Douglas Rushkoff’s book - Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires – describes his encounters with a dangerous trend among many uber-rich lords… as they fantasize about civilization’s fall and their hyper-privileged roles in the horrible world to follow.
Beyond just prepper-preparedness, this tendency slips over into wanting it to come true. I explored a similar sickness in The Postman and in Earth, where I used stark imagery to help prevent such a calamity.
Alas, the fellows to whom Doug had the dubious privilege of talking (and I have, too, some of them) are doing a lot more than pondering scary stories. Like my ‘Holnist’ survivalists in The Postman, they are preparing, big time, hiring contractors to build palatial bunkers, both under their urban mansions and way up in mountain stronghols in New Zealand, Patagonia and Zimbabwe.
Indeed, what used to be a secretive – somewhat embarrassed – pastime is now an unabashed industry, lavishly advertised! As in this web site for Oppidum - a Swiss construction firm. Apparently it's all real - unless a very elaborate hoax, one that's validated by this Forbes article.
Despite that difference in specific diagnosis, Rushkoff and I agree that this trend bodes ill for us all. In Earth I portray a somewhat better future in which this kind of delusional solipsism, by would-be struldbrug lords, was stymied by a “Helvetian War,” that rendered the Glarus Alps into slag, but finally gave-over to the world the bank records. Who owns what.
(Universal ownership transparency would not only bring justice and erase national debts, everywhere. It would also truly empower Adam Smith's promise - the version of market enterprise that's flat, creatively competitive and fair.)
Alas, given the Swiss bunker mentality that we see in that Oppidum web site, it seems something like that scenario in EARTH may prove necessary.
Of course, the problem is not with wealth in itself, but human nature. A tendency by elite humans in all generations… especially males… to attribute their high status to inherent superiority, and thus to surround themselves with sycophant flatterers who benefit by reinforcing those delusions.
Key to this is the psychotic, oligarch-funded, all-out propaganda war against nerds – against all fact-using professions. The quarter of a billion humans who today actually keep things running. We who keep the lords safe and healthy. Who gave them everything they have...
...but who are also the principal force standing in their way of restored feudalism.
This campaign to discredit nerdy fact-folks extends beyond science, medicine, teaching, journalism, law and civil service. It now even includes hate campaigns against the intel/FBI/military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on Terror…
...because all of those fact-users dare to say those fell words: “Sir, that’s just not true.”
== What's their agenda? ==
It's not just MAGA dopes they wish to sway, but also convenient fools who can attempt to play as ‘intellectuals.’
Here’s an important article -The Return of the Anti-Enlightenment - about ways that our fantastically successful Enlightenment Experiment is under fiercely coordinated attack, even at the level of theory. (And yeah, this thing was published at Cato, an ‘institute’ that long ago became not a promoter of freedom but a shill for oligarchy. Only in this one case... could it be that some, at Cato, are rediscovering their stated mission?)
“In an age of widespread concern that liberal democracy is increasingly embattled around the world, the twin attacks on Enlightenment liberalism from the right and the left—and not just from the fringes—represent a worrying trend.”
Okay, sure, there are anti-enlightenment fanatics on all horizons, including - yes - some on the 'far-left.' But these authors have realized what’s abundantly clear. That shrieks from frippy far-left postmodernists are a much smaller threat, driven by sanctimony addictions, yet still rooted in enlightenment goals…
...while our meme-enemies on the far-right are very numerous and massively coordinated, waging all-out attacks against our every pillar, from science, democracy, merit, and accountability… to, yes, any sort of freedom.
== An end to hypocritical pretense ==
In a worrisome trend, many elements of the oligarchy-funded neo-feudalism movement – that I’ve denounced ferociously elsewhere...
...no longer even try to disguise their intent to end anything like what we call liberty or free speech or open inquiry. Styling themselves as scions of Edmund Burke, their screeds display utter ignorance of human history, or the past thinkers they claim to ‘quote.’
For example, as the Cato article points out, these neo-monarchist morons conflate Hobbes with Locke, of all dizzying ineptitudes! While attributing to feudalism virtues that 6000 years of bullying lords always loudly claimed – but never actually displayed – as they preyed-upon and oppressed nearly all of our ancestors.
== Follow-up ==
Implicit in this cult is their fear for the vast amounts of lucre that have been transferred (grabbed) into oligarchy, across the last couple of decades... that an awakened bourgeoisie and proletariat might join forces to claw some of it back, not through communism, but simply a return to the Rooseveltean Social Contract, in which markets reward productive activities with wealth, even luxury, but NOT outrageous power.
Hence, this cult's wishful fantasies about The Event. Fantasies that might be relatively harmless, except for a dangerous aspect of human nature. Not wanting an investment to go to waste.
And thus a noted drift toward wanting The Event to happen!
And hence - given the power that the world oligarchy has grabbed - that wish, even subconscious, is dangerous to us all.
See one of many recent observations of this rising rationalization.
… And my own decryption of this mad-growing cult hatred of the Enlightenment Experiment. My novel Existence dived into some of these matters.
== The Security Staff Quandary ==
Only now it's getting pretty darned explicit and real-world worrisome. Doug Rushkoff is the supposed expert, having written extensively about his consultations with some of these Struldbrugs. I, too, was asked some of the same questions.
Paramount among their expressed worries? "How do we keep our security staffs loyal after 'the event', when money is no good and there's no law to enforce their contracts?"
Boo hoo. You should see the 'ideas' I've heard some of them float, to solve this problem! Like controlling the staff with remote controlled explosive collars around the guards' necks! Or locking the food store-rooms with secret combinations. Not one of their ideas has been remotely plausible. Indeed - defensively embarassed - they clearly know it.
Though in fact, I know a method that could work... and I refused to say! Certainly not at any ‘consultancy fee’ they are likely to pay!
== So... what do you imagine will happen, after? ==
The thing I find amazing is that, except for the short term 'security staff question,' there's almost never any thought about the world that would follow The Event. So let's parse it out.
If the perturbation is mild-to-moderate, as in K.S. Robinson's The Ministry for the Future, just slaying mere millions of people, then the public investigations that follow will not leave many of these castles in the hands of an aristocracy that did little to prevent it.
If it is a truly major calamity... death for most of the world's billions... then perhaps they envision their mountain or undersea fortresses leaving them intact in the aftermath, emerging as mighty feudal lords.
Maybe an aftermath like in the famed novel A Canticle for Leibowitz, wherein the suffering survivors take out their rage on nerds and books, leaving themselves consigned to ignorance and filth. Whereupon those survivors are soon eager to kowtow low before gleaming, well-fed lords who emerge from their castle bunkers, tanned, rested and ready to rule with all the tools and all the knowledge they hoarded.
That may be the fantasy. Only there's a problem.
Things won't go that way. Not even close.
== Our best response is pretty simple ==
Okay, here it is.
"You delusional inheritance brats of turpitude parasites rely utterly upon about a quarter of a billion nerds on this planet to keep things going, to keep the peace, to design and make the cool stuff, to implement your palaces and to keep you healthy. And yet, you currently subsidize the greatest campaign of slander the world has ever seen, promoting spite toward all of the fact-using professions, from science, law, medicine, teaching and journalism to several million civil servants, and now even including the FBI-intel/military officer corps in the USA and West.
"But have you truly thought this through?
"Do you honestly believe those quarter of a billion geeks and nerds and specialists haven't noticed what you are doing? Or that they’ll go down quietly?
"Or that many, many of us don't know exactly where you have set up your cozy, high-tech bunkers, along with every schematic and every pathetic precaution you have taken?
"The very same nerds who know nuclear, bio, cyber, nano and all the rest? You really and truly want them as vengeful enemies?"
Of course the would be prepper lords haven't thought it through. Because of the age-old curse of oligarchy. Surrounding yourselves with sycophants and flatterers. With fools.
== Why do so many (not all) fall for this dealy fantasy? ==
Why does this always, always happen? It's a topic to explore another time. But in general...
... male reproductive strategies warp the social behaviors of most animals and most often in ways that benefit individual males, but not a healthy species. In fact, this ranks high on my list of explanations for the Fermi Paradox!
After 6000 years (possibly 12,000) of feudalism dominating almost all cultures that had agriculture, we are all descended from the harems of SOBs who managed to claw their way atop pyramids and stomp the other 99% down to serfdom. It's effective at gene pushing! But crappy at delusion-resistant governance.
In fact, even the existence of our current alternative to feudalism - the enlightenment flattened diamond of flat-fair-cooperative-competition and reciprocal accountability - may be a fluke across the whole galaxy. And hence the Fermi Paradox connection.
These rich dopes surround themselves with flatterers and sycophants and ersatz (or real) harems, because that's an irresistibly alluring path for males with that kind of wealth and power, even those who mean well. (Poor Clinton!)
Hence, I think the 'technosolutionist' stuff that Doug Rushkoff diagnoses is just window dressing for much more reflexive, deeply-rooted feudalism-drives. After all, as I already stated, many of these rich nutters aren't tech guys, but plain old inheritance brats, or cheaters, or criminal bosses, mafiosi, casino moguls, drug kingpins.... The tech guys are just the ones who us nerds are likely to meet. Nouveau riche parvenus who don't have the smooth discretion skills of, say, a Saudi prince.
And yes, zillionaires aren't all fools! A few realize what Adam Smith knew and taught... that the market will only provide if it is at least generally fair. I know some who are loyal to this unique civilization that gave them everything. Craig Newmark, Peter Diamandis, Reid Hoffman, Warren Buffett... oh, I could go on listing many counter-examples of grownups... or at least decent people who would be (or already are) on our side.
Alas, though, almost no one actually reads Smith anymore... or Marx... or studies what happens when wealth disparities pass French Revolution levels.
So let me distill it in simple enough terms that even a brat with a flattery-lobotomized brain could understand:
If you folks don't wean yourselves off your private jets and go back to flying First Class, where you belong, then the vehicle you eventually ride may be a tumbrel.
Simple enough?
180 comments:
Super Rich Preppers here on South Island - where the culture is Scot/Maori
If the big event happens they are not going to last long - I think we have advanced enough (Both Scots and Maori) so they will not actually be served up on the grill - probably
Dr Brin in the main post:
As in this web site for Oppidum - a Swiss construction firm. Apparently it's all real - unless a very elaborate hoax,
It's probably real to the extend that they're willing to do the contraction work in exchange for ungodly sums of money. The attitude of the construction companies is probably similar to that of people who contract to take care of left-behind pets after their owners are Raptured.
...because all of those fact-users dare to say those fell words: “Sir, that’s just not true.”
From Robert Harris's novel Fatherland, an alternate history that takes place in a roughly similar 1960s to your "Thor vs Captain America" (though without the supernatural aspects) :
...He stooped and whispered in March's ear, "Do you know why Globus doesn't like you?"
"Enlighten me."
"Because you make him feel stupid. In Globus's book, that's a capital offense. ..."
duncan cairncross:
so they will not actually be served up on the grill - probably
Tandu strips and episiarch steaks? *
* Only "quoting" from memory, but I trust the reference is apparent.
They say America is about the rights of individuals...
Well... it really isn't. What we actually do is curb the powers of government to avoid infringing certain rights, but we don't have a list of which rights people have. We have a list of rights that may not be infringed... much.
There is a wonderfully thin line between being an individualist and being selfish that we cannot discern for ourselves. The line's location depends on the judgements of those around us. It is this issue that leads many to see Libertarians as selfish while they don't.
When American conservatives spout the 'rights of individuals' POV, it's always worth asking what they feel they owe others. Justice is a virtue, but it is equally about what behaviors are owed to us as it is what we owe others.
I can see the upside off a lavish lifestyle in the midst of a prosperous society, but it would seem (To me) that living large in the midst of want would have little appeal and a lavish palace in a post-apocalyptic wasteland would quickly feel like a prison. Perhaps they're having difficulties transcending their inner alpha primate?
On a positive note, some progress on autoimmune disease:
https://scitechdaily.com/new-vaccine-can-completely-reverse-autoimmune-diseases-like-multiple-sclerosis-type-1-diabetes-and-crohns-disease/
Can't do that in a bolthole in the wasteland.
Tim H:
it would seem (To me) that living large in the midst of want would have little appeal and a lavish palace in a post-apocalyptic wasteland would quickly feel like a prison
Several years ago now, radio host Thom Hartmann had a German businessman on his show defending his country's tax-supported social safety net. The guy said, "I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country." Seems like the best attitude for avoiding 1789 France.
LH, True that! I would add that the availability of spending money does great things for profits.
No plan survives first contact with the enemy. And since the dawn of sapiens, everything out there is our enemy. The only shield we have is civilization.
I can think of at least two TASAT hits for this scenario:
- Ben Elton's "Stark"
- Michael Coneys "Hello Summer, Goodbye" (although the 'event' is a natural one)
The Horizon game sequel 'Forbidden West' also has an amusing side-quest where one wannabe oligarch is investigating an older oligarch's 'event' shelter (where things *definitely* didn't go as planned).
The predictable consequences of the 'Let it rip' attitude to COVID should be noted as well.
@duncan I recall an old Maori matriarch responding to a NS article asserting that there was no evidence that any culture habitually indulged in cannibalism.
"Of *course* we did!"
As for the Scots, well... how long are haggis?
Mitt Romney in his new book says: “America’s experiment in self-rule “is fighting against human nature.” Which is what I have been saying! But I doubt we agree on details. Certainly it is long past time for Mormons to realize that "socially demure & conservative' is totally at odds with the utter filth of today's Republicanism/confederatism. Mormons practice what they preach, behavior-wise, I'll give em that! In contrast, nearly all red-run states - except markedly Utah - have vastly higher than average rates of every turpitude, from gambling & addiction & STDs, domestic violence, teen sex, divorce all the way to tax parasitism on the rest of the country. And much more.
