Month: October 2015

It’s human nature
by Tom Sullivan

Writing at Wonkblog, Max Ehrenfreund examined the psychology of Trump supporters (and the rest of us) the other day. It’s nothing shocking, yet we seem to have to be reminded of it regularly:

From a psychological perspective, though, the people backing Trump are perfectly normal. Interviews with psychologists and other experts suggest one explanation for the candidate’s success — and for the collective failure to anticipate it: The political elite hasn’t confronted a few fundamental, universal and uncomfortable facts about the human mind.

We like people who talk big.

We like people who tell us that our problems are simple and easy to solve, even when they aren’t.

And we don’t like people who don’t look like us.

I might add a few others, but that’s a good start.

“Really, we’re not giving people enough credit,” argues John Hibbing, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. “We have to take this seriously. You can look down your nose if you want to, but these people aren’t going away.”

Looking down your nose at people. That’s another one: We don’t like people who don’t like us.

The second one recalls the famous H.L. Mencken quote: “There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” Mencken must have met plenty of people like Trump. There are plenty out there. Still …

“People like the idea that deep down, the world is simple; that they can grasp it and that politicians can’t,” Hibbing said. “That’s certainly a message that I think Trump is radiating.”

“Radiating” is a good descriptor. The left puts too much faith in rationality and language, when that’s not how most people operate. They read a lot from nonverbal cues. As I wrote a last year:

One of my favorite southernisms is, “I wouldn’t trust anyone my dog doesn’t like.” That, I caution canvassers, is how most Americans really vote, like it or not. And if you don’t purge the thought, those “low information” voters? They will know you think they’re stupid before you do. Right before you ask for their votes.

Campaign schools drill two things during their trainings. First, we are not normal people. Normal people don’t spend a weekend learning to run political campaigns. Lefty wonks should not try to talk to normal people the way we talk to each other. Second, your job when knocking doors is not to persuade people or to engage them in debate. Your job is to knock, smile, be polite, drop the literature, and, most of all, leave a good impression. If the voters like you, they will vote for your candidate. In many cases it really is that simple. It doesn’t satisfy our need to win some philosophical victory or to browbeat people into submission with the power of our superior arguments, but that’s how things really work in spite of how we think they should.

There is more at the link about tribalism, zero-sum thinking, and “our species’s unconscious and its unchanging predispositions.” Fascinating stuff.

Because you need this

by digby

It’s a beautiful story of humans and their animal friends by Glenn Greenwald called

HOW DOGS FORGE A BOND WITH RIO’S HOMELESS THAT IS LIFE-SAVING FOR BOTH

Karollyne from Field Of Vision on Vimeo.

AS IS TRUE OF SO MANY CITIES in the Western world, there are thousands of homeless people living on the streets of Rio de Janeiro, the second-largest city in Brazil. They include families, children, solitary men and women, the old and the young. Many have been homeless for years with little prospect of an exit, especially now that the country faces worsening economic distress, met with often-cruel austerity measures. Homeless people are abundant in most neighborhoods, including the upscale ones most frequented by tourists.

Homelessness in Rio is, in many ways, virtually identical to how it manifests in other large cities: It entails unimaginable material and emotional deprivation, hopelessness, societal invisibility, and utter isolation. But one aspect of Rio’s homeless population stands out: A huge number of them have dogs that were previously living as desperate, unwanted strays on the street.

Many have lived on the street with their dogs for years. They care for them as well as, and in many cases better than, the average middle-class family with a pet. The profound bond that forms between them is like nothing else one will find, and is thus deeply revealing. 

Read on …

To immerse oneself in this phenomenon is to learn about the human capacity for empathy and self-sacrifice even in the most severe states of distress …


.

Whither Carly?

by digby

Everyone’s asking what happened to Fiorina’s poll numbers. She has tumbled precipitously since her post-debate bump.

The rapid rise and equally rapid fall of Carly Fiorina deserves our attention. Before the most recent debate, she was languishing in the polls with only 4 percent of the vote (CBS, Sept. 9-13). After a smashing performance in the second debate, she soared into second place with 15 percent (CNN, Sept. 17-19). Now the most recent polls have her falling back into the pack with only 6 percent support (CBS, Oct. 4-8).

