Make America Hate Again- 0/209

When I said that I would be keeping track on Trump I was not joking. This won’t necessarily be a weekly series, depending on how much free time I have and so on, but it will be occasional. The numbers are the current week of Trump’s term over the total number of weeks. To skip to a certain week just change the first number!

If in doubt, any quotes come from here.

I would also like to clarify: I don’t think all conservatives are idiots. I disagree with many conservative views, but most conservatives’ points can at least be understood. Trump cannot.

The next post can be found here, and the latest post here.

Really worries me policy wise from the debates

  • I don’t have a quote but: The whole thinking Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim when his book, the Audacity of Hope, makes it clear just in the (British) blurb that he’s Hawaiian and Christian thing. Audacity of Hope was published in 2006 and he started his accusation in 2011, so he displays a complete inability to read about 50 words. This does not bode well for reading official reports and research to help form government positions.
  • “”Look at that face! [of Carly Fiorina] Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!”” He’s reduced his list of desired qualifications to be president into being their face. Frankly, she’s pretty normal looking, but that’s what you expect from political leaders. It’s not- it shouldn’t be- a beauty pageant.
  • “We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.” No politician should be actively admitting that they love it when their people are poorly educated. It bodes poorly for any current students in the Us for the next 4 years. If I were a parent in the US right now, I would be home schooling, and doing it immediately, because I would not trust a man who said that about my childrens’ education. I would rather have to deal with all the stress of that than sentence my children to his education system. And this is because of a single line, not having said it yet.
  • We’re going to build a wall, and we’re going to make Mexico pay for it.” This has been discussed so many times, I don’t think a proper examination is needed, but to drum in: it’s economically unfeasible even before Mexico pays for it, and it won’t stop immigration because planes go over walls.
  • “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” When you’re honestly concerning people that you are a sexual assaultist at best you should not be running for president. That sounds, to a worrying degree, like what Jimmy Saville would say, if he were still alive, about little girls. Genuinely this comment made me concerned when Prime Minister May was announced to be having a meeting with Mr Trump because I was worried he’d try flirting (which would have horrible political repercussions, I don’t generally take issue with people flirting) with her, or worse.
  • “Don’t worry about that baby. I love babies. I hear that baby crying, I like it. What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don’t worry, don’t worry. The mom’s running around like—don’t worry about it, you know. It’s young and beautiful and healthy and that’s what we want. […] Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here. That’s all right. Don’t worry. I, I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking. That’s OK. People don’t understand. That’s OK.” At first when I heard this I was wondering if he was  actually able to feel empathy. Then I heard the second half.

