This is why implementation details matter

A very interesting weekend.  The protests and backlash has already started over Trump's executive order that temporarily bans letting refugees into the USA from certain countries.

This order and it's effect caught many people off-guard and resulted in tons of people being held up at airports over the weekend (and that continues).

What was Trump doing there?

Yes, it's true that he promised to do this very thing during his campaign.  And yes, it's true that Obama did the exact same thing in 2011, when he put a hold on allowing refugees from Iraq from entering the country for half a year.

So why is there so much outrage when Trump did it, but very little anger when Obama did the same thing?

The answer is in the way it was done.

If you're going to make a major change to immigration policy, you need to announce it, set a date, and give people time to prepare for it, so that they know it's coming and can take appropriate actions in advance of the change.   That's what Obama did correctly in 2011.

Trump, on the other hand, did not.  He just issued the order, and as a result, no one had time to plan for it.  People were literally in the air on a flight, and their immigration status was changed by the executive order, leaving them in trouble when they landed.

What resulted?  Complete and total chaos.

So why would Trump do it that way, instead of announcing it, having it go through proper channels, and then giving time for people to prepare and adjust for it?  In other words, the normal and sane way of making a change like this?

We have to remember that Donald Trump is not a politican; he's a CEO.  And in business, when you want something done, you give the order and your people make it happen.  That's what he's used to, because that's how it works in the in the business world.   Trump is not used to following proper political process, and this event just showed that: CEO Trump's lack of political experience was made very clear.

Now, even if you agree that a temporary ban to improve the vetting process was necessary, one would hope that you can also agree that it was implemented incorrectly.  In fact, because it was implemented so poorly and has caused so much chaos and trouble for travellers, the whole question of whether or not the ban was a good idea or not has become a secondary issue.  It's like the old saying says: "the operation was a success, but the patient died."

To repeat: whether or not it was the ban was right thing to do has become completely irrelevant.  The resulting problems have become larger than the original issue.

It's not clear that Trump understands that yet.  Even if, in his mind, he thinks he has done the right thing, can he see that he "did the right thing", but in the wrong way?  And that because it was done in the wrong way, all of his "good intent" behind it does not matter?

So yes, Trump has made a huge mistake here.  One can only hope that he learns from it and comes to realise that running the country is not the same thing as running a business.  As a CEO, he gave immediate orders, but as President, he first needs to think of the impact of an order before he signs it.  And if it's an order like this one, that will create a huge change that people will need time to adjust to, he needs to give people that time.

Despite what Trump thinks, it's not about doing the right thing.  It's about doing the right thing correctly.  Whether or not you think the ban was the "right thing" to do or not, it's clear that it was not done correctly.  And THAT is the problem.

LKvi

Trump is what you get when you don't defend Democracy

The anger and disgust over Donald Trump becoming the president continues again today and likely will go over for the entire time he is president.

The thing that we should be wondering about, though, is this: how did this happen?

The answer isn't pretty: Trump is the result of the majority of Americans failing to defend the democratic process and allowing Clinton's corruption to go unresisted until it was too late.

It first started when the primaries began.  The Republicans had 17 different people decide to run and 12 of them participated in the primary.  That's a lot, but it's understandable.  The Democrats had only 6 people run, and just 3 of them actually participated in the primary: Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley.  That seemed a bit low, but okay.

O'Malley dropped out early, leaving just Clinton and Sanders.  And this is where democracy got trampled.  The DNC, which is supposed to be a neutral and objective observer of the primary, got involved.  It wasn't just a small involvement either, it was headed up by the leader of the party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

This group of conspirators called Bernie Sanders "a problem" that they needed to "get rid of".  As has been shown, this group deliberately sabotaged the will of the people and did whatever they could to ruin Bernie Sanders campaign, in order to have their preferred candidate, Clinton, win the nomination.

This is an abhoration against democracy.  The whole concept of an election, whether it is a primary or whatever, is that the people are told the truth about the candidates: their history, what they stand for, how they plan to help the people once elected, etc.  The people then make a decision about who they want to be the leader, and they vote for that person.

