Climate Change, Is It a Hoax, or Is the Hoax a Hoax?

Climate Change is a long standing public issue that has coalesced into a highly divisive issue in America’s political landscape. This is one of those irrational oddities since the majority of the public (that includes Republicans, Democrats and independents) believe that Climate Change is real and that the country (and its government) should be doing something about it. There is a subset of politicians, and of course their corresponding constituencies, that believes that Climate Change is a hoax, a conspiracy, or foreign plot being orchestrated to destroy America.

This bipolar reality creates a natural and obvious context for an American Intelligence Test. While Climate Change may be another irrational political issue that provides funding opportunities for incumbents and contending candidates, Climate Change isn’t at its core really a political question. You should thus be aware that the test isn’t simply about whether Climate Change is real or not on the political front. Further, just because politicians have simple answers to this or other issues has never been a reliable indication of intelligence, and usually is more an indicator of the incompetency of politicians than it is any demonstration of politicians understanding of an issue.

So, if you think you can weather the test, just click and start.

Question A:   What is the Climate Change issue?
Select the statement closest to your advocated position.

(1). Climate Change is a hoax and has no scientific basis.

(2). Climate Change is a shift in the earth’s weather (temperature, precipitation, humidity, sea-level, …  and other factors that characterize the “physics” of weather) on a global basis, and that is sustained over decades, centuries or geological eras.

(3). Climate Change is a shift in the earth’s weather (see 2. above) that is caused by human activities and that would not have occurred without that activity.

(4). Climate Change is a shift in local/regional weather (see 2. above) but need be reflected globally across the planet.

(5). Climate Change is a shift in local/regional weather (see 2. above) that is caused by human activities and that would not have occurred without that activity, but need not be reflected globally across the planet.

(6). Climate Change is any shift in the earth’s weather (see 2. above) that is different than it has been over the last ten years or less.

(7). Climate Change is any shift in local/regional weather (see 2. above) that is caused by human activities and that would not have occurred without that activity, but need not be reflected globally across the planet and is different than it has been over the last ten years or less.

(8). I don’t know.

(9). My definition of Climate Change is substantively different than any of the above.

Answer - A:  3 is the correct answer.

Answer 2 is a close second but misses the issue.

None of the other answers are adequate to score positively on the test, and no answers receive negative scores (thought this may be a procedural mistake).

Rationale -A:       The “issue” is “man-caused” Climate Change, and gains its energy from disagreements over whether it warrants global, national and social efforts to affect its impact on the earth and nations.

Answer 2 is not “the issue” in America because the “issue” is related to the ‘man-caused” aspect of Climate Change. Answer 2 is a generic definition about how a ‘change’ in climate would be quantified regardless of cause. There may be questions and issues around whether the Climate is changing irrespective of human activity, but that is not the political issue that makes the headlines and constitutes the question that the public fights over.

Answers 4 and 5 are at best a sub-set of 2 and 3 respectively, but not the main issue argued about.

Answers 6 and 7 are not adequately distinguishable from variations in the weather that can occur but are not indicative of a change in the normal state rather than just being different from one year to the next.

Answer 1 is not the “issue” but an assessment on the issue. This answer reflects negatively on the likely outcome of your test results.

Answer 8 suggests that you need not proceed if you know so little of the issue.

Answer 9 indicates you have a less than commonly recognized definition. This answer is thus non-responsive.

Question B:   Is Climate Change occurring? 
Answer each sub-question Yes or No or IDK (I don’t know)

(1). Generic Climate Change - globally (as in by Answer A-2)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

(2). Climate Change from human-activity - globally (man-caused)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

(3). Generic Climate Change – regional/local (as in Answer A-2)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

(4). Climate Change from human-activity – regional/local (man-caused)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

Answer - B:  1. Yes,   2. Yes,  3. Yes,   4. Yes

Rationale -B:       1. Data on the physical environment that characterize climate indicate a shift from what would be the ‘norm’. The changes are sufficient to establish a credible assessment of the Climate having changed and probable expectation that the change will continue. Plus, there is the scientific community, nationally and internationally, that have concluded Climate Change has occurred.

2. Given 1 above, then simple physics.

3. Consider the impossibility of 1 being true and 3 not being.

4. Integrate the logic of 2 and 3. You could just consider any major city.

Question C:   Which of the following person(s) or entities constitute an authoritative source you would recognize and trust regarding the validity of Climate Change?

(1). President of United States

(2). NASA

(3). National Academy of Sciences, USA

(4). National US news broadcast media

(5). American Institute of Physics

(6). Environmental Protection Agency

(7). Congress: The Senate

(8). Science departments of Private and Public Universities

(9). International Council for Science

(10). National Science Foundation

(11). Americans for Prosperity

(12). Russian Academy of Sciences

(13). Congress: House of Representatives

(14). United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(15). American Enterprise Institute

(16). Politicians in general

Answer - C:  2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14

Rationale -C:       These entities strive to operate in the name of science and in service to humanity and the future. If you expect to be prepared for the future, you need have those who study and become experts in understanding reality. You can choose to follow a different route, but the best and brightest would point you to Darwin to contemplate the consequences. If you’re particularly religious and of a Christian faith the Bible teaches to go with science.

1, 7, 13 and 16 are generally not trusted by the public. What amount of reliance would you place in people you don’t trust? If they are just presenting the views of those entities noted above then you are not trusting in them, but in the sources.

11 and 15 are examples of entities funded by interest groups whose influence and objectives compromise a trusted confidence in their goals, results and efforts. Achieving a recognized level of respect and integrity as leaders in their field would be simple to do, but none of them have attempted to demonstrate their status as ‘best in class’ scientific organizations.

4 is not a source for the expertise on the issue. The media is a conduit for dissemination of the information that the experts produce. The media can succeed or fail at their job and thus cause turmoil but they do not change the science.

Question D:   What actions are appropriate or inappropriate for Congress or the Executive to take if they doubt/reject the scientific consensus and public consensus that Climate Change is occurring and a risk to the nation?
Indicate ‘A’ if an item is appropriate or ‘I’ if it is inappropriate.  Indicate with a “Y” on inappropriate actions that have been done by Congress or the Executive; and a “N” on appropriate action that have not be done.

(1). Promoting and increasing the funding of research programs in colleges and universities on Climate Change.

(2). Restricting the use of the term “climate change” in state or federal reports.

(3). Directing the EPA to collect additional information/data and perform additional analysis to provide a better understanding of the issue.

(4). Reducing agencies’ budgets for research and analysis related to climate change related work.

(5). Engaging in international efforts to establish initiatives to combat climate change.

(6). Prohibiting government agencies from engaging in climate research.

(7). Funding alternate energy research, production and use to combat Climate Change.

(8). Preventing/Restricting state and local legislatures and agencies from affecting climate programs on their own via overriding federal action.

(9). Incorporating IRS tax code incentives for investments in technologies or infrastructure that reduce causal factors that contribute to Climate Change.

Answer - D:  1. A, N
2. I, Y
3. A, N
4. I, Y
5. A, N
6. I, Y
7. A
8. I, Y
9. A, N

Rationale -D:       Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 would be reasonable actions to advance and improve the science and understanding of Climate and Climate Change. Even if you doubt the judgement and recommendations of experts, these are tasks that would be necessary if you wanted more information about Climate Change.

Items 2, 4, 6, and 8 are the polar opposite of advancing knowledge and information to resolve the issues that obstruct someone who doesn’t agree with the scientific community, and creates obstacles to sustain a state of ignorance.

Question E:    Politicians that oppose government actions on Climate Change often claim that it is an “unsettled scientific issue”. Answer the five sub-questions on this line of reasoning.

E-1: Based on who’s judgement are politicians claiming the issue is “unsettled?

(1). Their own understanding of ‘the science’.

(2). A consensus of the scientific community.

(3). A majority of the scientific community.

(4). Individuals, foundations and other entities funded by petrochemical companies

(5). Their respective electorate.

(6). Special-interest groups that contribute to their campaigns.

(7). The public policy position of their political party.

Answer - E:  E-1: 1, 4, and 6

Rationale -E:       E-1: 1, 4, and 6 are the most likely factors used by politicians since the motivating elements are not basically scientific.

Item 7 may be a second-tier factor if items 4 and 6 are less engaged in the politician’s campaign funding sources. Item 5 would only be relevant if their constituency were a statistical aberration.

Items 2 and 3 would imply politicians relied upon informed and reasoned judgement.

E-2: Which conditions are necessary to “settling” the scientific issue?

(1). Agreement of and with scientific entities and organizations that are recognized by the general scientific community as knowledgeable and competent in the subject.

(2). The news media accepts the issue as settled based on their sources and assessment of the scientific communities’ inputs.

(3). No entity or organization claiming expertise in the particular scientific area disagrees with the consensus position.

(4). Congressional committees’ agreement where they have jurisdiction over public policies related to the scientific issue.