It’s not a mystery — she’s been exposed as a very big liar. Over and over again. This is usually not something that right wingers care about, but in her case it’s so obvious and so embarrassing even they can’t justify it. The Planned Parenthood lie is the most egregious but she made stuff up about everything, including nonsense talking points about the 6th fleet and missile defense and the extent of her relationship with her “good friend Bibi Netanyahu.”

Some on the right argue that it’s because her failed record at HP has come to light. But that’s also part of the liar image — she claims her tenure was terrific but the facts are in and she was an epic failure. So, it’s really just another part of the same blatant lying phenomenon. Others claim she was felled by bloggers who exposed her as a California Rhino. But that doesn’t explain why the equally Rhinoish Trump continues to dominate.

If I had to guess, the fact that she’s a lying woman does make a difference. These are right wingers, after all. They may be willing to put up with a woman running, maybe even winning. But not if it puts them on the spot. Plenty of men in the race to replace her. And sadly, if the comment sections of right wing blogs are an example of the right’s thinking on the issues, it has a lot to do with her looks. Which is just so … typical. Of course most of those who say that are Trump voters. Because he’s such a looker apparently. Just ask him. 

Host Chuck Todd continued to press Trump: “You have a tenancy of disparaging woman on looks. I found 10 instances, sometimes in your books, your Twitter feeds when you went after people like Bette Midler and others. This is what some people find offensive, Mr. Trump, you go to looks. It’s a disparaging thing. It’s something out of ‘Mad Men,’ sir.”

Trump replied, “I will say this. I was attacked by the people that you talk about. I was attacked viciously by those people. I don’t mean a little bit, I mean viciously. When I’m attacked, I fight back, but I was attacked viciously by those women. Of course it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good looking.

.

QOTD: Karl Rove

by digby

This line seems to be a popular one on the right. Talking about Bernie Sanders answer to the question of what he considers the greatest national security threat to the US, Rove inanely answers:

He named climate change. One can imagine President Sanders ordering special forces to the headquarters of Exxon, Shell and Chevron to haul off oilmen to re-education camps cooled and heated by renewable energy.

Very smug, very glib. However, it’s also very revealing that the term national security automatically evokes images of “ordering special forces” somewhere. It is evidently unthinkable that the nation’s security could be threatened by something that cannot be met with military action or force of some kind. What small, cramped thinking. How dangerously shortsighted.

.

GOP candidates failing an important test of leadership

by digby

Via TPM:

Fiorina, to her credit, responded differently than Donald Trump who said that he would be “looking into all of that” when a similar comment was made at one of his rallies.

“People are so frustrated and angry with the immigration situation. Let me say that one of the most important things about this nation is that we judge people as individuals,” Fiorina said in response.

On the other hand, how hard would it have been for her to defend American Muslims and say they are just as American as anyone else? What does being a Muslim have to do with immigration? Is Keith Ellison an immigrant? Mohammed Ali? And anyway, immigrants who happen to be Muslim don’t deserve to be talked about in such demeaning terms either.

It’s incumbent on presidential candidates to educate their followers that this bigoted nonsense is unacceptable in America. I had many problems with George W. Bush but to his credit he went out of his way to tamp down this kind of nonsense. On September 17, 2001 he went to the Islamic Center in Washington and gave this speech:

Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We’ve just had a — wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday’s attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race — out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.

I’ve been told that some fear to leave; some don’t want to go shopping for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It’s a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They’re outraged, they’re sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.

If President Bush could do this in the wake of 9/11 you’d think that Republican presidential candidates could rise to the occasion a decade and a half later.

Droning on to little avail

by digby

If you have not had time to read the Intercept’s blockbuster report on the Drone war, I hope you will bookmark it for when you have some time over the week-end. It’s important.

In the meantime, read this summary from Micah Zenko at Foreign Policy which hits the important highlights and calls for a congressional inquiry — which, depressingly, he highly doubts we’ll see. And I agree.

Here’s an excerpt:

This series calls into question many U.S. government claims about lethal counterterrorism strikes, which should compel long-overdue, rigorous oversight hearings by the relevant congressional committees and a full and complete public investigation of U.S. targeted killing policies — similar to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) report of the CIA’s rendition and interrogation program.

Unfortunately, in recent conversations with policymakers surrounding these programs, I have again learned that there is not just weariness about discussing them, but also a collective shoulder-shrug about the possibility of any serious investigations or reforms. In April, when Obama announced the deaths of three U.S. citizens and one Italian citizen in drone strikes, the chair and co-chair of the SSCI, Sens. Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein respectively, declared that U.S. targeted killing policies should be reviewed. That never happened. And, of course, those close to the White House still claim U.S. counterterrorism operations were “reformed” in May 2013. They were not.

Judging by the presidential debates in both parties (so far) there’s no interest in taking this on. The Pentagon isn’t all that thrilled with this program (perhaps because it isn’t theirs) which just proves that the CIA is driving the bus. But then, this is an assassination program which has always been one of their bailiwicks. Basically a secret, unaccountable agency is running the global military of the most powerful nation on earth. A nation that prides itself on it’s open, democratic system of government. Odd …

.

Inciting the fringe

by digby

Over at Salon this morningI wrote about the DOJ’s recent concern about domestic terrorism. (Domestic terrorism you say? How can that be?)

“We recognize that, over the past few years, more people have died in this country in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups.”

“The department is engaging in political and ideological profiling of people who fought to keep our country safe from terrorism, uphold our nation’s immigration laws, and protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” said Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis.

The decision to reduce the department’s role was provoked by conservative criticism of an intelligence report on “Rightwing Extremism” issued four months into the Obama administration, the officials said. The report warned that the poor economy and Obama’s election could stir “violent radicalization,” but it was pilloried as an attack on conservative ideologies, including opponents of abortion and immigration.

In the two years since, the officials said, the analytical unit that produced that report has been effectively eviscerated. Much of its work — including a digest of domestic terror incidents and the distribution of definitions for terms such as “white supremacist” and “Christian Identity” — has been blocked.

Multiple current and former law enforcement officials who have regularly viewed DHS analyses said the department had not reported in depth on any domestic extremist groups since 2009.

Is this The Onion or just Alaska?

by Gaius Publius

It’s not over yet — in the largest sense — but thinking like this sure moves the climate car closer to the no-return part of the cliff. The governor of Alaska wants to drill more oil to pay for … wait for it … the damage caused by climate change.

The BBC (h/t John Irving):

Alaska mulls extra oil drilling to cope with climate change

Expanding the search for oil is necessary to pay for the damage caused by climate change, the Governor of Alaska has told the BBC.

The state is suffering significant climate impacts from rising seas forcing the relocation of remote villages.

Governor Bill Walker says that coping with these changes is hugely expensive.

He wants to “urgently” drill in the protected lands of the Arctic National Wilderness Refuge to fund them.

Alaska has been severely hit by the dramatic drop in the price of oil over the past two years.

The state is the only one in the US that doesn’t have an income or sales tax, getting 90% of its day-to-day expenditure from levies on the production of oil and gas.

But the halving in the price of crude over the past year has seen Alaska’s financial health deteriorate.

The recent decision by Shell to pull out of drilling in the Chukchi sea off the state’s north coast has compounded the problem.

If Shell had found oil, it would have been a major boost for the the huge Trans Alaskan Pipeline that transports oil from the northern production fields to the tanker terminal in Valdez some 1,300km to the south.

Built to carry 2 million barrels a day, it’s running at about 25% of its capacity as existing oil field production declines.

While Alaska’s income from the oil continues to fall, expenditure on climate related activities is likely to go up. Coastal erosion is threatening a number of native communities in remote areas such as Kivalina….

Does he know he’s making no sense? Do the rugged individualist, “stand on your own two feet” voters of Alaska? Did the Onion write this piece?