But I do not expect Romney to focus on any of that. I have no idea whether his statements upon deciding not to re-run are
1. Bitter rich old man grumbles,
2. "Don't blame me!" evasions of future responsibility for what his party has done/become, or
3. preparing to help create a new Conservative Party, to save something of the movement - and help save us all - before it is too late.
I hope for #3, but only as a shrugged, forlorn fantasy. The Republicans with guts have already left, including almost every member of the senior military officer corps.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-romney-retiring-senate-trump-mcconnell/675306/
Romney was a "Vulture Capitalist" asset stripping operating companies and leaving their workers in the lurch
An EVIL person
“about the rights of individuals...”
We’ll have to persist in telling
such to them, not each other.
Tim H,
An inverse vaccine described in the article will be a really big deal. It's in the lab for now, though, so we shall have to see how it all holds up with tests. Those things have a way of surprising us with some small detail that turns out to be impressively deadly when applied to something a bit bigger than a petri dish.
Still... I'm hopeful. I know way too many who suffer autoimmune issues. Mine came very close to killing me 10 years ago. My sister's version finished the job.
To repeat myself, these redoubts will likely hold off the first few hundred starving serfs.
No plan survives first contact with reality, is my preferred rephrasing.
@Darrel E,
"...sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield,"
- George Orwell, 1946.
Agreed about the reality quips, I'm just into Eisenhower quotes lately, like Beware the fury of an aroused democracy (borrowed from someone earlier I think).
The prep-lords seem to be expecting shambling zombies. The reality may be somewhat different.
I quoted Leslie Fish on this blog before, and I do so again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O68DedIacWM
"Hello, remember us? We sure remember you!"
I've mentioned the local PacNW budget preppers before...talked to someone who had a side business selling buckets of freeze-dried "food" to people fervently awaiting the End Times. The same people buy gold from websites on Fox and skeezier channels, I think.
Those people don't have to worry about uppity security guards. Just neighbors. Neighbors with hungry kids. And rifles. And access to ammonium nitrate.
Pappenheimer
P.S. My favorite military disaster quote is from Gen Slim, who took over the British army during its rout from Burma in 1942. One of the staff officers he'd inherited was detailing everything that had gone wrong - no air cover, bridges blown with friendly forces still on the far side, infiltration tactics, etc.
"It could be worse," Slim ventured, trying to prop up morale a bit.
"How! How could it be worse?" the officer asked.
Slim thought for a bit. "It could be raining."
And three hours later, it was.
Note that Slim's reconstitued forces stopped the badly overextended Japanese at Imphal and Kohima, and in 1944 accomplished the near-total destruction of the Japanese military forces in Burma.
PPS I have no doubt that the current GQP appalls Mitt Romney. They are screaming the quiet parts out loud, they are tearing his party apart, and they won't vote for him.
Paradoctor,
Love that song.
Pappenheimer
Unknwn I forgot to mention Romney's #4 reason not to try for another Senate term:
4. "I'd lose."
Perhaps history does repeat itself? Trump: re-electing Biden would mean,
“we’d be in World War Two”
Actually, we’re in WW IV.
Cold War 1.0 was WW III;
now we’re in Cold War 2.0
David, it's not just the oligarchs versus the nerds. There is another class...the administrators. These are the bosses that the nerds like me report to. These people also have a false sense of entitlement and belief in their own superiority. I think much of that anger felt against the nerds should really be aimed at the administrators. Many of these administrators are trying to curry favor with the oligarchs in order to enrich themselves.
Projection is all they know.
So, Trump's senility is why they harp on Biden's.
As for Hunter... ask what Jr's been up to?
This isn’t Cold War II yet. Russia is by no means capable of pushing us there.
This is another war of conquest we aim to contain through proxies. Standard operating procedure.
They don’t like Obama’s lack of senility. They don’t hold Biden culpable.
testing laptop before houston
Tony Fisk:
So, Trump's senility is why they harp on Biden's.
The Trump crime family is certainly why they harp on Biden's.
@Larry
It's how Perseus defeated Medusa: with mirrors!
(Maybe there *is* something to this TASAT thing!?)
This is a way to buffer negative statements. Will brings up Obama’s administration 3/4 of the way down:
not too close to the beginning or end; so the reader doesn’t read it near the start—and it’s away from the conclusion of the piece.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/15/14th-amendment-trump-disqualification-dangerous/
In the previous, scidata said...
me: are there any books about sousveillance?
ChatGPT: "The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?" by David Brin - While not solely focused on sousveillance, this book discusses the broader themes of transparency and surveillance, including the idea of individuals using technology to watch those in power.
(a small snippet of the response and discussion showing understanding)
No. That does not show understanding.
That is a search for a specific bit of text, which of course any search engine can find. Along with a description of how the word is used in the book.
This is not 'understanding', and tells you no more (arguably less) than a google search.
If one knows what one is looking for, then a search engine (anything from an old-fashioned card catalog to something like Google or Bing) will work. One doesn't need "AI".
Unless I am mistaken, the goal of something like TASAT is to answer questions when one doesn't know exactly what one is looking for. That is, to be able to ask: "We have this situation; are there any writings about something similar that might help us think more clearly about it?"
That requires understanding of what a 'situation' is and how things might be 'similar' even though they are described differently, and that is something that no LLM is going to be able to do.
«Several years ago now, radio host Thom Hartmann had a German businessman on his show defending his country's tax-supported social safety net.»
A tax-supported social safety net is ALSO an anti-dekulakization premiums (and I chose that term deliberately: when the “let’s slaughter the rich to make them pay for their misdeeds” crowd seize power, they don’t stop at the top 0,1%)
***
«The prep-lords seem to be expecting shambling zombies.»
Shambling zombies aren’t smart enough to till the soils, pay rent and work their corvées. What they expect is obedient draft cattle.
***
«Unknwn I forgot to mention Romney's #4 reason not to try for another Senate term:
4. "I'd lose."»
You also forgot reason 5: “On of my erstwhile voters might shoot me during a meeting and I don’t want to die or if lucky, spend a decade relearning to speak like Gabby Giffords”
Laura Weppe:
You've got that right.
https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2023/09/magaism-was-always-terrorism.html
...
And "Later, during the Senate trial, Romney heard the same calculation while talking with a small group of Republican colleagues. When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict, the others urged him to reconsider. You can’t do that, Romney recalled someone saying. Think of your personal safety, said another. Think of your children. The senator eventually decided they were right." They're not talking about crazed leftists going all Bolshevik on their asses. It's the fucking MAGA cretins who are murdery. They're the ones, primarily, who call in the death threats and bomb threats and show up at the houses of Democrats, armed to the tits with guns and ammo because open carry.
Romney himself pays, he claims, $5000 a day in security to prevent those same cretins from 2nd Amendmenting him or his family. And Romney's rich, so he can afford that $150k a month. I don't think I'm taking a particularly brave stand in declaring that it's bullshit that politicians of any persuasion should have to deal with some asshole telling them where their children live and how they're going to be murdered.
Put this in context: According to Romney (and others), the reason that Donald Trump was not removed from office is because Republicans were scared of the very white people they declare are the heart and soul of the country, the "real Americans," if you will. They were afraid that these "patriots," as more than one obsequious jellyfish has called them, will hang them or gun their children down in vengeance. The terrorists were protecting their terrorist leader. Think of how many decisions have been made because of this fear.
...
Do these idiots have any understanding of what it takes to make their cell phones, laptops and all the rest of modern electronics https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems ?
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep18-3.html
On Friday, Judge Tanyka Chutkan unsealed a week-old filing asking her to order Donald Trump to shut up. The request, from Special Counsel Jack Smith, states that Trump's past conduct is aimed at intimidating witnesses, some of whom have received various threats already. Smith wants Chutkan to tell Trump to cut it out. So far, she hasn't done that.
If she issues an order, Trump will immediately appeal on the grounds that the First Amendment allows him to say anything he wants about anyone. In effect, he will be arguing that laws about intimidating witnesses by threatening them verbally (as opposed to using a gun, knife, or baseball bat) are unconstitutional. At the very least, the appeal could take a year or more to get to the Supreme Court, with uncertain results.
In the request, Smith points out that past verbal attacks on people have led to serious consequences. For example, after Trump attacked Ruby Freeman, some of his supporters got the message and went after her. Prosecutors are arguing that Trump is uniquely dangerous in a way most other defendants are not because he has the power to rile up millions of supporters to threaten or even attack people who might be called to testify against him and thus make them unwilling to do so. Witness intimidation is a federal crime.
...
These "First Amendment" purists know full well that if someone publicly verbalizes a threat against Trump or any similarly-protected politician, they will receive a pointed visit from the US Secret Service. Yet, they claim the right to make such threats themselves, assured that in our two-tiered justice system, the odds be always in their favor.
From the same link above...
Punishing Trump by a fine would probably not incite his base as much as imprisoning him
More than that, it would help bankrupt them all as they continue to send Trump money to pay off the fines.
You forgot the best part of "Survival of the Richest"
The CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked, “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.
The answer is that they cannot control their own security forces after money becomes worthless.
An ironic, poetic justice awaits the uber rich in their bunkers.
Re: TASAT and ChatGPT
It shows understanding of the query, though not of the books/stories that it finds. Not totally unlike the various interpretations of Marx, Smith, Rand, and SF authors too. For the purposes of TASAT, that's just semantics, both figuratively and literally. As my posts here clearly show, I'm no generative A.I. fanboy. However, If you had shown ChatGPT (now just an average LLM) to a cyberneticist five years ago, their head would have exploded (figuratively). I have come to respect it a bit more*. A lot of dismissive criticism is like the French joke: "Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"
* In the Fermi Paradox, there are answers along the lines of whether we'd recognize ETI even if we were staring right at it. We tend to anthropomorphize intelligence. That's why I stick to my "FORTH 'n Chips" realm.
"The answer is that they cannot control their own security forces after money becomes worthless.
They might be able to devise other means of leverage that could plausibly work. One example that comes to mind, curate a security force of individuals willing to provide their services in return for a place in the compound for their wife and children.
scidata said...
Re: TASAT and ChatGPT
It shows understanding of the query, though not of the books/stories that it finds. Not totally unlike the various interpretations of Marx, Smith, Rand, and SF authors too. For the purposes of TASAT, that's just semantics, both figuratively and literally.
No, it does not - unless you mean something very different than I by "understanding".
There is no "understanding" any more than a Google search (with the same text) "understands" the question. Arguably the Google search is better, because in addition to a reference to David's book (on the first page of results), it lists a number of other books about 'sousveillance'.
Again: (and - again - as I understand it, and I may not) the goal of something like TASAT is to provide answers when someone doesn't already know what they are looking for.
This is an interesting topic and one that I hope can be discussed without an excess of political rancor.
I don't know how many uber wealthy there are out there building Secret Underground Lairs. A few no doubt, there have always been some. I agree that if things got Really Bad they'd gain only a short and anxious extra span of days. None of us would spare them any tears. That this is an actual Movement or that these are more than a few wealthy cranks, we can differ I suppose. I have doubts. It seems like another Distraction from real world problems.
Speaking of which. My concern would be more for how the rest of us would fare. In a Really Bad scenario - comet impact for instance - all we say here would become irrelevant. As would we, very rapidly.
But plausible Pretty Bad stuff? What might happen? Who would be hit hardest? What can we do to prepare, in the common sense meaning, not the bunkers and canned beans sort of thing.
I'm frankly surprised we have not had a major cyber attack that hits us hard. Shut down the power grid, turn off the internet, scramble rail traffic, cause several large refineries to turn off or light up. One could certainly imagine this as a response to real or imagined US actions. I note that our intelligence agencies are still puzzled, perplexed, gosh really have no clue as to who blew up Nordstream but that might not cut it with aggrieved parties.
Of course those hit hardest would be people in larger cities, especially poorly run ones. How much food and heating oil could rapidly be delivered to the South Side of Chicago if you really, really had to? Places with lots of homeless folks are already barely hanging on in these times of plenty.
As an aside, our genial host has tossed out various comments on our strategic petroleum reserves, surely a relevant matter in this context. Here's the scoop compadres....
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcsstus1&f=m
I'd love to offer up data on another hobby horse, combat readiness, but weirdly no data from the last two years seems to have been made public. Here's the most recent, the trend lines not looking cheerful.
https://www.gao.gov/blog/u.s.-military-working-rebuild-readiness-and-modernize
I'll reserve judgement, but ammunition stocks and a notable downturn in recruitment can't be helping.
Be well, be safe and look after your own small share of the American Experiment. Other parts of the world, your mileage may vary.
Tacitus
Tacitus:
I note that our intelligence agencies are still puzzled, perplexed, gosh really have no clue as to who blew up Nordstream but that might not cut it with aggrieved parties.
Hal Sparks, Malcom Nance, and Occam's Razor all point to Russia doing it themselves. I tend to agree.
Tacitus - "I'm frankly surprised we have not had a major cyber attack that hits us hard."
I've also noticed that the War on Terror seems to be winding down. It's been out of the news for a long time. No major attack on Wester/American interests in quire some time. Only local interior attacks like those in West African countries.
Are we winning?
«You forgot the best part of "Survival of the Richest"»
The *best* part is in the book, when the author advices the billionaire prepers that the best way to insure their guards loyalty is to be nice to them NOW, because it’s much harder to betray a friend who cares about you than a distant and indifferent boss… And they immediately dismiss him.
These guys have picked a fight with Darwin.
***
«I've also noticed that the War on Terror seems to be winding down. It's been out of the news for a long time. No major attack on Wester/American interests in quire some time. Only local interior attacks like those in West African countries.»
A few disjoined “lone wolf” attack in Europe as well, nothing like 9/11 (or the Bataclan), just enough to give the media excuses to broadcast the far-right’s pogrom-envy during the “debates” that follow.
So, no, we’re not “winning”, because we forget that in the “war on terror” the true threat is not the religious nut jobs who never had the man and firepower to destroy us, but the fascists exploiting terror attacks to increase their own influence.
