Say what?

I keep hearing from Trump's defenders something like, "well, the economy is going well".  As if that would justify the racism, xenophobia, daily lying, obstruction of justice, war on science, destruction of the environment, corporate cronyism, and massive debt for future generations of tax payers.  But, here is what I don't get:  the economy is more or less doing exactly what it was doing under Obama, so why are people excusing Trump because of the economy?  I didn't ever hear Fox praising the economy under Obama. Ever.

Full disclosure, I have long believed we way over credit POTUS for the economy's performance. My point here is in response to the "Trump is making the economy great" argument.

I can show you in a few graphs.

When people think about the economy,  they will often use one or more of the following:

1. The Stock Market
2. Unemployment Rate
3. Real GDP growth
4. Job creation

So, I decided to take a look at these under Bush, Obama, and Trump.

First, the S&P500.  The graph here is log of the index because with equities, it is relative change that matters.  To see this, here is the log of the S&P500 going back to 1964:



You can see the .com bubble and the crash of 2008 pretty easily.  But let's look more closely at recent history:





If it looks to you like there is a difference in what has happened so far under Trump, and what had been happening under Obama,  I don't know what you are looking at.

Next, unemployment:
 



So, yes, it "all time low" as Trump keeps tweeting. But again, it looks to me like a continuation of what was happening under Obama.

How about Real GDP growth?





Again, I see no "Trump magic", do you?

Finally, let's look at job creation:

More "Trump magic"

Of perhaps the magic is that his followers believe that the blue is better than the green?



My sources of data at Yahoo Finance, BLS and BEA.
 

Gun Debate

Taking it off FB for now. I welcome dialogue here. Dialogue, no name calling. And no need to get the last word. But I will start with what I believe is true.

• The proliferation of guns and easy gun access in America is directly related to 

1. More homicides
2. More suicides
3. More accidental shooting

• The notion that high levels of civilian gun ownership is what keeps us free from tyranny is false.
• The NRA serves gun manufacturers and gun dealers much like the Tobacco Institute served the tobacco industry.
•  I have every right to be angry with our unwillingness deal with our gun problem, our denial that there even is a problem or that the "problem" has nothing to do with guns. This is bullshit*.
•  I am frustrated by false dichotomy:  the notion that if you think there is a gun problem, then you must be in favor of banning all guns.  Also bullshit*.

Here is a thought experiment for you:  I propose that, at any car or truck owner's discretion, a machine gun be mounted on the roof of their car.  It can be operated by the driver via a heads up display.  This would (by logic I have heard over and over and over again)

• Reduce road rage violence
• Make driving safer
• Protect us from over zealous cops

Get my drift?

*If you don't think it's bullshit, state your case.

The two biggest reasons I am voting Hillary, and you should too.

I am going to keep this short because I know these days everyone is very tired of all the politics. Though, no one can say this election is usual, by any standard.

As an over-arch, let me state that the biggest malaise of American politics is that the attribute of "likability" ( or more perversely, "dislikability") has become the gold standard for whether someone deserves (or does not deserve) your vote. That is a terrible criterion. You don't have to like them; you need to have the person in charge who gives us the best chance for success - and the least chance of catastrophic failure. Having said that, and admitting that we are faced with two "unlikable" candidates, this is exactly why I will vote for Hillary. And it's not close.

1) Regardless of left or right, there is only one candidate who has a very high probability of steering the ship directly into the rocks, and it is not Hillary Clinton. And I do not have to explain this assertion. I could try, but I will not insult you by explaining it. You know I am right.

2) If we elect Trump, it will embolden and reinforce some of the worst America has to offer: Racism, Misogyny, and Xenophobia (and then some but I want to keep this short). If you think today that the alt-right is coming out of the closet (so to speak), just wait until Trump wins. If you don't fear that element becoming even more emboldened and main streamed, you are not paying attention.

Yes, I have more reasons, but if you planning to vote for Trump, I figure my other reasons don't matter to you. And if neither of the above do, it says more about you than it does about Hillary Clinton.

Quick Comment on Race Relations for my white friends

Though, I could write a long time on this subject, I am truly not an expert. I am white.  I grew up in a mostly white suburb, went to mostly white schools at every level, work in a mostly white company and currently live in a mostly white suburb.  But, having said that, I just want to say this:

STOP IT my white friends, you are embarrassing me.  Please stop posting things that seem to be saying*

• Poor race relations are primarily the fault of Al Sharpton, Obama, Jessie Jackson et. al.
• There is no such thing as white privilege
• Look! A conservative black person!!!!
• Race relations are only a problem because of black people and liberals (and the liberal media) keep seeing it that way
• White people are victims of reverse-racism**
• Clearly racial inequality is all better now because the President is black
• Black people vote Dem because they like free stuff from the government  
• Lots of other stupid stuff

Instead, I suggest admitting you don't know shit and start listening.   In short, stop blaming black people and start asking yourself whether YOU need to think differently.

That is all for now.


