Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

...I still think Trump is a text-book psychopath.
Those sources include the excellent New Yorker article / interview with Tony Schwartz who was the ghostwriter for Trump's "The Art of the Deal" and spent 18 months with trump starting in 1985 . Schwartz opined that the prospect of a President Trump terrified him. He said that it wasn't because of Trump's ideology , he doubted that Trump even had one, the problem was Trump's personality which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.
Schwartz said that if he were to write "The Art of the Deal" today it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath" .

Jonathan Freedland has written a perceptive piece in The Guardian which starts-

The thing you need to know about Donald Trump is that he never loses. Never. Whether it’s in business or politics, Trump either wins outright or he was going to win until victory was stolen from him, usually through a crooked conspiracy of his enemies.
That’s why his assorted bankruptcies and collapses were never his fault, why even his multimillion-dollar failures were actually successes. It’s why, when his TV show, The Apprentice, failed to win an Emmy, it was proof not that the programme was lacking but that the Emmys themselves were unfair, “all politics” and “horrendous”.

More here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lection-claims

[Stavros]

The world's largest taxi service, Uber, doesn't own a taxi. The world's largest retailer, Amazon, doesn't own a shop. Rolls-Royce has opened a new factory in Britain covering 150,000 square feet to produce engine parts for airliners and other things, but employs just 150 people. But as John Harris in the interesting article (linked below) today points out, in the UK two of the flagship policies of the Conservative and Labour Parties -resurrecting Grammar Schools and the re-nationalisation of the railways- are policies from the mid-20th century, as if neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn can see what is happening in today's world that is shaping the world we will live in tomorrow. He the cites comments -quoted below- made by Barack Obama after a visit to MIT which I do think capture the challenge for Presidents, Prime Ministers and Policy-Makers, not least of all, citizens. But will this be part of the debate in politics any time soon?

“As AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated – the computers are doing a lot of the work,” says Obama. “As a consequence, we have to make some tougher decisions.” One is whether it is time to consider a universal basic income, “a debate that we’ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years”. Within all this are the implicit stirrings of some very interesting stuff indeed, focused on “what we are collectively willing to pay for”. Increasingly, the state will presumably have to assume a much greater role in redistributing money from the digital economy’s winners to its losers. That, Obama seems to suggest, might open space for a long-overdue look at how we reward people whose contribution cannot be reduced to an instant financial return, and who we are going to need more and more of – “whether it’s teachers, nurses, caregivers, [or] moms or dads who stay at home”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nology-britain

[Stavros]

I am puzzled why people who have a publicly accountable position -elected officials, directors of offices at any level from county to State to the Fed in the USA, for example, are either not told that their comments on social media should reflect their public position, or they are and ignore the advice, or they don't care. Although I suppose they could just be dim but that begs the question of their credentials and how they were appointed, (the flaw in English grammar could be a typo-?).

I offer this thought because yet again someone in a public position, albeit an obscure one when viewed from the UK, has posted a shocking comment which has been deleted following an apology, but is the person responsible sorry about the comment, or sorry they caused offence, or sorry it became a news event? And how can anyone make such a comment and not think people would not be offended by it?

Because language does matter, and in public life it establishes a tone and the parameters of what is decent and what is not. With our Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson using the word 'bollocks' in an interview in the Czech Republic I wonder if we are not in danger of replacing reasoned debate with emotional tantrums.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a7418181.html

[martin48]

Interesting points. The future of industry is not so much driven my fundamental advances in AI but the lowering of the cost base. Computing power is so cheap - think what you paid for your first PC (corrected for inflation) and what you get now. Cheap labour helps as well. The rise of populist and right-wing ideas always hark back to better days so politicians encourage these views. Will they actively debate new ideas? I doubt it. Where is the power - for votes, it is in the older generation. For driving the economy, it is global businesses.

The world's largest taxi service, Uber, doesn't own a taxi. The world's largest retailer, Amazon, doesn't own a shop. Rolls-Royce has opened a new factory in Britain covering 150,000 square feet to produce engine parts for airliners and other things, but employs just 150 people. But as John Harris in the interesting article (linked below) today points out, in the UK two of the flagship policies of the Conservative and Labour Parties -resurrecting Grammar Schools and the re-nationalisation of the railways- are policies from the mid-20th century, as if neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn can see what is happening in today's world that is shaping the world we will live in tomorrow. He the cites comments -quoted below- made by Barack Obama after a visit to MIT which I do think capture the challenge for Presidents, Prime Ministers and Policy-Makers, not least of all, citizens. But will this be part of the debate in politics any time soon?

