Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Seeking and finding…

 


Apologies if I embarrass him, but today I am reminded of some words of inspiration from a blog friend, back on November, 28th of last year.  I saved a copy of it to my desktop because, every now and then, I can use some inspiration, words of wisdom, like this.  Thanks again, Peter. 🙂


 

Thanks for appreciating it and passing it along.

Alabama GOP to give Trump framed resolution calling him one of the ‘greatest’ presidents in history

 The Alabama Republican Party on Saturday will present former President Donald Trump with a framed copy of a resolution, passed unanimously by the party, that declares him "one of the greatest and most effective" presidents in U.S. history.

"The resolution, basically, it just talks about the greatness of Donald J. Trump, how he made America great again and I hope other states will follow suit," Perry Hooper Jr., a former state representative and a member of the state party’s executive committee, told Fox News in an interview.

Hooper will present a framed copy of the resolution to Trump at a reception at Mar-a-Lago, Florida on Saturday evening.


The resolution, which passed unanimously in the party, calls Trump "one of the greatest and most effective presidents in the 245-year history of this Republic" and lists his achievements in office.

"It’s just recognizing him for all the great things he has done for America for bringing back American manufacturing, cutting taxes, creating best economy ever, building up our military," Hooper said.

Hooper said he was speaking not only for the party, but for many Americans who voted for the 45th president in 2020.

"We love him in Alabama, America loves him and he got 75 million votes for a reason and I'm speaking basically for 75 million people in America," he said.

https://www.scribd.com/document/498609678/Alabama-GOP-Resolution#from_embed

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alabama-gop-trump-resolution-greatest-presidents-in-history



Saturday, March 13, 2021

Global Warming Update: The Cold Blob Commeth

Note: City locations are incorrect in all the images


The New York Times reports on the weakening of the Gulf Stream Ocean current and what effects on climate that is likely to cause. Warm water off the West African coast crosses to Brazil and then moves north through the Gulf of Mexico and then up the east coast of the US and on up to Canada. The amount of water involved is huge. The current flow from Canada to Europe is slowing due to the ice melt in Greenland. That ice melt is producing a vast cold blob in the North Atlantic that is slowing the flow to Europe. Concerns by climate experts about the slowing of the Gulf Stream have been voiced for at least the last 15 years. A 2005 research paper provides some context for the concern:
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation carries warm upper waters into far-northern latitudes and returns cold deep waters southward across the Equator. Its heat transport makes a substantial contribution to the moderate climate of maritime and continental Europe, and any slowdown in the overturning circulation would have profound implications for climate change. A transatlantic section along latitude 25° N has been used as a baseline for estimating the overturning circulation and associated heat transport. Here we analyze a new 25° N transatlantic section and compare it with four previous sections taken over the past five decades. The comparison suggests that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has slowed by about 30 per cent between 1957 and 2004. (emphasis added)





IT’S ONE OF THE MIGHTIEST RIVERS you will never see, carrying some 30 times more water than all the world’s freshwater rivers combined. In the North Atlantic, one arm of the Gulf Stream breaks toward Iceland, transporting vast amounts of warmth far northward, by one estimate supplying Scandinavia with heat equivalent to 78,000 times its current energy use. Without this current — a heat pump on a planetary scale — scientists believe that great swaths of the world might look quite different.

Now, a spate of studies, including one published last week[1], suggests this northern portion of the Gulf Stream and the deep ocean currents it’s connected to may be slowing. Pushing the bounds of oceanography, scientists have slung necklace-like sensor arrays across the Atlantic to better understand the complex network of currents that the Gulf Stream belongs to, not only at the surface, but hundreds of feet deep.

“We’re all wishing it’s not true,” Peter de Menocal, a paleoceanographer and president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said of the changing ocean currents. “Because if that happens, it’s just a monstrous change.”

The consequences could include faster sea level rise along parts of the Eastern United States and parts of Europe, stronger hurricanes barreling into the Southeastern United States, and perhaps most ominously, reduced rainfall across the Sahel, a semi-arid swath of land running the width of Africa that is already a geopolitical tinderbox.

The scientists’ concern stems from their understanding of thousands of years of the prehistoric climate record. In the past, a great weakening or even shutdown of this arm of the Gulf Stream seems to have triggered rapid changes in temperatures and precipitation patterns around the North Atlantic and beyond.

