The Denialist Playbook

Scientific American has an article called The Denialist Playbook.

It starts with a reflection on the denial of COVID-19 and then looks at past denial movements.  Chiropractors denied that Jonas Salk's vaccine would prevent polio.  (Author Sean B. Carroll attributes this to #6 below.  Chiropractic is based, he says, on the belief that all disease has its origin in the spine, so a vaccine contradicts their basic principe).  He then mentions creationists denial of evolution, the climate change deniers, and the campaign to deny the negative health impacts of tobacco.  

Looking through all these movements, he saw a pattern in how denial is practiced.  

 In brief, the six principle plays in the denialist playbook are:

1. Doubt the Science
2. Question Scientists’ Motives and Integrity
3. Magnify Disagreements among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as Authorities
4. Exaggerate Potential Harm
5. Appeal to Personal Freedom
6. Reject Whatever Would Repudiate A Key Philosophy

Unfortunately, Carroll does not lay out strategies to deal with each tactic.  However, just knowing the list and being able to identify and label what someone is doing, and to tie it to the tactics of other well known denial campaigns is surely a first good step.  

Right now, in addition to COVID denial, we also have election denial.  While this is less science and more administration, the principles seem to hold up.

1.  Doubt the Science - There's doubt about the numbers.  

2.  Question Motives and Integrity - They're fake, it's political, they're liars and cheaters  . . .

3.  Magnify Disagreements - a lost ballot here or there means there are millions of lost ballots

4.  Exaggerate Potential Harm - the election is being stolen

5.  Appeal to personal freedom - get your guns and demonstrate against the ballot counters

6.  Reject Whatever Would Repudiate A Key Philosophy - It violates your sacred vote, it's a plot to install the extreme liberal agenda and destroy America

You get the point.  I suspect that, however, the Trump side could also use these points to say that the Democrats are denying reality too.  But then, every solution spawns new problems.  That's why we have constant change, even though basic things stay the same.  That is, human behavior hasn't change much over time.  Ancient literature - the Bible, Greek plays, Shakespeare - all are timeless because they reveal truths about human behavior.  What changes are the ways those behaviors are played out in different geographies, different cultures, and with different technologies.  

You can read details of each tactic in the original article. 

Also, remember, only 35% of US adults has a bachelors degree or more education.  The chart below is from Wikipedia.  That does affect how susceptible people are to the arguments of organized deniers.  

Educational attainment in the United States (2018)^[4]

Education	Age 25 and over	Age 25-30
High school diploma or GED	89.80%	92.95%
Some college	61.28%	66.34%
Associate and/or bachelor's degree	45.16%	46.72%
Bachelor's degree	34.98%	36.98%
Master's and/or doctorate and/or professional degree	13.04%	9.01%
Doctorate and/or professional degree	3.47%	2.02%
Doctorate	2.03%	1.12%

AIFF2020 - Anchorage International Film Festival 2020 - Q&A With Co-Festivial Director John Gamache

I've been blogging the Anchorage International Film Festival since 2007.  Usually, by now (mid-November)  I've got descriptions of some of the films up already.  But tracking COVID-19 in Alaska daily, has distracted me.  But I finally checked out this year's festival website and emailed the staff.  John Gamache, one of the festival co-directors, responded fully, so I thought I'd just present what he said to you.  

I'd said that I hoped they were all well and I knew things must be crazy as they switched over to a

Gamache photo from AIFF2020 website

virtual festival.  Here's John's response along with my questions, which were based on the websites images of 27 films, without any categories.  

Hope you're doing well. And yes, it's been crazy busy. Switching to an online format is about four times more work than presenting the live festival, and that's when I have 2-4 people helping me, so it's a lot. Here are some answers to your questions. . .

1.  I see 27 films. [There are more up now]  Are there categories?

Our ticketing company just switched some things on our website so we're still building that out, but when we're done it will show the usual categories and they will be color-coded and also labeled. We have 14 shorts programs this year. You can already filter by category on the website though. 

2.  No animation at all?  

There are 15 animated short films. They will all be in short film programs, as usual. 

3.  Are all the films eligible for awards?

Almost. Only two feature films were curated and will not be in competition. Crescendo and Rafiki. All other films are eligible for awards in the usual categories, and we've added a Horror category award this year as well, the jury for which is AIFF alum Greg Ivan Smith.

