. 

All these billionaires have thrived in the pandemic, becoming even richer. Even they recognize competing around wealth is absurd and pointless once you get to their level. So they are looking for other ways to stand out in their weird club.

Musk bought or connived his way onto Saturday Night Live, and that went about as well as you might expect.

Bezos has proven himself to be chock-full of human failings, even if his grotesque wealth has long since catapulted him out of the human race. Bezos is worth around $200 billion dollars. He could try to spend $4 billion dollars every year until he dies (if he dies) and would still have money left over. More than you or I will ever earn in a lifetime. 

Unlike Musk and Bezos' off-putting nerd vibes, Branson is charismatic and charming, with a winning smile and a knack for the kinds of stunts that make for good news.

Still, it is deeply disgusting to see these guys throwing this kind of money around when they could be working on issues that matter, like climate change, or helping the less-fortunate.

Repairing the Union: Next Steps

At the time of this writing, Joe Biden is being declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential election. Congratulations, everyone. After four years of Trump's ineptitude, terrible ideas, and GOP compliance with the same, and with a record-breaking amount of cash consumed by the election cycle, we just barely managed to solve the previous election's problem. You voted. Great job.

However, big problems with our country and world remain. To address those big problems, we must fix problems with our government, and we must start right now. Here are a few suggestions for places to start:

1. Get money out of politics, and undo Citizens United

This will require a constitutional amendment, thanks to Supreme Court rulings. Because of Citizens United and previous Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1976 (if not earlier), the United States is currently stuck with the idea that "money is speech". As a result, the courts are reluctant to put limitations on the amount of money/speech around elections, and has resulted in "dark money", superPACs, and the extremely wealthy having more speech than everyone else. 

This is clearly unfair and absurd, and we have seen the results. For one thing, it means a bunch of wasted capital every few years. Given how rich the ultra-rich have become, the cost of buying politicians and elections is trivial for them, and the resulting tax breaks and other law changes mean they will actually make money on the deal, and We The People will pay for it. 

They don't even have to buy very many people. Mitch McConnell will do just fine, or a few swing votes.

As noted, because of Supreme Court decisions, we will need a constitutional amendment to address this issue. 

Nearly every other responsible democracy in the world has strict and meaningful limitations on money in politics. Until the United States takes similar steps, the ultra-rich will effectively control our government.

2. Moot or abolish the electoral college

The popular vote this time was not close. It is absurd, even offensive, that with a margin of millions of votes, we have to hang hopes for democracy on a few thousand voters in a few states. It is also absurd and unfair that those same few states are pandered to, election after election, while the rest of the nation is taken for granted.

Put another way, Trump lost the popular vote by millions last time and won the electoral college. Biden won the popular vote by even more millions than Trump lost and won the electoral college by the exact same number of electoral votes. The electoral college is absurd and unfair in the 21st century.

This will require either more states joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or a constitutional amendment. The former is much easier than the latter, but is still a huge push. 

Until the electoral college is addressed, every election will see candidates courting the same few states, and our national policies warped by and dragged towards those unrepresentative states' current political leanings and issues. 

3. Find or cultivate compelling Democratic candidates

The GOP has been engaged in a decades-long plan to stack all levels of government (local, state, and federal) with Republicans. They built infrastructure, training, funding, and recruiting systems, and have achieved their goal. Among other results, this has given them relatively young "thought leaders" (and I use both words loosely here) like Matt Gaetz, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Trey Gowdy. They both act as the face of the party and remain operational for a long time. The same is true for judicial candidates and many other government workers.

Until the recent arrival of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and The Squad, there have not been comparable people in the Democratic party, leaving aging Boomers like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to represent the party to the American people. 

Schumer, Pelosi, and the other older people have done a fine, even great job. However, their very history makes them a target for both the right (too liberal!) and the left (not liberal enough!), and at certain point, they cannot help but seem like irrelevant olds. 

Perhaps most distressing is looking at the last two Democratic Presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Neither of them are compelling, powerful, or charismatic in the way that Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or, frankly, Donald Trump were when they were running. 

Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are old now, and were old when they were running. Again, their extensive service and record of getting things done over decades means both the right and the left targeted their achievements, as both too liberal and insufficiently liberal, respectively.

Part of the job of representing and leading people is inspiring them with your personal presence and vigor. The Democrats must find and cultivate better figureheads for their party. I find it hard to believe after all this time the current crop is the best we can do. The GOP seems to be able to find horrible, kooky people who are still engaging on camera and in public. 

Among other things, dear reader, perhaps you should consider getting involved in local, state, or federal government. 

Until the Democrats are able to consistently put compelling and young people out there, they will face an uphill fight every time, sometimes from within their own party. 

4. A compelling Democratic platform and message

I have read many Op-Eds, articles, and screeds about What's Wrong With America, and Why Wasn't Trump Rebuked? and so on.

The vote is not that surprising if you acknowledge that what you think is important is not what some of these voters think is important. Put another way, how successful do you think this conversation is?

D: If you don't support my platform and everything I say, you're a racist!

I: Well, what's your platform?

D: That your entire system, and everything you have, do, and say is racist.

For starters, that isn't going to win you any friends or converts. 

More importantly, if the last few decades have taught us anything, it is that broad shaming doesn't work. Shaming now only has power in your particular in-group. And you're not going to get anyone to join pre-shamed. (And if you have no shame, or if you take pride in being shamed by "the bad people", this tactic is at best ineffective and at worst activates and empowers the opposition).

If you want to win people over, start with a vision and a plan. Do something. Make their lives better. Show them how great Heaven is before you threaten them with Hell. 

The most dismaying thing about the last couple of elections (if not that last several years of government) was the substitution of identity for policy. As a people, government, and nation, we are defined far more by what we do than what we say. 

We need a policy vision that addresses people's lives and reality. Liberals failed to take the proceeds from globalization and help the people it displaced. That failure tainted beneficial policy. Do not make similar mistakes. 

Put people back to work (when it's safe!) with a massive infrastructure plan. The next time people talk about how ineffective government is, tell them "It built these roads. It built these airports. It built the water system. It electrified the entire country. It built the Post Office." These investments all need care and upgrades. These and similar aspects of our life are so fundamental and ubiquitous they are like air -- we take them for granted until their absence or degradation, and then we see how indispensable they are. 

Don't just throw money at people. Throw jobs at people. Throw improvement at people. Talk about and point to achievements and wins by your side, and talk about failures by the other side. The GOP has done little over the last several years other than give more money to rich people and try to take everyone's healthcare away. I am still amazed this isn't a bigger issue for everyone.

5. The Senate

As currently configured, the Senate is no longer an accurate, balanced, or fair representation of the American people or states. The GOP has again engaged in a long-term campaign to lock in a permanent Republican majority, and so far, they are succeeding. They have leveraged loopholes and peculiarities of various systems (and the Senate itself) so that their modest margin produces outsize benefits and results.

This must be undone, for basic fairness, and for more pragmatic concerns. 

Democrats are unlikely to hold the Senate itself for long, if at all. So we may need another constitutional amendment to make this work.

Another option is to finally admit both Puerto Rico and Washington, DC as states. This won't address the existing unfairness directly, but rather add more states that haven't been gerrymandered or compromised (yet) to dilute the effects of the GOP's regime. This isn't as radical a solution as one might think -- both territories are clearly qualified to be states. It's high time. 

Regardless, given the Senate's relative power and similar relative unfairness, the end result is that a small number of unrepresentative Americans effectively set the agenda and laws for the rest of the country. The founders could not have envisioned population distribution and disparity on the scale currently seen. The Senate must be rebalanced, one way or another. 

In Conclusion

I don't expect all of these things to happen. I don't even expect one of them to happen. But it is important for us to acknowledge the scale and scope of the fundamental issues we face in making our democracy more fair for more people. 

America 2020

One of the many unfortunate effects of the American political right is that displays of traditional affinity for America -- the flag, stars and stripes, and so forth -- almost certainly indicate the person displaying them is a right-wing partisan, which means they have an extremely poor grasp of the values of this country, and a lack of understanding of its founding principles.

It is also unfortunate that the left has turned to a narrative locked into notions and phrasing of American being fundamentally premised on bad actions and ideas. This inevitably leads to a mindset of “burn it all down” rather than “make it better”. 

Unlike the majority of Americans, I have traveled extensively and spent time in many other countries. America is neither as perfect and great as the right wing believes it was, nor is it as fatally flawed as many on the left argue. 

Paraphrasing Churchill, “America is the worst country, except for all the others”, or as James Baldwin said, "I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."

***

This photograph captures America in the present moment:

These two right-wing Americans (you can tell, because they’re rich, white, obese, and waving guns indiscriminately) burst out of their replica Gilded Age home (that massive home of theirs is almost too on-the-nose) and pointed guns at the people walking by.

Yes, it is true the protesters were trespassing on a private street in a private community (details that, again, would have been stricken from fiction as too on-the-nose). The protesters were not, however, directly threatening the couple. But the couple were so scared they came running out barefoot, carrying guns. 

While it isn’t clear whether or not the guns were loaded, it is clear the couple violated all of the basic rules of gun handling for the entire encounter -- in the various photos, you can see them holding the weapons improperly, fingers on the trigger, not looking where the guns are pointing, and pointing the guns indiscriminately.

