Faith and the President-elect

A definition of faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something, most notably when there is an absence of evidence or proof.  The word is often used in association with religion, which is not the case here.  My interest in the word relates to how people faithfully believe the promises and claims of a person who is soon to be leader of the free world, regardless of what they are.

The newly-elected President had a good deal of success in his campaign relying on people having an abundance of faith in him and his pronouncements.  He made many promises on the campaign trail and at his rallies, which were often marked by a high degree of emotion, and were responded to in kind by those in his audiences.

At one count, over the course of the campaign the President-elect managed to offer up 282 promises.  An example: refusing to ever eat another Oreo cookie until Nabisco returned its production back to the U.S. from Mexico.  Another: releasing his tax returns as soon as the IRS finishes its audit.  He even managed to contradict himself regarding the minimum wage, as referenced in the linked article:

“12. Leave the federal minimum wage at $7.25 per hour, which is ‘already too high’.

13. Raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour, as ‘$7.25 is too low’ and ‘the minimum wage has to go up’.”

The President-elect in essence was telling people to take his word for most of his promises.  After all, how would they ever be able to confirm that he never again ate an Oreo?  He says that doesn’t care about his businesses any longer- he just cares about his country.  Just take his word for it- there will never be any conflicts of interest.  Or:

“38. ‘We will double our growth and have the strongest economy anywhere in the world.’”  Just take his word for it.

He has at times allowed himself to speculate that he will be President for eight years:  

“232. ‘And at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce.’”  Again- take his word for it.  Really, there is no other choice, is there?

The election was about seven weeks ago, and the President-elect is amazingly taking credit for the improved economy, higher stock market, and how much money was spent during this Christmas holiday.  His tweet on the 26th: “The world was gloomy before I won – there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!”  Actually, the more accurate figure for November and December spending is estimated to be a little more that half of that.  And ironically, the reality according to CNBC on Dec. 2 is this: “Obama's biggest parting gift to Trump may be the economy”.  My guess is that his faithful would more readily believe his tweet.

Much has been made recently of the term “post-truth”, named word of the year by the English Oxford Dictionary.  Their statement:

“After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.”

I wrote back in January of last year:  “An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.”

Faith has always had a place in our world, to our benefit or detriment depending on a person’s point of view.  The philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his 1954 book Human Society in Ethics and Politics, espoused the latter.  An excerpt:

“… What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define ‘faith’ as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith.’

We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute different emotions…”

The President-elect possesses an uncanny aptitude for appealing to emotion, so as to often avoid providing evidence.  His promises sound good, and a good many people seem content to take his word for them.  In reality, he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and many of his promises have been broken.  Breitbart News has taken him to task for his decision not to push for criminal investigations of his opponent over her emails.

In the end, though, I believe that what matters most is not what the President-elect believes or says.  I have observed him to be a person without some of the traits that define a rigid ideologue.  He wants to be liked and respected as someone who is practical and can solve problems.  He switches positions readily, and appears to be easily swayed.  He can’t seem to decide how he feels about the current President.  During the campaign he frequently called him “the worst president in history”.  After meeting with him post-election, he changed that to saying that he has “great respect” for him and “I look very much forward to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel.”

What concerns me more are the people he is surrounding himself with in his cabinet and administration, and who will have his ear.  As has been pointed out, these will be the people making and changing policy.  They are firm and consistent in their beliefs.  How readily will their boss go along with their actions?  And, of course, there will be at least one Supreme Court pick for him to make, which will influence the direction of the country far beyond the next four or eight more years.

D. Norman

Not Knowing What We Don’t Know, and Not Caring

Donald Rumsfeld, who served two terms as Defense Secretary under two Presidents, is famous for this 2002 quote:

“…as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”

It would be interesting to ask Mr. Rumsfeld what he thinks about voters in America in 2016. They elected as their President a man who seems not to care that he does not know what he does not know. Further, I wonder what he thinks about this President-elect not seeming to grasp the fact that he will be a very busy man for the next four years. So busy that he will not actually have the time for other roles such as Executive Producer of a television show (although the process to choose his Secretary of State seems to have all the hallmark features of a reality show.)

As the soon-to-be commander-in-chief, he already has shown a marked disinterest in taking his presidential daily briefings. One is reminded of the events in the month before 9/11. Very specific information contained in an uncharacteristically lengthy briefing was basically ignored by a similarly disinterested commander-in-chief.

