One more time… because I’m kinda slow

 

*          *          *

While I personally experience a sense of spirituality, real or not, I’ll admit that I’m not religious in any orthodox sense.  Still, I think I do comprehend the concept of “morality” and “moral code.”  My understanding is that holy books aim to provide high standards and guidance for such. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Attn: Politically active evangelicals who support Trump

Q1: From a morality standpoint, doesn’t Donald Trump continue to be pretty much everything the Bible tells humanity it shouldn’t be: vain, selfish, covetous, mendacious, adulterous, anti-“other-ness”/our neighbors”?  My understanding is that these types of questionable activities are high on the list of “Christian don'ts,” and that being a Christian is supposed to mean a continuous striving/aspiring to the highest of biblical moral standards. Is that not true?

Q2: Nevertheless, Donald Trump claims to be a Christian.  Based on his actions, am I wrong when I, a non-Christian, see Trump as a Christian in name only? Is being a CINO okay with your God?  Why/Why not?

Q3: As a Christian, does Donald Trump’s actions offend you?  If yes, how so?  If no, why not?

Q4: If I’m completely off base here, then please explain to me what I don’t get about the Trump / Christian / Bible “non-sequitur.”  Please help me understand the disconnect between what Christian Trump says, and what Christian Trump does, because I still (after all these many years) don’t get it. :(

Whether religious or not, all are invited to help me understand this personal conundrum.

Thank you.

Should Daylight Saving Time Be Scrapped?

 

Every year we complain about War Time, as Daylight Saving Time was first known, developed to save energy and give farmers a bit more light. Except the First World War is over and we now have air conditioning and artificial lighting, so it doesn't actually save any energy at all.

This year, everyone is on about circadian rhythms. Sumathi Reddy of the Wall Street Journal speaks to Dr. Till Roenneberg of the University of Munich:

“Most of our physiology is governed by a circadian clock. This body clock synchronizes to the sun time”...When you travel to a different time zone your circadian clock adjusts to a new darkness-sunlight cycle in a few days. In daylight-saving time, the dark-light cycle doesn’t change but the time does. So there is a discrepancy between your biological clock and social clock, which researchers refer to as “social jet lag,” Dr. Roenneberg said. Permanent standard time is closer to the sun’s natural time so social jet lag is reduced, he added.

Now I have read this six times and it makes no sense, this difference between the biological clock and the social clock. In real solar time, Boston and Detroit are 45 minutes apart. Berlin and Madrid are 90 minutes apart. Which is running on biological time and which on "social time?" The Doctor continues:

“Daylight-saving time means that we virtually live in another time zone without changing the day-light cycle,” Dr. Roenneberg said. “The problem is the misalignment. The circadian clock is trying to optimize our physiology. Now suddenly we have to do things which are not at the biologically appropriate time.”

If one is going to make the case that there is a biologically appropriate time, then we not only have to get rid of daylight saving time, but we have to get rid of time zones altogether, which I proposed a few years ago, calling for local time. Noon used to be local, with over 300 time zones in the USA.

 

Then along comes the transcontinental railroad, and Sandford Fleming (the guy in the tall hat standing behind Lord Strathcona who is driving the last spike) figured out time zones so that everyone would be able to figure out where the trains were supposed to be. But we are not trains; noon should be noon wherever you are, not at 11:34 in Boston today and 12:42 in Detroit. What works for the convenience of Sandford Fleming and the railroads (and later, Walter Cronkite and the TV networks) doesn't work for our bodies.

If the science finds that there truly is a biological time, then the answer isn't just to get rid of DST. In this era of streaming entertainment and smart watches, it's time to run the trains and planes and conference calls on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), and everything else on local time, noon where you live. 

Does the time change cause heart attacks and car crashes?

We have noted that these time changes are really bad for your health, including an increase in the number of heart attacks and car crashes. But according to Paul Taylor, writing in the Globe and Mail, the research may be sketchy.

The research into the increase in the number of crashes was done by Stanley Coren, Ph.D. of the University of British Columbia, studying the rate of crashes on the first Monday after the switch. When he wrote his letter to the New England Journal of Medicine in 1996 it was still common to say accident instead of crash so I will not change that:

© Stanley Coren via New England Journal of Medicine

These data show that small changes in the amount of sleep that people get can have major consequences in everyday activities. The loss of merely one hour of sleep can increase the risk of traffic accidents. It is likely that the effects are due to sleep loss rather than a nonspecific disruption in circadian rhythm, since gaining an additional hour of sleep at the fall time shift seems to decrease the risk of accidents.

