Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump speaks with newly sworn-in White House chief of staff John Kelly at the White House on July 31. Kelly is one of four former generals who were appointed to top administration positions. Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

President Trump speaks with newly sworn-in White House chief of staff John Kelly at the White House on July 31. Kelly is one of four former generals who were appointed to top administration positions.

When White House chief strategist Steve Bannon was pushed out of his job last week, it underscored the growing clout of President Trump's chief of staff, John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general.

And when Trump announced he was increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan on Monday, after suggesting for years that he wouldn't, administration officials were quick to note that he was heeding the advice of "the generals."

Trump, who attended the New York Military Academy as a teenager, has made clear he admires the toughness and discipline of military life and has appointed four former generals to top administration positions.

"I think that he likes the idea of military leadership, because military leadership is very decisive and audacious at times, and general officers are very good at simplifying problems and then getting the job done," said Thomas Kolditz, a retired brigadier general and the director of the Doerr Institute for New Leaders at Rice University.

While other administration figures have come and gone, Kelly, Defense Secretary James Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster are still on the job, with varying degrees of power and influence. (A fourth general, Michael Flynn, held a brief, stormy tenure as national security adviser.)

But as much as Trump reveres the military, his own management style could put him in conflict with the very generals he has appointed.

Leadership is a core part of military service, and promising recruits are taught from the beginning how to inspire and command respect.

"The heart and soul of who we are in the military is about leadership, and leadership on a day-to-day basis but very importantly leadership in combat," said retired Marine Corps Gen. John Allen.

"So recruiting young men and women who have those skills early in their lives and then working hard to foster and nurture those skills are very important," he added.

Those qualities can make a big difference later on, when those men and women leave the military and venture into public life or the corporate world.

Former Procter & Gamble Chief Executive Robert McDonald attended West Point as a young man and later served five years in the Army, before leaving for a corporate job.

He had to make certain adjustments, he recalls. Because people in the Army move around so much, they're provided with manuals telling them how to do everything.

"So when I got to the Procter & Gamble Co., I went to my boss and I said, 'Where's the field manual that tells you how to organize your desk?' And of course they thought I was crazy," McDonald said.

But the leadership skills he learned in the military stayed with him throughout his career. McDonald likes to cite some words from the West Point Cadet Prayer.

"Those words are, 'Help me to choose the harder right rather than the easier wrong.' And it's remarkable, but in business as in life, the easier thing is usually the wrong thing to do," he said.

Carola Frydman and Efraim Benmelech, professors of finance at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, have studied the track records of chief executives who served in the military.

Among their findings: CEOs who are also vets are more cautious about spending money on research and development, and they tend to commit less corporate fraud.

They also don't tend to do any better than other chief executives, the research suggests.

But Frydman and Benmelech say CEOs who are also vets do tend to perform better during economic downturns. They can be good in a crisis.

"They bring the capacity to operate under stress, and in so many cases, this stress has been tempered in the hot flame of war. And you just can't pay enough for that kind of experience," Allen said.

That may be one of the qualities that appeal to Trump, whose administration has been plagued by leaks, aborted policy initiatives and high-level staff defections.

But Kolditz notes that Trump may not fully grasp the ethos of public service and loyalty to the country that military officers are brought up in.

"Donald Trump's grown up in a scrappier place, where it was pretty much about making money for yourself, and he is brand new to public service," Kolditz said.

"Many of the things that Donald Trump expects from his people require [their ideas about public service] to be set aside for personal loyalty to Donald Trump. And so we're going to see this meeting of the minds, and I think it will be a process of consistent negotiation in how things happen," Kolditz added.

"What he's looking for is success," Allen said. "And so in his mind it would seem he has concluded that among the many other people that might come into the administration, retired generals offer perhaps a time-tried and battle-proven executive who can come into the administration and provide critical leadership in key positions.

"And with Kelly, Mattis and McMaster, he has certainly found three of the best and he has placed them I think in three pretty critical positions," Allen said.

Read more from the original source:
Why Donald Trump Likes To Surround Himself With Generals - NPR

We took a look at an energy claim President Donald Trump made at his rally in Phoenix on Aug. 22, 2017.

In a 75-minute rally speech that revisited his response to the Charlottesville, Va., unrest and scolded the national media, President Donald Trump slid in a note of pride about the United States balance of trade in energy.

"We're going to do an infrastructure bill," Trump said. "We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, waterways, all across our beautiful land. Our greatest creations, our most incredible buildings, our most beautiful works of art are just waiting to be brought to life. American hands will build this future. American energy will power this future. We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently."

Was he correct to say that the United States has "become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently"?

Short answer: No.

But to get to the short answer, you have to wade through several possible interpretations of what Trump meant. (The White House did not clarify his meaning for us.)