(5). The majority of the public holds the same opinion as the majority of the scientific community.

(6). A “cause and effect” process/model that can predict future data / observations.

Answer - E:  E-2: 1 is the only necessary condition.

Rationale -E:       E-2: When dealing with a scientific issue, the only reasonable method of providing the current status and nature of the issue is to rely on the ‘best current’ knowledge the experts, authorities and communities in the field agree upon. The use of the “unsettled” concept is an insipid attempt to distract and confuse. There is no “settled” science, since the entire scientific enterprise is the active and continued exploration for a ‘better’ understanding and  better theories to more fully explain reality.

While item 6 is a desirable goal to achieve, it doesn’t prohibit others from claiming that it doesn’t “settle” the issue.

None of the other answers warrant an effort.

E-3: Whose judgement would be adequate to “settle” the science?

(1). Congressional committees’ determination based on their holding hearings with scientific leaders (of their choosing) and concluding the state of the issue: settled, unsettled or rejected.

(2). The general media and news outlets

(3). An international scientific forum

(4). Federal agency(ies) that have legislative responsibilities related to the scientific issue.

(5). President of the United States

(6). National scientific organizations, associations and universities that represent the research, educational, and oversight of their respective scientific, mathematical, technical, and engineering areas.

Answer - E:  E-3: 6

Rationale -E:       E-3: Item 6 is adequate because it possesses the relevant knowledge base to be applied to the decision. Item 3 is a superset that would include 6 and thus is redundant with 6, so “more than adequate”.

E-4: Is Climate Change an “unsettled scientific issue”?    Yes  |  No

Answer - E:  E-4: No

Rationale -E:       E-4: It wasn’t meant to be a trick question but even most groups that oppose the ‘man-made’ contribution to Climate Change position are willing to cede that the world’s climate has changed during the last several decades.
The continuation of their resistance to acknowledge a ‘significant’ contribution from human activity is a different issue. It is the human contribution issue that is the prevalent, popular and profitable point of contention.

E-5: Does human-activity contribute to Climate Change? Yes  |  No

Answer - E:  E-5: Yes

Rationale -E:       E-5: Consider how even the uninformed would explain how it is possible for human activity to have “no” influence on the world. To have an absolute zero impact on climate would require that mankind also has no impact on anything. It is not a possible reality.

At this point the argument will shift to mankind doesn’t make a ‘significant’ contribution to Climate Change. So now we are haggling over the price? If you don’t get the reference, that’s really unfortunate for you.

Question F:    Is Global Warming a current instance of Climate Change?  Yes  |  No

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale -F:        If your answer was no because you do not support human-activity as a ‘significant’ contributing factor, then go back and read the question. Is your assumption valid? Do you know what assumption you made that misled you?

When the physical factors provide information/data that does not conform to a statistical rejection of the hypothesis that past data and current data are different then there is a change. Is it warmer? Look at the data.

Question G:   If the US government (Executive and Congress) were to hold a position that rejects that Climate Change is real and that Global Warming is a good description of its current state, what actions should the government take?

(1). Refuse to act prematurely and demand that the science be “settled”.

(2). Fund more research on Climate.

(3). Establish policies that account for the risks that Climate Change would pose if at some later date the science is “settled”.

(4). Fund research in areas that would deliver reductions in factors that are linked to Climate Change.

(5). Provide incentives (or increased incentives) for clean-energy investments.

Answer - G:  2, 4 and 5

Rationale -G:       These are proactive efforts that benefit the nation even if the government is in disagreement with the scientific experts and the most informed judgement on the issue.

Item 3 is at best a non-backward step, it would be the act of politicians trying to appear to be responsible while they delay work that may be crucial to the nation’s interests.

Item 1 is a measure of the incompetence of those in government, or a disingenuous position used to support other interests that would not pass a ‘red-faced’ test.  

American Intelligence Test: How Sick Is America’s Health-Care System?

Preface: The Affordable Care Act – ACA, aka: Obamacare has existed for the last 6 years, and by some counts there have been approximately 60+ attempts to repeal the legislation. This would appear to represent a significant investment in time and effort in addressing the profound ideological issues and problems that the ACA presents to those who oppose(d) it.

Beginning in 2017, those previous efforts will come to fruition with the expected … uh, now this is where it gets interesting since the clarity of direction to repeal has become just a touch ill-defined. But with the years of work that has gone into its repeal, or replacement, or redesign, or yet-to-be determined reconstruction there should be a high-level of information and understanding about the issues and problems with Obamacare and of necessity with America’s health-care system.

