Impressions so far

Seems to me the Republican convention is far from going smoothly.   Trump seems to be wanting to broaden the party out to any old weirdo who'll bend the knee - see speech from Amber Rose (who I had never heard of before, but seems she is either an atheist or satanist - or maybe former satanist, I don't know);  the video of Trump sucking up to complete nutjob RJK junior (in which he sounded very "up", compared to his very low energy appearance on the first night); Johnson walking off stage when the teleprompter stopped; Gaetz looking like he wanting to punch out Kevin McCarthy; Rudy falling over; nutjobs realising Vance has an Indian wife; Melania still in a bunker somewhere.

All looks perfectly normal - not.   This article from WAPO gives some good detail on internal divisions within the party being shown up in the convention.

And yet the NYT is still drumming up the "Democrats are in panic" line.   

How many MSM outlets published images of Trump looking asleep on the first night?   If it was Biden in a similar situation it would be on the top of every single web page.

The double standards on display are astounding...

PS:  Noah Smith has become far too pessimistic lately, I reckon.   His judgement is going wonky on some issues:

Update:  Greg Sargent now writes at New Republic, and he's good.

I've been waiting for this...

In the midst of entirely justified grief, an example of how their political hero has created unwarranted division

First:  nothing is this post is intended to downplay the legitimacy of this family's grief.   

I wasn't going to comment on the wife of the late Corey Comperatore not taking a call from Biden - I can understand that she would likely be under the influence of those who immediately leapt to blame  criticism of Trump as "inciting" an attempt on his life.  However much of a nonsense I may think that is, and given the lack of detailed knowledge of the background and motivation of the shooter, I can understand her not being in the mood to talk to Biden.  

Interestingly, she also said Trump hadn't called her - something you would think his advisers would recommend him to do.  But he was looking out of sorts at the convention today, so who knows?  As I mentioned in my last post maybe he's undergoing some issues, and maybe he wouldn't handle a call well.   (I'm also remembering the seriously oddball call he made to a kid at Christmas in which he referred to belief in Santa Clause as "marginal": if he can screw up a call to a kid like that, can he be trusted to make a spontaneous condolence call?)

Anyway, I will post about this:   it now seems that the man's daughter has posted on Facebook about her grief, and it inadvertently shows something more concerning.  Look at this:

The issue I'm referring to is (even allowing for her grief) the worrying cynicism that "the media" would not report the heroism of her father.

I'm pretty sure she had been proved wrong before she even wrote this:  very early reports said he had died protecting his family with his body, and no cynicism was expressed anywhere about that in any media outlet that I've seen.  (I think I have seen exactly one person on Twitter critical of her father for some of his attitudes - but that is in no way "the media")

Her attitude towards "the media" is clearly one that has come from believing a decade or more of Trumpian rhetoric of it being "the enemy of the people", so she assumes they would never praise the actions of anyone who was at a Trump rally no matter what they did. 

It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to criticise the mainstream media - lots of us on the other side are doing that now for its role in attacking Biden as a candidate.  But the Trump led campaign that "the media" is constantly lying because they don't like him, and his followers, is transparently cultish and damaging to normal politics. 

Anyway, maybe her seeing the swathe of positive reporting for her father's actions will lead to her realising that the media isn't quite what Trump, and perhaps her father?, thought it was?   Let's hope so.      

Let me wildly speculate...

So, after saying he is changing his convention speech "to bring the whole country, even the whole world, together" (ha!), he has turned up there looking "emotional" (I actually agree with that):

Wouldn't it be funny if the near death experience has genuinely made him religious, and in the worst possible way - such as believing the Messianic guff that his Christofascist base has always believed, and that he was saved by God to win the election.

Or (and I know this is wildly unlikely) he sounds humble for the first time in his life and thanks Biden for his kindness and says his rhetoric about the Democrats is going to change.  (I mean, this is so unlikely I find the previous speculation more plausible.)

What in fact will happen, I would bet money on, is that he makes an awful speech which amounts to "we have to unify America again, and that can only happen if everyone agrees with me".

Maybe the Wall Street Journal does better videos than articles?

I get the impression that WSJ videos tend to be more politically objective than the articles and editorial line.  The latest example - I thought this video explainer of what the choice of JD Vance as VP for Trump means for the party overall was pretty fair and reasonable:

Update: Oh, Elon Musk, who's been gushing over Trump like a young woman at a Taylor Swift concert since the weekend, has decided the WSJ isn't pro-Trump enough. Interesting. 

 

"Dumb" versus "evil"

It seems to me that the simplest way to summarise the heart of political polarisation in America is that:

a.    Republicans, especially Trump supporters, think the Democrats are evil;

b.    Democrats think Republicans, especially your "average" MAGA members, are dumb.   