I note that our intelligence agencies are still puzzled, perplexed, gosh really have no clue as to who blew up Nordstream but that might not cut it with aggrieved parties.
Whoever did it, he has done us a favor. Russia is out of the gas business here (though not in Europe) and renewables are soaring. I would not mind if it were the Ukrainians themselves.
Several years ago now, radio host Thom Hartmann had a German businessman on his show defending his country's tax-supported social safety net. The guy said, "I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country." Seems like the best attitude for avoiding 1789 France.
Oh, they try to remove it. Also, a lot of money is lost on redundant bureaucracies (especially in healthcare, 100 mandatory public insurance companies, with private companies on top), so that a large portion of the money never reaches the intended destination.
Denmark seems to manage it better.
At the risk of being redundant, I think those preppers should be required to watch Love, Death + Robots, season 3, episode 1, "Three Robots: Exit Strategies," especially the rich ones who think they can ride out any apocalypse.
Not only did they not do very well, they were in fact the ones responsible for the robot apocalypse in the first place (for ignoring Dr. Brin's advice on rearing A.I.) :D
In Houston for NASA meetings. Brief responses.
The fact that some GOP senators were cowards about MAGA violence actually encourages me! Because at least those ones aren’t (likey) pure slaves of KGB blackmail, as obviously Graham and Cruz are.
----
mcsandberg said... Do these idiots have any understanding of what it takes to make their cell phones…
Um, nerd boffins should keep in their place.
---
DP I addressed the security staff problem. But the quotation is good.
Darrell E. A place for families is MINIMAL and it does not prevent security guys from demoting the lord, later, to mere corporal or serf. There IS an approach similar – tho extrapolated from that – (a lot!) that would take a lot of time and money, but reap ancillary, real world benefits. But would need patience. And I am not telling.
Tacitus remains a welcome friend. Alas, as always he presages with his usual sigh implying he thinks everyone here (but he) is an immature drama queen. Whatever, I sigh back atcha for being obstinately blind to an all out oligarchic attempted putsch, whose excusers will never wager over simple, teastable assertion-incantations.
I still like you, man!
Specifics: I’ve done more to help push resilience measures than anyone you know, e.g. cell p2p backup systems. Talk to defense folks all the time.
“I'm frankly surprised we have not had a major cyber attack that hits us hard.”
ANSWER: They have tried, VERY hard. It is plain that our protector caste deliberately spread stories of western vulnerability to lure Kremlin etc hackers into thinking they were demigod geniuses instead of lumbering doofuses. There HAVE been attacks ordered by Vlad & company… and 99% failed. Geez who’d’a thunk our skilled professionals were… skilled?
MORE than skilled. In fact MATURE professionals who had no need to preen or brag and deliberately nurtured a false mien of helplessness… for our sakes.
STRATEGIC RESERVES? Dems always sell from the reserves when prices are high and buy when they drop. As anyone sane would do, but Republican admins NEVER do. Cronies are making billions selling at huge premiums the Helium Bushes sold off for zilch.
Okay so the Ukraine war and Saudi interventions have kept prices too high to buy? Well, we’ll see about that when they fall. But meanwhile it means investing in sustainables must continue amid relentless GOP attempts at sabotage. And hell yes, we became effectively energy independent under Obama. Now to become PRICE independent. Look at the rogue’s gallery of petro jerks who fear that. What party do they donate to?
Military readiness has many factors… we are sending vast amounts of older weapons – plus testing experimental ones – in Ukraine, so what’s the calculation as we ramp up production lines that had been allowed to get thin? I m not privy to those algebrae. Nor is the author of that shallow article.
A good economy means shortages of recruits, shortages that are filled in with robotics; again, calculate it several ways. But the BIGGIE is that we are no longer in the draining middle eastern wars that the Bushes rushed us into at Osama bin Laden’s eager invitation. Falling for that trap was so stupid it had to have been deliberate.
The current US president lost his better (superb) son to that shit.
We all lost thanks to the Bush/Cheney clan… EFFECTIVELY vastly more destructive than Trump.
----
The right’s enemies list now includes those who WON the Cold War and War on Terror. Gee, I wonder which GOP donors want that?
But terror attacks will likely go all McVeigh on us if (please God) it looks like the GOP will torch in 24. God bless the FBI! And may the Secret Service succeed protecting Trump from being martyred like Howard Beale.
Less likely McVeigh attacks than more of January 6. They got a taste of that sort of what is to them fun.
A.F. Rey:
they were in fact the ones responsible for the robot apocalypse in the first place
Someone here said, or quoted a passage that said, it's as if they're speeding off in a car, trying to outrun the very pollution that the car itself is creating.
Dr Brin:
The fact that some GOP senators were cowards about MAGA violence actually encourages me! Because at least those ones aren’t (likey) pure slaves of KGB blackmail, as obviously Graham and Cruz are.
No, but they are slaves--or at least hostages--to the MAGA Brownshirts, so I'm not sure what difference the source of the coercion makes.
Dr Brin (again) :
Okay so the Ukraine war and Saudi interventions have kept prices too high to buy?
Not only that, but the war took some Russian and Ukrainian oil off the market, and the Saudis are purposely driving the price up with production cuts. That's exactly what we need a strategic reserve for. If one insists that we not use the reserve in the very situation it was created for, then what's the point.
Reminds me of John Cusack in an obscure 1980s movie called The Sure Thing. Cuzack and the female lead--I forget who--are caught on foot in the middle of nowhere in a pouring rain. As they're trying to find refuge in a decrepit trailer, the girl looks for a nail file to break the lock. She suddenly remembers, "I've got a credit card!".
Cusack says that works on a different kind of lock. But she repeats, excitedly, "I've got a credit card!" Implying they could pay for a motel room.
Then she laments, "But my father told me only to use it in an emergency."
To which Cusack replies sarcastically, "Well, maybe one will come up."
Larry,
I agree with David. It's a significant difference if they are merely cowards afraid to be shot by Americans. We can smile and point out the impact of the second amendment.
I'm not suggesting violence here, but politicians should be a little bit afraid of their own people. If power still resides in our hands, they should be somewhat timid.
------
It would have been very useful to a conviction on the first impeachment, but it was kinda a moot point by the second one. The impeachment still had to happen, but the conviction would have been a nice-to-have. No need for court battles invoking the 14th amendment.
Tacitus:
I note that our intelligence agencies are still puzzled, perplexed, gosh really have no clue as to who blew up Nordstream but that might not cut it with aggrieved parties.
Larry Hart said...
Hal Sparks, Malcom Nance, and Occam's Razor all point to Russia doing it themselves. I tend to agree.
I'm curious as to why Occam's Razor would "point to Russia doing it". If the idea here is that this would somehow hurt Western Europe, then it runs into the fact that the explosions took place after we had already stopped pulling gas through the pipeline. If there was some sort of extortion plan ("you are cold? Do this and we will turn the gas back on...") then blowing up the pipeline would only prevent them from carrying it out.
Has everyone already forgotten what made the news in June?
"But German investigators later learned that a group of Ukrainians had rented a boat, loaded it with explosives and attacked the pipeline. American intelligence agencies now believe the operation was carried out at least with the loose direction of the Ukrainian government, but they do not know who exactly planned the operation."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-ukraine-cia.html
Gregory
Do you have any idea how insanely difficult it would be for anybody to attack the pipeline from a boat!!
And how easy to just stuff some explosives down it on a pig
The pipeline was not supplying gas - a RUSSIAN decision - which made the Russian gas company liable for massive penalties
Which is WHY the Russians blew the pipeline
Motive, Means and Opportunity
Nobody else had any of the above
«I'm not suggesting violence here, but politicians should be a little bit afraid of their own people. If power still resides in our hands, they should be somewhat timid.»
Not suggesting violence but smiling at politicians being afraid of being murdered?
“Politicians should be afraid of the people” means Politicians should be afraid of being voted out, afraid of being fired, afraid of public outrage leading the (too often pusillanimous toward the powerful) magistrates to sentence them heavily for their misdeeds, NOT murdered by a bunch of bigoted nut jobs aping 1930s Japan’s Government by Assassination.
duncan cairncross:
The pipeline was not supplying gas - a RUSSIAN decision - which made the Russian gas company liable for massive penalties
Which is WHY the Russians blew the pipeline
Motive, Means and Opportunity
That is exactly the reasoning I've heard and been convinced by. Without throughput, the Russians would have had to de-pressurize the pipeline by venting massive amounts of gas back in their own territory.
Alfred Differ:
I'm not suggesting violence here, but politicians should be a little bit afraid of their own people. If power still resides in our hands, they should be somewhat timid.
Dude, in the context of the conversation, you are suggesting violence. There's a huge difference between politicians being afraid of political backlash for defying the will of their constituents, and politicians (and judges) being afraid of violence and death for doing their jobs but defying the will of the Brownshirts.
We can smile and point out the impact of the second amendment.
Even in the most anti-government reading, the Second Amendment allows for self-defense against attack by the government, not for first strikes against the legitimate government.
the conviction would have been a nice-to-have. No need for court battles invoking the 14th amendment.
The way things are going now, Trump would still run and his supporters would continue to vote for him even if the Constitution forbade him from running. If he won but was impeded from taking office, the insurrectionists would have their "rigged election". That would probably be the start of a hot civil war, and who knows which side the police and the armed forces would take. Even without a hot shooting war, we'd be in "two popes" territory.
David
You are falling into the common trap of assuming you know what I think. I do not think you are immature drama queens. I do think you are pretty locked into a world view that is both insular and hermetically sealed. Contrary information in gentler times would prompt a pause, a bit of reflection and a discussion.
If I am indeed still welcome in these parts I will stop in on occasion. Your collective thoughts on the issues of the day are of interest to me.
I think in some instances your - my opinion here - rigid orthodoxy is unfortunate, but it is part of the political world we live in.
Regards the strategic petroleum reserve you are again making assumptions not in evidence. You are so sure of the wisdom of one political party that it must be factors beyond their control that have kept the tank half empty. A more nuanced view would agree that supplies are pinched due to the Ukraine war, but its not as if Administration policies have zero impact. Approve or decline drilling permits and pipelines, publicly castigate the Saudis (who do deserve it) and so forth. In a discussion of how bad things would get in a Medium Bad Scenario, the reasons why the reserves are low are of scant interest to the people in hypothetical angry queues at beleaguered gas stations.
And as to our Intelligence agencies. They are playing dumb. For our own good of course. I humbly suggest that this may on occasion be necessary, but does not enhance our trust in them. Should you ever trust spooks? Even your own?
Tacitus
Laurent: «The prep-lords seem to be expecting shambling zombies.»
Shambling zombies aren’t smart enough to till the soils, pay rent and work their corvées. What they expect is obedient draft cattle.
I believe the traditional term is "ambulatory property". Or less cynically, "serfs".
Off-topic note: David, your verification system is using poisoned results. I keep getting "try again" results when I have carefully identified all the fire hydrants, apparently because I am supposed to mark any short post as a fire hydrant even if it is not actually a fire hydrant. Similar results for bicycles and buses: not marking an object that is similar to the requested object (but not actually the requested object) results in failing the captcha test.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep19-4.html
However, while Trump does not need, and will not get, a big chunk of the Jewish vote, he does need 100% of the bigot vote. He not only needs those folks to be with him, but to be motivated to get to the polls. And these sorts of racist/sexist/antisemitic dog bullhorns are how he does it. In other words, in case you forgot, you should be bracing yourself for an ugly, ugly campaign, particularly if you are a member of one of the many groups who will be targeted by Trump's bile. We don't enjoy being the bearers of bad tidings, but there it is.
Robert:
failing the captcha test.
You can ignore the captcha test and just hit "Publish your comment". At least I can. Been doing it for years.
Tacitus:
I think in some instances your - my opinion here - rigid orthodoxy is unfortunate,
Alfred just scared me with an opinion on second amendment remedies.
There's an animated discussion going on here about who blew up the Nordstream pipeline.
We hardly all agree even on whether billionaires should be allowed to exist.
I don't see the orthodoxy, other than on the Trump "Believe me, not your lying eyes" faction of the Republican Party.
All
Gerrymandering does not have to be obvious. Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulated Annealing is one way to do it very, very subtly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-Y7crQo44
Laurent Weppe,
Even in the most anti-government reading, the Second Amendment allows for self-defense against attack by the government, not for first strikes against the legitimate government.
Read Jefferson. Your version is the ideal to which we must aspire. His version is a last resort.
I'd prefer a civil society, but that's not the mood we are in right now.
Larry,
What I'm trying to point out is that domestic threats against politicians are an improvement over blackmail threats levelled by a foreign power. We can DO something about domestic threats because no nukes are involved.
Domestic threats are still an issue, but I'll take a police action over a military action any day.
mcsandberg,
Agreed. Read some of the journal papers and they'll say much the same thing. There are many ways to produce biased maps that don't look biased.
Our host has a suggested alternative that lets one map be biased in exchange for the map in another legislative body being biased the other way. Remember that we elect members of two legislative bodies (state and federal) so there are also games to be played involving correlations between those maps.
(Where I live in CA, I'm near a State Assembly border while being solidly in State Senate and Congressional borders. California is most blue right along the coast, so we used to have many long, skinny borders at all three levels. No more.)
Alfred Differ:
Read Jefferson. Your version is the ideal to which we must aspire. His version is a last resort.
I'd prefer a civil society, but that's not the mood we are in right now.
You're envisioning a runaway government and civilians taking things into their own hands.
Where we "are right now" is (most) government officials trying to hold the line against lawbreaking and treason, but in some crucial instances being intimidated by Nazi-level threats of violence and death. That's a different thing, in fact the opposite thing.
Threats to hang Mike Pence for correctly performing his ceremonial role counting electoral votes is not Jefferson's ideal.
Domestic threats are still an issue, but I'll take a police action over a military action any day.