First possible meaning: The U.S. has just begun exporting energy

One way to read Trumps statement is to take it literally -- that the United States only recently began to export energy. This is flat wrong.

"We have been exporting coal, natural gas, electricity, refined products and energy technologies for a very long time," said Paul Sullivan, a professor at National Defense University and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University who specializes in energy security issues. "We were once, during the time of JD Rockefeller, the world's near monopoly on kerosene. Liquefied natural gas exports from Alaska to Japan have been around for a long time. Piped gas to Mexico and Canada are normal events. We have a massive electricity trade with Canada."

Second possible meaning: The U.S. is now a net energy exporter

Trump might have meant that the United States had only recently become a net exporter of energy -- meaning the total of all U.S. energy exports recently overtook the total of all U.S. energy imports. This is less wrong, but still not accurate.

"This has been falling, but we are still a huge net energy importer," said Jason Bordoff, who directs Columbia Universitys Center on Global Energy Policy.

In its most recent projections, the federal Energy Information Administration concluded that the United States would become a net energy exporter around 2026, depending on the course of future patterns of global supply, demand and pricing.

Whats clear is that the United States has not yet become a net exporter of energy, as Trumps past-tense remark indicated. If that day comes in 2026 -- and it may or may not -- that would be two years after Trump finishes a possible second term.

Third possible meaning: U.S. crude oil export ban lifted

Perhaps rather than "energy," Trump meant to say "crude oil."

If this is what Trump meant, the statement would still be problematic. It wouldnt be the first time "ever." And the relevant change was signed under his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

On Dec. 18, 2015, the United States enacted legislation to repeal a ban on most crude-oil exports that had been in place since the energy-crisis days of 1975. (Exports of refined petroleum were not blocked by the law, just crude.)

Heres a chart showing U.S. crude-oil exports going back to the 1980s. (The years between 1975 and 2015 show some export activity because trade with some countries, such as Canada, was exempt from the law.) The rapid rise in crude-oil exports near the end of the chart reflects the lifting of the export-restriction law.

Other possible meanings

Its possible to substitute any number of energy subcategories into Trumps remark to see whether they make the statement more accurate. Some do, some dont.

The United States has been a net coal exporter for many years. It has been a net exporter of refined petroleum products since around 2011. So neither of those would make Trump correct.

Natural gas is a more promising option. The United States is not yet a net exporter of natural gas, but the difference between imports and exports has narrowed for nine consecutive years, according to EIA, falling to its smallest gap ever in 2016. And the agency projects that the United States will become a net exporter of natural gas once the 2017 numbers are tallied up.

Energy experts say that this is a significant development, though one that Trump can take little credit for.

"It has been a trend that was activated by the U.S. shale boom and made possible by the Obama administration's policy on liquefied natural gas exports," said Anna Mikulska, a fellow with Rice Universitys Center for Energy Studies.

Ironically, Bordoff added, a different Trump policy goal -- reviewing Obama-era increases in fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles -- could make it harder for the United States to become a net exporter of energy, the very thing he applauded in Phoenix.

"Trumps stated intention to ease fuel economy standards actually undermines the goal of becoming a net energy exporter, because it means the U.S. will be consuming more oil than we would otherwise," he said. "The EIA projections assume the planned increases in fuel economy go into effect, so the EIA projection of when we become a net exporter of energy would be pushed further out if we weaken fuel economy standards."

Our ruling

Trump said that "we have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently."

This statement is problematic regardless of how you interpret his statement -- gross energy exports, net energy exports, gross crude-oil exports, and net natural gas exports. The closest he would come to being accurate is if he were referring to net natural gas exports, but even there, it hasnt happened yet, contrary to what his past-tense statement indicates. We rate the statement False.

Share the Facts

2017-08-23 21:33:46 UTC

2

1

7

False

http://time.com/4912055/donald-trump-phoenix-arizona-transcript/

"We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently."

a rally in Phoenix

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

2017-08-22

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump wrongly says US is a net energy exporter - PolitiFact

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist who worked for President Trump's 2016 campaign, tweeted out a poll Wednesday arguing Donald Trump's invincibility in the 2020 election but the data he was showcasing told a different story.

The poll, conducted by Fabrizio's firm, Fabrizio, Lee and Associates, showed that if a Republican presidential primary were held today, just 50% of the GOP would be most likely to vote for Donald Trump. The poll found that 26% would choose among four other candidates.

Even though these results technically show that 50% of the Republican Party wants someone other than Trump to run in a presidential primary, Fabrizio treated the results as welcome news of the President's popularity, tweeting that he was "crushing" the primary field:

Among Trump's hypothetical challengers, support was split. The poll found that 14% would most likely to vote for Texas Senator Ted Cruz, 10% would vote for Ohio Governor John Kasich both of whom ran against Trump in the 2016 presidential primaries and 1% would vote for either Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse or Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. Not everyone could make up their minds: 24% were undecided.

Historically, sitting Presidents rarely face serious primary challenges when they are running for reelection, although such instances have occurred, most notably Senator Ted Kennedy's insurgent run against Jimmy Carter in 1980. There is no indication Trump will not run; to the contrary, he has already filed paperwork laying the groundwork for the 2020 campaign. Trump has historically low approval ratings for this point in his tenure, according to multiple polls, leading some pundits to speculate he will face an intra-party challenge. Politico reported Tuesday, for example, that the Democratic National Committee is preparing opposition research on Kasich, Sasse, Vice President Mike Pence, and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Kasich recently denied that he plans to run in 2020, telling CNN's Jake Tapper "I don't have any plans to do anything like that."

Polls this far out from a primary are notoriously unreliable. The survey was conducted among 1,500 voters who either described themselves as GOP or leaning GOP. The margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.

Fabrizio joined Trump's campaign as pollster after working for Rand Paul in the 2016 presidential primaries, TIME reported in June 2016. After sparking a firestorm on political Twitter, Fabrizio posted a Gallup poll from September 2010 showing that Hillary Clinton with the support of 37% of Democrats in the 2012 primary, while Barack Obama had 52%.

Though a poll from a month later showed Obama with 64% support.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump's Campaign Pollster Tweeted Out a Poll That Is Not Great for the President - TIME

Now that the prefix alt is being thrown in front of anything one opposes, a new study investigates the characteristics of people affiliated with the Alt-Right. The paper offers insight into what this collection of individuals and small movements really thinks about the state of the union.

Two assistant professorsPatrick S. Forscher, in the Department of Psychological Science at the University of Arkansas, and Nour S. Kteily, in the Department of Management and Organizations at Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern Universityused Amazons mTurk platform, in which people post bulletins to recruit human intelligence for tasks computers cannot perform, for data collection. Members affiliated with the Alt-Right were paid $3 while a comparison group of non-Alt-Right members received $2.

While trusting online replies by self-identifying members of any group is tricky, a two-tier verification system offered at least some semblance of honesty. After discarding a number of responses, the researchers analyzed 447 members of the Alt-Right with 382 non-Alt-Right respondents in the comparison group. While well look more deeply into the methods, this summation from their conclusion is perhaps unsurprising:

Our Alt-Right sample reported high levels of social dominance orientation, strong support for collective action on behalf of White people, and strong opposition to collective action on behalf of Black people they were quite willing to blatantly dehumanize both religious/national outgroups and political opposition groups, reported high levels of the motivations to express prejudice towards Black people, and reported high levels of harassing and offensive behavior.

In last weeks Real Time, Bill Maher mentioned the Alt-Right could not exist without the Internet. Indeed, many groups would not have formed without this powerful device. (Ive previously written about another such phenomena,misophonia.) Forscher and Kteily wanted to better understand if the Alt-Right leaned more populist, focused on anti-globalist and anti-establishment issues, or were truly the products of White Power. It turns out a little of both, with the latter expressed more forcefully.

The Method

In this study, members of the Alt-Right were first asked questions regarding the gap between elites and non-elites, attitudes toward the economy, trust in various media outlets, and notions of supremacy, including social dominance orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) characteristics. Measures of self-reported aggression and extremist philosophies also played a role.

The comparison group described their own political ideologies and feelings on the Alt-Right. Both groups were asked if the Alt-Right is racist. Importantly, they left out comments about Trump and his potential affiliations with the Alt-Right during analysis.

Then they dove into minutia. Respondents had to measure friendships and moral foundation traits, including equality, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. Intergroup allegiance was rendered, as well ideas about dehumanization. In perhaps the most telling aspect of the study, the famous chimp-to-human evolution drawing was presented. Respondents were asked to identify where along the timeline the following three subgroups were located: Alt-Right members, such as Americans, Europeans, Swedes, and Whites in general; religious and ethnic groups like Arabs, Muslims, Mexicans, and Blacks; political opposition groups, such as Democrats, feminists, journalists, and Republicans who refused to vote for Trump.You can read all the questions asked here.

Image used for the ascent scale anchor points in the study (page 32 of the survey).

Next measured was self-reported aggressive behavior, including online and offline name calling, physical threats, harassment, and willingness to make statements because others find them offensive. Economic issues followed, including perceptions of disadvantage among ten groups. Feelings of in-group and out-group political affiliations were discussed, followed by support for the police, governmental and economic corruption, trust in both mainstream and alternative media sources, and finally, feelings on race-based collective action, such as Black Lives Matter.

The Results

Members of the Alt-Right display low trust in mainstream media and moderate trust in alternative media sources like Breitbart and Alex Jones. They measured at the midpoint on Dark Triad traits, Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and dehumanization of religious and ethnic groups and their political opposition groups. They generally believe some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.

The Alt-Right scored much higher on motivations and willingness to express prejudice and to harass others. They support the organization of Whites but claim Black Lives Matter has been harmful to the country. Their respect for the police was higher, and they derived more pleasure from dehumanizing othersnon-members were notable for not dehumanizing members of the Alt-Right. The two groups shared similar scores regarding the moral outlooks of their friends (in-group mentality), economic evaluations, and concerns about governmental corruption.

We found some evidence for the populist portrayal, as Alt-Right supporters expressed suspicion of mainstream media and trust in alternative media. Interestingly, we found little evidence that this populism extended to economic issues: Alt-Right supporters were more optimistic about the current and future states of the economy than non-supporters.

The authors recognize limitations. As a cross-sectional study, this paper only speaks to correlates rather than causes of Alt-Right membership. They only measured a subset of potential variables, leaving out anxiety about social status and other markers. As their recruitment process was through convenience sampling, the dangers of self-reporting are apparent, including people lying about their affiliations.

One of the more interesting aspects of this paper is the authors belief that members of the Alt-Right sometimes begin with populism and get pulled toward supremacism as they befriend more White Power advocatesagain, in-group mentality. This makes sense given how tribalism is expressed in many aspects on both sides of this study.

But no, that does not give credence to the notion that both sides are to blame for incidents like Charlottesville. This paper clearly shows increased levels of hostility and aggression as well as willingness to harass and dehumanize on the Alt-Right. Perhaps most sadly, though, is that both sides do express distrust in the government and economic forces ruling America. A united effort could produce substantial change, but so long as the tribes battle that seems impossible.

robert-sapolsky-us-vs-them-thinking-is-hardwired-but-theres-hope-for-us-yet

In his book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, Robert Sapolsky writes:

Almost by definition, you cant have a society with both dramatic income inequality and plentiful social capital. Or translated from social science-ese, marked inequality makes people crummier to one another.

Bigotry, ethnocentrism, and oppression speak to our lowest, basest instincts. The biological mechanisms of out-group hostility played an important role in human development, but that time is over. So long as the fighting remains aimed at other ethnicities instead of the forces stoking nationalist flames, progress is impossible.

There are arguments amongst evolutionary biologists about whether evolution is gradual or has sudden jumps and fits. As this paper shows, we need a serious social jump right now, biology be damned.

--

Derek is the author ofWhole Motion: Training Your Brain and Body For Optimal Health. Based in Los Angeles he is working on a new book about spiritual consumerism. Stay in touch onFacebookandTwitter.

View original post here:
Who Is the Alt-Right? Researchers Build a Psychological Profile - Big Think

Rep. Maxine Waters delivered a mic-dropping speech at the Black Girls Rock! award show on Tuesday night, thanking her supporters and sternly reminding her critics that she is a strong black woman who will not be intimidated.

Waters, who was recognized as the honoree for the shows social humanitarian award, began her speech by underscoring the importance of safe spaces like Black Girls Rock!, which celebrates the beauty and magic of black sisterhood, and reiterated why representation matters.

For much too long, black girls have not reached their full potential but now things are changing, she said, going on to credit women including TV mastermind Shonda Rhimes, director Ava Duvernay, and astronaut Mae Jamieson for inspiring countless women. All of these fabulous women who are inspiring so many young girls and showing them that they too can be successful, they are certainly examples of what is possible, she said.

Waters then expressed gratitude towards the black women who have showered her with support in her efforts to call out President Donald Trump and his wrongdoings.

In recent months, Waters has consistently called for Trumps impeachment, citing his temperament, lack of experience and embrace of racismas reasons why he is unfit to lead. This has made her a target for attacks from right-wing politicians and white supremacist supporters.

However, countless women of color have rallied around Waters, including activist Brittany Packnett, who started the viral #BlackWomenAtWork hashtag in March to call out the disrespectful ways public figures, like former Fox News employee Bill OReilly, have treated Waters.

I know that if it was not for the love and respect shown to me by black women, those right wing, ultra conservative, alt-right haters would have me believe Im too black, Im too confrontational, Im too tough and Im too disrespectful to them but I know I am simply a strong black woman, Waters said.

We have power, we have influence, we can do things that others have told us we cant do, she added, before sending a stern warning to critics. If you come for me, Im coming for you.

Waters, who said she is grateful for the millennials who have openly embraced and supported her take on Trump, didnt leave the stage without reminding the audience of the power of speaking out and taking action.

Whether its the president of the United States of America or any of his cabinet members, we will say to them, we will resist you, she said. We will not allow you to damage this country in the way youre doing.

We will not allow you to take us backwards, she added. Not only will we resist you, we will impeach you!

Read this article:
Maxine Waters Warns 'Alt-Right Haters': 'If You Come For Me, I'm Coming For You' - HuffPost