The northern arm of the Gulf Stream is but one tentacle of a larger, ocean-spanning tangle of currents called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC. Scientists have strong evidence from ice and sediment cores that the AMOC has weakened and shut down before in the past 13,000 years. As a result, mean temperatures in parts of Europe may have rapidly dropped to about 15 degrees Celsius below today’s averages, ushering in arctic like conditions. Parts of northern Africa and northern South America became much drier. Rainfall may even have declined as far away as what is now China. And some of these changes may have occurred in a matter of decades, maybe less.

The AMOC is thus a poster child for the idea of climatic “tipping points” — of hard-to-predict thresholds in Earth’s climate system that, once crossed, have rapid, cascading effects far beyond the corner of the globe where they occur. “It’s a switch,” said Dr. de Menocal, and one that can be thrown quickly.

 



Some people still deny climate change is associated with polluting human activity. That is a shocking false belief that ranks up there with the false belief some people still have that the ex-president won the 2020 election. The seeds of human self-delusion and self-annihilation are firmly rooted in the evolution of the human mind. 


Footnote: 
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)—one of Earth’s major ocean circulation systems—redistributes heat on our planet and has a major impact on climate. Here, we compare a variety of published proxy records to reconstruct the evolution of the AMOC since about AD 400. A fairly consistent picture of the AMOC emerges: after a long and relatively stable period, there was an initial weakening starting in the nineteenth century, followed by a second, more rapid, decline in the mid-twentieth century, leading to the weakest state of the AMOC occurring in recent decades.

In this article, using several different and largely independent proxy indicators of the AMOC evolution over the past 100 to nearly 2,000 years, we provide strong evidence that the AMOC decline in the twentieth century is unprecedented and that over the past decades, the AMOC is in its weakest state in over a millennium.

Friday, March 12, 2021

Does the Biological Source of Lying Affect Its Morality?

Oxytocin


Oxytocin is a natural hormone that promotes bonding, e.g., mother-baby bonding, and pro-social behavior by humans. A series of research papers have also described the hormone as a biological source that correlates with lying. The hormone correlates with lying to both help group members and self-serving lying. 

A 2014 paper that found oxytocin-associated lying for group benefit raised the question of the morality of lies arising from a biological source. In an interview, the authors commented: "Our results suggest people are willing to bend ethical rules to help the people close to us, like our team or family. This raises an interesting, although perhaps more philosophical, question: Are all lies immoral? Together, these findings fit a functional perspective on morality revealing dishonesty to be plastic and rooted in evolved neurobiological circuitries, and align with work showing that oxytocin shifts the decision-maker's focus from self to group interests. The results highlight the role of bonding and cooperation in shaping dishonesty, providing insight into when and why collaboration turns into corruption." 

A 2020 research paper indicated that oxytocin also correlates with self-serving lying, thus apparently disconnecting the bonding-social component of oxytocin from a tendency to lie for the group. That research found that administering oxytocin to subjects correlates with increased self-serving lying when repeated opportunities to lie are presented. That paper also generated preliminary results suggesting that the effects of oxytocin administration could be influenced by oxytocin receptor gene differences. That affords a possible basis to argue that lying is influenced to some detectable extent by one or more genes.

Other research indicates that the hormone testosterone appears to exert opposite effects compared to oxytocin. For example, testosterone administration correlated with reduced self-serving lying in males in the absence of a social justification (social group). Administration of testosterone has also been found to have opposing effects on social cognitive functions compared to oxytocin.

Testosterone


This kind of research into the biological basis of arguably immoral behavior will continue to increase in sophistication. Confounding factors such as social vs individual contexts and numbers of opportunities to lie will be identified. It is thus possible that in the next 15-20 years or so, important biological and cognitive sources of immoral behavior will be identified and characterized to some socially useful extent. 

But what then? It is unlikely that society will treat immoral behavior much differently, unless society itself changes. If cause and effect relationships can convincingly be shown, does knowledge of what causes immoral behavior justify it? At present, most experts seem to believe that human have little or no conscious free will. Whatever free will we have arises unconsciously. If so, then people arguably cannot help but do immoral things.


Thursday, March 11, 2021

Regarding Police Unions, Politicians and the Public Interest

A 1975 pamphlet circulated by the New York City police union --
similar leaflets were later created in Newark and Boston


A New York Times article, Police Unions Won Power Using His Playbook. Now He’s Negotiating the Backlash, gives a bit of insight into police unions. This one will curdle your milk if it isn't already cottage cheese. The NYT writes:
Ron DeLord, a fiery former Texas cop turned labor organizer, has long taught union leaders how to gain power and not let go. He has likened a police union going after an elected official to a cheetah devouring a wildebeest, and suggested that taking down just one would make others fall in line.