Thinking like this would have stripped Easter Island of trees years ahead of schedule.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

Death by Drone: What a pitch for Verizon
by Tom Sullivan

Finding your way around in The Intercept’s labyrinthine “The Drone Papers” is disorienting. By design, one supposes. The effect of reading through this account of America’s assassination program — ahem, “targeted killings” — is akin to the complaint of drone operators that watching targets via drone-mounted surveillance cameras is like “looking through a soda straw.”

Like any good techies, the military seems obsessed with power, speed and accuracy. They are “enamored by the ability of special operations and the CIA to find a guy in the middle of the desert in some shitty little village and drop a bomb on his head and kill him,” according to Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And obsessed in particular, with eliminating “blink“:

A “blink” happens when a drone has to move and there isn’t another aircraft to continue watching a target. According to classified documents, this is a major challenge facing the military, which always wants to have a “persistent stare.”

The conceptual metaphor of surveillance is seeing. Perfect surveillance would be like having a lidless eye. Much of what is seen by a drone’s camera, however, appears without context on the ground. Some drone operators describe watching targets as “looking through a soda straw.”

Credit Tolkien with the conceptual metaphor of the lidless eye. (I’m sure a reader will correct me.)

Now, Sarah Palin promoted hunting from aircraft “to thin out predator populations.” So before we go all Dark Lord on you, it’s nice to know the Pentagon can have a little sport with hunting humans from the air. See slide:

A slide on “Manhunting Basics” takes a lighthearted approach to the core mission of the Haymaker campaign: finding and killing specific individuals.

Except hunt and kill one Cecil the lion from the ground, and there will be international outrage and protesters outside your workplace screaming, “Murderer!” Kill 10 humans from the air just to “Jackpot” one presumed terrorist — including the people just standing nearby and the occasional child — and nobody blinks. They are deemed “EKIA, or enemies killed in action,” and “guilty by association.” Good enough for government work.

The Intercept’s report on “targeted killings,” of course, contains the requisite acronyms and bureaucratese, the kind we of the Watergate era remember all too well. IIRC, one Watergate witness testified about “a male individual residing in the neighboring domicile.” Translation: next-door neighbor. “Counterinsurgency strike”? Translation: carpet bombing Cambodia.

Perhaps the most chilling for the rest of us is how government assassins pinpoint a targets’ location even in the dark:

Hellfire missiles—the explosives fired from drones—are not always fired at people. In fact, most drone strikes are aimed at phones. The SIM card provides a person’s location—when turned on, a phone can become a deadly proxy for the individual being hunted.

When a night raid or drone strike successfully neutralizes a target’s phone, operators call that a “touchdown.”

Not a terrorist? Don’t have one “residing in the neighboring domicile”? You’ve got nothing to worry about, of course. Still, Americans are already wary of NSA surveillance of our cell phones. Aha! But you’re a T-party “III Percenter” militiaman, and you know all about NSA surveillance and don’t use a cell phone? They get someone to plant one in your car and then shove a Hellfire missile up your ass. Touchdown! Stop that with your AR-15 in the dark.

What an advertisement for Verizon.

The most disturbing thing about the drone war — two disturbing things, among the disturbing things — is how often they crash and the fact that we will soon have the lidless eye flying over our heads looking through a straw from 144 sites in the United States:

In an April 2012 report, the Defense Department notified Congress it was planning to base drones at 110 sites in U.S. territory by 2017. A new Pentagon document, obtained by The Post, suggests that ambitions have grown. It states that the military is preparing to fly drones from 144 U.S. locations.

And they seem rather prone to crashing, as the Washington Post reported last year, and as The Intercept has as well.

Plus, our “targeted killings” program has made war so neat and clean and cost-effective, we have seen no need to stop it. Will we ever? Which reminds me, vaguely, of something familiar:

The Futility of Engagement 

by tristero

Mickelson went on to argue why jails, which he claimed are a “pagan invention,” are inferior to slavery: “We indenture them and they have to spend their time not sitting on their stump in a jail cell, they’re supposed to be working off the debt.” 

“Wouldn’t that be a better choice?” the host asked. 

“Well, it really would be,” Huckabee replied without missing a beat. “Sometimes the best way to deal with a nonviolent criminal behavior is what you just suggested.”