You're presuming the police are not on the side of the domestic terrorists. I'm more concerned with the police ignoring the terrorists except to protect their right to bear arms, while arresting and prosecuting me should I attempt self-defense. If that's hard to imagine, pretend for the moment that I am black.
One example that comes to mind, curate a security force of individuals willing to provide their services in return for a place in the compound for their wife and children.
What is to stop the security force, after the event, from deciding that they are in charge of the bunker/compound? They have weapons, training, and their families right there… why do they listen to 'the boss'?
Transactionally, the preplord has provided the capital while they're providing the labour. But his provision is now in the past, and what is he doing for them today?
You can ignore the captcha test and just hit "Publish your comment". At least I can. Been doing it for years.
For me the captcha shows up overlaying the page, and obscures the 'publish your comment' button until I dismiss it my solving it.
More a minor irritation at the moment. But it looks like enough of the results are contaminated that I wonder if someone's been using 'ai' to classify objects, eithe rthe folks running the captcha or someone using it to train their software. Idle speculation at the moment…
I would think this conclusion is obvious. Emphasis mine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/opinion/mitt-romney-senate-trump-mcconnell.html
...
The second problem is that loyalty to Trump is ultimately enforced by the threat of violence. As the Coppins piece makes clear, there were Republicans who chose not to vote yes on impeachment or conviction because the outcome either way was inevitable and because they didn’t want potential assassins coming after them or their families. We have gone beyond the bounds of normal democratic governance.
...
Larry,
You're envisioning a runaway government and civilians taking things into their own hands.
See also Jan 6th.
Where we "are right now" is…
I agree, but that's not the opposite thing when power originates with The People. We walk a very fine line in this nation and mostly say on the side of the Rule of Law… but not always.
You see them as opposites. I see them as poles on a horseshoe bent most of the way around until they almost touch.
You're presuming the police are not on the side of the domestic terrorists.
Not really. I presume the police will split much like our military did during the Civil War. WHERE the split occurs is what is open for debate… and pressure.
If that's hard to imagine, pretend for the moment that I am black.
That's not hard to imagine at all even without the racial analogy.
However, I recommend you not scare yourself unnecessarily. Get to know your local police. Make friends. These things are decided one heart and mind at a time. Persuasion matters no matter how small your effort might feel.
———
You and I are in a far better position facing off against domestic threats than a foreign threat in possession of nukes.
Robert,
The variables are endless and nothing will guarantee no risk of your security forces taking over even unto the heat-death of the universe. But an obvious general avenue to take is to create an equitable and fair environment for everyone in the compound. Think something like a microcosm of Finland or Norway.
Another is to hold the security force's families hostage in some way. That seems rather inferior though, since it would actually tend to provide strong motivation to kill you, the opposite you want to achieve. But I'd bet that sort of setup would be more appealing to many of these uber-rich preppers.
Another way, there are always people that are malleable enough to be molded into fanatically loyal dogs, as well as people that know how to do that.
This problem, at least a generalized form of it, has been played out countless times throughout human history, no doubt throughout all of human existence. No method has ever lasted forever, but some have managed to last a long time.
duncan cairncross said...
Do you have any idea how insanely difficult it would be for anybody to attack the pipeline from a boat!!
And how easy to just stuff some explosives down it on a pig
I think I do. The Nordstream is not particularly deep, running mostly between 80-100 meters, and reports are that the explosions were at 70-90 meters. Diving to such depths is non-trivial (not something to be done by ordinary recreational divers), but also not "insanely difficult" for trained divers (there are some people who free dive to 100m - and reports of expert divers with rebreathers diving to over 500m).
I might also suggest that sending explosives some 1000km on a pig - though also not "insanely difficult" - is similarly non-trivial.
The pipeline was not supplying gas - a RUSSIAN decision - which made the Russian gas company liable for massive penalties
Which is WHY the Russians blew the pipeline
This seems quite a stretch. In the first place there were already ridiculous sanctions against Russia and Russian companies; a little more would hardly make a difference. In the second place, there is the counterpoint that destroying the pipelines denied Russia a chance to come to some later deal to deliver gas.
Motive, Means and Opportunity
Nobody else had any of the above
And this is just false. Multiple state (and possibly non-state) actors had all of the above. Such is not definitive in any given case, but one cannot reasonably argue that this was true only for Russia.
Alfred Differ:
I agree, but that's not the opposite thing when power originates with The People.
But which people? I'm not ok with power originating with those willing to be bullies and thugs.
It sounds as if you'd advise liberals and Democrats to pull our own Jan 6-type shows of anger and threaten assassination of Republican politicians and judges when we don't like what they're doing. I think it's obvious what happens when some of us do anything that can even remotely be categorized in that manner.
BLM protests against the police killing of black men: Considered more egregious than Jan 6.
Chalk drawings in front of Brett Kavanaugh's home: He gets secret service protection and Susan Collins is concerned.
Take a knee during the national anthem: Colin Kaepernick loses his entire career.
The rule of law is particularly important when "The People" don't all agree on what they want. Adjudication of conflicts have to be handled in peaceful, agreed-upon processes. If "I didn't get my way," is an excuse for armed rebellion, then we don't live in a civilized society. I don't really expect that you are saying we liberals need to do our own doxing and death threats and armed resistance to the rule of law, but I can't see any other conclusion to be drawn from what you are saying.
However, I recommend you not scare yourself unnecessarily. Get to know your local police. Make friends. These things are decided one heart and mind at a time. Persuasion matters no matter how small your effort might feel.
I'm not actually worried about my local police in suburban Chicago, Illinois. I'm worried about nationwide trends. If, say, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Arizona are cowed by threats of violence into kow-towing to Trump, he could win the electoral college again, and then we're all stuck with him.
That said, as a Jewish person who knows about Krystalnacht and the history of European and American anti-Semitism in the lead-up to WWII, I don't think it's possible to scare myself unnecessarily.
Alfred Differ:
You and I are in a far better position facing off against domestic threats than a foreign threat in possession of nukes.
It wasn't so long ago that our most scary foreign threat had nothing to do with nukes. They still found a way to disrupt our civilization.
The country as a whole is still better at repelling a foreign enemy than we are at identifying a domestic one.
You see them as opposites. I see them as poles on a horseshoe bent most of the way around until they almost touch.
That maps quite nicely onto Hoffer's views on fanatics (True Believers): that what is believed is less important than the act of believing, which explains why Road to Damascus conversions are surprisingly common.
Also explains religious converts. I was talking with an Anglican bishop about evangelicals, and when I expressed surprise at the number I had met that used to be staunch catholics he told me it wasn't surprising at all, that conversions of that nature were extremely common, because most staunch believers (in any church) don't really know (or care to know) much about church doctrine and theology, so replacing the distant pope with their local pastor is an easy switch. He used the horseshoe metaphor to describe Christianity.
Alfred,
"I'll take a police action over a military action any day..."
Your definition of a police action and mine may differ slightly. The US was involved in a 'police action' in Viet Nam for some time.
Robert,
Re: conversions,
Fully agree. If you crave certainty, you'll skip over those of us in the mushy middle. Of course, 'the middle' seems to vary depending on where you're standing. Years ago I had a USAF co-worker bring up Fox News as a 'moderate' news source. As opposed to, I guess, Der Sturmer? Will some Einstein-like social scientist form a theory of political perception proving everyone is a moderate in their own mind?
Pappenheimer
"How to keep your minions loyal?"
Answer - offer them underlings of their own to mistreat. This is the default solution. It works as long as the leader looks strong.
The feudal 'system' (n.b. was never really a system) created a hierarchy. All you need to do is keep on top of it. Good luck - you'll need it. Medieval kingdoms were rife with internal power struggles and minor wars.
Pappenheimer
Alfred Differ:
"You're envisioning a runaway government and civilians taking things into their own hands."
See also Jan 6th.
That's what I meant as the opposite thing: A runaway mob outnumbering and outgunning government and coming perilously close to overthrowing it. Likewise, Senators afraid to convict Trump for fear of their families' safety, and the same dynamic now applied to a potential civilian jury pool.
Where we "are right now" is…
I agree, but that's not the opposite thing when power originates with The People. We walk a very fine line in this nation and mostly say on the side of the Rule of Law… but not always.
You see them as opposites. I see them as poles on a horseshoe bent most of the way around until they almost touch.
I may be mistaken here, but I perceive your "poles on the same horseshoe" are a rogue government opposed by popular force and a rouge popular faction opposed by government force. The problem is that the former is only happening in the deranged fantasies of the MAGAts, while the latter is happening in plain sight with the forces of civil society being outnumbered and outgunned. The potential for both ends of the horseshoe are there, but in reality only one side is acting it out, though they pretend that the other side's equivalent sins justify theirs.
To me, it's like saying that exterminating the Jews and secretly controlling the international banking system are two poles of the same horseshoe. Well, yes, they would be if both were actually taking place.
Pappenheimer:
Years ago I had a USAF co-worker bring up Fox News as a 'moderate' news source. As opposed to, I guess, Der Sturmer?
I see two possibilities. Neither are my own POV, but my perception of what a self-identifying reasonable conservative might think.
1) FOX is moderate compared to the entire rest of the mainstream media (MSM) which is so far to the communist left that one must be way to the right of it just to be reasonable.
2) FOX is moderate because they are more of the pro-business conservative type which prefers social stability and rule of law and champions wealthy and powerful elites. As opposed to the MAGA version of conservatism which champions the angry disaffected, and for whom the disruption is the point.
Pappenheimer:
"How to keep your minions loyal?"
Answer - offer them underlings of their own to mistreat. This is the default solution. It works as long as the leader looks strong.
The psychohistorical inevitability inherent in such a system was explored in the Bel Riose portion of Asimov's Foundation and Empire. A weak overlord encourages his own overthrow. A weak underling is no threat to his own subjects. Only a strong overlord and a strong underling requires the underling to direct his conquests outward--but those very conquests make the overlord perceive a threat and find a way to dispatch him.
Symbolic AI can't curate trillions of facts/inferences in anything like real space and real time. Generative AI is neither artificial nor intelligent (mimics humans, no goals/experience/mind). However, fusing the two could work. The roadblock is that good old fashioned AI (GOFAI) would need to be put back in the driver's seat, which is too big a humiliation for modern machine learning gurus to swallow. It's doubtful whether humans could ever give birth to AGI. Too much ego and id.
Larry,
I'm not ok with power originating with those willing to be bullies and thugs.
Of course not, but look at what you are saying from the perspective of a Loyalist during the revolution and try to convince me that Sam Adams was not a bully. 8)
You and I are modern day Loyalists to a higher ideal than King.
…our own Jan 6-type shows of anger and threaten assassination of…
No. Our threats take the form of acting against the protestors. We threaten counter-protest as a last resort, but mostly support the Rule of Law for as long as we can.
…but I can't see any other conclusion to be drawn from what you are saying.
The threat we pose to our neighbors who "didn't get their way so now they'll use force" is a combination of support for the current protector caste AND a use of force if it proves necessary. We hope it isn't necessary, but we shall strike back if it comes to that.
Both parts of the implied threat FROM us have to be on the table. Power in this nation originates from The People, so we mustn't neglect our responsibilities. When "The People" disagree and aren't willing to stick to the Rule of Law… well… let's hope our protector caste is able to stop things before too much blood runs in the gutters. They have a decent chance if our faction is helping them.
…I don't think it's possible to scare myself unnecessarily.
Heh. I get the reference, but it IS possible. My concern is your fear (and others) will move too many people to shoot early and often when it might have been possible to contain this as a police action.
Take a look at the indictments and convictions for the bullies who showed up on Jan 6 as an example of how we'd like this to work itself out. Take a deep breath… and let it.
——————
The country as a whole is still better at repelling a foreign enemy than we are at identifying a domestic one.
Seriously? When was the last time we had to repel a foreign enemy?
Anyone who knows us well enough knows of our internal flaws. They are exploiting them right now. THAT we have lots of experience facing.
We are a nation of barbarians. We will do what is necessary. You'll see.
Pappenheimer,
The US was involved in a 'police action' in Viet Nam for some time.
Heh. In name only. We called it a police action. Same in Korea. We did so to avoid the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war and undermining certain UN rules that document the prerequisites.
Police actions that get out of hand turn into rebellions and civil wars. The war in Vietnam wasn't OUR civil war. That's the difference.
For the record, I don't think we should have gotten involved in Korea or Vietnam. Lessons learned, I suppose.
———
Another thing I see on a horseshoe is Progressives and Conservatives. There are many governance techniques both are willing to use that I find objectionable. I ally with one over the other mostly because they piss me off less.
Larry,
I may be mistaken here, but I perceive your "poles on the same horseshoe" are…
Ah. No. That's not what I intended to communicate. Allow me to clarify.
Imagine a horseshoe magnet with little bits of iron stuck to each pole. If any small piece is moved a bit, it can suddenly jump and be stuck to the other pole. If lots more bits are added, the poles can be bridged.
On one pole, the bits believe in the Rule of Law and let our system work. Neighbors mostly get along with neighbors, but when they don't they turn to the system to work out differences.
On the other pole, the bits believe in the Rule of Might and have little loyalty to institutions not expressly defending their interests. Neighbors might still mostly get along with each other, but communities are likely to be more homogeneous due to trust issues. Your neighbors MIGHT use the system to work out differences, but are often willing to put on the hood and plant the burning cross.
There isn't a lot of distance between these two poles. The only thing keeping you on one instead of the other is your faith in the Rule of Law.
Just an 'istorical/archaeological update
First pix of the Akagi wreck, which was found 18kfeet down in 2019. 3 carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu) should have landed on the bottom pretty close to each other, but the Hiryu was well northeast when it was hit in the ending phases of Midway.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wwii-shipwrecks-battle-of-midway-japanese-imperial-navy-akagi-kaga-uss-yorktown/
Pappenheimer
P.S. please note that the IJN never admitted to scuttling these ships. They apparently all sank on their own, though none had been hit below the waterline.