4.  There are only three staff members listed.  What about the board?

Still building out the website, but we've sent out requests to all board members (we have two new ones since the board was last on the site) and are waiting to get all that info back so we can add it.

5.  It mentions discussions with the film makers, so I guess there will be more up on the website, right?

Yes, we're in the process of scheduling all of the Q&As and other live filmmaker panels, discussions, and workshops. Typically we just have the attending filmmakers walk on stage after a film is over. In the virtual world we're coordinating with over 11 filmmakers, producers, distributors in about ten time zones. It's quite an undertaking. :)

6.  What did I miss that I should have asked that people should know?

I think when you activate your pass and preview the virtual festival you might think of more questions. The look and feel of it is very familiar to anyone who has Netflix or Xfinity OnDemand. We'll also have a Roku channel set up so people can more easily watch on their TVs. The option to cast to their TV using ChromeCast or any Apple-compatible devices works, too. 

As you know, on average each year we have between 30-40 visiting filmmakers. Doing a virtual festival means that filmmakers, cast and crew from every film can potentially participate. As an example, at Woods Hole we average between 120-140 visiting filmmakers each year. This year's virtual festival involved over 300 filmmakers and every feature film in the festival had a live Q&A. We'll see what our numbers are this year, but we're hoping to at least triple the number of filmmakers "attending" and interacting with the audience. 

• Passes are on sale now. It's still just $100 for an all access pass - which is $10/day and less than $1 per film. People also have the option of buying the Household All Access Pass for $150 if they have multiple people in their hime who will be watching and want to do a little extra to support the festival. All the live filmmaker Q&As will be easily findable and accessible through the virtual platform for passholders as well. So to sum it up: The pass is the best way to experience the festival.
• Tickets for individual films and shorts programs will go on sale, Friday, December 4. Individual tickets are still $10.

So there you have my first peek an this year's festival.

So I bought my household pass and there are lots of films up.  Here's a teaser.  

•  top two are narrative features, 
• the center two are documentary features, 
• the bottom two are narrative shorts.

These were just randomly chosen.  Well, probably not random.  I thought the bridge picture was eye-catching. But otherwise they're random.  I know nothing about them or any of the others at this point. 

Meanwhile I've created a tab for AIFF2020 where you can find an annotated index of all these posts as they go up.  Here's the link to AIFF2020.  Blogger has a glitch right now (their help page says, four days ago, that they're working on it.  The glitch is preventing me from putting up the AIFF2020 tab on the top of the page just below the header.  But the link seems to work.

My Email To Senator Sullivan And His Response And Links For You To Contact Your Senators

Out of great frustration with Republicans in the Senate I sent an email to my junior Senator Dan Sullivan:

 

" Here's a Tweet from a Republican former head of the House Intelligence Committee: 

Mike Rogers 

@RepMikeRogers 

· 8h 

Our adversaries aren't waiting for the transition to take place. @JoeBiden should receive the President's Daily Brief (PDB) starting today. He needs to know what the latest threats are & begin to plan accordingly. This isn't about politics; this is about national security. 

Senator Sullivan - do your damn job and protect our Democracy from the internal threats caused by Trump's refusal to acknowledge reality and his spreading of conspiracy theories and fomenting his supporters to believe the election was stolen. And protect our nation from foreign threats by making sure the presidential transition proceeds immediately. 

I don't know what threats and enticements have kept the Republicans in the Senate so meek when it comes to confronting the very worst and most dangerous president of the United States ever, but you're a Marine. Do your duty, sir!"

Here's the response I got today:

"Thank you for contacting my office. Your opinions and concerns are important to me. My staff and I are hard at work to ensure Alaskan voices are represented in Washington and you will soon be hearing back from us with a more detailed response to your inquiry. In the meantime, please make sure to visit my website for additional information on recent legislation. 

I appreciate and am honored to have the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. Senate. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Sullivan 

U.S. Senator "

OK, I'm willing to accept that this is simply a courtesy response so that people know the email was received.  And he's promising a more detailed response.  

But we know that at least 109,000 people voted for Al Gross (Sullivan's Senate opponent).  If 5% of those people called up Sullivan's office each day for the next week on this topic, that would be 35,000 calls.  (Well not really because it would jam up his system, so you could send emails if you can't get through on the phone)  That kind of response might get his attention.  Though just coming off an election win, maybe not.  

Here's the website with all the contact information for Dan Sullivan. 

Here's the page for Lisa Murkowski.  (The Office Location link gives you phone numbers.)

And for non-Alaskans, here's the page to find your Senators.

 

Election Thoughts 4: Evangelical Trumpers And Al-Qaeda Members Aren't All That Different

I'm reading The Black Banners by Ali Soufan.  Soufan was born in Lebanon and came to the US with

his parents as a child.  After college he applied to the FBI and finished a graduate degree while waiting to hear back.  

Because he's a native Arabic speaker he got involved with anti-terrorism as soon as he got into the FBI and through the training program in November 1999. 

I was struck by this passage.  Soufan is writing about how they prepare for interrogating Al-Qaeda suspects.  At this point in the book, he's in Yemen tracking down the men who blew up the USS Cole in Aden.  

"Al-Qaeda members commonly had the same problems with time-lines that Yemenis did.  Part of the reason is cultural:  in the West we are trained to think in a linear manner, and we learn that the truth can be arrived at by following a series of logical steps.  Al-Qaeda members, however, are greatly influenced by conspiracy theories, and they suspend their critical thinking.  Rather than logic, they have a culture based on relationships and impressions, and there is considerable willingness, on their part, to accept conspiracy theories to explain certain events. Bin Laden capitalized on this by reiterating long-standing assertions that America, Israel, and the West were trying to subjugate the Arab and Muslim world and destroy the Islamic faith." (p. 266)

Surely this description of beliefs in conspiracy theories which interfere with logic sounds very familiar to the die-hard Trump supporters.  

And the idea of a "culture based on relationships and impressions" also corresponds to people who hero worship Trump and know truth through a sort of impression.  

So they are easily convinced by their leader that, say, Democrats have stolen or faked millions of votes.  Or however many Trump suggests.  And the fact that Trump's details vary from hour to hour doesn't matter either.  

Here he discusses the need to focus on details of time and whereabouts:

"Concomitant with pledging bayat to their leader, and in preparation for the possibility of capture by Western intelligence, al-Qaeda operatives are trained to come up with a false narrative that follows linear thinking;  but they find it hard to stick to lies when questioned in minute detail.  A key part of successful interrogations is to ask detailed question related to time and whereabouts.  Such questions are easy for a detainee to answer if he is telling the truth, but if he is lying, it is hard for him to keep the story straight.  Often Badawi would not lie completely but give a partial lie.  By zeroing in on the details, we could see where he was lying.  I would point it out, he would correct himself, and slowly we'd get the full picture." (p. 226)

The FBI has an advantage over most of us.  They get to interrogate suspects over hours and days even and to focus on factual details until the suspect trips himself up (and so far the suspects have always been male in the book.)

We, on the other hand, deal with fleeting exchanges, at best, with Trump cultists.  We don't have the luxury of pinning them down in most exchanges.  But I put down this idea of getting details because I think it's more effective than yelling and demeaning.  "Tell me exactly how Biden tampered with the votes in Pennsylvania and how you know this."  At worst you're being respectful, at best you may cause some recognition that they have no facts.  

The best rebuttal is getting more votes nationally and in enough states to win the electoral college and to have lawyers who know the law and how to argue it and who don't  hold press conferences in garden supply stores that have a name in common with giant hotel chains

 [Think of this post as notes jotted down so I don't forget.  Even more than usual.  I know this comparison of similarities between Al-Qaeda and Trump cultists is pretty limited, but I want to get this passage down before it gets lost in the 500+ pages of this very compelling  book, that shines a light into the shadows of bin Laden's terrorist network as well as the security agencies in the US government.]

 

Supreme Court Hearing On ACA

I listened to the Supreme Court hearing on the ACA this morning and my non-expert impression, based on the questions asked by the justices, is that there is probably at least a 5-4 majority to turn down the case, which would preserve the ACA.   

I don't want to spend too much time on the substance of the arguments and rather think that more interesting is the question of non-legal factors that might influence the justices.

Legal Points First

First, is the issue of Standing: 

• The plaintiffs are arguing that individuals and the States have standing to bring this case because they have been harmed.  
• Individuals because they are 'mandated' to buy insurance.  
• The states because more people are enrolling for Medicaid which costs the states.
• The defense argues there is no harm 
• To individuals because there is no enforcement now that the tax has been reduced to zero.  There is no harm if they don't sign up. 
• To the states because people signing up for Medicaid are not doing so because of the mandate.  

