Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Facebook is just another disinformation source

May 13, 2016

That Facebook is biased and reflects the views of its owners/managers is neither a surprise or anything wrong. What I find reprehensible is the lie promoted by Facebook that ist is objective and unbiased. After the Gizmodo story this week, Facebook denied that it was spinning the news. But the latest revelations show that the allegations were fundamentally true. The simple truth is that Facebook promotes certain news stories and suppresses others. They don’t manufacture news. But what they do is to spread a skewed version of what is news. And that is disinformation. Again, nothing wrong with that. It is what every newspaper or TV channel does. But the prejudices and biases of, say, the Washington Post are not hidden under a false cloak of objectivity.

facebook disinformation

facebook disinformation

The shattering of the cloak of objectivity around Facebook and its subjective choice of news stories to promote or to suppress can no longer be ignored by Zuckerberg and he has initiated an “investigation”. A biased platform with a hidden, skewed agenda is fundamentally incompatible with selling advertising where the advertisers need to know, objectively, how well their messages are targeted.

BBC:

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has said the company is investigating claims it censored news reports with conservative viewpoints. It follows a week of allegations in the media and discussion in the US Senate.

The tech news website Gizmodo had said Facebook staff suppressed articles on conservative topics from the site’s “trending” news section and “injected” others, even if they were not trending. ….

….. Mr Zuckerberg said he was inviting leading conservatives to meet him to discuss their views.

…… Gizmodo’s original report alleged that staff tampered with trending topic stories and were told to include stories published by the BBC, CNN and other mainstream news organisations ahead of smaller news sites.

It said the trending topics section was run like a newsroom, with curators able to “blacklist” or “inject” topics.

The report was followed by a release of documents to The Guardian, which appeared to show editorial decision-making by Facebook staff, alongside the company’s algorithm, to determine what is trending.

The Guardian:

Leaked documents show how Facebook, now the biggest news distributor on the planet, relies on old-fashioned news values on top of its algorithms to determine what the hottest stories will be for the 1 billion people who visit the social network every day.

The documents, given to the Guardian, come amid growing concerns over how Facebook decides what is news for its users. This week the company was accused of an editorial bias against conservative news organizations, prompting calls for a congressional inquiry from the US Senate commerce committee chair, John Thune. ….

….. But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its “trending module” headlines – the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook’s desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users’ feeds.

The guidelines show human intervention – and therefore editorial decisions – at almost every stage of Facebook’s trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people …… 

Facebook is in the business of skewed information dissemination and that skewing is effectively disinformation. Every entity involved in providing information must, by its selection of information to be distributed, also be involved in disinformation. But the additional problem for Facebook is that this disinformation and skewing of stories is not in the interests of the advertisers. Facebook is not just misleading its users, it is misleading its advertisers.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Media | Comments Off on Facebook is just another disinformation source

Trump does not need the GOP as much as they need him

May 11, 2016

Reuters’ rolling poll on the Trump/Clinton battle now becomes something to monitor. It is still early days, but the Reuters’ poll suggests that things are much closer than the headlines in the US media over the last few days. I begin to think that many of the stories in the liberal/left media are more wishful thinking rather than any real understanding. In fact, nobody still quite understands why Trump is riding as high as he is. Trump seems to be within 1 percentage point of Clinton rather than the tens of percentage points difference that some were quoting just a week ago.

RR 10 May

RR 10 May

I see no reason to change my opinion that this is an anti-establishment wave where the content of what Trump has to say is less important than how “anti-establishment” he is perceived to be. And that perception is directly related to how many establishment figures (including the media) are attacking him. Headlines against Trump in the Washington Post or Huffington Post or NYT are just as effective as attack speeches by GOP establishment figures in solidifying his support.

Chaos within the GOP is not necessarily a bad thing for Trump. In fact, visible opposition from establishment Republicans is probably a good thing for him. The GOP needs a Trump to rally around to keep the Party relevant, much more than Trump needs establishment GOP support to woo the electors.