I don't know that "faith in the rule of law" is entirely accurate. Better would be "understanding that granting the government (by the people, for the people) sole authority in the use of force is better than the alternative." Of course, that's probably what you meant by "rule of law."
Or maybe it's the word faith that gives me misgivings. Too often it's used in a "trust or confidence with little to no evidence to warrant it" sense, rather than merely to have trust or confidence.
I used to think we should get rid of Rep. Lauren Boebert.
But where else are we going to find a congresswoman so good at reaching across the aisle?
I'm here all week folks, try the veal.
Alfred Differ:
Take a look at the indictments and convictions for the bullies who showed up on Jan 6 as an example of how we'd like this to work itself out.
I am, but I'm also looking at how effective threats of violence and death are in convincing Senators not to vote for Trump's conviction, and extrapolating that the same threats may be effective against judges and juries.
My concern is your fear (and others) will move too many people to shoot early and often when it might have been possible to contain this as a police action.
And my concern is that others will refuse to recognize the actual danger until it is too late, on the belief that that sort of thing just doesn't happen here.
Seriously? When was the last time we had to repel a foreign enemy?
I was thinking 9/11, although some would cite the border crisis as ongoing.
Ah. No. That's not what I intended to communicate. Allow me to clarify.
Ok. Better.
The only thing keeping you on one instead of the other is your faith in the Rule of Law.
Depends what you mean by that phrase.
My faith that the rule of law is superior to its absence, and that honest conflicts should be resolved by civilized rules is as strong as ever.
My faith that the rule of law can withstand the forces arrayed against it at the moment is waning.
DP:
where else are we going to find a congresswoman so good at reaching across the aisle?
:)
Did you hear she's blaming him now because Democrats are so immoral? And next time, she'll check party affiliation before dating someone.
You guys are so busy when I am away at NASA!
Re senators fearing for their lives. Yeah. Terrible! But that works mostly re: “Don’t you dare ACT!” What blackmail does is force the controlled to DO anything the blackmailer wants.
>>” Seriously? When was the last time we had to repel a foreign enemy?” “I was thinking 9/11, although some would cite the border crisis as ongoing.”
The Bushites INSTANTLY did every single thing that bin laden and the saudis wanted us to do
----
Tacitus: “You are falling into the common trap of assuming you know what I think. I do not think you are immature drama queens. I do think you are pretty locked into a world view that is both insular and hermetically sealed.”
Geez how about absolutely proving in your second sentence exactly what you claim to be refuting in the 1st.
Rigid orthodoxy my butt. I seek argument and the thing that terrifies me about your cult is that you are (even at your high end of general decency) absolutely unwilling to zero in on assertions that are utterly falsifiable. Tell you what? Let’s each trade absolutely verifiable/falsifiable assertions that aren’t incantatory? I have a couple of dozen… and cultists ALWAYS flee rather than wager or confront them.
Let’s start with ocean acidification. If it is true and major and deadly, it proves, all by itself, that the cult is an existential threat to all our kids.
I made very clear that some of my assertions are much less crisp and more anecdotal. For example, Democrats are ALWAYS more fiscally responsible. I'll wager on that and if you refuse... why? Because you fear it might be true? It is.
OTOH it sure looks as if dem behavior re strategic reserves follows the pattern I describe. GOP admins DO sell low, as with Helium, forcing us later to buy high from cronies. But we’ll see if my prediction bears out: that a steep oil price drop will be acted on by Biden to refill the oil reserve. Bet me on that?
Should we ever fully trust spooks? Of course not. Our Hollywood instincts about authority are very strong and the intel guys cannot answer to refute them. Go ahead and question them! But to DEFAULT pour hate on them is suspicious, when that hate is pushed by the EXACT forces in the world who we defeated in the Cold War and the War on Terror.
Ponder that! WHO BENEFITS from your cult’s all out war vs all fact using professions, including those who beat them in the Cold and Terror Wars? Isn't that correlation (perfect!) just a little troubling?
Darrel E,
Or maybe it's the word faith that gives me misgivings.
No. I think your word choice is better than mine and I accept the correction.
By 'faith' I was implying 'loyal to'. You are correct in noting that some hold to the Rule of Law on weaker, pragmatic grounds. I'm loyal to the idea, but must accept that some of my allies are less so.
Some of the faithful go so far as to engage in 'blind faith'. I don't and think it unwise. Closing one's mind to understanding the point for being loyal leads to risks of nasty surprises when reality and ideals don't match up.
Larry,
…others will refuse to recognize the actual danger until it is too late…
I recognize that as a definite possibility. My offered solution is to raise our situational awareness level one notch above 'tuned out'. That's just enough to beat "It doesn't happen here" and we get there through persuasion.
My faith that the rule of law can withstand the forces arrayed against it…
You are mixing things up and making life difficult for yourself. Let me offer a possible clarification.
You are faithful to the Rule of Law.
You are not blind to the forces arrayed against it and fear for its survival.
Alfred Differ:
You are mixing things up and making life difficult for yourself.
Not at all, but we might be talking about slightly different things.
You are faithful to the Rule of Law.
You are not blind to the forces arrayed against it and fear for its survival.
How about this?
I am faithful to the Rule of Law.
I do not have blind faith that the Rule of Law will necessarily prevail.* I know that I want it to do so, in the same way that I want a team cheating at sports to lose to a team that plays fair. But I also know that if the cheater is allowed to get away with it, they've got an advantage.
Maybe more to the point, my faith that people who adhere to the Rule of Law will therefore prevail over those who don't. I don't expect my faith in the Rule of Law itself to protect me.
* When I was a kid raised on comics and tv and kids' stories, I took it for granted that the good guys always win just because they're the good guys. When I first learned about WWII, it never occurred to me that any outcome other than an Allied victory was possible. When I was older, it was difficult to contemplate that during the war itself, people living through it had no guarantee of the outcome.
Above was supposed to read:
Maybe more to the point, I can't maintain faith that people who adhere to the Rule of Law will therefore prevail over those who don't. I don't expect my faith in the Rule of Law itself to protect me.
No doubt there’ll be riots, but hot civil war? I don’t see it. Citizens today are more comfortable than during the 1860s. Back then, not a few soldiers & civilians lacked shoes; in 2023 one can have schmancy shoes delivered to the door, next day.
Way back then, war was frequently an adventure, an escape from boredom/drudgery. Now you could say there’s too much to lose. A fellow might enlist in the 21st century for direction, prestige, salary, the GI Bill, lifetime medical care, etc. Not on behalf of granpappy and piles of cotton.
In the 1860s, a guy might‘ve enlisted merely as getaway from the farm, to see cities, chew tobacco with the boys, eat cornmeal with ham. And Kill.
Killing was sure cure for boredom down on the plantation. The median age of the population was lower. What is it in ‘23? Forty-something yrs? War is considered less romantic...war is Bothersome, too much work. Less time to drive to DQ in the sleek family car.
Riots are going to occur; but I can’t visualize today’s youth marching in columns, climbing obstacles. They prefer ice cream and pizza parlors, McDonalds; Wendy’s, Taco Bell—rather than C-rations, hardtack. They want hairstyling, not crewcuts. Fighting a war means hair gets mussed, uniforms dirtied.
mcsandberg
There is a simple and foolproof way to eliminate Gerrymandering
Just lose the archaic "First Past the Post" voting system
Here (NZ) we use MMP - simple easy to understand and apply and it eliminates Gerrymandering AND it makes more than two parties possible
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/what-is-new-zealands-system-of-government/what-is-mmp/
I think we stole it from the Germans
When I was a kid raised on comics and tv and kids' stories, I took it for granted that the good guys always win just because they're the good guys. When I first learned about WWII, it never occurred to me that any outcome other than an Allied victory was possible.
As a Brit the American Revolution showed us that the Good Guys don't always win
Pappenheimer: Years ago I had a USAF co-worker bring up Fox News as a 'moderate' news source. As opposed to, I guess, Der Sturmer? Will some Einstein-like social scientist form a theory of political perception proving everyone is a moderate in their own mind?
Well, it is moderate compared to a lot of social media 'news sources', which I am depressingly subscribed to. Of course, to be fair you would have to include the equivalent from the other side, although they contain more 'news' and fewer advertisements for cannabis gummies and male performance enhancements. (Actually, fewer-to-no ads at all, other than for anarchist merch, which leads me to wonder just how much more gullible/numerous the crazy-right is than the crazy-left, that they attract so many more obvious-scam advertisers.)
I've harped on this before (David would probably say "fulminated"), but current NorAm political discourse is a lot narrower than European discourse. Ideas that in Europe are "well, that's obvious" are treated as pie-in-the-sky lefty nonsense.
In Canadian terms the left wing of your Democratic party is about where our centrist Liberal party* is. You don't really have an equivalent for our left-wing NDP, just as we don't really have an equivalent of the French Nouvelle Union Populaire Écologique et Sociale. (And interestingly a party whose platform is green ecology and ecofeminism** is considered to be centrist by the French!) Our right-wing isn't (yet) as crazy as your MAGA Republicans (except in rural Alberta), but they are beginning to use the same tactics, which isn't surprising as our former PM Harper is Chairman of the IDU (I love that his title is now Chairman Harper; when he ran the Conservative Party of Canada he didn't realize it shared initials with the much older Communist Party of Canada, or that many of his government policies mirrored those of the Chinese Communist Party).
Which is a long-winded way of saying that just as countries have different ideas about what moderate is, it's no surprise that individuals do as well.
*At the federal level. Provincial parties often diverge a lot from federal parties. In policy terms BC's provincial Liberals are close to the federal Conservatives, for example.
**If your French is up to it, you can read about them here. They are part of the NUPES coalition.
https://generationecologie.fr/
Pappenheimer; Your definition of a police action and mine may differ slightly. The US was involved in a 'police action' in Viet Nam for some time.
For definitions of 'police action' that include dropping over 270 million cluster bombs on a neutral country.
I worked with a Laotian who had lost parts of his family to American strategic bombing. Literal parts: some of his cousins lost limbs when they were children. Understandably, he did not regard the war as a greater good that he should be grateful for. Coming from the most heavily bombed country in the world will do that to you, I suppose. :-(
duncan cairncross:
As a Brit the American Revolution showed us that the Good Guys don't always win
Didn't we make up for that in WWII?
Hi Larry
I don't think you can - once the good guys lose then "the Good Guys always win" is lost
And in all of the wars and such since the Revolution the "good guys" have lost a LOT of the time
once the good guys lose then "the Good Guys always win" is lost
True, but I thought WWII meant "Maybe you're the good guys after all."
I'm fond of the way the British and American POWs interact in the Fourth of July scene in the movie The Great Escape. "Getting along ok without us?" That sort of thing.
Duncan,
Trying to discern who WERE the "good guys" gets hard in some wars, even if your country was involved. War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War...
Funny thing, I visited someone's house years ago and found a poster of a movie that appeared to valorize the San Patricio Battalion - formed from US Army deserters to fight against the US Army invading Mexico during the Mexican-American War.
I still think that we shouldn't have invaded, but I don't consider those men heroes. They fought well, but so did the Stonewall Brigade.
Pappenheimer
Larry Hart:
"That said, as a Jewish person who knows about Krystalnacht and the history of European and American anti-Semitism in the lead-up to WWII, I don't think it's possible to scare myself unnecessarily."
You, I, and other Jews suffer from a terrible mental ailment. I call it HJP, for "historically justified paranoia". There is no cure, but there are palliatives. Thank goodness for the First Amendment.
African-Americans, Irish, and Russians also suffer from HJP. No doubt many other groups.
Differ:
America's physical security from foreign invasion is pretty good. Don't underestimate the army-stopping power of oceans. Location, location, location.
Threats from abroad tend to unify nations. Internal threats tear them apart.
AB: "Killing was sure cure for boredom down on the plantation."
Romanticism can overcome all such considerations . McVeigh was comfortable but dreamed that he was being thwarted at every turn by elites. There are plenty of such being vigorously riled up as we speak.
We can expect riots on the scale of 2020, yet McVeigh-bombs? Don’t know about that.
I don't think it is the Germans. Irish maybe?
On ostrich Republicans...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep20-7.html
...
And then there was the 2% of the interview [ with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker ]that actually caught our attention, best embodied by this quote: "I mean, if you look at the presidential race today, neither of the two leading candidates are even discussing solving our nation's biggest issues right now." There are a few more remarks along these lines, but this is the main one.
This is, to be blunt, absolutely ridiculous. Donald Trump does indeed spend most of his time talking about his personal grievances, and other non-essential things. But to suggest that Joe Biden is no better?
...
There are a number of explanations for Corker's ridiculous assessment of the presidential race, but we seriously doubt that he's not paying attention, or that he's so old that he thinks "the issues" are tariff rates and whether or not to re-charter the Second Bank of the U.S. No, we think that Corker is resolving cognitive dissonance. He doesn't want to vote Democratic because he's a Republican, and he doesn't want to vote Republican because he hates Trumpism. By adopting some version of "a pox on both their houses," it allows him to avoid making any tough choices, and to feel basically OK about any vote he might cast (probably for the Republicans). One cannot help but think of John F. Kennedy's paraphrase of the third canto of Dante's Inferno: "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."
What it boils down to is this: Republicans who claim to hate Trumpism need to radically alter their thinking, and stop considering their votes as being about defense spending or tax rates or school vouchers or whatever. The real issue on the ballot in 2024 is democracy. All those other issues are subsumed under that umbrella, and will be consumed if a proto-fascist is elected president. If Corker can't wrap his mind around that, and put his high-handed words about Trumpism and about America's broken politics into practice, then he is a part of the problem, and everything he says is just hot air.
Paradoctor:
I call it HJP, for "historically justified paranoia"
That could be interpreted either as "understandable but nevertheless pathological" or "necessary in light of experience." I tend to go with the latter, a behavior not to be explained and then overcome, but an informed response to reality.
