Apart from all the dumping on Trump he did before he decided he could make a better living by being a Trump suck up, people have been looking for other stuff JD Vance has said, and this one is "good":
%20the%20professors%20are%20the%20enemy%20-%20Search%20_%20X.png)
%20the%20professors%20are%20the%20enemy%20-%20Search%20_%20X.png)
But the media shrugs and reports it as if it is just normal political talk now....
%20Tony%20Perkins%20on%20X%20Will%20the%20attempted%20assassination%20of%20Donald%20Trump%20change%20the%20rhetoric%20in%20our%20country%20It's%20up%20to%20all%20of%20us.%20Put%20down%20social%20media%20pick%20up%20a%20cup%20of%20coffee%20and%20have%20conversa%5B...%5D.png)
%20Home%20_%20X.png)
And on the local scene:
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:
%20Noah%20Smith%20%F0%9F%90%87%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%A6%20on%20X%20This%20isn't%20going%20to%20succeed%20and%20it's%20going%20to%20backfire%20politically%20_%20X.png)
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.
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):
%20Home%20_%20X.png)
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".
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.
%20Home%20_%20X.png)
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...
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.
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....
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.
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...
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!
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.
%20_%20X.png)
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?
* 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".)
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.
%20Home%20_%20X.png)
%20New%20York%20Times%20Pitchbot%20(@DougJBalloon)%20_%20X.png)