For the Democrats Sanders is riding the same anti-establishment wave, and not a left-leaning socialist wave that some assume. There is very little chance for him to displace Hillary Clinton, but she has also misread the mood. She has been moving   to the left to try and steal Sanders’ thunder but traditional “left” and “right” are not drivers. Just moving to the left in policy terms will not serve her and will not remove the stigma of being “establishment” to her bones.

The rejection of “establishment” is showing signs of being a global phenomenon. Anti-establishment views are helping candidates from both the left and the right all across the globe (Greece for the left, Philippines for the right …). It is the perception of offering a “new way” which challenges old, “politically correct” platitudes, which is, I think, the dominating driver.

2016 could be the Year of the Mavericks.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Swedish Greens make Åsa Romson the scapegoat for Gustav Fridolin’s incompetence

May 9, 2016

Breaking:

The feminist credentials of the Swedish Greens are going to take a real hit. The recent fiasco with radical islamists infiltrating the Greens is – to a large extent – the result of the incompetence of their male, co-leader, Gustav Fridolin. The Greens nominating committee (the same incompetent committee which proposed a radical islamist for a Steering Committee post) has just proposed that their female, co-leader Åsa Romson be replaced by Isabella Lovin.

It seems Åsa Romson, who has not distinguished herself, but who was not really responsible for the islamic fiasco, is to be the scapegoat and take the blame for Fridolin who, they propose, should remain. Certainly Fridolin’s popularity was low but Romson’s was even lower. The Greens have their conference at the end of the week. But there are few male contenders for the co-leader post to challenge Fridolin. Perhaps it is the lack of competent males which allows Fridolin to remain.

So it looks like Fridolin will escape the consequences of his incompetence. He has been pretty ineffective as Education Minister as well. But the Greens (or at least their nominating committee) seem to be rather sexist in the way in which they are protecting and favouring Fridolin.

The Greens nominating committee has little courage and their competence is already in question. But Fridolin should not be in government.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | Comments Off on Swedish Greens make Åsa Romson the scapegoat for Gustav Fridolin’s incompetence

Mona Sahlin’s mortgage affaire is now morphing into a “bodyguard” affaire

May 7, 2016

Mona Sahlin resigned (again).

The basic story is given in The Local:

Mona Sahlin has stepped down from her position as Sweden’s national coordinator against violent extremism, after revelations that she had misrepresented her bodyguard’s salary to help him secure a mortgage.

The Swedish newspaper Expressen revealed on Wednesday that Sahlin provided written certification that her bodyguard earned 120,000 kronor a month so that he could buy an apartment. The bodyguard, in fact, only earned 43,000 kronor a month.

When confronted by Expressen, Sahlin initially stated that she had paid the difference out of her own pocket, before retracting the statement when it was proven by Expressen to be false.

The Ministry of Culture and Democracy then announced that Sahlin had resigned with immediate effect.

There are new revelations every day and what seemed to be just a mortgage affaire where Mona Sahlin had tried to help her personal bodyguard to buy a very expensive apartment by falsifying his apparent income is now morphing into something else. And that something else is centered around the “personal bodyguard” and his relationship with Mona Sahlin.

  1. The “personal bodyguard” (PB for convenience though he cannot be named) was not actually her bodyguard. She had 6 personnel from the police seconded for her security.
  2. The PB was ostensibly employed by the Ministry of Culture as an “assistant” but at a salary far in excess of other “assistants” at Mona Sahlin’s request.
  3. At the Ministry he is recorded as being an assistant to Mona Sahlin for handling press enquiries.
  4. The PB was the only person at the Centre against Violent Extremism who did not report to the Chief of Staff but reported directly to Mona Sahlin.
  5. His duties at the centre were said to be to include “future security questions” which, presumably, is the justification for his being called a bodyguard.
  6. The PB was rarely to be seen at the Centre.
  7. Mona Sahlin accompanied her PB for the showing of the 10 million kronor apartment he later bought.
  8. A 50,000 kronor per year “VIP parking place” was paid for by the Centre but was only available to the PB (and Mona Sahlin). It was hired over the objections of the Head of Staff at Mona Sahlin’s insistence and nobody else at the Centre even knew where the parking was located.
  9. The PB drives a very hot set of wheels – a sports car in the $120,000 class – which is not out of place in the VIP parking.
Mona Sahlin and anonymous PB image Expressen

Mona Sahlin and anonymous PB image Expressen

Speculation in the blogosphere is rife. Mona Sahlin and her PB have now resigned. There are reports of a very chaotic situation at the Centre. Mona Sahlin also sits on some other Boards  – with quite generous remuneration – but her somewhat sporadic and ill-prepared attendance is now receiving scrutiny.