‘As President-elect

  • “America will no longer settle for anything less than the best.” I don’t think this is offensive, but it shows a lack of brain power. America is, at best, the joint most powerful country in the world (with the other UN P5 states, or the PRC, or the Russian Federation, depending if you define by international political power, economic power, or the greatest ability to end life on earth). It already has the best, realistically. And they shouldn’t have that. To be the best, in a country where millions of people can’t even afford basic health care, and where long summer breaks lead poor PoC children to show signs of malnutrition, and the Ku Klux Klan still has thousands of members, is not a good thing. It also suggests a complete lack of care for every other country in the world. I know no leader is going to say they’re not looking for their country’s best interest, but this is either a way of saying “we’re going to let everyone else get even poorer, and do it deliberately” or “I have no clue how the world works”. I vote for both.
  • “I think I’m a sober person. I think the press tries to make you into something a little bit different. In my case, a little bit of a wild man, I’m not, I’m actually not. I’m a very sober person.” I assume he has no idea what sober means.
  • “Truly great and talented men and women…” Except the one who’s now in charge of energy. In an interview, Rick Perry said he would remove three departments, but could only remember two of them; commerce, education and… what’s the third one? (Energy).  That’s right, he couldn’t remember the name of the department he is now the head of and he wants to get rid of it. Not even beginning to mention how stupid getting rid of a department of energy and plunging the US into perpetual 4-year-long black outs for anyone who can’t afford their own energy production, this displays some extreme stupidity, hating stuff without even knowing anything about it, and absolutely no talent. And Perry is a good example of his administration.
  • “to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our laws”. In all due respect (none), I don’t think any alt-right figure has anything even resembling a way to reduce crime rates. There are two ways to deal with crime, which I will dub the “DPRK route” and the “Iceland route”. DPRK route means being so inconceivably cruel to criminals that absolutely no criminals are left. Iceland is fairly lax, and prisoners get very high freedoms given they are criminals. Seeing as the DPRK achieves its methods through abominations against the mere idea of the sanctity of human dignity, this is not an acceptable route to take, and no conservative politician will ever try to be reasonable about teaching people how to make a living without being a criminal, I think the crime rates will continue to rise. It’s a thing , judging from the PRC, USA, various EU states and Russia, that is very obvious that harsher punishments lead to higher violent crime rates. No conservative is going to reach this conclusion.
  • “These include the following: On trade, I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster for our country.” The TPP was meant to be essentially a copy of the EU. It had some really great benefits; connecting people from dozens of cultural backgrounds in a network, where, honestly, almost everyone speaks English. The only real downside I can see is the “loss” of national sovereignty. Any national sovereignty issues should be perfectly easily negotiated out within the trade agreement process. He’s essentially assuming every country in the world would vote for Brexit, when just a few decades ago, we voted Brit-in, and our culture really hasn’t changed much. Besides, there are 5 countries that have no right to complain about a lack of national soveriegnty: The P5 of the UN. The 5 countries that can impose their views on any security issue across the entire world and only the other 4 can complain: the USA, The UK, The PRC, The Russian Federation, and The French Republic. Of these, 3 are the most vocal complainers about their political situation with the argument of national sovereignty; while they continue to throw around their power to suppress the will of the rest of the elected members of the UN security council.
  • “On energy, I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy – including shale energy and clean coal – creating many millions of high-paying jobs.” And many millions of cancer patients in the long term, and then many billions of deaths from climate change damage. But it’s the jobs that matter!
  • “On regulation, I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated, it’s so important.” Do we need to get rid of two regulations to pass this one, or can we eliminate this one twice because it’s so stupid we need to physically destroy it, then eradicate it from all memory?
  • “I will ask the Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America’s vital infrastructure from cyber-attacks, and all other form of attacks.” Even expert hackers say this is stupid. The best defenses are to take political action against international governmental hacking, or to just have resilient enough systems that you can cope if something is getting attacked, and while doing that, monitor what’s getting hacked so you can streamline your bolstering. It’s how large banks’ anti-hacking methods often work (in conjunction with many other methods). Their sheer size means that even if a hacker brings it down it can be up again quickly. It’s pretty much impossible to defend a network entirely, and the only examples I can think of are when deliberately out dated technology is used (in nuclear missile silos) and the Pentagon.
  • “rebuild our middle class.” In a state  run by a republican, there’s no room for a middle class. You’re struggling to make ends meet, you’re literally starving, or you’re rich enough to afford a gold plated apartment. There’s no real middle in that system. Melt down the gold, use it to pay for schemes that allow people to get decent income, and then you can talk about helping the average person, Mr Trump.
  • “Make America Great Again for everyone.” Except for for the 251,978,615 US citizens Trump has admitted he hates!
  • “God Bless You and God Bless America.” I’m not saying that having any given faith is wrong, I would not say that for any modern day religions, but I believe it’s unconstitutional for a president to wish in the name of a specific god. So “God bless you and god bless America” is fine but “God Bless you and God Bless America” is not.
  • “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Something that should terrify everyone. In the US you need pretty good legal proof of identity before you can vote from what I’ve gathered. Many people who get the right can’t even use it because the polling systems are assigned incorrectly to the individual and they are not told where their real polling stations are. So it’s an impossibility that there’s actually millions voting illegally; there’s probably millions who are illegally being stopped from voting, conversely. The only demographics in my earlier list that could easily be distinguished out and systematically stopped from voting that would constitute millions are: women, PoCs, and Muslims (if you take Trump’s seeming assumption that anyone olive skinned is Muslim). All of these options should be deeply concerning, especially when we bear in mind he does not seem to remorse the loss of MLK’s bust from his office.
  • “We’re trying very hard to get the best people. Not necessarily people that will be the most politically correct people, because that hasn’t been working.” Generally speaking, people are politically correct because they care about the groups who would otherwise be receiving attacks; in turn, bar from occasional slip ups or off tone jokes, which are really not much to worry about on an occasional basis, most people who genuinely care about others are naturally politically correct. I mean, they don’t go around yelling insults at every minority and using slurs when they can easily avoid it and use a more neutral term; it’s really not hard. If they can’t even meet “caring vaguely about the people in their country”, they aren’t the best people.
  • “So we have really experts in the field.” No. No you don’t. Your head of the department of energy had no idea what the department of energy was, you had no idea how much work being president required, and your head of the department of trade made this.
  • “but they’re known within their field as being the best.“I assume that “the best” here means “at being awful at their jobs” or is sarcastic, or their field is racism or some other form of prejudice.
  • “I think the popular vote would have been easier in a true sense because you’d go to a few places. I think that’s the genius of the Electoral College. I was never a fan of the Electoral College until now.” Funny how the illegitimate president of the US likes the system that got him into power. Also funny how the electoral college has been against the popular vote 4 times and each time a republican came into power.
  • ” And I don’t want to hurt the Clintons. I really don’t.” You say. You also say: “..if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your [Hilary Clinton’s] situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor.” Which to me looks rather like wanting to hurt the Clintons. Also, look who’s the one lying. And: Hillary Clinton: …it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
    Donald Trump: Because you’d be in jail.
  • Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.”  Says the man who thinks Climate Change was made up by the “Chinese” to limit US economic growth.
  • “And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it.” Yes. I think by definition it is. In the Brexit vote 77% of remain voters said they thought that leaving the EU would have a major detrimental effect on their lives and on the lives of their children, while 69% of leave voters said that leaving would have no substantial change or only a small change to the well being of themselves and their children. I know it’s a long extrapolation, but I think based on that we can assume: People who take the more inclusive decision think their decision has a greater impact. They are therefore likely to take their decision more seriously and to take stupid justifications as a greater insult. I don’t think Trump voters cared what he had to say, while Clinton voters definitely did.
  • I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.” You saying you were concerned about him being racist or alt-right basically confirms he is, especially with you again admitting it by wavering around the point for three separate clauses.
  • “To me more important is taking care of the people that really have proven to be, to love Donald Trump, as opposed to the political people. And frankly if the political people don’t take care of these people, they’re not going to win and you’re going to end up with maybe a total different kind of government than what you’re looking at right now.” Firstly, only favouring your political supporters reminds me of one African leader known as Mugabe, which has worked out very poorly for Zimbabwe. Secondly, that’s the opposite of what you should do. If you know a demographic will vote for you whatever you do, very few politicians will invest in them; they won’t invest in people they know will never vote for them; they invest in the people who no one knows who they’ll vote for, to try to sway them. It makes sense. The most important of these is not investing in your supporters; your generosity to them will not make more people like you, and will not make fewer people hate you.
Advertisements

