The Tyrant’s Cancer Spreads Through Law Enforcement

The President's efforts to poison the rule of law are beginning to have real impacts. RawStory reports:

Judge blocks effort to conceal details in Trump campaign crimes case as Bill Barr’s DOJ mysteriously closes the probe

A federal judge confirmed on Wednesday that the Justice Department has ended its investigation into campaign finance crimes committed by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, indicating that no one else will face charges in the case. But Judge William Pauley also announced that, over the government’s objections, he will be making many of the underlying documents in the case public without requested redactions.

The case stemmed from Cohen’s efforts during the 2016 campaign to secure hush money payments for two women who said they had affairs with Donald Trump. Since investigators determined these payments were done in order to help secure Trump’s victory, the spending counted as campaign contributions that were never recorded and were, in fact, illegally concealed. The Trump Organization, Cohen has said, helped repay him for the costs of the hush money while disguising the payment falsely as a legal retainer.

For these and other crimes to which he pleaded guilty, Cohen has been sentenced to three years in prison. But neither Trump nor no one else apparently involved in the scheme appears to be vulnerable to charges in the case.

As a sitting president, of course, Trump could not be charged with a crime under current Justice Department policy regardless of the evidence. Such a policy wouldn’t protect the president’s son or anyone else involved in his company, though.

A federal judge confirmed on Wednesday that the Justice Department has ended its investigation into campaign finance crimes committed by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, indicating that no one else will face charges in the case. But Judge William Pauley also announced that, over the government’s objections, he will be making many of the underlying documents in the case public without requested redactions.

The case stemmed from Cohen’s efforts during the 2016 campaign to secure hush money payments for two women who said they had affairs with Donald Trump. Since investigators determined these payments were done in order to help secure Trump’s victory, the spending counted as campaign contributions that were never recorded and were, in fact, illegally concealed. The Trump Organization, Cohen has said, helped repay him for the costs of the hush money while disguising the payment falsely as a legal retainer.

Cohen implicated Trump directly in the crime, saying the then-candidate coordinated with him and directed him to make the payments. There is even a public recording of the pair seeming to discuss one of the payments. Donald Trump Jr., too, maybe implicated in the crime because he allegedly signed some of the repayment checks to Cohen.

For these and other crimes to which he pleaded guilty, Cohen has been sentenced to three years in prison. But neither Trump nor no one else apparently involved in the scheme appears to be vulnerable to charges in the case.

As a sitting president, of course, Trump could not be charged with a crime under current Justice Department policy regardless of the evidence. Such a policy wouldn’t protect the president’s son or anyone else involved in his company, though.

So the public has been left with many questions about this case. Would the president have been charged with any related crimes were he not in office? Why weren’t charges brought against other people who appear to have been involved? And was Attorney General Bill Barr — who was chosen by Trump to protect him in the special counsel’s investigation and has shown a clear desire to exonerate the president from any wrongdoing — involvement in the final decisions?

Additionally: Why weren’t any Trump Organization officials questioned by the investigators in the Southern District of New York, if a recent CNN report is correct?

“[The] weighty public ramifications of the conduct described in the campaign finance portions warrant disclosure,” he wrote. “Moreover, the involvement of most of the relevant third-party actors is now public knowledge, undercutting the need for continued secrecy. … On balance, the ‘strong presumption of public access’ to search warrants and search warrant materials under the common law far outweighs the weakened privacy interests at play here.”

He also argued that the matter is “of national importance” and that “it is time that every American has an opportunity to scrutinize the Materials.”

The tyrant is pleased: Trump’s lawyers are happy with the shutdown of the investigation: “We are pleased that the investigations surrounding these ridiculous campaign finance allegations is now closed,” Jay Sekulow, the president’s attorney, said Wednesday according to USA Today. “We have maintained from the outset that the president never engaged in any campaign finance violation.”

Death of the law: Shutting down threatening investigations is a major component of how a tyrant can slowly kill a democracy. By undermining the rule of law, the poison of the tyrant’s growing lawlessness and his criminal operatives spreads with impunity. The rule of law in America is falling to a kleptocratic tyrant. It is happening in plain sight. Congressional republicans show no sign of concern over the developing cancer that is strangling the rule of law. Arguably, the GOP leadership is now fully complicit.

Trump’s poison can be expected to spread to the federal courts as Trump appointed judges begin protecting him from transparency, uncomfortable investigations and the rule of law. In this case, the judge refused to allow the dirty laundry in court papers to be kept hidden from the American people. Assuming the DoJ actually complies with the judge’s order, that is a victory for transparency and the rule of law.

As time passes, victories in court like this will become less frequent. Then they will cease altogether. That is when we will know the rule of law died. It will have morphed into whatever the tyrant says it is.