He helped write the playbook that police unions nationwide — seeking better pay, perks and protections from discipline — have followed for decades. Build a war chest. Support your friends. Smear your enemies. Even scare citizens with the threat of crime. One radio spot in El Paso warned residents to support their local police or face “the alternative,” as the sound of gunshots rang out.

“We took weak, underpaid organizations and built them into what everyone today says are powerful police unions,” Mr. DeLord said in a recent interview. “You may say we went too far. I say you don’t know how far you’ve gone until you’re at the edge of the envelope.”

That moment may be now.

A slide from a presentation Mr. DeLord gave to union officials --
the Cheetah (a police labor union) is chewing on a wildebeest 
(politician) it chased down and killed while other chickenshit
wildebeests in the herd look on in horror at the prospect of the next election
THIS IS WHY A LOT OF AMERICANS OPPOSE 
OR HATE PUBLIC SECTOR LABOR UNIONS 
AND POLITICIANS GENERALLY
WHERE IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ANY OF THIS??
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS MOSTLY DEFENSELESS

Unions — many of which have dug in despite the protests and challenged officers’ firings in high-profile incidents — are also increasingly seen as out of step with the public. Officers in big cities can earn more than $100,000 a year, far more than citizens they are assigned to protect. That success has stoked a backlash. Many cities say they are unable, or unwilling, to pay for ever mounting police costs.


The president of the Dallas police union sent a campaign 
mailer targeting a local councilman
Union and city leaders are especially watching negotiations in San Antonio. Years ago, officers there locked in some of the most highly coveted perks and protections of any department in the country: rules that helped shield officers from discipline; fat pensions, Cadillac health insurance plans, even taxpayer-funded payments for divorce lawyers. Their success became a case study for unions nationwide.

During the last negotiations, city officials claimed the contract would bankrupt San Antonio. Now, city officials are focused on undoing some disciplinary protections. Adding pressure, a May ballot measure in the Texas city could eliminate the union’s ability to bargain — a devastating blow.


Toby Futrell’s copy of the police unionizing guide Mr. DeLord wrote 
with a fellow organizer and a political consultant
Elsewhere, police and city officials studied the book. “After I read it, I understood we were in over our heads,” said Toby Futrell, a former Austin city manager. “Even though we knew what the playbook was, we had never played — it’s one thing to read the football rules and it’s another to play football.”
An unexpected voice urging police unions nationwide to compromise is that of Mr. DeLord, who is the chief negotiator for the San Antonio union. “The unions need to bend,” he said. “They need to be prepared to bargain over things that their community thinks are fair.” Unions that don’t understand are “tone deaf,” he added.

The 1997 book Mr. DeLord wrote with a fellow organizer, John Burpo, and a political consultant, Michael Shannon, “Police Association Power, Politics, and Confrontation: A Guide for the Successful Police Labor Leader,” is pugnacious. The book repeatedly urges union leaders to ignore the “losers,” “whiners” and “naysayers” in their way. “A police association leader must throw out all those traditional notions of right and wrong,” it exhorts. “So long as it’s legal, you do what you gotta do to get where you’re going!” It also quotes one San Antonio union official saying, “If all else fails, we’ll drop the bomb and live in the ashes.” (emphasis added)
Does any of that sound familiar? Rhetoric arguing that despite losers and whiners, a leader must throw out all traditional notions of right and wrong smells an awful lot like the modern FGOP (fascist GOP). So is that argument persuasive that so long as self-interest is legal, you do what you gotta do to get where you’re going, even if the public interest and racial minorities are shafted? Also reminiscent of the modern FGOP is the admonition, if all else fails, we’ll drop the bomb and live in the ashes.

Once again, the American people and the public interest have been royally screwed to the tune of hundreds of billions (probably trillions). Once again, we face betrayal of democracy and the accountability of police power. This time, the political betrayal looks to be mostly bipartisan.

Questions: What comparable power is always present and as effective in defense of the public interest? The FGOP? The democratic party? No one and nothing? Who the hell is defending the public interest? Or is it the case that unless what Dark Lord DeLord and his ilk got for the patriotic thin blue line was necessary to get this level of police protection, racist or not, cost-effective or not?

Random thoughts: 
1. Some data (disputed) indicates that former military are better cops because they have been trained in Iraq and Afghanistan where telling civilians from enemies is very hard and requires restraint before blowing people away with their guns. It is time to reassess all police training?

2. The FGOP is arguing strenuously that democrats do not adequately support the police. Is that a reasonable argument everywhere, some places or nowhere?

3. Since T**** and the FGOP lost power after the 2020 election, it seems that America's social and political situation has deteriorated, not improved. Bitter disputes over policing is a core source of social and political discord. Is that wrong?