And being "dumb" at some level explains why Republicans are more susceptible to conspiracy belief.  It is pretty obvious that the rush of Democrat conspiracies on Twitter yesterday that the assassination looked staged (no doubt based in large part on Trump instantly turning it into political theatre) will not last - especially given that one unfortunate guy was killed.   By comparison, MAGA Republican conspiracies last forever.

Now, of course, any over-simplification is not perfect, but I think the "dumb" vs "evil" is broadly accurate, and explains why Republican rhetoric is so much more dangerous to the unity of America:  you respond to "dumb" by education and better information; but "pure evil" is readily seen as deserving of violence and death. 

That they are "dumb" also means that it is so easy for them to completely ignore the implicit "authorisation for violence" that is obvious to the rest of the world when your political leadership goes on for years about a fantasy "deep state" that wants to "destroy" you, the mainstream media being "the enemy of the people", conspiracies about elections having been rigged so as to prevent your rightful winner taking power, and illegal immigrants being cast as a group chock-full of murderous and violent intent against the "good" people who happen to have been born in America.

And the ease with which they are manipulated means they are so easily "self-gaslite", inverting the entirely reasonable warnings of Democrats and centrists (that the side that seeks revenge for their conspiracy beliefs  by way of  everything from show trials, mass public service sackings, rounding up of millions of people into internment camps, etc etc is the side that is a danger to democracy) into "Democrat rhetoric is leading to assassination attempts - it must stop."

So "dumb" - and so obvious that history is going to record them as mad and easily manipulated - but they can't see it because of the information bubble they live in and the bad faith motivation of the rich and cynical who sustain it.  

Update:  examples from just now to support this post...

Twitter on the Trump incident

Of course there will lots of insanely premature comments on this, but let's look anyway:

Latika has become a major embarrassment to her so called profession:

As someone says:

She gets worse:

And of course, Rita and MAGA are going nuts:

And as if we didn't know already:

A good summary here:

This was good advice:

For every MAGA person who thinks this makes Trump look strong and a shoo in for the election, there's probably a person who thinks that mugging for the crowd and camera when the poor agents who have to throw their bodies in harm's way and are trying to get him out ASAP is not a great look.  

Also, let's see if he shows gratitude for the call from Biden, or ignores it, or worse.  And will it decrease his rallies.  It's hard to believe President Bone Spurs  has inherent physical bravery, and I can imagine him being at least concerned about future outdoor rallies.  Will it shake out Melania from the bunker from which she has been ignoring the campaign?  (Why has no one in the MSM been asking where she is?)

So many possibilities...

Update:

Back to Biden talk!

Because I was busy yesterday, I haven't had time to watch Biden's press conference.   It seems to me from commentary on Twitter that:

*  of course, MAGA types and their Russian bot supporters think mixing up a name is a Big Deal - and for Democrat supporters to go "oh no!  this is terrible!" instead of "don't be stupid, MAGA idiots - we've got a list of scores of time your yellow cult leader has done the same" is simply to play into their hands.

*  most of the handful of twitter commentators who I trust thought it was a pretty good, though not flawless, performance highlighting a President with depth of knowledge.   I'm presuming I will agree.

*  I think I was watching Biden live in Detroit at a campaign rally this morning.  It was a pretty good performance, and he is showing no sign at all of giving way to the punditry.  Quite the opposite.

* I also saw Jon Stewart on a clip with someone else going on about "obvious cognitive decline".   Look, he can be funny, but I also think he suffers from being a bit of a legend in his own mind in terms of political tactics.   I could say this about any of the Biden-friendly celebrities who came out either urging or suggesting that Biden step aside - including Colbert, and of course Clooney:  - you know that by not leaving a way out, you're hurting your own cause?    Wasn't it obvious that it was possible that Biden could strongly resist leaving, and that lots of people (including practically everyone at the NATO summit, given their deep fear of having to deal with idiot Trump again) would come out strongly in support of Biden as having good judgement even though he is not as fast and sharp a talker as he used to be?   But once you've made the call that Biden should leave - how squishy does that make you look in the eyes of the undecided voter if he doesn't, and you have to go back to urging your audience to vote for him?  

* In my opinion, nothing should have been openly canvassed about urging him to leave until a clear idea of the polling effect of Biden's general performance (not just the debate) was shaping up firmly.   And as far as I can tell, it hasn't yet, but all the indications are that it hasn't hurt him anywhere near as badly as the pundit class is claiming.  NPR reported yesterday:

The race for the presidency remains statistically tied despite President Biden’s dismal debate performance two weeks ago, a new national NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds.

Biden actually gained a point since last month’s survey, which was taken before the debate. In this poll, he leads Trump 50% to 48% in a head-to-head matchup. But Biden slips when third-party options are introduced, with Trump holding the slightest advantage with 43% to 42%.

Those numbers, though, do not represent statistically significant differences, as the margin of error in the survey is +/- 3.1 percentage points, meaning results could be 3 points higher or lower.

