Geoff > Status Update

David wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I think I'm still in a phase where the energy to be really emboldened isn't there yet. "

Fair enough. Just sayin', fascism means war ; )"

Indeed. Gimme the weekend to pull it together/arm up.

Jibran wrote: "Geoff wrote: "So. Concerning the hopelessness.

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/..."

A Brit friend of mine said to me I should set up a five-star refugee camp on part of my..."

I've got farm work experience!

“You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

All due respect to Nicole and Wastrel, this really is a catastrophe. It needs to be recognized as such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/d...

Alright, I haven't been able to read hardly anything (other than online articles) since Tuesday evening; now I'm going to go bike in circles around San Francisco for a few hours -

Wastrel wrote: "(eg Trump wants to get rid of Obamacare, but he also wants to replace it, whereas the traditional right-wing argument has just been to not have anything). He may be extreme on the authoritarian and cultural fronts, but economically (other than the details of his tax plans, which he didn't write and nobody apparently read) he's much closer to a Bush or a Clinton than to a Ryan or a Cruz.."

This is really not true at all. Trump has nothing to "replace" Obamacare with, any more than any other Republican does. He would repeal it and institute HSAs (health savings accounts) in its place; these are not healthcare, these are accounts in which you set aside pre-tax money which you can then spend on healthcare. So you have to have the money in the first place in order to set it aside. Also being a tax-advantaged account, it benefits those in high tax brackets much more than those in middle and lower tax brackets. HSAs work well for wealthy people but they are not a replacement for having insurance which enables you to go get medical care.

His other ideas for "replacing" Obamacare are hoary old Republican ideas that have been around for decades: 1) turning Medicaid into block grants, which gives states much more control over Medicaid money; the practical result of this is that blue states will continue to help poor people by spending Medicaid money on them, while red states will do the opposite. 2) allowing insurance plans to sell to customers across state lines. But insurance companies are already allowed to do this. There is no federal law that says they can't (they merely need approval from a particular state they want to sell in). The problems with selling in different states aren't regulatory, they're market-based: it's extremely difficult for an insurance company to set up in a new state, as they have to start from scratch, set up doctor and hospital networks, and compete with every other insurance company in business there already.

The only even vaguely progressive economic detail in his plans is the childcare tax credit, which Ivanka insisted he put in his platform. But it's only the vague idea of helping parents with children that's progressive; as with any tax credit, it hugely advantages high income people, middle income people much less so, and poor people not at all.

But I do completely agree with you that Sanders woulda been pulverized.

Roya wrote: "Hilary will win...... As a US citizen who doesn't live in the states, I was initially going to vote for Sanders as a gift of sorts to myself for turning eighteen. Sadly that didn't happen so I'm abstaining this election. You're choosing between cat shit and dog shit. No thanks."

Happy with your choice still? Maybe you'll grow up a little in the next 4 years.

Honestly, what makes people think Sanders would have been pulverized? He's the most popular politician in America, he polled better in a two way race with Trump than Clinton did. He was capable of mobilizing massive amounts of people who are normally disengaged from the political process in a way that Clinton certainly never was.

True, conventional wisdom still says a socialist could never be president, but then please note the election of Donald Trump early Wednesday morning. Conventional wisdom is pretty much a charred carcass at this point.

Interesting. Just had a taxi ride with a Nigerian driver who told me that this http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/...

Was a determinative factor for his American relatives in hating Hillary. He also said that he "guaranteed me" Trump was not a racist. He said Hillary had shown herself to be a corrupt politician but Trump had never been in a political role before and that the behaviour people criticise him for is fine in business for a private citizen. He said his friends and family voted for Trump because they believe he will become more "presidential" now - I.e the power and responsibility will change him for the better, whereas Hillary was a known, corrupt quantity

I thought that was an interesting insight into how/why some people voted how they did

Sorry for belaboring a point but ... (view spoiler)[It should be pretty clear (I would think) that NO ONE KNOWS what would have happened had Bernie been the Dem. against Trump. To say he would have won, to say he would have been crushed - neither makes much sense, it's counterfactual history. You could write a novel about it, but non-fiction it ain't. Evidence can be found for both positions.

But there's way too much we have no way of knowing. What would the Dem. convention have been like? Would it have been such a positive thing as it was? Who would his running mate have been? How would that have affected things? Who would have been stumping for Bernie during the campaign? Hillary? Obama? First Lady Michelle? What would have happened in the debates? Would Trump have been so lousy if he weren't being bested by a woman? Who can say with anything like certainty?

I know, I know, this is all obvious. But there's really no point in arguing that Bernie couldn't have lost, or couldn't have won.

