From Ms. Lanny-yap's FB Feed

NYT | Reality-Checking DT's First Month In Office

Quoctrung Bui | Claire Cain Miller | Kevin Quealy

Click image to enlarge

From The Upshot:

It’s understandable if President Trump’s first month in office has left your head spinning, given the pace of news, the middle-of-the-night Twitter posts and the vows to upend Washington.

To help us get our bearings, we asked experts across the ideological spectrum — people who have served in government or studied the way governments work — to rate 20 news events for importance and abnormality. More often than not, the administration’s actions have been both highly unusual and highly consequential, The Upshot’s 15 survey panelists said.

We asked our panelists: Was the event normal, like the veto of a bill in a prior administration? Or was it highly unusual in contemporary American democracy, like ordering newspapers to suspend publication of the Pentagon Papers? Also, was it unimportant, with limited or no consequences for federal policy, like the menu for a state dinner? Or was it important, creating lasting and significant changes in policy, like the establishment of Social Security?

On average, more than half the events were rated abnormal and important. The most extreme instances, they said, were the immigration ban; the use of falsehoods; and the president’s business conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court nomination and immigration raids were on average considered normal but important. The experts thought just two of the events would have limited or no policy consequences: the firing of the acting attorney general and Kellyanne Conway’s promotion of Ivanka Trump’s products.

Click here to review all 20 items, grouped by their quadrant on [the NYT's] reality-check matrix.

From Ms. Lanny-yap's FB Feed

Via Beth Woolsey

Click images to enlarge

A Day Without Women

From Ms. Lanny-yap's FB Feed

Theodore Geisel | 1941

Damien Love | Sunday Herald | Scotland | 16 Jan 2017

People's Climate March | 29 April 2017

Motivated by the success of the women's march ... as well as the Trump administration's efforts to revamp the nation's environmental protection and science policy, advocacy groups have announced a People's Climate March on Washington for April 29.

A steering committee of more than two dozen organizations is organizing the event. It is supported by the major national environmental groups and an array of social justice, religious, and labor groups, ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to the Franciscan Action Network to the BlueGreen Alliance. More than 100 groups have endorsed the march.

The People's Climate effort is recreating the coalition that put together the largest climate march in history: when 400,000 people gathered in the streets of New York City in September 2014 to coincide with the United Nations general assembly. This time, the groups are turning their sights on Washington, where Donald Trump is embarking on his agenda for his first 100 days, which aims to sweep aside climate protections and expand fossil fuel development.

Climate activist Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, wrote in a story in Rolling Stone magazine that the purpose of the march was "to show the election didn't cancel physics." "Politicians need to be reminded, even as they do the bidding of the industry, that the rest of us are watching," McKibben wrote, noting that the march will take place on the 100th day of the Trump administration. "His early surge can't be avoided, but it can be slowed."

InsideClimate News

March For Science | 22 April 2017

 

What started as offhand comments on social media have spiraled into the beginnings of a potentially large nationwide protest in support of empirical science. 

Inspired by the success of Women's Marches held worldwide in support of women's rights and other causes, and in light of numerous moves apparently aimed at silencing, minimizing, defunding, or discrediting the work of scientists during President Trump's first week in office, numerous groups and individuals have proposed holding a "March for Science" or "Scientists' March on Washington".  

As reported by the Washington Post, the idea went viral almost immediately after it was conceived:

In short order, the march had a Facebook page (whose membership swelled [overnight] from 200 people to more than 150,000 by ]the following afternoon]), a Twitter handle, a web site, two co-chairs, [postdoc Jonathan] Berman and science writer and public health researcher Caroline Weinberg, and a Google form through which interested researchers could sign up to help.  

In response to our inquiry, organizers told us that things were moving quickly and that they plan on releasing both a date for the event and a platform statement by 30 January. In terms of the group’s ability to handle such a rapidly growing concept proposed by a diffuse group of different individuals, they said in an e-mail:

At present we have around 10 people spending a truly horrifying amount of time working to pull this off and around 30 contributing wherever they can. We also have, at present count, 9000 people who have reached out to volunteer to help.  

Though their platform is not finalized, they told us that their motivation was both non-partisan and straightforward: 

Scientists worldwide have been alarmed by the clear anti-science actions taken by the Trump administration. It has been less than a week and there have already been funding freezes and efforts to restrict scientists from communicating their findings (from tax-funded research!) with the public. These actions are absurd and cannot be allowed to stand as policy. This is not a partisan issue — people from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by these efforts to deny scientific progress. Scientific research moves us forward and we should not allow asinine policies to thwart it. 

According to the Scientists' March on Washington web site, the event will be open to “anyone who believes in empirical science” and not restricted to scientists specifically.

Snopes! Now more than ever! 

Source: snopes.com

28 Jan 2917 - Updated to reflect organizer's choice of title for the march.

Women's March On Washington | Sister March | 5000 Attend Baltimore Vigil

Baltimore Sun photo | Click to enlarge

Ms. Lanny-yap is circled in red.

The Baltimore Sun estimates that 5,000 people attended a demonstration in Charles Village today as part of the Women's March on Washington. Organizers say they originally "envisioned a small vigil for Baltimore ... thinking [it] might attract 20 to 40 people who would stand on the sidewalk."

And, from the Women's March in Washington:

You said it, Jennifer.

"And The White House Will Be Occupied By A Downright Fool And Complete Narcissistic Idiot"

Click here to see how cartoonists from around the world are showing their feelings about the incoming administration.

From Ms. Lanny-yap's FB Feed

Dame Judi Dench, 81

Amy Dickinson Nails It

Ask Amy column

Baltimore Sun | 28 Nov 16

And, similarly:

Attributed to actress Deborah Messing on Twitter | Via FB

Guide to Ethical Purchasing

This website rates companies and/or CEOs based on where they made political contributions, mostly in the 2016 election.

Data gathered from the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org), www.campaignmoney.com, and the Federal Election Commission (www.fec.gov). 

Sometimes it’s difficult to gauge where PAC money is going and who is contributing, and this list may not be completely accurate (or inclusive) so feel free to contact admin@ethicalpurchasing.info if you have additional information.

Red: Companies that contributed to Trump/Pence campaign (or Ted Cruz), whose CEO’s publicly endorsed Trump, and/or who support more extremist right-wing policies/organizations

Yellow: Companies who have contributed to both GOP/Democrat candidates. Those closer to the red zone favor GOP candidates.

Green: Companies who contributed to HRC and/or other Democrat candidates, and/or whose CEOs who have publicly supported HRC and/or liberal causes.

How to Effectively Lobby Your Congressperson

Emily Ellswoth in Jezebel:

It’s been almost a week since the election, and maybe you’re ready to throw off the sackcloth and ashes and get to work. Combining the anger, bargaining, and depression stages of grief can lead to powerful actions, and now is the time to channel that energy into specific activism that will serve as a barrier between you and whatever legislation and policies come down in the next four years.

I worked for Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Congressman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) from 2009 to 2014 as a state office-staffer. My full-time job was to listen to constituents and make sure their voices were heard by their elected officials. After nearly six years on the job, I got a good idea of what types of activism worked and what didn’t. I learned that a coordinated effort with a large group of people goes a long way toward influencing change. Here’s how to make that happen.

Recognize how congressional representatives and their staffs work

Members of the House of Representatives have small budgets and a small staff of a dozen or so people and a handful of interns. Senators have much larger budgets and staff, but they also represent a larger constituency, meaning they run into similar problems with trying to listen to everyone in their state.

Because elected officials represent hundreds of thousands and even millions of people, they rely on a few systems to try to prioritize and respond to constituent correspondence in many forms. Social media is not as powerful because it’s easy to ignore and impossible to tell if you live in their district or state. Emails and letters are usually grouped by topic and counted, and mass mailings of form letters that address the topic generally are sent in response.

This is why responses rarely respond directly to your concerns and feel often feel impersonal. Your messages are tracked and put into reports for the representative to read, and a few are selected by staffers for the representative to look at individually. With hundreds of letters and emails coming in every day, it’s impossible for staff to always recognize which are most important or for the representative to read them.

Understand why phone calls and in-person meetings are more effective

Because emails and other written correspondence is so easily batched by computer programs, a hundred or a thousand emails on a subject both require the same amount of effort by staff. Phone calls are more effective because they require a staffer to be on the phone with someone and respond to questions immediately.

Calling your representative’s DC office might feel more natural because they are the office primarily responsible for managing legislation. However, the state office staffers are usually from your state and part of the community you live in—they are truly local. Also, state office numbers are less likely to be busy or have a long hold. Significant volumes of calls in a state office also require coordination by the DC and district office staff and get noticed right away.

From time to time, I had large groups of people come into our state office by appointment and share their stories. This was particularly effective with immigration and climate change groups who brought in experts to answer questions. They gave perspective and knowledge we would not have had otherwise. It is easy to get an appointment with a local staffer or a DC staffer, and these relationships pay off.

For those who are unable to make phone calls or in-person visits for any reason, that’s okay. It doesn’t mean your voice goes unheard. Most constituents have never contacted their representative, so you’re miles ahead of your neighbors. Sending emails and letters as part of a coordinated effort make a difference and send a message.

Get involved with local advocacy groups

Advocacy groups do more than spend money on lobbying in Washington, DC. Many of them have local chapters organize and make connections with members of congress and their staff. The most effective ones understand that a direct connection with the staff is just as important as meeting with the representative.

Advocacy groups research the most important pieces of legislation and where they are in Congress. They know who is on which committees and can organize phone trees, email campaigns, and in-person meetings to put pressure on elected officials. They organize and activate so you don’t have to be an expert on everything and you can be as involved as you’d like.

These groups also present an opportunity for those who live in districts or states where they largely agree with their representatives. They need your volunteer and monetary support for areas where there is more work to be done.

Know who to call and what to talk about

As angry as you might be about the election, the electoral college, or the president-elect’s tweets, your member of congress does not have control over these things. Be informed about who your member of congress is and what role they play in the federal government. Do not call your House of Representatives member asking for Supreme Court confirmation hearings, because those hearings happen in the Senate—call your senator instead.

Similarly, do not bother calling a representative’s office if you do not live in their district. Most offices ask where you live and do not record opinions from outside their districts and states. Instead, focus on encouraging your own representative when you agree with them or pushing for more action.

Keep your phone calls brief and ask questions that a staffer must answer. For instance, rather than calling in with a rant about obstructionist policies (completely legitimate, but easy to ignore), come up with a natural script with specifics such as bill numbers and it’s place on the schedule so the staff knows you know what you’re talking about.

Make sure you ask your question in a way that is respectful and requires an answer. If they dodge the question, you can ask it again, voice your opinion, and then ask that it be recorded. If the staffer doesn’t know enough about the issue (often an intern), you can ask to speak to a senior staffer or the legislative director who will know more about the policy and the representative’s position.

Now is the time to begin grassroots organization. Get involved in a few key issues that are relevant in your state and that are important to you. Reach out to groups that already have networks and begin volunteering. Put your representatives’ numbers in your phone. You’ll be ready now and on January 22nd.

Read the series tweets that prompted this article here.

Emily Ellsworth is a freelance writer, editor, and social media marketer. She worked for Congressman Jason Chaffetz from 2009-2012 as his Provo district office manager and for Congressman Chris Stewart from 2013-2014 as his constituent services manager. During the 2016 election, she was a part of the group Republican Women for Hillary and ran a local chapter in Utah.

Source 

Dunning-Kruger Effect | Illusory Superiority

Loveland, Colorado | October 2016 | Nate Gowdy

The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. In simple words it's "people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are".

... The Dunning-Kruger effect is a slightly more specific case of the bias known as illusory superiority, where people tend to overestimate their good points in comparison to others around them, while concurrently underestimating their negative points. The effect has been shown by experiment in several ways, but in this case Dunning and Kruger tested students on a series of criteria such as humour, grammar, and logic and compared the actual test results with each student's own estimation of their performance.

Those who scored well on these tests were shown, consistently, to underestimate their performance. This is not terribly surprising and can be explained as a form of psychological projection: those who found the tasks easy (and thus scored highly) mistakenly thought that they would also be easy for others. This is similar to the aforementioned "impostor syndrome" — found notably in graduate students and high-achieving women — whereby high achievers fail to recognise their talents as they think that others must be equally good.

More interestingly, and the subject of what became known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who scored lowest on the test were found to have "grossly overestimated" their scores. And what about the underachievers who overestimated their performance? In the words of Dunning and Kruger: This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

Source | Journal Article  

 

Via FB

Any Purebreeds Left?

Ms. Pierson is Donald Trump's spokesperson.