The Sahlin affaire is now the lead story and has relegated the travails of the Green Party (islamic infiltrators in the cupboard) and even Donald Trump from the top spot. I really don’t much care what politicians get up to in their private lives. But it is beyond the pale when public people are incompetent and think they can escape scrutiny. And when it is preaching politicians who trip up it only proves that they are all proponents of “Do what I say and don’t look at what I do”.

But the burning question – which she has brought on herself – is “What was her relationship with her PB”?

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | Comments Off on Mona Sahlin’s mortgage affaire is now morphing into a “bodyguard” affaire

Why Trump couldn’t win – but did

May 6, 2016

I have made this point before. Attacking Trump head on only fuels his anti-establishment support. It is only by occupying the ground he occupies that some of his support can be captured.

Attacking Trump – from any direction – only seems to strengthen his support. That suggests that his support is coming from those who feel that their fears are completely unrepresented by any of the other candidates. The 2016 election is dominated, I think,  by the avoidance of worst fears and not by the meeting of aspirations.  It could well be that nobody will be able to take away from Trump’s support unless they can articulate the same disdain for establishment politics and political correctness that he does and address the worst fears that exist.

The current headlines in the US media are now about how and why Clinton will trounce Trump. It all sounds exactly like the reasons given over the last year for why Trump couldn’t win the Republican nomination. Some of it – especially in the left leaning media – HuffingtonPost, Slate, Politico and Washington Post – are more like wishful thinking rather than analysis. They have not learned from their past mistakes and still haven’t understood the strength of the anti-establishment wave. Bernie Sanders is the only other candidate from either party who has begun to understand the mood abroad. To take away the “politically incorrect” territory from Donald Trump may be beyond Hillary Clinton.

My prediction for November is that Clinton support is more likely to collapse than that Trump’s campaign will implode. And therefore I will not be at all surprised at a very close run election and even if Trump wins.

I started compiling some of the articles since June 2015 which explained why Trump was not going to win the Republican nomination, but I found this had already been done by Moon of Alabama.

Pundits Knew It Early On – Trump Could Not Win The Nomination

And of course the reality is

Kasich Dropping Out Of Presidential Race; Donald Trump Assured GOP Nomination – NPR, May 4 2016

 

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Clinton supporters started the Obama “birther” movement

May 5, 2016

The level of ridiculous rhetoric is now going to rise in the US and it will be difficult for Clinton to match Trump. Yesterday he proclaimed (again) to the electorate that she had started the Obama “birther” movement. We can expect much more from Trump and Clinton’s staff may be hard put to keep up. In battles of exaggerated rhetoric, tempo is of critical importance. The person who makes the first claim always has an advantage. It is having the white pieces in a chess game.

But on the birther story, this certainly originated during the Clinton / Obama battle. There is still not much love lost between Clinton and Obama. The birther story was started, if not by Clinton, certainly by one or more of her supporters, and it was in 2008 during her primary battle with Obama.

The right wing is quick to point this out.

Hillary Team Started Birther Movement

  1. More than a full year before anyone would hear of Orly Taitz, the Birther strategy was first laid out in the Penn memo.

  2. The “othering” foundation was built subliminally by the Clinton campaign itself.

  3. Democrats and Clinton campaign surrogates did the dirtiest of the dirty work: openly spread the Birther lies.

  4. Staffers in Hillary’s actual campaign used email to spread the lies among other 0225_obamaturban_460x276Democrats (this was a Democrat primary after all — so that is the only well you needed to poison a month before a primary).