Others disagree with Dr. Koren and question the results; a doctor at Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto looked at 16 different studies and concluded: “Looking at the sum total of evidence – and not just one cherry-picked study – my impression is that, if there is an association, it is modest.”

Then there is the question of heart attacks, which we have discussed before, which is based on a Swedish study which found that "heart-attack cases increased by about 5 per cent in the week after the clocks were adjusted – both in the spring and the autumn." Taylor questions that one too:

In particular, many studies that fail to show an effect don’t end up in the medical journals. “We tend to publish only the stuff that is interesting and will catch people’s attention. The papers that don’t find an association are less likely to be published,” [cardiologist Dr.] Ko says. That can lead people to conclude certain things have a greater impact than they actually do. Ko says he thinks the association between the daylight time switch and heart attacks is real. But, he adds, that risk is likely small and probably affects only those with existing heart disease.

Fine. But anyone with kids and dogs knows that this time change is totally disruptive, and really doesn't serve any purpose. Pick one and just keep it year round. Or even better, just go local time and forget about running on War Time, Railway time or Cronkite time, and go with Your Time.

Does the time change save energy?

It's that time of year when we lose an hour of sleep and turn our clocks forward thanks to the introduction of Daylight Saving Time, which probably made a lot of sense back in 1916 when it started as a fuel-saving measure in World War 1. Every year we look at this change and every year find more evidence that it really should be scrapped already, and that thanks to the prevalence of air conditioning, it now actually increases energy consumption.

 

Is the time change good for business?

© JP Morgan Chase/ Shedding Light on Daylight Savings Time

One of the justifications for maintaining DST is that is good for business; it has been thought that the extra light in the evening meant more people in stores. This was recently studied by JP Morgan Chase in Shedding Light on Daylight Savings Time, where they compared sales receipts in Los Angeles, where there is DST, to Phoenix, which is in one of the few states that does not switch to DST.

And indeed, Los Angeles showed that the extra hour of daylight increased sales in stores by about one percent. However this was swamped the the loss of sales, a drop of 3.5 percent, when the clocks were turned back in November. In total, throughout the year, the effect appears to be more negative than positive.

The increase in spending at the beginning of DST is determined by comparing daily card spending per capita in the 30 days before DST starts, to daily card spending per capita in the 30 days after DST starts. The decrease at the end captures a similar window to compare spending in the 30 days before and after the end of DST. Most of the impact stems from responses at the end of DST, when spending on goods drops more than spending on services, and spending during the work week drops more than weekend spending. The magnitude of the spending reductions outweighs increased spending at the beginning of DST.

The shock of the dark evenings in November keeps people out of stores more than the extra hour in the spring brings them in. And now that online shopping is an available option, there is even less reason to subject people to this change, which is not very good for our health:

DST can kill you

In 2016 we reported on a study described in STAT which suggests that switching to Daylight Saving Time can kill you.

A 2013 study of nearly 1,000 patients at two Michigan hospitals compared admissions for heart attacks during the seven days after the move to daylight saving to the same days two weeks prior. In the study, which looked at data between 2006 and 2012, researchers found 17 percent more heart attacks after “springing ahead,” with a 71 percent spike on the first day, Sunday. In fact, that one day accounted for almost all of the overall increase.

It's not just heart attacks either.

Analyzing a decade worth of strokes in Finland, scientists found a brief spike in the incidence of ischemic stroke (the most common kind, caused by a clot blocking blood flow in the brain) after the clocks are turned ahead compared to the week before. The rate was 8 percent higher during the first two days after setting the clocks ahead, Dr. Jori Ruuskanen of Finland’s University of Turku and colleagues reported. But in people over 65, the incidence of stroke on those Sundays and Mondays was 20 percent higher.

 

However there is one positive effect: apparently there is a sharp reduction in street crime rates. According to Business Insider, a recently published paper shows that the extra light in the afternoon discourages potential offenders.

Results show that daily cases of robbery, a violent and socially costly street crime, decrease by approximately 7% in the weeks after DST begins, with a 19% drop in the probability of any robbery occurring. A 27% decrease in the robbery rate during the sunset hours drives much of this result.

Ending DST could solve climate change

A few years back, the transition to Daylight Saving Time happened on April 1st, so of course we calculated impact of an extra hour of sunlight had on the world and announced that ending DST could solve global warming.

TreeHugger Labs ran the numbers and has determined that If DST runs half the year for an hour a day, that is fully 1/48th of our total exposure to the sun that could be eliminated with the cancelling of Daylight Saving Time, almost 2% of solar heat gain annually.That's huge!

 

A surprising number of readers were convinced. In 2007 the Arkansas Democrat published a letter complaining about the earlier start of DST:

You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of sunlight would have on our climate. Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat.

Silliness aside, Brian Merchant looked at the issue and concluded that Daylight Savings Time actually increases electrical demand, as air conditioning has eclipsed lighting as the main use of electricity.

Brad Plumer in the Washington Post summarizes the effects of DST and quotes the same study Brian did, finding that DST increases energy consumption, can be bad for your health, has mixed effects on the economy:

Retailers love the extra sunlight — it means that there are more customers around who are willing to go out and shop. The all-powerful golfing industry is also a big fan, apparently. On the other hand, daylight saving can cut into sales for movie theaters and reduce the audience for prime-time television — people go out and enjoy the evening air instead of staring at screens inside.

Perhaps it's time to scrap Daylight Saving Time. What do you think?

Should DST be scrapped?

https://poll.fm/7866326

 

https://www.treehugger.com/should-daylight-savings-time-be-scrapped-survey-4857480 

 

 

 

A Secret Recording About the President's Character

This kind of thing just keeps oozing out.  The Washington Post writes:

Maryanne Trump Barry was serving as a federal judge when she heard her brother, President Trump, suggest on Fox News, “maybe I’ll have to put her at the border” amid a wave of refugees entering the United States. At the time, children were being separated from their parents and put in cramped quarters while court hearings dragged on.

“All he wants to do is appeal to his base,” Barry said in a conversation secretly recorded by her niece, Mary L. Trump. “He has no principles. None. None. And his base, I mean my God, if you were a religious person, you want to help people. Not do this.”

Barry, 83, was aghast at how her 74-year-old brother operated as president. “His goddamned tweet and lying, oh my God,” she said. “I’m talking too freely, but you know. The change of stories. The lack of preparation. The lying. Holy shit.”  

Lamenting “what they’re doing with kids at the border,” she guessed her brother “hasn’t read my immigration opinions” in court cases. In one case, she berated a judge for failing to treat an asylum applicant respectfully.  

“What has he read?” Mary Trump asked her aunt. 

“No. He doesn’t read,” Barry responded.  

In response to a question from The Washington Post about how she knew the president paid someone to take the SATs, Mary Trump revealed that she had surreptitiously taped 15 hours of face-to-face conversations with Barry in 2018 and 2019. She provided The Post with previously unreleased transcripts and audio excerpts, which include exchanges that are not in her book.  

At one point Barry said to her niece, “It’s the phoniness of it all. It’s the phoniness and this cruelty. Donald is cruel.”

Those are candid remarks the president's sister, a federal judge, made when talking about her brother. One has to wonder whether Mary Trump will be prosecuted for the secret recordings. If the president had his way, he would. It is reasonable to think that his sister is pretty steamed about this too.

A Modest Suggestion to the Biden Campaign

“How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian?” That was the deeply dismaying question posed to me by a friend with four young children as we discussed the plight of the Christian faith in America and around the world. With each passing month, that shocking question becomes more relevant and even more disturbing. .... Here in the United States, Christians and Christianity are mocked, belittled, smeared and attacked by some on a daily basis. This is a bigoted practice that is not only increasing exponentially, but is being encouraged and sanctioned by a number on the left. .... As more and more of the mainstream media, entertainment, academia and the hi-tech world continue to purge or discriminate against Christians, what future job fields will be open to young Christians? -- Fox News opinion piece, April 2018

White conservative evangelicals in America are anxious people. I know because I am one. Our sense of fear, perhaps more than any other factor, explains why evangelicals voted in such large numbers for Donald Trump in 2016 and continue to support his presidency. .... Any effort to make sense of the 81 percent of evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump cannot ignore evangelicals’ fear of the Barack Obama administration. Obama was an exotic figure to many white conservative evangelicals. He grew up in Hawaii and spent time as a child in a predominantly Muslim country. He was the son of a white woman and an African man. He had a strange name; that his middle name was “Hussein” did not help. .... Hillary Clinton did not help herself among evangelicals in the 2016 election campaign. She lied about using a private email server in her role as secretary of state. She placed Trump supporters in a “basket of deplorables.” She made no effort to court evangelical votes, a strategy that the progressive evangelical writer and Clinton supporter Ronald Sider called “dumbfounding and incredibly stupid.” -- The Atlantic, June 2018

The fear factor

What is common at various radical right, pro-Trump sites is expressions of fear among Trump supporters. Lots of irrational, reality-detached fear. Here is an extreme example:

“Dilbert” creator Scott Adams made a fearful prediction about the 2020 presidential election on Twitter on Wednesday, telling his Republican followers that if Joe Biden is elected to the White House, “there’s a good chance you will be dead within the year.” 