Of course what can be said with certainty is this: Bernie MIGHT have beat Trump, and HC DID LOSE to Trump. That supports some sort of conclusion, I suppose ...

(hide spoiler)] ... don't mind me please, I'm just an old man.

We don't know, true. Still I think it's worth taking seriously the possibility that he might well have won. The Democraric party ought to be at a crossroads right now. Clinton was widely seen as inevitable. Donald Trump's defeat was seen as inevitable (at every stage of his candidacy). Maybe inevitability isn't what it used to be.

The Democrats had a candidate who was capable of mobilizing millions of people and they had a candidate who, according to conventional wisdom, was somehow supposed to be inevitable; they chose the latter and got absolutely nothing in return.

In any case I can't see what could possibly be gained by keeping with the neoliberal establishment wing of the Democrats. They can't even keep a grotesque clown like Trump from taking power.

Jonathan wrote: "I thought that was an interesting insight into how/why some people voted how they did "

A surprising number of Arabs & Muslims in my social circle voted for Trump. I am following their social media feeds with keen interest to try to understand why. As expected, a major factor was American foreign policy fuck up in the Middle East and South Asia and a belief that Trump might be different.

1. A female friend said that Trump has so much contempt for Islam that he will not tolerate any jihadist groups which Americans have previously funded to achieve their strategic interests in the region; and he may also take Saudi Arabia and Qatar to task for their continued funding of jihadists. Trump's conciliatory approach towards Russia means that he will put an end to duplicitous US policy and do something real to defeat the jihadist-affiliated rebels and the ISIS. Hilary would have continued as usual and painted extremists as 'moderate rebels.' So she voted Trump.

2. This one voted Trump because, "I have seen my town turn into a sanctuary of illegal immigrants. Trump is against illegal immigration. So am I. Too many illegals coming in cause problems for legal ones like me. Banning Muslims was bluster, he can't do that while we have a constitution."

3. I also saw this: "Trump might be a bigot, but he is a defensive bigot not a mass murderer (yet). It's fun to revel in the pain of Killary (view spoiler)[a pun on her name (hide spoiler)] and the media which was shilling for her the entire election. She was a candidate for the Takfiri extremists (view spoiler)[refers to Saudi and other Gulf sheikhdoms who gave large donations to her foundation (hide spoiler)] and the big banks, saying one thing to them and another to people. A textbook politician...corrupt to the core. How could I vote for her?"

4. "Trump is a pile of AIDS but I still voted for him because he is lesser of the two evils. He might bring Muslim immigrants under the microscope, so what, only the terrorist / terrorist sympathizing sort need worry."

5. "America has not elected a woman president in its 240 years of history. I'd like to keep it that way. VOTE TRUMP"

Myopic voters? Or turkeys voting for Christmas? Or a type of Stockholm Syndrome?

Or do they have a point? (except #5)

David wrote: "Honestly, what makes people think Sanders would have been pulverized? He's the most popular politician in America, he polled better in a two way race with Trump than Clinton did. He was capable of ..."

What makes me think that? An interest in politics (including a degree in the subject) and possibly over-enthusiastic following of the election. And, you know, all those reasons I gave. Sure, I might be wrong, nobody knows for sure. But it's not like I'm just saying that as a result of a seance, or by flipping a coin.
[For a start, let's point out: only 47% of people polled say they would consider ever voting for a socialist for president. 50% say they definitely wouldn't.]

[Regarding the two pieces of evidence you have for a Sanders win: head-to-head matches before the primaries are completed historically have no predictive power, particularly when one candidate is little-known and unvetted. As for personal popularity: popularity is notoriously fickle, and again, it works differently when you're not on the ballot. That's why Sanders' popularity has been steadily increasing since he lost - back in the spring he was only at 40%, similar to where Clinton is now. Sanders now is where (or slightly above where) Clinton was when it became clear she was going to run - and you saw how that declined once Sanders went after her. As for picking the most popular politician in America: that's what the Democrats did; she just stopped being popular when it was clear the Democrats would pick her. Back when she was SOS, Clinton had over 60% favourability - 70% in some polls! Saying you like someone is easy when they're not actually on the ballot.]

Regarding the rotting carcass of conventional wisdom: if 1 in 100 Trump voters had gone the other way, Clinton would have swept Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and the final map would have been pretty much exactly as predicted. Make that swing a little less uniform across the country, so that it equates to 2 in 100 voters in some places, and she'd have won North Carolina and Arizona as well, and we'd be talking about a historic victory.