Separability

When Original Act was passed, the government argued that the mandate was inseparable from the rest of the act because enough people wouldn’t enroll to pay for the ACA if there were no mandate.

 But that was 2010 and the changes in 2017 were based on

• the Supreme Court's first decision which called the fee a 'tax' and they wrote the law to meet the conditions the Supreme Court laid out
•  realization that the mandate wasn’t necessary, as one attorney said, the law included carrots and sticks.  The mandate was the stick.  By 2017 they realized that the carrots were enough without the stick.  

The plaintiffs are making three seeming difficult arguments:

 Conflating 2010 Act and 2017.  They are arguing that the mandate is essential to the rest of the act and so the whole law should be struck down.  But the case is about the 2017 law which clearly no longer is based on that assumption.

Arguing that even though the tax in the mandate has been repealed, there are still injuries that people suffer.  Because it is a mandate, there are people who will obey the mandate even if there is no penalty if they don’t.  

Questions from conservative justices seem unconvinced on key points;

Kavanaugh  said it seemed a  straightforward case for severability.     

Political Considerations  Another, perhaps more interesting, question is what sort of non-legal considerations are influencing the court.  I see two:

 The impact on the US of eliminating the ACA.

We know Chief Justice Roberts pays attention to the Court’s credibility among the US population.  He sided with the four liberals in the original challenge to the ACA.  It’s likely that he would be working to get a majority saving the ACA now.  Even more so now that 

• Congress has gone back and corrected the ACA based on the Supreme Court’s original decision, and 
• The impact of 20 million people losing their health insurance during a pandemic increases the need to consider the outcome of their decision. 

The Democrats' biggest challenges to nominee Barrett were that Trump was putting her on the court specifically to vote down the ACA this week and vote in Trump’s favor in future cases (like election cases and abortion, etc.)

To what extent did the barrage of concern by the Democrats make a difference on the environment in which the justices hear and decide this case

To what extent might Barrett feel a need to show the Democrats wrong, by voting to keep the ACA?

To what extent might the whole court feel more pressure and public attention to their decision now?

Or, is it possible that the states challenging the ACA don't have as strong a case as the President thought and the Democrats feared and that given the changes Congress made to the ACA would satisfy enough of the Supreme Court justices anyway.  

You can listen to it all here:  (It starts at about 29:30)

I did note that the attorneys arguing both sides did use the term 'textual' a few times.  

When I looked for the video of the hearing I did notice that my view that the Court won't throw out the ACA seems to be shared by others.  

Election Thoughts 3: A seasoned Ghanaian journalist decided to cover Tuesday’s U.S. election in the same manner the Western media tends to cover Africa’s

 These aren't my thoughts.  A friend who lives in Asia sent it to me and it's the kind of thing I love because it turns everything around from what we normally see and how we normally think.  

I'll give you some excerpts and you can read the whole thing here.

"AMERICA’S TRIBES GO TO THE POLLS AMIDST UNCERTAINTY

By K. Sakyi-Addo

Africa News Network (ANN).

Millions of American tribesmen and women are voting today to elect a president and lawmakers.

Two white tribal elders are contesting to rule the Covid-ravaged wheat-exporting former British colony for the next four years. They are the incumbent Donald J. Trump of the ruling Republican Party and Joseph R. Biden of the opposition Democratic Party, both in their seventies.

Due to the levels of illiteracy, candidates are represented on the ballot by animals, the elephant for the Republicans and a braying donkey for the Democrats.

Over 230,000 people have died of covid, more than any country in the world, leading to widespread poverty and joblessness unseen in the vast country in a century.

Millions are dependent on food rations, homelessness is rife, and open defecation common in some provincial capitals. . . .

". . .The country has a curious system of democracy adopted in 1788 in which candidates are sometimes elected with vastly fewer votes. In 2016, Mrs Hillary Clinton, an elder from the former ruling Democratic Party had three million more votes than Mr. Trump, but was declared the loser much to the bewilderment of democracy watchers elsewhere in the world.  She would have been the first woman to lead the country in more than 200 years. 

Tension has been high in the run-up to the polls with armed gangs, such as the Proud Boys militia, threatening to reject the results should their candidate lose. 

Some tribal militiamen were caught recently plotting to abduct the head of Michigan province and stage a military coup. 