This is America, 2020. Scared rich people race out of their Gilded Age palace to threaten people walking by -- people who are protesting, among other things, improper policing. I don’t think the couple in the photo look strong or brave. I think they look pathetic, ridiculous, and laughable. 

And if the crowd had turned on them, I suspect they wouldn’t have gotten more than a few shots off before being overwhelmed. 

In the aftermath, the couple have become darlings of the American right wing, with loathsome Congressman Matt Gaetz proclaiming to his fellow G.O.P. fans “this is all of us”. Indeed, they are. Scared, reacting inappropriately, living in a lame replica of the Gilded Age, and about to be either passed by (if they're lucky) or overrun by the people. 

Part of the problem with this particular slice of the American right is they don’t see a need to protest the government or the police. These aren’t people who voted for Trump out of “economic anxiety”, or overt racism. The system is working great for them, as long as the rabble stay out of their private neighborhoods. 

This year, America has come closer to facing some of its major social problems. Trump aside, the previous ways of dealing with and thinking about racism, income inequality, and the relationship with the governments (local, state, and federal) and the people must all be re-evaluated and substantially improved.

I would like to be optimistic. But people are so polarized and dogmatic. I hope we are able to move to a place of compromise and forward momentum.

***

America is big, but we are not the biggest. We are not isolated, no matter how many walls we build. We The People are also just people, like the citizens of every other country.

We breathe the same polluted, CO2-heavy, virus-laden air as the rest of the world. We cook under the same sun. We wade into the same acidifying, warming oceans.

America has done many wonderful and horrible things. Aside from our own internal issues, we must also come to terms with being part of the globe and planet. The current administration has done much to turn us away from the rest of the world, damaging alliances and reputation. I hope we are able to return to the table and become productive global citizens.

I see the same issues at the personal level. It is easy for each of us to focus on our own problems and concerns, believing them to be of critical importance, refusing to acknowledge those around us. There are far more people who aren’t us than there are us. Remembering we are all one people -- E Pluribus Unum, or perhaps a different read of “We The People” -- would do all of us some good. 

They call this holiday “Independence Day”, and we think of it superficially as celebrating “freedom”. For some, this seems to be interpreted as “freedom from having to care or think about anyone else”. That isn’t freedom, it is the solitary confinement of selfishness.

The weeks-long fireworks in the wee hours confirm people’s ongoing misinterpretation. Car alarms go off, and NextDoor and Facebook message boards are filled with people insisting they’re celebrating and freedom-ifying, talking about their “stress” at being asked to stay home during a global pandemic. They ignore and belittle the rest of the community, who just want to sleep at night without being woken by explosions.

The pandemic itself is a further reminder and indicator of these issues. The best way to act is a way that takes care of everyone around you, even at some personal cost. If everyone did this, we’d get the virus under control quickly. The governments could and should help. 

You know what has happened instead, and the results over the next few months, if not years, will be grim. 

None of us are free until all of us are free. We, The People. E Pluribus Unum. 

“I love America...I just want everyone to have health care and drive electric cars”

-- Tina Fey

Happy birthday, America.

The United States of Panic

I went to the gym a few days ago. As I was wrapping up my cardio, I glanced at the array of TV screens. One of them was tuned to CNN, which was blasting panic about COVID-19 (also known as “the novel coronavirus”). It was exclaiming how it is “now on all continents except Antarctica” and amplifying the politicization and polarization of the situation. The framing was deliberate and clear: Hey everybody! Worry!

No Relief (from COVID-19 panic)

At the grocery store on the way home, the shelves were stripped bare of toilet paper, water, pain relievers, and many other products both essential and inessential. People were climbing and jumping on the racks to get the last bit of stock at the back. Sad and ridiculous.

I read news articles and am dismayed at the selected questions from the audience, which are either representative of incredible ignorance of basic health knowledge, or are cherry-picked for effect. I am not sure which is worse.

While the current administration’s response does not inspire confidence, the relentless panic pushed by the media is disappointing and not at all helpful. The panic itself is viral, contagious, and at least as dangerous as the actual disease. We should do our best to halt the spread of both the disease and of the panic.

Based on the latest, thoughtful, and expert knowledge about the virus and the current situation, you should be about as concerned about COVID-19 as you are the flu. I am more worried about the panic around the disease.

You’re probably going to get COVID-19 at some point. Estimates of infection are reasonably high, with at least one reputable source saying it could be between 40% and 70% of people in America. We live in a connected world, like it or not, and most people around you are tragically selfish and have shockingly little care for basic hygiene and public health. Look at the streets, or the restrooms at your office. 

You are also probably going to survive, unless you are in poor health or a high risk category -- the same sort of thing you would deal with if you contracted influenza. Again, based on what the data suggests, 80% of people will have what feels like a mild cold. 20% will have what feels like a severe flu (which is no joke, either). First estimates are that of all the sick people, as much as 2% could die, though the latest thinking suggests that number will be less than half that. Those most at risk are the groups we always worry about when it gets hot or cold or smoky or anything: the eldery, the very young, and those with compromised immune systems.

COVID-19 is not a death sentence. It is, for most people, going to be somewhere between a cold and a bad flu.

The problem is the numbers. Everyone, including you, is probably going to get it. Even if a small percentage of "everyone" gets sick, it will overwhelm our capacity to manage, and if even a very small percentage of "everyone" dies, that is still an enormous loss of life.

The comments about "it might feel like a bad flu" is not to be dismissive of the seriousness of COVID-19. The flu is non-trivial, even for relatively healthy individuals. I had the flu several years ago, and it was the worst I have ever felt, including compared to some significant recent illnesses(!). A former co-worker had the swine flu and lost 20 pounds in a few weeks. He was a healthy young man and still had to be hospitalized. And again, scale matters. 20% of everyone doesn't get the flu every year.

But, statistically, you will probably be OK, and there are plenty of other diseases and risks even more dangerous you could worry about or do something about but don’t (some of you reading this don’t get regular flu shots, or perhaps you smoke, or you drive a car).

If we and the media paid as much attention to flu deaths, car deaths, or other problems as we do to the COVID-19 numbers, the world would be a terrifying (and perhaps healthier and more cautious) place.

There are a few things you can do to mitigate risk for CoVID-19. Wash your hands properly and frequently. Don’t touch your face. Be extremely cautious about what you touch and how you touch it. Avoid people, particularly large groups of strangers. If you get sick, stay home. It is standard and simple, but perhaps not easy.

But precautions are not guarantees. Ultimately, whether or not you get sick is out of your control.
Hoarding toilet paper and ibuprofen isn’t particularly helpful (but you should probably have that anyway for when the earthquake or other disaster hits).

Panic is completely counterproductive for everyone, however. Turn the news down. It is trying to agitate you and get your emotions worked up. That emotional state makes their advertising more effective, and it keeps you coming back for another hit of anxiety and despair.

Predictably, America’s response so far, from the government to the news to social media, has mostly been “buy stuff”, and because capitalism is triumphant, people do, even those who know better. We love “fighting” by wielding our credit cards, perhaps because it makes us feel like we are actually doing something, taking agency, sacrificing. Most of this hoarding is not helpful. The food will go to waste. You won’t wear your masks properly, if at all. You’ll have that ibuprofen for years until you notice the expiration date has passed, and that will also go in the landfill.

We obsess over what we can buy or acquire to shield us, but stuff won’t protect us and it won’t save us. Try not to be a part of the panic.

The current administration seems focused on the stock market, economy, and interest rates, as if the real danger and tragedy is purely or primarily financial. There is some reason to be concerned, as the induced panic is causing governments to cancel events and people to hide out at home rather than going out.

Businesses have taken this as an opportunity to avoid costs they would otherwise not be able to -- they cancel expensive travel, pull out of trade shows they didn’t want to do anyhow (but felt they had to), and shift the cost burden of offices to their employees by “allowing” them to work from home.

This hunkering down and holing up is not sustainable, but it will cause a downturn in the global economy with some lasting impacts for people, even as the companies are able to get big write-offs.

Perhaps more importantly, all this isolation doesn’t actually do much to fight the disease. Current analysis suggests that even China’s severe measures merely delayed the spread of the virus somewhere between a few days and a few weeks. Perhaps that time is useful for governments and the rest of us to prepare for getting sick, but that’s about it.

This moment is also a good one to remind yourself life can be short, there are no guarantees around it, and that you should do your best to celebrate and embrace whatever time you have.

There are many ways you can die suddenly -- vehicle accidents, embolisms, strokes, heart problems, random gun violence...I’m sure you have your own list. But you are going to die from something at some point, and the circumstances remain largely out of your control.

Do not let fear stop you from living and enjoying your life (once shelter-in-place ends), because that would be the greatest tragedy of all.

COVID-19 isn’t going anywhere. It is out there, waiting, and it will still be there when the current panic subsides. You’re probably going to get it, and you’re probably going to be fine. Take reasonable precautions. Live your life.

Despite my somewhat critical tone, we should be optimistic and positive. Apparently people can be moved to action, even if it is the wrong kind of action and for the wrong reasons. One wonders how we could channel this into effort and change around more serious and pressing issues, such as climate change.

Are We Doomed? Part 3: What We Must Do

A number of you commented on my previous posts in this series. Almost without exception, you said "you're not wrong, but this is really depressing."