With his actions and statements so far, it seems to me that Donald Trump will be content to merely “wing it” during his term(s) in office as President. He apparently has become convinced that the job, as it has been looked upon up to now, is obsolete- part of the Washington establishment tradition that needs to be cast aside. His perceived “white knight” status, as an outsider that is exempt from the usual rules, will allow him to continue as a businessman having an interesting (and financially lucrative) hobby as President of the United States. After all, how hard can it be?  Spending a little time each morning tweeting out his latest edicts and claims of his latest accomplishments is seemingly all it takes.

D. Norman

Drinking Sand

In an attempt to sort out what happened [last] Tuesday, I did what I’m sure many have done. In this era of the internet search, it’s easy.  So I reached out to a writer who would explain it in terms far better than I ever could.  David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, wrote what I found to be a most helpful article on Wednesday. Along with a careful dissection of the root causes for the result of the election, he reminded me of a dialogue from one of my favorite movies about politics:

“A scene from The American President, the 1995 Aaron Sorkin film about a widower in the White House running against a right-wing demagogue is instructive. Michael J. Fox played an aide who told the president, played by Michael Douglas, that ‘in the absence of genuine leadership’ the people will ‘listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.’

Before long, yesterday’s voters will realize that they just drank sand.”

I realize that quoting from a movie could appear to be suspect, but as I wrote back in April, another celebrity politician was known to have done the same:

“Ronald Reagan has become a mythical figure in American politics. Numerous examinations of his time in office have surfaced, which serve to remind us of easily (or readily) forgotten facts about his performance. I found this recent article in Salon to be especially revealing. An excerpt:

‘In all fields of public affairs—from diplomacy to the economy—the president stunned Washington policymakers by how little basic information he commanded. His mind, said the well-disposed Peggy Noonan, was ‘barren terrain’. Speaking of one far-ranging discussion on the MX missile, the Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, an authority on national defense, reported, ‘Reagan’s only contribution throughout the entire hour and a half was to interrupt somewhere at midpoint to tell us he’d watched a movie the night before, and he gave us the plot from War Games’. The president ‘cut ribbons and made speeches. He did these things beautifully’, Congressman Jim Wright of Texas acknowledged. ‘But he never knew frijoles from pralines about the substantive facts of issues.’”

My point in writing about the folly of considering an ill-prepared celebrity for the high office of President of the United States?  It was that promises would be made that may never be kept.  Donald Trump promised his supporters much.  What will happen in the next four years if his followers don’t see them come to pass?  

His opponent was experienced and knowledgeable and fully aware of the realities of politics.  Quoting again from Johnston’s piece:

“These Americans were so fed up with politicians growing rich while worsening their plight that they embraced an erratic personality with no history of public service. They rejected a thoroughly prepared candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, who fought for poor children for four decades, but could never escape a perception that she was manipulative and dishonest, characteristics that facts show apply fully to Trump.

“These voters decided to entrust our future to a man with little knowledge of world affairs and no political philosophy, other than self-glorification, because he said he would make things better.”

I wonder what future presidential campaigns will look like? Will there be more than the two traditional political parties in play? Will we witness the candidates in the primaries making more and more outlandish promises, hoping to end up as the one who fools the most people to win the nomination of their party? Will much of the electorate continue to devalue knowledge and experience?  

The incoming president and his party have complete control, and have at least the next two years to make his promises come to fruition. The mid-term elections always seem to be the vehicle for grading performance.

D. Norman

Deflection, Projection, and Delusion

As a long-time political junkie, the current presidential campaign has been fascinating to me.  I recently wrote about the value of debates and polls.  Writing blogs is my attempt to inform.  I hope this one will do so also, but I acknowledge that it is an opinion piece.

What is especially troubling to me is the obviously and blatantly misleading statements coming from one side of the campaign.  Donald Trump’s surrogates have the unenviable task of answering tough questions from the media and the electorate.  Of course, the same can be said of any political campaign.  But I suspect that many people would acknowledge that, by necessity, more explaining and excusing is being done on the Trump side.  I say by necessity, due to the steady stream of outlandish statements made by their boss, along with the inevitable vetting being done regarding his past history.  New revelations crop up almost daily, and thus more questions.

Answering tough questions requires skill and tools which the public relations industry have honed over many years.  PR consultant Kim Harrison has a list of 8 ways to deflect tough interview questions.  The way he outlined and explained them was really enlightening, and most are readily recognizable.

“Some politicians and top managers have mastered the art of avoiding answers to difficult media interview questions.  Others haven’t. Dodging nasty questions can be achieved with some reasonable preparation and practice. Here are some smart ways you can deal with tough questions:

1. Acknowledge the question without answering it. (“That’s a good question, and I think we should consider the implications by looking at…” [avoiding an answer].)

2. Ignore the question completely. However, this is a high-risk approach because the interviewer may repeat the question or reword it slightly to return to the subject. This tends to make the interviewee look evasive.

3. Question the question.

  (a) Request clarification or further information about the question. This works as a delaying tactic in a short interview.

  (b) Reflect the question back to the interviewer (“Why do you ask me that?”). Some years ago an interviewer was floored by UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when in a famous response to “Some people are saying you are too autocratic,” she said “Name some of them.” The interviewer was caught by surprise and wasn’t able to think of a suitable response, which made him look a bit silly.

4. Attack the question, on the basis of:

  (a) The question fails to tackle the important issue.

  (b) The question is based on a false assumption.

  (c) The question is factually inaccurate.

  (d) The question is too personal or objectionable.

5. Decline to answer. Refuse to answer on the basis that it is not your area of responsibility. (“You will have to ask [name, or ‘someone else’] about that because I’m not involved at all in that part of the situation.”)

6. Give an incomplete answer.

  (a) Partial answer.

  (b) Start to answer but change the subject.

  (c) Negative answer. You state what won’t happen instead of what will happen.

7. State or imply the question has already been answered (“I’m not going to go over old ground.”)

8. Defer to the will of others. Refer to the will of constituents or shareholders etc and imply you are doing your duty by complying with their will.”

Deflection is a frequently-used method of the Trump campaign surrogates.  Ask them about their boss not releasing his taxes, and they deflect to Hillary’s e-mails.  (They know that people aren’t as accepting of the audit excuse any longer.)  Ask them about his treatment of women, and they deflect to Hillary’s reactions at the time of her husband’s infidelities in the mid-‘90s.  Recently, one of his favorite surrogates utilized several deflection tools when asked about some of his published credentials, and then, using one more, walked out of the interview.

A very adept deflector is Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager.  She has been asked often about the birther issue.  This article speaks volumes about the use of deflection.  I could provide many more examples, but she appears often on the cable channels and I invite you to make a game out of identifying her examples of deflection.  She is a master.

Projection is, I believe, a uniquely Republican trait as it relates to expressing their arguments. Paul Waldman, writing in The American Prospect, a liberal publication, offered this explanation in 2012:

“There has seldom been a clearer political case of what psychologists call ‘projection', the propensity to ascribe to someone else one's own thoughts, feelings, and sins. It's true that we are in a polarized moment, and what is called nastiness often turns out to be genuine substantive differences between parties that represent distinct groups of Americans.  But Republicans have been, shall we say, vigorous in their opposition to this president, both completely unified and unrestrained in their criticism.  Yet they remain convinced that Barack Obama is the one who bears responsibility for whatever division has been sown.

“…for instance, one often hears Republicans claim that the Affordable Care Act was ‘rammed through’ Congress without Republican support.  You might recall that in fact the ACA went through over a year of hearings, negotiations, conferences, health care summits, endless efforts to cajole and encourage and beg and plead for Republican support, before those Republicans successfully kept every last one of their troops in line to vote against it.   But as on so many issues, all of that is washed from the story, leaving only Barack Obama and his divisive actions.”

Blaming Obama for fomenting class warfare is another example of projection.  Jonathan Weiler wrote in 2011,

“…when President Obama outlined his proposals last week for deficit reduction, he said he wanted to require Americans making more than $1 million a year to pay federal income taxes at a higher minimum rate than a significant chunk of millionaires are now paying.  In the context of deficit reduction, one intent of this so-called Buffett rule (since Warren Buffett, who has pointed out that he pays federal income tax at a lower rate than does his secretary, is an advocate of the proposal) is to recognize that the growing gap between the rich and the rest needs to be reflected in greater shared sacrifice.

“Republican leaders responded to the Buffett rule by screaming bloody murder over this intolerable foray into ‘class warfare’.  One might be puzzled by this attack. The GOP has engaged in a 30-year political campaign that has contributed substantially to a massive shift in wealth toward a tiny sliver at the top, while increasing the vulnerability of a vastly larger number of Americans.”

A notable story from the last presidential race was the behavior of Karl Rove on election night in 2012, which I believe illustrates another Republican trait- delusion.  Rove’s own network was calling the election for President Obama, but Rove was convinced otherwise based on his belief that Ohio would turn to Romney.

Now we have Trump surrogates claiming confidently that their campaign Is in “great shape” and “doing well”, based on polls after the first presidential debate.  Their belief that Trump had “won” was based on a number of unscientific computer fan-style polls run immediately after.  Even when the results of the scientific polls showed a significant win for Secretary Clinton, the same surrogates were still claiming victory.

Even the anti-Trump forces have succumbed to delusion, believing that Secretary Clinton would be losing badly to any of the other 16 Republican primary candidates.  The implication is that leaving the Trump phenomenon aside, the GOP is essentially in healthy shape.  But how do you ignore the notion that arguably they are responsible for Trump as nominee.

I have to wonder- if you don’t prepare for a debate, and then believe that you won despite that, why would you make changes.  I believe that the country would be better off with two prepared and well-informed candidates making their case to the American people.

D. Norman

Polling and the Debates in the 2016 Election

Very soon, the electorate in the U.S. will be afforded the chance to evaluate the candidates for President and Vice President in nationally televised debates. Voters are hoping that they will give them much-needed information. Rallies and tweets have provided scant substance on the policy prescriptions of each candidate. Hyperbole seems to be the only item on the menu.

Adding to the confusion, news outlets are focused on the many polls that come out on a daily basis, which seem to rise and fall for each candidate depending on what has occurred in the most recent 24-hour news cycle.

What is the real value of polls, and how much should we rely on their results? A recent article in Wired magazine tells the story of a start-up company called Civis Analytics that was formed out of the realization that traditional public polling was providing useless and misleading data. The wake-up call happened in the summer leading up to the 2012 election, when public polls in Michigan showed President Obama dropping 10 points. Analytics produced by the models that were invented by the founders of Civis showed otherwise, and the Obama campaign stayed the course rather than devote another large sum to advertising and other efforts. In the end, the polls proved to be wrong.

The article points out the current state of polling. “Today’s polling landscape appears so fraught that Gallup, long the industry leader, opted out of presidential horse-race polls this year; the reputational risk of being wrong was simply too high.”

Christine Campigotto, who oversees Civis’ work with nonprofits and NGOs, explains: “In public polling, you see a lot of big swings…driven more by poor sampling methods and bias in the response.  They’re making a headline out of statistical noise. Not that many people change their minds between Wednesday and Friday.”

The article points out the reasons for the failures of traditional polling:

“The classic pollster’s technique known as random digit dialing, in which firms robo-dial phone after phone, is failing, because an ever-dwindling number of people have landlines. By 2014, 60 percent of Americans used cell phones either most or all of the time, making it difficult or impossible for polling firms to reach three out of five Americans. (Government regulations make it prohibitively expensive for pollsters to call cell phones.)  And even when you can dial people at home, they don’t answer; whereas a survey in the 1970s or 1980s might have achieved a 70 percent response rate, by 2012 that number had fallen to 5.5 percent, and in 2016 it’s headed toward an infinitesimal 0.9 percent.  And finally, the demographics of participants are narrowing: An elderly white woman is 21 times more likely to answer a phone poll than a young Hispanic male.  So polling samples are often inherently misrepresentative.

“More broadly, Civis’ work is uncovering an uncomfortable truth for many horse-race pollsters: Public opinion just isn’t that dynamic.  Political support shifts slowly and subtly, generally over months and years rather than in response to the day-by-day, headline-­blaring gyrations the media trumpets as breaking news.”

Which brings us to the subject of the debates. I believe that the germane questions are: how useful are they, and what can the electorate truly learn about the fitness of the candidates for office.  Adding to those is the possibility that Donald Trump may choose not to participate. He has raised issues about the timing of the long-scheduled debates, and further has suggested that there shouldn’t be a moderator.

Politico made the case earlier in the year that “debates have ruined politics”. “Debates today, mostly frivolous popularity contests in which the candidates thump their chests and trade one-liners, tell us next-to-nothing about which candidate would actually make the best president—in fact, they put the most substantive competitors at a serious disadvantage.

“Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in debate in 1980 not by greater mastery of issues but by deft one-liners. “There you go again,” he said with a smile and a shrug when Carter recited Reagan’s record of opposition to Medicare. The line conveyed nothing of substance yet much of personality, and voters ate it up.