There is some rueful truth to Tom Lehrer's stanza:
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews!
The audience giggles nervously and knowingly at the punchline because it's true. I first heard the song in a seventh grade school class, and the Jewish kids were all thinking, "True dat," (though not with that phraseology in 1972) and the non-Jewish kids were all thinking, "Heh, yeah, I guess we do."
I mean, it's not literally true that no one exists who does not hate the Jews, even among the goyim. Yet the punchline is funny precisely on the grounds that he doesn't need to list the individual clades who hate the Jews--that the individuals are not important because what's funny is that there are so many of them that the hatred is nigh-universal.
I'm not currently paranoid about what is happening around me in the present time, but I am concerned about what it can easily and quickly turn into. To misquote The Simpsons's Kent Brockman, I am not trying to be more trusting and less vigilant in the future.
@Dr. Brin: you've mentioned it's only necessary to win over ~1M of the Spineless-Collaborator Wing of the GOP for electoral victory next year. Let's say that happens. (I certainly hope it does...) What's then to do about the 80+M MAGAt Wing? I don't expect they'll overnight all become nice Eisenhower Republicans.
Alfred: look at what you are saying from the perspective of a Loyalist during the revolution and try to convince me that Sam Adams was not a bully
I grew up in a country partly founded by Loyalists. In our history classes we learned about the founding of your country from a different perspective.
Poor inland farmers appealed to royal authorities for protection from rich coastal merchants, the same merchants who went on to become leaders in the revolt. During the war both sides could be outright vicious, especially the irregular forces. After the war people were driven from their homes, sometimes for the 'crime' of not being sufficiently enthusiastic about the war (ie. neutral), and their property was taken by rebels. And then after the new country was formed there were those revolts against 'taxation without representation', by poor inland farmers against the new state governments controlled by rich coastal merchants…
Keith D. Halperin
Here's a typical take on the 2020 election:
"Newsom’s hard sell on the job that President LOLEightyonemillion is doing is predictable: the Dem elites can’t be seen badmouthing the old boy while he is still the presumptive nominee. " (emphasis added https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2023/09/20/the-morning-briefing-the-newsom-2024-fever-dream-took-a-bit-of-a-hit-this-week-n1728363)
Pappenheimer: Trying to discern who WERE the "good guys" gets hard in some wars, even if your country was involved.
I would argue that it is especially hard to discern if your country was involved.
Being involved in a disagreement usually doesn't provide one a special insight into who is right and who is wrong. If it did, we wouldn't need marriage counsellors.
The audience giggles nervously and knowingly at the punchline because it's true. I first heard the song in a seventh grade school class, and the Jewish kids were all thinking, "True dat," (though not with that phraseology in 1972) and the non-Jewish kids were all thinking, "Heh, yeah, I guess we do."
In his books Harry Turtledove repeatedly has characters argue that the reason Jews have it better in America than Europe is that Christian Americans have blacks to look down on, thus taking the heat off Jews.
No idea if this is something he believes, or if he's just recycling characters and viewpoints between novels (which he tends to do when retelling the world wars in alternate historical settings). It sounds plausible. A friend of mine who studied history at uni said that southern Europeans became more socially acceptable in Toronto when more visible minorities began moving here. "My daughter's dating an Italian, but it could be worse: she might be dating a [insert non-white slur of your choice]!"
Virtually all my niblings are dating (or have married) someone from a different ancestry (with different pigmentation). Makes for really cute grandniblings! (And if anyone needs ideas for science-themed presents for children, just ask. I've had lots of practice spoiling the g-nibs with cool sciency stuff!)
Keith,
It's bad, but not quite that bad. In the 2020 election Trump received a bit over 74 million votes. No doubt not all MAGAts voted. It's also a sure thing that lots of those 74 million voters were not MAGAts either. If you look at recent polling on what USians think of the MAGA movement, it doesn't look great for the MAGAts. Typical numbers are about 1/4 of those polled have "positive views of the movement."
To my mind the problem isn't the MAGA movement, at least not the voters. They are a result of the real problem, as is POTUS Trump himself. The real problem is the politicians, and some of their extremely wealthy supporters. And when I say "politicians" I mean the RP since Reagan. The MAGA movement by itself isn't remotely close to enough voters to keep the RP in power. Not even the entire RP voting base, by itself, would be. And the RP saw this coming 2+ decades ago. That's why Karl Rove explicitly instituted Big Lie tactics as SOP, why all the gerrymandering, to get secure enough control of state governments in order to have more control over laws affecting voting, and why the RP explicitly adopted the tactic of refusing to work with the DP to do the business of government (which Mitch McConnell executed very well).
The only way out of this without resorting to violent means (bad idea, won't work) is to decisively beat the RP in elections for the White House, US Senate, US Congress and at least some US states.
The RP is a failed party. When you've got a group like MTG, Matt Gaetz, Scott Perry, Jim Jordan and Lauren Boebert (forgive me if I left some worthies out) that can contest for the leadership of your party's congressional caucus, and that leader is Kevin McCarthy, your party is a failure. Apparently not even the RP Senate can stomach the RP Congress.
«you've mentioned it's only necessary to win over ~1M of the Spineless-Collaborator Wing of the GOP for electoral victory next year. Let's say that happens. (I certainly hope it does...) What's then to do about the 80+M MAGAt Wing? I don't expect they'll overnight all become nice Eisenhower Republicans.»
The MAGA wing is not 80 million strong. Early in the 2016 Republican Primaries, Trump was worth only 30-35% of the vote, it’s only after a couple of early races coupled with the first past the post system giving him a ridiculous advantage in an overcrowded field that he started breaking the 40% threshold in terms of popular vote, and still, not in every states.
The MAGA wing is probably comprised of 25 million proactively fascist voters, reinforced by 50-60 million spineless voters who may loath the bullies but will still vote for one if he looks strong enough to beat them up.
The problem with the GOP is that if the “Not pro-actively evil but so cowardly that they’d have been collaborators if they’d lived in 1940 France” grew up a spine and kicked out the fascists, there would not be enough voters for them to win ay national election for the next 20-30 years, leading to a domination by the Democratic Party unseen since the days FDR metaphorically wiped the White House’s floors with his opponents unused ballots. In other words, there’s a huge incentive for GOP politicians and voters to continue try catering to the fascist voting block.
…
Which means that the MAGA wing will continue to dominate the GOP for years to come, with the distinct possibility that gerrymandering and electoral college mischief will lead to government by a minority of a minority who regards themselves as übermenschen and the rest of the world as subhumans who deserve to be either enslaved or genocided if they dare try to resist subjugation.
Laurent:
The problem with the GOP is that if the “Not pro-actively evil but so cowardly that they’d have been collaborators if they’d lived in 1940 France” grew up a spine and kicked out the fascists, there would not be enough voters for them to win ay national election for the next 20-30 years
Yes, the same problem shows itself in microcosm to Kevin McCarthy in the House. The Freedom Caucus is not sufficient for a majority, but it is necessary. Same writ large with the MAGAts and the Republican Party.
mcsandburg quotes an article:
"Newsom’s hard sell on the job that President LOLEightyonemillion is doing is predictable: the Dem elites can’t be seen badmouthing the old boy while he is still the presumptive nominee. "
WTF? President Biden has performed more miracles than anyone except maybe Jesus. That's what Newsom is pointing out, and he's right to do so.
Larry,
I do not have blind faith that the Rule of Law will necessarily prevail.
Well… I see that as good. Blind faith in general leads to rude surprises and over-reactions when reality smacks us in the face.
Also… if you parse what you said… I'd ask "To what would you be loyal?" At best, I think it would be the Comic Book Code which is quite a romantic notion. Heroes prevail? Always? When I first got into comics the anti-hero books were selling as fast as they could print them. Watergate and Vietnam changed our POV in a huge way. We adopted Reagan and his movement at least partially (I think) as an over-reaction.
I don't expect my faith in the Rule of Law itself to protect me.
I know people think their faith in something will protect them, but I never understood that. Being loyal to someone or something is much more likely to put one at risk when the object of their faith comes under attack. The Rule of Law IS under attack, no? Do you feel any obligation to defend it? I'll bet you do. I sure do.
———
As for everyone who is discussing the tangent topic of recognizing good guys in wars, it is my opinion that the best thing to happen to Britain was loosing its North American colonies BEFORE we got really pissed off and took a rebellious path more similar to the one used by the Irish.
The BEST thing would have been for us to stay together and change how Parliament was populated… but that wasn't going to happen. The NEXT best thing was for us to depart before the arrival of modern weapons on the battlefield. Never forget where our most unruly citizens came from. They are just as unruly today.
Laurent Weppe,
...there would not be enough voters for them to win ay national election for the next 20-30 years...
I sincerely doubt that. If they purged as you described, I might be inclined to vote for one of them occasionally. I can't right now because their coalition is insane.
------
I think your projections (crystal ball musings) are unlikely to be true beyond the next four years. Projections out a long generation are REALLY hard to get right if they involve anything more detailed than a macrotrend... like 'real incomes will continue to rise at a doubling rate near 36 years.'
From Houston:
Keith D. Halperin said...@Dr. Brin: you've mentioned it's only necessary to win over ~1M of the Spineless-Collaborator Wing of the GOP for electoral victory next year. Let's say that happens. (I certainly hope it does...) What's then to do about the 80+M MAGAt Wing? I don't expect they'll overnight all become nice Eisenhower Republicans.”
Two layered answer:
#1 is that GOP demographic collapse would render useless their major cheats like gerrymandering, allowing both the House and another say 12 or so state legislatures to escape the madness and resume the deliberative process called negotiated politics. Red-rural conservatism would still dominate politics in culturally conservative states! But the chances of Manchin-type Democrats and moderate Republicans would improve.
Above all, destroying gerrymandering could reduce the importance of the primary election vs the general election, which would empower moderates from all parties and undermine flaming radicals.
“Poor inland farmers appealed to royal authorities for protection from rich coastal merchants…”
Pah! Some contrarian perspectives are thought provoking, but I don’t see this. The poor Appalachian farmers wanted an end to Royal restrictions on western expansion and despised the plantation lords.
Were the New England merchants saints? Of course not. But the king and lordly cheaters were the villains, commanding that all commerce must pass through their wholly-owned ports and warves and warehouses and markets, and banned from competing with the royal trading fleets. That kind of cheating wrecks the creativity of markets and was dissed by Adam Smith.
Alfred Differ:
"I do not have blind faith that the Rule of Law will necessarily prevail."
Well… I see that as good. Blind faith in general leads to rude surprises and over-reactions when reality smacks us in the face.
I'd like to think I perceive reality correctly. :)
What I was describing is an emotional reaction not unlike that of the Existentialists dealing with the perception that God no longer exists, or never did. The despair that DP argued all atheists should feel. I don't feel it over atheism, but I do feel it over the understanding that society may very possibly fall.
(I was watching tv as a young teenager--I even remember that the show was Adam 12--when the flash of insight hit me that good doesn't triumph over evil just because it is good. Good wins because Good has policemen and judges and courts and that kind of stuff on its side. Not a far reach to the corollary, that if the cops and the courts and the judges are weaker than the bad guys, or if they go bad themselves, then the system falls apart.)
Alfred Differ:
"I don't expect my faith in the Rule of Law itself to protect me."
I know people think their faith in something will protect them, but I never understood that.
I'm right there with you on religion. God is either there or He isn't. Whether you believe has nothing to do with it, any more than belief in gravity determines whether or not you fall.
What I meant was along the lines of I don't expect that following the rules will protect me.
BTW, I appreciate you parsing and clarifying what you mean or what you think I mean. The horseshoe discussion a day or so ago was a good example of what I perceive as two of us talking past each other because the words we're using don't mean the same thing to speaker and listner. "Oh, that's very different. Never mind!"
Well now. If I'm a member of "a cult" it isn't a very effective one. Among my conservative friends there is a great deal of variance of opinion and discussion of same. Some like Trump, some hate him. Levels of enthusiasm for the War in Ukraine are all over the map. There is a widespread suspicion of the surveillance state, but even OGH will allow as how spooks can't be trusted. I hold the opinion that their potential harm is limited by their frequent ineptitude but others feel differently.
Please David, stop putting up the wagers thing. We've been over it a dozen times. Without an impartial judge - and not even you imagine yourself to be one - it is an exercise in idle chatter.
Let's face it, we hold different opinions on many matters. I think that's a good thing. Why this seems to agitate you folks mystifies me.
Tacitus
Faith in anything only helps (not protects), increasing confidence. If we are apocalyptic, diminishing others’ confidence, then what?
Sure things will be bad, when were ‘things good’? During the peace dividend years in the ‘90s? Then came 9-11, and we walked into bin Laden’s trap; but either way he won, temporarily. In Pakistan he watched vids about 9-11, as whatever the outcome he felt he was a winner in ‘doing Allah’s work’.
If someone in a bunker were to live a few more weeks than someone else, he thinks he’s a winner. He who dies with the most toys allegedly wins.
Naturally things will be bad, the world can be destroyed at any time—but we’re men not mice. Loc was whining because of his experiences, obviously, and the pressures of running his ranch or whatever it is...yet he’s not going to throw in the towel and die, is he? None of us are. We’ll bite the bullet and soldier-on :)
We can increase our confidence for next year. What’s the alternative? Do we say McVeighs will come out of their hidey holes—and BOOM? How does that help?
Larry,
…describing is an emotional reaction…
Ah. That makes sense. Lost faith.
I don't recall ever being loyal to that one, but that might be a result of selective memory. I left the Scouts in '76-77 over issues of perceived hypocrisy, but earlier in '76 I won a patriotic, bicentennial essay contest at school and can't for the life of me remember what gushy thing I wrote. The adults around me liked it a lot, but I blotted it from memory within two years.