“Republicans will be hunted,” he wrote in a follow-up tweet, later adding, “Police will stand down.”

One of the things that these sites focused on is heavily criticizing and attacking various speeches and speakers at the DNC convention this past week. Among other things, most of the criticisms accuse the speakers and democrats generally of (1) their exclusive, polarizing US vs Them rhetoric, (2) hostile intentions toward Trump personally, his administration and his supporters, and (3) lying and lying and lying. Some of the criticisms are insightful and carefully crafted. Some are crude. Many contain a kernel or two of truth that is twisted to falsely portray an entire speech in a very negative and threatening light.

There is very little to be seen of the Principle of Charity[1] coming from these sources. This is all-out propaganda war and all rhetorical means justify the ends, not principled debate constrained by facts and sound reasoning.

Since fear is a common theme on the radical right, it helps to look at DNC speeches and rhetoric from a fearful Trump supporter point of view. One needs to at least try to understand the fears. It also takes some practice. After a while, one can come to see the DNC speeches very differently, even if one excludes the outright lies and obvious gross uncharitable characterizations. There are some things in most of the speeches that can be used to foment fear, rational or not.

For example, some of the speeches were heavily criticized for not condemning social violence in street protests, e.g., in Portland, OR, or not  condemning it enough. Radical propagandists falsely characterized the dems as generally pro-violence and illegality. That scares lots of people on the right.

Some of the speeches celebrated the strides that minorities have made, including the selection of Kamala Harris and all that means to American society. The propagandists argued strenuously and repeatedly that this is polarizing, exclusive Us vs Them rhetoric. They vehemently argue that Trump supporters are being excluded and attacked. The propaganda was directed to making white people feel they themselves and their values and/or religion are under serious attack. That really scares lots of people on the right.

The modest suggestion

In view of how powerful fear on the radical right is, my limited review of the speeches and the reactions to them, it seems that it would be pretty easy to at least try to blunt most of the fear-generating criticisms. Democratic rhetoric could do that by simply directly addressing the basis that radical propagandists key on to foment fear. For example, a speech could easily include a separate but clear sentence or two about not tolerating or even fomenting illegality in street protests. The same can be said of illegality associated with immigration, which is another topic used to effectively foment fear.

Similarly, try to be more explicitly inclusive of people on the right by explicitly stating things that do not scare them. Acknowledge the basis for their fears and address them. For example, many on the right fear that their guns are going to be confiscated. By just saying that is not what democrats would do or want to do, such reassuring statements would lessen the impact of propaganda that says otherwise. It makes the propagandists explain why the assertion is a lie. The more explaining away a propagandist has to do, the weaker the propaganda becomes.

In other words, the modest suggestion is this: Just address the sources of conservative fears clearly and directly to the extent you can without lying, deceit or some sleight of hand. Keep it honest, simple and direct.

Two criticisms of the modest suggestion

The first is simple. We already know all of this. What's new? My response to that is: If you know all of this so well, why is your rhetoric larded with so many easy cheap shots for the propagandists to use against you? If you are aware of all of this, your speech writers suck. Up your game and open your minds, or risk losing.

The second is more complicated. If democratic messaging is made too accommodating to the fears of people on the right, it will drive some or many of our supporters away.

Well, good grief. If that's the concern, then one has to ask if conservative criticisms about being excluded and disrespected aren't fundamentally correct. Does the democratic party really mean to be inclusive and respectful or not? If it does, then why do propagandists so easily and effectively make your rhetoric seem to disregard conservative fears and dignity?

One response to that last criticism is that expert propagandists can easily make any rhetoric seem to disregard anyone's fears and dignity. Maybe that is true to some extent. But if the rhetoric they are distorting into alt-realities lends itself to that, the propagandist job is easier and more effective. In my firm opinion, rhetoric that is hardened against propagandist tactics is a less effective source for spinning alt-realities.

Another response is that it is very hard to craft such rhetoric. My response to that is, so what? Get better speech writers. Up your game or risk losing.


Footnote:
1. Principle of charity (Wikipedia): "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn 'it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings.'"