“More telling was the line Reagan used against Walter Mondale in 1984. An initial debate between the two showed viewers a Reagan they hadn’t seen: stumbling, confused, frustrated. The dismal performance raised grave questions about Reagan’s age and his fitness to continue in office. Even the Reagan-friendly Wall Street Journal asked if he was too old to be president. Reagan finessed the worries with a second-debate quip about not exploiting his opponent’s ‘youth and inexperience.’ The remark completely sidestepped the real issue, but viewers and voters laughed, and Reagan rode the laughter to reelection.

“Debates today don’t merely fail to reward attention to issues, they actively punish attention to issues.  Trump has led the way with a campaign built on emotion and personality, and his success has compelled other candidates to follow suit. Issues are boring, comparatively speaking, and boring doesn’t draw viewers and voters.”

Beginning with the 2000 presidential campaign, I have felt that there is a better way to find out what the candidates really know. Call it an impractical fantasy, but it originates from my time in school so many years ago, when I had to take the dreaded blue book exams. Logistical details are missing (e.g., who would conducts the test), but the outline goes like this:

1. Put together a list of questions relating to the most important policy concerns affecting our country;

2. Don't show the questions in advance to Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, and the other two if we want to include them;

3. Put them in rooms by themselves. No phones or other way to communicate with the outside world;

4. From the list of questions, they would pick two for which to provide a discussion of the issue and their solutions to address them. Give them a supply of blue books. The top of each page would be imprinted with the name of the respective candidate;

5. Give them 2 hours maximum to complete the test. One hour each should be enough time for an informed person that wants to lead our country;

6. After completion, take photos of every page of each filled-out book and immediately post to social media.

Who would provide articulate and comprehensive answers?  I’d love to see those pages.

D. Norman

Sanctuary Cities

One of the promises bandied about in the Republican debates earlier this year had to do with de-funding sanctuary cities.  Typical of the rhetoric and hyperbole were these statements made in Iowa- Ted Cruz: “We will finally, finally, finally secure the borders and end sanctuary cities”; Marco Rubio: “If you are a sanctuary city, you will lose your federal funding”; and from Donald Trump, he used a single term to characterize sanctuaries: “Crap”.

Now that we are moving closer to the General Election with the presidential candidates nominated, we see that Mr. Trump is making immigration and sanctuary cities a centerpiece of his campaign. In July, Politifact Florida rated “Mostly True” his claim that Hillary Clinton “wants sanctuary cities”.

Ironically, Secretary Clinton is joined in this stance by a surprising group of people.  It turns out that sanctuary entities have been created by local law enforcement around the country, and Iowa is no exception, as explained in an article in the Washington Post:

“In Iowa, at least 26 of the state’s 99 counties are deemed sanctuaries — including some of the state’s most conservative.

“The designation is an informal one, assigned by activists on both sides of the immigration debate.  Governments are generally considered sanctuaries if local officials refuse to honor requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold onto suspected illegal immigrants arrested on minor charges while fed­eral agents figure out their status.

“Typically, the decisions that lead to a community earning sanctuary status are made without fanfare or public debate.  Instead, the refusal to cooperate with ICE usually comes from a police chief, a sheriff or a government attorney — not necessarily a politician looking to extend an act of mercy toward illegal ­immigrants.

“Republican presidential contenders on the campaign trail have avoided such details. …At times, the candidates have blasted sanctuary cities while standing in one.”

I found one of the best explanations of what constitutes a sanctuary city or county contained in a Rolling Stone article in July of last year.  It explains why local law enforcement has been the main driver behind their establishment.

“At issue here are several controversial federal immigration initiatives, including a program called Secure Communities.  This program essentially forces local law enforcement officials into the role of deputized federal immigration agents.  Under Secure Communities, anyone arrested anywhere is supposed to have their fingerprint information sent to the federal government, which in turn checks it against both the FBI and Department of Homeland Security databases.

If the Feds find that the suspect is undocumented, they ask the locals to hold the suspect until he or she can be collected for deportation.

“When ICE asks local jails to hold these suspects, all they do is issue what what they call a ‘detainer’.  But a detainer is not a court order.  It's not a warrant.  It's simply a request that local cops keep a suspect in jail willy-nilly until ICE decides to pick him or her up.

“Courts in some regions last year ruled that these ‘detainers' are unconstitutional detentions, and that local jails that keep people imprisoned without a warrant can be held liable.  Cities like San Francisco, in other words, can now be sued for obeying these ‘detainers'.  The federal government has conceded these rulings have hurt the program.

“Because of all this, and because the program imposed such a serious financial burden, a number of major cities… passed measures opposing Secure Communities.  In practice, they opted out of the "mandatory" program, setting up a classic states' rights conflict.

“This, largely, is what we're talking about when we talk about ‘sanctuary cities’.  For cities and states, Secure Communities is a triple whammy.  Apart from asking the states to do ICE's investigative work and pay for the detention of suspects, there's a serious legal issue.”

Complicating the issue is that the DHS, recognizing the shortcomings of Secure Communities, scrapped it in favor of a new program called Priority Enforcement Program (PEP).  This program  has already been called a re-branding of the old program, due to its continued use of detainers.

The tragic incident in July of last year, in which Kate Steinle was accidentally killed, has been the impetus for much of the dialog surrounding the issue of sanctuary cities. This account in Wikipedia includes a discussion of the sanctuary city issue as it applies to San Francisco:

“On March 26, 2015, at the request of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had turned [Juan Francisco Lopez-]Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant.   U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up.  As a sanctuary city, however, which limits cooperation with ICE only to cases where active charges against the immigrant are identified, San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.”

There is an revelation elsewhere in the Wikipedia account that the gun was stolen from a federal agent’s vehicle, and subsequently found by Sanchez under a bench, wrapped in a t-shirt.  I recently wrote that this type of gun diversion is alarmingly common.  Guns that should be under tight control end up killing innocent people such as Kate Steinle.  As I concluded in that piece, it may no longer be enough to lock guns up.  If they do end up being diverted through theft or loss, they can be accidentally of intentionally discharged by someone other than their owner.  In our high-tech society, it should be a priority to make guns that can only be fired by their rightful owner.  But I digress.

The issue of sanctuary cities is complex, and has led to predictable knee-jerk reactions.  An uninformed electorate can be swayed by politicians looking for easy-to-make campaign promises that sound good to their base.  As always, voter beware.

D. Norman

Trickery and Deceit by the Plastic Bag Industry

Last March, I wrote about the status of the state-wide plastic bag ban that by now would have been in place for a year. The plastic bag industry, through their lobbying arm the American Progressive Bag Alliance, was able to put off implementation of the single-use bag ban by filing a request for title and summary for a veto referendum. They were successful in their efforts, leaving only local bans in place.

Not satisfied with that victory in delaying the ban, the industry went a step further. They filed a second initiative that would force grocers to deposit fees collected for paper or reusable plastic bags into an account for environmental improvement projects. Yesterday it was announced that the referendum, called the Environmental Fee Protection Act, gained the required number of signatures and will also be on the ballot in November.

A story last November in the S.J. Mercury described the tactic as having two aims:

1. make Californians' heads spin, and perhaps entice grocers to spend money fighting the measure rather than opposing the referendum;
2. confuse voters.

“More money for drought mitigation, wetlands restoration and beach cleanup surely sounds appealing, but don't be fooled, initiative experts say.

“Filing an initiative whose topic matches one that's already on the ballot is a classic strategy that is often used to create confusion. In recent years, voters have been asked to navigate competing income-tax measures (Propositions 30 and 38 in 2012) and competing redistricting measures (Propositions 20 and 27 in 2010).

“'Voters faced with too many choices get confused, and confused voters tend to vote no on everything,’ said John Matsusaka, executive director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. ‘In this case, that's exactly what the proponents of the referendum want.’

“What's so unusual about the bag makers' strategy is their commitment to support both the referendum campaign and a counter ‘poison pill’ proposal that would take effect only if the referendum fails. Matsusaka said he's never seen anything like it before.

“Environmental activists trying to protect the bag ban say they're dismayed. ‘Bag makers are trying to goad retailers who support the bag ban into spending money against this initiative,’ said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste. ‘I was shocked by the audacity of this cynical, political move.’

“Bag makers' insistence that the ban is a ‘cash grab’ for grocers who supported the legislation because of the bag fees is a fallacy, said Murray, whose group also led the campaign for the bottle bill. If the contested legislation takes effect, retailers that operate in cities not already covered by local bag bans will save $150 million annually on the plastic grocery bags they no longer need to purchase and distribute to customers for free, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data shows. The allure of those savings is a bigger draw than having the $40 million grocers spend annually on paper bags covered in part by customer fees, Murray said.”

At this point there are 13 approved ballot propositions confronting voters on November 8, with others still pending. I heard this morning that the state will probably need to provide additional funds to cover the costs to print the larger voter guides.

D. Norman