B&B orig: 7/18/19

We're looking at this wrong

Author: Spooky action at a distance

A few days ago I had to apologise to Germaine for an incoherent post. I've decided to try writing my first 'discussion point' and explain what I was thinking with more clarity and not shoe horning it into other topics....

First a few statements/axioms to build from:

1. Humans have some deep biases in the way we process information. We tend to be emotional not rational first.
2. People are pretty bad at spotting their own biases, you can improve but never get true objective clarity.
3. Changing people's minds tends to be difficult because of the biases.
4. No 'system' is perfect and people will try and game every system.
Those I think are statements which can be proved, however, I will also add...

5. People tend to want 'rules' and 'order' and get invested in their world view as it gives them certainty but like all things 'biological' there are a range of responses.

Which I'm happy to be challenged on but my point is based on these...

The last 50-60 years has seen some major changes in western civilisation. Loads of previous 'rules' which defined society have been abandoned and new rules about accepting people have come in.

This has caused friction and tension, as society changes and experiences 'growing pangs' and old rules are removed.

However, we're now at an interesting point....we're moving from replacing 'rules' with 'new rules' to, in some areas 'anything goes' ….. take transgender. Used to be Gay = bad then gay = ok now people are being asked to accept whatever = ok.

However, the new ways of thinking aren't easy....yes some people are transgender and the world should accept them for this. However, some people will use this to game the system and take advantage.

And this is where it becomes more difficult - these concerns are right, there may be issues. To deny them only increases the fear and anxiety in others and causes the revulsion against them.

When people are frightened they tend to react angrily and retreat to where they do feel safe - rigidity and defined behaviours of right and wrong. The biases that then protect these positions also entrench them.

So when a 'liberal' shouts down the concerns of 'conservatives' they are themselves helping to create the animosity and adversarial atmosphere they are upset about.

And the stupid thing is that the liberal viewpoint has nearly 'won'...

This link is to Pew Research shows how views have changed since 1994 to 2014.

Pew Research on Ideological Consistency

It shows something amazing - yes that since 2004 there is a polarisation BUT overall there is still a shift to 'liberal' positions. The median position is far more liberal now than when the survey started and the true 'conservative' is now in a minority.

My position is that we're looking at this wrong. Liberals get triggered when conservatives call us names and think that they are nasty and racist but actually they are frightened and lashing out because they aren't sure what the rules are. Sure there are people who take advantage of that (Trump) but there always will be and the way to change their mind isn't to denigrate them as to them Trump is giving vent to their fears....the best way to help is to help reduce their fears.

A generation ago we created safe spaces for Women and LGB people to help them learn to be confident in a society that was coming to terms with their new position. I propose we need to do the same for conservatives and make them feel safe in the new society that they no longer feel part of.

B&B orig: 7/19/19

The Psychology of Hate

Whew! Good thing they didn't include atheists in the groups -- we all know where those odious toads would rank -- presumably, the alt-right would rank itself at 100

An article in the San Diego Union-Tribune discusses the sources of hate.

Researchers have identified a number of powerful dynamics at work in the festering of hate, but at the core it is about identity and fear.

Psychological distress — a sense of meaningless that stems from anxious uncertainty — is a key stimulator driving someone to extreme political ideologies, whether it be the far right or left, according to an article published this year by the international Association for Psychological Science.

The argument goes hand-in-hand with the “significance-quest theory,” which says people become radicalized because they need to feel important and respected by supporting a meaningful cause.

“Distressing personal or societal events ... undermine the extent to which perceivers experience the world as meaningful and therefore stimulate people to regain a sense of purpose through strong and clear-cut ideological convictions,” according to the article’s authors, Netherlands academics Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Andre Krouwel.

This can lead to an oversimplified perception of the world, the authors said. “Feelings of distress prompt a desire for clarity, and extremist belief systems provide meaning to a complex social environment through a set of straightforward assumptions that make the world more comprehensible.”

This tendency to create a simplistic narrative to make sense of the world helps explain the popularity of conspiracy theories among political extremists.

Simplicity and overconfidence in their ideological positions turn into moral absolutes. “Such moral superiority implies that different values and beliefs — and the groups of people who endorse them — are considered morally inferior.”

That’s when intolerance takes hold.

White supremacist ideas become more relatable to a wider audience during periods of rapid social change, said Kevan Feshami, a doctoral candidate at University of Colorado Boulder studying white nationalist history and culture.

“It’s these ideas of social decline, that our traditions are not being kept up and our world is falling apart,” said Feshami.

Today’s white supremacist messaging focuses on perceived threats from a shifting demographic and resentment of calls to change societal and institutional systems that have historically favored whites.

In white supremacy propaganda, whites are the victims, not the haters.

“Hate is a mask that covers insecurities,” Schafer concluded from his research. “When we’re insecure, it’s typically because we fear something. Something threatens us.”

People who’ve accomplished important things — according to her or his own beliefs — can easily raise their self-esteem by internally comparing themselves to others, said Robert Sternberg, author of the book “The Psychology of Hate.”

“But some people have not accomplished much. So people can begin to derogate others to lift themselves up, even for no reasons others would consider valid,” said Sternberg, professor of human development at Cornell University and past president of the American Psychological Association. “Hate helps one do that. One artificially inflates oneself, one’s group, or whatever, and strengthens the self-inflation by hating those who don’t live up to one’s falsely created narrative.”

Which leads to another important dynamic: the desire to hate together.

The alt-right scored high on extreme distrust of mainstream media, strong support for Trump and strong support for collective action on behalf of whites, including agreement with statements such as “Whites need to start looking out more for one another” and “We need to do more to stop the mixing of the white race with other races,” according to the study.

The alt-right was also “more willing to dehumanize historically disadvantaged groups and groups that might politically oppose the alt-right.”

The study used a dehumanization model asking participants to rate on a sliding scale how evolved they view certain groups to be. The scale corresponds to images of a primate evolving into a man.

The alt-right found whites to be most evolved and viewed Muslims, feminists, journalists, Arabs, blacks and Mexicans as Neanderthal-like.

This research is new and the work needs to be replicated, confirmed and expanded. However, if these initial findings about the alt-right mindset are reasonably accurate, one can guess what government with them in charge would look like, i.e., good for most white people (but not those degenerate feminists and journalists) and less good for others.

A research paper the article refers to, A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right, is not yet through peer-review and changes may need to be made.

B&B orig: 7/22/19

Identity Finding Algorithms: They Know Who You Are

Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say ‘Ni’ at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred, not even your anonymized personal identity data. -- Roger the Shrubber, as modified by Germaine

The New York Time reports on a new advance in ferreting out a person's identity from piles of “anonymized” personal information.

Your medical records might be used for scientific research. But don’t worry, you’re told — personally identifying data were removed.

Information about you gathered by the Census Bureau might be made public. But don’t worry — it, too, has been “anonymized.”

On Tuesday, scientists showed that all this information may not be as anonymous as promised. The investigators developed a method to re-identify individuals from just bits of what were supposed to be anonymous data.

In most of the world, anonymous data are not considered personal data — the information can be shared and sold without violating privacy laws. Market researchers are willing to pay brokers for a huge array of data, from dating preferences to political leanings, household purchases to streaming favorites. Even anonymized data sets often include scores of so-called attributes — characteristics about an individual or household. Anonymized consumer data sold by Experian, the credit bureau, to Alteryx, a marketing firm, included 120 million Americans and 248 attributes per household.

Scientists at Imperial College London and Université Catholique de Louvain, in Belgium, reported in the journal Nature Communications that they had devised a computer algorithm that can identify 99.98 percent of Americans from almost any available data set with as few as 15 attributes, such as gender, ZIP code or marital status.

Even more surprising, the scientists posted their software code online for anyone to use. That decision was difficult, said Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, a computer scientist at Imperial College London and lead author of the new paper.

This not the first time that anonymized data has been shown to be not so anonymous after all. In 2016, individuals were identified from the web-browsing histories of three million Germans, data that had been purchased from a vendor. Geneticists have shown that individuals can be identified in supposedly anonymous DNA databases.

The balance is tricky: Information that becomes completely anonymous also becomes less useful, particularly to scientists trying to reproduce the results of other studies. But every small bit that is retained in a database makes identification of individuals more possible.

“Very quickly, with a few bits of information, everyone is unique,” said Dr. Erlich.

The business community responds: The general attitude of the business community so far seem to be one of “Peek-a-boo, we see you and we’re gonna sell you as raw and hard as you will take it. You can’t hide behind that bush or under that rock.”

To help this science progress, all consumers have to do is just keep using their cell phones and computers as usual. Data harvesters will do the rest.

Secret police organizations, tyrants, oligarchs, con artists and used car salespersons throughout the world are also enthusiastic about this new breakthrough. One tyrant who spoke to B&B on condition of anonymity (President Trump) because he was not authorized to comment to the failing, fake-news press observed:

“This is wonderful! Nobody can hide from me now. Thank God for Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, online porn sites, credit reporting agencies, app developers and all other good, decent people working hard to suck every last detail about each American out of cyberspace and anywhere else there is to suck details from. . . . . Ew . . . . good thing I'm a germophobe. Wouldn't want to touch any germy details.”

And, there you have it. More scientific progress coming to invade your life soon. Assuming it hasn't been invaded already.

B&B orig: 7/24/19

Let's explore: The effects on us of letting disrespect go on unaddressed

Author: Rob Smith

These OPs usually start off with something that has been well considered.

This OP is more a invite to analyse and discuss what happens to us (being literate, members of western civilization who are engaged in discussions around social analysis) when we let disrespect to ourselves and those around us go on without addressing it.