  5. The campaign released the turban photo.

  6. Hillary herself used 60 Minutes to further stoke these lies.

But even an objective review of the history does show that this narrative is essentially correct. The article reblogged below was published by FactCheck in July 2015, just after Trump had announced his intention to run for President.

Was Hillary Clinton the Original ‘Birther’?

 by , Posted on July 2, 2015

Two Republican presidential candidates claim the so-called “birther” movement originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008. While it’s true that some of her ardent supporters pushed the theory, there is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with it.

In an interview on June 29, Sen. Ted Cruz said “the whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008,” and earlier this year, Donald Trump claimed “Hillary Clinton wanted [Obama’s] birth certificate. Hillary is a birther.”

Neither Cruz nor Trump presented any evidence that Clinton or anyone on her campaign ever questioned Obama’s birthplace, demanded to see his birth certificate, or otherwise suggested that Obama was not a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as president.

For those unfamiliar with the controversy over Obama’s birthplace, it refers to those who contend that Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to be president.

At FactCheck.org, we have written about the issue of Obama’s birthplace on multiple occasions — indeed we were the first media organization to hold his birth certificate in our hot little hands and vouch for the authenticity of it. But facts have done little to squelch the conspiracy theories that continue to bounce around online.

The issue arose again this week in an interview with Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Yahoo News’ Katie Couric asked Cruz if he thought that was going to be an issue for voters.

“It’s interesting, the whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 against Barack Obama,” Cruz said (at about the 25:25 mark). Cruz then went on to say that he believes he clearly meets the constitutional requirement for a president to be a “natural born citizen.”

The claim about Clinton’s tie to “birthers” was made earlier by Donald Trump in February at the CPAC event (at 24:20 mark). Trump — who has a history of pushing bogus theories about Obama’s birth —  said, “Hillary Clinton wanted [Obama’s] birth certificate. Hillary is a birther. She wanted … but she was unable to get it.”

We asked the Cruz campaign for backup, and it pointed us to two articles. The first ran in Politico on April 22, 2011, under the headline, “Birtherism: Where it all began.”

Politico, April 22, 2011: The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.

According to the article, the theory that Obama was born in Kenya “first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.”

The second article, which ran several days after the Politico piece, was published by the Telegraph, a British paper, which stated: “An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.”

Both of those stories comport with what we here at FactCheck.org wrote  two-and-a-half years earlier, on Nov. 8, 2008: “This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.”

Claims about Obama’s birthplace appeared in chain emails bouncing around the Web, and one of the first lawsuits over Obama’s birth certificate was filed by Philip Berg, a former deputy Pennsylvania attorney general and a self-described “moderate to liberal” who supported Clinton.

But none of those stories suggests any link between the Clinton campaign, let alone Clinton herself, and the advocacy of theories questioning Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

One of the authors of the Politico story, Byron Tau, now a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, told FactCheck.org via email that “we never found any links between the Clinton campaign and the rumors in 2008.”

The other coauthor of the Politico story, Ben Smith, now the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, said in a May 2013 interview on MSNBC that the conspiracy theories traced back to “some of [Hillary Clinton’s] passionate supporters,” during the final throes of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. But he said they did not come from “Clinton herself or her staff.”

Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said Cruz’s claim is false. “The Clinton campaign never suggested that President Obama was not born here,” Schwerin wrote to us in an email.

It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.

— Robert Farley

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 3 Comments »

The US choice is now high risk with Trump or low gain with Clinton

May 4, 2016

It is politically incorrect to see any good in Donald Trump. Even many of my Republican friends (and all who are Democratic) are dismayed at the thought of a President Trump, who – they assume – will inevitably lead the US to catastrophe.

I am not so sure.

After 8 years of a lack-lustre and indecisive, risk-averse Barack Obama who promised much only to deceive, Hillary Clinton offers “more of the same”. She is as “establishment” as it is possible to be. She represents the safe choice. There is no chance of any kind of greatness, only of a slight improvement or a gentle decline. She removes the possibility of a “high gain” scenario.

But I see two possible outcomes with Donald Trump. The first is that he will be the unmitigated disaster that the media and the politically correct expect. In this scenario, the US will become a harder, more bigoted country, less tolerant of minorities and less compassionate. It will become divisive in domestic affairs and inept and dangerous in its foreign policy. It will become a sin to remain poor.

But there is a second scenario and I think there is nothing in-between. The second scenario is that US domestic and foreign policy will become entirely “trade” oriented. International friendships and alliances will have  to have a cost-benefit analysis. Public spending and government jobs will be drastically down-sized. Bureaucrats will be subject to performance indicators. It will not be a sin to be rich. The ideological shift will be to “people as they deserve” rather than to “people as they desire”.

Trump versus Clinton

In November, the US electorate are going to be faced with the safe choice of Hillary Clinton with no great upside or any catastrophe, or a highly risky choice of Donald Trump who could lead to disaster or could conceivably lift the country to new highs. It is high risk with Trump versus low gain with Clinton. I generally tend to associate socialistic Europe with low-risk (low gain) policies and the free-wheeling capitalism of the US with high risk (high gain) policies. Not unlike the distinction between Clinton and Trump.

I suspect that Trump’s chances against Clinton are being written off a little too soon. His chances are certainly better than the 5000:1 odds of Leicester City winning the English Premier League. Every pundit has so far grossly under-estimated the strength of the anti-establishment wave. That could be a tsunami for Trump in November.

If Leicester City could win the Premier League, Donald Trump could be elected President of the US.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Burning ivory only increases poaching

May 3, 2016

Some 105 tons of contraband ivory was burned by Kenyan authorities last week in their effort to curb illegal poaching. I find their logic flawed. All the ivory that was destroyed was what had been recovered from poachers or traders who had been caught. The ivory came from elephants already killed. But I don’t see how destroying this ivory will save a single elephant from being targeted by poachers.

BBC: Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has set fire to a huge stockpile of ivory in an effort to show his country’s commitment to saving Africa’s elephants.

More than 100 tonnes of ivory was stacked up in pyres in Nairobi National Park where it is expected to burn for several days. The ivory represents nearly the entire stock confiscated by Kenya, amounting to the tusks of about 6,700 elephants.

Some disagree with Kenya’s approach, saying it can encourage poaching.

ivory burning

Suppose even that some – say 10% – of this contraband ivory – if it hadn’t been destroyed – would have found its way back to the illegal market. To that extent the price of ivory would have been held down. Now the price will have increased in  response to the shortfall in supply. And any increase in the black market price will only increase the incentive for the poachers. That part of the ivory destroyed – which would have found its way to the black market – will now have to be replaced by additional poaching.

The ivory comes mainly from African elephants for markets in Asia. The producer countries are primarily Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda and the consumption is in China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

Elephant poaching is driven by the demand for ivory and the price the consumer is prepared to pay. Around 20,000 elephants are killed by poachers every year (from a population of about 500,000). That is driven by the demand for about 1,000 – 1,500 tons of raw ivory every year. Currently the price of raw ivory – I am told – is about $2,500 per kg (from around $1,500 for small tusks to over $3,000 for large tusks). In 2010 this was less than $1,000 per kg. Most of this price increase reflects an increase of demand and not a scarcity of supply. As long as this demand holds up (overwhelmingly from China), it is worthwhile for poachers and traders to risk being caught.

The only way poaching will stop is when it is not worthwhile for a poacher to ply his trade. Either because the risk of being caught is too high or because the return on the enterprise is too low. The price for illicit ivory has to crash if poaching is to be curtailed. The volume of the demand can only be addressed by education and that is a slow process. The other factor which could help would be if a reducing demand could be met by “legal” ivory. Around 30,000 – 40,000 elephants, I estimate, die of natural causes every year. Their tusks are usually destroyed. But they could form part – or even all – of a “legal” trade which serves to depress the price of raw ivory. Mammoth ivory recovered from the Siberian permafrost could also form a useful addition to the “legal supply”.

Preventing poaching and prosecuting traders is all very well, but ultimately the consumer demand has to be educated out. Raw ivory price has to be brought down to a level where poaching is just not worthwhile.

Kenya would have done better to flood the market with this ivory. It would have prevented or at least delayed the poaching of some 5,000+ elephants.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Economics, Wildlife | Comments Off on Burning ivory only increases poaching

Negative first impressions

May 1, 2016

I am just an old square.

First impressions do get modified, but when the first impression is negative enough, there never is a second.

  • Sagging trousers : – 10,000
  • Someone in a burqa: – 5,000
  • Face piercings: – 2,000
  • Tattoos : – 1,000
    • Beautiful tattoos : + 10 – 100
First impressions 1

First impressions 1

  • Idiot drivers : – 1,000
  • Idiot cyclists : – 999
  • Idiot Autos in Delhi : – 900
First impressions 2

First impressions 2

  • Suit with short pants : – 900
  • Shiny suit : – 890
  • “Power” tie : – 880
First impressions 3

First impressions 3

Probably says more about me than anybody else.

 

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Negative first impressions

Donald Trump has to choose a woman and Hillary Clinton cannot

April 30, 2016

As the Republicans begin to accept, albeit reluctantly, that Donald Trump is going to be their candidate and as it becomes clear that Sanders has been eliminated, the choice of possible running-mates is coming to the fore.

It is pretty obvious to me that Hillary Clinton cannot chose a woman as her Vice Presidential pick. To be elected as the first woman President is already a risk. To have another woman as her running mate as well would be going over the top. She would risk alienating all the patriarchal minorities she is going to depend upon. A two-woman ticket, in the US of today, would almost certainly lose. It would be far too risky and Clinton just does not take risks.

Second, and more importantly, Clinton cannot afford, and will not tolerate, another woman who takes the feminist spotlight away from herself. Clinton’s feminist credentials are rather weak. She needs the comparison when juxtaposed with a man to get up to be just passable. Any woman she chose as her VP would almost certainly have stronger feminist credentials and would hog the feminist limelight. Clinton’s ego would not, could not, intentionally allow her to accept a position in the shadow of someone else.

Clinton needs to project an image of strength and resolve (which she does not naturally do). For this she requires a man as her running mate. She needs him to be perceived as being strong but subservient to her. In fact, all her closest advisors need to be men for the image of her strength to be enhanced. Not unlike how Indira Gandhi or Golda Meier or Margaret Thatcher chose in their heydays.

Just as Hillary Clinton has no choice but to avoid a female running mate, Donald Trump is, I think, forced to have a woman as his. His weakest support is with women and that support is necessary. But interestingly he needs an intelligent, feminine – rather than a feminist – partner. I merely observe that “intelligent and feminine” always trumps “feminist” (no pun intended) and even overrules “attractive”. A “feminine” female never needs to fight all the battles that a feminist does. “Feminine” always makes “feminist” look envious. She will need a track record for “smartness” and pragmatism. She will therefore have to be an experienced politician but feminine enough to eclipse Hillary Clinton. She will have to be feminine enough to make the feminist attacks seem like sour grapes or just envious “whining”. Trump has a track record of appointing women to high positions in his business empire and the voters will need to be reminded of that.

Ted Cruz has announced Carly Fiorina as his VP pick, but it seems a desperate bid for publicity against a rampant Trump. Fiorina herself would not qualify to be a Trump running mate. Sarah Palin’s name has been mentioned but I suspect she carries too much baggage. Condoleezza Rice has also been mentioned but she carries even more baggage. South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (nee Nimrata Nikki Randhawa and of Sikh origin) is not impossible and neither is Cathy Rodgers, a five-term Republican congresswoman. Susana Martinez is the Governor of New Mexico and in addition to being intelligent and feminine is also of Hispanic origin. Joni Kay Ernst is the junior Senator from Iowa and a combat veteran who has seen service in Iraq.

Trumps Picks

My guess would be that whoever he picks, in addition to being intelligent, feminine and with a track record in politics, will also probably represent an “immigrant” constituency. Which would take Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez to the top of the possible list.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »