The Sidetrack

Utah Democrats, afraid to preach to the choir

noreply@blogger.com (The SideTrack) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 19:35:00 +0000

Reading some of the commentary surrounding the UT1 Democratic nomination race, arguably the first time in a generation Utah Democrats have had a green flag to fully flex, snippets of some mostly forgotten essay I'd read kept coming to mind. I finally found it in my embarrassingly long list of good think piece notes.

It's by award winning author and activist Rebecca Solnit, and it's extremely relevant as words like "unity" and "bipartisan" and "nice" "alienating" and have been thrown around by candidates and supporters in the Dem's nomination race. TL;DR: Utah Democrats have been talking only to moderate Republicans and the (imagined?) gettable unaffiliated for so long, they've forgotten what Utah Democrats even are.

So, in defense of, and on rediscovering the importance of "speaking to the choir," Solnit:

One of the most excruciating rites of recent presidential elections was the debates in which “undecided” or swing voters were brought in to ask questions of the candidates. The premise behind the spectacle is that candidates win by competing for those not sure of whether they are for or against civil rights, tax cuts for the rich, and so on. Yet much evidence suggests that political organizations benefit most from motivating those who already agree with them, and that the Democrats in particular find the most success by pursuing people who don’t know whether they’ll vote, rather than how they’ll vote. This means reaching constituents who, historically, have been less likely to go to the polling booth: the poor, the young, the non-white. Republicans know this, which is why they’ve worked hard to perfect voter suppression tactics that target those populations.

Centrist Democrats (not to be confused with moderates or idependents) nationally demand wooing Republicans. It's coded into their dogma and ideology. Because most Centrist Democrats are actually just very moderate Republicans. But in Utah, Democrats have had to embrace a similar tact, necessarily, in many parts of the state, where only moderate Dems might win. A reality that has become so ingrained in, it's completely erased, outside of yearly conventions and fundraisers, any broad public narrative about what it means to be a Utah Democrat.

The UT1 race presents an opportunity for Utah Democrats to rediscover an identity not defined only by what the party, paid consultants, and reactionary donors think moderate Republicans or unaffiliated voters want to hear. It's been encouraging to see party chair Brian King appear to understand this more than predecessors. But UT1 is an unexpected, and urgent opportunity.

I urge Democratic candidates and voters and party leaders to read Solnit's full essay (and, unrelated, find time for her books A Paradise Built in Hell and Men Explain Things to Me), then not be afraid to have public conversations about who they are, in this nomination race and beyond. Because a few things are are always going to be true, either way:

Politics, especially campaign politics, is narrative, story telling. There is no such thing as identity free politics. Centrism is boring. And the number of unaffiliated Utah voters who've been inspired to vote for a Democrat over a Republican because that Democrat sounded like a bored moderate Republican wouldn't fill a UTA bus. All voters need to be inspired to show up, and all voters will be, eventually. In all political environments, parties and candidates are either selling a narrative or responding to one.

Preach to the choir for a while. Explore your identity and figure out what your story is. We all know what it has been, and that hasn't been working.

Sad, Solitary Annual Post

noreply@blogger.com (The SideTrack) — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 04:24:34 +0000

Another year, another solitary post to keep this alive. Still planned planning to write more. Still spending that time on Twitter. It's not a complete waste. Today I did this. The little things.

keeping the lights on

noreply@blogger.com (The SideTrack) — Sat, 23 Nov 2024 20:40:00 +0000

In case I one day feel like writing again

Mastadon sucks

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Fri, 11 Nov 2022 20:54:00 +0000

I've never settled in my own mind how I feel about Twitter. I mean, I obviously like it because since joining in 2009 I've been there every day. Too much most days. But I also know that combining political thought-having energy used for a daily radio show and being generally hilarious or mean on Twitter killed my blogging. I miss blogging. Anyway, keeping this place active, just in case.

The Next Decade

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:19:00 +0000

Just under a decade from now, the redistricting process will be underway again in Utah and much will be the same. Republicans will have a legislative majority only slightly smaller than today's. There will be a Republican governor. There may me one Independent in our federal delegation, but no Democrats. Elections may be breaking 55-45 instead of 65-35, but still mostly going to Republicans.

The demographics and population centers of our state, though, will be very different. Growth is the opportunity Utah Democrats have needed, but it won't come as a given. What is happening to the GOP nationally is already seeping into Utah. The 2021 "extraordinary session" for the panicked racists is the starkest example of the nationalization of our legislature, but there are others. And there will be more. As population centers change in Utah, the pressures that drive their party, nationally, to embrace anti-democratic policies, reversion fantasies and extremism will increase here.

Utah County change in Republican margin: down nearly 40%; Cache Co: down 31%; Wash. Co: down 16%. Party solution here = dig in harder, get crazier, don’t let these ‘outsiders’ stain our purity. Dumb. Gonna wake up in less than ten years without any ‘R’ representing Utah. https://t.co/FHi87gd9hy
— Matt Waldrip (@mattwaldrip) March 31, 2022

In the next decade, expect more erosion of legislative norms like HB11 and the 2021 "extraordinary session." Expect extreme measures not dying in committees and more often even surviving floor votes. Expect more attacks on voting and ballot initiatives and consolidating of power, as slogans become less a sure thing in areas outside of Salt Lake City. It might not be as ugly as RNC messaging looks today (there is a little bit of truth to that Utah Way cliche, and the Trump fever is fading) but when Utah Republicans have to start campaigning harder in Weber, Cache, and even Davis counties, there will be tantrums. They'll feed the monster at convention, and find it harder in more districts to run away from that extremism in primaries and generals. Not impossible, just harder. And faced with a choice of adapting or attacking the system... well...

Utah Republicans have had it relatively easy for decades, and there's a long and ironic historical record of conservatives turning to the "strongman" when the "invisible hand" slaps back.

Democrats face their own version of this. The now generational tension between left and center inside the Utah Democratic Party is real and, I've always thought, healthy. But it also distracts from the real challenge for the party in being positioned to grow as the state grows. It leaves a vacuum that a lot of voters fill on behalf of the Utah GOP with the slightest of urging.

Anyone who follows the legislature closely or has organized with campaigns can tell you what some of the brightest defacto spox of the Utah Democratic Party are about. Former representative Patrice Arent was brilliant. Rep. Brian King eloquent. Senators Kitchen and Riebe and Escamilla have been very effective putting words to opposition to some of the worst majority decisions. Rep. Suzanne Harrison has inadvertently taught a master class on how to speak to and engage with the public as a Democrat in Utah. The one or two times I've heard Rep. Sandra Hollins speak passionately for or against a bill have convinced me she could win any race she entered. Every Democrat in the legislature except Davis gets it and is good at it. Whatever it is. And their votes on education --always a top issue for all voters in surveys-- match more closely where what little polling we see says the majority of voters are.

But if Dan Jones ran a poll of registered voters who aren't legislative junkies, could they say what the Utah Democratic Party is all about? Even lifelong organizer Democrats in my circles can't answer that one definitively. Voters, R and D and I, fill that "brand" vacuum for the state party based on their understanding of the party nationally, or what they hear from Republicans. Simple marketing processes. Utah Democrats are Pepsi. It's available in more restaurants and producing some very popular products. But Coke owns Christmas because of the can colors and a song in holiday ads, and that wins.

It's not a new challenge for the state party, but it's one that's going to matter more and more over the next decade. Pockets of change are going to present an opportunity and, to be blunt, the party needs to get it's shit together to pounce on it when the window opens.

Back when I was more involved with party leadership, more than one person got frustrated with me. I was told often I was very good at diagnosing problems, rarely offered solutions. In my defense, that's basically what I do for a living. I'm not sure what the solution here is. It probably involves more young people driving the message. A more diverse central committee. Pouring everything, literally, into beating a few high profile Republicans outside of Salt Lake County. Unseating a legislative leader after a particularly odious and unpopular vote would generate a lot of brand building headlines.

I'm spit-balling. I'm not a political or executive director, for reasons. There are much more experienced organizers and community leaders with ideas on the challenge I'm trying to define here. What I do know is Utah ten years from now is going to be very different from today both demographically and in where those "blue pockets" are.

The Utah Democratic Party needs to be gearing up for that now. The 29th annual Eleanor Roosevelt Luncheon and PolitiSauce raise decent money from the rank and file but there were 11 people at a county convention in Northern Utah and that seems bad.

Poor kids going hungry

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:33:00 +0000

Ah, Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Utah. A day for Republican lawmakers state and federal to tweet a few "safe" quotes from King, and applaud his "message of unity."

King wasn't a unity guy. He was a radical fighting injustice. Some crossover there, but a lot of daylight too. The only "unity" he spend his final months talking about was the intersection of racism, inequality, war, and power. There are some great reads out there I wish everyone would spend time with. King's own words, of course. But also the history of the times he lived and worked in. Learning about the times he lived and worked in, and the very human and flawed person he was made his words even more meaningful for me. The books and docs are out there and easy to find and please do.

King is most inspirational as a person when broadly understood but his words have the impact when applied specifically, immediately. In 1967 King wrote:“We aren’t merely struggling to integrate a lunch counter now. We’re struggling to get some money to be able to buy a hamburger or a steak when we get to the counter.”

Utah lawmakers, Governor Herbert, during the work of the tax task force last year you, all of us, heard from a teacher keeping a make-shift food pantry for students in her classroom closet. You closed out the task force debate and passage of tax "reform" patting yourselves on the back with a WSJ op-ed by a Club for Growth hack based on an ALEC state ranking.

Spare us the MLK Jr memes.

Oh Peggy

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:06:00 +0000

In all the excitement of a potential war with Iran with President Hamberder at the helm, I missed this new year Noonan nugget:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi made herself look ridiculous this year when she backed lowering the voting age to 16. This is an idiotic and destructive idea, an epic and hackish pander, and is offensive to the baseline reality that the adults of a great nation have the right to govern its affairs. It will go nowhere, but the coming decade may see some pushback against the 18-year-old vote, passed in 1971. A lot has changed since then. We know the brains of 18-year-olds are not fully developed and haven’t fully knitted. Young people are educated more poorly, and the screens that surround them and through which they learn encourage sensation, not thought. Their experience of the world is limited; most are financially and emotionally supported by others. All this as the questions we face grow more complex. We should raise the voting age, not lower it.