Believing that conventional wisdom has been reduced to an irrelevent carcass so you have no choice but to retreat from electability makes as much and as little sense as believing that conventional wisdom is so wise it could not possibly be wrong. The margin between 'confirming' one of those views and 'confirming' the other is 1 in 100 Trump voters - it's a blizzard here, a norovirus outbreak there, a good or bad last-minute news story, it's a public transport strike in philadelphia... that's not a margin that justifies any sort of sweeping judgement about anything, in either direction!

Hey Lobstergirl thanks for dropping by and speaking some truth - very much appreciated

We may to have to disagree here.

You say I'm making sweeping judgments. Well, I think the election of Donald Trump is a pretty damn radical turn of events. We may have to invent new intellectual paradigms to make sense of what's possible now.

Wastrel wrote: " if 1 in 100 Trump voters had gone the other way, Clinton would have swept Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and the final map would have been pretty much exactly as predicted. "

But it never should have been that close. Trump did not win because of an aggregate of accidents. Something more 'sweeping' is at work here.

David is right. I find it horrifying the efforts all over now to normalize a Trump victory.

Kubler-Ross on a global scale. Wait, Zizek already did that.

I still haven't spoken to my parents, who are radical Right wingers. Sure that's gonna go well.

All I know it's that next election in going to be more actively involved. I read and vote, but next time I'm going to do some volunteering. I also think that the next election in for years has a better than 50% chance of being a reaction to conservative overreach and the realization that Trump can't deliver on most of his promises.

Geoff wrote: "I still haven't spoken to my parents, who are radical Right wingers. Sure that's gonna go well."

Oh, damn.

David wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I still haven't spoken to my parents, who are radical Right wingers. Sure that's gonna go well."

Oh, damn."

Look, I don't talk a lot about particulars of my personal life on here, I am purposefully obscure about my life. But my wife is pretty high up in NASA's earth science division. She's actually off to Marrakesh for the climate conference tomorrow as one of NASA's representatives, and she's gonna have to tell them the US is probably going to pull out of all climate agreements. She's been in tears since the election. Anyway, more particularly, my job doesn't pay enough for the mortgage on the house we just bought. She makes more money than me. Trump has promised to eliminate all funding for climate science, including earth science. With a Republican congress this is very possible. Meaning, if that goes through and my wife loses her job, we lose the house, our life is upended, we might have to move and completely restructure the life we've built in an area we very much like being in and have so many established connections. Basically, Donald Trump is a direct existential threat to me and the people I love. NASA is freaking out right now. Friends I have who work at NOAA who have families to support are panicking. This is fucking real to me. So when I hear people say shit like "Take a breath, go for a walk, it won't be that bad!" My response is "Fuck off" - and I am especially not ready to listen to my parents praise the fucker who might ruin me.

David wrote: "We don't know, true. Still I think it's worth taking seriously the possibility that he might well have won. The Democraric party ought to be at a crossroads right now. Clinton was widely seen as in..."


'Maybe inevitability isn't what it used to be.'

Haha! Good one. It ain't, and ain't that a corker!!

'Maybe inevitability isn't what it used to be.'

Yeah, that is a good one!

Geoff wrote: "David wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I still haven't spoken to my parents, who are radical Right wingers. Sure that's gonna go well."

Oh, damn."

Look, I don't talk a lot about particulars of my personal l..."

Wow, that brings home your vociferous 'tribe on this thread. With you in good intent!

But one of the reasons I haven't mentioned this before is because this really isn't about my personal life - the consequences affect me personally, maybe immediately, sure - but the global consequences are far far more important.

GEOFF WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG! WHY DIDN'T I LISTEN TO YOU SOONER???

Geoff wrote: "David wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I still haven't spoken to my parents, who are radical Right wingers. Sure that's gonna go well."

Oh, damn."

Look, I don't talk a lot about particulars of my personal l..."

Defunding those things would be a global catastrophe, as well as a personal one for hundreds (thousands?) of scientists. One can only hope (or pray) that he will somehow back away from these extreme threats, that someonewill be able to talk some sense into him.

The environmental movement is right now (I am hoping) trying to come up with a plan to interface with Trump in some way. God, if nothing else, they could point out to him that were he to do an about-face on climate change, there would be countless people all over the globe (including millions of US voters) who would be eternally grateful to him. He has a chance to be the right-wing President who could actually bring this about, as Nixon was the one who brought about reconnection with China.

Geoff wrote: "David wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I still haven't spoken to my parents, who are radical Right wingers. Sure that's gonna go well."

Oh, damn."

Look, I don't talk a lot about particulars of my personal l..."

