Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category


Trump is ever so slightly right about media bias, part 2: Streep-gate

January 10, 2017

[Click here for Part 1.]

Everyone has been talking about Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes acceptance speech in which she criticized Donald Trump for mocking a reporter’s disability. Predictably enough, Trump fan are incensed. But did Trump really make fun of Serge Kovaleski’s arthrogryposis? The truth, according to me, is that we’ll never know for sure.

Everyone who cares about this issue has seen the footage of Trump flailing around as he momentarily pretends to be Kovaleski. The key question is, was he specifically referencing Kovaleski’s physical limitations, or just impersonating a generic flustered, incompetent person?

The first interpretation is definitely plausible. But so is the second one, in light of two key points made by pro-Trump sites such as First, Trump’s vaguely epileptic flailing bears little resemblance to Kovaleski’s limited movements. Second, Trump has made similar flailing motions when mocking other (non-disabled) people (a general; Ted Cruz; himself, when forced to go on vacation; a bank president; Donna Brazile).

(The article I’m linking to is NOT a good article overall. It has many problems. But we’re not going to get into those. Let’s focus solely on the disability issue.)

I’ve read the Washington Post’s defense of Streep, but the evidence is not nearly as strong as the Post claims. In particular, the Post’s use of the still frame, showing that Trump’s arm and wrist were bent like Kovaleski’s for at least a fraction of a second, is a cheap trick, as pointed out by If Trump had frozen himself into a distinctly Kovaleski-like pose, that would indeed be damning, but the fact that his arm resembled Kovaleski’s at one moment in time is NOT a smoking gun. Not even close.

If Meryl Streep — whom I generally admire as an actress and as a person — wanted to make a compelling statement about Donald Trump’s treatment of marginalized people, she should have chosen a better, more clear-cut example. The fact that Trump seems (to liberals like me) like the kind of guy who might mock a disability does not mean that he actually did.

We need to pick our battles, people. This should not be one of them.

[UPDATE: Via Facebook, my friend David Crossman, who disagrees with me, cites another Washington Post fact-checker article that exposes Trump’s dishonesty in talking about Kovalesky. I agree with many aspects of that article, though not its specific conclusions on the disability issue.]

What exactly does this prove? Image taken from


2016, agGREGated: Trump, job apps, pregnancy

January 9, 2017

If you tried to deduce what last year was like for me based on my irregular scattershot posts during the year, you probably wouldn’t do very well. So, for a less cryptic view of my 2016, read on. In brief, there were three main themes.


No surprise here, right? Donald Trump was such an unbelievable character that even I, with my modest interest in politics, felt compelled to read and (eventually) write about him throughout the year, for better or worse.

Among the many, many Trump stories that I saw, my favorite was a post-election piece by Seth Stevenson of Slate.

There was something else. An uncomfortable suspicion taking hold in me. I became convinced we [journalists] weren’t at these [Trump] rallies to observe. We were there to be observed….

Perhaps I’d been naive, but it only now dawned on me, in the final week of the campaign, to my great horror, that the real reason they put us [journalists] in the pen was so they could turn us into props. We were a vital element in Trump’s performance. He never once failed to invite his crowds to heckle us. He was placing us on display like captured animals.

And it worked. The press pack, collectively, looked nothing like the crowds at Trump events—particularly in more rural towns. We’d file into these places with our sleek luggage and our expensive tech gear and our better haircuts. We were far more diverse than the people in the stands. When the crowds lustily booed us, we’d sit there impassive and stone-faced, and this only further served to convince the rallygoers that we were snobby, superior pricks. The pen was an amazingly efficient means of othering us.

Behold, Trump said to his fans, I’ve rounded up a passel of those elites you detest. And I’ve caged them for you! Allow me to belittle them for your delight. Here, now you take a turn—go ahead, have at it! Do it again, don’t be shy! Under President Trump, the other elites will be in cages, too. We’ll lock them up, just like the chant goes. Just like you wanted. You’ll be their captors.

As one of the journalism-valuing, anti-bullying “elites” against whom Trump raged, I struggled mightily to comprehend his candidacy, much less respond to it. But my open letter to my students was a useful contribution to the conversation, I think.