Xiamen Acid Rain

258 of China’s cities experience acid rains due to sulphur emissions.

Xiamen is located in the South-East part of Fujian province, which is often regarded as one of the best places to live in China. The city is experiencing continuous acid rain.

China has made some large attempts to reduce pollution levels, but these have clearly not had much of an effect on Fujian province yet.

“Official statistics show every drop of rain in Xiamen in the first half of 2010 was acidic, recording pH levels of less than 5.6 (neutral is 7),” – Zhuan Mazhan

Causes

The PRC is one of the most polluting countries in the world, along with the USofA, and air currents across the country push polluted air to the sea, and then south wards. Fujian province is at the Southern most point of the main curve of the PRC coastline, across the East China Sea from Taiwan, so it is at the point where the most polluted air converges.

Impacts

  • Acid rain is leaving buildings with yellow staining due to corrosion, particularly the colonnial age buildings which give Xiamen its unique appearance, which in turn helps to attract tourists to the island.
  • The island where Xiamen is located is being turned yellow as plants are being damaged.

Outside Xiamen, the Leshan Buddha statue of Sichuan province, has been hugely effected, and has been very badly damaged, losing its reddish colouring, due to factories built close by to it. The statue is the largest Buddha statue in the world, carved into the sacred Mount Emei, and has been there since at least 907 AD; it is a major tourist destination, particularly for Buddhist pilgrims, but is being damaged from all the acid rain and may not remain so. (This was initially confusing as almost every source mentions Leshan alongside Xiamen. I have tried to make it clear they are not the same place.)

Response

China is pursuing its promises made in 2009 to cut the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP in 2020 by 40-45% compared to 2005 levels. This has yet to be particularly effective; acid rain rates are still increasing down wind of industrial centers.

What My Great-Grandfather Taught Me About Trump and the Press

Longreads

The StrangerLongreads has teamed up with The Stranger’s Sydney Brownstone and Heidi Groover, along with photographer Nate Gowdy, to cover the presidential inauguration and protests. Below, a dispatch from Brownstone, on her way to D.C.