Reminded me of a tweet I wish I'd saved for sharing and crediting the author that went something like: "A good friend invites you over to watch Twilight. Not your thing, but you go, for a friend. Halfway through, he gets up, grabs his car keys, and just leaves. Anyway, my point is, old people shouldn't be allowed to vote."

To Noonan's "point" about dependency, real world education, and cognitive abilities: Um. Not going to waste your time pretending she has a relevant idea what's on The Kids' screens, so just the other three. According to the National Center on Caregiving, 85% of adults age 65+ are dependent on a family member for care or housing. Education? The most avid Fox News viewer is likely 55-65. Cognitive decline begins at 45, really hitting it's stride at 65 (Noonan is 69).

If we're weighing these justifications for restricting the right to vote, we need to have a talk about The Olds, Peg.

Transparency in Utah

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 01 Jan 2020 00:57:00 +0000

A legislative staffer friend long ago suggested I write something about my experience as a transparency activist in Utah. It's a cool story. Every time I try to tell it I'm reminded it isn't about me or any I have skills I bring to the table. My skills -- professionally and politically -- are limited shouting words and making confident guesses, just like lawmakers, but with a better track record on guessing right. Ba dum tss!

It's a story about getting involved and in good faith, as mush as possible. At the start of this decade I waded into transparency activism via a grant from the Sunlight Foundation. They were writing $2500 checks for citizen organizations to build transparency reporting tools at the state level. Some very cool things were done with that money, all of which were eventually rendered obsolete by advances in technology and (this is important) transparency policies and legislative allies in Utah. My approach was cynical. If Democrats weren't going to get serious about making elections competitive outside of Salt Lake County, maybe we could at least make sure the Republicans are being honest with us. After the 2011 bill-that-shall-not-be-named I was invited to be a part of Governor Herbert's GRAMA work group, alongside bill-that-shall-not-be-named sponsor John Dougall, several lawmakers, members of the media and legal experts, state archivists. I felt like an imposter and infiltrator. It was great. What was most surprising to me was how dedicated and sincere the majority of that work group was to open and transparent government. What can easily be interpreted as a penchant for secrecy is, in my experience, a lack of understanding. What is achieved by activists shouting "what do you have to hide?!' pales in contrast with what happened when we were all forced to talk and learn from each other.

In the end, no major changes to GRAMA were recommended by our work group. It's worth noting no recommendations were made to address the original issue then state rep John Dougall was trying to solve with the bill-that-shall-not-be-named. For those of us who didn't have it coming in, a better understanding of that problem was achieved. For lawmakers who didn't understand the reason for the backlash coming in, the work group changed that. In the end the recommendations made were a collective shrug because, honestly, there wasn't and still isn't a good solution to how time consuming (and often abused) public information policy is. And the trade off for restricting the process is unacceptable. Someone asked me then what I thought was achieved and I wasn't sure. My answer now would be the major achievement of the Governor's work group was reflected in legislative votes cast by work group members since, and relationships developed that in a ping-pong fashion lead to some major achievements in open government and open data in Utah. A lot was achieved, without even getting into the work of the Utah Transparency Advisory Board, well before my time on it and during.

That's what makes writing this difficult. I forget details, dates, and names, and am only noteworthy in all of this because my involvement proves citizen involvement can still go places in Utah. Never underestimate the power of shouting words and guessing. He'd probably list some really boring bill that only a CPA would like, but one of the most underrated and lasting legacies state senator and eventual Senate President Wayne Niederhauser left behind was his commitment to transparency and making time for advocates. There were many others. Senator Deidre Henderson, who is brave beyond comparison. She's willing to fight necessary fights others have shied away from. Representative Craig Hall, expert at navigating skittish House committees. Former Senate Chief of Staff (now with the AG) Ric Cantrell and his sixth sense for getting the right folks talking and/or diffusing potential communication breakdowns. Auditor John Dougall, in his frugality, is dedicated to holding government accountable and was always a regular at our board meetings. He's also really funny. Now retired State Archives director and Person Who Knows Everything About GRAMA Ever Patricia Smith-Mansfield. There are more who deserve credit.

Not Dan Liljenquist. He knows exactly why. I'd never be crass enough to gossip about it except to say the idea that retirement services administrative salaries and expenses reporting would politicize URS is silly and anyone who'd show up at an 8 am committee hearing to make that argument without even returning the phone call of of the board member who called for your thoughts, accidentally tipping you off is a dirty...

