Ruth Bader Ginsberg has Died

Everyone is reporting that Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has died. Now the radical conservative Leviathan comes alive and rises in its rage and self-righteous vengeance.

The hypocrite Moscow Mitch McConnell said in May of 2019 that he would replace any supreme court dead supreme court justice even during the 2020 election. He could not care less about his hypocrisy over what happened after Scalia died in early 2012. I've said it many times before, and I say it again: Hypocrisy does not faze hard core republican partisans in the slightest. Actually, hypocrisy doesn't faze many hard core republican partisans in the slightest, republican or not. For those folks and presumably most Trump supporters, this is about winning, not truth, consistency, facts or reason. This is about power and wealth.

I take zero pleasure in having predicted this outcome years ago. RBG was obviously very sick and I knew she would not survive any republican administration. She was obviously sick years ago and now she has died. Years ago in 2011 and 2012 people pleaded with her to resign, but she refused. 

Now, there is going to be a rock solid 6-3 radical conservative white male Christian theocratic majority on the supreme court for the next 25-30 years.That will be the case even if the Federalist society tells Trump to appoint a woman or any non-white Christian of any or no gender. We are past that now. Now self-righteous conservative rage, hate and vengeance will ooze out of the federal courts. 

Roe v. Wade is toast. Toast. Women living in red states are going to have to go to states that still allow abortions if they want one. 

Will this focus the democratic opposition? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if it does, I would not bet on democrats doing anything significant, including using their control of the House.

Democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law are now going to see the wrath of republican hate and vengeance.

How Social Media Works: Intentional Manipulation

In a fascinating movie review on the Neurologica blog, Steven Novella discusses the movie The Social Dilemma. It goes into the details of how social media works and how powerful it is in doing bad things to people and societies, e.g., it can make people depressed. The bad things also include creating false realities, undermining facts and truths and sapping the credibility of experts. Dr. Novella writes:

“Also, social media lends itself to information bubbles. When we rely mostly on social media for our news and information, over time that information is increasing curated to cater to a particular point of view. We can go down rabbit holes of subculture, conspiracy theories, and radical political perspectives. Social media algorithms have essentially convinced people that the Earth is flat, that JFK Jr. is alive and secretly working for Trump, and that the experts are all lying to us.

This is where I think the documentary was very persuasive and the conclusions resonated. They argued that increasingly people of different political identities are literally living in different worlds. They are cocooned in an information ecosystem that not only has its own set of opinions but its own set of facts. This makes a conversation between different camps impossible. There is no common ground of a shared reality. In fact, the idea of facts, truth, and reality fades away and is replaced entirely with opinion and perspective, and a false equivalency that erases expertise, process, and any measure of validity

The documentary was also persuasive (again, nothing new) in arguing that this system is ripe for exploitation, by foreign powers, oligarchs, and dictators. It is an incredible amount of power to put at the fingertips of a totalitarian government. They can control what their citizens think, without their citizens really even being aware of it. It is a propagandist’s wet dream, and blows away the worst nightmares of 1984.

Social media clearly is playing a critical role in the increased polarization we are experiencing, and the rise of populists.

To anyone paying attention, none of this was new, but it is instructive to have it all laid out systematically. What I thought was new, at least to me, was the degree to which the consequences of social media are apparently by design. My prior sense was that social media algorithms were optimized to give users what they want in order to get them and keep them using their platform. But really, the manipulation goes deeper and is much more conscious and intentional. Having social media rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, for example, is not an unintended side effect of social media algorithms – it’s a deliberate feature. The industry is deliberately psychologically manipulating users (that’s us) in order to maximize attention harvesting in order to directly monetize that attention, and gather data so that the data itself can be monetized and used to further harvest our attention. This isn’t surprising, it was just way more explicit than I had imagined.”

Novella goes on to criticize the movie for having too narrow a focus on social media and not putting this in a broader social context. He also criticizes the time the film spent on discussing possible fixes as being too limited. He correctly points out that the industry needs regulation and cannot or will not do it alone because it is trapped in a for-profit business model. 

Some things that people can do include not clicking on recommended things, and sampling different sources of news and content. That avoids rewarding click-bait. Novella agrees with the film’s conclusion that a healthy and functioning democracy requires us to figure this out and try to regulate the inherent badness into something less socially divisive and toxic.