 Over the weekend, members of the opposition accused gun-totting, flag-waving ruling party supporters from the Texan tribe of trying to push their candidate’s vehicle off a cliff. 

 Earlier this year, dozens of towns across the country witnessed riots sparked by discrimination against black tribespeople. Their ancestors were shipped from west Africa in their millions over a four hundred year period to work as slaves on cotton plantations."  

 ". . . African analysts believe the African Union or Ecowas should send observers to watch the polls to ensure they are free and fair. 

It is not known whether the UN has taken measures to parachute peacekeepers in, should civil war break out in the increasingly isolated territory. "

  Unfortunately, it appears the link only gives you part of the article, but this should be enough to get the flavor.  Perhaps it would be helpful for Trump supporters and Biden supporters to try to write news stories from the perspective of their opponents.  

Election Thoughts 2: What Gives the AP (Associated Press) The Right To Call The Election?

 Actually, anyone has the right to call the election at any time.  Whether anyone pays any attention is another matter.  Here, from the India Times, are the details of how the outcome is officially determined. (It's interesting that the first answer to my Google question was the India Times.  Does this have anything to do with a) India being the second most populous country in the world and b) Kamala Harris being the new vice president?):  

"On December 14th, the members of the Electoral College will meet in their respective state capitals to formally vote for the position of president and vice president. On January 6th, 2021, electoral votes will be counted before a joint session of Congress, where the president of the Senate will formally announce the election results."

So, I guess my answer would be that AP can call the election because they have the history and reputation for accuracy and even-handedness that gives them the credibility necessary to be listened to. The AP style manual sets the standard for AP reporters around the world and many other non-AP media use it even if they stray on some points here and there.  

The "ABOUT THE AP' page says:

"The AP's mission is to get it first but first get it right, and to be the first choice for news, by providing the fastest, most accurate reporting from every corner of the globe across all media types and platforms"

I checked the Table of Contents of my 2015 copy to see what they said about calling presidential elections.  Nothing really. 

The index sends us to "election returns" which just gives us technical standards (ie "Use figures with commas eery three digits starting at the right and counting left.")  It also sends you to "vote tabulations" but that too is is just technical standards for what words to use, use numbers for totals, etc.  

I can't find anything on how they call  elections in the Style Manual, but I did google and found this explanation "EXPLAINER: Why AP called the 2020 election for Joe Biden" on AP's website.  It goes into detail how they did it.  

For more about the AP, here's their "Our Story" page.  It covers their 

• Mission,
• History, 
• News Values and Principles, 
• Leadership, 
• Corporate Archives
• Brand

 I'd note that the "Stylebook" (pages 1-296) of the manual is made up of entries in alphabetical order like a dictionary.

I'd also note it says that nothing in the Style Manual may be reproduced without permission.  I've got the picture of the manual and table of contents as part of a news story here.  And a very brief quote.  I'm hoping this isn't in violation of their rules.  

Election Thoughts Post 1 - Why Did Biden Get Only 771,884 Votes When Kentucky Has 1.67 Million Registered Democrats? [UPDATED]

 I don't know the answer.  I don't know much about Kentucky at all.  But from far away it seems odd.  (Kathy in Kentucky, any insights you can share would be appreciated.  And, btw, it turns out my post on when states can count wasn't totally accurate. Kentucky wasn't last in vote counting.  Alaska, while legally allowed to count ballots starting after the polls closed, chose to wait a week to do so. Or maybe Kentucky just chucked all the mail-in votes.) [UPDATE Nov 8:  Be sure to see Kathy's comments below.  It answers a bunch of my questions.]

Biden got just 771,884 votes in Kentucky.

Here's the official vote tally from the LA Times:

And from the Kentucky election website, here are the numbers of registered voters.  There are 1.67 million Democratic voters. I cut it off so the numbers would be large enough to see here, but you can go see the original at the Kentucky website.

That means less than half the Democratic voters voted for Biden.  

Given that this is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's home state and he's shown he's willing to do anything to keep his seat and his majority to thwart Democrats since Obama was first elected, I think this ought to be looked into to be sure that there wasn't serious election irregularities.  

Newsweek reported in 2019:

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell squashed two bills intended to ensure voting security on Thursday, just one day after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned that Russians were attempting to sabotage the 2020 presidential elections "as we sit here."