When I describe my reaction to Trump to others around me as my inner Boy Scout being offended, I THINK that's about loyalty to the Rule of Law… not the one that sounds like 'Good Will Prevail.'
Good wins because Good has…
You
Me
[Etc]
… and we don't sit on our asses when it needs defending.
I guess scouting really DID make an impression upon me even though I never made it past the rank right after tenderfoot.
———
What I meant was along the lines of I don't expect that following the rules will protect me.
Good. They DO protect you a bit in that they draw some of us to your aide, but that's not really the rules protecting you.
———
…clarifying what you mean or what you think I mean…
As of late, I've been trying to do it explicitly because our host goes on about the need to paraphrase those we don't understand. It's another case of Matthew 5:16. 8)
Alfred,
"...Never forget where our most unruly citizens came from..."
I first assumed you were alluding to my Scots/Irish ancestors*, but do you mean...Liverpool?
*I read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations long ago and he spent a lot of time dissing my peeps. # Not All Hatfield/McCoy - one of our own became a respected Starfleet physician.
Tacitus,
I think Dr. Brin, a futurist, gets agitated when folks endanger his future by ignoring and thus enhancing obvious threats to the future...my hobgoblins are AGW and, more recently, this insanity over vaccine distrust. But, enough, he can speak for himself. And does. Differing opinions are a sign of healthy discourse until you get to "the Titanic is sinking" vs "No it's not, you're quite safe in your stateroom."
Pappenheimer
Perhaps humanity has a 51% chance of survival, which is better than 50.
David: Pah! Some contrarian perspectives are thought provoking, but I don’t see this.
Well, you didn't learn history from a textbook written by Loyalists, did you?
Are they a balanced view? No, but neither are the standard American school history textbooks. Alfred said to "look at what you are saying from the perspective of a Loyalist during the revolution" so I was doing that.
The poor Appalachian farmers wanted an end to Royal restrictions on western expansion and despised the plantation lords.
Some didn't. Scots settlers were notoriously Royalist and joined Tory militias during the Regulators War, despite being poor Appalachian farmers.
Tacitus I appreciate that there is a range of Republicans, from slathering putinist-Trumpists all the way to “I’ll hold my nose and vote for corrupt-horrible Trumpists because I cling desperately to the rationalization that ‘democrats are far worse!’, despite lacking any actual, factual evidence for that incantation, whatsoever.”
Okay, that is a biased phrasing of exactly what's going on.
You keep repeating the false assertion that I have never offered verifiably reliable adjudication of factual assertions. I understand your need to repeat that incantation. But no, I will not stop offering panels of RANDOMLY CHOSEN, verifiably low-partisan, senior retired military officers. The sort of panel any conservative with guts and confidence in his case oughta accept.
And I will not stop asking you: “If that sort of panel doesn’t meet your standards, then who might?”
Nor starting each offer with Ocean Acidification. If it is real and deadly and accelerated by rightist denialism, then anyone who loves the world and our kids can have no recourse.
Is there any way to interpret your refusal to zoom in on the actual actual factual nature of core assertions as anything other than part of a nearly universal (on your side of the aisle) abhorrence of the very existence of any possibility of fact-checking assertions? And isn’t that pretty much the DEFINITION of a cult?
-------------
Alfred: I am completely unashamed of reciting the Scout Oath with my sons , weekly. I wish all of our institutions were hypocritical to the same degree of rising standards amid small (if deeply wrong) percentages of badness.
Robert the hill Scots trashed the redcoats and Tories at King’s Mountain, which led to the pivotal victory at Cowpens. And most of the scots had been ripped from home and transported to the American south as prisoners and indentured slaves!
What can "Politically conservative" even mean when so many that claim the label continuously redefine it to place theirselves on top? How are we supposed to deal with politicians who feel they're on a mission from God, and human rules can't apply to them?
How are we to judge representatives whose principles are defined by the whims of a deep pocketed donor?
Those seem to be the high speed engines driving our "Overton window".
Tim H:
What can "Politically conservative" even mean when so many that claim the label continuously redefine it to place theirselves on top?
I too have been mystified for decades at references to the "conservative wing of the Republican Party,". I think it was when George HW Bush picked Dan Quayle as his running mate that I kept hearing how Republican presidential candidates always shored up their support by choosing a "conservative" as a running mate. My thought was "Bush isn't considered a conservative?"
Yeah, apparently Barry Goldwater's nomination in 1964 demonstrated that "conservatives" could finally flex their muscle in the Republican Party. As opposed, I suppose, to those previous moderates and liberals who always sided with business over humans and hated FDR's guts.
Humanity has a 0% chance of surviving. The stochastic element is how long.
L H: I suppose they really mean "Reactionary", but think "Conservative" sounds more respectable.
Tim H:
but think "Conservative" sounds more respectable.
Yes, but as opposed to what? What are the Bush/Nixon/Hoover Republicans if they are different from "conservative"?
L H: They were "Conservative" also, the word could mean anything they want then, even mores now.
Two-tiered...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep21-4.html
Readers with good memories may recall that [Hunter] Biden is not the only person ever to have lied on a federal form. Just to name one other example, Justice Clarence Thomas filled out financial disclosure forms over multiple years where he failed to report—as required by federal law—in-kind gifts worth millions of dollars from billionaires who had a keen interest in how he voted on certain cases before the Supreme Court. He has not been charged or investigated for essentially the same crime as Biden: lying on a federal form. Do we have a two-tiered justice system? We report, you decide.
Tim: “What can "Politically conservative" even mean when so many that claim the label continuously redefine it to place theirselves on top?”
That is not so surprising. 6000+++ years of humans fighting like hell to reach the top because of advantages, especially reproductive. That is doubtless the core driver for the totally-nonsapient world oligarchic putsch.
But I’ll surprise some by avowing that the left is just as bad in their own way. Not as much to restore feudalism, but to assert “MY kind of folks is the BEST kind!” I have personally been attacked for being the wrong kind of human, by people who have publicly preened that they are far more noble by TYPE… by virtue of the fact that: “I’m poor!” or female or non-binary or more heavily melaninated. And sometimes all at once! (Hence the most virtuous kind of humans of all!)
Mind you, I distinguish between ‘lefties’ and Liberals, the latter of whom remain the largest and only sane element in US political life. Furthermore, even those preening lefty bullies are at least aiming in the right direction! One that will inevitably self-limit their excesses, if we succeed at reducing poverty and prejudice by orders of magnitude, and thus futurege nerations will yawn over equality that they take for granted.
(In contrast, if the Right gets its way, it will be an iron boot of inequality in humanity’s face, forever.)
LH: Republicans always (but once) select a VP running mate who is an unqualified horror. That one calamity done by Eisenhower harmed American worse than all the good that Ike did.
Dr Brin:
...publicly preened that they are far more noble by TYPE… by virtue of the fact that: “I’m poor!” or female or non-binary or more heavily melaninated.
My sense is that originated with "My type of people has had the courage and fortitude to overcome systemic obstacles, so we were tempered in the fire." I concede that that argument only goes so far.
Republicans always (but once) select a VP running mate who is an unqualified horror.
True, but that's not what I was asking. My question was that if Bush had to choose Quayle, or McCain to choose Palin as a "conservative" to increase their bonafides with the "conservative wing" of the party, then what exactly are Bush and McCain supposed to be if not conservatives themselves?
I wouldn't call the EV mandates and other green nonsense sane! We're doing our part to save Colorado http://theviews.org/Life%20at%20the%20Views/2023/may-20-2023-apcd-hearing.html .
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/opinion/trump-biden-hunter-impeachment.html
I also think we in the press need to dig deeper and harder into what his father knew about what his son was up to, whether Joe knowingly lent his name to the enterprise, and who, if anyone, in the wider Biden family benefited from Hunter’s activities. And it’s no excuse to say the Trumps did worse. Innocence isn’t established by arguing that the other guy is a bigger crook.
Sorry, but it is established by arguing that other guys perform more egregious versions of the same thing and face no rebuke or penalty from the justice system.
One may argue that if Hunter Biden broke the law, he should be investigated and punished no matter what anyone else might have done. But when one also doesn't mention that Ivanka and Jared did benefit financially for influence-peddling off of Trump's presidency, then one has forfeited the moral high ground of "Two wrongs don't make a right."
It's not a case of one wrong excusing another. It's a case of one behavior not being considered a "wrong" at all until a political opponent engages in it.
It was the same with Hillary using a private e-mail server, just as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did before her. The relevant morality isn't "Hillary did wrong, never mind what others did." It is "The thing Hillary did wasn't considered 'wrong' until she was the one who did it."
Tim H. said...
What can "Politically conservative" even mean when so many that claim the label continuously redefine it to place theirselves on top? How are we supposed to deal with politicians who feel they're on a mission from God, and human rules can't apply to them?
Well, one meaning is given by Corey Robin (this is John Holbo quoting The Reactionary Mind):
Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, and agency the prerogative of the elite. Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stands for freedom, this notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservative sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension. For in that extension, he sees a loss of his own freedom. (pp. 7-8)
Holbo's additional comment:
I think this is basically right. If you read all the things we may call ‘conservative’, in a political philosophy sense, you see something of the sort in ALL of them. And there isn’t anything else we see in ALL of them. Hence this ‘theoretical voice’ is the unifying undertone. Ergo conservatism’s ‘ideal’ voice, in a sense.
[John Holbo at Crooked Timber.]
Lawrence Krauss weighs in on the disappearance of men from academia:
https://quillette.com/2023/09/11/the-shrinking-role-of-men-in-science-and-academia/
The numbers from California are jarring. Perhaps a whole new reason why Johnny can't code.
By the title, one might assume his piece is just another rant by a crusty, misogynistic curmudgeon. But Krauss is a voice for the Enlightenment. It's really a warning about the dangers of tokenism, which hints at a corollary to the Seldon Paradox. A matter-antimatter cancellation effect in effect.
This effect also hints at a possible answer to the Fermi Paradox. The spectacular evolutionary power of sexual reproduction is undeniable. However, that swirling yin-yang symbol is eerily suggestive of a sawblade. Our ultimate inability to achieve reconciliation, in many different dimensions, may be a filter. Note that I use the word 'reconciliation', not 'unity', thus keeping my diversity-vs-fascism badge in good standing.
David: most of the scots had been ripped from home and transported to the American south as prisoners and indentured slaves!
In the history books you read, sure. But I read books written by the descendants of Loyalists, which had a different emphasis and drew different conclusions. Reality, as always, is more complicated than any narrative version of history recounts.
One thing I've learned from hanging out with historians and cops is that two people can experience the same event yet have totally different memories of it and draw different conclusions about it.
And one thing I've learned from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is that when one group of people claims that what they did benefitted another group of people, the opinions of the "do-gooders" don't outweigh those of the supposed beneficiaries — especially when the first group is "doing well by doing good", because it is very easy to rationalize that immense benefits to oneself are justified by a small (unasked-for) benefit to someone else. (The end form of that reasoning is DeSantis claiming that slavery benefited the slaves because they learned useful skills.)
Robert:
two people can experience the same event yet have totally different memories of it and draw different conclusions about it.
My brother is two years younger than me--we're both in our 60s now--and it's always amusing to get together and discuss events we were both present for in our childhood. It's not that our versions conflict, but we each took note of very different details.
G B: I would say that may have been the intent of many of the founders, even if they didn't write it explicitly. I would say the world has changed and cannot be fit into the old constraints, on the bright side, everything else will work better + the .01% will be more prosperous the progressive way.
D B: I wonder how much influence Nixon may have had in Eisenhower's saddling the Persians with The Shah? They've never forgiven us.
Robert Those exiled to Canada were a subset of the generations AFTER their parents or g-parents had been shoved aboard ships, in chains, for supporting Bonny Prince Charlie. For every one who fled to Canada there were many who stayed and some had fought at King’s Mtn
@Everyone re: MAGAt numbers (voters in the 2020 election)
Thank you for correcting my numbers.
If I may, I'd like to modify CITOKAKE (Criticism is the only known antidote to *[ ] error) to **CAFCATOKAKE (Criticism and fact checking are the only known antidotes to *[ ] error).
At any rate, to paraphrase what I've read: it will take a very substantial victory for elected Democrats to overrule the MAGAt Republicans, who are likely to use every means known (fair and foul) to maintain and increase power.
1) I don't see this as likely in the near future (but REALLY hope I'm wrong).
2) I haven't heard anything really about how to get MAGAts from BEING MAGAts/stop having MAGAt beliefs.
3) Over the next couple of decades or so, there are likely (again I hope I'm wrong) factors which will tend to increase and strengthen their numbers:
a) climate change disruptions and disasters
b) large numbers of working class Americans made redundant through automation (especially
in transportation and retail) with downward pressure on wages and benefits
c) significant numbers of direct-and indirect climate refugees.
I also believe that there may be a good looking, sociopathic, intelligent young man/men in their mid-teens to mid thirties, probably from a fairly-well-to-do background, who looks at the Trump years and says, "I can do it better." They may even now be cultivated by some nefarious group or power to do just that- think "Cambridge Spies 3.0". (O-o-o, conspiracy theory!) I wouldn't be surprised if someone(s) like that makes the scene just as things start getting "interesting"(see above).
*I've lost the meaning of the final "K".
**Unfortunately, this now sounds like a Federal Government acronym...
Keith D. Halperin:
*I've lost the meaning of the final "K".
That's because it's a T.
CITOKATE (Criticism is the only known antidote to error)
* * *
My own bastardization is "Boredom is the only known antidote to procrastination". It doesn't make a good acronym, but I've found it to be true.
Keith D. Halperin:
3) Over the next couple of decades or so, there are likely (again I hope I'm wrong) factors which will tend to increase and strengthen their numbers:
a) climate change disruptions and disasters
b) large numbers of working class Americans made redundant through automation (especially
in transportation and retail) with downward pressure on wages and benefits
c) significant numbers of direct-and indirect climate refugees.