So, this AIT will obviously be easy to answer. What’s unclear is whether with 6 years of practice the test can be passed or not. If nothing else, you may wonder what our politicians have been doing for the last 6 years, the last decade, and the last quarter of a century in grappling with the nation’s health-care policy and system.

Question A:    What are essential elements to setting America’s health-care public policy and solving the health-care system issue? Select each principle or facet of health-care that needs to be part of any solution to the nation’s health-care issues.

(1). Single-payer system

(2). Competitive marketplace

(3). Universal coverage

(4). Voucher - based support

(5). Individual Mandate – based support

(6). Limited to a Basic-type of medical coverage only

(7). Limited to “Catastrophic” medical coverage only

(8). Block-grants to States to be managed by States

(9). Service/Treatment/Procedure – based pricing

(10). Outcome / Results – based pricing

(11). Prescription Drugs included

(12). Includes Medicare / Medicaid

(13). Safety-net for the poor

(14). None of the above

Answer - A:  2 and 3

Rationale - A:        These two elements are the only requirements in the above list necessary to achieving a rational, effective and sustainable health-care policy; but they are not the only requirements that are necessary. What is important about these two items is that they represent conditions that must be understood within the context of designing a health-care system as they are seminal concepts that when ignored, misunderstood or misapplied sow the seeds of ruin in any health-care system that is created. This explains why Congress has never been able to adequately deal with the issue. Congress is not up to the cognitive requirements needed to solve the health-care issue; beginning with understanding it.

The other choices are elements from which politicians pick their preferred subset to proclaim as a matter faith that their approach will solve the health-care system’s problems. But in lacking an understanding of the problem, our politicians will continue their propensity to fail at their jobs. This is not to say that some/any of these elements can’t be used to create a well-designed, efficient, lower-cost, and sustainable health-care, but simply including them is also no guarantee that they will produce desirable effects. A phenomenon that is beyond the ken of politicians.

Question B:   Who should pay for what the nation’s health-care system provides?

(1). Federal government

(2). State governments

(3). Federal and State governments

(4). Individuals and families

(5). Employers

(6). All the above

Answer - B:  4

Rationale - B:      This may come as a surprise to many people but there is only one group that can pay for a health-care system. This is because only people (individuals and families) can pay for anything. The only source of revenues is via taxation for federal, state, or any governmental entity.

Employers can be taxed as proxies for individuals and families but this only provides an indirect source since the companies that employ people passes their costs along in their products which ultimately end up at their customers who are people. Nothing wrong with taxing companies, but that doesn’t mean that you should think it isn’t being paid for by the people.     

Question C:   How should income-level get accounted for under a US health-care public policy?

(1). No accommodation. One price for everyone, either pay or no health-care

(2). A tiered price structure, something similar to proposed Tax-brackets, that sets a premium rate based on income-level

(3). A single tax-rate based on total earned income (no deductions or exemptions) that will support a ‘basic’ policy

(4). Government funding for poverty-level individuals/families

(5). Government funding for poverty-level children only

(6). The commercial marketplace will offer policies designed to provide plans that are priced to low-income individuals/families

(7). None of the above

Answer - C:  7

Rationale - C:      You cannot choose a pricing structure on to a health-care system without understanding and agreeing to what the health-care policy and the system are going to be. While Congress may not understand this, the reality of economics imposes an unavoidable balance sheet to the health-care system, just like it does for every other area of social existence.

That there must be some accommodation to income-level(s) in the health-care policy is essential. How that accommodation will be made and what it will means the cause and effect consequences are will depend upon the definition of the policy and its requirements.

If you’re a proponent from one of the other options, well then you’ve assumed a lot about the health-care policy that is most likely what you want it to be, not what it is going to be, nor what it ought to be if the nation wants a rational, effective, and sustainable system.

Question D:   Which would define one or more “direct measures of success” for the nation’s health-care?

(1). Lower federal expenditures for health-care programs

(2). Lower rates of increase to federal expenditures for health-care programs

(3). Fewer people dying under the health-care programs per dollar spent

(4). Less expenditures on last-year of life costs

(5). Lower cost-per-capita for health-care programs

(6). More individuals covered without increase costs to programs

(7). Lower premium prices for average individual

(8). Lower rate of increases to premium prices for average individual

(9). Increased ‘life expectancy’

(10). Decrease in ‘mortality’ rates for top-ten fatal medical conditions

(11). None of the above

Answer - D:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Rationale - D:      Any of these, and thus all of them, would be a direct measure of success. There could be any number of additional direct measures of success for the current ACA, for its repeal-replacement, for a ‘fixed’-ACA, or for whatever Congress ultimately delivers.

