Behold! Stupidity (and worse)

What a fantastic gloat-fest of a weekend, with the Party-breaking quandary for the GOP of how to finally deal with its poisonous orange candidate, all because its leadership couldn't earlier find the gumption to just outright tell a large slab of its base that they were just being nuts.  And that being largely due to a decade of participating in the Fox News, Breitbart, right wing radio echo chamber that encouraged its base to believe conspiracy and nonsense.   (All with the added irony that, for all of those years, Fox News had serious sexual harassment built into its leadership, too.)

At least I can muster a modicum of respect for commentators like Jonah Goldberg, who has let fly with this:

Donald Trump is a fundamentally dishonorable and dishonest person — and has been his whole adult life. The evidence has been in front of those willing to see it all along. And there’s more to find. And there’s more in the Clinton stockpile.

Character is destiny. The man in the video is Donald Trump. Sure, it’s bawdy Trump. It’s “locker room Trump.” And I’m no prude about dirty talk in private. But that isn’t all that’s going on. This isn’t just bad language or objectifying women with your buddies. It’s a married man who is bragging about trying to bed a married woman. It’s an insecure, morally ugly man-child who thinks boasting about how he can get away with groping women “because you’re a star” impresses people. He’s a grotesque — as a businessman and a man, full stop.

If you can see that, but still think Hillary Clinton would be worse. Fine. Just be prepared for an endless stream of more embarrassments in your name. And, for my friends in the media and in politics, if you minimize, dismiss, or celebrate his grotesqueness out of partisan zeal, just keep in mind that some people, including your children, might think you mean it. Or, they might know you don’t mean it. Which means they now know you lie for a living.

And if you can’t see what a hot mess Donald Trump is yet, I doubt you ever will and I wonder what fresh Hell will allow the realization to penetrate your consciousness. Either way, this video is not an aberration. It is not a special circumstance. It’s him. There’s no pivot in him. There’s no “presidential” switch to flip. He’s Donald Trump all the way down. And he will humiliate and debase his defenders so long as they feel the need to defend this indefensible man.

(Mind you, Goldberg was trying on the "it's all Obama's fault that we've ended up with support for Trump" line earlier this year - I would in no way say he's always a reliable commentator.)

But for peak stupidity and offensiveness, where else to go in Australia but to Catallaxy?  First, the "it's not so bad, is it? And it's all his in past" ridiculousness:

Hard to believe the gullibility, no?  But then again, she doesn't believe in climate change because her husband told her so.  She hasn't picked up on the difference between money and reliable smarts, yet.  No wonder she supports Trump.

Mind you, the resident expert on Aquinas and groupie of the unreadable Edward Feser wasn't sure it was that big a deal either.  Yes, a theological brain the size of a planet, and yet no common sense:

What?  Aquinas mustn't have written anything about the importance of character in a leader, obviously...

Then there's the obnoxiousness of old cohenite, who tells us more about the type of man he is than he probably should:

Yeah, "go hard, Trump" is some pretty popular advice thereabouts.  And one commentator, frequently bordering on needing institutionalisation, by the sounds, takes it to the next level:

Just stupid, paranoid, nuts.

Update:   And here's Republican supporting Drudge making his contribution to right wing respect for women:

Letterman has it right

I see that Trump is in the news this morning for a tape showing what a complete and utter sordid boor he is.  How's that playing for you, Evangelicals?  (Of course, who knows how Bill Clinton has talked about sexual conquests before - although I don't think that being being a powerful philandering man necessarily means you have to be a braggart with other men about it.)

Anyway, at the NYT, there's an interview with David Letterman, who (apparently, I didn't recall) had Trump on his show often.   He has a sensible take on Trump:

I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time, and I always thought he was exactly what New York City needed to have: the big blowhard billionaire. “By God, I’m Donald Trump, and I date models, and I put up buildings, and everything is gold.” Nobody took him seriously, and people loved him when he would come on the show. I would make fun of his hair, I would call him a slumlord, I would make fun of his ties. And he could just take a punch like nothing. He was the perfect guest.

So now, he decides he’s running for president. And right out of the box, he goes after immigrants and how they’re drug dealers and they’re rapists. And everybody swallows hard. And they think, oh, well, somebody will take him aside and say, “Don, don’t do that.” But it didn’t happen. And then, I can remember him doing an impression, behind a podium, of a reporter for The New York Times who has a congenital disorder. And then I thought, if this was somebody else — if this was a member of your family or a next-door neighbor, a guy at work — you would immediately distance yourself from that person. And that’s what I thought would happen. Because if you can do that in a national forum, that says to me that you are a damaged human being. If you can do that, and not apologize, you’re a person to be shunned.

I kept telling people he will absolutely not get elected. And then David Brooks said he’ll get the nomination and he will be crushed in the general election. And I thought: Yeah, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I stand by that. The thing about Trumpy was, I think people just were amused enough about him to keep him afloat in the polls, because nobody wanted the circus to pull up and leave town.

Update:  Hotair acknowledges how bad this is for Trump:

A curious finding

Study Finds Students Of All Races Prefer Teachers Of Color : NPR Ed : NPR

Not sure I would take this report very seriously

Tech billionaires convinced we live in the Matrix are secretly funding scientists to help break us out of it | The Independent

All sounds like a report that should be in the National Enquirer rather than The Independent, but I haven't had time to follow the links.  I do think Elon Musk is a bit nutty, though...

Yeah, sure

3D printing and how it can revolutionise Australia’s remote communities | Guardian Sustainable Business | The Guardian

I reckon 3D printing's prospects for long term importance are about as good as 3D TV's.  

Spinning in all directions

Just a quick note to observe that both sides are still spinning what happened in the South Australian power blackout in their own directions.   Chris Uhlmann is taking a "hey, don't attack the messenger" approach, feeling semi justified by the interim report, when the real problem is that he was obviously leaping in to help promote network issues caused by wind power well before anything much was know about what precisely happened.

And we know from way back that he's something of a climate change skeptic and therefore not to be trusted on anything (my handy rule of thumb for everything!)   He was a bland and soft interviewer of Abbott and the Coalition when he was host of 7.30 - I don't know how his Labor wife puts up with him.

Katherine Murphy meantime seems to also be feeling justified by the interim report, but in the opposite way.

I suspect that, at the end of the day, part of the problem here will be different "causation" tests being applied by each side when discussing the outcome.  Everyone should perhaps read up on this in preparation for the final report.

Update:  and here is some credible sounding technical analysis (even if it is from a pro renewables source) of what the report includes that suggests that Uhlmann's take is wrong.

A libertarian experiment

I see via JS that Johannesburg has an avowedly libertarian mayor. How odd that libertarians should turn up in Africa.  Have Randians started a missionary outreach system, like the Mormons?  (He does sound to me much like a Randian style libertarian.)  I sense trouble coming - or a "success" that improves the lot of some at an unacceptable cost to others.

Still not sure why I should be worried about this...

Yahoo secretly monitored emails on behalf of the US government – report | Technology | The Guardian

Looking more carefully at "sexless" Japan

There's nothing weird about 'sexless' Japan | The Japan Times

Some pretty good points made here.

The problem with India

India heading for a shortage of women - 04/10/2016

Sad but interesting story on 7.30 last night about gender selecting abortion in India having the inevitable result of men not being able to find wives.  Has the government ever tried simply banning dowries?  I see there has been some move along these lines, but I don't quite understand it.

Well, that's odd

Music, fashion, drama: Indonesians 'falling in love' with South Korea - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Article includes photo of young Indonesians trying to look Korean.

Eat your curry

Mellow yellow? The mood and cognitive effects of curcumin from turmeric

I don't know - if this were so good, I'd expect more Indian Einsteins.

You can stop listening to him now...

James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’ | Environment | The Guardian

I keep saying I'll probably regret my continued warnings that there really is a threshold age at which you can pretty much stop paying attention to the opinions of the aged (whether or not they seem to have all of their faculties).   The only thing that will save me is the hope that by the time I'm 85, it'll be the new 65, or something like that.

But seriously, when you read the silliness of James Lovelock's suggestions in the interview, perhaps you'll see my point.

Marriage considered

Fairy tale of marriage – TheTLS

There are quite a few things I didn't realise mentioned in this review of 4 books about marriage in the US.

The odd way American slaves were treated with respect to marriage after emancipation, for one:

Before the Civil War, slave marriages had no legal effect and
afforded participants no legal protections. One result was that other
forms of intimate relationships developed alongside traditional
marriage. When slavery ended and former slaves were finally permitted to
marry, these other relationships were declared illegal; marriage law
quickly became an important way for states to reassert control over
their former slaves. Adultery, bigamy and fornication statutes were used
to justify the arrest and incarceration, generally accompanied by
forced labour through convict-leasing programmes, of many African
American men.

The denial of marriage rights during slavery had also been one of the
most significant ways in which society told African Americans they were
less than human. Yet securing the right to marry, which all African
Americans had by 1866, did not free them from state control over their
intimate lives – instead, marriage often became a requirement. After the
war, many states passed laws automatically marrying freed men and women
living together on the date of the law’s enactment. Other states gave
such couples a set number of months to formalize their marriages or face
criminal prosecution. Even the federal government forced couples to
marry, telling them that they would be denied aid if they refused. The
pressure on couples was tremendous and most, but not all, gave in – some
states used the law as an opportunity to punish those who did not.

Also - that adultery as a criminal offence is still on so many American State's books.  

 

An amusing image from Douthat

Trump and the Intellectuals - The New York Times: What remains is this question: Can Donald Trump actually execute the basic duties of the presidency? Is there any way that his administration won’t be a flaming train wreck from the start? Is there any possibility that he’ll be levelheaded in a crisis — be it another 9/11 or financial meltdown, or any of the lesser-but-still-severe challenges that presidents reliably face?

I think we have seen enough from his campaign — up to and including his wretchedly stupid conduct since the first debate — to answer confidently, “No.” Trump’s zest for self-sabotage, his wild swings, his inability to delegate or take advice, are not mere flaws; they are defining characteristics. The burdens of the presidency will leave him permanently maddened, perpetually undone.

Even if that undoing doesn’t lead to economic or geopolitical calamity (yes, Virginia, there are worse things than the Iraq War), which cause or idea associated with Trumpism is likely to emerge stronger after a four-year train wreck? Not populism or immigration restrictionism. Not evangelical Christianity. Not economic conservatism. They’ll all be lashed to the mast of a burning ship whose captain is angrily tweeting from the poop deck.

Something to not look forward to...

Doll Therapy For Alzheimer's: Calming Or Condescending? : Shots - Health News : NPR

I find it hard to believe that anyone would criticise something so innocent that works to calm some dementia patients.

Hidden wealth

How Tax Havens Make Us Poor | Dissent Magazine

I don't normally hang around the "Dissent" website, but Peter Whiteford, who has a great twitter feed, linked to this review.

Makes me feel nostalgic

The rise and fall of the UFO : A view From the Bridge

A bit sad, really, the decline of the UFO.  It was pretty interesting reading about them in the 70's and 80's.  Not sure when I would have read my last "serious" book about them - probably in the late 1990's or early 2000's, I would think.

All class

So, Trump does a bit of his improvisational work in front of a rally, including saying he doubts Hillary has been faithful to Bill, and imitates her near collapse on 9/11. 

You would have to be pretty thick and/or pretty obnoxious yourself to consider him to have the maturity and temperament to lead a country as important as America.  Hence, the only place I see his Australian defenders are at Catallaxy, in threads but also in posts by Steve Kates.   To his credit, laissez faire blogmeister Sinclair Davidson is not on Team Trump;  but it looks like he might need a tranquillizer gun with which to get Kates from believing and posting about every bit of Trump paranoia circulating on the 'net.  

Thoughts on The Godfather

There aren't that many "classic" movies on Stan, unfortunately, but I noticed that The Godfather films are all there, and viewed the first one, for the first time in my life, last night.   (I was 12 when it came out, and just never got around to viewing it as an adult.)

I have to say, I don't quite understand the very high regard in which it is held.

The first hour or so is good; very good in fact.  The whole opening sequence at the wedding is engaging and a nice way to introduce the characters.   The initial start of the Mafia wars is handled well, but after that, it started to lose me: 

*   I didn't like the sudden leaps forward in time in the second half with inadequate explanation of how the characters got there (emotionally, not physically).  Biggest case in point - Michael reappearing in the US after disappearing for (I think) two years, and immediately asking Kay to marry him.  Nothing about why or how quickly she accepts this - and Michael is obviously not the same guy she was in love with at the start of the movie.

*  Which bring me to Al Pacino's acting - for a movie about his character's descent into the banality of the Mafia's brand of corporate evil (where murder is nothing personal - just "business"), we really don't get much insight into why he takes the path.  His acting after his character has taken the first step (with the murder in the restaurant) is really just somewhat static, unemotional staring for the most part.  (The character seems a lot more unengaged in life than his father.)  The problem may well be with the script - I assume the novel gives more insight into his inner emotions, but the movie sure doesn't.

*  This may be considered an unfair comparison, but the movie suffered in my mind when it reminded me of The Untouchables, which I do hold in very high regard as a thrilling, well written and great looking gangster movie with a serious moral question at its heart.

There is one other positive thing that struck me about The Godfather after it finished - the complete lack of any serious swearing.   It was made in 1972 and got an R rating at the time, I think:  I'm sure they could have fitted some in, and it would presumably have been authentic to the period.   But it is one of the clearest examples around of a movie which can feel completely authentic with a complete lack of swearing.   Especially compared to the tedious use of swearing that became commonplace in subsequent (especially Martin Scorsese directed) gangster movies.

Anyway, with my overall somewhat underwhelmed response, I see that I am not entirely alone - if you Google the topic, you find quite a few people asking the question "Am I the only person who doesn't think The Godfather was all that great?"   Don't get me wrong - the movie didn't annoy me in the way other over-rated movies have done.  (I should make a list one day.)  But it does seem puzzling to me that no critic seems to have noted the above points as inadequacies in the finished product.   [Update:  here's one article that is harsher on the movie than I am, but it basically agrees with the points I make about the incomplete explanation of key characters and their motives.]

Finally, some trivia from the internet age:

* the translated lyrics to the obviously risque song at the wedding can be found here;

* I hadn't heard this before - but Wikipedia tells me that the horses head was a real one.  I thought it looked pretty convincing.  Yuck.