***

My great-grandfather was a man of few words. I never met him, but I understand he had a thick accent from growing up speaking Yiddish in a shtetl in what is now known as Moldova. The shtetl no longer exists, and neither does the deli my great-grandfather opened in Brooklyn after fleeing to America a hundred years ago.

My great-grandfather also had a thing about TVs. He had never owned one, and my dad assumed that was because he couldn’t spend the money. As a gift, my dad bought my great-grandfather his first television set. But when my father visited him not long after, he noticed something strange had happened to the TV.

View original post 832 more words

The Racist and Sexist T-Shirts of an Inauguration

Longreads

The StrangerLongreads has teamed up with The Stranger’s Sydney Brownstone and Heidi Groover, along with photographer Nate Gowdy, to cover the presidential inauguration and protests. Below, the latest dispatch from Brownstone in D.C.

***

Donald Trump has just been sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. I’m sitting at a Bolt Burger in Washington, D.C., watching the inauguration ceremony post-mortem play on several flatscreen TVs. A friend is sitting across from me. Her eyes are wide and wet. We have no words.

Last night I watched Trump signs burn at a protest outside the National Press Club, where leaders of the alt-right, a loose conglomeration of people who seek to make racism, xenophobia, and misogyny cool and current, were attending something called the Deploraball. Several hundred protesters were outside the event waving antifascist signs. One protester, a young white man in a black bandana, elbowed his…

View original post 482 more words

Georgia 2011 Protests

2011_Georgia_Clashes
An injured protester in Tbilisi

From the 21st to the 26th May 2011, there were a series of protests in Georgia against the president, Mikheil Saakashvili. The protests broke out in the capital, Tbilisi. The protests started ahead of the military parades to celebrate Georgian independence day. The protesters were demanding the president’s resignation, claiming that he was doing nothing to tackle poverty, and that he was practicing authoritarian behaviour.

The protest on the 21st was led by Nino Burjanadze, a previous speaker of the parliament. The movement had been holding continuus demonstration in front of the Public Broadcasting building since, calling for Mr Saakashvili to step down from his role as president.

The president said that they had every right to freedom of speech but that their protests were not related to this.

10,000 people turned out to protest. Many of these are poor people struggling to survive in the country, especially with rising food costs, a large number of which are the elderly living on pensions. This meant that they became known as the Silver Revolution. In Georgia, 11.49% of people live in poverty. GDP/capita with Purchasing Power Parity adjustment is just US$2180.69 annually. People genuinely cannot pay for the food they need to survive. Further, they were accusing him of hoarding power since their Independence, and of using ties within the USofA and the EU to deflect human rights abuse allegations.

On May 25th 2011, protesters gathered in front of the parliament building on Rustaveli Avenue.  The authorities warned that the protests would be broken up to make way for the independance day parades, which would be heading through the street. The protesters had a permit to hold a rally on May 25th that expired at midnight, though the fact that they needed a permit to protest is already concerning.

The protest was ended by thousands of riot police arriving at just after midnight, at 12:15, on the 26th to stop the peaceful protest. The police were backed by armoured cars firing water cannons and rubber bullets towards the crowd and fights quickly broke out between the police and the protesters. Teargas was used by the police in the operation. It took about 30 minutes to clear the area in front of parliament.

Two people were killed by a speeding car during the protests in the capital, while 40 others were injured by the police violence.

Police pursued fleeing protesters using rubber truncheons. One took shelter in a cinema, and was then detained and beaten. Large numbers of injured people were focused around the police station. Some protesters armed themselves with flag poles and makeshift shields to attack the police in return. One policeman died as he was hit by a car fleeing the venue.

“Even if the Tbilisi demonstration was unauthorized, nothing can justify the beating of largely peaceful demonstrators. Police responsible for beating protesters should be held to account. Even if the Tbilisi demonstration was unauthorized, nothing can justify the beating of largely peaceful protesters.” -said Rachel Denber, Europe and Central Asia deputy director at Human Rights Watch.

The president blamed Russia for the unrest. “It was an attempt to hold protests in accordance with a scenario written outside Georgia and sought to thwart Independence Day celebrations, cause sabotage and mass disorder in the country. This day was chosen as a target by our occupiers,” –Saakashvili.

Russia has thousands of troops in two kremlin-backed rebel regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and recognises them as independant countries after Georgia became independant of the soviet union.

A Russian foreign military spokesman said that it was a glaring violation of human rights and freedoms but made no comment on the president’s accusations towards Russia.

So Whose President Is Trump?