This topic only became clear enough to think about after Germain pointed out that a troll was disrespecting other posters here.

Since then I've been thinking about what disrespect is and what the effects on humans might be. I think that the effects of an attack on a social animal that says that they are not a fit member of the group will have deep neural effects. And probably multiple negative health effects too. Currently I'm thinking that:

Disrespect is deliberate or deliberately negligent communication that positions the target as not being worthy of respect.

If you think my construction needs tweaking then please share. If you have other understandings please share.

I am not arguing that all disrespect is bad. Naming and shaming does have a place I think. (Elsewhere I'm currently demanding a reputable source for a very dubious claim about the general mental health status of an oppressed minority - the alternative to the source being provided I communicated as "admit that you are a lying bigot". Which is an extremely disrespectful option to present.)

Laughing fool

The kind of disrespect that I find most interesting is not the name-calling, cussing type, but rather the sorts of communications which position the recipient as a person who has;
low intelligence,
no political/social power,
no ability to discern lies,
no awareness of the breadth and depth of what it is to be human,
low understanding of the issue to hand,
nothing worthwhile to contribute around improvements,
...

These sorts of disrespectful communications are very frequent in our society. Corporations and institutions communicate to their workers and customers like this. Movies are routinely targeted at "the lowest common denominator". Politicians provide "sound bites" to media organizations that are disrespectful. Fake news, lies of Presidents, dark free speech, deceptive advertising and trolls on internet forums are all disrespectful.

What are the (range of ) likely effects on ourselves of this flood of disrespect? How would these effects come about?

If our great ape relatives were treated by powerful members of their groups with an on-going stream of disrespect what effects would that have?

B&B orig: 8/3/19

Divisive Politics in Action

“In the current polarized political climate, we thought it would be interesting to ask which presidents were considered by presidency experts to be the most polarizing. To do so, we asked respondents to identify up to five individual presidents they believed were the most polarizing, and then rank order them with the first president being the most polarizing, the second as next most polarizing, and so on. We then calculated how many times a president was identified as well as their average ranking. The results of this question can be seen in the table below.

Donald Trump is by far the most polarizing of the ranked presidents earning a 1.6 average (1 is a “most polarizing” ranking). Lincoln is the second most polarizing president of those presidents ranked. He earned a 2.5 ranking. This is close to Polk as the second most polarizing president at 2.6. Trump was ranked “most polarizing” by 95 respondents and second most polarizing by 20 respondents. For comparison, Lincoln, the second most polarizing president on average, received 20 “most polarizing” rankings and 15 second “most polarizing” rankings.” Source: Official Results of the 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey, Brandon Rottinghaus, University of Houston; Justin S. Vaughn, Brookings Institution

In the wake of slaughter after two mass shootings in recent days, the president blames the media for polarizing and upsetting people. One source writes: “President Trump shifted blame to the media in the aftermath of three mass shootings, accusing the press of fueling the ‘anger and rage’ that has contributed to the atrocities in recent years. ‘The Media has a big responsibility to life and safety in our Country,’ he tweeted Monday. ‘Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years.’”

One GOP member of congress blames liberals, drag queen advocates, homosexual marriage, open borders and Barack Obama: “In the Facebook post, Ohio Rep. Candice Keller complained about liberals playing the ‘blame game’ after every shooting and asked why not place the blame where it belongs.”

Wait!! What about the facts?: Some people may note that the president's rhetoric may seem just a wee bit out of synch with reality here. Relevant facts (not opinion) here include these:

1. Conservative political rhetoric has been fomenting lies, rage, hate, bigotry, unwarranted fear and unwarranted distrust on the right at least since the 1980s with the rise of poison darts including Newt Gingrich, Lee Atwater, the Koch brothers, and many Evangelical religious leaders.
2. The leader of the modern GOP, the president, is ranked by some experts as the most polarizing president in US history (they also ranked him the least great of all US presidents).
3. The leader of the GOP is a chronic liar,[1] arguably the most dishonest president in US history.
4. The leader of the GOP hates the American free press, repeatedly calling them the enemy of the state, which is the same kind of rhetoric that the murdering tyrant Joseph Stalin applied to people and institutions he didn't like and obliterated by force, something that, based on his public statements, our president would enthusiastically do if he could.

So, on the one hand one has the GOP reality based on comments from our liar president and some lying GOP politicians, the few with the guts to say anything at all, blaming anything except themselves. On the other hand, we have reality, which does not appear to overlap much with the GOP reality.

Which reality is the most fact-based of the two?

Footnote:
1. As used here, liar includes both lies and BS. Lies are intentional deceit, while BS are false statements that may or may not be true because the speaker doesn't care about truth or facts and is only trying to persuade regardless of what is true and what is a lie.

B&B orig: 8/5/19