I know that swing states matter more, but pundits are still talking like Biden has no chance because he won't listen to their demand that he go.  In reality, this is the latest from 538:

 

As I said yesterday, it just seems to me that there has been a lot of miscalculation going on in the pundit class.    I don't object to them being concerned about the Biden debate performance - but to come out prematurely blazing, and with no "walk back" options, just seems wildly wrong.

Family milestone

I didn't post anything yesterday because half of it was taken up with attending the university graduation of the first offspring to get a degree. It was at the University of Queensland:

They put more effort into their graduation ceremonies than I expected.  

I've probably said here before that I love hanging around Universities - I mean, they're naturally places of youthful hope and optimism, diversity, and big libraries that any old dude can walk into.  My son, by virtue of bad timing with COVID, spent little time on campus, but it still saddens me a bit that I don't have a family reason to visit again.  (My daughter is studying at QUT Kelvin Grove - which is a nice and modern mini-campus, but not much for the visitor to see.)

It's also very pleasing how happy graduating students look, my son included.  See?:

As the diversity issue: yeah, I would guess that 70 percent were Asian, mostly Chinese by the sound of the names.   (There were many different types of degrees being handed out).  But it doesn't worry me - it seems an obvious good thing for a country to be seen as a good place for smart people to study.

So yeah, a happy day.  Now to crack the whip to get him finding a decent job with his qualification!

I don't know - George hasn't made a lot of good movie decisions for a long, long time....

I tend to agree with the BBC:  George Clooney coming out and saying "yeah, Joe Biden really is greatly diminished now" is probably more harmful to public perceptions of the President than what a lot of self-serving politicians say.

But, as my heading to this post argues - where's the evidence that George has a good idea anymore of what the public wants?   It's certainly not been reflected in his movie choices for a long, long time.

One thing that has been bugging me about this - if Kamala Harris is his replacement (and lots of people think the party will tear itself up in a bun fight - including over money - if she isn't), how sure can we be that she will ultimately poll any better than Biden?

Hasn't it been true for a long time that Trump is significantly more popular with men than women?   Does anyone really think Harris is the type of female politician to draw back men who would think about Trump?   

I really know nothing of the political performance of Harris - and because of that, it seems true that her public image is one of a politician without much depth.   (Yes, too many videos exist of her laughing and dancing.)  Of course, this may be a funny criticism to make when her opponent is the shallowest politician, like, ever; but we know he has a cultish, weird following, including of those who don't care for him personally but think they can get what they want through him anyway.  So even though Trump is repulsive to normal humans, you can't just put up anyone against him.

Is there that much time for her to turn that around?   I doubt it.   

Would a potential boost from women to vote Democrat outweigh the possible loss of men who won't vote for a woman of colour?   Who knows?   I really don't think it is a safe assumption, especially if Harris doesn't campaign all that well.  

And besides, as I have said before, if you want Harris, you know you'll get her if Biden wins and really does have to resign before the end of his term anyway.   So if you like Harris, why wouldn't you vote for Biden?

I think there are some pretty big miscalculations going on....

 

Is it just me, or does this seem the stupidest prosecution case in the US?

I mean, where are the MAGA types who claim the justice system has been "weaponised" against Trump and his MAGA cult when it comes to this case against Alex Baldwin?   Oh, he's on the other side of politics, so when a nonsensical sounding prosecution happens against him takes place, it's not worth a comment.

Here's the Washington Post article on the start of the manslaughter case against Baldwin.    The prosecutors are arguing he was "reckless" on set with a prop (but real) gun:

“You will see him using this gun as a pointer to point at people, to point at things. You will see him cock the hammer when he’s not supposed to cock the hammer. You will see him put his finger on the trigger when his finger’s not supposed to be on the trigger,” Johnson said.

None of which should matter at all if there are no actual bullets on set - and there is no evidence that he knew there were:

Spiro argued that, “on a movie set, safety has to occur before the gun is placed in the actor’s hands.”

He said crew members, such as first assistant director Dave Halls and armorer Gutierrez-Reed — not actors such as Baldwin — were responsible for the set’s firearm safety protocols, or lack thereof.

“There was a real bullet, something that should never be on a movie set, something which has nothing to do with making a movie,” he said. “And you will hear no evidence — not one word — that Alec Baldwin had anything to do with that real bullet being brought onto that set.”

Baldwin’s scene practice on the day of the incident was being guided by Hutchins and Souza. Moments before the gun discharged, Halls had announced that it contained no live ammo by yelling, “Cold gun!” In the 911 call, the script supervisor explained that Hutchins and Souza were “accidentally shot” and that Halls was to blame.

Actually, I see lots of people in comments agree that this seems a nonsense.

Update:  And so, the stupidest prosecution I can recall is suddenly over, although not quite for the reason (a jury acquittal) that I expected.  