I just thought I’d get a certain set of things off my chest here. I know this isn’t the first time I’ve touched on this. I have seen plenty of analyses of which demographics voted most for each candidate, but none for which demographics will be most hit by his views.

So, welcome to my Inauguration special, I guess. It’s probably the only thing that’s welcome to most of those of you in the US today, in all honesty. If you want a distraction from the horror that is currently starting to unfold in the white house, you can have this, deliberately scheduled for that purpose. You can also have my complete lack of impartiality for a day, which is a rare thing on here.

Here is a list of people that Trump has been referenced as prejudiced against (and why) along with percentages of the population that are of that group:

  • Women as a whole, 157 million women, 50.8%
  • People of Mexican descent/ Mexican-Americans, 35.8 million people, 11.1%
  • People of African descent/ African-Americans, 13.2% of the population
  • People of Chinese descent/ Chinese-Americans/Asian-Americans, 19.4 million, 6.1%
  • People of Native American descent/Native Americans/ Native Hawaiians/ Native Alaskans. I know I am extrapolating from his actions and attitudes towards democrat senator Elizabeth Warren. I believe this is fair, especially when he mocked the very concept of Native American naming systems. (Not to mention that much of the US white perception is entirely wrong, based on baby naming sites which take random words, assign a random tribe or don’t even bother with that, and pretend they have an entirely different, and altogether just too long meaning.) 1.485% + 0.889% + 0.03% = 2.404%
  • Military veterans, 7.3%
  • Sexual assault victims, 17.7 million, 5.55%
  • LGBT people, Estimates say that there are 1.4 million transgender people in the US and that 25.6 million Americans experience at least some same sex attraction. In eyes of black and white, like Mr Trump’s, that would mean 25.6 million are lesbian or gay. 1.8% actually identify themselves as bisexual and 1.7% as lesbian or gay, so I will use these numbers, even if they are not the view of the US president, in all likelihood. This means 0.439% + 1.8% + 1.7% = 3.94%
  • The Poor. I don’t think I need to cite anything for this. It’s a proven thing that the very rich in the USofA have vested interest in maintaining their extremely unequal levels of wealth. Taxes will lower for the very rich. While there could be programs to maintain schemes such as Obamacare to help the very poorest afford healthcare, instead that money will either not be raised or will be spent building borders with a country which generates a substantial proportion of the USA’s wealth indirectly. The average health care bill for the most severe illnesses in the US is US$116,000, which as an annual earning would put you in the richest 1% of the US population. Only the richest 1% can afford to get sick with conditions like cancer in the USA. I’m not saying Hillary would have helped that, but she would have hurt it less. If we multiply the incidence rates of cancer annually (as a generic expensive healthcare bill) against those too poor to pay it we get against the four years of his term: 454.8 per 100,000 contract cancer annually, which is 0.4548%. Bearing in mind this is people which government policy is essentially massacring, and if any other organisation were doing it, it would be called genocide. 0.4548% x 99% x 4 = 0.018%
  • Illegal Immigrants. According to Trump himself, this is 11 million people. Let’s assume that none of these people are the most common source of illegal immigrants- people who stay a few nights over their papers and then leave. 3.45%
  •  Muslims. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that governments in the west who drum up terrorism as a serious threat to world security when it’s statistically de minimus to be killed in a terrorist attack (De Minimus is essentially the point where something is such a low chance of occurring even with its severity born in mind that it’s not even worth a slight thought toward), are willing to claim that an entire religion with only a vague connection are responsible. 3.3 million US Muslims, 1.03%
  • Disabled people. In countries with average lifespan over 70, most people can expect to spend 11.5% of their lifespan physically disabled. Meanwhile 26.2% have a mental illness in any given year. About 6% bear most of the weight of mental illness. Let’s take an average for this and let’s take this to assume that the average number of people who are disabled in any given year is 27.6%
  • My personal favourite, by which I mean, the one which sounds stupidest (and they all sound stupid, because they are): the population of Iowa. 0.97%
  • Anyone else that Trump has announced he hates since I scheduled this post.

I am not (separately) counting groups who get to choose the paths which got them attacked, however, this includes:

  • Many journalists
  • Barak Obama
  • Rosie O’Donnell
  • Marco Rubio
  • Hillary Clinton
  • People who support the use of vaccines (yes, that nonsense about how vaccines give people autism has now reached the presidential level). I am also aware that this should include anyone who has any knowledge of autism OR vaccines OR has ever been to a doctor in their lives, which should be a lot of people.