2016 was also a really hard year in terms of job-searching. My tale of one of my near-misses was published on a friend’s academic blog last month.

I felt unstoppable. Fourteen years after finishing my Ph.D., I would finally be settling into a stable position that I really wanted and totally deserved.

And then I got a call from my department chair. “I’m afraid I have bad news,” he began. I hadn’t gotten the job -– either job. I was a well-liked, already-successful internal candidate, and I couldn’t even place in the top two.

Up to now, I’ve been hesitant to air such laments publicly. (I wrote the above post only after a less personal version [eventually revised and posted here] was declined by my friend.) I guess I’ve been worried about being perceived by prospective employers as a whiner or a loser. But it’s time to stop worrying. If you pre-judge me as unworthy simply because I think there’s value in acknowledging and discussing one’s failures, well, that’s your prerogative — and your loss.


On to happier stuff! My wife has blogged about this (here, here, and here); the bottom line is that we’re expecting a baby boy on or around February 5th.

For me, the best part was after the MRI … when the radiology technician showed me some of the images and even a video…. I was astounded to see my favorite little alien moving around in there — it looked like he was having quite the dance party! It put a huge smile on my face the rest of the day to have a mental image of what was going on down below every time my stomach turns and tickles.

2017 should be really, really interesting.

* * * * * *


slide from job talk



Trump is ever so slightly right about media bias

January 3, 2017

It is no secret that I consider Donald Trump unsuited to be president of the United States. But once he was elected, I decided to get to know him a bit better … by following him on Twitter. (Not exactly march-on-Washington activism, I know. But it’s a start.)

Some of his tweets seemed fine: standard rah-rah campaign rhetoric, shout-outs to his friends, etc. Others struck me as outrageous. For example:

Of course, nobody likes to see negative news coverage of oneself, but here Trump is (A) dismissing the work of an entire profession and (B) disingenuously claiming that he tweets largely to correct media distortions. (Why can’t he just admit that tweeting is fun for him?)

In sifting through his media-related tweets, though, I came across two that sounded more like justifiable self-defense.

Trump was presumably referring to a CNN story whose headline was Conway on Trump ‘Apprentice’ role: He’ll do it in his spare time.

For Trump-hating liberals, that headline is pure catnip. I certainly fell for it. “My God,” I thought, “why can’t he let go of his stupid reality TV show and focus on governing the country?”

But the reporting in the article itself is limited to two unremarkable claims by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway: (1) presidents have some free time in which to pursue non-government interests and (2) Trump is meeting with people who are helping him figure out whether he can or cannot be involved in things like The Apprentice.

In other words, Conway did NOT say that Trump would be working on The Apprentice, yet the clickbaity headline indicates the opposite. In this particular case, Trump’s anger was justified.

In 2017, as we retreat to our respective bubbles and echo chambers, let’s remember that no source is infallible, and that our adversaries are sometimes right.



Fluoridated drinking water is not an elegant 21st-century solution

December 3, 2016

In a previous post, I explained why, overall, I approve of the anti-fluoridation movement. Now I want to address one specific aspect of this that is partly scientific but partly philosophical and aesthetic.

First, a bit of personal context. In the lab-research phase of my career, I spent about 7 years working on the development of new drugs for infectious diseases like malaria. To my great disappointment, my work did not contribute much to the fight against these diseases. However, as I worked in this sphere, I was dazzled by others’ advances, such as the following:

(1) A project led by Meg Phillips (UT-Southwestern) and Pradip Rathod (University of Washington) has intensively studied dihydrooroate dehydrogenase (DHODH), an enzyme thought to be a good malaria drug target. In other words, if a drug impairs this enzyme in malaria parasites (Plasmodium falciparum and related species), the parasite should die and the infected person should be cured of malaria. Over the past 15+ years, DHODH has been characterized in almost obsessive detail, enabling the design of chemicals that strongly block the Plasmodium DHODH without messing up the human DHODH or other human enzymes. A new drug based on this work, DSM265, is currently undergoing clinical trials.