Anyway, eventually I find myself presenting on the concept of open data standards (also courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation) as a way to further digitize and make accessible the mountains of public data Utah smartly makes public, then a member of the transparency board. Building on the financial transparency work of the previous board iteration, we spent the last few years studying open data standards for state agencies which could eventually be implemented in every county and city. We recommended and the legislature signed off on the creation of a data coordinator position within DTS. If you haven't followed the work of Chief Data Officer Drew Mingl on OpenDate.Utah.gov, you're missing out. I can't wait until some creative data/developer nerd does something unexpectedly amazing with some set Drew has collected for the catalog. It'll happen. Always does. The board recommended and gets regular reports from State Archives on the further development of online portals and tracking dashboard options for public information requests (something that may eventually, somewhat alleviate the issue 2011's bill-that-shall-not-be-named was trying to).

In 2019 the board paused a bit. A bill passed moving the board from legislative to administrative oversight gave us an opportunity, prompted by new board member John Dougall to talk about what the board is or should be. In the last year, a request from Utah Interactive to archive data after five years in search databases (something I oppose as a board member) to improve site performance raised legitimate questions about the board's power. Should a request of that significance be decided by a limited member board or go before a full legislative debate? What do the board rules say? With the board, now in it's fourth or fifth iteration, and with all the statute required to purpose the board strategically over the years jumbled upon itself in the books, that was difficult to answer. So we elected a new chair and, lucky her, gave her the job of reviewing the governing code. Stay tuned for more on that.

I hope I've stressed enough how not complete this hasty recap of the last decade is. I hope it conveys enough of how steadily the process has moved forward in Utah, and how easy it is to get involved. As for the next ten years? There are some real challenges coming when it comes to technology, how we interact with our own government, and making public data not only easily accessible but also useful and relevant to more than just real estate developers. I'd like to see even rural cities and counties stepping up more. I'd like to see a lot of city attorneys stop holding them back. I'd like to see more coordination between government entities and agencies and citizen developers to visualize and utilize public data.

But for at least the time it took to write this, I'm just appreciative of the opportunity to be involved, and excited by how much progress was made on so many fronts and by so many people and organizations in the last 10 years.

Inequality and Stupid Presidents

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:41:00 +0000

The Republican Party had been on track to spit up something like Trump for quite some time. Inevitable without a course correction that never came. One party shitting the bed with their nominee usually means a brutal loss.

I know, I know. Electoral college luck. Clinton Mehs. Clinton team too comfy.Two counties in Wisconsin that decided what the hell lets see what happens. Angry white dudes. Crazy white evangelicals. Etc. But we shouldn't ignore this because didn't help.

High inequality has also political effects. The rich have more political power and they use that political power to promote own interests and to entrench their relative position in the society. This means that all the negative effects due to exclusion and lack of equality of opportunity are reinforced and made permanent (at least, until a big social earthquake destroys them). In order to fight off the advent of such an earthquake, the rich must make themselves safe and unassailable from “conquest”. This leads to adversarial politics and destroys social cohesion. Ironically, social instability which then results discourages investments of the rich, that is it undermines the very action that was at the beginning adduced as the key reason why high wealth and inequality may be socially desirable.

Art of the Deal

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:32:00 +0000

Others have said hilarious and insightful things about this already. I'm posting it for ease of reference. If you haven't seen it, you should. The White House put out a statement about a "constructive conversation" shortly after this and I can't do a thing but laugh. Democrats, ignore the "tone" police. This is perfect.

Communicating Science: Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:13:00 +0000

While everyone was out Black Friday shopping this dropped.

The holiday weekend timing of this report surely wasn't accidental. There are great takes out there already on that, and the fact that it's 13 federal agencies agreeing climate change has 1) already wreaked havoc and 2) will have cast economic impact while President Deals shakes his head and "just doesn't trust it." FiveThirtyEight upped a conversation between their own editors' today on the experience on the press call Friday morning and exploring the role of science in a debate (world?) ruled by politics.

It reminded me that the day of my own presentation to USU researchers and staff on communicating science in a social media world -- two days after the release of the IPCC climate change report -- administrators had emailed a warning to staff reminding them of rules on lobbying and encouraging the avoidance of staking out political ground. Since, someone slipped me one of those emails and I was surprised to read this sentence:

"Talk about and promote your research. Let the science speak for itself. The politics of the day don't matter. Your work does."

In my presentation I challenged this very strategy without knowing everyone in the audience had received this email. Afterward I had a chance to discuss the concerns researchers had. Many expressed "walking a fine line" between defending or discussing research that by it's very nature could be construed as choosing a political side. I wasn't sure how to respond then.

From the FiveThirtyEight discussion today:

I think it’s obvious to most people, at this point, that the politics are important. At least as important as the scientific findings. Because we already know the science — “we” being the public, I mean. There’s not a lot in the assessment that is really going to surprise anybody who knows the basics of climate change. What matters most at this point is what we do with the findings. And if the political reality is that we’re ignoring it …

This is a very urgent and legitimate question researchers and entire academic institutions are going to have to grapple with. I get the need for rules on staff and lobbying for policy on the university dime or reputation. But USU also has the Koch funded "Center for Growth and Opportunity" out lobbying, literally, in op-ed pages and elsewhere using university's rep and even official seal advocating for aviation regulation changes. They want an Uber, but for airplanes something. Could this not also be construed as staking out a political policy position? Hell yes it could.