People Trump likes:

  • Women who don’t call him out on sexual harassment
  • His daughter, if she weren’t his daughter, in a sexual manner
  • Evangelical Christians (and not even many of them as most religious texts are about tolerance in all major religions and he definitely does not fit with that)
  • People whose education reaches no higher than a high school degree
  • People in very rural areas

Now for some maths!

The US population is 318.9 million people. First we need to work out what percentage are not effected by each of Trump’s prejudices. Then times that by the US population. That should be the total number of votes he received, if everyone was vaguely logical (and old enough to vote). I am making the assumption that unrelated groups are evenly spread, which is quite a large assumption  (eg the same proportion of women and men are gay).

Here is the list of percentages which are not part of any of the listed groups:

50.8%-> 49.2%, [11.1%, 13.2%, 6.1%, 2.404%, -> 67.2%] 7.3% -> 94.7%, 5.55%-> 94.45%, 3.94%-> 96.06% , 0.018%-> 99.982% , 3.45% -> 96.5% , 1.03% -> 98.97, 27.6% -> 72.4%, 0.97% -> 99.03%.

If maths makes your brain hurt, you can scroll past this to the arrow.

code: using a ~ means that I am rounding to the nearest person. I don’t think we should be cutting people in half for the sake of maths. “.” means that I am about to round. “;” means I don’t want to type that number again, please imagine I typed it out properly.

318,900,000 (318.9 million) x 0.492 (49.2%)= 156,898,800; x 0.672 = 105,435,993.6.

~105,435,994; x 0.947 = 99,847,886.318.

~99.847,886; x 0.9445 = 94,306,328.327.

~94,306,328; x  0.9606 = 90,590,658.6768.

~90,590,659; x 0.99982 = 90,574,352.358.

~90,574,352; x 0.965 = 87,404,249.68.

~87,404,250; x 0.9897 = 86,503,986.225.

~86,503,986; x 0.724 = 62,628,885.864.

~62,628,886; x 0.9903 = 62,021,385.8058.

62,021,385 people who Trump doesn’t hate.

Only 58% voted who had the right to, and only 75% of the US population is of voting age.

62,021,385 x 0.58 = 35,972,403.3.

~35,972,403; x 0.75 = 26,979,302.475.

-> 26,979,302 people who might have voted would not be actively targeted  by Trump being president. Trump won 61,900,651 votes in the popular vote.

This means that at least 34,921,349 people actively voted against their own interests. That’s more than the number who could have benefited from him being president who voted. 56.4% of all Trump votes make no sense.

The idea of democracy is that everyone votes for their own best interests. If a majority of people are, in a hypothetical society, wheat farmers, and they all vote selfishly for the party that proposes free school meals for the children of wheat farmers, then because of democracy, a majority of the population would benefit. If there’s a racist leader, and that’s clearly his main policy, and a majority of people aren’t racist, then the racist leader should never come into power. In the US, however, 10.95% of the entire population deliberately voted for an individual they knew would hurt 286,878,615 people’s civil freedoms (or they could have done if they opened up google’s calculator function and a search engine of their choice, or, alternatively, if they did not have access to that, which is entirely possible in such an unequal country, could have asked a friend to).

 

I’m not writing this to shame these people. The vast majority of Trump’s voters have poor education standards, and thus wouldn’t necessarily know how to manipulate the figures correctly. And it’s definitely not their fault that they were inevitably lied to along the line. I am writing this as an example of how important demographics are in showing how bad a seemingly democratically voted leader’s representation of a country can be when people in the system don’t exercise their right to vote in a sensible and considered manner, and why it is so important that we inform and educate people correctly.

2016 was a year where the most renowned democratic votes were full of lies and downright nonsense. If we don’t stop this immediately, people will end up voting their lives away to liars who have absolutely no empathy for anyone’s suffering. If we want to avoid another Hitler, another Mussolini, and another Stalin, we all need to seriously inform ourselves of the issues we mean to make people passionate about. Tyrants come into power when the people who have the power to say no don’t realise that they should, and in a democratic society, that is every single one of us. It is all of our duties to tell as many people as we reasonably can about the things about politicians’ views that really worry us, why they worry us, and above all, to make sure that we actually have some clue what we’re talking about. Because, let’s face it, if we all had a clue what we were doing and why, that 10.95% would not have voted Trump, and we would be looking towards the actual First Lady of the USofA today.

 

And my most important point: Good luck to the 90% (Well, technically, the 89.65%, but that’s not nearly so memorable). I’m sorry to say, you’ll need it.

 

For Anyone Who Wants a Distraction This Time Tomorrow…

…I have scheduled an analysis of demographics concerned in the President Elect’s campaign.

It will be up at 4:59 GMT tomorrow, or 1 minute before the actual inauguration starts, perfect timing for anyone who needs a distraction, and there will be plenty who do.

The post is very numbers heavy, as warning. That is still better than having to see the inauguration, I think, even for somewhat innumerate people.

I know this will be less depressing than watching the actual inauguration. And I will try not to shut up about the impacts the future president has over the next four years.

 

On an unrelated note, I have realised how few left wing based sources of information there actually are in the UK. As such I am not going to be afraid to voice my opinions on political issues within the English speaking world from now on, if it is within reason to do so.

PRC General Pollution Issues

A real time global air quality index visual map can be found here.

Soil contamination

The growth of the PRC since the 1980s has lead to major soil pollution. The State Environmental Protection Administration believes it to be a threat to environmental quality, food safety and sustainable agriculture. 100,000km^2 of the PRC’s cultivated land has been polluted, with contaminated water irrigating a further 21,670^2 and 1,300km^2 have been destroyed or covered in solid waste. This accounts for 1/10 of the PRC’s cultivatable land. 6 million tonnes of grain are contaminated annually, costing about 29 billion yuan to the Chinese economy, roughly US$2.57 billion.

Waste

The PRC’s general lack of real environmental awareness (which proves the level of thought into one president elect’s allegations of the PRC “inventing global warming”) has lead to a lack of decent recycling systems. In 2012, the PRC generated 300 million tonnes of waste material.

Industrial pollution

In 1997, the World Bank issued a report targetting the PRC stating that “hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and incidents of serious respiratory illness have been caused by exposure to industrial air pollution. Seriously contaminated by industrial discharges, many of China’s waterways are largely unfit for direct human use.”

The New York times stated in a 2007 article that “Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party.”

  • Air pollution has made cancer the PRC’s leading cause of death
  • Ambient pollution kills hundred of thousands of citizens annually.
  • 500 million Chinese citizens have no safe, clean drinking water.
  • only 1% of the 560 million city dwellers breath air considered safe within the European Union
  • Lead poisoning from pollution kills many Chinese children
  • Large sections of the ocean have no marine life because of massive algal blooms- eutrophication
  • Pollution from China has spread internationally, causing acid rain fall in Seoul and Tokyo, and even in Los Angeles.
  • The Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning estimated in 2003 that 300,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution.
  • Environmental experts estimated in 2005 that by 2010 380,000 people would die of air pollution in the PRC annually, and that in 2020 550,000 would.
  • “outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year. Indoor pollution contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhoea, bladder and stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.”, “China’s environmental agency insisted that the health statistics be removed from the published version of the report, citing the possible impact on ‘social stability'”- World Bank, 2007
  • Up to 760,000 people died prematurely in the PRC in 2007 due to air and water pollution. Around 360,000 to 400,000 people died of air pollution within PRC cities. 300,000 died because of poor indoor air quality, and 60,000 from poor water quality.

Electric Waste

Electronic Waste means discarded electronic devices which have not been recycled or re-purposed.

In 2011, the PRC produced 2.3 million tons of electronic waste. Additionally, a lot of electronic waste is imported from abroad.

Water supply

Due to general water shortages and high water pollution, there are often issues in the PRC in acquiring healthy drinking water. A quickly growing population, as well as often lax environmental laws regarding buildings have only increased demand for clean water.

Air Pollution

Coal combustion produces Particulate Matter known as PM. Beijing suffers from PM2.5- Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers across. Such fine matter can easily lead to breathing problems such as bronchitis and asthma, and even lung cancer at extremely low ages (the typical age to contract cancer is above about 75 through most of the world, with this being raised to 80 with a healthy lifestyle, but in the PRC cases have been recorded of even 8 year olds having lung cancer).

Lung cancer is about 3x as common in Chinese cities as opposed to the countryside, despite similar exposure to other carcinogens such as tobacco smoke.

Despite now having means to measure much of the air pollution, measurements in 2013 showed that the  pollution was beyond the scope of what could be measured in the present particulate sizes.

Impacts of Pollution Generally

  • In 2005, pollution cost 3.05% of the PRC economy
  • Depending on the economic model (Eastern or Western), in 2003, according to the World Bank, 2.68% or 5.78% of GDP was spent on water or air pollution
  • A review of this in 2009 said that this might be as high as 10%
  • A 2012 study said that pollution had little effect on the actual growth of the PRC economy; even if they were going to continue using polluting industries and inefficient energy sources. Eventually, the effects of pollution would start to off set the gains from them into the economy.
  • In 2015, Berkeley Earth estimated that 1.6 million people die annually in the PRC from strokes or heart or lung issues caused by pollution.

Responses

The PRC is one of very few countries actively increasing its forest coverage, which is working to reduce its environmental pollution. Due to Mao’s policies, much of the forest of the PRC was removed in the past, leading to dust storms frequently entering the city in line with the air currents from elsewhere. This started to cause pollution across urban areas. Replenishing forest areas should help to reduce this impact, although it will probably take many years to resolve the situation caused by deforestation entirely.

Additionally, the air pollution and water pollution within the PRC are also decreasing, according to government account. Although the PRC is clearly very polluted, the government claims that they are trying to reduce the situation, and there is reasonable evidence that they are taking some good measures on this line, but not very far into actively reducing air pollution, where it is really most needed.

Waste: 

On 1st June 2008, the PRC banned all shops from distributing free plastic bags to customers. Stores have to clearly mark the price of plastic shopping bags and are banned from adding that price onto products.  The production of ultra-thin plastic bags, less than 0.025 mm across are also banned. However, the ban does not effect  take-away food businesses or paper bags. The year after the ban was introduced, the International Food Packaging Association found that 10% fewer plastic bags had entered the rubbish system.

Legislation has been introduced preventing the introduction of electronic waste, but it has been criticised as vulnerable to fraud.

Air Pollution:

The PRC government recently started to include ozone and PM2.5 in their air quality indexes, which are the two most harmful forms of air pollution in the country. Official data shows air pollution decreasing, but with the PRC’s record of requests to not publish figures on their pollution rates, it is reasonable to assume that the published data was heavily manipulated.

After record high pollution levels in 2012, the government made an action plan to reduce pollution levels in September 2013. The plan was to reduce air pollution 10% between 2012 and 2017, which from the frequency of the alerts delivered in the last few years, has not been successful. The plan was published on the government website.

On 20th August 2015, to create a “Parade Blue sky” for the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII, the government shut down industries for a day in Beijing, and heavily regulated car exhaust fumes. PM2.5 concentration was briefly 35mg/m^3 lower than the national average in the city, down to 19.5mg/m^3, the lowest in the city’s recorded history.

The government is aiming to reduce its fossil fuel usage by increasing the PRC’s capacity for renewable energy sources, or other less polluting energy sources, such as nuclear power, hydroelectric power and compressed natural gas.

The PRC government set up a system of air quality alerts. These alerts are based on air quality indexes. The alerts are given through the large cities of the PRC.

  • A Blue warning indicates pollution levels of AQI 201-300 (Heavy Pollution) within the next 24 hours
  • A yellow warning indicates an AQI of 201-300 for three days or AQI between 301-500 (Hazardous) within the next 24 hours.
  • An orange warning indicates that pollution levels will be above 201 for the next three days, going between “Heavy Pollution” and “Hazardous”
  • A red warning indicates an AQI above 201 for four consecutive days, or above AQI of 301 for two days, or an average of over 500 over the course of one day.

“How Populism Goes Bad” -The Weekly Sift

Perversely, sometimes “We the People” are anti-democratic The word populism sounds like it ought to mean something close to democracy. Both are based on ancient words for “the People” (demos and populi), so you might expect them to be just different ways of saying the same thing: rule by the People. The Trump campaign has […]

via How Populism Goes Bad — The Weekly Sift

The Changing Face of Reindeer Herding

This loosely fits into the Cold Environment and climatic hazards topics of the current A Level, plus the Place topic in the new A Level. If you happen to be Sami yourself.

Longreads

Mr Ingold wrote about the importance of the word talo. Roughly translated, it means house. But it also has a deeper meaning. When Finnish herders are raised in a talo, it is not simply that they grow up in one place. “A house,” explains Mr Ingold, “is a total establishment, an organic unity of place and people, cumulatively built up through the work of generations.” It is not something that can be shaken off. When Aarne says that herders are “born” to do it he is not being flippant. Like his father, he feels he had little choice. Nor does he regret that. Raisa explains that “this is what we want to do. There’s a richness to this wild way of life.”

That remains true even as threats from climate change, logging and other signs of expanding human footprints impinge on their vast emptiness. But throughout the centuries…

View original post 45 more words