Figure (taken from Phillips et al., Science Translational Medicine 7: 296ra111, 2015) showing how the drug DSM265 nestles among specific amino acids of DHODH, thus disrupting its function.

(2) Among already-approved malaria drugs, artemisinin-related compounds are the best ones we have. However, isolating artemisinin from its natural source (the plant Artemisia annua) is costly and time-consuming. A team led by Jay Keasling developed an intricate “semi-synthetic” process, involving both genetically engineered yeast and chemical engineering technology, by which artemisinins can be made cheaply in the lab from simple starting materials.

Artemisin synthesis, part 1
Artesinin synthesis, part 2
Figures (taken from Paddon et al., Nature 496: 528-532, 2013) showing how artemisin can be synthesized in a chemical engineering lab.

To me, these projects represent the pinnacle of modern biomedical science. They were exceptionally hard, but years of relentless detail-oriented work by large groups of talented scientists — not to mention generous funding from government and nonprofit groups — led to practical advances that could save uncountable lives.

When held up against such thorough, painstaking work, the strategy of fighting tooth decay by dumping fluoride into drinking water strikes me as really lame.

For the sake of this argument, I’m not taking a stand on the strength of the evidence that fluoride reduces the formation of dental caries (cavities). Let’s assume that it does. The key point here is that according to most pro-fluoridation experts, fluoride acts topically (i.e., at the surface of teeth) rather than systemically (i.e., by passing through the blood and the rest of the body).

The Fluoride Action Network argues, “If fluoride works topically, there is no need to swallow it, and therefore no need to add it to the water supply. This is especially so when considering that (1) fluoride is not a nutrient, and (2) fluoride’s risks come from ingestion.” This reasoning really speaks to me as a scientist.

As illustrated above, we live in an age of remarkable biomedical resources. With the efforts of our best scientists, we can achieve great things like cure malaria with the best precision drugs mankind has ever known. In this can-do environment, do our most sensible and sophisticated cavity-fighting efforts really involve delivering fluoride to the wrong place in the body (the gastrointestinal tract) and hoping that the right amount of it trickles to the right place (the teeth)?

Fluoridated water’s relative safety or lack thereof is, in some ways, beside the point; it’s simply not the best option that we have. As scientifically literate, non-superstitious people, if we want fluoride to act on our teeth, we should put it on our teeth (e.g., with fluoride toothpaste), then spit it out. Period.

In closing, I want to acknowledge a counterargument to which I am sympathetic. People with limited incomes are least likely to get regular professional dental care and are also least likely to be able to afford fluoride toothpaste or be aware of its value. Shouldn’t we fluoridate water to give these vulnerable people the benefits of fluoride even if they’re not brushing regularly with fluoride toothpaste?

I think it’s a reasonable question. But if I were the mayor of a fluoridated-water town, I’d redirect all fluoridation funding into programs to aggressively distribute fluoride toothpaste to all low-income people who need it. And if I were a dentist, rather than lobbying for water fluoridation, I’d focus on this more intelligent route of fluoride delivery.


Fluoridated drinking water: public-health triumph, or force-fed meds?

November 29, 2016

In general, I trust our government. I trust it to use my taxes wisely, protect the less fortunate among us, and enact policies based on sound research and reasoning.

If scientists from the government tell me that the scientific consensus is such-and-such, I generally believe them. Sample topics: climate change, vaccines, evolution.

Thus, when I heard that citizens’ groups were opposing the fluoridation of public drinking water, in contrast to the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), I was initially skeptical. It sounded like a variation on the tragically misguided “vaccines are dangerous” movement.

But now that I’ve done some more reading and thinking about fluoridation, I think the anti-government fringe groups might be right!

Admittedly, a few hours of reading does not make me an expert on fluoridation. (So far, I’ve looked at the websites of the American Dental Association [ADA], CDC, Fluoride Action Network [FAN], and Rutland Fluoride Action, and followed links from these sites to other files such as the National Research Council’s 2006 report on fluoride in drinking water.) But, as someone with a Ph.D. in Physiology & Biophysics plus 14 years of postdoctoral research and teaching experience, I am qualified to comment on the issue.

It’s a challenging issue to tackle because there is a huge body of research on the biological effects of fluoride, which the two sides filter quite differently. For example, a thorough 2015 meta-analysis of the issue conducted by the independent, rigorous Cochrane Database group is touted by the FAN as showing “no valid evidence exists to prove fluoridation works,” while the ADA and CDC complain that the Cochrane analysis excluded valid studies that indicate benefits of fluoridation.

It’s hard for a neutral, semi-informed observer to know what to make of such debates.

Still, amidst the fog of disputed data and accusations of bias, the anti-fluoridation crowd does have a simple argument that I find compelling. Here it is:

1. Fluoride is a drug, not a nutrient.

2. Mass-administering a drug to entire communities, without individuals’ consent, can only be justified if we are extremely confident that the benefits-to-risks ratio is extremely high.

3. The available evidence does not warrant such extreme confidence.

Of these, claim #1 may be the most contentious. The ADA seems to disagree, as its 5 Reasons Why Fluoride in Water is Good for Communities include “It’s natural.”

“Fluoride is naturally present in groundwater and the oceans,” the ADA reassures us. Well, yes — but so is uranium-238. Should we be adding that to our water too?

The ADA continues, “[Fluoridation of water is] similar to fortifying other foods and beverages, like fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D, orange juice with calcium and bread with folic acid.”

The FAN rebuts this effectively.

It is now well established that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. This means that no human disease -– including tooth decay -– will result from a “deficiency” of fluoride. Fluoridating water supplies is therefore different than adding iodine to salt. Unlike fluoride, iodine is an essential nutrient (the body needs iodine to ensure the proper functioning of the thyroid gland). No such necessity exists for fluoride.

If fluoride is not a nutrient, then what is it? I find the FAN’s stance completely reasonable:

All water treatment chemicals, with the exception of fluoride, are added to make drinking water safe and pleasant to consume. Fluoride is the only chemical added to treat people who consume the water, rather than the water itself. Fluoridating water supplies can thus fairly be described as a form of mass medication, which is why most European countries have rejected the practice.

This classification of fluoride as a drug is consistent with official definitions from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

People usually are prescribed specific dosages of drugs according to their age, weight, medical history, etc. For fluoride in water, however, doses will vary wildly, not based on individuals’ “needs,” but based on how thirsty they are. It’s a bit unsettling, at the least.

Claim #2 concerns informed consent. I have some relevant professional experience, having conducted laboratory research and educational research that required approval from my university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) as well as the consent of the research subjects themselves.

It’s a lot of tedious paperwork. In my own proposals, for example, I’ve spent many paragraphs explaining why students will not be harmed if they anonymously complete a survey, and guaranteeing that the students can nonetheless skip the survey, without being punished, if they have any objections to it. Still, I’m grateful that my institution has a serious review process that reflects its firm commitment to respecting individuals’ autonomy. This respect is a bedrock value of civilized society in general, and infringements upon it must be well-justified.

So is it OK to force-feed a drug to populations at haphazard levels related to individuals’ thirst? Sure — but only if the drug has obvious, important benefits and is extremely safe.

So — claim #3 — what does the evidence look like for benefits and risks?

Regarding benefits, the above-mentioned Cochrane study basically says that there IS evidence that fluoridated water reduces tooth decay, but that this evidence is not nearly as strong as we would like.

Regarding risks, the above-mentioned NRC report devotes over 200 pages to reviewing fluoride’s effects on the musculoskeletal, reproductive, nervous, endocrine, digestive, renal, and immune systems. For most of these systems, the NRC concluded that more research was needed, which is not particularly helpful because scientists always say that about everything (thus justifying our existence).

Still, based on data showing that high fluoride levels can compromise teeth and bones, the NRC concluded that the Maximum Level Contaminant Goal (MLCG) be altered downward from the previously established standard of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L). More recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has lowered its recommended level of fluoride in the water to 0.7 mg/L (down from a previous recommended range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L). These changes can be taken as an acknowledgment by experts that greater caution regarding fluoride exposure is warranted. Throw in some journal articles and government grant proposals that have made it through the peer review process, and you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to think that mass fluoridation has been enacted prematurely.