Of course the possibility that there could be and should be well-defined direct measures of success for the nation’s health-care policy and system; there is little to no chance that Congress would understand this, and thus will not provide any.

Question E:    Should an individual’s health-care services’ cost or their health-care insurance cost differ for (answer Yes or No for each item):

(1). Age

(2). Gender

(3). Smoking vs. Non-smoking

(4). Number of years of active insurance coverage

(5). Obesity

(6). History of Drug-abuse

(7). Employment / Unemployment

(8). Occupation / Life-style choices

(9). Preexisting conditions

(10). Wealth

(11). Citizenship

Answer - E:  Yes, for every item.

Rationale - E:      The cost of health-care depends upon many factors and thus to provide it requires that a competent understanding of the influence that those factors contribute need to be incorporated into the planning, implementation and operation of the nation’s health-care policy and system.

Some of these factors are already part of health-care programs and there are others. Some new factors would provide useful tools and methods to assist in countering cost drivers. Others are a recognition that the health-care system is a societal construct and ought to hold the society accountable for its public policy and the cause and effect consequences of that policy.

Question F:    A leading element in some of the proposed ACA-replacement health-care policies is the use of vouchers in place of the ‘individual mandate’ for insurance coverage. Is a voucher-based approach better than the mandate approach?

(1). Yes  /  No

Answer - F:  No

Rationale - F:      A voucher system is an implementation choice that in and of itself doesn’t guarantee anything. Fundamentally, a voucher system is little different from an individual mandate system. It fundamentally comes down to a different form of taxation and where the funding is derived.

Question G:   Do emergency health-care conditions have a different public policy basis than general medical needs? What about catastrophic illnesses? What about pre-existing conditions?

(1). Emergency conditions:   Yes  /  No

(2). Catastrophic illnesses:    Yes  /  No

(3). Pre-existing conditions:   Yes  /  No

Answer - G:  1. Yes,  2. Yes,  3.  Yes

Rationale - G:     1. Since emergency rooms are treated differently under current law, they will require well-defined requirements and cost-support structure. If the care requirements are changed then the method of funding needs to be correspondingly addressed. If the requirement to provide emergency services is maintained, then the healthcare policy ought to address how it’s costs are to be accounted for in the funding.

2. Coverage or non-coverage of catastrophic illnesses needs to be spelled-out under the health-care policy and any costs accounted for in the pricing structure and revenue sourcing that will be tied to that policy.

3. There are numerous facets to pre-existing conditions that need to be accounted for under a policy. Whether public policy provides for pre-existing conditions or not, there are consequences to the health-care system; thus like anything else that is part of the problem, Congress can’t ignore it and the public can’t ignore it without there being consequences (acknowledged or not).

Question H:   Which of the following factors contribute to a high-cost, inefficient, and irrational health-care policy and system?

(1). Mandated emergency room treatment

(2). Medicare / Medicaid exclusion from prescription drug price negotiating.

(3). State-bounded insurance products

(4). HMOs, PPOs, POSs, EPOs, …

(5). Procedure-based pricing

Answer - H:  All the above.

Rationale - H:      These are health-care policy requirements or approaches that are not designed to accomplish socially beneficial health-care systems. They reflect decisions that have been made in the past to provide the health-care policy and system that we have today. If that system is flawed, broken and unsustainable then these items have a priori contributory.

Question I:      Indicate which of the following entities are/have been a contributing factor in increasing the cost of health-care? Select all that apply.

(1). Executive branch

(2). Congress

(3). Department of Health

(4). Insurance Companies

(5). Democrats

(6). Republicans

(7). Medical (health-care) Corporations:  hospitals, treatment facilities, pharmaceutical companies, assisted living facilities, …

(8). Medical products and device manufacturers

(9). Financial industry

(10). Physicians

(11). Special-interest lobbying groups

(12). The public

(13). All the above

Answer - I:  12

Rationale - I:        We did not arrive at this juncture with a broken health-care system without either the active or passive participation in creating the policies, programs and processes that have wrought the mess that we have today. It would be pointless to attempt to assess which entities (CONGRESS) have played the biggest role in causing the health-care crisis.

Question J:    Who does pay for health-care costs in America? Select those that apply.

(1). Individuals / families who buy insurance

(2). Companies / corporations that provide employee health-care as a benefit

(3). Federal government

(4). State governments

(5). Health-care Insurance companies

(6). Tax-payers

(7). Companies / corporations that provide executives or owners with health-care benefits

(8). Medicare / Medicaid participants

(9). Employees

Answer - J:  1

Rationale - J:       The answer to Question B and its rationale are unchanged. The public pays for the health-care it provides or doesn’t provide. The nature of the costs that are being paid are thus not necessarily what you would think of as health-care costs.

So how confident are you in Congress’ ability to ‘fix’ health-care? Well, don’t worry; it’s not like it’s going to cost you anything.

American Intelligence Test: Is There a Russian Bear Under the Table?

The ‘buzz’ persists around the question of did the Russian’s interfere with the 2016 Election. As with all national issues, there are various groups strategically placed around the political board attempting to win the ‘game’ or at least strengthen their position and options. But even though there are a lot of statements, assertions, and answers being presented by each entrenched pack of partisans; is the ‘discussion’ based on sound and reasoned judgement?

The answer to this question should be obvious. But before you agree or disagree with it, the smart thing to do is see if the members of those different groups competing for the public’s opinion can pass a basic intelligence test on this disputed topic. As you are either a member of one (or more) of those groups or are amongst the non-aligned crowd, you represent a surrogate for the aggregate intelligence of the group. Don’t be nervous, you are most likely of normal intelligence both in the context of your self-selected group(s) and the public as a whole.

If you take the test and disagree with the provided correct answers then you can take comfort in the expectation that most others in your group(s) would probably agree with you. Of course, the test of intelligence is not whether other’s agree with you or not. Rather the correct answers are determined by whether they demonstrate an informed and accurate understanding and knowledge of facts and conditions, if your answers lead to actions and decisions that respond effectively and efficiently to reality, if they conform to the laws of physics, and if your answers are superior to answers provided by others. With that, here is the American Intelligence Test on:

ISSUE: Determining If There Was Russian Interference in the 2016 Election

Question 1. Would it be unusual for Russia to interfere with a US Presidential election?   Yes  /  No

Question 2. Do other nations interfere with our Presidential elections?   Yes  /  No

Question 3. Which, if any, of the following activities by a foreign nation would constitute an unacceptable type of interference in US elections?

A.      Statements of concern about one candidate, but not the other

B.      Statements of support about one candidate, but not the other

C.      Contributions (which are illegal for foreign entities) made indirectly via some ‘backdoor’ means to one or even both candidates

D.      Disclosure of information obtained by ‘hacking’/cyber-intrusions (acts that are illegal for US citizens)

E.       Dissemination of ‘false’ information created by a foreign state about a candidate

F.       Intrusion into the voting process/systems to alter the data, and thus the results, of an election

G.      All the above are unacceptable interference

H.      None of the above would be an act of unacceptable interference

Question 4. Who would you rely on to determine if some nation had engaged in ‘hacking/cyber-espionage or data-corruption/manipulation to impact US elections?  Select the following items that you would depend upon.

A.      Persons/entities that are experts in internet/cyber-security risks, threats, methodologies, and processes

B.      Politicians / elected officials

C.      Appointed government officials, including those heading departments, agencies, organizations that are engaged in internet/cyber-security surveillance

D.      News media entities reporting on events related to ‘intrusion’ events

E.       Individuals with educational background, work-experience, and recognized track-record in cyber-attack detection, interception, prevention, analysis, tracking, and research

F.       Leaders/representatives of foreign nation associated with the event(s)

G.      Spokespersons, surrogates or members of a candidate’s election team

H.      Reports from the following entities:  NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, various military intelligence groups, and other government security organizations

I.         Congressional Intelligence Oversight committee

J.        All the above

K.       None of the above

Question 5. Is there a difference between interfering in an election via pre-election false news, private/internal campaign information disclosures and ‘hacking’ activities; and during the election’s actual voting period by cyber-based acts to disrupt/delay the vote casting process, alter voters’ data, or manipulating the counting/tabulation or results process(es)?   Yes  /  No

Question 6. Which is more dangerous to the nation?

A.      The news media being incapable of framing the issue to and for the public, nor in exploring what the basis is for any group that supports opposing position

B.      A foreign nation covertly engaging in supporting one candidate by providing illegally obtaining information about that candidate’s opponent

C.      A nation’s leader that doesn’t bring this issue to the fore because it will become a political partisan issue

D.      A foreign nation covertly attempting to change the results of an election’s voting data

E.       A nation’s leader relying upon their own judgement absent relevant expertise

F.       The public/voters who judge this issue along partisan lines

That’s it. You’ve completed the test. You need not read any further, any value you may have derived will have occurred if you thought about what your answers are. If, however, you are curious about how your answers relate to the correct answers, those are given below.

Correct answers:

Q-1: No

Q-2: Yes

Q-3: C, D, E, F

Q-4: A, E, H

Q-5: Yes

Q-6: F

If you don’t agree, while it may not help, here is the reasoning I would expect you to refute with more than “No, that’s wrong” and have a superior rationale for why there is a ‘more’ intelligent answer.

Rationale for why these are the ‘intelligent’ answers.

Q-1: The issue isn’t that no interference is to be allowed. American elections are an international political process.  The political parties, inept as they are, acknowledge that Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policies are one of the primary areas that a President is responsible for and that the public should be considering in how to assess which candidate will handle this task most competently. Russia will always attempt to ‘influence’ our elections. They have their interests to consider and the US, and even its’ elections, involve their interests. So, the issue isn’t that they shouldn’t try to influence our elections but that they should behave in an intelligent manner. The hacking and cyber-attacks are high-risk and low-reward methods. There are smart people in Russia, but perhaps just like in America they are not represented effectively in their leadership.

Q-2: The logic of Q-1’s rationale applies to all nations, not just Russia. We should recognize that other nations will ‘interfere’ but that interference must be based on expressing what their interests are and why they support or don’t support US policies that affect them. They can, of course, refrain from engaging in expressing support for any candidate over another.

Q-3: Items A and B are excluded by the rationale provided in Q-1 & Q-2.
Items C and D are already illegal, and do not become tolerable even during US election campaigns.
Item E is stupid for the nation perpetrator, stupid for the candidate beneficiary, and stupid for the public to encourage politicians to lie, dissemble, distort, or misinform any more than they already do.
Item F is fundamentally an act of war, to overturn our democracy and derive the public of the one thing that protects our freedoms: voting.

Items G and H’s rationale should be self-explanatory, if not, reading further is ill-advised.

Q-4: I would hope that given the issue that everyone included A, E and H in their criteria. If not, I would suggest pondering if you would omit comparable criteria from what you would require about an issue on what medical treatment you would follow for a terminal illness that requires state-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment. A, E and H are the answers that relate knowledge, expertise, and they are the individuals that we employ to actually protect us from cyber-attacks.

All the other choices are useless. They either get any relevant and valid information from the A, E and H types or they are witless fools. If any of these other choices could demonstrate the basis for their analysis and detailed information supporting it, then it would assuredly come from someone who matched an A, E and H background.

Q-5: Yes. There is a big difference. Both are unacceptable, but attempting to influence the voters by manipulation them and through them their votes is very different from attempting to determine the election by choosing the candidate of their choice by changing the votes and/or the tabulation of results. The former can be combated, though only if the public actually cares that an outside entity is attempting to manipulate their votes. The latter is that entities’ attempt to enslave you. They are not the same.

Q-6: If F didn’t surprise you then you don’t need the rationale. If it did, then I doubt you will believe my rationale. The only things that protects a democracy is that the public chooses it leaders, even if they choose poorly or stupidly. They get the results of their choice; not of their desires, wishes, ideologies, hopes, or beliefs but of their choice. Those results come from how the laws of physics, of ‘cause and effect’, of economics, and of nature determine what will happen based on what actions and decisions that happen because of that choice. Good choices will lead to better outcomes and bad choices will not.

Tax Reform: There’s Change and There’s Reform, They’re Not the Same

Tax Reform has been a political topic, well, since the before we were the United States of America. It is therefore not surprising that it was an issue in the 2016 election. Perhaps not a highly debated topic, or even frequently discussed, and certainly not a topic explained or assessed during the campaigns; but as always “promises” were made. The “promises” were that taxes would be cut and the code simplified, that they would be made “fair”.

Now the election is over and with a Republican Congress and Administration delivering on the “promises” should be more feasible than for its been in a while. Of course, making the promises isn’t the same as fulfilling them. But to make matters far more difficult, keeping the promises means more than just having an answer. It requires that the answer that you have is an appropriate, effective and productive solution to the problem; and that requires that you understand the problem and not what you think the problem is. So, it is with Tax Reform and its implied problem with taxes.