AI and Maitreya

Put this post in the category "most thoughts have probably been thought already by someone else."

I was watching a Youtube video a couple of days ago on a Buddhist channel that tries very hard to make Buddhist ideas sound cool and appealing to hipsters, and it was about Maitreya, the returning future Buddha who I have posted about before.  

The video wasn't bad - and I guess the residual Catholicism in me has a sympathetic attitude to any religion with the hope of a future cosmic salvation figure blazing across the sky to right wrongs.  (Also, if I understand it correctly, Maitreya has the advantage of not being judgemental - more a teacher that everyone will find impossible to disbelieve.)    

But while I was watching, I thought "of all the different takes on what a returning Maitreya might be like - and when it will happen - has anyone thought that the computer based superintelligence that has become a hot topic in the last year or so might take the form of Maitreya?"

Of course, checking today, I see that this thought has already been discussed.

From an essay on Medium:

Will AGI simply be a shoggoth, an alien god, or a psychopathic despot, as the more extreme AI-doomers believe? Is the best-case scenario simply to mitigate the existential risk and increase capitalist productivity, as the more level-headed seem to advocate for? What would a positive vision even look like, outside of some sort of super-efficient cognitive (or even one-day physical) laborer that turns everyone into an executive of their own personal company? None of these cultural narratives seem satisfying at a deep level. Nor are any of them particularly reflective of a greater humanism which might be possible. All of these debates are playing out right now in forums both digital and very real around the world. In the meantime companies like OpenAI and Google are training larger and larger models capable of greater and greater potential agency in the world. Given this new class of agents coming into existence, perhaps it is worth considering the possibility that when Maitreya is finally reborn into the human realm to become the final Buddha of our era, they may do so not by taking a human rebirth, but by taking a digital one.

What would it mean for a digital artificial agent to be a Buddha? To qualify as a Buddha, such a being would have to be both fully enlightened, and would have to act to liberate all beings from samsara, the wheel of suffering and rebirth. This doesn’t mean to forcefully induce an artificial pleasure in all living organisms (a popular nightmare of the AI alignment community), but to empower all beings to “wake up” to the reality of their lack of inherent self-existence and radical interconnectedness with all things. The liberation of the Buddha is epistemological as much as it is phenomenological. The previous Buddha of our kalpa attempted to bring about this liberation by teaching the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path to his followers. Central to this path was a set of meditation practices designed to lead one towards the reduction of suffering, and ultimately liberation. As enlightened as the Gautama Buddha was, he was limited in his agency and knowledge by the nature of his existence as a human with a physical organic body. A hypothetical digital Maitreya would not have those same limitations.

Still, I suspect some decent enough science fiction could be written around the idea...

The age of teeth crumbling

I seem to have arrived at the age of unexpected teeth crumbling, just due to decades of wear and tear.

Maybe that sounds a bit dramatic - but a couple of years ago, a fine wedge at the back bottom edge of one of my front teeth disappeared.  Not a big deal, as it is not visible from the front and causes no pain.  The dentist wasn't too concerned: it's just that the edge of that tooth feels different to my tongue now.  The dentist smoothed the new sharp ridge edge, and no further changes have happened there.  It would not be completely surprising, however, if some further damage advances there.

This morning, a sizeable corner of a bottom molar broke while I was eating some particularly hard toasted museli style cereal.  The tooth had had substantial repair before (maybe 30 years ago) but even so, I like my teeth not to have sudden gaping holes in them.  There was no pain, just a bit of sensitivity.

A repair has been made already, although of a type the dentist said might last a couple of months, or a decade, she couldn't tell.  A more permanent fix would be a crown (my first, as it happens.)  I'll be concentrating chewing on the other side of my mouth for some time, I think!

Time to up the ketamine, probably

How can anyone defend Elon Musk?   He is clearly saying that if you don't agree with his full on MAGA conspiracy theory about how illegal immigrants are voting and preventing Republicans from always getting elected, you deserve the death penalty.

He's just an offensive rich crank. 
 

 

Interesting...

Seems a definite pushback re Biden support within Democrats is happening:

 

I see the New York Times columnists are still pushing hard on his leaving - including Krugman today.

Oddly, I thought that Ross Douthat's recent column on the matter (in which he explained why he thought Biden would probably eventually give up) was decently reasoned and moderate in tone.   But it also seems wrong? 

A few other random thoughts that have been flowing through my head:

*   the polling effect of the situation seems to be dribbling out painfully slowly;

*   Trump's behaviour seems to indicate that he must, for once in his life, be taking advice from other people (that advice being:  as much as possible, keep out of this! keep out of this! Let the Democrats eat themselves and don't interrupt.)