But aviation regs haven't been quite as politicized as climate science. The Republican Party and a vast majority of conservative enablers have reduced climate science to a partisan chew toy so successfully that scientists at Utah State University are afraid to say "Oh, bullshit" when Utah House Rep David Lifferth points and a snowflake and says something ignorant.

At Friday's press conference, NOAA reps were fielding reasonable and predictable questions from the few journalists not off for the holiday like political campaign hacks. Not by their choice, to be sure. But it was clear the science itself wasn't speaking. I'm not sure I agree with the FIveThirtyEight editor consensus that the public already knows all the basics. Not here in my neck of the woods.

But I get what they're getting at. The science has been secondary to the politics for a while now and that isn't going to change. Researchers and schools of science staff are going to be silenced by institutional guidelines seeking an apolitical position. They only way this is going to be achieved is if Universities and their researchers sit it out. But they can't. Rock and a hard place?

Nah. It's just time Universities recognize what the New York Times still hasn't: Kissing the asses of these right wing lunatics gets you no where. You're going to be accused of bias unless you start producing results they agree with. I'm not talking about scientists locked arm in arm blocking the office doors at state legislatures in protest (though I'm not opposed to that and we might get there anyway). I'm talking about universities giving their researchers free-enough reign and backup to communicate, effectively, their research into the public policy environments at the state legislative level.

That's going to be perceived as political because they've politicized the science. There's no putting that back in the tube.

There isn't an alternative.

Communicating Science: "Benefits of change"

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 21:56:00 +0000

Presentation was received well. Video of it should be available somewhere soon.

Literally, though, the day of my presentation to a decent sized group of researchers, scientists, and PR flacks for the respective schools invited, someone much more experienced than I wrote this. I'm even more proud of my presentation, feeling validated I reached similar conclusions and tried for the same message.

Focus shift from "avoiding catastrophe" to "benefits of change." Less focus on changing public opinion or engaging in good faith arguments with bad faith actors.

By focusing so intensively on public opinion, we have yet to even evaluate the relevant factors that influence elite-level decisions on these valuable yet below the radar bills where bi-partisan cooperation has been proven to be possible.

A place to start is to do the hard qualitative work of spending time talking to and listening to dozens of Congressional staffers from both parties, noting the assumptions and priorities that they and their bosses bring to energy innovation policies, the sources of information they rely on, who they judge trustworthy or authoritative on the topics, how they communicate their positions, and the conditions under which agreement might be reached.

More influencing of decision maker minds at the state local level in place of engaging on broad scales or via public campaigns/events, the option with the most immediate potential -- something I stressed in my own presentation at USU.

Dr. Nisbet isn't arguing for an end to engaging and entertaining dissent. The opposite, he says, is most productive. His argument rests on the idea that the value of debate, public opinion, and exposure to scientific fact isn't enough. Researchers must campaign. And city, county, and state legislative leaders may prove more valuable for their time.

Communicating Science: "It's Peer Reviewed"

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 21:31:00 +0000

"Why Science Works" panel, SLC FanX, Sept 2018

Interesting Why Science Works panel at the SL Comicon, er, FanX... whatever, Nerdfest. Before I could ask a question the conversation veered organically into communicating science, denials, and politicization.

Moderator and Weber State University professor Eric Swedin steered the panel through some great topics, from the value (for others) in engaging and climate deniers to the wave-like nature of anti-science sentiments.

Directly, the topic of scientists communicating science to the public was broached in the context of fighting anti-science pols and a better educated electorate. One of the male panelists (I was looking for an outlet) sort of shrugged, almost as if the question was already answered.

"Credible science is peer reviewed, and the public has access to that," he said.

The panel ended and I was halfway into my next when the weight of that answer really set in. I mean, the panelist isn't wrong. But the question was about fighting back against misinformation and bad faith "debate me" trolls or pols. Is this how researchers and scientists think about this question?

If it is, do they have a responsibility to rethink it? Do they have a responsibility (or opportunity?) to be a bit more engaged than that in our current situation? I know universities put a lot of effort into press releasing or even spotlighting important research with campus or community events, but is that enough?

I keep thinking about Princeton historian Kevin M Kruse 's willingness to engage uber-troll and not-so-bright-person Dinesh D'Souza on twitter and that exchange making it's way into publications with a broad audience. Kruse fed the troll and anyone exposed to the exchange was better informed (also, it was hilarious). That seems valuable. Maybe more valuable than a press release to local media when researchers and scientists have something important, useful, and urgent to convey?

Communicating Science: Narratives

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:08:00 +0000

Exploring some of the more complex arenas of science communication and public engagement. Beside concern of formats, engagement tools, framing and breaking out of information silos, there are also legitimate questions about passive vs. formal engagement, and with who and when? Would scientists at a public university accomplish more working with local city, county, and state governments to inject in or even create conversations tied to local issues? Where passive (traditional PR/press release) styles fail, would formal and direct engagement succeed?