Yes, it is depressing. That does not mean we are allowed to give up. In my conversations with all of you it has become clear to me that we are morally obligated to try, whether or not we think we can succeed. We must do something.

The current California wildfires are reminders of the unpredictable effects of climate change, and simultaneously a glimpse of an atmospherically compromised future. This is the road we are currently racing down, and it is up to us to change course.

"If you're not part of the solution, there is no solution" -- Jaron Lanier

We Must Change Culture

Our top priority is to change the global culture. This will enable governments to pass laws and implement programs required to slow the rate of climate change and mitigate its effects. It will also enable us to change the government, if and when it is required.

We must change culture so that everyone is thinking about carbon reduction and environmental conservation. We need to get people thinking about modifying their lifestyles to abandon gasoline, look for solutions to carbon problems, to contribute to solving problems, minimizing behaviors, technologies, and industries that create the problems, and take active steps to pass laws reinforcing the above.

It doesn't have to be 100%, everything all the time. It is sufficient to get people thinking about these issues the way they think about their weight, health, social media, or celebrities.

It will not be easy, but we can do this. It is possible to shift global culture and laws with concerted effort over time. As an example, in our lifetimes these same kinds of efforts have resulted in dramatic shifts in LGBTQ rights and acceptance. That progress may feel somewhat fragile at the current moment, but it is undeniable and significant. Culture and governments have shifted. It can be done.

There are other examples of rapid societal change you can think of: Smoking has drastically declined and is socially unacceptable in many places. Smartphones are barely 11 years old, and they have become ubiquitous and modified definitions of acceptable behavior. Seat belts. The switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline.

The same tools that have been used to cause problems or distract us -- social media, mob mindsets, technology, fads and fashions -- can be applied to this problem.

We do not have to get to 100% and perfect. Every little bit will help make the future less terrible and more bearable. We must keep our eyes on the most ambitious goals, but every positive change we can make, every half-degree of improvement will mean real benefits.

Change The Government

This is a part of changing the culture, and vice versa. The scale of the environmental problem requires long-term strategy and effort, in much the same way the GOP has worked to stack the deck in their favor in the USA. This cause is far more righteous.

We need to get elected officials at all levels of governments in all nations who will start this process. We must change the government to be able to pass and enforce the laws required to change the behavior of people and corporations. This is one of the reasons we have governments in the first place. It is possible for these types of changes to have real impact. Look at things like the removal of tetra-ethyl lead from the fuel ecosystem, the banning of smoking in public places, or phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons.

Changing the government is essential because it is the only way to get all of the people on board. We will need carrots and sticks to make behavioral changes: penalizing those who refuse to comply, and smoothing the way for positive change with expenditures and incentives.

Push for Legislative Solutions

At a minimum, we need governments to do things like:

• Ban carbon-emitting vehicles and subsidize a transition to zero-emission vehicles
• Shut down carbon-emitting power plants and massively invest in renewable power
• Start multiple Manhattan Projects and Moonshots for carbon extraction and capture
• Fund and encourage research into methane extraction and capture
• Look for other programs that can mitigate climate increase (such as requiring all roofs to be painted white, subsidizing relocation out of lost areas, and otherwise encouraging responsible behavior)
• Do more research to figure out what else can be done
• Make foreign aid available for (if not contingent on) assisting other countries in similar transitions
• Raise taxes and/or incur debt to fund the above

This will require constant lobbying of one form or another. These are controversial and huge programs, to say the least. They won't even be considered at first. It will take multiple concerted efforts over the next decade.

Get Money Out of Politics

For the USA, Citizens United has to be overturned, or laws passed which nullify it. Money corrupts, and we divert far too many of our resources into political races, which provide no real tangible benefits. It's like setting the money on fire, and the problem has become worse in recent years.

If money is speech (the argument which "won" Citizens United), it means that we do not all have equal speech, and corporations, plutocrats, and unaccountable SuperPACs have more speech than you or I. That's un-American and must stop.

We are wasting resources (time, money, and energy) to build bigger and bigger ads. All this investment hasn't produced better government. Arguably it has had the opposite effect, and forced politics and its coverage to become a horrific hybrid of entertainment and sports.

At least in the USA, this will be a difficult thing to accomplish. Many other countries are way ahead of us. This is one component required to get our elected representatives to stop focusing on raising millions of dollars and instead focus on saving millions of people.

Give Money to Candidates and Causes

As noted, we desperately need to get money out of politics (among other things, it means everyone's ability to speak isn't equal). But until we win and are able to enact those changes, money matters. Put your money where your mouth is and support candidates and causes, whether they are in your region or just swing districts.

The Koch brothers are doing it, and it has worked out great for them. What are you doing?

Unsurprisingly, it is extremely easy to make donations for political campaigns and causes. It is effortless and can have real impact.

The competition is rough here -- there are a lot of wealthy Republicans anxious to stay wealthy at any cost. They have more money (and thus more time, and more of everything) to reinforce the status quo. They will continue to try to outspend us. Regardless, we can make a difference.

Run for Office

Seriously. If you're reading this, you're smart and educated. We might joke those things are disadvantages, but this is part of the culture we must change. Who better than you? And absent people like you running, well, you see who we get.

You understand what the stakes are, and you are already less concerned about a long, celebrated career as a politician than getting important things done, which already means you are more qualified than many of the people who run.

Consider it. Do it.

I Need Your Help

I have never been a superlative member of our cohort. I am smart, but not the smartest. I am disciplined, but not the most disciplined. I am creative, but not the most creative. I have accomplished things, but I am far from the most accomplished. That is where you come in.

If you are reading this, you are already in a position to do something. You are intelligent, connected, and of some means. Spend some time thinking about how you can help save the world by changing the culture.

I have already reached out to some of you directly and will be doing more over the coming weeks. You all have unique expertise and skills, and we need a multi-disciplinary approach. This is not a question of one solution or approach. Our survival depends on relentless implementation of multiple solutions, large and small. There is no one right answer. Rather, it is all of us coming up with and implementing small pieces.

See What You Can Do In Your Organizations

Does your university have a Manhattan Project or research team devoted to some of the major problems, such as carbon extraction and capture, geoengineering, economics, or social change? Why not? Ask them. Whether you are on faculty or an alumnus, make it clear to the people you talk to how important this is. Schools do not have to devote all of their resources to this, but they must be devoting some of them. There is no point in educating people if there is no future.

Similarly, it is almost certainly today's high school and college students who will both bear the brunt of the effects and who can have the most impact in terms of developing solutions, working on breakthrough technologies. If you are one of those young people, it is up to you. You will have to live in the world through times of great change. If you are a parent or friend of these young people, talk with them. Encourage them to think of themselves as a critical and active part of the solution, rather than a passive part of the problem.

They don't all have to become scientists or engineers working on climate technology. But we need many more young people focused on how their work, whatever it is, helps to solve this problem.

How about your company? Many of you reading this are working for titans like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Tencent. These companies have all-but-infinite amounts of money and have all embarked on non-core-business projects. Talk to people internally and see if it is possible to get something going, or if something is already going. It almost does not matter what problem you are taking on, but take on something. Delivery. Conservation. Electric vehicles. The power grid. Education. Anything.

Environmental catastrophe is bad for shareholder value, and many of these solutions can be good business.

Talk to your community. Whatever social groups you are in, religious or otherwise, talk to people. Get the word out. Talk to your friends and family. Not just once. This needs to become a part of our regular conversations with everyone.

It is easy to want to look away. We can no longer afford the luxury of doing that 24/7. We have to get everyone thinking about these things.

Individual Actions

Individual actions and sacrifices are not enough to save the planet. We need culture and government to compel everyone to get on board. But individual actions have other benefits: They help spread the cultural message, turning each of us into messengers and influencers. They will also serve as reminders and help you feel like you are doing something.

Here are some examples of things you can do, or at least talk about. Many of them will be controversial, and I doubt any of us will be able to or want to do them all. I am sure you can come up with better ones.

Move.
Move someplace where your vote matters, or where you can effect change in the mindset of those around you. Don't preach to the choir. We need to change minds.

Take a look at projections of sea-level rise. Are you going to be OK? Do you want to live in areas that are disrupted over a few years? (Probably not...) Beyond that, there's desertification and other impacts of climate change.

Try to live in places that are walkable, or easily accommodated by the current range of electric vehicles. Avoid going off the grid unless you are committed to being totally self-sufficient...and then be prepared for anything that can happen.

Move as soon as you can, if you must. It will only get harder. The real estate market for your place may not be great, but it will be worse when it's sitting in a foot of water.

Have as few children as possible.
Preferably zero, but one is OK. Aside from general overpopulation, the modern Western lifestyle contributes extensively to our problems. Plus, consider what type of world these children will inherit. Pets are better than children in terms of environmental impact, but only just.

Drive your car as little as possible. When you need a new car, buy an electric vehicle.
Personal vehicle emissions are a major contributor to carbon emissions, and due to the distributed nature of the problem, it is hard to solve. The best thing you can do is just not drive, especially if your car has low fuel efficiency and high emissions.

If you know you need a new vehicle, go electric. If you don't absolutely need a new car right now, the benefits of buying a brand-new electric vehicle are somewhat muted -- 12%-15% of a car's total environmental impact comes from its production. The longer you wait, the better these vehicles will get, in every sense. Consider used EVs as well.

I recognize that our whole society in most of the USA is built around personal automobiles, and that simply stopping driving is not feasible for many of us (myself included) in the near term. That is OK. Do your own audit and think about what you can do. Can you work from home one day a week? Carpool? Have things delivered instead of driving to pick them up? (It's far easier for stores and companies to buy a fleet of electric vans and service many people).

Be mindful of air travel.
Like curtailing personal travel, I recognize this is difficult for all of us. There are not many good alternatives to air travel, and whether it is business or visiting relatives, sometimes you simply must do it.

But keep in mind that air travel is quite damaging to the atmosphere, as the emissions occur at high altitude. Consider alternatives, and consider purchasing offsets (even though they are not directly or actually solving any problems). Yes, it will make your trip more expensive. It should.

Eat less meat.
Particularly beef. But in general, eat less meat. It requires more fuel to make. Even consciously dropping meat one day a week will have positive impact.

Consume and use less of everything, particularly brand-new stuff.
Making stuff is part of the problem, and relentlessly needing new stuff has incredible impact, between manufacturing, packaging, shipping, and distribution.

Get off social media...

...or at least use it sparingly and carefully. You can read Jaron Lanier's book for a bunch of arguments (the book is OK but the arguments are compelling), but you already know the problems: It's full of hate and lies, and those base emotions are monetized by companies that have every incentive to keep it awful. It is designed to (and will successfully) manipulate you.

Social media played a critical role in electing Donald Trump, and continues to provide fodder for the worst elements of our current society. Social media contributed to the horrible violence of recent weeks.

More importantly, social media is fake, but it makes you feel like you did something. When you change your picture frame or re-post an article or type an angry response to someone else's angry comment, the energy you could have applied to real change in the real world dissipates.

Social media can have real effect on culture, but that effect comes from big movements of information driven by corporations and governments. It's 21st-century television, in the worst way. 

We will figure out a way to harness it eventually, but for now, just stop. Don't engage with the trolls. Don't use it to get your news. Cull your friends list ruthlessly. Stop reading anything except what your friends post. Don't engage with the horrible "friends" of your friends. Limit your exposure.

Do something

Stop whining. Stop complaining. You are right, it is not fair. But that's life. The other team doesn't care how you feel. In fact, if anything, they want you to whine and complain rather than doing anything meaningful.

There is nobody else. We cannot wait for some deus ex machina to appear and suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere. It is up to us. I am not saying we all have to go live in the woods somewhere. But one way or another, life is going to look very different in 10 and 20 years. Are you OK with sitting back and letting the worst things happen? Or will you try to do something?

Think it over. Talk to me. Talk to each other. We have just enough time. The clock is ticking.

We are doomed. Part 2: The internet.

At the start of the 20th century, humanity experienced remarkable technological change, at a speed and scale that is difficult for our contemporary minds to comprehend. Science and new inventions redefined what was possible. Within a few years, we had electric light, the telephone, radio, and flight.

For a brief moment, it looked like this technology would usher in a utopia. Then World War I happened, and every single new technology was turned into a horrific weapon of war.

The internet and social media are no different. For a brief moment, it looked like this technology would usher in a utopia. Information would be free. Artists would finally flourish, with the ability to distribute their art, instantly, worldwide. All the world's knowledge would be available to everyone equally. Rapid dissemination of truth would hold governments accountable, and topple unjust regimes. Greater understanding would bring peace and prosperity.

You know how it all turned out. Social media has become a weapon of war and a tool of oppression. Truth loses out to rapid dissemination of disinformation. Knowledge drowns in a sea of trivia. 

Removing the middlemen and gatekeepers allowed anyone with a voice to reach millions. We didn't get brilliant new artists or any insights that traditional media wouldn't support. We got Logan Paul and Lil Tay and Alex Jones, and new channels for the existing media companies to dominate or push the same old stuff they'd been pushing.

Truth shatters into a million mirror-bright shards, and we grab the one that reflects the world we already wanted to see.

We Are Stupid

Humans have frequently developed technologies which exceed our ability to wield them safely and responsibly, and seldom manage to keep them under control, no matter the cost. Everybody knows smoking is terrible for you, and yet people still do it. And then we find new ways to smoke. We make cars that require a high degree of skill to operate, and then people operate them while texting and distracted or drunk or just plain badly, and shrug as the exhaust poisons our skies and people die in crashes. We create foods that have nearly no nutritive value, but are such potent combinations of things we find irresistible that we all become fat and unhealthy.

Social media is no different. By intentional design or simply market forces, we have built systems that exploit humanity's cognitive biases. We increasingly gravitate towards those who agree with everything we espouse and shun those who do not. We forward articles after glancing only at the clickbait headline, pleased that it confirms what we already believe. We do not read critically. We do not check the sources.

Some of us think we're smarter, and cynically or darkly say "well, it has always been this way" or "the media is just a business, you know" or "I don't trust anybody".

Maybe you are one of the really smart people. You have your social media settings dialed in to keep things relatively private. You do the work of pruning and maintaining your friend list. You try to read things critically and carefully. You don't forward garbage. But you still occasionally comment on other people's articles, and find yourself drawn into unwinnable internet arguments.

You have also already handed over your information to companies that have proven to be terrible stewards of that information. Even if you haven't given them everything, they will either create a shadow profile, or their entire business is built on building unauthorized profiles of you that you cannot even see.

Maybe you aren't the problem, but your family and your terrible "friends", with their beyond-ignorant comments, their re-posting of the fake Ray-Ban discount, and their poor grasp of language and logic, most certainly are. They're in your network.

And there are far more of them than there are of you.

We are just too stupid to handle social media. Social media is the Doritos of the mind, and we are all crunching our way through a bottomless bag, unable and unwilling to stop. And just like excessive consumption of junk food leads to physical problems, consumption of mental junk food leads to mental problems.

That junk food has replaced the daily newspaper and evening news for most people, and has become the front end and frame for news for everyone else. Social media and its pandering has infected the news, forcing even institutions like the New York Times to resort to click-bait headlines, gimmicks, and "engaging with their audience". Maybe that's good. No, I just read some of the comments. It's not.

The Technological Assault On Truth

Aggressive use of social media to spread things that are obviously untrue is bad. But figuring out what is untrue is about to get far more difficult.

In 1985, I read a great article in Whole Earth Review about a new program called "Photoshop", and how it was "The End of Photography as Evidence of Anything. This was well before digital cameras rose to prominence. So far, we believe most official attempts at faking photographic evidence have been clumsy and easily detectable. That may be due to the fact that undetected fakes raise no alarm.

Even when we know what we are looking at is doctored (every magazine cover and many images within), we still almost instinctively accept it as true, no matter the harm. And again, even if we know this technology ultimately makes us feel bad, we do it to ourselves. Manipulated imagery becomes the norm.

And that is before further technological amplification and complication. Artificial intelligence is now being applied to create not just convincing photographic images, but astounding video footage. It looks real, but it isn't. Deep Blue begets Deep Fakes.

We have already observed how quickly blatant untruth races through our social media. I am sure deep-faked video will be far worse. At least for the moment, careful observation of the video and comparing against facts reported by reliable media can quickly extinguish faked video. But within a few years, techniques will have improved (driven by Star Wars and Marvel movies, no doubt) and the increasingly overwhelmed (and discredited and ignored) media won't be able to keep up with the volume of garbage "truth" flooding into our screens.

You Are The Botnet

Once computers were networked, hackers created viruses that could subvert the machines. First, they copied information, or held it for ransom. Then they began using the machines as part of concentrated attacks on other targets. In other words, without your knowledge or consent, your computer was turned into someone else's weapon.

Social media is doing the same thing to your social presence, and your mind. You are being used as someone else's weapon. This is not just for disinformation, it is for influencing elections and even the course of actual armed conflicts. Social media posts and data move Overton windows (or their equivalents) and help regimes decide what is and isn't acceptable, or what to target next.

Agents and actors post, and then legions of bots amplify that message, causing it to go viral and appear in everybody's feeds, which the news dutifully reports ("Some people on Twitter are saying..."), further legitimizing and amplifying the propaganda. The gullible are gulled, the rest of us are impacted.

Beyond the actual computer network, constant exposure to The Big Lies erodes people's sense of truth. Bias and doubt slip in. You cannot help it if you are surrounded by the noise. Like radiation, that misinformation is getting into you, whether you like it or not.

Even if you have hardened your computers, social profiles, and minds to a point where you believe you are not easily manipulated, remember there are over 3.2 billion people on the internet -- half the world's population. It only takes one person to infect every computer on your network, and only one of your "friends" to amplify garbage posts through your network.

Your actions do not matter. The idiots rule, or at least enable the Koch brothers, ISIS, and Putin to rule.

China Is The Future

Just as China's repressive autocracy suggests how governments will likely respond to catastrophic climate change, China's Orwellian Social Credit System points the way to our societal future. Individuals and businesses will be coerced and controlled in ways that were previously unbelievable.

The system uses 200 million surveillance cameras connected to facial recognition systems to identify people, and then matches that against financial, medical, legal, and other records. It looks at what you do, and it scores you. Take public transit? Maybe you get 5 points. Good boy. Play video games for too long? Buy the wrong products? Lose 5 points, you slacker. 

High scores might get you nice perks, like free recharges of your mobile phone at a coffee shop or low-interest loans or a great new job. Low scores might get you fined, have your internet speed slowed down, prevent you from getting a job, restrict your ability to travel, have the police come by, or even have you imprisoned or dragged off for "re-education", if not being forced to issue a public apology.

In true grade-school-classroom fashion, the system doesn't just score you, it scores your friends and family. So if you do something really bad, like post something negative about the government, it doesn't just decrease your score, it decreases the scores of the people in your network. So they will all pressure you to get with the program.

Before you dismiss this as science fiction or speculation, you should know China started implementing this in 2015, and expects to have their entire population of 1.4 billion people registered by 2020. That's in less than 2 years.

The Chinese government says the goal is algorithmic governance, which will "allow the trustworthy to roam freely under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step."

The United States already has secret scores driven by mysterious criteria that exercise massive control over our lives: credit scores. These scores were developed by three private companies who build your profile without your consent and (until laws were reluctantly passed) would charge you to tell you where you stood. These scores determine what kinds of loans you can get, and thus what kind of house or car you can buy. Some landlords use them to determine whether they will rent to you. Some employers use them to determine whether or not you are trustworthy enough to hire.  We are already used to it.

Not that long ago, if you had asked most people to post who their friends were, what they liked, where they were going, and their political opinions in a public square, they would have looked at you like you were insane, or said "that's private", or wondered which government agency you were working for. They would have thought something was off about you.

Today, it is those who do not participate in social media that seem off. We treat those who don't participate with the same mix of pity and reverence we afford those who say "I don't drink".

China has gamified compliance and oppression. Given how rapidly and completely humans have fallen for both social media and the gamification of everything else, I suspect it will be incredibly effective.

We Are Doomed

We have already allowed social media to ensnare us all, and it has allowed us to polarize our society in frightening ways. Is it social media's fault, or ours?

For the moment, you have a choice to not participate. You can follow the recommendations of Jaron "don't get rich off technology like I did" Lanier, and delete your social media accounts.

But sooner or later, you will have no practical choice and will be required to be part of the system. It might be like China, where the government forces you in, or it might be a more capitalist system where your social media profile (or lack of same) makes it difficult to get a job (because your prospective employer can't stalk you) or cross borders (because Homeland Security cannot check up on you), or get a loan or find a place to live.

And then the very systems that promised to allow us to express our truest selves openly and freely will be used to force us all to smile, think corporate, and be mutual, lest the hammer of Big Brother fall on us. 

We already punish thoughts expressed on social media that deviate from our tribal party lines, whatever they are. You can (and will) lose your job for something you post outside of (and unrelated to) work. We don't need the government to start, we have done it to ourselves.

As we are destroying our physical environment, we are also destroying our intellectual environment. We have taken the most potent tools for truth and knowledge and turned them into weapons of deception and ignorance. We cannot help ourselves.

Should we somehow manage to avoid impending ecological catastrophe, I remain doubtful we will avoid the information catastrophe.

We are doomed. Part 1: The world outside.

The recent United Nations report on global warming is clear and unequivocal: Carbon emissions caused by human activity are warming the planet, and -- unless dramatic, unprecedented measures are taken within the next two decades -- that warming will cause catastrophic damage to the environment and our civilization. Hundreds of millions of people will face extreme heat, drought, floods, famine, and poverty.

The report is notable for several reasons. For one, the timeline is much shorter than previously thought. Previous research indicated the world was facing serious trouble due to carbon emissions, but that the effects would not kick in for 50 - 100 years. Instead, the recent report finds this will  begin to happen within our lifetimes.

The report also challenged existing climate research by concluding that a much lower degree of warming -- 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit -- would be sufficient to cause damage. This is a lower threshold than previously estimated.

The research is sound, and the conclusions sobering. We have much less time than we thought, and much less margin for error.

I do not believe we will make it.

To date, nearly everything climate researchers have predicted is happening. As individuals, as a nation, as a species, we have demonstrated an inability and unwillingness to change a thing. Instead, we run faster towards the cliff's edge.

For much of human history, the failure to mitigate carbon emissions lay in ignorance. We did not know it was going to be a problem. By the time of the ecology movement of the 1970s and research into the 1980s, smart people began to suspect and figure out what was happening. That was over 30 years ago. This depressing but complete article from the New York Times Magazine covers it well.

We also did not comprehend how much sustained and rapid population growth would compound these climate issues, especially as less-developed nations like China took large and quick steps to modernize.

Now, even in the face of all-but-incontrovertible facts and research, we face self-made obstacles, to say nothing of the megatons of carbon already in the atmosphere.

Our society has tremendous inertia. The rapid changes required to avert catastrophe would be a tough sell under the best of circumstances. Given current realities, I believe it is all but impossible.

The Grid and The System

Massive investment in changing over the power grid is required. Coal has to virtually vanish, replaced by solar, wind, nuclear, and other non-emitting sources. Building new power plants is a glacially slow and excruciatingly expensive process, frequently beset by environmental concerns (think of the owls! think of the waste!) which now seem trivial against the stakes of the problem, NIMBYism, and a general disagreement over what kind of power should go where. Here in the USA, we have been able to coast for nearly 100 years on the massive infrastructure work implemented by the TVA and other huge government projects that wired our nation in the 1920s. It is inconceivable in our current moment that we would have the will to do something similar.

The entirety of the gasoline-powered transportation world must change. People need to drive their gasoline cars, trucks, planes, and boats much, much less. Everyone needs to shift to electric vehicles as quickly as possible, and those vehicles need to get their electricity from non-emitting sources.

We have to get nearly every existing car and truck off the roads within 20 years. We need to change how people think about jets and boats and lawnmowers and chainsaws and dirtbikes and portable generators.

It will be expensive -- the governments will need to subsidize this change, through some combination of vehicle buy-backs, incentives on new cars, and penalties for continuing to drive emitting vehicles. There will need to be credits and incentives to shut down gas stations.

Every single living person will need to change their habits. This may be less of a hit for urbanites in high-density areas with lots of public transportation, but there will still be changes for them, regardless. It will mean a dramatic, profound shift for suburbanites and rural folks, who rely on personal gas-powered vehicles for everything.

Petroleum infrastructure is fundamentally built into and drives our modern society. Gas stations. Gas trucks. Storage. Refineries. Drilling sites. Pipelines. All of that has to be shut down, and replaced by clean power infrastructure.

Even people's diets must change. Production and consumption of meat, particularly beef, has substantial environmental impact. In America, we can't get people to change what they eat, even as it bloats and kills them. Americans aren't going to stop eating cheeseburgers, even if "their" president tells them to.

Perhaps more dramatically, people should stop having so many children, as the absolute population load is a huge contributor and multiplier of existing bad effects, and the Western lifestyle contributes more than anything else.

At a high level, I have long thought that part of the climate change problem was that small, short-term individual actions -- driving to work today, eating a burger for lunch, accepting the power that comes out of your wall without question -- collectively add up to a large, long-term problem. It is extremely difficult to get people to change their behavior under those conditions.

The People and The Governments

Government is not going to save us. Government is us, and we are the problem. Humans are not good at comprehending large numbers, or the idea that the drop they individually contribute becomes to an ocean of trouble. People in the USA do not even believe their vote matters. How can you possibly convince them to take on further inconvenience?

All of that assumes there is political will and force to make these changes happen. Instead, at the present moment, the United States government is some combination of captive to oil-and-gas industry donors like the Koch brothers, short-sightedly stuffing their pockets with money (as though that will hold back the sea) and too afraid or too stupid to understand and accept the truth of the problem. Our representatives don't believe climate change is a real problem, or won't let themselves believe it is a real problem, or are paid by special interests to deny it is a real problem

The United States is one of the top two contributors to greenhouse gases, and has been for decades. And yet we will do nothing to solve this problem, nothing to help. Indeed, we will continue to argue the science is fraudulent or bad, that it isn't real, or that everyone else must go first, or that some yet-to-be-invented magic technology will fix everything, even as apocalyptic storms shred the country and Florida sinks under the sea.

But for a moment, imagine the USA did the right thing. Do we really believe the rest of the world will follow? That China and Russia will sign on, follow the USA, and enact similarly radical changes in their countries?

One might have imagined the EU capable of something like this, but infected with nationalism, it only takes one right-wing ideologue to tell the idiots what they want to hear and prevent it from happening. Success for that destructive model in one nation just makes it difficult for every other nation -- Why should Spain sacrifice when Britain is not doing a thing? Then you must face the Third World and explain to them why they can't have cars and jets and gasoline.

We Are Doomed

There is little to be done. Your individual actions contributed to this problem, but now even the most radical change on your part will do little to halt it, given how easy it is for the rest of the country (if not the world) to undo whatever benefit you are providing.

There are 7.4 billion people in the world.  Your actions do not matter.

Some will argue this post and others like it are a way to continue to do nothing, to justify refusing to change lifestyles. Perhaps. 30 years ago, everyone assumed we would fix the problem later. Now, as the clock runs out, we blame the past for everything -- for making the systems we are trapped in, for not doing anything, for not making gentle turns when they could still be made.

We could have done something, and we chose not to.

We could still do something. We will choose not to.

The most likely scenario is everything the report describes: extreme heat, drought, flooding, famine, and increased poverty, accompanied by nearly endless war (over land, water, food, and resources) as the global economy shrinks in reaction to ecological disaster and mass migration. It will hit the poor hardest, but it will hit all of us.

Every country will go some flavor of authoritarian, China-style, as it is the only way to force the population to do what is required to survive. We will all lose our "freedom" in exchange for "survival". The global order will fray as every nation locks its doors in a futile effort to protect itself, as though tariffs, walls, and guns could stop the carbon-laden air from drifting across their borders.

Recent events have reminded me that nothing lasts forever. Everything dies, including societies. Humanity will likely survive in some form, but it is difficult for me to envision what the other side of this inflection point looks like.

I am afraid I will live long enough to find out.

Left and Right Fists

Torture

I find myself arguing points that any mature, educated adult should not have to argue.

I have to tell Trump supporters that torture is immoral, illegal, and ineffective . These points are indisputable (if anything, torture provides opportunities to recruit for "the bad guys). And they respond that they don't care about any of those things, and that they "believe in torture."

After that, it is difficult to accept anything else these people have to say. Particularly disturbing is these aren't all crazy-eyed John Birch Society gun-wavers. These are soccer moms. Students. People who should know better.

But when they advocate torture, I cannot see them as anything other than selfish, soulless, and hateful.

Their avatar, Mr. Trump, has said he is in favor of torture because "they probably deserve it".

This is a morally bankrupt position to take, and indefensible in every way. It is not something that any thinking or feeling person can debate. If our values include torture, we are in the wrong and our values are not worth saving.

Punching

The New Left has its own problems to wrestle with, or perhaps I should say "punch in the face".

The current fashion is to argue that we should be punching Nazis in the face at every opportunity. The justifications for this rely on a semantic shell game (as do some other New Left arguments), conflating those who espouse disgusting neo-Nazi views with actual Nazis invading Poland, building concentration camps, and engaging in a world-wide war; and engaging in the current practice of "just kidding/not kidding" intent-flipping.

At least in America, our laws and culture articulate that people are allowed to speak freely (with a few narrow limitations). And that this idea -- that our society tolerates speech that we might find offensive -- is something that makes us strong.

Without the freedom to express your ideas in words, written or spoken, society cannot evolve. For that most part, that evolution has been in a positive, more progressive direction. But not always, like anything. "Progress" is not always a straightforward endeavor.

Assaulting someone on the street while they are talking is wrong. Committing violence against someone for their ideas is anti-Democratic. It is contrary to our fundamental values as a nation.

There is no exception in free speech (legally or morally) for "when you disagree with them". That is part of the challenge with free speech -- you can't carve out the speech that you don't like, while insisting that everyone else has to accept yours.

As many have noted, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Those consequences can include ostracization and wide dissemination of the fact that you said or did these things ("Hey, did you know Jane articulated neo-Nazi values?"). It can also mean that speech becomes part of the official record of the courts or government. Or that others can make recordings of same and put them up on YouTube or WorldstarHipHop or CNN.

In many cases, real-world offensive speech can result in physical violence. Walk into a bar, start calling people names, and you're likely to get punched in the face. Mouth off to a cop, see how that goes (sadly). Be nasty to a woman, get slapped.

However -- and this is critically important -- violence as the first response to speech is indicative of weakness and failure of reason for the listener more than it is the offensiveness of the speaker. For a long time, society considered those who responded to speech with violence to be lacking basic self-control or dignity, operating on a hair-trigger.

When we resort to violence as a first response to someone else's ideas, we effectively state that we have no argument, alternative or retort to the ideas being put forth. We say we are afraid of the ideas.

Put another way, I'm comfortable letting neo-Nazis talk, because I believe the neo-Nazi ideas are disgusting, powerless, and absurd -- and everyone exposed to those dumb ideas will see that. Perhaps a few wackos and losers will adopt them, but so what? There will always be some flavor of hateful and ridiculous ideology out there for people like that to embrace, and we will always counter and defeat it with better, stronger ideas.

And if we cannot trust in the robustness of our ideas and our rhetoric in the face of darkness, evil, or just some other competing ideology, it suggests a much more significant problem with our beliefs (or at the very least our way of "marketing" and delivering them) might be lurking.

The Westboro Baptist Church engaged in some of the most inflammatory and distasteful displays of free speech I can think of (short of people advocating for child molestation, and, yes, neo-Nazis). And yet society still felt physically assaulting them was largely inappropriate, or at least not celebrated to the degree our current moment has been advocating punching Nazis.

Perhaps the neo-Nazis are an appealing target at the moment, because, aside from being loathsome and taboo, they're embodied by the only allowable out-group for the left: white men. That particular demographic allows the left to say "anything goes", because everyone hates Nazis, right? You're with us or against us.

Ask yourself how you'd feel if the video was of someone punching a Muslim cleric (even one who was known to advocate Wahhabism, or had endorsed terrorist attacks). Or punching a woman who happened to be identified with the alt-right (for example, Kellyanne Conway). Or someone on whichever side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict you disagree with. Or an abortion doctor. Or someone protesting abortion.

Making an exception for violence against certain speech and ideas is dangerous, because what happens next is what always happens in these situations: anyone who disagrees with the ruling dogma gets labeled a ____ (by definition! Because "we" are anti-____). Or a ____ sympathizer. Or just someone who looks like a ____. Then they're fair game. Here comes your beat-down.

Sticks and Words

Over the last decade, our ideas of speech have been deliberately made murky by various parties. The internet and its apps are speech. Money is speech. Marches are speech. What isn't "speech"?

There are even people advocating liberal or left-leaning values who are bringing reactionary thinking and Orwellian philosophy into the picture, They claim destroying property (by smashing it or burning it) is not violence (as long as it isn't yours). It, too, is speech.

And sucker-punching people isn't violence. It's "speech." If that is speech, what is violence?

In some people's views, speech is violence. To say the wrong things, or even say the right things using the wrong words, is violence. They say "words hurt" and that speech can "seem like an assault" or "feel threatening". Yet instead of responding in kind, with their own nasty speech, the proposed solution is the aforementioned physical violence.

So in some contexts and arguments, actual speech is "violence", and actual violence is "speech".

There is a huge difference between someone espousing hateful ideas and someone committing actual physical violence, as anyone who has experienced both will tell you. "Sticks and stones..."

We erode that distinction and clarity at our own peril.

The Quality of Speech

A minor diversion. The current societal moment also likes to chastise people for the words they use, absent original context and intent, amidst shifting definitions. As an example, the word "racist" now has different meanings depending on the people you're talking to, and the chasm in those meanings is being specifically exploited as part of the current political discourse.

It used to be that "educated" people wouldn't use what they referred to as the "f-word" in polite conversation, in art, and certainly not as part of public discourse. Now, the "f-word" is not only no problem, but failure or refusal to use it marks you as some kind of fuddy-duddy (or perhaps f-word duddy.) But if you use the "n-word" in any context (assuming you're not part of the group "allowed" to use it), you will be in big trouble.

There is something almost quaint about the idea that some words can still shock, and still have that kind of power. I say "almost" because more than quaint, I find it ridiculous and arbitrary, or perhaps more accurately an indication that words, language, and society continue to evolve and change. Maybe we shouldn't take it so seriously, or at least recognize that speech we deem "offensive" can be ignored, or says more about the speaker's deficiencies than our own.

Context and intent also matter, and perhaps matter more than the actual words. The words themselves have no meaning or power. It's how they are deployed. It's like if people started using the word "pickle" as a hateful term for people of color. You get upset about the intent and the context, not the word. No matter what words someone is actually using, if their intent is to hurt, they're in the wrong.

This works the other way, too. Certain people jumped all over Steve Martin for a tweet he shared after his friend Carrie Fisher died. Rather than accepting and understanding that he was grieving for a a friend and saying nice things about her, they chose to ignore the context and intent and focus on policing speech. Even if you believe Martin or his choice of language were sexist or representative of the patriarchy or whatever, is this really the best target to pick here? And the best time? It is clear to everyone (including the Speech Police) what Martin meant and was trying to do. Unfortunately some people saw a rich target for making an ideological point.

When people focus on which words you use, instead of what you said and meant with them, every speech or dialog becomes a list of good words to be ticked and bad words to be avoided. And when that happens, the speech you end up with when you do that is bland and empty, "positive" but unable to actually advocate anything for fear of upsetting people.

How and Why

How we do things and why we do them matters as much as, and perhaps more than, the actual results. Winning by cheating isn't really winning, is it? If we defeat our enemies by destroying our values and replacing them with their values, who is the victor and who is the vanquished? We win, but what have we lost?

When we adopt the tactics of the brutal because we are convinced we are right and justified, we give in to the trap of "might equals right". We give in to fear. We give in to our worst instincts. We play by their rules instead of ours. That is what happens when we start by punching people whose ideas we disagree with. We go to the dark side. Or Iraq.

Maintaining the moral high ground isn't just "nice". It is the thing that makes our cause just and gives us the right to exercise force if needed. It is literally what allows us to be better than and different from those we are fighting.

(And I suppose I have to clarify again that I am not talking about self-defense, or responding to individual physical aggression, though depending on where you live, local laws may or may not support you).

What is so ultimately disturbing about all of this for me is the Ourobouros these right and left actions forms. This is not some "both sides do it" argument, but rather an uncomfortable parallel.

Because when you're fighting Nazis or the out-group or ____ or whatever boogeyman you have, why stop at sucker punches on the street? Based on the logic and justifications you used to start punching, you cannot stop there. Ideological purity demands it.

After all, they're evil and we are righteous. What about guns? Assassinations? Blowing up their houses? Attacking their families? Torture?

They probably deserve it.

Grammys 2016: The Mall is Lame

Artists A and B.

I caught the last 5 minutes of the Grammys -- enough to see Adele win "Best Album" for her record "25" (beating out Beyonce's "Lemonade"), and enough to see Adele's all-white crew on stage.

As Adele fought back tears and gave props to Beyonce, I couldn't help thinking that part of why she was crying was the Internet was about to start laying into her for winning and for being #GrammysSoWhite.

The world is predictable, sometimes. Let's clarify a few things.

"25" was a massive record. How massive?

"In 2015, [Adele's] '25', which ended the year as the most popular release by a mile, sold more than the best-selling titles of 2013 and 2014 combined. 

...no album has sold at least 7.4 million copies in a calendar year since Usher’s "Confessions" just barely missed the 8 million mark back in 2004. It’s also worth noting that 25 was released in November, so it added up all those sales in less than two months. 

Adele’s latest blockbuster was responsible for 3% of all albums sold in 2015. That percentage is greater than any record released this millennium, and while it sounds like a small number, remember that this data counts all albums sold from any artist.  

In terms of actual physical CDs sold, 25 was still in the lead, and in fact, the album that spawned the gargantuan worldwide hit “Hello” was responsible for 4% of all CD sales."

The absolute numbers may not be in "Thriller" territory, but in terms of industry impact, that is an astounding achievement. And note that is just for 2015. This was the 2016 Grammys, which means she racked up even more sales and impact. And in the much-diminished music business of 2017, that means a lot.

Regarding Beyonce,

"Lemonade" is 2016’s third-biggest-selling album and one of only two albums released in 2016 to sell at least one million copies. Drake’s "Views", with 1.196 million sold, is the other. Adele’s "25" -- which was released in 2015 -- is 2016’s best-seller, with 1.334 million sold this year. (In total, "25" has sold 8.774 million.)

Beyonce made a record that made a big splash. She did an entire "video album" filled with provocative imagery which slotted nicely into the ideology of her fans, who felt it made a statement.

As of today, her album "Lemonade" can still only be streamed on TIDAL -- it is not available on Apple Music or Spotify, the two largest streaming services. This almost certainly contributed to the lower sales and lower recognition.

Perhaps more importantly, The GRAMMYS are lame. They always have been, and they probably always will be.

Complaining about the Grammys selections is like griping that the mall doesn't have any cool indie stores. Duh. It's the mall. That's not what they do. If you're looking for cool or cultural relevance or good taste, you are not going to find it there.

The list of great artists (of all colors) ignored by the Grammys is long. (I am sure artists of color have been treated worse than white artists.)

None of us should be looking to the Grammys for any kind of artistic validation. They are meaningless, and largely driven by industry insiders who are paying attention to things like how well the record was engineered or the marketing campaign or, yes, raw sales.

I see this as part of a trend in the culture. Today, people demand that institutions, power structure, and "the man" support or pay tribute to their ideology. This is a contrast or change from a few decades ago when people simply ignored the institutions and power structure and created their own DIY systems and structures for validation.

Put another way, we didn't go the mall, we started our own cool indie shops. But now, people demand the mall be cool.

I'm not sure which is more righteous, effective, or "correct". I do know that I listened to both albums by A & B, and I thought they were perfectly competent, enjoyable representations of what pop music sounded like in 2016. I did not buy either one, and I have no desire to hear either of them again.

The 2016 Election: tl; dr

Jonathan Pie covers some of the same ground of my previous piece in a powerful way. Worth six minutes of your time. Contains bad language:

The 2016 Election: How This Happened

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" 

-- Edmund Burke

I knew by 6:30 pm Pacific Time that Clinton was going to lose, and lose badly. Shocked, I watched my former classmate Jake Tapper on CNN until almost 11, then stayed up longer reading. I didn't sleep that night, tossing and turning while my brain kept wrestling with the same question everybody else is asking:

"How did this happen"?

The answer is disappointingly obvious:

Trump won because Clinton didn't get enough votes.

I mean that quite literally. Here's a chart:

It shows that the number of Republican voters has been basically constant for the last 3 presidential elections (Obama 1, Obama 2, Trump). But look at the Democratic voters! That is an incredible drop-off, and it happened during this "most important election of our time".

(Yes, there are some "bad" things about this chart, like it doesn't start at zero. It's also not adjusted for population growth. Doesn't matter or affect the assertion.)

Here are some more stats from Wikipedia (all numbers are thousands):

	Florida			Pennsylvania			Michigan			Wisconsin
	Dem	Rep	Est. Pop	Dem	Rep	Est. Pop	Dem	Rep	Est. Pop	Dem	Rep	Est. Pop
2008	4,282	4,046		3,275	2,655		2,872	2,048		1,627	1,262
2012	4,237	4,163	19,360	2,980	2,680	12,770	2,564	2,115	9,885	1,614	1,408	5,725
2016	4,485	4,605	20,280	2,845	2,912	12,815	2,267	2,279	9,655	1,382	1,409	5,783
Difference	248	442	920	-135	232	45	-297	164	-230	-232	1	58

In these 4 "battleground states", the Republican voter turnout was slightly higher, but in all cases, the Democrat voter turnout was lower, and in most cases, substantially lower than the previous election, even when adjusted for population changes.

The Clinton campaign failed to get people -- Democrats, "her" people --  to turn up and vote. That's why she lost.

The Republicans didn't turn out in massive numbers. They pulled more or less the same voter count they pulled for the last 2 elections, both of which they lost handily. They had the same pull, played the same game. The Democrats just didn't show up.

Why didn't people turn up to vote for Hillary Clinton? I think these factors were primary drivers:

1. The Candidate
2. The Campaign
3. The Culture

The Candidate

Clinton and the Enthusiasm Gap. She was extremely unpopular on the right.

But Clinton was also unpopular on the left, with people resenting her for beating Bernie Sanders, unhappy with her previous stance on gay marriage, support for war, Wall Street ties, and more.

"Another Democrat". At best, Clinton came across like the worst of the late 20th-century Democrats like Dukakis or Kerry: boring, stiff, ineffective.

At worst -- thanks to decades of Republican smears and her own bad judgment (and history of same) -- Clinton seemed possibly corrupt and definitely embodying the Washington establishment, with a track record of saying whatever she thought was most politically expedient. The anti-Trump, in every way.

Overconfidence. Plenty of people including Hillary Clinton (and polls) thought she had it in the bag, and "besides, my vote doesn't matter". This is in stark contrast to Obama's two campaigns, who were hell-bent on getting out the vote and treating it like the urgent mission it was.

Plain old laziness. 8 years of Obama's presidency made people forget what happens when you lose the White House. The GOP and the Trump campaign, on the other hand, were on a crusade.

I do believe current social media culture amplified the above effects substantially.

The Campaign

Clinton ran a weak, uninspiring campaign without a clear message or takeaway. I'm not just talking about the literally passive slogan "Stronger Together" (no verb!), but the meta-message, which was...what? "I'm a woman?" "I'm not Trump?" "More of the same?" There was nothing for people to grab onto.

Or worse, what people could grab onto was disappointing: "More of the same". For those who voted for Trump, that message was interpreted as "We still don't care about you. We still don't understand you. We still don't want to try. We're keeping the system we have. And we still think you're deplorable." Which is not how you add people to your flock. Intentionally or not, Trump was able to scoop up people by saying "I will fight for you."

But none of that should have mattered for Democrats or most people, because even if you didn't find Clinton "inspiring", even if your response to her was tepid, she at least was not the candidate saying "I'm going to register all Muslims. I'm going to jail the opposition. I'm going to silence the press." and so on. By staying at home and not voting, Trump was handed the election.

Clinton and her team had (supposedly) decades of experience at this and were supposed to be experts, especially compared with the Trump campaign's n00b crew, which came up with this logo:

...and still, despite running against the objectively worst candidate in 30 years, Clinton and her team were unable to get people into the voting booth.

Don't beat yourself up for not donating. Hillary Clinton had plenty of money (like Romney), more than Trump. Trump spent half of what Clinton did per electoral vote. Her campaign was well-funded, and was supposed to be well-staffed and well-organized.

The Invisible VP. Without knowing much about Tim Kaine, I can say Clinton's campaign basically make him appear as so much wallpaper, saying nothing and having no personality. Contrast with Joe Biden or Sarah Palin. Kaine was a choice that basically said "Nothing to see here. Show's over there, folks". He added nothing. As someone else noted, Clinton could have made some really bold choices, like picking another woman as a running mate, or picking someone really far left (to lock in the liberals) or even more center (to pull in more on the right). Instead, she went with "invisible".

How bad was the campaign?

Well, for one thing, Barack Obama and the Democrats led the bail-out of the US auto industry in the heart of all those red states. The Democrats saved thousands of jobs, entire cities, and arguably the entire US economy. How come those voters weren't constantly reminded of that? Does anyone believe Mr. "You're Fired" would have saved them?

For another, the GOP and their economic and political policies are directly responsible for literally poisoning the well in Flint, Michigan, and guess who Flint and Michigan voted for? (Hint: Not Hillary Clinton. Go look at that first chart again. Nearly 300,000 fewer Democratic voters in this election than the last one). That is astounding.

Mitt Romney:
Actual billionaire who made money by firing people.

I remain irritated with the left for their inability to address these kinds of issues. How does the left -- the party of unions, universal healthcare, and taxing the rich -- get painted as the "out of touch elite", while the party who cuts taxes on the rich, slashes benefits, and whose last 2 candidates were actual billionaires who made their money firing people (Romney and Trump) get painted as the party of the "working man"? Gross incompetence.

Globalization was supposed to produce dividends, some of which were to be used to help displaced workers. We all dropped the ball on that, and we're paying the price.

I think Trump voters said "well, the Democrats haven't helped us, and Trump is a big "f___ you" to the GOP and the Democrats too, so I'm voting for him." I think that dissatisfaction with the current political system and the economy drove a lot of those Trump voters.

The Culture

I do not think sexism and racism in America are the primary reasons Trump won. Yes, of course those things exist, and were probably factors for a fringe minority, but that minority of people voted, and voted Republican in the last 2 elections.

Again, the numbers do not show any kind of Republican "surge". Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney did. You could argue for every neo-Nazi that voted for Trump, there was a center-right "reasonable" Republican who stayed home. Democrats would have still won if they'd just shown up.

More importantly, for those who keep wringing their hands about the sexism, racism, etc, look at this race and gender data about who voted and how:

52% of white women voted for Trump.
33% of Latino men voted for Trump.
13% of black men voted for Trump.

They likely voted for Trump despite the bad things he said, because they felt he spoke to them somehow. However bothered they were (or weren't) by Trump's words and deeds, those surprising numbers still preferred Trump to Clinton. Let that sink in for a moment.

You have to be extremely cynical and/or condescending to attribute that to "stupidity" or "they were fooled" or "they hate themselves". Or you have to believe that hatred is extremely quick to grow (and deep), because...

This is more or less the same country that elected Barack Obama twice, by large margins (again, see the first chart up top).

I don't think the country has, on balance, become more sexist/racist/whatever despite Trump's campaign. I do think Trump's awful behavior did let the John Birchers, KKK sympathizers, and other lunatic fringe feel like they didn't have to hide anymore, especially when coupled with the awful media.

But people with those beliefs didn't massively boost the GOP voting base. GOP turnout was basically the same. Democrats didn't vote.

Put another way, this wasn't a "victory for sexism and racism", this was "those who oppose sexism and racism decided it wasn't worth voting for in this election."

But let's dig into that for a moment.

First, there are people decrying Trump voters thusly: "How can you vote for a candidate who says such awful sexist and racist things? Who does such awful things? Voting for him is an endorsement of all that awful stuff."

The response from those who voted is "Well, he doesn't really mean it, he's just doing that to get elected." Or they say "well, he's the guy my party picked, so I'm voting for him". Or "I'm voting for him despite all that because I think he's ultimately better for other, more important reasons" (like "he represents change"...Does "change" sound familiar?).

And then I'd remind you that, during the campaign, Democrats frequently noted that Hillary had said things she didn't mean (anymore, such as her position on gay marriage). She'd supported things Democrats didn't like, including a more hawkish position on war and drone strikes, and being too cozy with Wall Street and big business.

And they were still voting for her -- and thus endorsing all of that -- because, well, she didn't mean it, or she was just doing that to get elected, or that she was the person the party picked, or that you were voting for her despite all that because... See?

The left's position of "if you don't agree with what we say and how we require you to say it, you are a racist, sexist, misogynist bigot" is not particularly welcoming, helpful, or constructive. I believe reaction to that attitude is part of Trump's appeal and his win.

Some of you reading this are applying that attitude to all of the people listed above who voted for Trump.

It's not so much that people are all those bad things (sexist, racist, misogynistic, bigoted) -- though of course, that behavior does exist and there are some truly awful people -- it's that nobody likes being scolded in that way, to that degree. Especially not for what they perceive as ordinary behavior, like expressing their opinion and speaking their mind, or at least previously tolerated, behavior like cracking jokes.

It instantly alienates allies and makes the opposition even more hostile. It's also toxic to debate, thought, and the other things that the left is supposed to embody and support.

I have watched many of my friends make fun of Trump's (and other GOPers') gender, appearance, and name, and it is painfully easy to see how completely indistinguishable it is from the right doing the same. Except when the right does these things, it's unacceptable, and when the left does it, it's "just a joke" or justified in some other way.

The left's insensitivity and lack of self-awareness towards how they treat those that disagree with them (while demanding sensitivity from same) is staggering, and it is a real problem.

The left has focused on making sure people respect "identity" and "feelings". But "uneducated white men" (and really, anyone who disagrees with the left on anything) have feelings and identity, too, and in a truly equal world, that also deserves to be respected and understood, not denigrated.

I believe some Trump voters felt this instinctively: "How come I have to respect them, but they don't have to respect me?" "How come it's always 'white guys are the worst' and I can't say something about someone who treated me bad or that I don't like?"

Yes, Trump and the right played on the sexism and racism of their supporters and America at large. The numbers show it didn't really do much for them. Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney did.

Conversely, Clinton and the left arguably said "you are sexist and racist if you don't agree with us". And it appears to have driven away some of those who previously supported them. Clinton got fewer voters to turn up for her than Obama did in the last 2 elections.

The left has some reckoning to do here, both with that hypocrisy and the one-downmanship that leads to arguments about who is the worst off/most victimized and therefore most righteous...and that anyone else's complaints, thoughts, or opinions aren't valid. A good example of how destructive and uncomfortable this gets was the Black Lives Matter vs. Bernie Sanders conflict.

Because Left, if you don't win, you don't get to do anything, and you risk losing all your progress. You need to do what it takes to win. That means being accommodating and welcoming. It means compromising, and not just on policy issues. It means real tolerance, not just of those who agree with everything you say and how you want them to say it. Increasing dogmatism and rigidity of thought and ideology makes you more like the Rick Santorum wing of the GOP, but with different rules, and I don't think that's who you are or what you want.

What Else?

I think these remaining factors played a role in Clinton's voter failure, but were less significant than people are believing:

Voter Suppression. The GOP's gerrymandering and voter suppression enabled by the shameful repeal of the Voting Rights Act ultimately decreased minority votes by 10-25% in some states. Those are significant numbers, but a strong get-out-the-vote strategy in those areas could have overcome that AND made Clinton look like a hero. And in the big picture, getting out the vote overall would have overwhelmed the suppression in a few states.

It's not like we didn't know about the gerrymandering or voter suppression in advance. That stuff was public and months out from the election. More should have been done.

3rd-Party Candidates. I don't think every person who voted for Johnson or Stein represented a lost vote for Clinton, but it sure didn't help. The race would have been closer without them in it, obviously, but the margin is likely insufficient to tip the scales.

I remain frustrated with anyone who "protest voted" or actually preferred either of those two objectively terrible candidates: "What is Aleppo?" and The Doctor Who Didn't Believe In Vaccines.

More importantly, the 3rd-party candidates and those who voted for them represent how uninspiring Clinton was for the masses, and how the Democrats just did not have their act together.  You didn't -- and don't -- see this kind of fracturing or erosion on the GOP side, and when it happens (Tea Party), the upstarts are immediately co-opted (assuming they weren't astro-turf to begin with) to make that party "stronger together".

I'll write it again: The Democrats just didn't show up to vote...and some that did voted 3rd-party (but not enough to make a difference).

The echo chamber of social media kept people from really understanding perspectives outside of their own bubble. This same thing clobbered Mitt Romney in the last election.

I see lots of parallels between the Obama/Romney election and the Clinton/Trump election: The confidence of the wealthy establishment candidate against the "upstart" fighting for the people. Romney was blindsided on election night, too. And he also made a dumb comment about the opposition's constituents in the run-up to the election.

The media and their general abdication of responsibility for "telling the truth" and "educating people" in favor of clickbait and panic-generation. This is also our fault, for demanding all our news be free (as in beer), entertaining, and unchallenging. We killed all our newspapers, felt that MSNBC was a fine "Fox for the left", and that having a "Fox for the left" is actually a good idea (it's not).

Of course, the real "newspaper" is Facebook now, and it's full of lies and distortions and completely unaccountable for any of it. And yet, it's how we're all getting our news.

In Closing

"I can't believe Trump won! How did this happen?"

Too many Democratic voters in too many states didn't even bother to vote. At all.

For all Trump's awfulness and all Clinton's greatness, that's how unmotivated they were. Perhaps now the consequences are starting to become evident, the mid-term elections will be different, and perhaps even the next presidential election. I am increasingly skeptical, however.

So, a message to anyone who didn't show up to vote:

All y'all had to do was show up and vote...and most of you are smart enough to figure out how to vote by mail, so you didn't even have to get off the couch. 

And you didn't. You know who you are.

Now, in the aftermath, what do you do? You can march in the street or wear a safety pin or change your Facebook icon. You can volunteer and give money. You can tell yourself you're doing something.

You can blame her. Blame "them". Blame the media. Blame Facebook. Blame Russia.

Doesn't matter. You didn't even vote. You didn't exercise the one right that our nation was founded on, that we've fought wars over, that people have died for. 

You not only lost, you didn't even try. You did nothing.