4. Some data indicates that Eugene Oregon's CAHOOTS program[1] is highly cost effective and results in less violence and deaths. Is it time to intensify research into alternatives to police in appropriate situations, regardless of how much police unions hate diversion of money from them to possibly more cost-effective and less deadly options?

5. Is it unreasonable to be angry at police unions, or is the situation just a matter of competition in free markets where politicians are incentivized to not lose re-election, even if it means screwing the public interest to serve their own interest? Or, is that too cynical a view of reality?


Footnote: 
1. One source comments:
"CAHOOTS calls come to Eugene’s 911 system or the police non-emergency number. Dispatchers are trained to recognize non-violent situations with a behavioral health component and route those calls to CAHOOTS. A team will respond, assess the situation and provide immediate stabilization in case of urgent medical need or psychological crisis, assessment, information, referral, advocacy, and, when warranted, transportation to the next step in treatment.

White Bird’s CAHOOTS provides consulting and strategic guidance to communities across the nation that are seeking to replicate CAHOOTS’ model. Contact us if you are interested in our consultation services program."

Free Elections Are Falling to the Rise of Voter Suppression



An analysis of about 250 state laws proposed by republican lawmakers indicates that a massive push to suppress voting nationwide is well underway. These laws are going to pass in states controlled by the fascist GOP (FGOP). They will not pass in states that democratic lawmakers control. The analysis indicates that 116 million people, about 73 percent of the electorate, cast their ballots before Election Day on Nov. 3, 2020. The most common measures impose limits on early and/or absentee voting. Such proposals are pending in 33 states. The Washington Post writes:
The GOP’s national push to enact hundreds of new election restrictions could strain every available method of voting for tens of millions of Americans, potentially amounting to the most sweeping contraction of ballot access in the United States since the end of Reconstruction, when Southern states curtailed the voting rights of formerly enslaved Black men, a Washington Post analysis has found.

In 43 states across the country, Republican lawmakers have proposed at least 250 laws that would limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting with such constraints as stricter ID requirements, limited hours or narrower eligibility to vote absentee, according to data compiled as of Feb. 19 by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. Even more proposals have been introduced since then.

Proponents say the provisions are necessary to shore up public confidence in the integrity of elections after the 2020 presidential contest, when then-President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of election fraud convinced millions of his supporters that the results were rigged against him.

But in most cases, Republicans are proposing solutions in states where elections ran smoothly, including in many with results that Trump and his allies did not contest or allege to be tainted by fraud. The measures are likely to disproportionately affect those in cities and Black voters in particular, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic — laying bare, critics say, the GOP’s true intent: gaining electoral advantage [that is, FGOP advantage gained by voter suppression].

In many states, Democrats are trying to make those expansions permanent — and broaden voting access in other ways. Congressional Democrats are also pushing a sweeping proposal to impose national standards that would override much of what Republican state lawmakers are trying to constrict, including measures that would provide universal eligibility to vote by mail, at least 15 days of early voting, mandatory online voter registration and the restoration of voting rights for released felons. The measure has passed the House but faces steep opposition in the evenly divided Senate.

Republican state legislators, meanwhile, echoing Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him, are pushing hard in the other direction.

The outcome of dueling efforts will vary depending on partisan control of statehouses. The same party controls both legislative chambers and the governorship in 38 states — 23 of them Republican and 15 of them Democratic. Many of the most restrictive proposals have surfaced in states where the GOP has a total hold on power, including Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri and Florida. (emphasis and commentary added)

WaPo goes on to comment that scholars and historians believe that the proposed restrictions would lead to a dramatic limit on ballot access, comparable to the late-19th century, when Southern states subverted the 15th Amendment’s prohibition on denying voting based on race. Those states enacted poll taxes, literacy tests and other restrictions. Almost all Black men were disenfranchised. The FGOP is doing the same all over again, but now wants to exclude a much broader swath of voters, i.e., democrats, racial minorities and hated out-groups, especially the LGBQT community.

From here on out, at least for the foreseeable future, the FGOP will contest presidential elections that a democrat wins. That assumes that a democratic candidate can win the White House if the proposed FGOP laws pass -- Biden won by a mere 43,000 votes spread among three states. These voter suppression laws could suppress tens of thousands in each affected state. That party and its still-toxic ex-president have, for many Americans, successfully undermined public trust in elections on the basis of no valid evidence. The magnitude and importance of that accomplishment of dark free speech cannot be overstated. That lie has opened a gaping wound in American democracy, politics and society. The FGOP can and will throw salt on that open wound at will as it deems fit.