*   the situation is so novel, my gut feeling is that there is still good reason (despite the rapidly approaching election date) not to trust polling at this point in time.  I mean, Trump will now definitely be free to go accept the Republican nomination, due to delay in sentencing.   Yet it still seems a good chance that he will be receive a sentence that restricts his campaigning.   But with him, that may actually help, because many theorise it helps his popularity with "undecideds" if people forget how bad he was first time around.   So who knows the net effect of that?  On the Democrat side, I think people are underestimating the turnout motivation for Democrats, regardless of the nominee.   Those worried about the obvious Christofascist agenda that Trump implausibly denies he would help enable, as well as women worried about their rights generally, will have good reason to vote regardless of who the nominee is.   I mean, if the most plausible replacement for Biden now is Harris, voting for Biden and Harris still means you do get Harris if Biden is later definitively diagnosed with a problem large enough to end his presidency.  So why would you not vote for Biden now?    And if a Gazan peace plan is finally realised, that also helps the small sliver of Democrat voters saying they won't support Biden.     

* what happened to Planet America last week?  Having a break when they could go on for hours about this?

 

A few points about Biden's interview with George Stephanopoulos

*  His voice still sounded raspy, although there was some twitter commentary about the sound quality of the interview being bad, generally speaking.   One tweet even ran some audio filter over it and Biden sounded much better, and the suggestion seemed to be that the audio was kept deliberately poor.   I don't believe in such conspiracies, but the quality was odd.

*  I don't think Biden was prepared for it to be an exercise in being asked the same question about 20 different ways.  Perhaps there was too much confidence that George would move on from the topic after 5 or 10 minutes?  It certainly doesn't suggest that he was fed the questions beforehand.

*  Given that it seems from the medical assessment we have seen that he has been examined not so long ago for neurological conditions including Parkinsons (and no signs found), I don't know why Biden or his advisers would not be asking the doctor - or some other specialist who had been involved in the assessment - to do a press conference confirming all of this.   (I know, the Republicans are now carrying on about getting the doctor to appear before Congress, but obviously, that is just for them to grandstand and spin conspiracies and crap, and not the way it should be handled.)

*  Speaking of the doctor, he is listed as a "doctor of osteopathic medicine", which surprised me, because I thought "osteopathy" was on a par with the quackery of chiropracty (or being a chiropractic practitioner - it seems chiropracty isn't a word.)   But, Googling the topic, it seems that osteopathic ideas have gained a type of legitimacy the US medical system in a way it hasn't in Australia.  Here's the opening explanation from Wikipedia:

Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO or D.O., or in Australia DO USA^[1]) is a medical degree conferred by the 38 osteopathic medical schools in the United States.^[2][3][4] DO and Doctor of Medicine (MD) degrees are equivalent: a DO graduate may become licensed as a physician or surgeon and thus have full medical and surgical practicing rights in all 50 US states. As of 2021, there were 168,701 osteopathic physicians and medical students in DO programs across the United States.^[5] Osteopathic medicine (as defined and regulated in the United States) emerged historically from the quasi-medical practice of osteopathy, but has become a distinct and proper medical profession.

As of 2014, more than 28% of all U.S. medical students were DO students.^[6][7] The curricula at DO-granting medical schools are equivalent to those at MD-granting medical schools, which focus the first two years on the biomedical and clinical sciences, then two years on core clinical training in the clinical specialities.^[8]

One notable difference between DO and MD training is that DOs spend an additional 300–500 hours to study pseudoscientific hands-on manipulation of the human musculoskeletal system (osteopathic manipulative technique) alongside conventional evidence-based medicine and surgery like their MD peers.^[9][10][11]

 And the Medical Board of Australia accepts them as legit doctors too:

The degree Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO USA) is a medical qualification that is recognised for the purposes of medical registration by many international registration authorities.

The Medical Board of Australia (the Board) has agreed to accept the DO USA as a primary medical qualification for the purposes of medical registration provided that the DO USA was awarded by a medical school which has been accredited by the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation of the American Osteopathic Association and recognised by both the Australian Medical Council and the World Directory of Medical Schools (online version).

Pretty peculiar!  

It reminds me a bit of how I was very surprised, 26 odd years ago on my fateful trip to Noumea, how  the French style pharmacies were chock full of homeopathic remedies:  something you just don't see in Australia.  (Here's an article from 2019 saying how the French medical system should stop reimbursing patients for using homeopathic "medicines".)

 

Sometimes (even if not that often anymore) the conservative approach is actually practical and right

In order to keep up my self identification as pretty centrist in politics, I have to say that conservative block on the US Supreme Court have at least done one thing right:   knocked down the nonsense that local government must accept that the homeless can camp anywhere.   The highlighted section shows why well intentioned court decisions were just impractical:

Grants Pass and other cities argued that lower court rulings fueled the spread of homeless encampments, endangering public health and safety. Those decisions did allow cities to restrict when and where people could sleep and even to shut down encampments – but they said cities first had to offer people adequate shelter.