In a subsequent post, I will address the issue of “topical” versus “systemic” delivery of fluoride.


My odd son

November 12, 2016

Obviously, there is no single gene “for” math aptitude or punctuality or interest in rainforests. But if Mom and Dad both exhibit a certain trait, shouldn’t the apple fall relatively close to the tree?

That’s what I used to think. Then I became a father.

Two of my defining interests throughout my life, evident from an early age, have been creative writing and competitive sports. My son Phil, now 10, is almost completely indifferent to both.

Here’s me at age 8 or 9, writing about baseball, my favorite sport at the time, while vacationing at my grandparents’ house in Old Lyme, Connecticut.

Marathon base ball poem

C’mon, c’mon, c’mon enjoy the fun,
c’mon, c’mon, c’mon and hit a home run.

C’mon, c’mon, c’mon and steal a base,
c’mon, c’mon, let me see that happy face.

C’mon, c’mon, c’mon and catch that ball,
c’mon, c’mon, c’mon and catch ’em all.

C’mon, c’mon, even if your average is low,
c’mon, work hard, and you can be a pro.

C’mon, c’mon, c’mon and hit that ball,
c’mon, c’mon, c’mon and hit it over the wall.

C’mon, c’mon, c’mon leap high in the air,
c’mon, c’mon, c’mon ‘n catch that ball, it’s fair.

C’mon, c’mon, throw the ball up high,
c’mon, c’mon, throw it way up in the sky.

C’mon, c’mon, throw it right into his glove,
C’mon, baseball, I’m in love!

C’mon, c’mon, c’mon enjoy the game,
c’mon, c’mon, c’mon and be elected to the Hall Of Fame.

While it’s not the work of a young Tennyson, some craftsmanship is evident, for example, in the commitment to the “c’mon, c’mon” cadence and the clean end rhymes. I proudly shared the poem with Grandma Nancy and relished her rave review.

In contrast, here is Phil writing about a summer camping trip that he basically enjoyed:

First we drove to the place. Then we ate lunch. Then we hiked. Then we set up camp. Then we ate dinner. Then we slept. Then we ate breakfast. Then we hiked. Then we drove to lunch. Then we drove home.

When asked to provide more detail about some part of the trip, Phil offered this:

After we set up the camp Leila set up the stove named the dragon fly. Then Leila made macaroni. And we ate it. Then she made a rice dish we ate it. finally we had roasted marshmallows for dessert.

Notice the apparent lack of interest in telling the story with any humor, any intrigue, or any flair whatsoever. Which is fine — LOTS of people find writing more tedious than enjoyable. And Phil is creative in other ways (especially with Legos). Still, I would have expected him to inherit some smidgen of my wordsmithing tendencies.

Likewise, we differ greatly in our attitude toward sports, as encapsulated in this photo from last Sunday’s PNTF cross-country meet (courtesy of Win Van Pelt):

PNTF 2016

Dad kicks fiercely toward the finish while Sonny Boy (in hat) looks away, uninterested.

Again, it’s fine that he is not (currently) a jock — just surprising to me.

Of course, we do have a few things in common: a love of soft blankets and sweat pants, for example. And similar views on Donald Trump.

That’s right — the man who has fractured the country into bitter factions has brought my son and me closer together.

Here’s Phil reacting to Donald Trump during the first presidential debate: “It seems like the only thing that he cares about is money.”

Weeks later, here he is, trying to explain Trump’s plan to make America great again: “It seems like Trump wants to repair America … by bombing it.” (I’m not sure exactly what Phil meant by that, but I took it to mean that “draining the swamp,” Trump-style, might do more harm than good.)

And here’s his response to a classmate’s claim that Trump will do some good things, like lowering taxes: “His tax cuts are for rich people. What about an African family working the entire day for 20 dollars?”

Preach on, Brother Phil!


Respecting veterans … and Trump supporters

November 10, 2016

As a young man, when it came to military issues, I was kind of a jerk.

As I finished up high school, my Vietnam-veteran dad suggested that I consider Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs as a way of defraying the enormous cost of college.

I almost snorted with derision. Why would I, a deep-thinking scholar at the top of my class, immerse myself in the dirty work of defending the United States? It wasn’t just that I personally was uninterested in military service; I couldn’t imagine why anyone like me would want to do anything like that.

Twenty-something years later, I can see that I dismissed my dad’s idea prematurely because I had never thought carefully about the people who do serve: what motivates them, what they get out of it, why they take pride in their service.

And why didn’t I do that thinking?

I avoided the whole topic because I didn’t want to deal with three highly disturbing facets: (1) death, (2) the cowardice of fearing death, and (3) killing other people.

Unfortunately, my “solution” of not ever thinking about the military – besides criticizing it, as a whole, for being too aggressive – left me without any understanding of how this enormously important branch of government operates, or much appreciation of the debt we owe to our veterans.

Eventually, another high school/college transition proved pivotal — that of my cousin Paul, who entered the United States Naval Academy in 2005.

Paul didn’t fit my military stereotype at all. He’s an extremely smart guy, not especially macho, and not a fan of overly simplistic “good-versus-evil” narratives. He could do anything he wanted to, more or less. Why would a guy like him voluntarily join the Navy? Apparently there was much more to his seemingly bizarre choice than I could fathom. Subsequent conversations with Paul and his parents proved illuminating.

Even today, I remain relatively ignorant of military matters. But now, at least, I try to be less patronizing and more respectful of those who have put their lives on the line for the sake of our country.

Tomorrow -– Friday, November 11th -– is Veterans Day. It’s a great day to honor my dad, Paul, my cousin-in-law Marc, my ex-cousin-in-law Mark, and all those who have served.

They and I are not as different as I once thought.

I’m very sorry that it took me so long to recognize this.

[Jack Crowther (far right) in Vietnam, 1965 or ’66.]

These reflections come at a time when I’m again inclined to dismiss or ignore another huge group of people who seem utterly alien to me -– in this case, the supporters of Donald Trump.

I consider Trump to be the worst presidential candidate I’ve ever encountered. But just as I shouldn’t have minimized all soldiers based on Dick Cheney’s flawed ideology and bad decisions, I shouldn’t assume that Trump’s supporters are all guilty of Trump’s sins. I don’t know what they all thought they were voting for, but it wasn’t necessarily misogyny or racism.

In September, at the Puyallup Fair, a nice old lady wearing a Trump/Pence button held my place in line while I went off to check on something. I couldn’t bring myself to ask her about her presidential choice. I was afraid of what her reasons might be.

I must do better. Without condoning hatred or violence, I must talk with Trump voters as the equals that they are. I must overcome the snobbery, cowardice, and fatigue that lurk in my heart.

As has been said many times in many ways, we generally can’t fundamentally change others -– but that shouldn’t stop us from trying to change ourselves.


An open letter to my students (revised)

November 9, 2016

Dear students:

As I write this, it appears that the United States has elected Donald Trump as its next president. Many of you undoubtedly have strong feelings about this outcome. But are those feelings relevant to our study of biology? Yes, they are. Therefore let me make the following two points.

First, this election did an amazingly good job of segregating us into rival camps of people who cannot even begin to imagine how the other side feels. It is easy to dismiss people for supporting a candidate who seems completely abhorrent. Yet all of us — Trump-haters and Clinton-haters alike — must continue to work together in lecture and in lab. It won’t be easy, but we must do our very best.

Second, I want to acknowledge that the rhetoric of this campaign may have felt threatening to some of you, especially those who have experienced discrimination or harassment in the past. You may be worried about your future under a president whose attitude toward traditionally marginalized groups has seemed at best insensitive and at worst downright hostile.

I fervently hope that any such worries will not derail your studies here at UW-Bothell. Please be assured that you are welcome here -– all of you. We, the faculty and staff who teach you and support you, want you to succeed -– all of you. Your lives matter to us. Your futures matter to us.