The President’s Sabotage of the COVID-19 Response

Resigned but still blind Mike Pence aide Olivia Troye

Trump regarding the pandemic: maybe the pandemic is a good thing because 

he does not have to shake hands with all the

 “disgusting people” at his rallies and public events 

The New York Times reports that a widely criticized CDC recommendation to not test asymptomatic people who had been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus was in fact not written by the CDC. It was written by the president and posted on the CDC website under the CDC’s name. The president’s intent was to deceive the American people. That amounted to sabotage of the pandemic response for the sake of the president’s personal political advantage. That some people may needlessly die due to the deceit was of no apparent concern. The overriding concern was re-election. The NYT writes:

A heavily criticized recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month about who should be tested for the coronavirus was not written by C.D.C. scientists and was posted to the agency’s website despite their serious objections, according to several people familiar with the matter as well as internal documents obtained by The New York Times.

The guidance said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus. It came at a time when public health experts were pushing for more testing rather than less, and administration officials told The Times that the document was a C.D.C. product and had been revised with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield.

But officials told The Times this week that the Department of Health and Human Services did the rewriting and then “dropped” it into the C.D.C.’s public website, flouting the agency’s strict scientific review process.

‘That was a doc that came from the top down, from the H.H.S. and the task force,’ said a federal official with knowledge of the matter, referring to the White House task force on the coronavirus. ‘That policy does not reflect what many people at the C.D.C. feel should be the policy.’”

The NYT goes on to point out that the recommendation contained several basic errors that CDC experts would not have made. Specifically, the president’s document “testing for Covid-19,” not testing for the virus that causes it. Other errors were inconsistencies with the C.D.C.’s known policy positions, marking the origin of the document as not from the CDC.

In addition to that fake CDC document, the president had released a second fake CDC document that fits with how the president want to deal with the pandemic. That document argued for “the importance of reopening schools,” which contradicted the C.D.C.’s typical neutral, scientific tone. Other important self-serving deceit of the public by the president was his political appointees’ meddling with the CDC’s weekly science reports on scientific research. 

How incredibly hard it is for even honest, principled republicans to see truth & reality

In a related but frightening story, Mike Pence aide Olivia Troye has resigned, blasting the president for his failure to even try to deal with the pandemic in the public interest. Troye was the Pence adviser for homeland security until late July. She had coordinated the Pence pandemic response effort and was intimately familiar with what the president was concerned with. His concern was his re-election, not protecting the public or dealing with the pandemic. The New Yorker Magazine writes:

“When I spoke with Olivia Troye on Thursday afternoon, she sounded more than a little scared. She was about to go public with a scorching video, in which she would denounce President Donald Trump and his stewardship of the country during the coronavirus pandemic. Troye, who served as Vice-President Mike Pence’s adviser for homeland security until late July, has witnessed the Administration’s response to the crisis, as Pence’s top aide on the White House coronavirus task force. She had seen Trump rant in private about Fox News coverage as his public-health advisers desperately tried to get him to focus on a disease that has now killed some two hundred thousand Americans. She had decided that Trump was lying to the American public about the disease, and that “words matter, especially when you’re the President of the United States,” and that it was time to speak out. She was nervous and scared and worried for her family and her career. But she plunged ahead anyway.

I asked about her firsthand observation of the President during the crisis. She said that Trump was “disruptive.” That he could not “focus.” That he was consumed by himself and his prospects in November. “For him, it was all about the election,” Troye told me. “He just can’t seem to care about anyone else besides himself.”

Troye joined the coronavirus task force when it was first established, in late January, before any Americans had died from covid-19. Her experience on it, Troye told me, convinced her that Trump’s handling of the situation—the conscious spreading of disinformation, the disregard for the task force’s work—had made the crisis far worse for Americans. She warned about the President’s push for a vaccine before the November election and said that she did not trust him to do the right thing for the country’s health and safety. “What I’m really concerned about is if they rush this vaccine and pressure people and get something out because they want to save the election,” she said.

In the end, this is what struck me most during my conversation with Troye: she is young, only forty-three years old, with a long career ahead of her, and she was willing to put it all on the line publicly, whereas people like Mattis and Kelly were not. That contrast could not have been more stark as I read a Coats Op-Ed in the Times that published the same day as Troye’s video. Coats, clearly referring to Trump’s recent undermining of faith in the upcoming election, said that a national commission should be established by Congress to insure confidence in this fall’s voting. Coats never once referenced Trump by name, and he has never publicly come forward to share with Americans his misgivings about the President. Why not? He is a veteran U.S. senator and a former U.S. ambassador who closed out his career as the head of the massive U.S. intelligence bureaucracy. What does he have to risk?”