Let’s start with the issue that our tax system is ‘unfair’. If the President and Congress are going to make them ‘fair’ or at least ‘more fair’ then understanding what makes them ‘unfair’ would be an essential requirement. How else would you be able to know that your solution fixes the problem if you can’t define the problem and can demonstrate how your “Reform” fixes it both in theory and ultimately in fact?

If the President and the Republican Congress have a plan then what are the answers to the following “Unfairness” questions? If the Democrats in Congress have a different plan (i.e., answer to Tax Reform) then what are their answers to the “Unfairness” questions?

The “Unfairness” questions:

Why is the current system ‘unfair’?

1. Is it ‘unfair’ to everyone, and ‘unfair’ in the same way to everyone; or does the ‘unfairness’ vary by different categories of people/entities?
   
• If the ‘unfairness’ isn’t the ame for everyone, who is it more ‘unfair’ for and why?
  
• Conversely, if not ‘unfair’ equally for everyone, who is it ‘more fair’ for and why?
  
2. What change under the proposed reform creates a more ‘fair’ tax system?
   
• Why is this more ‘fair’ than the current tax system?
  
• Does this new tax policy generate more, less or the same tax revenues than the current system, if the taxable incomes for everyone were to stay the same as it will be for 2016 taxable incomes?

The “Accepting Election Results” Question – A Sad Commentary

The media has been infatuated with Trump’s response to the question of “Would he accept the results of the election”? His answer at the time was that “I will tell you at the time”. Now since then the Clinton campaign, a variety of Republican Congress-members, and the media have been aghast at Trump for disgracing America’s democratic principle of a ‘peaceful transition of power’ from the incumbent President to the newly elected President. Almost immediately after the debate, the Trump campaign surrogates (including his daughter) have been explaining what he meant.

To be honest, it is hard to view anyone engaged in this farce as individuals the public should be listening to, let alone voting for them or their candidate; and the media has fumbled the issue from night one.

While the tumult that Trump’s answer has produced is unworthy of an American candidate to create and subsequently promote or allow the misguided notion that the nation’s citizens should not accept the results of the election. Additionally, the real issue with Trump’s answer is that it does not come close to what someone asking to be President should have stated. I don’t mean that he should just have said, “Yes” but rather that if he wanted to make a point then it was incumbent upon him to make a clear and informative answer that defines and clarifies why he isn’t saying yes.  An executive, a leader, and certainly a president must be able and competent at presenting information and positions that are highly likely to be understood and that inform those they direct and those they work for (the public). Trump’s answer failed at that, his campaign’s surrogates failed at that, the subsequent ‘clarifications’ and ‘explanations’ have been forced and inadequate.

Now don’t get all ‘I’m an anti-Trump type’; because Clinton and her campaign surrogates didn’t recognize the problem for what it was either. This is a different area of failure for an executive, leader, president to have. Clinton’s response was condemning the statement as “horrifying”; rather than recognizing it as a mistake on her opponent’s part and seizing the opportunity before the ‘statement’ gets mitigated. Now having missed the immediate opportunity there seems to be no comprehension on the part of the Clinton campaign to how to maximize the damage that Trump has provided to his own campaign. If a savvy executive thought Trump’s answer was ‘horrifying’ than they would have used the moment to show Trump’s statement as coming from a candidate who speaks carelessly which allows him to be played. Not the image a leader would want illustrated to the public. The public expects Clinton to object to Trump and his views, but the public is influenced when Clinton demonstrates that she can put him back on his heels.

As for the media, the best that can be said is that they recognized that there was another ‘sensational’ news story to hash over and over; but they didn’t demonstrate any ability to frame the discussion to its substance, or to fulfill their duty to ‘inform the public’. The news media persists in the importance of presenting the facts (the truth) but without including the context and clarity of the topic, the media neglects whether they provide the public with an ability to comprehend the truth. Trump’s statement represents a ‘fact’ of what he said (what his words were) but that alone doesn’t insure that anyone, even Mr. Trump, understands what he just said. If this were the only time that the media underperformed it would be a forgivable rare event; but it isn’t rare. It isn’t rare for issues with Trump. It isn’t rare for issues with Clinton. It isn’t rare in any context.

 Consider the statement Trump made. He wasn’t willing to say if he would accept the results of the election. Why is it Trump’s position on the results that matter? What about the view that the voters have about what they decided, is that irrelevant? Is there any constitutional, legal or any requirement for the losing candidate to concede?  It may be traditional, honorable and demonstrate a degree of maturity; but it is unnecessary.  The election process will record a winner whether the loser accepts the fact or not.