What is the value of a sparsely attended panel event in contrast with a noted researcher getting down in the Twitter mud to challenge a poorly informed elected official? What crashes gates and what reinforces tribal political walls? Because part of the problem here is ignoring the politics of science talk. It may not originate in or because of political circles but that is most definitely where it's being heard and discussed most.

And...

Furthermore, people with lower numeracy are more likely to rely on these heuristics when engaging in complex judgments and decisions such as those that involve science, and especially scientific uncertainty (Peters et al., 2006; Sinayev and Peters, 2015). They also rely more on narratives and the way information is presented in particular lights (discussed below) instead of applying the probabilities and other numbers critical to understanding science (Peters, 2012a). Of course, highly numerate individuals also sometimes misunderstand numeric information and use heuristic processing, but to a lesser degree (Chapman and Liu, 2009; Peters et al., 2007). Careful attention to how scientific uncertainty and other numbers are presented can reduce the use of heuristics and increase understanding and use of provided numbers, especially among the less numerate (Institute of Medicine, 2014).

...what is the narrative? Is it too often an apolitical "You might find this interesting"? If you (like journalists) are going to be perceived through a partisan and tribal lens in the end, could you more effectively communicate scientific ideas and foster deeper understanding among traditionally marginalized or non-engaged groups by, if not owning, at least ignoring that?

Communicating Science

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Thu, 23 Aug 2018 21:51:00 +0000

In October, I'll be speaking to USU Quinney College of Natural Resources and the College of Science graduate students and faculty on communicating science to "the media" as part of their Climate Adaptation Science project.

It's a topic I've developed a personal interest in previously, so I'm excited and have thoughts. Scientists sit out too many city and state level policy debates. Universities have too many "gatekeepers," even in USU's decentralized PR model. Three pages press releases. Why?

In prep I've been delving into recent science related public policy debates from Florida to Arizona, looking at the quality and quantity of coverage. Some obvious questions arise frequently. What's the real value in filling valuable newspaper real estate or evening news minutes with "man on the street" reactions or, worse, statements from elected partisans? Am I missing something? They aren't informative or even interesting, yet they make up a good 30% of the reporting on, for example, the 2017 debate in Florida over a bill dealing with science curriculum and school texts.

"Scientists say the textbook in question presents an accurate and comprehensive look at the relevant science, and educators defend the curriculum as an important engagement opportunity with students. But Bob, retired electrician and television owner says it's all bulls**t written by Latte Libruls and a left-wing conspiracy to make the President look stupid. Congressman [X] says it's important we give both sides an opportunity to be heard in this important debate."

I'm barely exaggerating the average local story. Who is benefiting from this kind of coverage?

Anyway, here are some previous presentations from the same communicating science series. I don't see how I can leave politics out of my own, but we'll see.

Bruce Sterling ruins my day

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:59:00 +0000

One of my least favorite science fiction writers wrote a thing on "smart cities."

Sterling seems like a smart man, despite being a boring writer. But I've spent several years now working voluntarily with coalitions and cities in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming on transparency standards and "smart city" ideas to engage and understand residents. So, a little defensive at his dismissive tone as I read.

But he's right, the bastard.

If you look at where the money goes (always a good idea), it’s not clear that the “smart city” is really about digitizing cities. Smart cities are a generational civil war within an urban world that’s already digitized. It’s the process of the new big-money, post-internet crowd, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft et al., disrupting your uncle’s industrial computer companies, the old-school machinery guys who ran the city infrastructures, Honeywell, IBM, General Electric. It’s a land grab for the command and control systems that were mostly already there.

If smart cities don't exist -at least not in the "ground up" and "citizen driven" way they're talked about in transparency, open gov, and city planning circles- what happens to all this energy and increasing interest in being "smart" sprouting in small to mid-size cities of the west?

The GAFAM crowd isn’t all that well suited to the urban task at hand, either. Running cities is not a good business fit for them because they always give up too easily. America’s already littered with the remnants of abandoned Google Moonshots. Amazon kills towns by crushing retail streets and moving all the clerks backstage into blind big-box shipping centers. The idea of these post-internet majors muscling up for some 30-year urban megaproject—a subway system, aqueducts, the sewers—seems goofy.

These Big Tech players have certainly got enough cash to build a new, utopian town from scratch, entirely on their own software principles—a one-company Detroit for the Digital Initiative. But they won’t do that because they’re American. The United States hasn’t incorporated a major new city in almost 70 years.

Sterling barely touches on the philosophy or ideology of "smart city" agendas except to brush them off, but he's right about the futility and cynicism of "ground up" mythology built around such agendas. If "smart cities" are to actually be grassroots oriented and citizen driven it has to be, paradoxically, somewhat severed from "tech." Not technology itself, but the world of "tech" as most of us understand it via GAFAM.

Really smart cities won't be built around Silicon Valleys or Slopes, tech hubs, innovation corridors or Amazon warehouses, but, as Sterling is trying to say in too many words, very few "smart" cities are making the distinction. The danger for cities now is becoming yet another data funnel rather than savvy data consumer, the declared goal of a "smart city."