Which means either that Republicans are purposely promoting policies which harm their constituents in ways that make them angry enough to vote for those very Republicans, or else they're just very lucky that things work out that way.
David,
I have no issue with the ideals advocated* for by the Scouts. What bothered me was how people went about making them happen. Community services for this group… but not that group. That kind of thing.
But I was just another one of those kids who saw imperfections and thought he'd discovered something deeper about the world. I too suckled at the SOA teat. It was a few years later that I realized the bigger lesson that we ALL kinda understood the world was imperfect. You know the type and have described them well here.
I was also a paranoid, snot-nosed kid at that age. Puberty is rough on many of us, but I learned useful lessons (eventually) about becoming an adult. Probably the biggest one was letting people be the people they wanted to try to be. Life as an adult is SO much easier that way. 8)
———
* The primary exception was their formal stance regarding faith. I've never been a believer, so I simply didn't tell them. They didn't want to know most of the time anyway because the people running things understood that bit of hypocrisy was useful. It was a lot like Don't Ask-Don't Tell.
——————————
Everyone else,
I was specifically thinking of the people who lived near the border between Scotland and England. They were totally screwed anytime this or that King decided to fight the other one. At best, they were at the location where armies foraged. At worst, they faced starvation, disease, rape, and every other trauma associated with the passing of armies composed of me who don't give a damn about them. LOTS of these border-land people wound up in the British colonies of North America.
My Scottish ancestors didn't come over until 1928, so I don't really qualify. They wound up in Appalachia, though. Just like most of the others. That's where my father was born 90 years ago and he wanted the hell out.
I'm finishing up three days at the annual NIAC (NASA innovative and advanced concepts program) symposium in Houston. Your last chance to watch some of the Livestream for the next hour or two! But you'll be able to tune in to the recordings! Amazing stuff/ https://livestream.com/viewnow/niac2023
This is not just a difference of opinion. It's effing insane!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/opinion/republicans-pepfar-aids.html
A P.R.R.I. poll in 2021 found that 23 percent of Republicans agree that “The government, media and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.”
L H, remember, the (Formerly) GOP are notorious for projection*.
*At least the ones running the show.
Given that not one will take a wager with me that high republicans are caught and convicted for child predation at least 10x as often as high dems, it's pretty clear that they know it's projection, deep inside.
Still polls 90% of the time ask leading questions.
Any who are getting ulcers worrying that Trump is going to romp it in next year should watch Chris Hayes assessment: 'Pro-democracy': Dems overperform in 24 of 30 special elections so far in 2023. The kids are alright.
... and, sure, keep right on worrying (because it is), but bear in mind that ulcers are optional.
@ Larry Hart, et al.
Thanks for the CITOKATE clarification, Larry.
"A P.R.R.I. poll in 2021 found that 23 percent of Republicans agree that
“The government, media and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.”"...
and this is the "moderate" wing...
But seriously, we should learn more about the de-nazification program in Germany and Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Commander_for_the_Allied_Powers), what SCAP did in Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Commander_for_the_Allied_Powers) and maybe what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did in South Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa)) so that we can (hopefully) pursue a "de-trumpification program here.
Meanwhile, though I tend to be on the "gloom and doom" side of things, this is encouraging:
Current research overstates American support for political violence (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116870119#:~:text=Provocative%20survey%20data%20show%20that,crimes%20in%20the%20United%20States.)
Dr Brin:
it's pretty clear that they know it's projection, deep inside.
One thing they know deep inside (or maybe even at the surface) is that all their insinuations of immoral behavior are mere excuses to slam Democrats. Republicans who engage in the same behavior get a pass.
Avoiding your wager is not because they know they will lose, but because they know it's a side issue. They don't vote for Republicans because they think Republicans are more moral. They choose to believe Republicans are more moral to justify voting for them.
Tony Fisk:
The kids are alright.
They also don't seem freaked out by Kamala Harris the way everyone else is.
* * *
Keith D. Halperin:
though I tend to be on the "gloom and doom" side of things, this is encouraging:
When I'm too optimistic, bad things happen (see 2016 election). When I'm too pessimistic, good things happen (see 2008 election), but that can make me too optimistic. So I try very hard to peg the needle between them just right.
Larry Hart: When I'm too optimistic...
That's the Seldon Paradox, or the Seldonian Paradox as I've seen you refer to it. It was fun to watch some streaming from the NIAC conference. Work proceeds nonchalantly on saving the planet from asteroid impact. No fanfare, no headlines, just science. It's what we do normally. The freakouts are the side show.
Calculemus!
Ya think?
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep22-1.html
...
In any event, McCarthy was infuriated by the rejection. Speaking to reporters after, he fumed that "[These] individuals that just want to burn the whole place down. It doesn't work." Welcome to reality, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your keen insight.
"How could it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah!"
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Sep22-2.html
The company's [FOX News] core businesses (TV, cable, newspapers) are all in shrinking sectors of the economy. There's also a potential nine- or ten-figure settlement with Smartmatic. It is entirely possible that, sooner rather than later, the Murdoch family takes whatever poker chips it has left and leaves the game. Kara Swisher, who follows these things very closely (even more closely than Jack Shafer) went so far yesterday as to suggest a possible buyer for the Fox properties: Elon Musk. It's not crazy, and even if it was, when has that stopped Musk?
Reposted due to typo...
With apologies to George Orwell:
The conviction was closing on Giuliani. The cuffs brushed his wrists. And then -- no, it was not relief, only hope, a tiny fragment of hope. Too late, perhaps too late. But he had suddenly understood that in the whole world there was just one person to whom he could transfer his punishment -- one body that he could thrust between himself and prison. And he was shouting frantically, over and over.
'Do it to Trump! Do it to Trump! Not me! Trump! I don't care what you do to him. Convict him, send him to prison. Not me! Trump! Not me!'
He was falling backwards, into enormous depths, away from the defense table. He was still in the chair, but he had fallen through the floor, through the walls of the building, through the earth, through the oceans, through the atmosphere, into outer space, into the gulfs between the stars -- always away, away, away from the prosecutor. He was light years distant, but Jack Smith was still standing at his side. There was still the cold touch of cuffs against his wrists. But through the darkness that enveloped him he heard another metallic click, and knew that the cuffs had clicked open and not shut.
The whole thing is a macabre fusion of Shakespeare and Popeye. I'd cast aspersions at you Yanks, but we Canucks have our hands full with India right now.
A P.R.R.I. poll in 2021 found that 23 percent of Republicans agree that “The government, media and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.” Given that not one will take a wager with me that high republicans are caught and convicted for child predation at least 10x as often as high dems, it's pretty clear that they know it's projection, deep inside. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/opinion/republicans-pepfar-aids.html
addendum from a different source: "Later, during the Senate trial, Romney heard the same calculation while talking with a small group of Republican colleagues. When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict Trump, the others urged him to reconsider. You can’t do that, Romney recalled someone saying. Think of your personal safety, said another. Think of your children. The senator eventually decided they were right." They're not talking about crazed leftists going all Bolshevik on their asses. It's the MAGAs who are murdery. They're the ones, primarily, who call in the death threats and bomb threats and show up at the houses of Democrats, armed to the tits with guns and ammo because open carry. Romney pays, he claims, $5000 a day in security.
¬https://rudepundit.blogs pot.com/2023/09/magaism-was-always-terrorism.html.
A dedicated reader sent me the following. Do any of you recall this story... presumably mine?
"I read one of your books many years ago. It involved a war between planets and the “hook” was solar sails used to propel meteors to strike the Earth. In this story you referenced yourself by quoting passages from one of your science books about solar sails. I can’t remember the name of the book or the name of the reference book, so if you could tell me the names, I would like to read the book again.'
I don't think it was your story. I'd like to think I know all your solar sail references. 8)
Sails for bombardment in a war? Hmm... Burn them out of the system. The author would have some explaining to do for why Terrans couldn't do that inside the frost line.
Google has a generative A.I. search engine in its Lab tools (Chrome). Not available in Canada, but it's what I had in mind when I was suggesting how such a thing might be useful for TASAT in general, and perhaps this sail story in particular.
Re: your fan's story description. No obvious matches come to mind. The closest I can think of is 'The Tumbledowns of Cleopatra Abyss'.
Other vague possibilities, from other authors:
- 'Footfall' (Niven & Pournelle)
- 'Sunjammer' and 'Hammer of God' (Clarke)
- 'The Long, Twilight Struggle' (B5 episode, Straczyncki)
Dr Brin:
the “hook” was solar sails used to propel meteors to strike the Earth.
Could that be a misremembering of the part in Existence where the object in Chinese hands falls to earth?
That's all I got.
Keith: we should learn more about the de-nazification program in Germany and Austria
Don't forget to learn about the protection of nazis as useful tools in the post-war period, too. The ratlines weren't just used by nazis seeking to escape retribution, but by allied powers using them to spirit wanted personnel to safer places.
One of my great-aunts was a medical experimental subject in the camps. Rather depressing that the chaps who experimented on her weren't prosecuted for war crimes because they were granted amnesty in exchange for their research results.
I just returned from the annual NIAC (NASA’s Innovative & Advanced Concepts program) symposium in Houston. Concluding 12 years of service to NASA’s most amazingly forward looking endeavor – funding and stimulating projects that mix almost science fictional, what-if visions with soundly and scientifically based practicality.
Home, now, I’ll blog post this evening. But till then, here’s a podcast from a year ago: I describe how vital ROMANTICISM is to our uniquely human imaginations and adventurous vividness. I cater to this human trait through fiction, poetry etc. and I am glad of that part of our human souls. Romanticism makes our ‘night-time pursuits” – things best done by firelight – so wondrous! And yet…
… it MUST be expelled from all of our ‘daytime” activities! Because romanticism is vivid but utterly deceptive and dishonest. It encourages us to believe passionately in outright and even disproved lies. The most romantic movements of all time were the Nazis, Stalinists, Confederates and almost every culture that practiced the corrupt system called feudalism. (Look at their art! Listen to Wagner and Tchaikovsky! Their grand denunciations of absolutely evil foes, unworthy even of life.)
Our daytime activities – offering others honest goods and services, adjudicating disputes, solving problems, negotiating in good faith, and yes, mature politics… all of these call for the calm willingness to recite the core catechism of science: “I might be wrong.” And romanticism – (by nature) - cannot do that!
Was that provocative enough for you? In VIVID TOMORROWS I describe how this stark dilemma is best-seen in the differences between Star Trek and Star Wars! In Spielberg vs. Tolkien. In honest science fiction vs. the anti-enlightenment tirades of Orson Scott Card. But come by the podcast and judge for yourself. Open that daytime mind!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTP4sVd9oLc
I've *lived* on a "survivalist compound" owned by a guy who's got it free and clear, has a degree in chemistry and is pretty capable as humans go. He also doesn't believe in ... paying taxes ... or following laws .... Yep he's one of those idiotic "sovereign citizens" and has managed to piss off some neighbors and the county. He also tells everyone, basically, "Come to my place!" when "the Apocalypse" hits.
The guy has **no** fire safety on his land which is overgrown with weeds and brush. He lets people stay there with little to no vetting. So far one guy's offed himself there. So far. The guy has literal bags of silver coins, guns, ammo, etc stored hoarder-style by which I mean, well, hoarder-style. It's entirely possible to jostle the wrong box and have an AK-47 come clattering out and land on your toe. And those things hurt!
The guy thinks hes "building community" - he's building Peyton Place. He thinks he's doing "permaculture" - he's hardly actually growing anything.
If you talk to the guy, if you look up his CV, hell if you look at his very *physique* you'd think he's a very capable prepper, and in fact if things become the way he pines for, he won't last long at all. I'd say this is most "preppers" frankly.
I've only skimmed this post for now; didn't know you kept an active blog. I'll come back to read in depth and keep current. Thanks for putting the work into this.
"meteors to strike the Earth"
Well, that happened in Starship Troopers, but I don't remember any mention of a propulsion method....solar sails aren't as useful going insystem against the light "wind"; as far as I know they can't tack "upwind". Though I'm now reminded of the 'ether flyers' in "Space: 1899". A lightjammer with an etheric keel would work pretty well.
Plenty of teens dream about an apocalypse and being a lone survivor. Once you get married and have kids, it sounds like less fun and more worries about when the Huggies and Gerbers run out. "Land which is overgrown with weeds and brush..." sounds about as defensible as a tent in the middle of the woods - is this one of the guys who is too smart to actually think other people can also think? "Libertarian jerky" candidate for sure.
Pappenheimer
You can tack with the sails. Light is your wind, but gravity provides your keel. If you are in any kind of orbit at all (when aren't you?) light pressure just pushes you into a different one.
There are ways to sneak rocks into our neighborhood if you are quick, but if it takes more than a year to get them here we'd probably spot the sails. After that it would be time to provide a bit of our own (coherent) light pointing in their direction.
Pappenheimer : Plenty of teens dream about an apocalypse and being a lone survivor.
I suspect a lot of that is champing at the bit to be free of the restrictions of childhood (and by extension society which considers one a child). I would venture a guess that a lot of a prepper's motivation is the desire to be free of societal restrictions (along with an unrealistic idea about how much they actually depend on society).
Watching the recovery of OSIRIS-REx triggered a flashback to THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN (1971) that scared the living daylights out of young me.
Mr. Carter is welcome here.
Starship Troopers was deliberately weird. Okay so the buggers could send rocks across interstellar space using biological methods. And yet the portrayed-fascist humans claim they aren't intelligent?
Lightsails with 'keels'? SOunds like one of our current grants at NASA's Innovative & Advanced Concepts program - (NIAC) - drffractive sails that have more directionality than mere mirrors. Look it up on the current projects list!
Another project appraises hitting a near approaching asteroid with tungsten rods at hyper velocities, shattering those of intermediate size!
OSIRIS Rex!
okay
onward
onward to the next (today's) posting
Post a Comment