What is frightening about this not just the president’s lack of concern for the safety of the American people. Just as frightening is how long it took for Troye to reach the breaking point. But even now she still cannot fully understand the situation she operated in. Her mind traps her in a false reality. 

After her video criticizing the president came out, Pence said that she lacked moral courage to bring her complaints to him and the coronavirus team. He dismisses Troye as just another disgruntled employee with nothing of importance or truth to say and no moral courage for having resigned in public protest. By contrast, Troye still believes that Pence is a decent, honest person doing the best he can under difficult circumstances. She simply cannot see that Pence is a willing participant in the president’s cynical deceit-based pandemic strategy in service to his re-election effort. Pence and his boss are the ones with no moral courage, not Troye. 

Here is the problem in a nutshell: A principled, morally courageous person like Troye acted out of principle and destroyed her career in politics. Nonetheless, she still remains significantly blind to the reality she was immersed in. She still sees Pence as blameless in all of this. In view of that scary reality, how many less honest or less principled republicans who still support the president are there who can bring themselves to at least partially see the reality of what they are doing like Troye did? My guess is maybe ~3%, maybe less. Even people like Coats, Mattis and Kelly did not have the guts to come forward. They have far less to lose than Troye had. Moral courage among hard core republican partisans is a precious and rare thing. 

This exemplifies why the president’s supporters and enablers still support and enable this awful human being. That being, our president, likes the pandemic because he does not have to shake hands with all those “disgusting people” at his rallies and public events. 

So, who are the disgusting people here? People like Troye who wrecked her career once she finally could not take it any more? The president’s enablers, e.g., his liar aides and the complicit republicans in congress? 

What about his supporters? These people are trapped in their false realities by their tribal minds just like Troye was. Maybe they are not disgusting. Maybe they are just deceived, manipulated, used and betrayed people who for the most part are not disgusting.

Every State, Ranked by How Miserable Its Winters Are

 

In most of America, winter sucks. It is cold out. You don’t feel like doing anything, so you get fat. Pipes freeze. Lips, noses, and cheeks get chapped and raw. Black ice kills. Polar vortex enters the lexicon.

But which state is the MOST horrible in the icy depths of winter? After an intense period of research and debate among friends and colleagues -- factoring in everything from weather patterns and average temperatures to the efficacy with which state governments keep roads clear to the historical success rates of their winter-season sports teams -- we ranked each and every state from best to worst. This is one of those things where you probably actually want to finish last.

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/states-with-the-worst-winters-worst-us-states-for-winter

1. Minnesota

Presented by Minnesota's No. 1 SNOWFLAKE 

What is Democratic Socialism?

 Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US.

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Hasn’t socialism been discredited by the collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.” Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle throughout the world.

Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.

---

Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable.

Won’t socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?

We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

---

Why are there no models of democratic socialism?

Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.

But hasn’t the European Social Democratic experiment failed?

Many northern European countries enjoy tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens—high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making. But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders.

Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work towards reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.

Aren’t you a party that’s in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?

No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.

---

If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn’t I focus on something more immediate?

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism. Many democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organizations, anti-racist groups, and the labor movement.

It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As socialists we bring a sense of the interdependence of all struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly challenge the capitalist system or adequately secure its particular demands. In fact, unless we are all collectively working to win a world without oppression, each fight for reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.

What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the US’s options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations.

Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists. We have to work hard to change people’s misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and to overcome many students’ lack of interest in engaging in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of the virtue of “free” markets.

If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word?

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

Attn: Potential Kool-aid Drinkers

Link to short video here

Is this video a load of Trump’s special kind of "bullshit flavored" Kool-aid, or am I confused?

I know I’m dizzy and I haven’t even drunk any Kool-aid!

*          *          *

Trump: “I have it [a healthcare plan] already (or all ready??) and it’s a much better plan for you.”

Stephanopoulos: “It’s been 3 ½ years now.”  “You told me last June it would come in 2-wks.”  “You told Chris Wallace this summer, it would come in 3-wks.”

What’s wrong with this picture?