[Another take on the matter via the Guardian. Interesting, but always read Poole skeptically.]

Trump, fascism and action for action's sake

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:37:00 +0000

Eco.

Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

For most people questions of definition don't arise all that often. Maybe it's an instinctual "Ick" or a more thoughtful "this is bad," upon recognition. But not many people are watching the news and pondering the label or definition of what they're seeing and hearing. Thoughtful or emotional responses are limited (in time, not influence) to "I like" or "I dislike," with an occasional "WTF? Oh hell no." Once in a while, we're prodded, poked, guilted, or accidentally stumble upon a ballot and cast a vote and if asked at the polls, well, of course we're against fascism (and racism and tyranny and authoritarianism). But fascism, authoritarianism, tyranny, and to a large extent even racism are understood as a negative to be avoided, but not understood enough to recognized in subtle form. Throughout history fascists, authoritarians, racists, idiots, cynics, douches, and that one loud contrarian guy who reads CATO have their most crazy ideas and opinions elevated by this lack of depth to understanding. "Fascists" are things from history books and impoverished countries. "Real Racists" predate the 1960s. Dictators and authoritarians only rise to power in Central America and Africa. There will never be another Nazi rise or Hitler. Don't believe me? Ask around your workplace or bus ride home. Sure Trump is scary and crazy, but the next election is coming soon and the majority of Americans are wealthy enough, and comfy.

This isn't an elitist criticism of those with better things to do than immerse themselves in politics, history, or theory. Just an observation. Nor is this some extreme warning we're on the doorstep of Nazi Germany. We ain't. So far. Still, Eco's writing of the Ur-fascist and fascism's constant elements amid it's variations seems important to understanding what's happening today and, most specifically, what the morons still cheering this president on are embracing and responding to in their excitement. His proposed definition offers a chance to really ruin your own afternoon spotting hints and elements of Ur-Fascism in the halls of state houses, Congress, and the words of President Stable Genius.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

Know anyone thinking this way? Of course you do. We all do.

I recommend reading Eco's entire article. His distillation of fascism to a cult of tradition embedded in a rejection of modernism, embracing irrationalism as action for action's sake, and feeding on misplaced (or benefiting from misplacing) social frustrations and fear rooted in social identity will make it even more fun to read the news each day.

You're welcome.

"The kids know how to look out for it"

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:49:00 +0000

Appalling must-read from a columnist touring Louisiana's poorest industrialized communities.

Can't shake these paragraphs:

But the most tragic story involves the schools. Not only are Reserve children being poisoned with a known carcinogen but, “they’re not teaching our black boys anything except sports,” says Taylor. “They’ve taken out shop, they’ve taken out home economics, they’ve taken out music!” Remember, Wilma Subra had said, “the industries in these community become partners in education and have total control over the topics that are taught. If you have a student who wants to do a project about plant emissions, they get told, ‘No.’ And the school board members need money to run for election, and where do you think their money comes from…?”

Louisiana is intentionally raising a generation devoid of the knowledge necessary to comprehend their own toxic situation. Not only is the state poisoning its people, but it is taking away their means of being able to understand that they are being poisoned. And it doesn’t stop there. Louisiana State University and many reputable institutions across America receive large sums of money from the petrochemical industry, so who, Subra asks, is going to do the research that actually critiques these corporations?

A lot of legitimate panic now over the Trump administration's deregulation without thought, but this political cancer is rooted in decades (centuries?) of federal, state, county and city policies in the name of industry, infrastructure, blind capitalism and the cruel convenience of ignoring those most effected by the consequences.

DeVosed

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:41:00 +0000

The Donald's education secretary pick is... what you'd expect. Teachers, keep your eyes open.

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described Betsy DeVos as the “four-star general” of the school privatization movement shortly after DeVos announced the formation of the “new” American Federation for Children (AFC) in March 2010. As Boston noted, the American Federation for Children was not new, but a rebranding of an organization called Advocates for School Choice.The American Federation for Children is now the umbrella organization for two nonprofits that have been at the center of the pro-privatization movement for over a decade. In addition to the renamed Advocates for School Choice, it includes the Alliance for School Choice, formerly known as the Education Reform Council.

Kobached

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:48:00 +0000

Recent NYTimes editorial on potential Trump pick for DHS:

Mr. Kobach is pushing the myth that voter cheating is rampant. But he has utterly failed to document that, despite his Javert-like zealotry as secretary of state. In fact, the federal ruling against him said there was evidence of only three instances across 18 years in which noncitizens voted in Kansas.Mr. Kobach has not stopped at his state’s borders. He has been a principal contributor to the Republican Party platform. He wrote two pages of hard-edged immigration policy centered on Mr. Trump’s hateful fantasy of a wall that the plank trumpets “must cover the entirety of the southern border.” He helped write a plank condemning the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. He also helped write another setting the Republican Party squarely against any ban on assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines.

@KansasDems have been documenting this guy for a while. Follow.

"Monstrous Scapegoats"

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 18:24:00 +0000

Pro-Brexit voices have succeeded in creating two monstrous scapegoats in the public mind that supposedly congregate around London: the rootless, wealthy cosmopolite and the shifty, job-stealing foreigner. If that funhouse mirror rhetoric doesn’t ring a bell to American readers, I suggest you try cleaning your ears.

More.

10 years?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:56:00 +0000

Halfway through 2015 before it dawns on me this blog is 10 years old this year.

It's been pretty quiet here lately, but that doesn't mean I haven't been mouthing off elsewhere. You can hear me warping hearts and minds two hours daily on KVNU's For the People, and I write sometimes at Utah Politico Hub (where long time readers will find a lot of familiar names writing). And less frequently than I like, I contribute to JM Bell's media empire at Defenestrate Media and The Left Show.

Realizing the ten year mark had come, I also realized how many of us making noise then are still making noise now. Holly still fires up HollyontheHill.com regularly, and is now a member of the State Records Committee. JM Bell, mentioned above, has a whole team of podcasters doing his evil wishes. John Dougall has gone legit as a lawmaker and State Auditor but still builds as much space to debate on Facebook as his blog did then. Ric "It's just a webcam, Mr. President" Cantrell's baby The Senate Site is still full steam ahead and much more than just a blog now. Connor's Connundrums has morphed into a group effort at Libertas Utah. Jesse Harris is active at Utah Politico Hub, Coolest Family Ever and FreeUtopia. Curtis Haring, of Blue in Red Zion fame, is now writing (for money!) at Utah Political Capital. Bob Aagard still peddles his wit and insight at The World According to me. I even see Frank Staheli, The Third Avenue, and Jeremy Manning pop up in comments here and there still. [Update: I forgot the most important one! After a few year hiatus working for The Man -- or in this case, The Woman -- Joe Pyrah's The Sausage Grinder is returned, in UPH's Midday Commentary, with all the links and wit you've missed.)

Utah Amicus is silent. Ethan Millard has forsaken SLCSpin (and Twitter! Why, cruel world, why? That guy cracked me up in 140 character zingers.) but you can still hear him nightly on Nightside. Weber County Forum is still buzzing. Dave Fletcher's Gov and Tech is still a fun read. Paul Mero never had a blog that I remember, but he was at every Blogger Brunch, and once debated with Vince of Wasatch Watcher (now gone, with Vince living in Colorado) through an entire meal at Roosters.

For some reason Utah Rattler still exists, and still goes on about all those illegal immi-gants and their identity thievery, or something. UtahBloghive .org is still up, and even has a "Memories" section (Davis Didjeridu!), but One Utah is gone, and I'm not sure anyone misses it.

I'm sure I'm forgetting many more either still around or lost to careers or political frustrations. There are also a lot of new faces, like Chris Herrod's new outfit "Unconconunicorns" or some such, if you've run out of glass to chew.

I've met most of these folks mentioned IRL over the years, and even count several of them close friends. Everyone of us has a long history of debate, activism, failures, successes, and a hell of a lot of fun. It's interesting to see how everyone's involvement has evolved, but even more interesting to realize how many of these folks are still around since I first started reading and writing here back in 2005.

Other America. Still.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:59:00 +0000

Been following the Ferguson , MO shooting and aftermath (on Twitter, since it seems below the radar of cable news). The whole situation is unimaginable for those of us in the quiet, homogenous naivety of Utah and the west. The clip that has stuck with me from weekend coverage most is the police officer on camera, heard clearly, speaking to protestors, growling "Bring it on, you fucking animals."

A lot hasn't changed. MLKjr, 1967, The Other America:

Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?

Vox has a collection of Twitter coverage if you're just catching up.

WWII policy remade the economy

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:13:00 +0000

The hidden history of prosperity:

The war was, first, a massive macroeconomic stimulus. Unemployment was still more than 14 percent in 1940. Thanks to more than $100 billion of war-production orders in the first six months of 1942—more than the entire gross domestic product of 1939—joblessness vanished. The war also recapitalized industry that had languished during the Great Depression, and it gave government a central place in developing science and technology. The war was not just a huge jobs program but an unprecedented job-training program. President Franklin Roosevelt also chose to use war production to increase the power of unions as full social partners. A company that wanted defense contracts had to recognize its unions. So the war transformed labor markets.

Second, the war altered incomes. Steeply progressive income taxes with marginal rates as high as 94 percent, limits on executive compensation, and strict controls on the bond market led to a compression of the income distribution that lasted more than a quarter-century. The need to finance the war led to emergency measures pegging the rate on government bonds at a maximum of 2.5 percent. The Federal Reserve simply bought whatever quantity of bonds the war effort required. This meant that a major category of financial industry profit—buying, selling, and speculating in Treasury bonds—was eliminated, at the expense of the rentier class. Economists even have a name for this process: repression of finance. We could use some of that today.

Utah TAB Report: Portals, Priorities and Open Data Standards

noreply@blogger.com (Jason The) — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:08:00 +0000

UPDATE: Slightly tweaked final version, as submitted to legislative management, here.

Final (draft) report of the 2013 Utah Transparency Advisory Board to legislative management.

Utah TAB Report 11.13.2013-2