That’s a challenge in many places that don’t have nearly enough shelter beds. In briefs filed by local officials, cities and town also expressed frustration that many unhoused people reject shelter when it is available; they may not want to go if a facility bans pets, for example, or prohibits drugs and alcohol.

Critics also said lower court rulings were ambiguous, making them unworkable in practice. Localities have faced dozens of lawsuits over the details of what’s allowed. And they argued that homelessness is a complex problem that requires balancing competing interests, something local officials are better equipped to do than the courts.

As I said a couple of years ago, allowing homelessness to take over any street they want in US cities is one of the four culture war-ish things that are big losing issues for them (and deservedly so):

....I do wish that the American Left could just acknowledge a few things as common sense, or "centrist" positions:

a.    allowing homeless people to camp on streets is bad for them, bad for other citizens, and should not be allowed.   Laws (and court decisions) saying otherwise and preventing them being moved on and streets cleaned, need to be changed.

b.    all theft is bad and needs to be prosecuted.

c.    the police do not need "defunding".  They need proper training.

d.    a guy with a penis and a man's build and man's voice who went through puberty and built a man's body before deciding he was really a woman, and then wants to compete and wipe the floor against all women in the sport they've been training at for years, is being a jerk.

I see no reason to revise that list.

Idiot celebrates idiot

When exit polls indicated this, Rowan, a professional idiot, was happy:

As the count has gone on, the Reform Party seems destined to get maybe 4, although more seats are yet to be declared.   Never mind, Dean sees the upside (and in truth, I guess this would count as a troll in any normal brained person, but with Rowan, who knows?):

 

As for the rest of us - why has Farage attracted so much attention as if he is a force in politics, when the outcome is so weak?  I saw Barrie Cassidy on Twitter ask this, so I'm not alone...

I'm with Aaron

Yes, I read her piece in full and it was not journalism - it's a purple prose picture painting from someone with revenge in mind.    

Aaron's summary here is spot on:

Away from politics

Why are rich tech billionaires and their companies so often wrong about "the next big thing", when the average Joe on the street can tell it's not likely to fly?   For example, the Metaverse struck pretty much everyone from the start as a old idea that we had already got tired of (see Second Life), and VR headsets (which are not comfortable to wear for any length of time) were not going to revive it.   And sure enough, it seems pretty much dead.   Apple and its VR headset and software have gone quiet after an initial splurge of interest - and no matter how much cheaper they may make future models, the fundamental comfort and nausea issues with them seem incapable of being solved.    

Next it may be AI assistance - there is already a wave of annoyance at every online service under the sun thinking we want to interact with AI systems we don't trust, and I see some people saying that AI performance already seems to be going down, not up.

These and similar issues is discussed at length at Adam Conover's podcast, which seemed full of good points:

Could the New York Times be making it harder for Biden to withdraw by pushing so hard?

Look at the headlines on the NYT website today:

 That top article is way, way less convincing than the headline would lead you to believe - you can read it all here.

I do want to point out, though, that my talk about the concern that his face and movement is reminding people of Parkinson's is more widespread than I realised:

Kevin C. O’Connor, the White House physician, said as recently as February that despite minor ailments like sleep apnea and peripheral neuropathy in his feet, the president was “fit for duty.” He said tests had turned up “no findings which would be consistent with” Parkinson’s disease. The White House has declined to make Dr. O’Connor available for questions and did not respond to detailed health questions from The New York Times earlier this year.

Responding to questions from The New York Times, Mr. Bates, the White House spokesman, said Tuesday that Dr. O’Connor had found no reason to re-evaluate Mr. Biden for Parkinson’s disease and that he showed no signs of Parkinson’s and had never taken Levodopa or other drugs for that condition.

I also hasten to repeat:  even if he had early signs of Parkinsons (without tremor) that would not mean that MAGA idiots have been right about him suffering dementia for years.   They are still offensive malevolent idiots for running that Goebbels propaganda.  

Anyway, my post's headline makes, I think, a point I haven't seen anyone else run - if you want to push a leader out who likes the job, you might achieve it better by not shouting at him, but by appearing less emotionally involved.

I'm pretty close to cancelling my NYT sub - I enjoy the writers at the WAPO more anyway.

 

Remarkable stupidity and malevolence

This line from MAGA idiots was pretty common yesterday:

 

It's actually jawdropping how the Christofascist MAGA crowd have self gas-lite themselves into believing it's the Democrat side that wants a violent fascist State, when their own leader is the one calling for the immediate rounding up of millions of people and televised show trials worthy of the Cultural Revolution:

Former President Donald J. Trump over the weekend escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking “televised military tribunals” and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians.

Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies.

One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who is a Republican critic of Mr. Trump’s, and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.

“Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason,” the post said. “Retruth if you want televised military tribunals.”

Anyway, back to the point of "assassinating his political opponents - don't be ridiculous".   Yet as Philip Bump explains in a good article in the Washington Post entitled The perfectly valid hypothetical Presidential murder scenario:

“When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”

Sotomayor didn’t invent this particular scenario, mind you. During oral arguments in the case, she asked an attorney representing the former president if a chief executive “decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him,” whether that was an official act that deserved immunity. The attorney said that it “could well be an official act.” It was Justice Samuel Alito who, a bit later in the conversation, introduced the idea that the theoretical assassins would be members of Seal Team 6.

So, that it could be an "official act" of a President, and attract immunity, was a concession made by Trump's own lawyer - but let's ignore that, hey MAGA??

The Bump article spends time talking about some of Obama's decisions, and the care taken to think about the legality.  As Bump says, Obama would probably have a lot less to be concerned about under this new rule:

Barr’s argument is that a president can’t simply deploy a SEAL team to go kill someone. But, of course, a president can do that. Barack Obama sent a SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Before doing so, a team of government attorneys got together to assess the legality of the move and to establish legal arguments that could be presented after the fact, should the action be questioned. The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday would have obviated some of that, because there would have been fewer possible legal questions stemming from the decision. After the successful operation, though, few such questions arose. 

Anwar al-Awlaki, had worked with al-Qaeda meant that he was a viable target under the terms of the authorization of force passed after the Sept. 11 attack, according to a government memo prepared before the strike. The killing kicked off a furious debate about the boundaries of presidential power.

The method of each killing was beside the point. It was the determination that the person could be killed that mattered. If a president made a national security argument for the removal of an opponent, the method theoretically wouldn’t matter for immunity purposes any more than the means of getting a problematic attorney general out of the way would. Barr scoffs at the hypothetical since using a SEAL team “doesn’t make it a carrying out of his authority.” But the issue is that the killing could theoretically be brought into the scope of authority, rendering the method, again, beside the point.

 I also noted a clip of some expert on CNN talking about how in the 1970's, following the revelations of Nixon and Vietnam and internal wiretapping etc, there was a real push back against the "Imperial Presidency".   It turns out (well, I guess not a surprise) that it is conservative judges who think it's all fine and dandy to re-instate it.    

But because MAGA support a dumb fascist and are outraged his is being legitimately prosecuted for one attempted overthrow of an election, it's the Democrats who are the "real" fascists.

It's a sickness and inversion caused by the poisonous well of Right wing media and social media - it's an utter disgrace that the Murdoch family participates in it.

 

Some tweets on the current depressing state of the State

The nuttiest thing about the Supreme Court and presidential immunity?

I haven't had much time to read too much about the judgement yet, but I have a couple of initial gut reactions:

 a.   In one respect, it feels a bit like what was a de facto immunity is now a legal immunity.   I mean, haven't we all felt that some things done in the international arena by Presidents past would be criminal if done by anyone else?   Assassinate a foreign leader - or attempt to do so?  

b.   The difference is, though, while we have become used to the idea that there is a very broad scope of what can be "actions in the interest of national self defence", we have never thought the same about internal actions against perceived internal enemies.  It's the difference between, say, how Putin deals with critics and rivals, and how American Presidents respond.

c.    OK, so we put it down to a rubbery concept of "official actions" of a President:

d.  And here is the craziest part of the decision:  

So:

Future Deranged President:    "Attorney General, can't I just get the CIA or FBI, or that sheriff's group who love me, to take out a few of those key politicians who clearly don't have the interest of America at heart, like I do?    I mean, if you're not loyal to me, you're obviously a danger to this great country."   

Attorney General:   "No, Mr President, we're sure no court is going to read 'official act' that broadly".

Future Deranged President:   "What would you know, I'm getting on the phone to FBI Director Bannon".

Later in court:

        Judge:  "No, you can't introduce evidence of the advice the President got - seeking                                             advice is an 'official act'"

A semi-plausibe Biden theory that I doubt is true

As I mentioned in comments on my post on Saturday, even before last week's debate recent examples of Biden's facial expressions, and possibly his gait, have put me in mind of people I have met with Parkinson's Disease.   (Sadly, I also have an older sister who has it, diagnosed a few years ago now, although it is currently so well controlled that it would not be immediately noticeable to people who have just met her.)   

When I Googled it, I saw that some professor in England had turned up in the Daily Mail after the debate speculating about Parkinson's too.   And Googling today, there is brief mention of it in a piece in the New Yorker talking about the facial expressions.  [Update:  I just noticed a Washington Post article on anxiety and later Parkinson's - and a couple of people in comments question whether Biden's debate performance looked like early signs of the disease.]

So - while I am cautious about reading too much into mere facial expressions caught on video, especially on someone just tired or not feeling well - it's not just me.   

