Political profiling…

 

I know (at least I believe) it’s morally wrong to racially/ethnically/sexually profile, and I am especially aware to try not to do that.  But is it also morally wrong to politically profile?  Because I will admit, right or wrong, I do that. :(

REPUBLICANS

I see the designation “Republican” and I immediately think things like: Money-oriented, less empathetic, more self-centered/selfish, less science-oriented, short term benefits over long term benefits.

DEMOCRATS

I see the designation “Democrat” and I immediately think things like: Civically-oriented, more empathetic, more other-centered/selfless, more science-oriented, long term benefits over short term benefits.

Granted, there are always exceptions to judgment-type (non-data driven) rules, but I am speaking/defining in generalities here.

*          *          *

So let’s start building some working lists.  Then we can challenge each other’s claims:

-Please list as many Republicans as you see fitting under my Republican definition above.

-Please list as many Democrats as you see fitting under my Democrat definition above.

-Please list as many politicians that do not fit under my profiled definitions above.  (I.e., D’s that “behave” like R’s, R’s that “behave” like D’s.)  Prove me wrong and help me find exceptions to my admittedly biased rules.

Thanks for posting and recommending.

Insider Trading Opportunities for Trump Supporters

Larry Kudlow (director of the National Economic Council) lied to the 

American people in February, falsely telling them the

 coronavirus was contained in the United States 

and that “it’s pretty close to airtight”

Back in February, when the Trump administration was lying to the American people about the pandemic being cully contained and under control, administration officials were privately telling board members of the radical conservative Hoover Institution that they were worried that the pandemic would spin out of control. This information  leaked to some Wall Street traders and they traded on the information. 

The New York Times described the response of one trader like this: “‘Short everything,’ was the reaction of the investor, using the Wall Street term for betting on the idea that the stock prices of companies would soon fall.”

The NYT writes about how traders were informed that the situation was potentially far worse than the American people were being told:

“On the afternoon of Feb. 24, President Trump declared on Twitter that the coronavirus was “very much under control” in the United States, one of numerous rosy statements that he and his advisers made at the time about the worsening epidemic. He even added an observation for investors: “Stock market starting to look very good to me!”

But hours earlier, senior members of the president’s economic team, privately addressing board members of the conservative Hoover Institution, were less confident. Tomas J. Philipson, a senior economic adviser to the president, told the group he could not yet estimate the effects of the virus on the American economy. To some in the group, the implication was that an outbreak could prove worse than Mr. Philipson and other Trump administration advisers were signaling in public at the time.

The next day, board members — many of them Republican donors — got another taste of government uncertainty from Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council. Hours after he had boasted on CNBC that the virus was contained in the United States and “it’s pretty close to airtight,” Mr. Kudlow delivered a more ambiguous private message. He asserted that the virus was “contained in the U.S., to date, but now we just don’t know,” according to a document describing the sessions obtained by The New York Times. 

The consultant’s assessment quickly spread through parts of the investment world. U.S. stocks were already spiraling because of a warning from a federal public health official that the virus was likely to spread, but traders spotted the immediate significance: The president’s aides appeared to be giving wealthy party donors an early warning of a potentially impactful contagion at a time when Mr. Trump was publicly insisting that the threat was nonexistent. (emphasis added)

Interviews with eight people who either received copies of the memo or were briefed on aspects of it as it spread among investors in New York and elsewhere provide a glimpse of how elite traders had access to information from the administration that helped them gain financial advantage during a chaotic three days when global markets were teetering.

But the memo’s overarching message — that a devastating virus outbreak in the United States was increasingly likely to occur, and that government officials were more aware of the threat than they were letting on publicly — proved accurate.”

A couple of points merit comment. First, the Trump Administration wants to protect wealthy republicans. Last February, it did that by giving those people inside information that they could trade on to protect themselves in advance of the stock market drop the pandemic caused. Second, some or most of those informed people did not hesitate to use that information to protect themselves and make money at the expense of people who did not have the same information. There was no moral qualm about illegal insider trading. In general, stock traders do not have any moral values other than profit.

Now, in October, there is almost no possibility that any person who traded on this non-public information will be prosecuted for insider trading. The Trump Administration will protect its own one way or another. Most likely, this little incident of corruption and moral sleaze will simply be dismissed as not insider trading, even though that is exactly what it was. If it was legal, that raises this question: Why limit this to elite radical conservatives? Why not tell all Americans that the government believed the pandemic could easily spin out of control and cause massive economic damage? 

When it comes to the corrupt, morally bankrupt Trump Administration, there is no reason to accord it the benefit of any doubt about sleaze like this. The track record of corruption, lies and deceit is clear and undeniable.

This is an example of how the rule of law now fails to work when applied to republican elites and probably wealthy people in general. The rest of us are still required to obey the rule of law, while the elites can do whatever they want, legal or not.

The 2020 Census: I Think We Are Bring Lied To

Yesterday, I posted a short discussion on the US Supreme Court allowing the census to end early. That is despite the slowdowns in counting that the pandemic has caused. Apparently, the president and GOP strategists have concluded that ending the census early helps them to undercount democrats and minorities.

I have become aware of increasing evidence that the Census Bureau is lying to the American people by faking the count data and undercounting housing units in areas that it claims have been 99.9% counted.

Data point 1

The first piece of evidence came from the US Census Bureau itself. The US Census Bureau is reporting that the overall census is 99.9% complete for housing units in the US. Only two states for which data is shown have lower reporting rates, 98.3% for Louisiana and 99.4% for Mississippi. Data is shown for states listed alphabetically through Pennsylvania. Thus states such as Texas and Washington state are not listed. 

What this data does not indicate is how many people are still uncounted. And, why are nearly all states at 99.9% reporting? The data seems as if it is fudged to make the census look more complete than it really is.

Something smells over-ripe fishy. I think the Census Bureau, specifically Trump, is lying to the American people. The data consistency the Census Bureau reports is simply not believable. Data like this cannot be that consistent at 99.9%. This is fake data. This feels like amateurs with no knowledge of statistics or lying about data has faked the data.

Disclaimer: I could be wrong here. My suspicion is based on my decades of research and work with complex biological systems. Complex biological systems, including census counts, are usually noisy and usually rather imprecise at the level of three significant digits (99.9). Is there a statistician in the house? 

Data point 2

The San Diego Union Tribune (SDUT) reports today that the census response rate in some San Diego neighborhoods is less than 50%. The San Diego city population is about 1.1 million and the county population is about 3.5 million. The SDUT writes: 

“Most households in nearly 20 San Diego-area neighborhoods have not responded to the 2020 census and will no longer be able to following a U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday to end the once-a-decade count.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 20 census tracts in San Diego have a response rate below 50 percent. The northwest corner of Oceanside had the lowest response rate, with just 27 percent of households responding as of Tuesday.

In an area of Mission Beach and Mission Bay Park, about 32 percent of households have responded. 

They’re followed by College West with 33 percent and Borrego Springs with 35 percent.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday halted the head count to allow the Census Bureau time to produce an accurate count. The ruling is the latest in a roller coaster of decisions on the 2020 census, which lower courts previously argued should continue through the end of October. 

Activists, who have spent the last several weeks encouraging responses from San Diego’s “hard-to-count” communities, say they feel defeated by the court’s decision.

“We are very disappointed, to say the least, with the court’s decision because there’s no reason to stop it,” said Arcela Nuñez-Alvarez, co-director of the nonprofit Universidad Popular, a nonprofit that does census outreach to rural communities. 

Many advocates had hoped to have until the end of the month to continue encouraging people to fill out the census, especially in areas with low response rates, she said.”

Data point 3

Some other information I've seen suggests that the 99.9% response rate is a deflection from the people count to the “household count”, including this map from the US Census Bureau. Note the comment: “But that may not mean the count is complete or accurate.” 

I now believe that we are being lied to.

And, there is the map shown below that the Census Bureau has put out. The map is interactive and you can click on an area to see the accumulated data. It does not always match the Oct. 13 99.9% data. For example, Montana is shown below as 99.7%, not 99.9% as shown under that graphic. Or do such data discrepancies mean nothing? If it wasn’t the Trump administration, the benefit of a doubt might be warranted. But since it is the chronic liar Trump administration, in my opinion a benefit of any shred of doubt is not warranted. The burden is on the Census Bureau to prove their honesty, not on me to prove their dishonesty.

 

What GOP Activists Really Think: It is Very Ugly

Charlie Kirk, 26 year-old GOP radical activist

On the pandemic: “Like, it’s a great thing.”

The Washington Post obtained dozens of hours of taped meetings in February and August among conservative activists. What is in their minds is terrifying and dangerous. The WaPo writes:

.... a fresh-faced Republican activist named Charlie Kirk stepped into the spotlight at a closed-door gathering of leading conservatives and shared his delight about an impact of the coronavirus pandemic: the disruption of America’s universities. So many campuses had closed, he said, that up to a half-million left-leaning students probably would not vote.

“So, please keep the campuses closed,” Kirk, 26, said in August as the audience cheered, according to video of the event obtained by The Washington Post. “Like, it’s a great thing.”

The gathering in Northern Virginia was organized by the Council for National Policy, a little-known group that has served for decades as a hub for a nationwide network of conservative activists and the donors who support them. Members include Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to President Trump who has helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors to support conservative causes and the nominations of conservative federal judges.

The videos, recorded by CNP to share with its members, show influential activists discussing election tactics, amplifying conspiracy theories and describing much of America in dark and apocalyptic terms.

“This is a spiritual battle we are in. This is good versus evil,” CNP’s executive committee president, Bill Walton, said on Aug. 21, addressing attendees at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City. “We have to do everything we can to win.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told attendees that same day that the left is “war-gaming” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20, 2021, and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become acting president. “This is kind of like crazy talk” among political people, Fitton said. But he added: “This is not an insignificant concern.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told attendees that same day that the left is “war-gaming” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20, 2021, and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become acting president. “This is kind of like crazy talk” among political people, Fitton said. But he added: “This is not an insignificant concern.”

Expressing concern about voter fraud and disenfranchisement, Fitton called on the audience to find a way to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters. “We need to stop those ballots from going out, and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do,” said Fitton, whose organization is a tax-exempt charity. “But this is a crisis that we’re not prepared for. I mean, our side is not prepared for.”

In an interview with The Post, Fitton elaborated on his remarks. “The left has war-gamed this out,” Fitton said. “And it could cause civil war.”

Brent Bozell, a CNP executive committee member and founder of the Media Research Center, another tax-exempt charity, told attendees at one of the August sessions that he believes the left plans to “steal this election. .... And if they get away with that, what happens?” he said. “Democracy is finished because they usher in totalitarianism.”

At the February meetings, attendees discussed plans for seeking an advantage in the upcoming vote. Two said the right will begin “ballot harvesting,” a controversial technique that involves the collection and delivery of sealed absentee ballots from churches and other institutions.

At the time of the meeting, Trump, his campaign officials and other Republicans were blasting the practice as an abuse by Democrats. “GET RID OF BALLOT HARVESTING, IT IS RAMPANT WITH FRAUD,” Trump tweeted this spring.

But Ralph Reed, chairman of the nonprofit Faith & Freedom Coalition, told the CNP audience that conservatives are embracing the technique this year.

“And so our organization is going to be harvesting ballots in churches,” he said. “We’re going to be specifically going in not only to White evangelical churches, but into Hispanic and Asian churches, and collecting those ballots.”

J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department official and the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a charity, described mail-in voting as “the number one left-wing agenda.” Adams urged the activists not to worry about the criticism that might come their way. “Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor, you’re a racist and so forth,” Adams said. In response to questions, Adams wrote in an email: “I stand by what I said because it is accurate.”  

Two tax law specialists who viewed hours of video at The Post’s request said some of the remarks and planning on the videos could be improper for the groups that are registered with the IRS as charities.

“What was jarring was that it was pretty clear to any reasonable observer that the entire purpose of the panel was to help the Republican Party win in November, up and down the ticket,” said Roger Colinvaux, director of law and public policy at Catholic University’s law school, referring to a panel about health care.  

Marcus Owens, a lawyer who led the Exempt Organizations Division at the IRS from 1990 to 2000, told The Post that participants’ comments on the videos raise potential issues of compliance with election laws and charity rules. “I’ve never seen anything like it on videotape and live,” Owens said, referring to the overt partisan coordination among the nonprofit leaders. “It’s almost like a movie.”

This is absolutely amazing and terrifying at the same time. The right sees impending totalitarianism if democrats win elections. But at the same time, they are 100% blind to the real threat of a demagogic dictatorship that the president is seriously trying to build in America right now. Incredibly, the radical right does not consider massive voter suppression to be authoritarian. The hypocrisy and lies are staggering.

The extent to which the GOP and apparently most conservative elites have swallowed the decades of radical right propaganda and lies is clear and undeniable. These people really are living a dangerous and aggressive Christian authoritarian fantasy. This is more evidence that any means, legal or not, justify sacred white Christian ends for what probably most GOP elites are willing to lie, slander and break laws to achieve.

Clashing Political Realities in the US Senate

In the Senate hearing of Amy Coney Barrett yesterday two of the Senators used some of their time to paint two radically different political realities. Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) described what one can call hell, while republican Ted Cruz (Texas) also painted a vision of hell. The two visions were shocking and utterly partisan but probably mostly factually true. If one ignores the partisanship, the two hells merge into one to some extent.

The two sides made each other look bad at best and at worst, something akin to horrendous or deeply immoral and deceptive. How politics is working today seems to describe what people call making sausage. Who knows what all is going into the grinder, but we do know that one thing that is going in is hundreds of millions of dark money dollars from people who want to radically remake American law and society. The two visions of political hell are described below. Are they fundamentally the same or different? Is the logic of one vision more flawed than the other, or are they both about the same in their validity and soundness? Is the legality of all of this something to be concerned about? Do both sides equally respect facts, true truths and sound reasoning?

Whitehouse

Cruz describes hell at ~7:00 to 13:20

At ~21:00 to 23:53, Whitehouse discusses 80 5-4 decisions that have come out of the Roberts court. All of them were straight party line votes in favor of the republican position. In all 80 cases, the republican donor interest won at the Supreme Court. Does that cast the comments that Cruz made in his attack on the staggering amount of dark money going to democrats in a different light, or does that make no significant difference? It also raises the question of why so much corporate dark money is flowing to democrats in this election. What is going on here?

Herd immunity would save more lives than strict COVID-19 lockdown, study says

Sweeping lockdowns across the U.K. may could lead to more COVID-19 deaths and a prolonging of the pandemic than if the government were to let herd immunity build up in young populations, a new study suggests.

Researchers published a reanalysis of data modelling the British government used as guidance for instituting blanket lockdowns and social distancing measures in March, at the beginning of the pandemic.

The findings, published in the British Medical Journal last Wednesday, suggest that while strict public health measures bring cases down, in the long run, the number of deaths rise.

‘Short-term gain, long-term pain’

In one simulation, the researchers ran a model that showed lockdowns, social distancing of those over age 70, and quarantining the sick all significantly stunted the spread of the virus in a first wave. However, when those measures are scaled back, infection rates bound upwards, especially in young people, and push the model into a deadlier second wave.

In that deadlier second wave, young people, who are less susceptible to dying from COVID-19, had helped spread the virus to older populations, who subsequently saw higher rates of death.

The authors described the model as a postponement of the pandemic.

In a different model, where lockdowns are removed and younger people are allowed to go to school and work, while those above age 70 are made to social distance and stay put, the models show significantly less deaths.

“Lockdown does mean that the number of deaths goes down, so there is a short-term gain, but it leads to long-term pain,” the lead author Graem Ackland, a computer simulation professor at the University of Edinburgh told The Telegraph .

“If you had done nothing, it would all be over by now. It would have been absolutely horrendous but it would be over. It wouldn’t even have been completely lunatic to do nothing.”

In the study, the authors suggest that rather than sweeping lockdowns and generalized social distancing, young people should be allowed to go to school while older groups are made to quarantine. This would allow young people to build up a herd immunity while also protecting the most vulnerable populations.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/herd-immunity-would-save-more-lives-than-strict-covid-19-lockdown-study-says/ar-BB19YAVG?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout