Slow down, or even dump, the Kavanaugh nomination

Thoughts on the Brett Kavanaugh nomination:

  • Seeing as yesterday’s Ford-Kavanaugh testimony occurred overnight, I have only been checking the highlights today. It is powerful.
  • I really don’t see at this point how Republicans can proceed to vote on his nomination without an FBI investigation. They likely will, of course, given how ruthlessly they pursue Supreme Court seats, but I would think they would want it as a way to remove doubts about Kavanaugh, since they believe so strongly that he did nothing wrong. Obviously that investigation would have to include Kavanaugh’s friend, Mark Judge. This is not a clean he said, she said, because she has maintained from the beginning that there is an eyewitness – and not necessarily one in her favor.
  • Sorry, but if Kavanaugh feels persecuted, I just don’t have much sympathy for him. His history as part of Ken Starr’s Whitewater, then later Monica Lewinsky, investigation team speaks for itself. He had no problem with a relentless investigation of a sexual matter then. Does he regret it now? And that was consensual, supposedly, unlike what he’s accused of. (That said, I have little patience for Democrats who continue to defend Bill Clinton. He grossly abused his position and power with Monica Lewinsky in ways that seem so clear to many Democrats now, just so long as it isn’t Clinton we’re talking about.)
  • Really, at this point, do Republicans not have someone else they can nominate? I mean, they’ve already proven that they do. Just look at the way that Mitch McConnell engineered the seat for Neil Gorsuch and was able to jam him through. They’ve gotten an approval before. Find someone besides Kavanaugh.
  • Finally, like the Trump election proved that the Electoral College is an obsolete relic by allowing the candidate with fewer votes to win, lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are a relic. We need a fixed term, just like every other government office – maybe 15 or 20 years. That’s plenty of time for a justice to retain a level of independence, but still limit the power of a single individual over American life.

Four years an expat – What do I think of home?

Recently, my family and I traveled to the United States for our annual trip back to see family and friends. We’ve done this every (northern) summer since moving to Singapore. After we returned, a friend asked me what I thought of the US, since we’ve lived outside of the country for a while now. So, here’s my answer.

I’d start by saying that we’re from the Midwestern US (Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois), and we’ve mostly lived in small cities and small towns in suburban and rural areas – not urban or coastal areas – so there are bound to be differences from the strictly urban, island environment we live in in Singapore.

So, that said, the first thing that strikes me every time is now intensely car-based US culture is. You have to get in the car to do ANYTHING. Here in Singapore, we’re accustomed to walking most places or taking the train, which we vastly prefer.

Also, everything is single-family homes pretty much in the US, which is not at all like here. We live on the 25th floor of an apartment high rise. Frankly, I don’t miss having to tend to a yard at all. I do maybe miss having a garage to tinker in, but nowadays that’s really mostly for my boys to enjoy, not me.

Put together – cars and housing – I know these are supposed to represent the American Dream. They’re supposed to represent freedom. To me, anymore, they just represent restraint. A house needs to be endlessly maintained. Something is always breaking. And as I mentioned, I get no joy from mowing a lawn, anymore (especially when you throw in the environmental consequences of making it conform to the usual expectations). Also, we often talk about home “ownership” in the US. Of course, if you have a mortgage – which the vast majority of people do, of course – the lender actually has more of a claim on the house than you do. As for a car, they, too, need endless care and feeding – expensive care and feeding. And the notion of going back to being stuck in a traffic jam at rush hour is a nightmare. Yes, compared to public transportation, you do get your own personalized pod for your commute. But there’s a steep price to pay. Oh, and US cars are HUGE compared to here. Most US cars would be utterly impractical here, but that would be true of most cities, I think. (Maybe not Texan cities, where they are likely designed around dually pickup trucks.)

My friend also asked about how many people are outside in Singapore, compared to the US. On this, the comparison is a bit unfair because, being on the Equator, Singapore feels like summer all year round – hot and humid. (Although, oddly, the northern and southern summers are often far hotter than here because they get even more concentrated sunshine for a longer day. Here, the day is the same length all year long.) Because it’s always like summer here, people can very easily be out all year long, but the air con (air conditioning) is often more attractive than the sweltering heat. So, in that regard, perhaps every day feels a bit like a winter day, where you might go out for a bit, but you can’t wait to get back inside.

A last observation – and this is a bit rude, I guess – is people are a lot heavier. But this is well known from national comparisons. I can think of many reasons – and I’m not expert – but I’d have to point to the seemingly obvious reasons of the prevalence of US-style fast food, combined with the car-based culture. I know I packed on about 10 pounds in just three weeks. Man, it’s hard to resist the siren call of that deep-fried junk food. Now, yes, people can choose better food most of the time, but for sure, as an individual, you can’t choose a walking culture. That’s a public policy choice. We continue to invest our transportation dollars in roads and a car-based lifestyle, when other options are certainly available. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, we are from the Midwest, and I think, in general, people are thinner outside the Midwest – California and Florida, for example – but that’s well known from state-by-state comparisons, too. (Thank the South for beating us out on this specific measure.)

I would imagine many people are curious about how the politics comes across. Actually, it’s not that hard to stay up on the politics from here, so I don’t feel as disconnected as I might have in past decades. However, I will say this: Trump supporters seem to have no problem getting in your face. One boat we saw in Michigan was flying an enormous Trump flag. There was no corresponding show from others, but we were in a pretty conservative area. Either way, I’m not a fan of Trump, so there you go.

Otherwise, it felt a lot like home always did – which is comforting.

The 21st Century Dilemma

A friend sends me this column by Niall Ferguson:

Screen Shot 2018-06-13 at 4.31.14 PM

I don’t see myself naturally aligned with Ferguson on much, but I found this analysis interesting.

That said, I think he glosses over the fact that China represents a wholly different political system with regard to human rights and freedoms than the US and Europe do. That same cultural perspective should be unifying us, and instead, Trump attacks our democratic allies and warms up to dictators.

That’s emerging as the central danger to our republic from Trump. He’s a wannabe autocrat. And while we might constrain him at home (if Republicans ever grow a spine), there’s a very real danger that he will have permanently damaged our relationships with our fellow democracies. And once that happens, autocracy will rule the global political day (which, in fact, is just a reversion to the human norm of millennia).

I envision a global democratic alliance that also includes India. Sure, India often gets laughed at for having so much democracy that it can’t develop – or function. But I’d rather throw humanity’s lot in with that problem than autocracy.

The Trump-Kim Summit

The Trump-Kim summit is tomorrow (Singapore time), and I guess I’ll weigh in on it – mostly just because they’re both staying about a five-minute walk away on either side of me.

Everyone has to wish that this meeting works out. Even if this could mean an easier path to a second term for Trump, everyone has to wish for this to succeed.

But what’s success? I think the only measure that there can be is that there is a concrete step toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

But what are the chances that that’s going to happen? Virtually zero.

In my reading of the situation, above all else Kim wants security. He wants to know that he and his regime can stay in power. In a world where the US names countries to an “Axis of Evil” and overthrows nations with every new presidency, the only reasonable and solid guarantee he could create for himself was a nuclear deterrent. Now he has it, and he’s not going to give it up.

So, based on that reality, this whole thing is for show. Kim gets what he wants in international recognition and stature. Trump gets what he wants in basically the same terms, except he’d love a shot at getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

But if this fails, neither one of them loses anything. We just return to the status quo, and they can each leave, blaming the other for why it didn’t work out. Just see their Twitter feeds for how they’ll go about that. There simply is no downside to this meeting for them. It’s only upside.

Meanwhile, according to Singapore’s prime minister, the country is shelling out SG$20 million (about US$15 million) for this event (although who knows who might cover all the costs in the end, really), and I can’t get deliveries to my condo since I’m in one of the secure zones. (Well, okay, that last part is a bit petty.)

Again, let’s hope for success. But that’s not where I’d put my money.

P.S. I am not a fan of Trump, but that doesn’t mean I disagree with everything he does. I actually see this as a welcome shake-up of the dynamic with North Korea. But there’s been so little planning – it’s so much off the cuff – that it seems unlikely that this will go anywhere.

Transparency

In a previous post I asked the question, am I a journalist? From reading that, you will know that my answer is yes, under a couple of conditions:

  • That I will be transparent about my worldview and associations.
  • That I will hold to the commitments and habits of a journalist, including retaining a healthy skepticism, relying on verifiable facts and evidence, and remaining fair-minded.

In this post, I try to be as transparent as possible about various items that I think are relevant to understanding my journalistic work and writing. Here they are.

I was born and raised in the Midwest, and I’m damn proud of it. I lived in Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois for almost my entire life before moving to Singapore. (Yeah, that was a bit of a change.)

I self-identify as a secular humanist, and yup, that means I’m an atheist. (I was raised as a Roman Catholic.) I believe a secular society is best. Otherwise, we risk endless religious war.

I was a mainstream journalist for a little while, but then I had to move on. I cover that here.

I spent several years working in the un-paid economy as a stay-at-home dad, raising two boys.

Thanks to my hard-working spouse, we’re doing pretty well. (Based on where she works, don’t expect any poignant commentary or hard-hitting exposés on the construction equipment or mining industries.) We’re in the top roughly two percent of earners and top ten percent of wealth in the US – which is pretty darn good, of course, and ridiculously wealthy on a global scale.

That said, given the shape of the income and wealth distribution, I find it much easier to identify with the 99%. Let’s put it this way: I’m not attending Davos.

I believe in the traditional western liberal values of freedom and individuality, including freedom of expression, free enterprise, and free and fair elections – using the American interpretation of these rights as my baseline.

Even though I identify as a journalist, I reserve the traditional rights of citizenship. I will vote and support candidates and issues I believe are in the best interests of my country and the world.

I have traditionally voted for Democrats because they tend to be in line with my positions. That said, I think party partisanship makes people stupid. I refuse to self-identify as a Democrat and do not consider myself a member of the Democratic party.

In 2016, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. And for what it’s worth, I would have voted for John Kasich over Hillary Clinton, but alas, Republican primary voters didn’t give me that choice. I have contributed money to individual Democratic candidates from time to time.

I once briefly helped a Democratic candidate for the US House and have phone-banked for Democratic candidates once. I decided I didn’t like to do either one of those things.

I’ve lobbied Illinois state politicians in opposition to fracking and on behalf of a more equitable tax system.

Based on my reading of the evidence and upon reflection, I believe the following are important to human well-being: a comprehensive welfare state; clean, democratic politics; and strict gun control.

I believe everyone should have the basic stuff of life. We can argue about how to get there, but I really can’t see why not to do this.

I’ve contributed to the groups the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Common Cause, the ACLU, Illinois People’s Action, and Drinking Liberally – sometimes with time, sometimes with money, and sometime with both. I am not an NRA member (surprise!), nor do I own a gun.

I oppose an unlimited right to abortion and the identity politics of in-born traits.

I tried to come up with a pithy summary for my political-economic worldview, and I came up with “socialist for conservative reasons”. I also like “decidedly, but not strictly, left-wing”. Pick your fave.

I’m fascinated by China and Chinese culture.

I hate professional sports, but I love tennis, so I’ll watch those folks.

I enjoy the occasional rainy day.

For more insight on where I’m coming from, please follow me on my blog, Twitter, Facebook, and Medium.

I reserve the right to change my mind.

Am I a journalist?

As you can see at the top of my website, I describe myself as a journalist. However, if you spend any time reading my blog or my social media posts, you’ll quickly see why, when asked, I also describe myself as a liberal.

If you’re of a particular mindset about journalism, you might find that a tough pill to swallow. I understand, because it is for me, too. I grew up in the 70s and 80s at the tail end of an era in journalism when “objectivity” was considered absolutely paramount. I even grew up in the household of a traditional newspaperman who taught classes on journalism ethics. Journalists were not supposed to express an opinion. They certainly were never to be politically active, either in partisan politics or with an issue advocacy group. That said, even in those stricter days, there were a few exceptions. Sometimes journalists could write “analysis” pieces, in which they tried to put facts and events into more context, and that required applying judgment as to what was relevant and irrelevant to best understand a given situation. Also, when someone was labeled a columnist, he or she could express opinions more readily. However, there was still an expectation that facts and reasons had to be provided, and political activity remained off the table.

This traditionalist mindset has taken a beating in the last roughly three decades. Rightly so, because it was mostly a fairy tale. Journalists were never robots, without emotional attachments to a sense of what was and wasn’t important. They couldn’t help but have a sense of what was right or wrong for themselves, their families, their communities, their country, and the world. For example, at a most basic level, whatever perspective they had came out in story choice. Some events and issues were deemed worthy of attention and time, and others were not.

So, if this traditional sense of journalism was largely a fiction, is objectivity dead? Is there anything that can be reasonably called journalism?

The answers are no and yes, and explaining those answers will in turn explain why, despite self-identifying as a liberal, I feel like I can still describe myself as a journalist.

It comes down to the concept of transparency and the craft of journalism.

Transparency

Put simply in a 2009 post by David Weinberger that I found thanks to Jay Rosen:

Transparency is the new objectivity.

The idea is that, since no one can ever be completely free of interests and perspectives, it’s best just to be upfront about what they are. Rosen digs further into this definition of objectivity here.

As he stresses, being clear about where you’re coming from “is the biggest shift, and the hardest for traditionalists to accept.” As a recovering traditionalist, I think he’s probably right there. Transparency is a powerful idea. Rather than going to all sorts of personal and creative lengths to disguise one’s opinions, just be open and free with what they are. In fact, being forthcoming and truthful sounds an awful lot like, wait for it, what journalists expect of everyone else.

The craft of journalism

While the concept of transparency does a lot of the heavy lifting, it doesn’t get you all the way to an understanding of what it takes to be a journalist. For the rest, I think you have to turn back to some very old-fashioned notions. Labeling yourself a journalist means that you are willing to make commitments to a particular kind of craft.

First, journalists must always retain healthy skepticism. They must always challenge facts and assumptions. They must maintain a critical distance – or put another way, be willing to call bullshit.

Second, journalists must be fair-minded. Perfect balance in any story is not always possible – and frankly, not always desirable, as examinations of the coverage of global warming have shown. Even so, journalists have to be careful not simply to dismiss perspectives that don’t align with their worldview. (Of course, there are limits.)

Third, journalists must stick to the traditional notion of finding and verifying facts and information, even if they also provide context that interprets those facts. The famous quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan comes to mind:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

By the way, I would also extend this idea to say that journalists must commit to being secular, in the sense that we can only consider facts as they exist in the natural world. People hold all sorts of beliefs about supernatural reality, but what’s important is how they have an impact on the world we share.

All of this, by the way, might sound like a version of the scientific endeavor, and yes, it’s pretty close. As Carrie Brown-Smith puts it here: “The scientific method on a tighter deadline.”

Brown-Smith has more to say on the idea of transparency in her post, so go read it. But she also highlights the elements of journalistic craft I’m talking about here. In fact, she refers to the famous book (in journalism education circles, anyway) of Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, “The Elements of Journalism” (naturally), in which they say that the traditionalist notion of objectivity, that I discussed at the top, was a distortion of the original way the term was applied:

In the end, the discipline of verification is what separates journalism from entertainment, propaganda, fiction, or art…. Journalism alone is focused first on getting what happened down right….When the concept (of objectivity) originally evolved, it was not meant to imply that journalists were free of bias. Quite the contrary…. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information—a transparent approach to evidence—precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work…. In the original concept, in other words, the method is objective, not the journalist. The key was in the discipline of the craft, not the aim.

As Kovach and Rosenstiel mention, it is this commitment to a craft of skepticism, being fair-minded, and checking and double-checking facts that makes journalists so maddening to the politicians, activists, press officers, and propagandists of the world.

Advocacy journalism

So where does this leave me in answering my question, am I a journalist? I say yes, because of the commitments to transparency and craft that I’ve laid out above. And as part of following through transparency, I’ve written an entire separate post with what I think you need to know. In there, you’ll find the issues and topics that I support and am willing to advocate for. And that leads me to my final thoughts. When you combine a sense of purpose and journalistic transparency and journalistic craft, you get a particular kind of journalism called advocacy journalism.

Roughly eighteen years ago, Sue Careless gave an address that spelled out clear boundaries for a journalist who wants to also advocate for change in the world, drawing the line between journalism and activism. Read the full address, but to wrap up here are some highlights. (The bullet points are mine.)

Rules for Advocacy Journalism:

  • No matter how dear a cause is to journalist’s heart, there are lines which should never be crossed by a professional journalist.
  • Can a journalist have a declared bias and still practice journalism in a professional manner? Yes. In fact you may be seen as even more credible if your perspective is acknowledged up front.
  • A journalist writing for the advocacy press should practice the same skills as any journalist.
  • You don’t fabricate or falsify.
  • There must be a general fairness and thoroughness.
  • Verify your facts and quotes.
  • Use multiple sources and try to cite neutral sources for statistics.
  • You use your eyes and ears when you are news gathering. If you are covering a protest and a demonstrator hits a police officer or shouts profanities, you are obliged as a journalist to report those facts, embarrassing though they may be to a cause you personally support.
  • A good journalist must play devil’s advocate. You must argue against your own convictions.
  • You may believe something in theory or in principle, but how does it play out in practice?
  • Refer to (your opponent’s) best arguments, not his worst, quote him directly, accurately, at length and in context.
  • Even when a juicy story or outrageous statement emerges from your opponents, you don’t rush to print it until it is confirmed.
  • Advocacy journalists should also cover stories that may be unflattering to their own cause or community. Bias at its worst is a blind spot or automatic judgement such as believing that a leader in a cause or community can do no wrong.
Words to practice journalism by.

Israel-Palestine

The carnage on the border between Gaza and Israel is horrific. I get it that, after decades of conflict, no one in the Mideast has clean hands (including, or especially, the US), but the deaths in this conflict are completely lopsided:

Screen Shot 2018-05-15 at 2.24.53 PM

The US should be working to restrain Israel and seek a just peace. But we’re not. Why?

Because of American evangelicals.

I knew this is where US and Israeli right-wingers are coming from, but it’s still shocking that we’re even remotely expected to accept this as a serious argument:

Well first of all, I would take issue with beginning the history lesson in 1947. Go back another 3,500 years. Go back to the Bible.

Read the full quote in the article.

I accept that Israel’s existence as a sovereign nation state is a “fact on the ground” that just can’t be reversed at this point, but this argument is ludicrous. If the US is to accept it, then the time has come to give America back to Native Americans.

Unless, of course, what really matters isn’t history or reasons, but raw power. Lasting peace should require justice. Instead, in modern Israel, it means oppressing, displacing, and wiping out your opponents.

Trump’s foreign policy is built on doing what others haven’t done before, period – shake things up and make sure everyone stays tuned. He agreed to meet with Kim Jong-un, no strings attached, even though that was held out as the prize for cooperation by previous presidents.

With Israel/Palestine, he had two choices along this line: Seriously press Israel to stop the settlement expansions and start negotiating, or move the embassy to Jerusalem. He chose the embassy. Why? Because evangelicals were willing to flatter him:

“I told him that the moment that you do that, I believe that you will step into political immortality,” the news site quoted (Pastor John) Hagee as saying. “Because you are having the courage to do what other presidents did not have the courage to do.”

And of course, support him in huge percentages with their votes.

For what it’s worth, as a member of the non-religious community, let me say that I think religious people really have a hard time grasping how much their speech sounds like incoherent babbling to us. Bigoted, divisive, irrational incoherent babbling at that.