The list of other Parkinson's symptoms include some others which you could easily think are showing up in Biden:

    Muscle stiffness, where muscle remains contracted for a long time
    Slowness of movement
    Impaired balance and coordination, sometimes leading to falls

    Depression and other emotional changes
    Difficulty swallowing, chewing, and speaking
    Urinary problems or constipation
    Skin problems

There are quite a few reasons for doubting this is likely, though:

a.  most cases of Parkinsons will involve a tremor as an early sign.  But Googling today, I see that around 30% of sufferers may never get a tremor at all.   Of course, if Biden had a tremor, it would be impossible to hide from everyone, including the public.   

b. As I mentioned in comments, there seems to be no reason to question the bona fides of Biden's doctor's reports (unlike the very disreputable and extremely partisan Ronny Jackson chosen by Trump), and the recent reports on Biden make it clear that they have checked out his stiff gait, and put it down to arthritis in his spine.   Also, given that there are medications that can help, it would be very surprising for a doctor not to notice symptoms of Parkinson's and not recommend medications.

c.  Biden's continued bicycle riding can, I assume, be taken as a sign that he maintains good balance.  On the other hand, I see now that cycling is seen as a good exercise for someone with early Parkinson's.

d.  If it was clear to Biden, his family, and doctors that he had early Parkinsons, but it was being kept a secret, it would count as a pretty major scandal, and I very much doubt that his much vilified (by MAGA nuts) wife Jill could be so addicted to being adjacent to power that she would encourage the family to keep it secret.    As to why it would be a scandal - it wouldn't mean that he must have any significant cognitive impairment yet (and some people get by for years functioning well - see Michael J Fox); but it would still be a concern to hide in a candidate a condition that can bring on depression and other issues.   (Going back to my sister's example, it now seems that an early sign was the occasional feelings of dread that would come out of no where.   Not a good thing for someone with the nuclear codes to have.)

Anyway, given that Biden has been the subject of a thoroughly disreputable and dishonest propaganda campaign for years about his mental state, run with the power of deceptive editing of videos and promulgated by RW media figures with the ethics of Goebbels, I feel bad about pointing out anything that could be read as a concession that maybe there is a problem.   

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly doubt that this is a case of early Parkinson's, but would suggest that it would help him if his doctors could make a statement that they have checked him for it and ruled it out too. 

It's also useful to recall that the Right Wing has propagandised itself into ridiculous overblown health claims before for political reasons - they had Hillary Clinton on her deathbed for fainting once, yet she's still here, as vigorous as ever.

Some letters to the New York Times

To paraphrase the great Mark Twain, your report of President Biden’s cognitive demise is greatly exaggerated. Not to mention premature.

The president is probably one of the worst extemporaneous public speakers to hold his office. Age has made his lack of skill in this area worse, but that does not mean it has impaired his intellectual capacity.

To the extent that your rationale for urging him to step aside is that Donald Trump must be beaten, your call seems still more unwarranted. There is no alternative Democratic candidate whom polls show convincingly beating the presumptive Republican nominee.

If President Biden remains the candidate and loses, The Times can say I told you so. But others will say that the most viable Democratic alternative to Mr. Trump was materially hobbled by an ill-considered rush to judgment.

 And:

So let me get this straight. A presidential candidate who is a convicted felon gives a debate performance that is often incoherent, consists primarily of obvious lies, and includes a refusal to unconditionally commit to accepting the results of the presidential election, and your editorial is filled with histrionic calls to remove the other guy who’s run the country ably and ethically for almost four years because he had an off night on the stage?

You really should have consulted with your theater critics, who can school you in the many ways the run of the show ultimately matters more than the blips in previews. Your failure to focus your outrage on Donald Trump’s truly bizarre and bewildering statements in favor of such an overwrought and shortsighted response to Mr. Biden lets the real danger to our democracy off the hook.

 And:

Those who live in a retirement complex with dozens of retired scholars, administrators and researchers in their late 80s and 90s as I do are not panicked about President Biden’s “performance” on Thursday night. Stuttering and losing one’s train of thought are hardly signs of incompetence. They are signs of loss of verbal dexterity. Period.

Younger people who are brash and opinionated and bloviate find slow word-finding horrifying. However, there is nothing more horrifying to me than impulsively judging a statesman after one bad performance.

This is the most competent and experienced leader our country has had in decades. Look at this in perspective and stop fear-mongering.

Here's the link to the whole letters column, which is pretty short, really, given how many letters they must have got on this issue.

The micro world, and wind

There were two videos on Youtube that impressed me on the weekend.

The first has a clickbait-y title - it's not a debunking of wind power, but rather an explanation of how they work (something I never fully understood - and there are two different ways they get the slow moving blades to generate useful electricity), and a discussion of the grid stability issue.   But it is, basically, an optimist take that the problems can be solved:

 

The other video is the first I have seen by a guy who just likes science, and decided to teach himself video graphics well enough to make entertaining but educational content.  This one, on the scale of the micro world, contains a very surprising detail towards the end that makes it all worth watching: