Getting Political Polarization Wrong: A Misplaced Statistical Study

"I am the King of Reality and don't you media lackeys forget it! If I say the Sun is the Moon, it is!"

Ben Tappin and Ryan McKay in a recent 'Gray Matter' essay in the NY Times, wrote:

"A troubling feature of political disagreement in the United States today is that many issues on which liberals and conservatives hold divergent views are questions not of value but of fact. Is human activity responsible for global warming? Do guns make society safer? Is immigration harmful to the economy? Though undoubtedly complicated, these questions turn on empirical evidence. As new information emerges, we ought to move, however fitfully, toward consensus."

The duo then went on to offer a possible reason:

"But we don’t. Unfortunately, people do not always revise their beliefs in light of new information. On the contrary, they often stubbornly maintain their views. Certain disagreements stay entrenched and polarized."

Then going on to cite the usual culprits like confirmation bias:  the psychological tendency to favor information that confirms our beliefs and to disfavor information that counters them — a tendency manifested in the echo chambers and “filter bubbles” of the online world.

They then advanced this illuminating insight:

"If this explanation is right, then there is a relatively straightforward solution to political polarization: We need to consciously expose ourselves to evidence that challenges our beliefs to compensate for our inclination to discount it."

From this the pair claimed that confirmation bias "wasn’t the only culprit", and indeed, was often conflated with what they called  "desirability bias" or  “telling people what they want to hear” .  This could also be described as the tendency to credit information one wants to believe. They also note that while there is a clear difference between what you believe and what you want to believe,  "a pessimist may expect the worst but hope for the best — when it comes to political beliefs, they are frequently aligned."

They add:

 "For example, gun-control advocates who believe stricter firearms laws will reduce gun-related homicides usually also want to believe that such laws will reduce gun-related homicides. If those advocates decline to revise their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, it can be hard to tell which bias is at work."

On this basis, Tappin and McKay decided to conduct an "experiment"  to isolate the two biases. Their stated purpose was to see  "whether a reluctance to revise political beliefs was a result of confirmation bias or desirability bias (or both)."   They claimed this experiment "capitalized on the fact that one month before the 2016 presidential election there was a profusion of close polling results concerning Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton."

Incredibly, they insisted their experiment - "asking 900 United States residents which candidate they wanted to win the election, and which candidate they believed was most likely to win" - was materially adequate.   It wasn't. To come to any coherent and relatively firm conclusion I'd argue that they'd needed at least a 10,000 resident sample size, distributed amongst all 50 states, and the individual state samples in proportion to their populations.

On their limited sample basis the respondents fell into two groups:  (1)  those who believed the candidate they wanted to win was also most likely to win and (2) those who believed the candidate they wanted to win was not the candidate most likely to win. Each person in the study then read about recent polling results emphasizing either that Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump was more likely to win.

Their final result?

"Roughly half of our participants believed their preferred candidate was the one less likely to win the election. For those people, the desirability of the polling evidence was decoupled from its value in confirming their beliefs."

 Their results were reported in a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, which they insisted were "clear and robust".

Inference?

"Those people who received desirable evidence — polls suggesting that their preferred candidate was going to win — took note and incorporated the information into their subsequent belief about which candidate was most likely to win the election. In contrast, those people who received undesirable evidence barely changed their belief about which candidate was most likely to win."

Adding:  "This bias in favor of the desirable evidence emerged irrespective of whether the polls confirmed or disconfirmed peoples’ prior belief about which candidate would win. In other words, we observed a general bias toward the desirable evidence."

From there they argue:"Our study suggests that political belief polarization may emerge because of peoples’ conflicting desires, not their conflicting beliefs per se. This is rather troubling, as it implies that even if we were to escape from our political echo chambers, it wouldn’t help much. Short of changing what people want to believe, we must find other ways to unify our perceptions of reality."

All of which consumes many words to convey very little new information, i.e.  beyond what we already knew. Namely that the pro-Trump camp is entrenched and pre-committed to a false version of news and reality fueled by exposure to questionable sources, like FOX. In fact, no one need do any study given we can conclude a priori that exposure to a source like FOX -  that endlessly pumps out fake news and lies-  is designed to create divergent reality perception. In this sense, there are no "echo chambers",  there is only one: that which is driven to distort reality toward genuine fake news, i.e. that Hillary was part of a "Pizzagate" conspiracy.

 Vastly more informative  (and productive) in assessing the basis of our nation's political polarization was Simon Kuper's recent lengthy article ('Why There'll Never Be A Trump In Today's Europe')  in The Financial Times.  Kuper shows clearly and concisely, without having to resort to any inadequate pseudo-statistics (based on inadequate sample sizes), that our nation's polarization is inextricably tied to two elements: 1) an electoral duopoly party system which fairly breeds polarization, and 2) a divergent media system (and relatively less educated segment drawn to one less informing side) that creates political polarization.

In respect of the first, Kuper points out that the European parliamentary system adopts a coalition building format so that centrist parties are more likely to ascend to power.  In addition, many parties are enabled to compete from the get go, and as we saw in France, a centrist (Emmanuel Marcon) came out on top. While French liberals may have preferred a die hard socialist, they also were smart enough to recognize a Marine Le Pen in power would not advance their cause but rather undermine them, hence by the time the final election transpired, coalescence had occurred around the person most likely to beat her: Macron.

Also note, the French as well as all European elections in general,  make use of the sensible popular vote winner to determine an election outcome, not any archaic carryover - like our electoral college - that could enable a crazy person and authoritarian to gain power. The electoral college was actually first devised to prevent a crazy populist from gaining power but alas degenerated into a rubber stamp, with no oversight - thereby allowing the insane Trump into the highest office.


Kuper's second point and just as cogent as the first, is that the European, UK media is not so split (as the U.S.)  along two disparate axes.   This is so because "both left and right essentially trust the main news media. There is not some faction that is solely invested in a fake news sources to the exclusion of all others."  In other words, in European nations  there is not a significant minority (like in the U.S.) that believes there is a fake news media only "out to make money or discredit others".

As Kuper notes, "most of the UK's tabloid readers also get their news from the BBC", they don't just shut out mainstream news sources like the FOX viewers in the USA.  Most importantly, as Kuper adds: "Most FOX viewers have no such check on falsehood".  In other words, carrying Tappin's and McKay's testing premise inherently to its conclusion: The FOX viewers have absolutely zero inclination to consciously expose themselves to evidence that challenges their beliefs.

Note that by Kuper's reasoning this is entirely asymmetric, as there is nothing that the "other side" (FOX) can offer us (non-FOX news consumers) for news  that remotely  passes objective muster.  Hence, nearly all is straight brainwashing and propaganda designed to mind fuck not enlighten. (See link at the end).

The takeaway is that the existing polarization has nada or little to do with "confirmation bias" or "desirability bias" in poll perceptions, but rather the primary news sources that citizens tap for their information. Nearly 40 percent of our people exclusively get their news and views from spurious sources and THAT is the source of the political animus and polarization.

Until FOX News is brought to heel, or FOX viewing Repubs cease taking its bull pockey to heart, there will be no end to the polarization. And as I wrote in earlier posts, we cannot sustain for long a nation with two separate factions that accept differing realities, beliefs, news, and acceptance of science. That is the path to Civil War.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/06/tobin-smith-spills-beanson-how-fox.html

Proxy Battle In France Ends With Blowout Of The "French Trump"

French voters celebrate Emmanuel Macron's win yesterday - and many in Europe and the U.S. breath a sigh of relief.

All of Europe and many in the U.S. held their breath yesterday to see if the far right populist surge that began with Brexit, then Trump's election in the U.S. could be stopped. Squaring off was a former centrist investment banker Emmanuel Macron, against the "French Trump" - as many French voters called Marine Le Pen.  And what might have ended in a Le Pen victory and ultimately a "Frexit", instead saw an electoral blowout with Macron winning 66 percent to 34 percent. 

Not so much touted or noted was the extent to which the French runoff election had turned into a cage match battle between Trump and Barack Obama - but via proxies (Macron and Le Pen) representing Obama-style centrism and right wing Trumpism, respectively. Indeed, seeing the risk to the European Union, Obama had come right out for common sense and a video of Obama endorsing Emmanuel Macron for President was pinned to the top of Macron’s FB page. The video was vintage POTUS 44,  all intelligence and maturity.

Unlike the bombastic, toddler-esque Trump with his three-year old's vocabulary (in tweets and in person)  and perverted, Cheshire cat smirk, Obama fixed the camera with his trademark sober, sympathetic gaze stating in his coherent style:

“I’ve always been grateful for the friendship of the French people, and for the work we did together when I was President of the United States,.  I'm not planning to get involved in many elections now that I don’t have to run for office again. But the French election is very important to the future of France and the values that we care so much about.”

Obama's endorsement emphasized that the French runoff result "mattered to the entire world" which it did. This is because a Le Pen victory would have reinforced the nationalist, anti-immigrant position of the U.S. Trumpites even as Trump would have slobbered all over her win in overblown tweets.  As it was, the boy in a man's job had to eat humble pie and at least make it look like he approved of Macron's lopsided win. He doesn't and you can bet your sweet bippy on that. He probably ripped most of his orange hair out last night.

Trump himself had earlier "cavorted" with Le Pen - even inviting her to Trump Tower, see e.g.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38600560


 He fully embraced her agenda,  noting the similarities in position such as her anti-Islamic, anti-immigration and closed borders stance as well as de facto keeping France for the French.  Recall also that Le Pen, leader of the National Front, was one of the first to congratulate Trump on his fake news- driven, Wikileaks -Hillary email hacked victory in November. Also,  Le Pen's nativist, nationalistic message carried echoes of Trump's anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric. Trump, in turn,  had praised Le Pen’s tough stance on immigration and borders, which many of her critics had decried as racist.

Obama's appearance three days in advance of the runoff in support of Macron should not have surprised anyone who knew anything of the two leaders.  As Emily Schultheis noted in The Atlantic last month, Obama and Macron’s campaigns shared plenty of similarities. Like Obama, Macron relied on a large and seemingly unprecedented grassroots campaign composed of thousands of volunteers across the country. Both Obama's and Macron's campaigns were centered on moving their countries in a progressive direction—Macron’s slogan being En Marche, or “Onward!,”  (named after the party he formed 3 years ago), while Obama relied on the slogans “Change We Can Believe In” and, for his reelection campaign, “Forward.”

So, in the end - even though Le Pen made a late, half-hearted effort to distance herself from Trump-  it wasn't enough. Trump or no Trump,  her extremist positions  didn't sit well with French voters who were not bamboozled by fake news or hacks (one even coming hours before election day but which Macron's campaign had laid traps for) . Given two ballots in  hand-  one with Le Pen's name on it, one with Emmanuel Macron's -  French voter's by nearly 2 to 1 dumped the former into dust bins and cast the latter.  Today's post-mortem news (CBS Early Show) was that millions of Le Pen ballots were left in trash cans in the voter precincts. Today, with those tossed ballots hopefully disclosing her in history's dust bin, the world is breathing easier.

But some pundits are asserting it was merely a Le Pen defeat not one for far Right populism. Indeed, despite Macron's blowout, Le Pen scored a historic high for the French far Right. Even after a  campaign that ended with a calamitous performance in the final TV debate, she was projected to have taken almost 11m votes, double that of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, when he reached the presidential run-off in 2002.  Recall, old man Jean-Marie was the one who said the Holocaust was a "small detail of history".

In addition, the anti-immigration, anti-EU National Front's supporters have asserted that the party now has a central place as an opposition force in France. They might, but that may depend on future elections. As it was the French runoff election turnout was the lowest in more than 40 years. Almost one-third of voters chose neither Macron nor Le Pen, with 12 million abstaining and 4.2 million spoiling ballot papers. In many ways it mirrored our own 2016 election when many voters decried "two horrible choices",

But maybe what we have to start asking ourselves is why we so often end up with these "horrible" choices. Is it our electoral process? Or is it the very choices we make at each stage of extended campaigns, including primaries? Would making voting easier help, such as using mail ballots like we do here in Colorado? At the very least that should enable higher voter turnout, though that is the one thing the U.S. far Right doesn't want, so convinced are they that "voter fraud" is the primary evil - never mind it is actually voter suppression.

For now the world of the sane breathes easier, but the vast fake news realm of the insane, angry and unsettled remains and no one can write it off for the long term.  This was but one battle in a long bruising war that isn't settled yet, not by a long shot.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/72663/nos-felicitations-macron

Excerpt:

"The fact that racist nationalist Le Pen could summon more than a third of the French vote is cause for worry about the future. Xenophobia toward Muslims has played a part. More responsible are widening inequality and mounting job insecurity – coupled with a growing sense that the political-economy is rigged in favor or the privileged and out of touch with average working people.

The French haven’t suffered the same degree of economic stresses as have Americans in recent decades – France’s social safety net is still relatively intact – which may explain why they didn’t elect Le Pen while we elected Trump. But France, like most modern political economic systems, is heading in America’s direction under the guise of business “flexibility” and austerity economics."

Austrians Show They Have The Sense Not To Chuck Their Nation Into History's Dumpster

Yours truly outside Schloss Schonbrunn, in Vienna, Austria last September.

On our visit to Vienna last September, we beheld a thoroughly civilized and cosmopolitan city full of life and culture. Alas, it also had the reputation of being one of Adolf Hitler's haunts as he tried to scrabble together a career as an artist. (He failed). One theory is that his failures in the artistic sphere propelled him to become the notorious German Chancellor-Dictator by 1933. My suspicion is his mind was already made up for mischief long before that, and as an authoritarian narcissist he'd never have been satisfied - even as an acclaimed artist. His goal was to dominate other people.  And like the Germans, Austrians also remember with trepidation how an unhinged fascist took control of their nation more than 77 years ago.

So it was yesterday  the whole Austrian nation waited with bated breath for the outcome of an election that pitted an extreme right wing nationalist (and proto-fascist) against a leftish, former leader of the Green Party .  But in this case, the guy who got only 46 percent of the popular vote, the Nazi -glorifying Norbert Hofer - whose party traces its ideological roots back to the strident neo-Nazism of its best-known leader, the late Jörg Haider- was the one defeated.  This was compliments of Alexander van der Bellen, whose 53% popular vote win ushered in sighs of relief across Europe.

In the words of Sigmar Gabriel, the German Vice-Chancellor, "A load has been taken off the mind of all Europe. This is a clear victory for good sense against right wing populism."

Ulrich Kelber- a German minister-  went further, suggesting the Austrian vote represented a 'backlash' against the nominal election of Trump last month in the U.S.  Well, maybe, maybe not. More likely not. I would define a "backlash" as a more significant difference in popular vote, say at least along the lines of 67% to  33%.  But at least we may declare it a temporary repudiation of right wing nationalism which remains alive and well in other nations, including France and Britain. (In France, with the Socialists now in disarray, Marine Le Pen  and her National Front will face off against a center rightist, Francois Fillon.)

Jubilant Austrians - many likely mindful of Hitler's Anschluss, hold a sign reading "Thank God!" after the election.

Europe had won at least a reprieve, and Austria escaped the calumniation and scorn had it elected a Trump-like populist Nazi sympathizer. Until the election many Austrian rightists and neo-Nazis believed Hofer would benefit from the manic wave that sent Trump to a minority victory in the U.S. A minority victory because had the same voting template in Austria been used in the U.S. Trump would have been dumped like Hofer.

At the run-off vote in May, 50.35% of the population voted for Van der Bellen and 49.65% for Hofer. This slight difference sent political tremors through the small nation.  In addition, many negative nabobs - maybe hoping for a Hofer win- predicted the Austrian public, facing cold temperatures and fatigued after almost a year of campaigning would stay home. They were wrong. The voter turnout was 73.8%, up from 72.65% in May.

Austrians - unlike too many Americans (namely millennials, African-Americans) -  knew what was on the line and understood they couldn't allow this election to be remotely close. According to the public broadcaster ORF’s first exit poll, Van der Bellen had gained 53.4% of the vote with over 60% of voting districts counted – too strong a lead to be turned around by Hofer, who had 46.6% of the vote. By 7pm local time with almost 100% counted, Van der Bellen was still on 53.3% – an improvement of 3% on the May vote. In Vienna 65% supported Van der Bellen and only 35% voted for Hofer.

Another note for optimism: It seems the British rightist  nationalist Nigel Farage went too far in some of his comments and angered the Austrian rightists.  Anton Mahdalik, a Freedom party member of the Vienna city council, criticized  Farage for contributing to the party’s defeat after claiming on Fox News that Hofer would hold a referendum on Austria leaving the EU. “  According to Mahdalik: "That didn’t help us, it hindered us,” saying that an overwhelming majority of Austrians support EU membership.

Hofer himself described Farage’s comments as a “crass misjudgment”, adding that “it doesn’t fill me with joy when someone meddles from outside”.

Meanwhile,  Le Pen took to Twitter to cheer on the Freedom party, which sits in the same party bloc in the European parliament as hers, saying “the next parliamentary votes will be those of our victory”.   Don't bank on it if sanity continues to reign!

Also yesterday, another, native born right fruitcake - actually an overgrown adolescent named Donald Trump - took to Twitter. This time to try to tear into Alec Baldwin's terrific SNL portrayal of him re-tweeting mentally unstable adolescents (kindred spirits?).  Baldwin returned to Saturday Night Live to mock President-elect Donald Trump and his Twitter habit, which this week included retweeting a 16-year-old high school student.

Seems the unhinged twerp Trump, like his splenetic followers, couldn't keep his mitts off his Twitter and had to expel his BS yesterday, not only at Baldwin but China too.. If he finally gets sworn in will he also be using Twitter to make his foreign policy? Maybe what we need is to get this guy 4 years worth of diapers and a sippy cup  as opposed to access to a cell phone or telephone.

BWAAAAHAHA! Kellyanne, You pwomised I could keep me Twitter!"

The best thing the corporate media could do is to cease re-broadcasting this overgrown baby's tweets, enabling them to virtually become an alternate media standard - when it embodies cartoon lingo.  Ignore the damned tweets, often fired off recklessly at anything that gets his goat, and force him to hold an actual press conference where he's held accountable. Respecting Donald Dump's tweet storms merely legitimizes an alternative,  deformed, infantile reality which ought to be rejected by sane citizens. I.e. grownups.

One thing you don't want to do is antagonize a nation that holds nearly $1.5 trillion in U.S. bonds.

Meanwhile, our Austrian friends are aghast a nincompoop like Trump could also be rejected by 53 percent of a population but manage to get in, based on an anachronistic electoral vote system. A system which, ironically, was intended to prevent the very sort of populist demagogue like Trump from being President.  The Trump Nazis and racist hate mongers seem to forget that James Madison - writing in The Federalist No. 10- argued that the electoral college is intended to protect the Republic from mischief of faction, i.e. instigated by a common impulse from misguided voters that is adverse to the rights of the majority of citizens. But don't hold your breath. It will likely go over their heads.

But most of us who accept Madison's principle would insist the electors on December 19th have the moral responsibility and constitutional right to support the popular vote winner in this election - like the Austrians did in theirs. That means becoming "faithless" electors in the interest of preserving the Republic, as opposed to allowing it to be finally hurled into history's dustbin.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/70137/trump-and-taiwan-merely-a-blundering-taste-of-whats-to-come

Of Dangerous Ideas - And 'Dumb And Dangerous Ideas' From Dr. Steve Mason

Dr. Steven Mason  (left)- unable to distinguish a dangerous idea from a dumb and dangerous idea. Right- Joseph Schmitz, holocaust denier appointed as Trump foreign policy advisor.

In his latest Integra essay 'Dangerous Ideas', (Nov.-Dec, .p. 18) , Dr. Steve Mason outdoes himself with pseudo intellectual nonsense with his endorsement of "dangerous ideas". This would be a terrific essay if only Dr. Steve had managed to discriminate between the truly dangerous, for example - natural selection - which is true, and the merely dumb and dangerous, e.g. holocaust denial.  But alas, he doesn't, instead almost frolicking in the sheer contrarian shock value of the latter.

Why is this important? Well, because too many of our fellow citizens know too little about the holocaust and WW II in general. This knowledge gap enables hucksters and propagandists to harvest their brains. One of whom is Joseph Schmitz, a recent foreign advisor named by Trump to his administration. Schmitz acquired infamy by proclaiming, in dismissing the holocaust, that:

“the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews.”

Leaving out that the Jews were not killed in ovens, but in large gas chambers, as at Auschwitz.  The ovens were used to incinerate the bodies afterwards but because of the mass of victims, the Nazis later went to mass graves. It became too difficult to cremate thousands of gassed bodies at one time. This is why Dr. Steve's remarks bear scrutiny in the context of  his "Dangerous Ideas" theme. Let's return to natural selection as a dangerous idea before going to Steve Mason's example of holocaust denial.

In the case of natural selection which Tufts professor Daniel Dennett covered in his book, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', we have a truly dangerous idea, the moreso because it is true. We learn of a 4 -step loop process that amounts to "a mindless algorithm that displays no intent, no design, no purpose, no goal, no deeper meaning. This simple algorithm has been running on Earth for four billion years to produce every living thing, and everything made by every living thing" . A purposeless, algorithmic process - the horror!

It is "dangerous" precisely because it undermines orthodoxy (in this case religious) but also because it has the benefit of being true in the scientific sense - meaning  has been validated a gazillion times.  Then Mason breaks down and blows it with this.  (Even wifey, when I showed her his reference, exclaimed: "What an idiot!"): Mason actually wrote:

"Here's a really Dangerous Idea: The Holocaust is a hoax. It must be a Dangerous Idea because simply repeating those five words will get you jailed in  more than a dozen countries, including: Belgium, France, Germany, Romania and Poland."

Mason then draws an absurd parallel putting the "holocaust hoax" on the same "dangerous idea" level as the Apollo Moon landings hoax. In the latter case,  citing all kinds of nonsense "evidence", e.g. American flag "rippling" on an airless world, from idiot lunar landing hoax websites.

This again shows Mason lacks any balanced rational insight to compare these two. In effect, comparing the claim of hoax for an actually recorded historical genocide to a nonsense claim which is easily refuted by reference to lunar laser ranging experiments - only made possible by the fact laser reflectors were left on the lunar surface....by humans.

Incomprehensibly, Mason appears to regard both ideas as equally "goofy". He scribbles, in regard the lunar landing deniers (p. 21):

"The last I heard no one was locking them up.  Being goofy isn't against the law, so what is it about questioning the death camps that creates such a stir?"

He then speculates it might be because "support for Israel will diminish"

But he's off base in his reasoning. As I showed before, Mason often makes erroneous conclusions in his assorted essays predicated on a solipsistic viewpoint. For example, in his June Port of Call effort he actually questioned whether global warming is real based on: "Clearly I don't know but then who does?" To which I pointed out that Mason is not a climate scientist - like Prof. Gunter Weller- so no surprise he wouldn't know, his specialist training is in psychology not climate science.

The same sort of skewed reasoning leads him to question death camp denial based on something like offending Israel. In fact, it is a dangerous idea because extreme right, pro -fascist parties (like Marine Le Pen's National Front) in France, actually exist in the here and now. Further, they are eager to invoke holocaust denial as an auxiliary means to advance their own justifications for existence and agendas. The upshot of actual German history, as my German sister-in-law Krimhilde put it, is that even frivolous dismissal of the holocaust plays directly into the neo-fascist platforms, as we beheld in Munich back in 2013, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html

Those "dozen nations" Mason cites, therefore,  do not want a repeat of history, in line with George Santayana's famous words "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." They would rather err on the side of legal heavy handedness than regret it later when a future Fuhrer tries to duplicate the inhuman acts of the earlier one.  Impossible? Then read the Financial Times article below ('Ideas That Fed The Beast of Fascism Flourish Today') on how the same forces active in Europe in the 1930s are also present today:

https://www.ft.com/content/599fbbfc-a412-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6


The nations that prosecute it, for Steve's information, do so in order to impose a painful reminder that one cannot just lie about the past as a cynical way to sweep it under the rug to thereby better enable similar horrors in the future.  To put it another way: They already experienced the horrors once,  they have no intention to do so again! Thereby harsh laws punishing the denialists (who effectively diminish the holocaust)  are intended to send an uncompromising message: "You spread this crap - undermining the historical truth- at your own peril. We will not tolerate your lies here!"

So Mason has his head and emphasis in the wrong place. Apart from those countries bearing far right parties eager to exploit holocaust denial they were also places whose citizens were packed  into box cars for transport to death camps (Treblinka,  Auschwitz,  Mauthausen etc.)  to be gassed and for which we possess actual visual and other recorded evidence that it happened, e.g. the scene below photographed outside of Mauthausen by Russian soldiers who liberated that camp in 1945:


This is emphatically not the stuff of droll essays in a high IQ journal, or invoking facetious word games.

Poland was among the worst affected nations, featuring the death camp Auschwitz, where over 1.6 million were slaughtered and Dr. Josef Mengele performed hideous experiments on children, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/auschwitz-commemoration-why-wasnt.html


Mason, by using a specious basis to compare dangerous ideas  (conflating goofy, stupid ones with serious ones) actually demeans and diminishes the import of the real ones, e.g.  the denial of the factual genocide of 6 million Jews.   Let us also  reference how he earlier chirps: "I should come clean and admit I like dangerous ideas!"  Evidently, both the dumbass and the serious dangerous, like holocaust denial.

Now, to be fair, Mason is not a stupid guy by any means. He can't be to have become a doctor in psychology or a member of Intertel. However, he does have a habit of becoming overly enchanted with his own peculiar, idiosyncratic ruminations. This solipsistic fascination leads him to wander off the rational reservation at times,  writing idiotic essays in Intertel's media.

Recall Mason is the same character who wrote several months ago (in the June Port of Call NL):

 "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"   This is actually a misrepresentation of his stance when what he really meant was "How can I believe anything when the science behind it changes?" And seen in this light, one wonders if Mason was ever a genuine scientist at all, because the very nature of the scientific enterprise is to mount new discoveries, via new findings obtained from ever more refined instruments and techniques. Hence the change from the old epicycles-based Ptolemaic solar system to the heliocentric one. Or, the change from Bohr's simple 'planetary' model atom to the wave model of Schrodinger, Born et al. Or the change from Newtonian gravitation to general relativity (though the former is still used for space trajectories, missions).

In the current essay, after ruminating on Darwin's dangerous idea,  he recycles  similar nonsense to that  he opined in the June PoC, writing (p. 19).:

"The world of science - if you wait long enough - is always wrong anyway!"

If he really, truly believes this codswallop I'd like him to explain to me how it is we can reliably use celestial mechanics to send space craft (like Curiosity Rover) to Mars, and the Horizons probe to Pluto.  If science is "always wrong" how can that be? Well, ok, maybe he's thinking 5 billion years in advance when orbits likely shift for a variety of reasons. But, in that case it isn't the (current) science that's wrong, it's the fact orbital elements would have changed.

Same thing with quantum theory, one of the most complete we have, which enables us to correctly predict the spectral line emissions of atoms as well as the working of solid state devices.

It seems clear based on these examples that Mason's glib takes on physical science disclose he really doesn't know much about it. I would bet he actually thinks that because Einstein's theory of gravity is used, Newtonian gravitation is wrong or passe.  If so, he'd  probably be amazed to learn that Newtonian gravitational theory is what enables our celestial mechanics to get space craft to Mars, the Moon, or Jupiter.

The point is that a real scientist - even a psychiatrist or psychologist- would know and understand science HAS to change for our understanding of the cosmos, nature to evolve. It is unscientific and naive to expect findings to remain static. At the same time, the true expert in science has to know that changes in a scientific discipline - like physics - don't necessarily mean the former theory is chucked. Again, look at Newtonian gravitational theory and Newton's laws of motion.  These still have applicability at macro-scale levels, and at speed much less than the velocity of light, c.

Other Mason examples in his essay are more clearly and rationally chosen, and articulated. For example, the dangerous idea that "religion is a WMD". (Though I would have phrased it as a "mind virus of mass destruction")  Another plausible choice is that "our system of government causes us to elect the worst candidates".  (Say like Donald Trump) To support that dangerous idea he cites evidence from evolutionary psychology, to wit, "groups work best only when they get behind a leader, to put him in that position".  This contrast with our money-graft  system where candidates aspiring to be leaders must incessantly beg for money and votes, so "are probably the least well qualified for command" - again from an evolutionary psychology standpoint.

These are "dangerous ideas" to be sure, like Darwin's natural selection, but based on a record of data, investigations and historical experience. They are worthy of consideration in an essay aimed at  people in the upper 1 percent of IQs, in other words. But holocaust denial and fake lunar landings are not in that same category. The first is indeed dangerous, and not merely as an idea.  The second is too stupid and easily disproven to be considered truly dangerous.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/69871/the-big-trump-media-story-bannon-and-a-crew-of-dangerous-propagandists-are-in-the-cockpit-of-national

Trump's Appointment Of Extremist Fruitcake Bannon Warrants Alarm Bells For Sane Americans

Let us agree at the outset that, logically,  a President Elect's staff appointments signal how he plans to act in governance. If those appointments - say to White House staff and key cabinet posts (Defense Secretary, Secretary of State) - are moderate,  then one can reasonably expect a moderate governance. But  the opposite is true with Trump, after an extremist  bomb thrower like Stephen K. Bannon  the former head of Breitbart News, was  hired (as Chief "Strategist") .   So given that an anti-Semitic, racist hate monger is now steps from the Oval Office, we must assume that Office is now contaminated, captured by proto-Nazis and pro-Confederate KKK'ers.

Hell, don't take my word. Hear what former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke said of Bannon’s hire;

“I think that’s excellent,”

And then the chairman of the American Nazi Party exulted,

"Perhaps The Donald IS for ‘REAL’. Time will tell."

To cap it off, white supremacist Jared Taylor cheered Bannon’s hire, saying he suspected Bannon will serve as an “anti-waffler” to "maintain Trump’s ideological and racial purity."  Say what? So, uh, he is a clone of Adolf after all.

Little wonder that all sensible people have reacted vociferously, unwilling to wait until this jackal actually muddies the carpets of the People's House, never mind Obama's conciliatory remarks which disappointed supporters.  But others were not so averse. Civil rights groups, senior Democrats and some Republican strategists have assailed Trump, saying that Bannon will bring anti-Semitic, nationalist and racist views to the West Wing.  This is not an exaggeration and people - though they may aspire for national unity - cannot so easily resign themselves to "making the abnormal normal" in the words of John Oliver last Sunday night.  (One thing that will be intolerable over a Trump administration is the media making the "abnormal normal" including being too squeamish or PC to call Bannon a Neo-Nazi or white supremacist. As for me, I am not the least bit diffident about it.)

For reference, former Breitbart editor  Ben Shapiro resigned from the website in March calling it a "cesspool for white supremacist meme makers". John Weaver, who served as strategist for John Kasich's campaign also shamed the media for using the vanilla term "alt Right" trying to normalize this racist, fanatic extremist bunch. Incredibly, some confused Trumpies have insisted there is also an "alt Left", but if so, I'd like to know exactly where their big website is and who is espousing left wing nationalism on a par with Breitbart.com's right wing nationalism. But false equivalence appears to be a common disease these days, especially among the deluded and desperate. As an indication of that, they cite Clinton's turning away from the Keystone pipeline as "bad science" when in fact her move was the first toward GOOD science she made (given she'd been a heavy fracker backer), see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/of-morons-in-milwaukee-and-why-obamas.html

Back to John Weaver, not a leftie by any means. He delivered this stark warning to a nation with too many political sleepwalkers:

"The racist fascist extreme Right is represented foot steps from the Oval Office. Be very vigiliant, America"

And lest fellow citizens forget, let's bear in mind "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom". Would that the German people had been more aware of that before Hitler disposed of their liberties with the Enabling Act.

Even Glenn Beck called Bannon "quite possibly the most dangerous guy in all of American politics" Strong words, and coming from a guy that used to inhabit Reich Kooksville.

Then there is Trump former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who saw no problem and even defended Bannon in brief remarks to reporters in New York, describing him as the “general of this campaign” and saying that “people should look at the full résumé.”

And what, pray tell, is in the full resume?  According to Conway:

“He has got a Harvard business degree. He’s a naval officer. He has success in entertainment,”

Which merely shows that a Harvard education provides no guarantee one will not end up a loopy, extremist twit with his investment a costly waste.

Conway also denied that Mr. Bannon had a connection to right-wing nationalists or that he would bring those views to the White House.  She barked in indignation:  “I’m personally offended that you think I would manage a campaign where that would be one of the going philosophies,”.  But truth and reality is a bitch.

Bannon's own take is even more choice, as he spun this PR gem yesterday:

"These people are patriots. They love their country. They just want their country taken care of.”

Ah yes, by sending all the "Spics" back to Mexico, the "kikes" back to Israel, the "ragheads" to Guantanamo (for water boarding) and the "black apes" back to Africa. And so Marine Le Pen, head of the extreme right Nationalist Front in France, said she "welcomed" Bannon's invitation to cooperate and talk strategy. This, by the way, effectively shows that Trump has made the White House the focal point of white power nationalism and  extremism in the world. Not to mention the fact he's already appointed a holocaust denier (Joseph Schmitz) as foreign affairs advisor.  (See the followup post).

In the wake of this political maelstrom, the Council on American-Islamic Relations  has rightly said the selection of Bannon “sends the disturbing message that anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and white nationalist ideology will be welcome in the White House.” That view was also echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. The SPLC didn't mince words in saying  Trump “should rescind this hire.”

Meanwhile, The Denver Post in its editorial yesterday ('Alt Right Choice Is Not All Right') delivered this broadside and warning, underscoring Weaver's:

"The alt-Right will celebrate Bannon's appointment. The rest of America should be extremely concerned and vigilant. A figure like Bannon closely advising an American President is in no way normal or acceptable."

Indeed, it highlights the worries of former Bush security official Michael Chertoff who four  weeks ago declared Trump lacked the proper judgment to be chief executive. And what works for a corporate shill brander doesn't work as governance or leadership for a nation. The Post in its editorial decried Trump's decision not to disavow the alt Right and Bannon as "reckless" adding that it "gives voice and legitimacy to an ugly corner of American political thought".

If Trump did rescind Bannon's appointment, it might show he at least partially means what he's said about it being "time to come together as one united people."  Also saying:

"I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans. And this is so important to me. For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so we can work together and unify our great country."

Well, a nice speech. But if you really want to be "president for all Americans" you have to reject those who hate most Americans as being "other" or uh, too brown or black in skin tone.. Right now, with the likes of Jeff Sessions and other hard right fanatics leading Trump's transition (even doing a "Stalinesque" purge of Christie and his picks) we are well on the way to a fucked up. nutso extremist, toxic  executive branch. This will be evidently run by a crass, clueless pussy grabber and a right hand man who dabbles in extremist conspiracy theories and racist homage.

The deluded voters who chose Trump, believing they will now live better lives,  get better jobs and finally experience "real freedom", could do themselves a favor by checking out Milton Mayer’s classic, They Thought They Were Free.  It's about how the Germans who chose Adolf Hitler came to rue their decision and bitterly as their nation was later swept into mass destruction and international rebuke.

They might also wish to check out Martin Wolf's Financial Times piece ('Donald Trump's False Promises To His Supporters') e.g.

https://www.ft.com/content/31b062e8-a842-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6


Buckle your seat belts because the D.C. shit storm is just beginning.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/69885/welcome-to-trump-swamp-please-don-t-feed-the-gators

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/69881/white-house-propagandist-bannons-gravy-train-is-secretive-radical-right-wing-billionaire-hedge-fun

2016: A Year Of Climate And Political Upheaval

As usual the million or so in Times Square rang in the New Year with much fanfare as well as endless rock groups and the usual funny hats - this time highlighting 'Planet Fitness' .  When the big ball hit bottom - Time T zero - the crowd erupted in jubilation and the faces betrayed an expectation that this year would truly be happy, as opposed to yet another downer.

It's always an expectation worth having, but seldom realized on the global level (though it may well be for the favored few on the individual level).  What I want to do here is to look ahead and see what might be coming our way in the realms of the economy, climate, global policy and  national politics. In general I foresee many more upheavals, especially as climate change continues to accelerate and ISIS seeks to make a 'last stand' with its "caliphate" nonsense.


Economy:

Most Americans are already aware the Federal Reserve finally raised interest rates by a quarter of a point last month,  after nearly eight years of near zero rates.  As the rates increase by four times or more in the coming year the markets will be rattled as stocks will no longer have the virtual "free money" from the Fed's bond buyback program (quantitative easing) to rely on.  Coupled with the higher interest rates investors will have to contend with dropping oil prices as the glut continues, as well as volatilities in the commodities markets. Stocks, as the WSJ noted two days ago are already priced sky high so there may be few places to put money if people want more yield.

I don't foresee a recession or anything but people ought to be aware of the underlying sources of volatility and perhaps be prepared for a market correction later in the year, likely October. Smart citizens will use whatever bounty they get  -from more $$$ saved on gas, or raises - to salt savings away, pay off debts and not take on new debts.

Climate:

The freakish weather with skewed jet stream and effect of El Nino last month ought to have alerted people to what lies ahead, especially this spring. Alas, the flooding,  F4 etc. tornadoes in December 2015 will be just a prelude to events this spring. Also, expect a summer like no other before with extended heat waves lasting up to two weeks or more. People will be pining for the "balmy"  days of December - at least those in the eastern U.S.

Sea level rise and its threat to small island nations, e.g. Vanuatu, will continue especially as the rate of glacier melting is increasing. According to a paper published in Nature last month by Kristian K. Kjeldsen in concert with 15 other authors, the Greenland ice sheet has lost an astounding 9,103 gigatons since 1900. Most importantly, the rate of loss has been increasing with a doubling of annual loss between 2003 and 2010.

The complex work entailed using a merger of multiple information sources, including: distinct marks let by retreating glaciers, extensive aerial photography, and satellite observations to infer the total mass loss of the ice sheet. The paper indicates the glacier retreat and ice loss was incepted around 1900 at the end of a cooling period as human -caused global warming kicked in, e.g. with the advent of the automobile and much more fossil fuel burning, especially from coal.

Global Policy:

Global policy will focus mainly on the terror bogey posed by ISIS. The recent victory by Iraqi troops in driving these bugs from Ramadi will be used as a pivot point to further oust these rats from their burrows, as it should.  At the same time, nations will ramp up  security, and right wing groups in Europe - including Marine Le Pen's National Front - will continue to howl as a million new refugees from the Middle East pour in. At some point the EU may realize that its Schengen accord simply can't work since it allows terrorists to easily pass through borders (And has also allowed gun running, mainly from Slovakia, into Western Europe).

Iran will also be a focus as the Obama administration is already putting out new sanctions for perceived infractions  in the recent nuclear deal. (Iran has protested that any such imposition of sanctions is a violation by the U.S. of the agreement).

Meanwhile, at home there will be pressure to increase NSA mass surveillance and have tech firms cooperate by allowing "back door" entry of the security state into much used devices and apps like 'What's App'.  But this will be strongly resisted. Also, as WSJ columnist William  Galston noted in a recent column:

"We remain the land of the free, but are we still  the 'home of the brave'?"

Well, maybe not so much if we allow ourselves to continue to be gamed by the terror card, failing to appreciate the risk is far greater that we will be felled by cancer than by a terrorist's bullets or bombs.  As Galston also points out:

"During the past decade seven times more Americans died from lightning strikes in the U.S. than at the hands of Islamic terrorists".

And as I wrote in a post last month, more than 200,000 Americans have been killed by their fellow citizens using easily purchased weapons (such as the AR-15)  compared to only 48 killed by terrorists. Based on these figures, it's time we got our perceptions in order - meaning in accord with reality.

National Politics:

This will likely be as big a source of upheaval as the climate events facing us. The Republican Party itself faces internal upheaval fomented by the rise of populist Donald Trump - who, if not brought back to Earth in the caucuses and primaries - could spawn a contentious convention in Cleveland this summer.

Trump is an enigma as well as an aberration to Republicans, which has caused a certain segment to develop the conspiracy theory that he is really a "Hillary Trojan horse" - to blow up the GOP nomination. This is based on the records showing his having voted for Obama in 2008, and also photos showing the Clintons at his wedding.  Hence, the GOP conspiracy theorists distrust that Trump is truly one of their own and not a Clinton "plant".

All of this may be much ado over nothing. Trump, despite his rise in the polls, still has to translate all that populist energy and his poll numbers into actual primary and caucus wins. But can he? Many Trump supporters interviewed in recent days say they are not sure whether they will caucus in Iowa. That is where the bear sit with the buckwheat, so to speak. Caucusing is not like just pulling a lever in a voting booth, it entails going out on a likely frigid night in February and meeting with other supporters of different candidates to talk and jaw about good points and bad of the respective candidates then coming to an agreement. It can last for hours, and while Trumpies may love yelling at his rallies it remains to be seen if they will actually caucus.

In addition, recent reports (in the WSJ, and TIME)  disclose that it is actually Ted Cruz who has the ground organization in Iowa and NH. It is his team that is going door to door to make sure people will actually show up to caucus, or cast ballots.  Trump, despite his bluster and polls, has no similar ground game so rational observers see him having a hard time winning.

In terms of the Democrats, Bernie Sanders needs to win in Iowa and New Hampshire to engender any kind of momentum and "upheaval". Right now the signs aren't good, and the ridiculous low profile debates sponsored by the DNC haven't helped him gain as much name recognition as he'd like. It appears quite evident that DNC Hillary supporters like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz realized for "Hill" to prevail they needed to keep the Dem debates to a minimum and also at nonsensical times, like Saturday night (for the last one) and on a Sunday with NFL Playoff games for the next.

But we will see. Despite the efforts to keep Bernie at bay, none of it may work if he can catch fire especially with more African Americans.

On that note, Happy New Year! At least let's hope it's happier than the last!