One thing that is key to the democratic election process is this: the organisation put in charge of running the election must be neutral.  They must act objectively and fairly, and do everything they can to avoid influencing the election in any way whatsoever.  Otherwise, we get the situation that happens in communist countries: they hold an "election", and the candidate from the communist party ends up getting 100% of the vote.  Everyone knows those so-called elections are a sham since the process isn't fair to all candidates - the person from the communist party gets special and preferred treatment, while their opponents are repressed and censored by the media and made to look terrible.  Elections like that are just for show, so the dictating party in power can claim that their rule is the will of the people.

This exact same thing happened during the Democratic primary.  The primary was not conducted fairly or freely; the body that was running the primary and that was supposed to be neutral and fair was, in reality, actually acting completely biased towards one of the candidates.  The DNC actively worked to discredit Bernie Sanders whereever possible and to influence people to vote for Clinton.

In the end, it worked.  Clinton won the nomination.

But it wasn't without word of the DNC's actions getting out.  Even before the DNC convention, evidence was leaking out about how the DNC had rigged the primary against Sanders and the primary was not being conducted fairly.

What the DNC did was a serious violation of democracy and freedom.

Now, the question is: where were you while this was happening - what were you doing?

Were you like this:

No.  That woman was in the very very small minority.  Most of you were standing there going, "owell, whatever..."

But that should have been your time.  THAT was the time to stand up and protest what had happened.  Even if you supported Clinton, it was still the time to say, "wait, I support Clinton, but was the primary conducted fairly?  It wasn't?  Then this is wrong."

What was most surprising about the whole thing is that even after it was clearly shown that the DNC had been biased and had definitely rigged the primary and thus, affected the result, very few people did the right thing and demand that the result be invalidated.

Democracy had been trampled on by the DNC: instead of being a neutral party, they had effectively dictated to the people who their next president was going to be.

This is when you should have stood up and said NO.

But surprisingly, almost all of you did nothing.  You failed to defend the democratic process.  Whether you supported Sanders or Clinton is irrelevant: the issue at hand was that the primary was conducted un-democratically.

Instead, most of you did this:

You accepted that democracy had been bypassed and just brushed it off like it didn't matter.  But it DID matter - if you believe in freedom and democracy, you should have been speaking out, objecting to the result, and demanding an invalidation.  We had many discussions with the Democrats, and what was said was shocking.  Despite all the evidence that Clinton's win of the nomination had not been done fairly, all people said were things like:

• "Well, it doesn't matter because she probably would have won anyways."
• "Now is not the time to worry about it, now is the time to focus on party unity.  We have to rally behind Clinton now."
• "Well, the primary is over, and we just have to accept it."

NO.  No you didn't have to accept it.  There should have been massive protests and social outrage over it.  The way the Democratic primary was run, with the DNC deliberately trying to help one of the candidates to win, is criminal.  It's anti-freedom and it's anti-democratic in every way because what it was, effectively, was a seizure of power.  The exact same way that dictators and totalitarianists take power.

How can you say it was okay to accept that, yet now it's not okay to accept that Trump won the election?

It was a huge disappointment to see how people just accepted the result.  Very little was said against it.  People were attacked for simply questioning if the primary had been fair.

And that was you - the majority of Democrats - attacking anyone who questioned the result - in other words, defending the illegal and undemocratic way the primary was run.

Why did you do it?  Why wasn't there a massive outcry against the primary result, in the same way that there is now about the Trump presidency?

See, you didn't stand up for democracy there.  You accepted it when Clinton and the DNC jackbooted democracy in order for her to get the nomination.  You weren't defending freedom there; you weren't standing up for what was right; and you were actually attacking people who had the nerve to question the injustice that was done to Bernie Sanders.

And guess what?

As a result of your actions, the Democrats ran a candidate who was so corrupt, so weak, and so bad that someone like Donald Trump beat her.  Think about that for a moment: your candidate lost to...  

Donald J. Trump.  Wow.

While it's impossible to say how Sanders would have done, all the polls indicate that he was much, much more popular than Trump.  It's very likely that Sanders would have won the election, though we'll never know that now.

And who knows - perhaps if you would have stood up for democracy and demanded that the primary result be overturned, perhaps a fair re-vote would have still made Clinton the nominee.  That would have been perfectly fine.  If Clinton had won the nomination through a fair and clean process, then yes, there would be nothing to say here and happily, this blog post would not have been written.

But Clinton didn't win fairly.  And you didn't stand up against it.  And now, Trump is the result.

If you're a Democrat today, and you're complaining about Trump now, but you did nothing about the un-democratic, unfair, and illegal process that was the Democratic primary, then you're part of the problem.  This is what happens when people allow the democratic process to be subverted.  You looked the other way when the DNC was biasing the primary.  Debbie Wasserman Schulz, Donna Brazile, and the entire lot of conspirators should be on criminal trial right now for what they did.

So if you're angry about a Trump presidency, remember this: THOSE are the people who had a great influence on it happening.  Those are the people that you should be protesting as well, demanding that the conspirators be arrested and tried for the crimes the committed.  They are the ones who bear a large responsibility for it.

LKvi

Different motivations for protesting

Watching all the marches and protests over the Republican victory, it starts to get crazy.  What are these people looking for?  What do they want?

There are some who simply can't handle the fact that they didn't win the election.  They are protesting, but really, it's not a protest, it's simply them acting out their anger.  In reality, there is nothing for these people to be protesting about.  Did Trump someone manage to cheat by changing the election results?  Did Trump lose the election but seize power illegally?  No.

Like it or not, Trump won a free and democratic election, and as a result, he's the President.

To protest against the election RESULT is to protest against the very concept of democracy.  The whole reason we have elections is because some people would like person A to be the president, and others want person B to be the president - so to solve this problem, we have a vote, and the person who gets the most votes wins.  It's fair and democratic.

The attitude of these protestors is actually a danger to democracy, in that what they're asking for is the results of a fair election to be overturned so that THEIR person can become president.

There are those who say that they want their voice to be heard loud and clear.  Again, this doesn't make any sense.  Your voice WAS heard when you stepped into booth and marked your choice on your ballot.  Your voice was respected, and your vote was counted, just like all the others. 

So protesting "to be heard" makes little sense.  If the election had been rigged and your vote was thrown away and not counted, then yes, absolutely you should protest - that would be completely unfair and undemocratic.

But that's not what happened.  What happened is that your voice was counted, but so was someone else's, and in the end, when we counted up all the voices, more of them said they wanted Trump than said they wanted Clinton.

But make no mistake: You were heard, loud and clear.  But other people heard you and wanted Trump instead.  Whether or you agree with their choice or not, it's anti-freedom to say that they didn't have to right to make it.

There are also those who have genuine concerns about a Trump presidency: his characters, what he might do, etc.  It makes sense for those people to feel that way: there is a ton of uncertainty as to how things are going to go over the next few months.  Trump has said a lot of scary and crazy things.

However, protesting generically is pointless.  When someone protests, there should be a specific thing they are doing it for.  Look at the Vietman War protests - it was clear what the protestors wanted, and had the government simply ended the war, all the protesters would have gone home and it would have been over.  (Sadly, LBJ and Nixon showed was real tyrants they were by ignoring the obvious will of the people on the issue of the Vietnam war.)

Still, the point is that if Trump does something specific that needs to be changed, then protesting makes sense.  Saying that you'd like to see "the wall" never built - that's a clear demand.  It's something that people can get behind.

But generic protesting doesn't do anything.  Those people just saying "not my president" aren't really accomplishing anything, because there's nothing that can be done to appease them.  Sure, you can say "not my president", but what do you want to happen?  Do you want Trump to resign?  Do you want the results of the election overturned?  Do you want Clinton put in power even though she lost the election?

See, none of that is reasonable, nor does it have any chance of happening; this is why making a generic statement like "not my president" really doesn't act as an agent of change in any way whatsoever.

But that leads to the last type of protestor, and unfortunately, the most common: the person that defines themselves as working for good, whether it be activism or social justice or whatever - but who is so caught up in it, that they actually DO NOT CARE about the cause they are protesting.  They simply enjoy the rush that comes from being out on the street, being loud, and being able to "do good" and look down on other people.

These types of people do the most harm, because they are not rational, and they are not working for a specific cause - they have a self-definition of being a "good" person and "fighting evil" that they do not even consider whether the actions they're taking can ACTUALLY LEAD TO CHANGE.  They act loudly, forcefully, and IRRATIONALLY, because they're caught up in their own self-definitions.

This is why you cannot reason with this type of protestor, you cannot have an open and honest discussion with them about the issue: they are simply about taking action because that's what they do: act, regardless whether or not they have all the facts or truly understand the situation.

And these are the types that are the most angry, the loudest, and the most violent.  They have lost themselves and their real sense of identity in their 'mission' to fight for good.  And that's why they end up being the worst of both worlds: they don't create positive change and they act aggressively in their efforts that have no results.

LKvi

Attention Republicans: You're making the situation worse

Since the inaugration of Trump, there have been a lot of protests, marches, and outrage on social media.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are doing a very poor job of handling the situation.  They are simply saying that all of the uproar is just sour grapes coming from the Democrats, who are unhappy they lost the election.  Conway went as far as to say that she thinks the protests in Washington were "pointless".

Now, what the Republicans are saying has some truth to it.  There are some few protestors who are indeed just Democrats who are angry they lost the election and are acting out.  There are some who are the privileged elite who just can't believe the person who was going to give them special privileges didn't win the election and they are angry that they don't get to be better than everyone else now.  But there are also many real protestors who are concerned and worried about what Trump might do as President.  And those are legitimate concerns.

This is where the Republicans are failing horribly.  Instead of being empathetic to the fact that SOME people do have genuine and founded concerns about the Trump presidency, the Republicans are making the situation a lot worse by simply dismissing people and brushing aside their concerns.

The Republicans are content to sit up on a hill, looking down on everyone and blaming the protests and anger on someone else.  They don't seem to understand that in fact, that they are actually fanning the flames of discontent with their attitude towards these protests.  If the Republicans made it clear that they actually care, that they are concerned, and that they accept that people are nervous and angry right now, it would go a long way to help the situation.

These people deserve to feel that their feelings have been heard and accepted; making people feel like their opinions don't matter and are ignored is just going to incite more anger and outrage.

The more that the Republicans show raw contempt for the protestors, the more angry the protestors become and the worse the situation gets.

This is something that's clearly on the Republicans: yes, there are protestors and ugly situations happening, and yes, it's not all the Republicans fault, but they can and SHOULD be doing something about it to make the situation less violatile and less emotional: they should be LISTENING and ACKNOWLEDGING the situation and talking openly about how to address it, instead of just brushing it off.

Otherwise, the anger and division is going to continue, and the Republicans will be a major reason why.

LKvi

Anti-Trump absolute thinking

With the inauguration of Trump, one might think that things have started to change.  The election is long past and the political tension of it is gone - it's time to get back to life as we know it, right?

For most of us, this is the case.  Whether we wanted the Democrats or Republicans to win, it's a done deal now.  We did our part for democracy, we got to vote for the candidate we wanted, and it was a glorious example of freedom.

Unfortunately, there are a few who can't let it go.  And this article is about those people.  You may know some of them yourself; the type of person who thinks so absolutely that either you agree with them on everything, or else they consider you an enemy.

Since the election, the internet has been full of examples of this type of thinking.  Here's a recent internet meme that demonstrates such thinking:

The problem with this kind of logic is that it's way too absolute.  Sally is saying she rejects Bob now for voting Trump.

However, perhaps Bob did not support Hillary because:

• Hillary has a demonstrated history of using political office as a for-profit play-for-pay schema.
• Hillary claims to be for female rights, yet accepts donations from countries that actively repress and kill women.
• Her own husband Bill has a shady history, was impeached, lost his legal license, and had to pay a huge settlement over the Paula Jones affair.
• Clinton indicated that she was willing to risk nuclear war with Russia by imposing a "no fly" zone over Syria.  This was said during the second presidental debate, and although Bob does not like Trump at all, he felt that risking a nuclear war that would end the world would be worse than voting for Trump.

And there are many other reasons why Bob might have chosen not to vote for the Democrats:

• Perhaps he was a Bernie Sanders supporters who was disillusioned by the DNC did and could not, in good conscienous, support the rigged primary result.  
• Perhaps he simply felt he could not trust what Clinton would do (which is a very legitimate concern, given her demonstrated history of lying to the public).
• Perhaps he felt that the Republicans offered a good plan for the economy, and so he had to vote for Trump (who he hates) in order to get the Republican policies he wanted.

The point is: there are many reasons why someone may have voted Republican in the election.  It is not a simple question.  The choice of who to vote for in the election was a very, very complex and difficult one.

The fundamental problem with Sally's line of thinking is that it takes a complex issue ("why would someone vote for Trump") with many facets and incorrectly reduces the issue to a single topic, while ignoring all the other factors.

In this case: if someone voted Trump, they are a mysogenist.  No.  This is an absurb and ridiculous oversimplification.

That is the first problem with Sally's way of thinking.

The problem then gets worse when she then takes this reduced way of thinking and makes it absolute: either you agree with her, or you are her enemy.

Now, the question is: How do you deal with someone who thinks like this?  You might know a "Sally" in your life, and you're wondering how best to deal with them?

In general, you can accept "Sally" as she is, but just be prepared that you may be dumped unexpectedly.  I've known a few absolute thinkers, and the story is always the same: they end up dumping friend after friend after friend, and they end up alone and bitter, thinking that "the world just doesn't understand" them.

Now, it can happen that sometimes someone in this pattern of thinking will realise it and change.  In that regard, I would never give up on someone; but know that they may end the relationship.  It can happen because there's no way to avoid talking about something or doing something that they will end up finding offensive and a dumpable offense.  In Bob's case, it was voting for Trump.  In your case, it might be because they find out that you eat meat, or you like Starbucks, or that you bought a shirt from a department store instead of the local market.

It is very difficult to appease absolute thinkers.  If you "agree" with them on an issue, all you've really done is postpone the inevitable.  Sooner or later, another issue with come up, and you'll be forced to "agree" again in order to maintain the friendship with this person. 

So, simply put, Bob's best move is to not argue and just move on.  Anyone so shallow that they would end their relationship with Bob over who he voted for in an election isn't someone who Bob could ever have any sort of deep, meaningful relationship with.

On that note, the meme isn't finished.  Let's complete it for the original author.

Bob realises that Sally is an absolute thinker and accepts her decision.

Three months later
 

Bob is happy with his life.  He has good friends who are open-minded and enjoy discussing politics, even if they don't agree with him on everything.  Bob has met a new girlfriend who he respects and treats well.  Not being a mysogenist, he just voted for Jane Smith last week's city election and is happy to see that Jane will be the new mayor.

Sally is not happy.  Since her breakup with Bob, she met four other new friends, but has dumped them all since they also just don't get it.  Jill was nice, but she wanted to get a Big Mac at McDonalds, and Sally can't tolerate Jill's support for big evil corporations.  Max seemed okay, but he supported Roger Jones in the city election, so he was clearly a mysogenist.  Her new friend Lisa was also a big anti-Trump fan, but it turns out that Lisa wore a skirt to their last coffee meeting, so Lisa clearly isn't fully devoted to the female cause.  And Mike was nice, but he likes wearing his hair in a man-bun, which just isn't socially acceptable.

Bob ends up having a happy life, filled with different kinds of people, each of whom enrichs his experience in different ways.  Sally ends up alone and extremely bitter, having lived a life of quiet desperation and angst that no one else gets it but her.

If you're a "Bob": hopefully you can have some compassion for the "Sally"s of the world out there - they live difficult and lonely lives.  At the same time, if you are friends with them, be aware that they may drop you at any time and it isn't your fault.

If you're a "Sally", you're probably highly offended by this article by now, but it's the truth.  Would you be willing to be a bit more open minded?  It simply takes a willingness to be open and listen to other people's opinions, even if you don't agree with them.  

At the very least, I hope that you can see how when you think so absolutely and narrow-mindedly, it really doesn't do anyone any good, especially not you.  There is no glory in being a martyr for a cause, when your martyrdom actually does not result in any change because all you're really doing is rejecting anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion.

LKvi

This blog is a continuation of http://lajoskossuthvi.blogspot.ca/

Hey all

This blog is a continuation of http://lajoskossuthvi.blogspot.ca/

Unfortunately, the idiots at Google locked out my account for no reason and I can't recover it.

So, the blogging continues on this new blog instead...

LKvi