One of the great paradoxes of education is that people learn the most in circumstances when they are uprooted, made to feel uncomfortable, challenged with seemingly impossible tasks. Thus, we cannot protect you from all discomfort. A university is not simply a gigantic “safe space” for self-affirmation. But it IS a space where you have mentors, friends, and allies to help you get focused, get tough, and get things done. So: please, please, please continue to ask for help when you need it. We want to help, and we WILL help -– no matter who’s in the White House.

I’ll see you in class.

–Dr. Crowther

[Update: Danny Caballero, a physics professor at Michigan State University, has written a good letter in a somewhat similar spirit.]


Why I’m with her

September 29, 2016

Unlike Donald Trump, I really was against the last Iraq war before it began. I was furious at George W. Bush, and in 2004 I passed out campaign materials for the Democrats.

Then Bush got reelected anyway, and life went on, and I lost what little political attentiveness and acumen I had. Which brings us to 2015-16 and the rise of Donald Trump.

My life is more complicated now, so I’m not knocking on doors as I did in ’04. But I’m writing this for any on-the-fence acquaintances who want to know where I stand and why.

(Please note: I am NOT aiming to change the minds of strong Trump supporters. I am as powerless to persuade you as you are to persuade me. Let’s not argue.)

I have spent my adult life in academia, largely because I identify with and believe in academic values: intellectual curiosity; careful deliberation and discussion; the imperfect but honest pursuit of truth; respect for others different from oneself; and the humility of recognizing one’s limitations, even in one’s chosen field.

In my view, Donald Trump does not live by or promote these values, but Hillary Clinton does.

Much has been said about Trump’s treatment of ethnic and religious minorities and women: his call for a ban on immigration by Muslims, his “Look at that face!” comment on fellow candidate Carly Fiorina, etc. etc. etc. The September 26 debate reminded me just how bad Trump is on this issue. When moderator Lester Holt turned the debate to the topic of racial tensions, Trump’s main points included (1) African Americans should be happy that he vigorously pursued the Obama “birther” controversy, (2) violent crime in Chicago concerns him because he owns property there, (3) he was able to settle a 1973 lawsuit of racial discrimination without admitting guilt, and (4) he recently opened a club in one of Florida’s wealthiest communities that ISN’T RACIST! It was a performance so bereft of compassion that I LOL’ed with incredulity.

I hesitate to call anyone a liar, especially in the realm of politics, where oversimplifications and spin are a necessary part of the game. A hypothetical candidate who was 100% truthful 100% of the time would be an unelectable bore. But Trump has taken distortion and obfuscation to a whole new level. Clinton, while unfortunately evasive, is reasonably truthful, according to independent fact-checkers.

An important corollary to Trump’s chronic inaccuracy is that, while running for president, he has not boned up on the relevant geography, history, constitutional law, science, and so forth. Instead, he simply asserts that his experience as a business CEO will allow him to “make great deals” that benefit the USA. If only it were that simple.

Clinton, in contrast, has tons of experience (as Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady) in using the levers of government to effect change in the United States and elsewhere. She does her homework, stays lucid and level-headed under pressure, and acknowledges nuances and complexities that Trump cannot be bothered with.

To sum up: as they say in reality TV, Trump is “not here for the right reasons.” He is, I think, taking the ultimate ego trip, in which he gets to bellow his supposed wisdom at not only his corporate underlings but the entire country. He is NOT especially interested in the day-to-day operations of the Oval Office, preferring to imagine himself as a “chairman of the board.” Shouldn’t we vote for a candidate who actually wants to do the work?

H is for Hillary!

[Friendly reminder: This post, like the rest of this blog, reflects my opinions as a private citizen and does NOT represent the position of the University of Washington or any other organization with which I am affiliated.]


Debate verdict: Obama less appealing than Legos

October 4, 2012

“Can I watch Lego German Army videos?” my 5-year-old son asked before dinner last night.

“President Obama is having a debate right now,” I responded. “Do you want to watch that?”

“Lego President Obama?”

“No — the REAL President Obama!”

“What’s President Obama?”

“He’s the leader of our country.”

“The whole town?”

“The whole United States!”

“So we have to do what he says?”

“Uh … yeah.”

My son paused, and I sensed that the politics lesson was over.

“Can I watch Lego German Army now?”