* Unfortunately, ALL of the above examples have passed into my Facebook newsfeed over the last few months.
**Racism < > racial prejudice, by the way. 

ODS - follow up given the most recent "outrage"

Ah, the timing is so perfect.  As I was saying.

Anyway,  do you remember this outrage?

Or maybe this one?

No?

OF COURSE YOU DON"T!

And why is that?  I am going to tell you.  Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is when you search for things that confirm narratives you already believe.  In America, conservatives love the narratives that liberals don't respect our soldiers, don't love America and liberals are not patriotic.  So, at every opportunity, if they see something they can *use* to support this narrative, they jump on it.   They see certain things as compelling evidence that no other sane person would interpret that way.

On the other hand, liberals don't generally have these narratives regarding conservatives (though we have a few others of our own).  So, when Bush I and II committed these completely trivial non-events, no one noticed.  I didn't, you didn't, no one did. Because they didn't "confirm" anyone's desire to believe that Bush (I or II) hates our troops.  But we all know what it means when Obama commits similar "outrages".

Let me show you how it works from the other side.  Here is a narrative the left likes to tell about the right: Conservatives are basically racist.  You see, the "outrage" over Obama not properly saluting his subordinates is all about it: A black man (the uppity n-word) has reversed the proper order of things.  And white people don't like it.  And the more the right bitches, the more the "right wing is racist" narrative is confirmed (to those that believe it).

Now, do I think it's really racism?  Maybe it feeds some of it, but the likely driver is just what I am suggesting:  People on the right getting their already held beliefs "confirmed" by what, to anyone else, is basically nothing. 

And for the record,  Petty and supports the narrative that Obama doesn't care about our troops.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is trending up these days.

It must be getting close to an election, because my Facebook news-feed is hit multiple times a day with rabid anti-Obama posts.  I can generally categorize them into one of four types:

1)  Lies, quotes taken out of context, hyperbole and unsubstantiated innuendo
    
     Comment:  It's absolutely astounding to me the percentage of this crap that can be debunked with less than one minute of Google searching.  And, you would think, that decent people would want to check their facts before attacking someone on a public forum.  Nope.

2)  Petty attacks

     Comment: Yes, petty.   Typically, Fox or some other usual suspect, "discovers" a heretofore unknown rule of presidential etiquette that Obama has egregiously violated.  Now, it usually turns out that previous presidents (including Republican ones) have done the same or similar things, but that was before Fox discovered the rule.  Regardless though, it's amazing how many of the complaints about something Obama did (or didn't do) are just petty.  And I am being nice because a better word for most of them would be "stupid".

3)  Juvenile insults or applauding someone showing Obama disrespect.

Comment:  I get it, you hate him.  I got that the first 1000 times you implied it. 

4)  Something (everything) bad is Obama's fault or something is bad because Obama supports it.

Comment: I think John Stewart nailed it when he said  that there is only one way to get the GOP to come around to believing the climate change science - Barack Obama must publicly deny global warming.

You would think there would be a category for lucid, well thought out and objective criticism of his leadership and/or policies.  There should be, because coming up with such critiques would not be hard to do.  But I don't see those get posted.  I guess that must just be too boring.  And it takes effort and thoughtfulness too.

For those of you who have not heard the term "Obama Derangement Syndrome", you must be new.  
And to be fair, a conservative pundit really invented this concept. He called it Bush Derangement Syndrome.   It was is his name for the inability of left wingers to come up with anything beyond irrational and knee jerk hatred of all things GW Bush.  For example,

"Bush was is on 9/11 as a conspiracy. "
"Bush lied, people died"
"Bush doesn't care about black people"

OK, so here is the deal:  I don't think Bush participated in a plot to murder 3000 people in order to consolidate his power.  I don't think Bush believed that he was lying about WMD in Iraq (I don't, honest).  I don't think he under-responded to Katrina because he doesn't care about black people. That is all garbage.

And for the record, I think he is likely an OK guy (who like all of us has flaws).   He loves his family and wants the best for America.

Guess what?  I think Obama is likely an OK guy (with flaws) who loves his family and wants the best for America.     Say WHAT!!!!???

Yes, you heard me, I am actually so defective that I don't think that Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya who hates America and also is just like Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Laden combined.   And that is my point.  There are people who want you to believe certain narratives.  The purpose of the narratives are of course to make you hate him.  Because disagreeing with him isn't what we do anymore, we must demonize, dehumanize and hate. Here is a partial listing of these narratives:

• Obama does not love America
• Obama doesn't care about our soldiers
• Obama is a secret Muslim
• Obama hates white people
• Obama hates Christians
• Obama is in league with terrorists
• Obama is stupid and incompetent
• Obama is weak
• Obama is a dictator
• Obama wants to destroy our way of life
• Obama is a self-centered jerk
• Obama rapes puppies and drinks white baby blood (ok, I made that one up)

So, next time someone posts an anti-Obama link,  don't get mad. Play a game. Ask yourself two questions:

1. Which of the four categories is this?
2. What anti-Obama narrative does it support?

Beats getting mad.