McConnell said he wouldn't allow a vote on the bills because they were "so partisan," but, as previously reported, earlier this year McConnell received a slew of donations from four of the top voting machine lobbyists in the country."

Here's a longer New Yorker article entitled Mitch McConnell is Making the 2020 Election Open Season for Hackers

This post was in response to a Tweet that pointed out the numbers.

[Note:  There are so many things to write about on the election.  I'm resisting my natural tendency to try to integrate 20 different threads into one comprehensive post.  Instead I'll just post on relatively discreet topics.  I'll either let the reader pull them all together or maybe at the end I'll figure out a way to connect all the dots.]

Here's Why I'm Calling This For Biden

 Despite all the handwringing, and recognizing that people don’t want to repeat their dashed expectations of 2016, I think all the signs point to Biden winning comfortably.  I know the media explore all the possible hidden traps - and some are there - but the media make money from tension and uncertainty.  

Basically, 2020 is VERY different from 2016. 

1. Trump was a con-artist who billed himself as an exceptionally talented business man in 2016 and people who were tired of ‘gridlock’ thought they should give him a try.  Drain the swamp and all that.  But the American people know a lot more about Trump now.  They only people still with him are those who 
1. Are like, or think they are like, Trump
1. The greedy - tax cuts and good stock market have increased their wealth
2. The needy - those who need a father figure to tell them what to think and do, to nurse their prejudices and encourage their hate, to protect them from their worst fears (includes members of evangelical and fundamentalist churches who support Trump and gun fetishists)
3. The racists and the misogynists and the abusive
4. Those who don’t believe in democracy
2. Are strongly anti-communist or anti-socialist - including those who came to the US from communist and/or socialist countries, and people who have no idea what those words mean, but are strongly against them.
3. Die-hard Republicans for whom voting for a Democrat would be an act of betrayal
2. Now we know about misinformation campaigns, infiltration of social media, Russian interference and other machinations to turn voters for Trump and against Hillary Clinton
3. The anti-Trump side has gained new recruits
1. People who didn’t realize how bad Trump would be  and didn’t vote or voted for 3rd party candidates are now ready to go vote like it matters
2. The constant barrage of videos of blacks being killed by cops, being Karened, plus Trump’s own support of white supremacy and other racist acts and the resulting Black Lives Matter protests have mobilized many non-voters of color and made many white folks more understanding of the level of racism in the US and the danger of another four years of Trump.
3. The many books unmasking the Trump myth, from scholars, from Trump family members and long time employees, from Trump appointees changed what people know about Trump.  And while most people don’t read books, key passages have been repeated over and over again in the media and social media.  All these have peeled off people who voted for Trump and converted them to non-voters or Biden voters
4. The Parkland Students movement has mobilized youth to register to vote.  They helped speed up the unraveling of the NRA and shown high school students they have power.
5. Floridians gave felons the right to vote and while Republicans are blocking their participation as best as they can, still tens of thousands can now vote.  
6. Climate change activists and Native Activists and others are all bringing new voters out.
7. There's a collection of 'traditional' Republicans who are working hard to defeat Trump, using the same PR techniques they've used in the past to defeat Democrats (and I'm worried about who their targets might be in the future)
4. COVID-19 has exposed all Trump’s flaws and incompetence as a president and reports say that this is mobilizing some of the older white vote away from Trump, as well as all those affected directly by the virus - essential workers, those who have gotten sick, and the families of those of have been sick or who have died
5. Biden is a very different candidate from Clinton
1. He’s not a woman.  As bad as it reflects on Americans, women candidates are judged differently from men and it costs them votes.  
2. He’s not Hillary.  She’s a very competent wonk, but didn’t come across as likable to many.  She also carried the baggage of the Clintons’ post presidency wealth acquisition.  (But also remember she got 3 million more votes than Trump did.)
3. Clinton had to fight constant attacks about Benghazi and emails.  The Hunter Biden attacks haven’t stuck.  Partly because we understand a lot more about Trump’s fake news industry.  
4. Biden is the opposite of Trump.  He’s decent, he’s compassionate, he’s got loving family and friends.  He makes as good of a uniter candidate as we could want in contrast to Trump’s divisiveness.
6. The Democrats have paid much more attention to the electoral college this time round
7. The Democrats have a huge team of lawyers ready to fight Trump challenges to the election.  There will be no Gore concession unless they are sure he lost the election fairly.
8. There’s been record numbers of early voters and mail-in voters - and as I’ve tried to outline above, the pool of anti-Trump new voters is much bigger than pro-Trump voters.
9. Democrats have raised unheard of money from online campaigns with relatively small average contributions which demonstrates a level of fear and activism we haven’t seen for a long time.  
10. The polls are in Biden’s favor, even in the swing states.  Some traditionally Republican strongholds are polling close.  

That doesn’t mean that Biden can’t lose (so, yes, if you haven’t voted yet, you still need to go vote.)   It doesn’t mean that Russians or Republicans haven’t schemed to hack voting machines so they turn every sixth Biden vote into a Trump vote.  That’s relatively easy to program and hard to detect if it’s done in just a few precincts.  But there are ways to spot such efforts.  

And it doesn’t mean that Biden will be a great president.  He’s got a pandemic to deal with.  He’s got the destruction of many government agencies to repair.  He’s got a volatile Trump out there who’s addicted to attention and adulation and would like nothing better to make Biden fail.  And if Democrats don’t flip the Senate, he’s got to fight for every inch.  

But it looks to me that all the little signs have lined up in Biden’s favor.  For him to lose a lot of things have to go haywire, and if that happens it will suggest that there were dirty tricks we hadn’t anticipated.  Everything that Trump says about his campaign - that if he doesn’t win it’s because the election was stolen - is actually the truth about the Biden campaign.  

Want A Break From The US Election? Why Not Brush Up On China's President Xi?

 This LA Times article offers a Cliff Notes review of President Xi Jinping and China's role in the world.  Since Trump has sucked all the oxygen out of the media, we haven't paid enough attention.  This article shouldn't take more than ten minutes.  

Unlike reading more tweets about Tuesday, you'll finish this feeling like you've learned something important to know.

In China's Shadow:  The Rise of Emperor Xi, Prosperity, power and political devotion merge.

There's biography:

"When Xi speaks about his coming of age, he points to Liangjiahe. “Northern Shaanxi gave me a belief. You could say it set the path for the rest of my life,” Xi said in a 2004 interview with the People’s Daily.

He started out lazy and weak in the village, but by the end of seven years, he had experienced hard labor and developed a taste for the pickled vegetables of peasants. It is a folklore reminiscent of Mao’s claims of seeking liberation for the oppressed underclass. But whereas Mao incited grass-roots movements and armed struggle, Xi’s approach to power eschews mass mobilization.

Policy: 

“ Xi’s ambitions abroad have been just as grand. He has expanded China’s global power through multibillion-dollar development projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative and by gaining more influence in institutions like the United Nations. He has capitalized on a United States that has turned isolationist under President Trump, dispatching China’s corporations, diplomats and spies everywhere from Nairobi, Kenya, to Brussels in what is becoming a new world order.

Xi often says that this era is one of “great change unseen in a hundred years,” namely that the world’s top superpower is in decline, and that this is China’s moment to rise. “Systemic advantages are a nation’s greatest advantages, and systemic competition is the most fundamental competition between nations,” Xi was recently quoted saying in the People’s Daily.

That determination to prove the Chinese system superior has driven impressive moves toward combating poverty and pollution, making this nation of 1.4 billion people a dominant force in high-tech industries and allowing it to contain the coronavirus outbreak — even as much of the world blames China for allowing the disease to spread.”

And criticism:

"Xi’s militant nationalism has also provoked backlash. The Chinese military has carried out aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea and rattled Taiwan by sending fighter planes into its airspace. Chinese troops have had deadly clashes in recent months with Indian soldiers along a disputed border. Xi’s reorganized security forces have increased arbitrary detention of foreigners including citizens of the U.S., Canada, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Belize, Turkey and Kazakhstan.

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that unfavorable views of China have reached historical highs in 14 advanced world economies, with a median of 78% of respondents saying they have “no confidence” in Xi’s handling of world affairs — though the ratings on Trump are even worse.

Ironically, a popular nickname for Xi on the Chinese internet is the “ accelerator in chief ,” meaning that his aggressive approach to “stability” has caused more domestic and international conflict and is speeding his government toward self-demise. Criticism has risen even from fellow princelings: Cai Xia, the granddaughter of a revolutionary leader who taught at the central party school for four decades, was recorded calling Xi a “mafia boss” this year.

“He has turned 90 million party members into slaves, tools to be used for his personal advantage,” Cai said."