Sorry to hear that. One iota of light might be the possibility that NASA's name might provide some shielding: Trump is apparently pretty keen on Space Stuff, as are a lot of people around him (eg 'conquer the moon' Gingrich), and NASA may be able to justify some of their programmes on a "look, this helps us do space stuff!" basis (plus he may not look too deep into their budget). Not saying I think you'll be fine - just saying that if I had to be in government-funded, climate-related science in the US right now, NASA are probably the people with the best chance to escape the cull...

Anyway, best of luck with that.

[my word, between Brexit and Trump, European universities must be in ecstasy right now. The scale of braindrain could be immense...]

Jibran wrote: "Banning Muslims was bluster, he can't do that while we have a constitution."

(Quoting someone Muslim you know, not you.)

I wouldn't be so quick to assume this. Guess what? A lot of people would have said that our nation wouldn't be able to leave a Supreme Court seat empty for a year, while we have a constitution. And yet the seat sits empty. What recourse is there? Apparently, none.

Even if he isn't able to ban all or most Muslims, there are many things he can do short of that to create misery in Muslims' lives. He can subject Muslim Americans, both citizens and not-yet-citizens, to increased scrutiny if he wants, both openly and via the NSA or FBI.

I was tuning out Trump for the last week of the campaign, and it had seemed that he was trying extremely hard to stay on message and not say anything outrageous. But then I happened to watch a few minutes of a speech he gave in Minnesota in which he blatantly attacked the Somali community there, and it was just ugly. Not surprising, but ugly, ugly, ugly. That's what his Muslim supporters are supporting.

I am beginning to rethink my hyperselectivity of the company of left leaning people. Not because I want to get in with some of the goons that were at Trump rallies but because ordinary people who have differing opinions felt they had to choose Trump because everyone they happened across was listening to the same antiHillary right wing narrative. Not everyone who voted for Trump is Altright. I think quite possibly we are winding up in our own self-cocooning social worlds both online and off with a real lack of political diversity in our self selected social networks. I am not saying it is going to be fun to talk to someone who thought Trump was the lesser of two evils but a polity needs this kind of engagement.

Apparently, the ban on Muslims press release is back on Trump's website. Someone obviously told him that he shouldn't back down from his campaign promises so early - - except this, of course.

"Donald Trump, who campaigned on a promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, has engaged a bevy of lobbyists to assist with his transition, many helping to assemble departments of government of direct interest to clients they represent."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

This week's Washington DC City Paper's cover.

The New Yorker

Oh yeah

Geoff wrote: "Oh yeah"

My wife pointed out that the New Yorker may have had that cover ready no matter who won. It could be viewed as an ecumenical cover. Though of course the magazine made no doubt what they thought of Trump, and it wasn't good. I am curious, probably will never know about the cover - unless they actually say something inside the magazine, which I haven't started to read yet.

The cover is actually called "Anything but That" - so maybe there was another ready also?

Geoff wrote: "This week's Washington DC City Paper's cover.
"

I love that!

Jibran wrote: "Apparently, the ban on Muslims press release is back on Trump's website. Someone obviously told him that he shouldn't back down from his campaign promises so early - - except this, of course.

"Don..."

Brain-dead idiots of the Hindu Right are celebrating the victory of Trump in India. It is assumed that:

1. Trump, Putin and Modi together will kill off all the terrorists.

2. All Muslims are terrorists.

Ergo

Trump, Putin and Modi together will kill off all Muslims.

Peter wrote: "I am beginning to rethink my hyperselectivity of the company of left leaning people. Not because I want to get in with some of the goons that were at Trump rallies but because ordinary people who h..."

actually I think the good people who voted for Trump (if they exist) will see that they have made a horrible mistake. The rest are budding fascists.

Headline this morning : "Facebook and Google move to ban fake news sites from their ads" - too little, too late, assholes

Or too much too soon. I'm not convinced that censorship is the best way to tackle extremists, except in the most unavoidable cases (like incitement).

You may call something "fake news"; someone else may call it "unproven news" - you don't have to be a conspiracy nut to think that there's 'news' out there that isn't being reported by the mainstream media because it's not been 'proven' to the standards of their lawyers. At least over here, for instance, there was no reporting of the fact that Trump was due to stand trial for child rape in December until the case was withdrawn. Is a headline saying "Trump is a child molester (says plaintiff)" fake news? What about a headline saying "Bill Clinton is a child molester"? To my knowledge there's no actual lawsuit there, but there is a reasonable chain of inference that could lead someone to that conclusion (via his friendship with, and private holidays with, Epstein). It's not a known fact, but it is an understandable honest opinion that people might have. Now, to be clear, I don't believe it myself. But I'm not comfortable with just calling that belief "fake".

It's very difficult to distinguish a) "fake news" from b) opinionated speculation and c) humour. [Memes that jutapose a certain quote with a certain face, for instance, may be an attempt to mislead the audience into thinking the person actually said that, or they may just be attempts at being funny]. Most countries already have a way to distinguish these things - it's called the legal system. And yes, the threshold for restricting publication under libel laws is high; but that's not an accident, that's part of democracy.

If you want Facebook and Google to decide for us what is and isn't "fake news", you're essentially outsourcing the democratic, legal regulation of libel to private companies, in a system that lacks any accountability, oversight, or independent process of appeal. Experience shows that the companies will be driven not by morality but by their profit margins - just look at how Google stifles creativity and free speech on youtube through over-zealous enforcement of "copyright" claims.

So yeah, today I'd like to be able to shut up people telling lies about Clinton so that nobody can hear them. But tomorrow, I'd like to be able to hear people raising allegations about BP or Monsanto or whomever, and NOT have those allegations censored by Google and Facebook because BP or Monsanto have put in a "fake news notification". I'm wary enough of the censorship imposed by accountable public courts; I think it's a terrible idea to transfer that power of censorship to private, for-profit companies.

Trump, of course, supports you/Facebook/Google completely in this, and has promised to reform the law to censor and penalise fake news stories. But his views of which stories would be covered by those laws is slightly different from yours, which is sort of the problem here.

[Or maybe they won't look at the content of the 'news', but will simply see whether the 'news' agrees with the 'news' provided by AP and Reuters, or the BBC or whomever. That's slightly better in terms of impartiality (assuming a fair implementation), but it's even worse in terms of censoring anything and anyone whose views haven't been imprimatured by major media networks.]

The best answer to wrong facts should be more promulgation of right facts. Exceptions may be made in extreme circumstances (outright libel, 'facts' seriously hazardous to the public health, etc), but that should be the general principle.

As I understand, it's only for adverts. Facebook won't censor stories people share and post and Google won't censor search results. Yet.

I agree that education is a better solution than censorship. We can say the world would be better without Fox News but maybe the alternative is Breitbart. And there are people who see Breitbart as lamestream pinkos, no doubt.

It would be nice if the American social system were creating Homo sapiens that could distinguish fact from fiction though. This would be nice.

Geoff wrote: "It would be nice if the American social system were creating Homo sapiens that could distinguish fact from fiction though. This would be nice."

The problem is, in terms of the fact that we have turned education into a "business", that it takes quite a bit of time to do this, and it does not make someone a good worker bee. Plus it is not something one can turn into a nice graph and show how the current regime has made things better...

I remember showing Blackadder goes Forth to some year 9 students (13/14 year olds) and was fascinated to discover that the less able ones of them simply could not understand the humour as it required an ability to recognise different levels of meaning which was, it turned out, something they were incapable of doing. You would probably need to spend at least a term working on things like that with them. But there is no time as you have to focus on exam prep and hitting government targets.

Rant over. TL;DR - exam focused education = bad

You make it sound easy. But that problem goes all the way down, up and across. People don't know what to believe. So when someone comes along who speaks their language and seems to share their frustrations...

I agree it would be nice if people could accept matters of broad scientific consensus (climate change, benefit of vaccination, evolution etc.). Thing is it's easy to sow doubt and to point to times where broad scientific consensus has been wrong in the past.

Okay, I'll narrow it down then - it would be nice if the American social system was creating Homo sapiens that could distinguish whether or not they are living in a reality TV show. That would be nice.

Critical thinking skills need to be a core part of the education policy from day 1

Remind me what the right answer is. I mean I know, I think, but I just want to check.

I don't think it's easy at all. We want people to distinguish truth and lies, reality and fantasy. It might seem black and white but I don't think it is. Plus I think I know the right answers but remember, they're equally convinced that they do. We're deep in Yeats territory. The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.

(A fairly large anti-Trump protest is passing by my window down Pennsylvania Ave. as we speak - heartening)

Okay, then fantasy needs to be anti-Totalitarian.

This seems curiously pertinent - except maybe the first line:

Fragment

...................
O God, for myself I could forgive everything,
But I would rather be a hawk clawing a lamb,
Or a serpent biting someone sleeping in the field,
Than be a human and be forced to see
What people do, and from putrid shame,
Not dare to raise my eyes to the heavens on high.

Anna Akhmatova, 1916

Hm. A century ago this year.