Truth in (political) advertising

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday July 05, 2020 · 3:34 PM PDT

2020/07/05 · 15:34

I read an article in this month’s CACM that I thought might be of interest on Daily Kos. In Proposal: A Market for Truth to Address False Ads on Social Media, Marshall W. Van Alstyne of Boston University writes:

When it comes to political ads on Facebook, anything goes. On Twitter, nothing does.
...
Between promoting false ads and rejecting truthful ones, here's a better way: create a "market for truth."
...
Each politician or PAC that places an ad would put a large sum of money in escrow as an "honest ad pledge" that their claims are true.

Anyone could challenge the truthfulness of the ad by posting a fee to cover the cost of independent fact checking, and would be awarded all, part or none of the escrow depending on the fact checker’s ruling.

The size of the honest ads pledge, that is, the lie price, could be any escrow amount set by the social media platform but really should be the expected size of the harm done.

Van Alstyne suggests that the truth market could work even if the lie price is not known in advance, since a politician who lied repeatedly would lose multiple escrow pledges. He also argues that it would not be necessary for the escrow pledge to be mandatory.

In the U.S., skeptics might object that an honest ads pledge would not withstand First Amendment scrutiny if the pledge were mandatory.
...
If the market for truth is fully functioning, then unwillingness to pledge an honest ad is itself a signal that the author is likely lying because honest ads incur no added cost.

I think the idea of a truth market is interesting, but since it would only apply to advertising, it wouldn’t do much to curtail the endless stream of lies on Trump’s Twitter feed.

Make voting an act of love

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday August 10, 2018 · 8:31 PM PDT

2018/08/10 · 20:31

Ballot boxes in New Zealand to remind us to GOTV

I listened to a story on NPR’s The Takeaway this morning, Why Don't More Americans Vote? The segment included interviews with Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who spoke about voter suppression and the history of the Voting Rights Act, Devin Coleman, Communications Director for the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, and Tolu Aleshinloye, a DACA recipient living in New York City.

There are links to lots of information on the story page, but one I would encourage everyone to check is Tolu’s story on a website called “The Love Vote.” I’m sure many Daily Kos readers find it frustrating that so many Americans fail to exercise their right to vote. Imagine the perspective of the many people living here, like Tolu, who don’t have that right. The Love Vote offers them a platform to encourage others to pledge to vote on their behalf. I think it’s a great idea, and an easy way for more people to get involved with getting out the vote. Even if you plan to vote anyway, pledging for someone will make you feel your vote is more worthwhile. If you have a social media network, post a link there, too.

Obviously, age and citizenship are prerequisites to being able to vote, but there were also more than 6 million US citizens disenfranchised in the 2016 election because of a felony conviction. It should come as no surprise that, as concluded by The Sentencing Project, that

Felony disenfranchisement has potentially affected the outcomes of U.S. elections, particularly as disenfranchisement policies disproportionately impact people of color. Nationwide, as of 2016 one in every 13 black adults could not vote as the result of a felony conviction, and in four states – Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia – more than one in five black adults was disenfranchised.

If you need more inspiration to get out the vote, watch this clip of March For Our Lives activists Emma Gonzalez and Matt Deitsch speaking to Trevor Noah:

Embedded Content

My message to Sen. Graham

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday September 25, 2017 · 10:54 AM PDT

2017/09/25 · 10:54

I wrote to you earlier this year when the AHCA was under consideration, and I do want to thank you for taking the time to reply. Just to remind you of my personal stake in this debate, my wife was diagnosed with cancer last year, and her treatments were covered under our ACA policy. If the ACA is phased out by 2020, I will be covered under Medicare. My wife, however, will not qualify until 2032. She is in remission now, but I haven't the least doubt that if the bill you are sponsoring became law and underwriting requirements were waived in SC, we would not be able to afford coverage.

It's clear that you and I have different ideas on how the nation's health care concerns would be best addressed, and I don't expect to win you over with appeals to your sympathy. I've long respected your reasoned and pragmatic approach to a number of issues, however, so there might be more in common in our viewpoints than either of us suspect.

I note that you and I were both law students at the University of South Carolina in the late 70's. I graduated in 1979, after you had just completed your first year. I'm sure if we ever got together for a beer we could share some fond memories about Prof. Lightsey's rambling lectures in constitutional law, Prof. Lacy's provocative UCC hypotheticals, Prof. Wedlock's impassioned advocacy for the accused, or Prof. Freeman's sobering insights on the code of ethics. While in law school, I spent much of my spare time at Russell House, writing for the Gamecock and deejaying at WUSC. One of my more interesting assignments was to interview your predecessor, Strom Thurmond, and his opponent, Charles Ravenel, during their campaign for the senate in 1978.

I was enrolled in the combined JD MBA program. One of my business classes in risk and insurance left me with a profound impression about a basic flaw in our health care system that has become more and more apparent in the years since. It's a pretty simple concept, but one that many people don't think about. From a consumer's perspective, the risks it makes the most sense to insure against are those with a very low probability of happening, but a very high cost if they do. From the insurer's point of view, it's the exact opposite. The insurer would like to cover risks that have a high probability but low cost, making it very easy to balance income from premiums against payouts for insured losses. The assumption that consumers behave rationally is demonstrably flawed as applied to insurance markets. There is actually research showing that people will choose capped policies with lower premiums and deductibles, suggesting that they think of health insurance as an investment rather than a transfer of risk. The prevalence of health insurance caps prior to the ACA is unmistakable evidence of how insurers are able to take advantage of consumers in an unregulated market.

As you might imagine, I have followed the news about ACA repeal legislation very closely. I can understand that people felt betrayed when Obama said, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," and it turned out to not be true. Quite a few statements by politicians hoping to repeal the ACA, however, have been equally egregious. According to information online about your proposed bill, it repeals the individual mandates, "Strengthens the ability for states to waive Obamacare regulations," and at the same time "Protects patients with pre-existing medical conditions." To actually believe this won't turn out to be as big a lie as the one Obama told is truly wishful thinking.

Sec. 106 of your bill clearly allows states to waive the most significant protections of the ACA, essentially removing all limits on medical underwriting that don't involve outright discrimination, and specifically allowing insurers to vary premiums based on "health status-related factor" (i.e., pre-existing conditions). States would also be able to waive requirements for essential benefits and medical loss ratios. I note that when requesting a waiver, the state must describe how it "intends to maintain access to adequate and affordable health insurance coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions if such waiver is approved." In reality, that provision is little more than a fig leaf to give cover to claims that the bill maintains protection for persons with pre-existing conditions. It's hard to believe that the lack of detail is anything but intentional, allowing waiver applications to provide their own interpretation of what constitutes "access", "adequate", and "affordable". Indeed, since the term is not used anywhere else in the bill, even the definition of a "pre-existing condition" is left to states in their waiver applications.

I have seen estimates that as many as 4 million people lost their insurance as a result of the ACA. Estimates of the number of Americans with pre-existing conditions are at least ten times higher. Obama's catchy soundbite turned out to be Politifact's "Lie of the Year." Do the math.

An often repeated promise of proposals to repeal the ACA is that it will return control of the doctor-patient relationship to the patient. It would be more accurate to say that control would be returned to insurance companies. I have signed up for insurance four times now through healthcare.gov, and the only question I've had to answer about my health is whether I smoke. I still remember what it was like getting individual insurance before the ACA. Presumably, the individual mandate is a major part of the idea that the ACA gives control to the government. Some even go so far as to say that healthy people shouldn't be forced to pay for health care for sick people, even though that is exactly how insurance is supposed to work. I would offer a different response to those who would choose to forego insurance: they are effectively freeloaders. They refuse to take responsibility for the risk that they might become sick, believing that if they are unable to pay their medical bills, the emergency room will still have to care for them and the bankruptcy court will cancel their debt.

Regarding the idea of "strengthening" states' ability to waive regulations, it would be more to the point to say the proposed repeal bill weakens the patient protections guaranteed by the ACA. In its current form the ACA already allows states to apply for waivers. To be approved, waiver applications must not cause benefits to be cut, premiums to increase, or people to lose coverage. These seem like reasonable requirements to me. Several states have submitted applications, so it's not as though the requirements are impossible to meet.

I fear your bill would simply be a return to the days of insurance caps and medical underwriting, long recognized as a formula that allows health insurers to skim off the young and healthy, leaving the sick behind. If allowing coverage caps and eliminating requirements for essential benefits resulted in any lowering of premiums, I believe such a change would be temporary at best. As more people become uninsured, either by choice or because they can't afford the premiums, many of them would not get the care they need and would end up in emergency rooms. Uncompensated care would increase, eventually becoming a significant drag on the rest of the economy.

I recently completed a course in health care analytics, which covered some of the latest research on how to improve health care quality while holding costs down. Many who know a lot more about health care economics than you or me believe the most significant factor contributing to our high health care costs is our reliance on fee for service. When providers are paid to keep people well rather than performing numerous tests and procedures that offer little benefit, costs will go down. The ACA took steps in that direction with the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. I have seen nothing in the ACA repeal proposals that is truly calculated to bring down costs, save the tired mantra about competition and the free market.

Not just for my sake, or for that of millions like me who themselves or whose loved ones have pre-existing conditions, but for your own legacy and perhaps the political future of you and your party, please withdraw your bill.

Where's what's its name?

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday July 11, 2017 · 7:17 PM PDT

2017/07/11 · 19:17

I don’t want to be accused of being a grammar— no, I don’t want to use that word, either, so I’ll say I don’t want to be a grammar pedant. I do have one pet grammar peave, however. Often on fake news sites, and alas even here on Daily Kos, I see the possessive form of “it” written incorrectly as “it’s.”

Just for fun, I came up with an example of how the presence or absence of the apostrophe might be needed to correctly resolve an otherwise ambiguous sentence.

Consider the following pairs of statements. In the poll below, indicate which form, "its" or "it's", is correct for each pair.

A. We weren’t sure whether the document was classified secret or top secret. The agent told us {its, it’s} secret.

B. None of us understood how such a device could work so effectively without making any noise. The agent told us {its, it’s} secret.

Poll

67 votes Show Results

Indicate which form, "its" or "it's", is correct for each pair of statements above.

67 votes Vote Now!

Indicate which form, "its" or "it's", is correct for each pair of statements above.

Both A and B should be "its"

10 votes

Both A and B should be "it's"

6 votes

A should be "its" and B should be "it's"

5 votes

A should be "it's" and B should be "its"

46 votes

Trump memes

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 28, 2017 · 4:24 PM PST

2017/02/28 · 16:24

I stumbled across a Collection of Ambiguous or Inconsistent/Incomplete Statements, Compiled by Jeff Gray, and quickly realized material was there that could be readily adapted as Trump memes. Some of the photos here that I found on Wikimedia Commons are in the public domain, some require attribution with use. When I read the quote from an instruction label on a child's Superman costume, I thought, there's probably photoshopped pictures of Trump that would be perfect for it. So I searched DuckDuckGo and what to my wondering eyes should appear: ‘Super Trump’ to Invade Times Square. (No apologies for the mixed Santa Claus metaphor.) During the campaign, a Trump super-pac apparently put up a 55 foot billboard in Times Square of Trump masquerading as the caped crusader. Had I been there, I suppose I could have taken my own picture, but all the ones I found online are copyrighted. The picture above of Lucille Ball as Superman is actually in the public domain.

We all know what a brilliant real estate developer Trump is. Since he was so critical of his daughter's retailers, perhaps he should open his own superstore.

Trump Vodka never caught on, but Trump Wine could be a great addition to his brand.

Now that Trump's got his picks for HUD and Treasury, "the real estate market is going to be very strong for a long time to come." What better time to have another go at home mortgages.

When he campaigned in the Midwest, Trump soft-pedaled Obama's auto industry bailout. Makes you wonder how he'd have handled the situation.

We have it from Trump himself. "Nobody Knew Health Care Could Be So Complicated." It's enough to make you crazy.

Complexity, conspiracy and climate change

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 16, 2017 · 6:37 PM PST

2017/02/16 · 18:37

Well, at least more than half of Republicans trust scientists.

In his regular column in IEEE Spectrum last month, Robert W. Lucky reviewed a book, Overcomplicated, by Samuel Arbesman:

When I saw the title... I assumed that it would be a warning that we technologists had gone too far in creating complex systems... but as I discovered upon reading the book, Arbesman does not say that complexity is necessarily bad or that we should seek simplicity. Instead, he maintains that systems are now unknowably complex, that they will become even more so, and we should… just get over it.

I haven’t read Arbesman's book, but it occurred to me that its basic premise about the products of our technology may apply to social phenomena as well. That is, just like cars, power plants, and computer programs, our social networks, government bureaucracies and regulatory systems are so complex that no one person can fully understand them. I think the recent election illustrates this in at least a couple of ways.

First, Clinton's loss suggests the election process was not fully understood by people who predicted a different outcome. That's not to say those who predicted Trump's win were smarter or better informed-- Trump's supporters were claiming the election was rigged right up to the end. Even Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, whose ego is second only to that of Trump himself, qualified his prediction of a landslide three months before the election as Trump's poll numbers continued to drop. There's probably still a feeling among progressives and rational conservatives that 2016 was an anomaly, and that if we can just survive Trump's administration things will return to normal. Democrats and the media may learn something from their most recent mistakes and adjust accordingly, but future elections will be unlike those of the past. Online and robo-call polling, information silos and fake news, cyber security and a host of other issues are all part of the new normal. The only reliable constant will be change, as political campaigns move further and further beyond the understanding of a single human.

My second observation of the recent election is that the stress driving technologists to call for greater simplicity is similar to the disenchantment of voters fed up with "business as usual." IANAP[sychologist], but it seems to me natural that people would want simple solutions to problems that affect them. When Trump says "Only I can fix it" or "I know better than the generals" or "Regulations kill jobs," it has the appeal of simplicity. Nuance is lost on Trump's base. They consider anything they can't understand to be part of the problem. As further evidence of our political system's growing complexity, consider that it's not just Trump voters who believe it's broken. There's quite a lot of disagreement about how to fix it.

Again, IANAP, but I've noted a couple of terms in particular that have been associated with Trump's base: cognitive dissonance and conspiracy theorist. While searching for an online copy of Dr. Lucky's column, I came across another recent article from IEEE Spectrum, interesting albeit disheartening, Congress to Curtail Methane Monitoring. It may be a stretch, but I see a connection with the above discussion:

Global warming... is not a moving issue for Republican leaders or President Donald Trump, who reject the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. What moves them are complaints from industries that "burdensome" regulations unnecessarily hinder job growth and— in the case of methane rules— domestic oil and gas output.

Regulations can be harmful or helpful, and their effect on jobs shouldn't be the only measure of their value, but if simplicity is your only guide, deregulation wins every time. Even if Trump himself does not, many in his base believe unequivocally his assertion that global warming is a hoax.

As discussed in the IEEE Spectrum article, one downside of methane deregulation will be to slow the development of leak detection technology, although state regulations, e.g. in California, will continue to provide some incentive. What really struck me, though, was the lone comment:

Since humans can not change the climate of Earth, monitoring methane is a waste of time and money. Thus the cuts. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Many more wasteful spending cuts coming soon.

Why on earth, I thought, would someone so obviously challenged be reading IEEE Spectrum? Since the discussion forum is handled by Disqus and the commenter hadn't hidden his/her profile, I decided to check some of his/her comments on other articles.

Help me! I've fallen down the rabbit hole and I can't get up. From the same commenter, on another recent IEEE Spectrum article, Will Rooftop Solar Really Add to Utility Costs?

Its a little known fact that, while your power meter may be spinning backwards, the power you think you are contributing to the grid is actually terminated and goes nowhere. This is because the cost and danger of allowing you to place power on the wire is so expensive, it is simply cheaper to pay you a rebate for your generated power and throw it away.

Think about it. When a storm knocks down power lines, they shut off the power so that the lines can be repaired. How on earth would they shut off the power to the line if 100 home were also pushing power onto the wire? The cheapest and safest solution is to NOT enable the home to generate power but pay the homeowner so they feel good and the law requires it.

A good reporter would investigate and report on this little known fact.

What the ****? Is this some new conspiracy theory I haven't heard of yet? I searched DuckDuckGo for "net metering hoax" and found, not at all to my surprise, a few articles opining that net metering is bad policy. Its detractors say it will drive up electricity costs, etc., because the utilities are being forced to buy power from customers at retail rates and weren't being compensated for their investment in the grid infrastructure. I couldn't find anything, however, even remotely suggesting the nonsense in that comment.

I was sorely tempted to add a comment in reply, but as I looked down the discussion thread, I saw it was unnecessary. Of 19 comments in the entire discussion, nine were replies to the one above, all refutals. You gotta love the geek discussions, though-- no profanity, just

The assertion by Biff is total 'alternate facts'.…

That is complete and utter nonsense.…

You just made that up.…

Biff, This is just plain WRONG!…

You're won't and you don't understand how electricity works.…

I suppose this 'fact' is so little known that you will have problems stating a reference?

No conspiracies-- just the facts, please!

Post Hypnotic Trump Disorder (a remedy)

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday August 17, 2016 · 5:20 PM PDT

2016/08/17 · 17:20

Cheesy hypnotist dude. — Don't let Dilbert trick you

A while back I stumbled across a blog by Scott Adams, author of the Dilbert comic strip, where he has been commenting extensively on the presidential campaign. I'd seen his Dilbert comics, but never realized what an narcissistic egomaniac Adams is. He even admits purposely writing embarrassing things to get attention, so it's not surprising that he regards Trump as highly intelligent. Based on what he sees as Trump's superior powers of persuasion, Adams has been predicting since last August that Trump will win the general election by a large margin. Only recently, with Trump's poll numbers tanking, has Adams finally revised his prediction.

I myself am a rabid anti-Trumper, so I was particularly interested in Adams' blog post, How to Un-Hypnotize a Rabid Anti-Trumper. The same post has been picked up by a number of other sites, at least one of which appears to be pro-Trump and is interesting for its comments. (Comments are disabled on Adams' blog.) "Just for fun" I decided to annotate Adams' blog with lots of links documenting how absurd some of his propositions are. I offer the result now as a resource for fellow rabid anti-Trumpers who might encounter Trump trolls or would-be hypnotists, or for anyone suffering from Post Hypnotic Trump Disorder^™. Adams begins by bragging about being a "trained hypnotist" and an expert in the art of persuasion. As such, he is able to see how actions that "appear random and even dangerous" to rubes like you and me are really what puts Trump

in a league of his own.

You think I'm overstating the case for persuasion. Perhaps you think Trump is doing well for a variety of reasons that include his accurate reading of the Republican base.

But Trump's accurate reading of the Republican base is part of the art of persuasion. None of what you see in Trump's election success so far is luck or coincidence. It is technique. If you're not trained to see it, the method is invisible.

I would agree that Trump has accurately read the Republican base, but I think that's as far as it goes. I do wonder whether he has some hidden agenda, but everything I've seen indicates that his unfavorable ratings are not likely to change enough to turn the general election in his favor, even given Clinton's nearly as high unfavorability. Adams goes on to brag how he has already used "several persuasion techniques" that most readers don't recognize because they are "hidden in plain sight." He claims he can apply such techniques to un-hypnotize rabid anti-Trumpers. He does it "Just for fun" and is sure his readers can do it too.

When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.

If "Supreme Court nominee" is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don't recommend changing that person's mind.

What? Supreme court nominations are always a concern, especially now for Democrats with the justices most likely to retire in the next four years being liberals or swing votes. But a truly knowledgable and thoughtful person might suspect that a Supreme Court justice will not typically remain committed to a particular doctrinal course beyond the term of the president that appointed him or her. That Adams would single out this concern as indicative of a reasoned opinion makes me suspect his agenda is every bit as opaque as Trump's. Could it be that it's all just snark? After all, in his other blogs, Adams points out that facts aren't relevant to persuasion, which explains why Trump, a "Master Persuader," has been so successful. Or am I just missing the "hidden in plain sight" persuasive techniques in the superficially logical arguments he suggests may be used to un-hyptonize anti-Trumpers?

But if a person's main objections to Trump include any the following four reasons, I would consider it ethical to apply persuasion.

...

Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.

Persuasion: Trump has five decades of acting rational in business dealings, and getting along with people all over the world, including China and Russia. By now you would have heard stories of Trump being a loose cannon in his business dealings if such a thing had happened. We are hearing no stories of that nature.

Aren't we? It seems to me more like we're getting a steady diet of such stories. How about "The night the Rolling Stones fired Donald Trump?" Or the details of his failed stint in the airline business: "I cringed every time he opened his mouth," recalls Bruce Nobles, the former president of Trump Shuttle. On the lighter side, Frank Cerabino, Palm Beach Post humor columnist, counts Trump among his "favorite Palm Beachers, a guy who selflessly provides the world a constant stream of unintended humor."

Of course, even if there were a lack of stories about Trump's business dealings, it wouldn't prove anything. You wouldn't expect to hear inside details of high level corporate proceedings, particularly if they cast the participants in a bad light. Indeed, Trump is known to make extensive use of non-disclosure agreements to hide his dirty laundry. Nevertheless, there's plenty in the reports of Trump's public persona to suggest that his impulsive actions might be a cause for concern. Consider, for example, the fallout with NBC and chef José Andrés over his derogatory statements about Mexicans.

We may not know what Trump says in private in the board room or over the negotiating table, but when he shoots off his mouth in public and gets sued for defamation, he certainly looks more like a loose cannon than a rational businessman. In 1990, Trump threatened to sue securities analyst Marvin Roffman's employer over his comments published in the Wall Street Journal about the financial problems of the Taj Mahal casino. Roffman refused to retract his comments. He was fired, but won an arbitration award from his employer. Roffman then filed a two million dollar defamation suit against Trump that was eventually settled. More recently, Trump was sued for defamation by political strategist Cheri Jacobus for some of his disparaging tweets following her criticism of his claims that he is self funding his campaign.

Given the number of insults Trump has posted on Twitter just since becoming a candidate for president, it's surprising more people haven't sued him. Maybe they would, if defamation laws were loosened up. So when Trump himself, speaking about "hit pieces" in the NY Times and Washington Post, says, "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before," it's really hard to imagine that it's all part of some "Master Wizard" plan.

His insults, outlandish statements and political incorrectness in general are probably nothing but pandering to his base, but even if there's more there than meets the eye, it doesn't make Trump any less a loose cannon. At the very least, he has emboldened racists and other social misfits, documented, e.g., here, here, and here. It doesn't matter whether Trump's rhetoric is part of a carefully thought out plan to persuade people to vote for him. The fact that it stirs up social unrest makes the "loose cannon" epithet entirely appropriate.

While most of the lawsuits in which Trump has been involved weren't for defamation, the sheer number of them-- 3500 according to a recent report in USA Today-- is unprecedented, offering further evidence of his capricious nature. Trump doesn't just make brash statements in front of the microphone. He makes them in his court pleadings. "No detail is too small for a Trump suit, and he often brings to bear overwhelming legal resources that enable him to outlast his adversaries." Many of the suits in which Trump is involved are brought by others against him, which may suggest something about the ethics of his business practices, but as a plaintiff, he depends on lawsuits as "one of his primary negotiating tools." That should give us further pause. It's been widely noted that running a business isn't like running a government, and Trump provides a stark example. Threatening to sue a competitor may be effective in a business setting, but it wouldn't work in international negotiations. That's especially true given that international courts rely for their authority on the very treaties from which Trump has vowed to withdraw.

And people don't suddenly change character at age 70. (That last sentence is the important one.)

That's for sure. Before there was Twitter, Trump used full page newspaper ads to air his incendiary comments.

How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage.

Could that have something to do with the failure of Trump Vodka? (Sorry-- couldn't resist that one.)

He was against the Iraq war.

Not according to PolitiFact:

Donald Trump did not warn the Iraq War would 'destabilize the Middle East' before it started.

Donald Trump overstates his early opposition to the Iraq War.

Donald Trump was not 'loud and clear' in Iraq War opposition.

A timeline of Trump's statements on the Iraq war by factcheck.org indicate that he was at best ambivalent in the run up to the war, and that he had a financial interest in opposing it.

He doesn't want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it.

Most people want peace, so even if you knew it were true it's not much of an assertion to say that Trump is against war. To suggest, however, that Trump's buildings could be destroyed if the US went to war is absurd.

Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn't hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered.

Or so he would have us believe. The facts may be otherwise:

No, Putin did not call Donald Trump "a genius"

Putin Walks Back Trump Praise

Trump has been negotiating with the Chinese for years, with no problems yet. And the Chinese leaders are not children. They got their positions by being great deal-makers, like Trump. They might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they aren't afraid of his personality type.... They are not naive. They can tell the difference between a negotiator and a madman.

It's hard to overlook the fact that while he loudly proclaims the US trade deficit with China amounts to "rape," many of his products are manufactured there. Of course, hypocrisy does not disqualify one as a negotiator, but to say there have been no problems is probably a stretch. The story behind his investment in the Bank of America building near Rockefeller Center paints a different picture of Trump's business prowess. And while Trump vows to be tough with China, not everyone is confident he would be successful. See, e.g., President Trump would hand the world to China, by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. The Chinese might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they would probably prefer him to Clinton. In their eyes, Trump isn't a madman, just a big-mouthed clown.

Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business, as proven by his several bankruptcies.

Persuasion: Ask how many bankruptcies Trump has had. Most people say between 5-10. Then ask how many entities Trump has his name on. The answer is about 500. Then ask if that is a good performance for an entrepreneur who is often trying things in new fields.

It's pretty widely reported that Trump's companies have been through bankruptcy at least four times, or as many as six, by Politifact's tally. Trump is quick to point out, when countering criticism of his business acumen, that he has never filed for bankruptcy personally. It's only his business that have gone bankrupt. He even argues that his having filed for bankruptcy is a sign that he is skilled businessman. That's almost as ridiculous as the persuasion technique described here, suggesting that an entreprenuer can be considered successful by simply avoiding bankruptcy. In fact, Trump's bankruptcies were not the routine corporate deals he now says they were. To stave off his creditors, he gave up large ownership stakes and control of his business ventures along with substantial personal assets. And in addition to his huuuge casino bankruptcies, Trump has had numerous business failures that didn't end in bankruptcy, accounts of which we rabid anti-Trumpers find immensely entertaining. Some of the more widely publicized include:

Trump Airlines

Trump's loose cannon demeanor, noted above, combined with his ego-driven, bad business judgement were major factors in his failure as an airline executive. One of his pilots, Ray Belz, recalled that Trump was upset with the first makeover paint jobs on his planes because the big red T on the tail wasn't big enough. Though Trump now claims he "did great with it," it's estimated that his personal loss for his year and half in the airline business was about $100 million.

Trump Vodka

It does seem odd that Trump, a teetotaler, as noted above, would have his own brand of vodka. Trump's own account, however, proves that his vodka venture was just one more manifestation of his outsized ego: "[A] great friend of mine was a founder of Grey Goose. And what we're trying to do is top it. I want to top them just because it's fun to top my friends."

Trump: The Game

Not just one, but two failures. Trump partnered with Milton Bradley in 1989 to create a board game resembling a cross between Monopoly and Trump's real estate ventures. It was discontinued after only a year due to poor sales. A second edition came out in 2004, this time with Parker Brothers and featuring elements from Trump's reality TV show, The Apprentice. I find it interesting that Trump promised to donate profits from sales of the first game to charity. Now it's reported there is No Evidence Trump Gave Board Game Proceeds to Charity. Go figure! Perhaps when he made that promise he was thinking of the instructions for making deals in Trump: The Game-- "You cannot lie to another player or intentionally break a promise. Of course, some situations may be open to interpretation."

Trump Magazine

It may not be fair to call Trump's magazine a failure, since it was probably intended more as an ad space for Trump's other products than as a source of revenue. The original Trump magazines were distributed free at his hotels and other properties. The publisher of the last Trump magazine insists that it was profitable, but hasn't produced financial statements. Maybe they're hidden away with Trump's tax returns. Profitable or not, Trump Magazine folded after only two years. Maybe it lost too much revenue as major advertisers like Trump Steaks and Trump Vodka went out of business.

Trump Steaks

Clearly, Trump was no better a judge of steak than vodka, as manifested not only by the failure of Trump Steaks, but Trump's personal preference for well-done steaks. No taste-- sad! It was even the subject of a protest sign at one of Trump's rallies and some amusing comments on twitter. In unrelated news, Trump Steakhouse hit with 51 violations.

Trump University

I feel I should refrain from commenting in any detail here, since this is the subject of a pending class action suit. (snark) Oops-- there's already a Wikipedia article with more than 70 references and a lively talk page.

(Asking questions in that fashion is good persuasion technique. It removes the adversarial frame and gives the person a sense of coming to a new conclusion without pressure.)

I suspect it works even better if that "new conclusion" is based on actual facts.

Then explain how licensing works. Trump puts his name on various products and he gets paid even if the product or company does poorly in the end. That's an example of Trump taking the LEAST risk in a deal. The other parties take larger risks and frequently fail. Trump gets paid either way. All parties to the deals have lawyers who review everything....

Maybe Trump should study this explanation of how licensing works, since he seems not to have applied it very well. It's hard to know whether Trump's personal risk and involvement with his various business failures went beyond simply licensing his name. He did serve as a pitchman for the ones listed above, which is certainly in keeping with his huuuge ego.

As noted above, Trump Airlines was a perfect example of Trump's ego getting the better of his business judgement. He not only overpaid, by some accounts, on his purchase of the airplanes, but spent too much on top of that to have them luxuriously refurbished.

In the case of Trump Steaks, he negotiated with a supplier for the steaks and after trying to sell them himself with limited success, struck a deal with Sharper Image. Part of that deal included Trump's picture on the cover of the Sharper Image catalog, but very little investment by Sharper Image. The steaks never sold well and were soon discontinued, but Trump's picture on the catalog apparently stimulated sales of Sharper Image's other products. In other words, Trump took all the risk and none of the profit. Unfortunately, the Trump boost wasn't enough to keep Sharper Image afloat-- it filed for bankruptcy a year later.

Trump Vodka, aside from Trump's personal involvement in its promotion, was a more straightforward licensing deal. Apparently the lawyers who reviewed it, however, missed a detail or two. After Trump's licensed brand flopped, the trademark was abandoned. Later, Trump learned that an Israeli company, H. Pixel, was marketing its own kosher-for-Passover vodka under the Trump brand. H. Pixel had obtained permission from Trump's U.S. licensee, but Trump sued, claiming the license had been revoked.

Trump doesn't like risk. We see it in lots of ways.... He creates separate entities so some can go bankrupt without bringing down the rest. He licenses his name so he gets paid even if the company buying the license does not make a profit. And he diversifies his portfolio to reduce exposure to any one risk.

An explanation of how licensing works should include at least a cursory mention of trademarks. It's certainly true that Trump collects a bundle in fees for the use of his name, but to do so he must first obtain trademarks for the particular products his licensees are selling. Trump has applied for hundreds of trademarks, many of which seem to represent business failures. The filing fees for all those trademark applications are not the only cost. Before a trademark is registered, it must actually be used in commerce. It is possible to apply for a trademark based on "intent-to use," but if the mark is not used within six months, the application is deemed abandoned.

Many of Trump's trademark applications are for expressions that do not include his name. As with eponymous marks, their coverage is limited to the specific goods or services identified in the application. To capitalize on the success of his reality TV show, Trump famously attempted, without success, to register the expression "You're fired." It's interesting that Trump's application for casino services was rejected, but the owner of a ceramics studio was able to register the same mark. In fact, the same phrase has been used by at least one other ceramics studio whose owner did not apply for a trademark, but sought to block Trump from doing so.

Trump did manage to register "Make America Great Again" last year, having originally applied in 2012. That trademark only covers "Political action committee services," but it didn't stop Trump from sending a cease and desist letter to CafePress for undercutting his price on "Make America Great Again" baseball caps. Trump has pending applications for caps and other campaign apparel and accessories, but he wasn't actually the first to file. To get the applications assigned to him, Trump had to make a significant donation to a charity, the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, designated by original filer.

Obtaining trademarks is just the beginning-- management of the portfolio is itself a significant enterprise. Trump recently transferred many of his trademarks to a new company incorporated in Delaware, a move calculated to save him a considerable amount in taxes.

While well within his means, the effort required to maintain his large trademark portfolio makes it clear that Trump's licensing ventures are not a simple matter of sitting back and getting paid. Moreover, Trump's income from the various ventures described above is relatively insignificant next to what he makes on his luxury golf courses, hotels, condominiums and reality TV show. "Mr. Trump, it seems, has not embraced the widespread practice of diversifying his financial holdings." Trump does have significant diversity in his loan portfolio that he apparently likes to think gives him leverage with the banks. In his book, The Art of the Comeback, he boasted that when he couldn't meet the payments on his loans after the real estate downturn in the late 1980's, he was able to renegotiate them according to terms he dictated. "Look," Trump recalls telling his banker creditors, "I can tie you guys up for years-- in court proceedings, bankruptcy filings, and the other legal maneuvers I'm good at--when forced." Maybe now Trump is thinking that as President of 50 states he could just threaten to let a few of them go bankrupt when the national debt got out of hand. You know, so they wouldn't bring down the rest of the country. Too bad Trump's account of his savvy handling of debt, like so much of what he says, doesn't correspond too closely with reality: Trump Bankers Question His Portrayal of Financial Comeback.

It's easy to see that Trump's bankruptcies are but one of many clues that he is not the astute businessman he claims to be. One of the best assessments of Trump's business acumen came from Warren Buffett, a real self-made billionaire and generally good person (unlike Trump): "He simply got infatuated with how much money he could borrow, and he did not give enough thought to how much money he could pay back."

Based on everything we see, Trump consistently tries hard to avoid risk in everything he does. And people don't change character at age 70.

The exceptions to Trump's risk-avoidance include some of the provocative stuff he is saying during the campaign. That behavior looks risky to most observers, but it was exactly what got him the Republican nomination. Evidently, Trump takes risks when doing so makes sense.

It is highly unlikely that Trump considers in advance the risk of his provocative campaign rhetoric. Rather, like the fact that he puts his name on so many of his businesses, Trump's outlandish, attention seeking behavior is more indicative of his inherent narcissism than any penchant for risk assessment. The one risk he does consistently try hard to avoid is having anyone publicly disparage him. As noted above, Trump uses lawsuits as a negotiating tool, so defamation suits are par for the course. Many are frivolous, like the one he filed against author Tim O'Brien for estimating Trump's net worth to be much lower than Trump claimed, or the one against comedian Bill Maher over facetious comments suggesting Trump might be related to an orangutan. More recently Trump has threatened legal action against Art of the Deal ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, to keep him from airing his concerns that Trump is a sociopath, unfit to serve as President, and against the conservative Club for Growth for running attack ads against him.

Trump uses his trademark portfolio as yet another litigation tool against those who mention his name in a way he doesn't like. Given that the main reason the government recognizes trademarks is to enable consumers to identify the source of goods and services in commerce, it would really be more correct to say Trump misuses his trademark portfolio. The exclusive rights of a trademark aren't absolute, but that didn't deter Trump from threatening to sue the owner of the website, stoptrump.us, for trademark infringement and cybersquatting. Since he began his presidential compaign, Trump may have become more vigilant about snuffing out internet domain names that include "trump," even if they aren't particularly disrespectful. Threatening trademark litigation, however, is not some change of character for Trump, now that he is 70 and newly beset with negative publicity as a candidate for president. Much earlier in his career, back in the late 1980's, Trump sued brothers Jules and Eddie Trump to stop them from using their own surname for their real estate development business. (Donald) Trump lost that suit, but did manage to get the brothers' trademark cancelled. An interesting sidenote in that story: "In 2013, ABC News reported that a research firm, Wealth-X, ranked Eddie as No. 35 on a list of the 50 'most influential ultrahigh-net-worth individuals.' He was the only Trump on [the] list..." 2013 was also the year Donald Trump sent threatening tweets to a rapper, Mac Miller, who used Trump's name in a song. Maybe if Donald Trump spent less time on twitter, he'd be richer than anyone else named Trump and he'd have enough money to self-fund his campaign.

To briefly recap, there is overwhelming evidence indicating that Trump is a "loose cannon", that he is not a skilled, risk-averse businessman, and that narcissism is at the root of these flaws. Trump's behavior and public statements also reveal an alarmingly indifferent attitude toward the first amendment. Along with his call to "open up libel laws," noted above, Trump's resort to actual and threatened trademark and defamation litigation and his ongoing war with the press have galvanized proponents of anti-SLAPP legislation.

Objection 3: Trump is a racist.

Trump has never mentioned race beyond pointing how how many African-Americans and Latinos support him. Ask your anti-Trumper to offer evidence otherwise.

How about this: The Collected Quotes of Donald Trump on "the Blacks"?

Then point out…

Mexico is a country, not a race.

So what? Adams seems willing to concede that Trump has made disparaging remarks about Mexicans, a nationality, which he certainly has. On occasion, he has also mentioned Hispanics and Latinos, typically when defending previous remarks. Technically, these terms refer to ethnicity, but it's not clear that Trump even understands the difference. Many Hispanics actually identify their race as Mexican, Hispanic or Latin American; indeed, Hispanic may be a race on 2020 census. Of course, till then, it might be more accurate just to call Mr. Trump a xenophobe, but we want to use language he and his supporters can understand. Just think of calling Trump a racist as sort of a linguistic kill shot.

Islam is open to all races.

Hmmm. How does Trump's failure to understand 1st Amendment freedom of religion make him not a racist? Again, we could just say Trump is a religious bigot, but in truth, he's not very religious, and it's shorter and pithier to say "racist" than "religious bigot". Also, see above re "xenophobe".

If the topic of Judge Curiel comes up, point out that all human beings are biased by their life experiences. Ask anti-Trumpers if they think Curiel would be comfortable at his next family gathering if his verdict favors Trump. (Notice the question form of persuasion again.)

Acknowledge that Trump was offensive when he attacked the judge's parental connections to Mexico. But note that it is also good persuasion and good legal strategy. It puts the judge in the tough spot of either siding with Trump or appearing biased if he does not.

First, let's make one fact clear: Trump's comments about Judge Curiel, aside from being offensive, are not "good legal strategy."

Trump has reproduced on his campaign website an online magazine article arguing that Judge Curiel should recuse himself. To the extent that any of the arguments presented there are even marginally coherent, they have been specifically rejected as legitimate grounds for recusal by courts and established guidelines. Moreover, Judge Curiel has an affirmative obligation not to recuse himself without good reason, and Trump has not made a formal motion to have him recused. Trump's own lawyer has stated, "The judge is doing his job. We're not seeking to recuse the judge." It's even been pointed out that Trump's lawyers could be subject to disciplinary action for filing such a motion, since it would likely be considered frivolous.

Trump has also tweeted and stated in interviews that Judge Curiel should have granted his motion for summary judgement in the Trump University case, earning Four Pinocchios from Washington Post's Fact Checker. Trump insists Judge Curiel's Mexican heritage makes him biased, a claim that is particularly ridiculous in view of the fact that as a federal prosecutor, Judge Curiel received death threats from Mexican drug trafficers.

Good persuasion? Asking about Judge Curiel's feelings at a family gathering? I guess that might work if it never occured to the subject of your persuasion that if judges couldn't put aside their personal biases to make impartial decisions from the bench, our whole justice system would collapse, but clearly it hasn't. To be persuasive, the question further requires the subject to assume that Judge Curiel's family members are also biased against Trump because of their heritage. Even Trump has backed off his original insinuation about Judge Curiel's inherent bias, stating that he himself would love to appoint Mexican-American judges.

Good persuasion? Putting the judge in a tough spot? Hardly. Trump's sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is a federal judge, so he very familiar with the vetting process for that office. In his book, The America We Deserve, he recounted his sister's response at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when she was asked her opinion about abortion. "She patiently explained," Trump wrote, "that her personal views on the issue were meaningless; a federal judge's job is to uphold the law as it is written, not to interpret from the bench based on his or her personal views."

Then point out that only the Democrats are talking about race. And all of that race talk has been divisive. Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election.

Only Democrats? How many is the appropriate number of LOL's? You wouldn't expect Republicans to talk openly about race. After all, the Southern Strategy has been a mainstay in the GOP campaign playbook since Nixon used it to win the White House in 1968. It is no small irony that in this election season many Republicans are denouncing racism, but it's Trump's comments they're talking about. You can split hairs about race and ethnicity or whether saying something racist makes you a racist, but you'd be on more solid ground arguing that the Earth is flat than that Trump is not devisive.

(Professional pundits will talk about Trump's so-called "racist dog-whistles," but normal voters do not mention it. They don't know what it means.)

Racist dog-whistles-- there's a can of worms. Pundits actually seem to be divided on whether Trump is actually using dog-whistles, or has eschewed them in favor of overt racism. If you accept Adams' characterization, that Trump has "literally" said nothing negative about race, then you would probably say Trump's messages are coded. (Yes, I spotted that, Scott-- "literally" is another "linguistic kill shot," as in, if you "literally" believe that Trump is not a racist and has not been divisive, you probably also "literally" believe that Obama founded ISIS, the Air Force controls the weather, and NASA faked the moon landing.)

Why is Adams bringing up dog-whistles at all, only to treat them so dismissively? Could it be that he's hiding the whole key to Trump's persuasive technique in plain sight? His recent blog, How Persuaders See the World, makes me think that's exactly what he's doing. He even specifically mentions "racist" as one of the labels used by "word thinkers." Scott is just having a little fun with us. (By the way, Scott, I myself am one of those imaginary rational people who arrived at this truth using data and reason. I'm not a persuader. Really I'm not.)

The issue is not whether Trump's comments are overtly racist, or even whether Trump himself is racist. There's mounting data showing that many of Trump's supporters are driven by racial animus. Yet, Adams can claim it is literally true that "Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election." That's pretty strong evidence that Trump is using dog-whistles. What's different is that he doesn't care if the pundits know it. It gives his supporters deniability, and that's pretty much what dog-whistles have always been about. A more nuanced analysis takes into account the way Trump frames so many of his statements: "A lot of people are saying..." It's exactly the technique he used to riff on Giuliani's criticism of Black Lives Matter: "A lot of people agree with that. A lot of people feel that it is inherently racist."

Objection 3.1: But Trump wants to discriminate based on religion!

Persuasion: Clarify to the subject of your persuasion that Trump only wants to discriminate against non-citizens. That is literally the job description of a president.

The job description of a president? Let's see, Article 2, Section 2... Commander in Chief... make Treaties... appoint Ambassadors... Section 3... State of the Union... Laws be faithfully executed...

Hmm, there doesn't seem to be anything here about discriminating against non-citizens. Oh, wait, you said "literally." I'm supposed to have to think about it, and conclude, "Yeah, that's not really written down anywhere officially, but it makes sense."

Maybe I thought about it too hard. Regardless, discriminating against non-citizens is definitely not the job description of the president, literally or otherwise. Besides, Trump's original statement on preventing Muslim immigration makes no such distinction. Exceptions for U.S. citizens appeared later, along with other "clarifications".

For context, point out that Islam is unique among religions in that it includes an order from God that Muslims should overthrow any government that is not compatible with Islam. Moderate Muslims around the world ignore that part of the religion, but refugees are coming from places where it is considered mandatory.

There are certainly many people who believe Islam is at war with the West, and there is a vast Islamophobia Network to support them in that belief. Sadly, that misinformation network reaches all the way into the U.S. government. Some Islamophobes go so far as to claim that Islam isn't even a religion at all, and therefore it is not protected by our Constitution.

It is undeniable that many professed Muslims believe their religion requires them to fight to overthrow secular governments, in favor of theocracy. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide support democratic government and freedom of religion for all denominations. Thus, Adams' statement implies that most Muslims are "moderate" followers who ignore a "unique" part of their religion. For a non Muslim to make such a claim strikes me as highly arrogant. Maybe the arrogance is intentional, meant to hide the absurdity of the proposition that follows it. Is it a bad thing that refugees are coming from places where there are mandates hostile to the principles of freedom that are the foundation of our form of government? Isn't welcoming such refugees "literally" what America is all about?

I don't think other religions have a mandatory requirement to overthrow the government. So comparisons to other religions are nonsense....

Well, I don't think Islam has such a requirement, so now we have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting and refuting that assertion. (If we go further and look at search results online, we can find a few sites that present Islam and CAIR in a positive light, along with a vast network of Islamophobic sites that describe not only how the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over the United States, but other "facts" like Khizr Khan is a Muslim Brotherhood agent and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal purchased a $300 million share in Twitter to compel blocking of anti-Islam tweets. If you find actforamerica and shoebat and breitbart convincing, you may also take for granted that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, the CIA created the HIV/AIDS virus, and the real goal of water fluoridation is mind control of the public.)

At least Adams acknowledges that Islam is a religion, but again he uses that arrogant claim about mandatory government overthrow to mask the absurdity of the proposition that it's "nonsense" to compare Islam with other religions. Isn't the statement itself that Islam is unlike other religions a comparison? So, how about comparing government meddling by religious leaders? Islam does not have a monopoly on leaders who are uncomfortable with separation of church and state. What about violent members? Islam is not the only religion with a tiny minority on the lunatic fringe who engage in terrorist acts to advance their warped "religious" agenda. How about harsh laws, or even commandments to kill non-believers? No, you can't use fabrication and sophistry to dismiss all these comparisons of Islam with other religions.

If you think we can screen Muslim immigrants well enough to stop all of the terrorists and future revolutionaries, just think about any job in which you had coworkers. Remember how incompetent some of them were? Those are the types of people screening immigrants. Does that feel safe to you?

My coworkers? Are you asking them the same question about me? I hope they don't tell you I'm incompetent. Are you suggesting everyone is incompetent? I'm not persuaded. I feel safe.

Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT

Persuasion:

Trump is the only candidate calling out Islam for its followers' views on women and the LGBT community.

Trump's departure from the mainstream GOP view on LGBT issues is almost commendable, but not very risky given that a majority of Americans now oppose discrimination based on sexual preference. It also fits neatly with his pro-nationalism stance in general, since homosexuality is rejected not only in predominantly Muslim countries, but most African and some Latin American countries as well. The same is true of his statements on womens' rights in Islamic countries, which are viewed by at least some Muslim women as hypocritical. As for Trump being the "only candidate" speaking to such issues, his talk is cheap when you compare it to Clinton's record.

Trump wants women to have the right to own guns to protect themselves.

Trump is the only candidate concerned about crimes against women that are perpetrated by illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Nothing in Trump's position on Second Amendment rights specifically mentions women. He has taken a gender-neutral, pro-gun position to appeal to his base and to gain the endorsement of the NRA, which in no way refutes the assertion that he is anti-women. His stand against illegal immigration is gender neutral in the same way. He is not more concerned about crimes against women than crimes against men by illegal immigrants

Trump has a long business record of promoting women to executive positions in his company. He was doing it years before it was fashionable.

The women in his personal life – including his ex-wives – seem to like him.

Trump is offensive in the way he has talked about women. But keep in mind that Trump has offended nearly everyone at some point.

I'm not sure Trump's ex-wives or the women he's promoted to executive positions are necessarily good or unbiased judges of his character. The offensive remarks he has made about women have been made into a political ad against him. Could it just be some of that provocative stuff that got him the GOP nomination, or are his insults against women somehow different? I'm still more willing to believe the latter, that Trump really is a misogynist.

The way to know your persuasion is working is that your subject will change the topic instead of addressing your point.

Don't allow the topic to change. Instead, say again whatever you said just before it did. Make each point about three times, with slightly different wording each time. After the third restatement of your point, without an objection from your subject, allow the topic to change. It means you won.

Of course, it could also mean that you sound like a total fool and your subject just wants to spare you further embarrassment. Adams closes with his standard reminder that he endorsed Clinton, because anti-Trump sentiment is very high in California, where he lives, but also because he is a "top one-percenter" and

Trump is the only candidate who has the persuasion skills to increase tax rates on the rich, so #imwithher, for selfish reasons.

Could this be an example of Poe's Law in practice? On one hand, Adams is certainly a narcissist, although clearly more intelligent than Trump. He may just be suffering from cognitive dissonance, unable to accept the idea that Trump's powers of persuasion, and by extension his own, are not as potent as he predicted. On the other hand, if indeed Adams is a trained hypnotist, he must be aware that people who are highly susceptible to hypnosis comprise only about 10% of the population. We rabid anti-Trumpers, of course, fall at the other end of the spectrum.

Letter to James Inhofe: How to expose Global Warming for the hoax it really is

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday March 19, 2016 · 1:40 PM PDT

2016/03/19 · 13:40

While looking over links from a recent column by Paul Krugman, I found an interesting research paper on the psychology of climate science denial, NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science, Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, Gilles Gignac (in press, Psychological Science). Based on questionnaire responses by visitors to climate blogs, the researchers found that people who endorse laissez-faire free-market economics or believe in various conspiracy theories are very likely to reject climate science as well. The mention of free markets got me thinking, free association style, about all the news coverage of late on Internet gambling. Fantasy sports has become a huge business, and now there's even betting on the presidential election. Though they currently "can't accept USA-based customers", there's even a website that takes bets on "Trump's Manhood:"

Applies to the size of Donald Trumps manhood when 'standing to attention'. Bets will be void if it is not revealed by end of 2016. PP Decision Final.

There ought to be, I mused, a prediction market for the effects of climate change. After a bit more searching, I found a law review article that addresses this very idea: Energy and Climate Change: A Climate Prediction Market, Michael P. Vandenbergh, Kaitlin Toner Raimi and Jonathan M. Gilligan, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 1962 (2014). The best way, I reasoned, to get something done is to write a letter to your senator. So I did.

Dear Senator Inhofe:

I am writing to you with a suggestion about how to expose global warming for the hoax it really is. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and someone who has studied and written extensively about global warming, you are uniquely qualified to implement this proposal.

In a nutshell, the idea is simple. All that is required is to eliminate the legal constraints that prevent private, non-government entities from creating a climate prediction market. As you are no doubt aware, the Dodd-Frank Act gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) express jurisdiction over event contracts. It is entirely appropriate that Dodd-Frank allows the CFTC to bar trading, as against the public interest, in contracts relating to events involving illegal activity, terrorism, assassination and the like. The social and economic benefits of climate futures trading, however, can hardly be denied.

An obvious benefit of climate prediction markets would be to put an end to the monopoly over public opinion currently enjoyed by the IPCC and other scaremongers. Spurred by the free market, climate futures traders would unmask the duplicity of climate "scientists" and their hidden agendas. A climate prediction market would also stimulate economic growth by providing a hedge for investments regarded as risky due to the supposed impending impacts of climate change. For example, coastal developers otherwise unable to obtain flood insurance would be able to buy futures that would compensate them should the dire predictions of alarmists come to pass. Of course, when disastrous impacts fail to materialize, the price paid for such futures will be collected by investors who bet against climate change.

In spite of these advantages, the CFTC, skeptical of free markets in general, could rule that allowing climate prediction markets would not be in the public interest. Should this occur, it would be up to Congress to pass legislation limiting the authority of the CFTC to regulate trading in climate prediction futures. Given your position and influence in the Senate, you would be instrumental in guiding an appropriate bill through to enactment.

Sincerely,

etc., etc.

Well, Sen. Inhofe is not really my senator, but I thought he might be sympathetic to the cause. And I didn't really send this letter, but if there's anyone who’d like to, from Oklahoma or elsewhere, feel free to borrow and modify as desired.

Trump and the turnout gap

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 06, 2016 · 5:53 AM PST

2016/03/06 · 05:53

Some commentators have expressed concern about low voter turnout for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire, especially in view of the higher than average turnout on the Republican side. This concern is not universal, however. Jeff Stein, blogging on Vox, points out that record turnout for primaries hasn't translated to election wins in the past for Democrats or Republicans. He also notes that even the record turnout for the Nevada Republican caucuses is small compared to the number of people who actually voted in the 2012 election, and suggests that the "crowded Republican field" and "liberal fatigue" may also be contributing to the turnout gap.

Jeff Spross offers a somewhat different view of the problem (if indeed it is a problem): Is the recovering economy actually repressing Democratic turnout? There's not a great deal of research on it, but recent studies indicate, contrary to research over the last few decades, that higher unemployment drives turnout up. One line of reasoning is that voters who've recently lost jobs will turn out to punish their elected officials for mangling the economy. Obviously, there's a lot more going on, though, because Spross's chart plotting voter turnout against the unemployment rate doesn't show much of a correlation. On the other hand, just looking at primary turnout in presidential election years, there appears to be a much stronger relation to unemployment, particularly on the Democratic side. Spross thinks we may be returning to normal, which may not bode well for Sanders, but

That said, we're still largely in almost unprecedented waters: a grindingly slow sort-of-recovery that's stretched out seven years after the second worst economic collapse of the last century. And there are lots of factors at play besides the economy: The Republicans' blockbuster turnout might also suggest that when faced with a catastrophe like Donald Trump, a lot of voters are willing to get to the polls to shoot him down.

I agree. Trump has his own loyal base, but I doubt it includes even a majority of the established (Establishment?) GOP base. According to Gallup, Trump is the most disliked presidential candidate since 1992 when they started tracking unfavorable ratings, so there must be quite a few Republicans who as turned off by Trump as most Democrats. So it makes sense that a lot of those anti-Trump voters would cast ballots for anyone but Trump.

It's also true that Clinton is widely disliked. Aside from the fact that her unfavorability ratings are still well below Trump's, however, I don't think she's disliked to the same degree that Trump is. Among Democrats, Clinton is disliked because she is not trusted in general, and because of her ties to Wall Street. Among Republicans, it's the simple fact that she's a Democrat. To be sure, she has a lot of baggage-- Whitewater, Benghazi, emails. She's been in politics a long time, and while many reasons she is disliked are deserved, quite a few are due to circumstance.

Trump, on the other hand, isn't just disliked. It's more like visceral hatred. With more than ample justification, he's been called a blowhard, braggart, buffoon, bully, clown, dilettante, egomaniac, fool, hypocrite, jerk, liar, loose cannon, loudmouth, moron, megalomaniac, narcisist, and a lot of other names banned at one time or another by the FCC. I can't document all these epithets, but most of them can be found in the list of words that came to voters' minds when they thought of Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University poll last summer.

I don't know if there are many Republicans who are so anti-Trump that they would vote for a Democrat in the general election, but I suspect there are quite a few who wouldn't vote at all if he were nominated. Not so with Clinton, the many contentious diaries here on Daily Kos notwithstanding. Diehard Sanders supporters who would really sit the election out rather than vote for Clinton, though quite vocal, are almost certainly fewer in number than Republicans who would refuse to vote for Trump.

A couple more thoughts on Clinton versus Trump, which doesn't sound to me like the slam dunk GOP win that many comments on Daily Kos seem to take for granted. More on that in a bit, but first a closer look at one of the words I associated with Trump-- "liar." That Trump is in fact a liar has been well documented. Curiously, liar was the word most frequently associated with Clinton in the Quinnipiac poll, but it didn't even make the list for Trump. Perhaps more surprising was that while "untrustworthy" was what several poll respondents thought of Trump, "honest" and "truthful" were both more mentioned more frequently. How can it be that people not only fail to identify Trump as a liar, in the face of overwhelming evidence, but actually think honesty and truthfulness are his most notable qualities?

This very question is addressed in a three part Scientific American blog by Melanie Tannenbaum, Decoding Trump-Mania: The Psychological Allure of Hating Political Correctness. Two reasons suggested by Tannenbaum why Trump is perceived as honest have to do with general differences between conservatives and liberals. Research indicates conservatives are less tolerant of ambiguity, and since Trump is known to "consistently say anything and everything on his mind," his supporters conclude he has nothing to hide. The second reason is Trump's criticism of political correctness, regarded by conservatives as a form of censorship.

Tannenbaum describes another phenomenon whereby the very outlandishness of Trump's statements makes it more likely people will trust him:

When people say things that are non-normative, unexpected, or non-self-serving, those things are seen as more likely to be true, and outside observers are more likely to think they have a good chance of really knowing the authentic, deep-down, true personality of the person saying them.

Maybe. Whatever else Trump is, he's shrewd. When his opponents start attacking him in earnest, though, he may find he's gone to the well a little too often with the insane remarks. Which brings me back to Clinton versus Trump. In a recent diary, Clinton vs Trump: First Impressions, Bob Burnett examines the prospects of a contest between the two current front runners. His conclusion that it would be very close, decided by the independent vote, is based on the assumption that both the Democratic and Republican bases will vote for their party nominee. Burnett acknowledges that "some Republicans loathe Trump" and "some Democrats do not like Clinton" but implies that the net effect of these groups will be a wash. He thinks both groups may just sit out the election, but they probably won't vote for the opposing party.

I disagree. There are significantly more Republicans who dislike Trump than Democrats who dislike Clinton. Moreover, as I argue above, a higher proportion of anti-Trump Republicans than anti-Clinton Democrats would likely sit out the election or vote against their party if Trump and Clinton were nominated.

As for the campaign itself, I guess it's not surprising, given her unfavorability rating, that there is no shortage of opinion that Clinton is unelectable. There are so many skeletons in her closet, the argument goes, that when Trump and the GOP turn their attention to her, she doesn't stand a chance. Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I find that argument a bit naive. Early in the campaign for the 1992 election, I remember reading a conservative op-ed piece pronouncing Bill Clinton was unelectable because Americans would never accept a draft dodger as their president. I'd never heard of Bill Clinton and I certainly didn't know anything about his selective service record, but there was a presumptuous, even gleeful tone of the editorial that made me wonder. Why was Bill Clinton so hated? Since that time, I've had the impression that Republicans, right up to impeachment, have gone to extraordinary lengths to ruin him, and have come away more frustrated at every failure.

I myself first became a fan of Bill Clinton when he played his saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show. A fellow clarinetist who went on to major in performance remarked that Bill Clinton was the first single reed man in the White House. I thought he said another president played the oboe-- Millard Fillmore, maybe?-- but I can't find any confirmation of that on the web. Anyway, just as I have my own reason to like him, I'm sure others have reasons to dislike Bill Clinton. It must be more than his draft deferment, though. Otherwise, how could George W. Bush ever have been elected?

But, back to the supposed skeletons in the Clinton closet. Could it be that after so many years trying to dig up dirt on the Clintons, something really scandalous was overlooked? Eight Congressional committees investigating Benghazi failed to find anything incriminating, but if Hillary gets nominated the Republicans' investigative prowess will change and it will turn the election in their favor? Or perhaps they've found something already, and they've kept it under wraps, saving it for Trump's campaign? Or maybe Trump, who championed the birther movement against Obama, will run a similarly devastating campaign against Clinton?

Trump taking advantage of some heretofore unknown Clinton scandal seems unlikely to me. Clinton has a long record in the public eye, and opposition research against her is pretty easy to find. Consider, too that she held her own quite impressively under questioning by Trey Gowdy's select Benghazi committee. While no amount of bad press about Trump is going to affect his base, neither are reports of Clinton's faults going to dissuade her supporters. They may not trust her or even particularly like her, but they will never loathe her to the same degree they do Trump. If there really are voters, independent or otherwise, who might change preferences based on negative revelations about the candidate, Trump will probably lose more of them than Clinton. Opposition research on Trump may be too late to deny him the GOP nomination, but it's picking up considerably since his Super Tuesday victories. The depth of Trump's unpopularity was highlighted by the speed with which Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Donald Trump (HBO) itself became a news item, even giving rise to a Wikipedia entry.

Trump's continued success certainly has defied early predictions of a quick exit, but one estimate hasn't changed. His ceiling since he started leading in the polls was and still is thought to be around 40%. With the winner-take-all format for most of the remaining GOP primaries, that may be enough for the nomination. The general election will be different, though, and that is clearly why the GOP establishment is nervous.

While the crowded field and the general dislike of Trump has a lot to do with the record voter turnout for the Republicans, one thing I haven't seen discussed much is crossover voting for Trump by Democrats, which I suspect may have affected the outcomes of both primaries in Massachesetts. Given that Democratics outnumber Republicans in Massachusetts by about two to one, it wouldn't have taken a large percentage of them to noticeably skew the results on the Republican side. This sort of "mischief" is more often associated with Republicans, as exemplified by Limbaugh's Operation Chaos which aimed to prolong the Democratic nomination process in 2008 by encouraging Republicans to vote for Clinton. While the effectiveness of that effort was debated, Kos called for a similar drive to disrupt the Republicans in 2012. Crossing over to vote for Santorum in 2012 seems a lot less scary than voting for Trump this year, but polls and opinions concede that Trump would be the most easily beatable opponent for either Clinton or Sanders.

Of course, if significant numbers of Democrats are crossing over to vote for Trump, it will also distort the turnout assessment. This, in addition to the above noted observations of historical trends by Jeff Stein and unemployment effects by Jeff Spross, suggests that the lower turnout for the Democrats is not necessarily a cause for concern. I think another reason for the low voter turnout thus far is that most Democratic voters like both Clinton and Sanders and don't feel any urgent need to choose between them. In a recent segment on NPR, Michael McDonald, an associate professor of political science at the University of Florida who blogs about voter turnout at electproject.org, cites exit polls that bear this out:

Most Democrats, about 70 percent or so, say that they would be satisfied with whichever candidate - Clinton or Sanders -if they go on to win the nomination.

It’s going to be an interesting next couple of months.

A quick thought on the Supreme Court vacancy. I enjoyed listening to Al Franken opine that if a "lame duck" president should not make a Supreme Court nomination, Senators in the last year of their terms should likewise refrain from introducing bills, etc. Why not take it a step further? If Obama is a lame duck, maybe he should just resign now. That way Biden could nominate him to fill Scalia's position.

Thank goodness, it's finally over!

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 21, 2016 · 9:52 AM PST

2016/02/21 · 09:52

I thought the robo-calls would never stop

If Citizens United isn’t overruled by the next presidential election season, I might have to get rid of my land line. This past week, the robo-calls from PACs and campaigns were practically non-stop. Not to mention the daily stack of mailout flyers. There was even one featuring lenticular printing, showing Marco Rubio on a weather vane, pointing in whatever direction the political winds blow.

Clearly, there’s been a lot of ineffective campaign spending here in SC. On the plus side, even though they were just recordings, I got to hang up not only on Donald Trump (twice!), but on Marco Rubio, Heidi Cruz, Trey Gowdy, Nikki Haley, AND Sarah Palin.

I wonder how much was spent altogether trying to get my vote. I wish they would’ve just sent a check.

How confidential is our health data?

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 16, 2016 · 12:33 PM PST

2016/02/16 · 12:33

A recent article in Scientific American, How Data Brokers Make Money Off Your Medical Records, by Adam Tanner, February 1, 2016, describes how the purchase and sale of health care data has become a multi-billion dollar industry.

The dominant player in the medical-data-trading industry is IMS Health, which recorded $2.6 billion in revenue in 2014.... At press time, IMS was a $9-billion company. Competitors include Symphony Health Solutions and smaller rivals in various countries.

IMS gathers data from pharmacies, insurance companies, and state and federal health departments, then sells it mainly to drug companies. "Three quarters of all retail pharmacies in the U.S. send some portion of their electronic records to IMS." Another article by Adam Tanner, This Little-Known Firm Is Getting Rich Off Your Medical Data, Fortune Magazine, February 9, 2016, includes further details on IMS data collection.

One particular type of data, records of drugs prescribed by doctors sold to drug companies and used in turn to adapt sales pitches, became the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.(2011). Vermont had passed a law in 2007 prohibiting the commercial use of such records without the doctor's consent. The case was decided in IMS's favor on 1st amendment free speech grounds.

Apart from making money selling information to other businesses, IMS also shares some data with academic and other researchers for free or at a discount. The company has published a long list of medical articles that relied on its longitudinal data.

Tanner posits that a loss of trust in the confidentiality of medical information could adversely affect the entire health care system, with patients unwilling to describe their conditions to their doctors or to even seek treatment for them. He suggests that a first step to restoring patients' trust would be to give individuals the right to opt out of sharing their data for commercial use. Unfortunately, this would not solve the problem of supposedly anonymous data that may be publicly available.

“It is getting easier and easier to identify people from anonymized data,” says Chesley Richards, director of the Office of Public Health Scientific Services at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “You may not be identifiable from a particular data set that an entity has collected, but if you are a broker that is assembling a number of sets and looking for ways to link those data, that's where, potentially, the risk becomes greater for identification.”

HIPAA regulations actually do address the issue of combining "de-identified" data with other information to identify specific individuals. That particular concern about health data reminded me of an article I read last year, Designing Statistical Privacy for Your Data, Ashwin Machanavajjhala and Daniel Kifer, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 58 No. 3 (March 2015), Pages 58-67, 10.1145/2660766. You have to subscribe to CACM to get the full text of the article, but an explanation of many of the technical details can also be found in the Wikipedia entry on differential privacy.

Machanavajjhala and Kifer's goal is to present best practices for "sanitizing" data that include sensitive information before releasing it to the public. They present two generalized "privacy definitions" that specify the characteristics of sanitized data. ε-differential privacy, described in the Wikipedia article, involves adding random "noise" to every record in the data, thereby masking the influence of any single record. The magnitude of the added noise acts as a privacy factor-- increasing it makes it harder to identify individuals, but it also detracts from the accuracy of the data that is released.

The second general type of privacy definition discussed by Machanavajjhala and Kifer is k-anonymity. I've adapted one of the figures from their article to explain k-anonymity and relate it to the HIPAA regulations. Consider the following fictitious hospital admission data:

Hospital A admissions raw data
Zip Code	Age	Disease
13016	26	Cancer
90210	60	Cancer
13007	29	Flu
90201	65	Flu
90210	67	Flu
13007	26	None
13041	25	Stroke
90257	63	Stroke

Suppose Alice knows her neighbor Bob was admitted to Hospital A, and further that she knows Bob's age and zip code. Obviously, she could infer from the data above what disease Bob had.

HIPAA regulations specify two methods for de-identifying data to exempt it from privacy rules. The first requires specific statistical analysis and documentation, but the second is a "safe harbor" which focuses on a list of 18 identifiers-- name, birth date, social security number, etc. If these identifiers are removed, and the covered entity has no actual knowledge of how individuals could be identified from the remaining data, the safe harbor requirement is met. Zip codes are one of the 18 specific identifiers, but the first three digits may be retained for large metropolitan areas. Similarly, while complete birth dates are not allowed, year of birth can be included. Thus, if Hospital A had no actual knowledge of how it could be used to identify individuals, the following "sanitized" version of the admissions data above would be exempt from HIPAA privacy protection:

Hospital A admissions 4-anonymized data
Zip Code	Age	Disease
130**	25–30	None
130**	25–30	Stroke
130**	25–30	Flu
130**	25–30	Cancer
902**	60–70	Flu
902**	60–70	Stroke
902**	60–70	Flu
902**	60–70	Cancer

Even if she knows Bob's zip code and age, Alice can no longer infer Bob's disease. She will find at least 4 different records for whatever combination of these identifiers she looks for, hence the characterization "4-anonymous". Consider, however, what happens if Hospital B, unknown to Hospital A, releases the following de-identified admissions data:

Hospital B 3-anonymized data
Zip Code	Age	Disease
130**	< 40	Cold
130**	< 40	Stroke
130**	< 40	Rash
148**	= 40	Cancer
148**	= 40	Flu
148**	= 40	Cancer

Looking at the anonymized tables individually, privacy is maintained, but if Alice knew Bob was treated by both hospitals for the same condition, the combination of the two tables together would result in a privacy breach. See the poll below.

Adam Tanner's point about patients' trust is well taken. In addition to giving patients greater control over their health data, a revision of HIPAA privacy protections might also be in order.

Poll

31 votes Show Results

What can Alice deduce about Bob from the anonymized data above?

31 votes Vote Now!

What can Alice deduce about Bob from the anonymized data above?

Bob had cancer.

0 votes

Bob had a stroke.

26 votes

Bob's zip code begins with 148.

2 votes

Bob is between 60 and 70 years of age.

3 votes

Green energy even the Tea Party could love

jkozma

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 20, 2016 · 6:27 AM PST

2016/01/20 · 06:27

Many hard core members of the Tea Party Movement are climate change skeptics, but what if they could get free power just by waving their cherished Gadsden flags in the wind? Dr. Zhong Lin Wang’s research group at Georgia Tech has developed an innovative woven material that makes it possible:

The flag is the researchers’ newest form of triboelectric generator. They made it by weaving together 1.5-centimeter-wide, 30-cm-long strips made from two kinds of fabric…. “The weave is loose and there is a few hairs’ distance between the two fabric strips,” Wang explains. So as the flag flutters in artificially generated wind, the two fabric units repeatedly touch and separate from each other, generating power.

The catch is that the maximum power output is only about a thousandth of a watt, and you have to hang the flag from a high altitude balloon to get the best wind.

Hmm. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all...

Newer
Older

RSS