“As AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated – the computers are doing a lot of the work,” says Obama. “As a consequence, we have to make some tougher decisions.” One is whether it is time to consider a universal basic income, “a debate that we’ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years”. Within all this are the implicit stirrings of some very interesting stuff indeed, focused on “what we are collectively willing to pay for”. Increasingly, the state will presumably have to assume a much greater role in redistributing money from the digital economy’s winners to its losers. That, Obama seems to suggest, might open space for a long-overdue look at how we reward people whose contribution cannot be reduced to an instant financial return, and who we are going to need more and more of – “whether it’s teachers, nurses, caregivers, [or] moms or dads who stay at home”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nology-britain

[martin48]

Rational argument are so 20th century. Michael Gove today asked for experts to tell him why we can't have a quick Brexit. Well, all us experts have pissed off 'cos nobody wants us anymore.

I am puzzled why people who have a publicly accountable position -elected officials, directors of offices at any level from county to State to the Fed in the USA, for example, are either not told that their comments on social media should reflect their public position, or they are and ignore the advice, or they don't care. Although I suppose they could just be dim but that begs the question of their credentials and how they were appointed, (the flaw in English grammar could be a typo-?).

I offer this thought because yet again someone in a public position, albeit an obscure one when viewed from the UK, has posted a shocking comment which has been deleted following an apology, but is the person responsible sorry about the comment, or sorry they caused offence, or sorry it became a news event? And how can anyone make such a comment and not think people would not be offended by it?

Because language does matter, and in public life it establishes a tone and the parameters of what is decent and what is not. With our Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson using the word 'bollocks' in an interview in the Czech Republic I wonder if we are not in danger of replacing reasoned debate with emotional tantrums.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a7418181.html

[Stavros]

Rational argument are so 20th century.

I think it might have something to do with the unedited content of social media, where before our public conversations were mediated by press and broadcasting over which we had no control indeed, no input other than writing a letter to the paper or maybe phoning in to a radio programme. Newspapers do mediate readers comments, but there is a furious debate now raging about whether Facebook should be 'taking action' against 'fake news' stories which, it is claimed are being generated by a small group in Macedonia who use them to generate advertising revenue -click on an outrageous story and you get the story plus some ad for face cream or whatever. Facebook doesn't want to censor its own members, and they have a point. It is surely the members of Facebook who should watch what they say, unless it is their objective to arouse passions for political purposes.

However, the social media outlet someone uses may be in his or her bedroom or lounge, and where they once used to shout abuse at the tv now they post it online for all to see. That is infantile and can be ignored; but when a public official who has both a legal and a moral responsibility to the people they represent or work for, uses social media with language that has been chosen for a purpose, it is naive to then think the apology for the content is sincere. I think people who uses derogatory terms about others because of their religion, the colour of their skin or their sexuality know at the time what it is they are saying, they only apologise because they have to. I understand the Mayor in the town in the post above has now resigned, but one wonders why she sought election if she was not prepared to accept the responsibility that goes with the office, something at a higher level President-elect Trump should be aware of.

[Stavros]

Interesting points. The future of industry is not so much driven my fundamental advances in AI but the lowering of the cost base. Computing power is so cheap - think what you paid for your first PC (corrected for inflation) and what you get now. Cheap labour helps as well. The rise of populist and right-wing ideas always hark back to better days so politicians encourage these views. Will they actively debate new ideas? I doubt it. Where is the power - for votes, it is in the older generation. For driving the economy, it is global businesses.

To which I would ask the question, do trade deals destroy jobs? Coal has been in decline since the 1960s because oil and gas are cleaner, cheaper and more versatile sources of energy, it is hard to believe the US still bothers to mine it; the right of capital to go abroad to finance production of goods once based in Pennsylvania was not the consequence of a trade deal but the deregulation of financial markets in the 1980s and the opening of previously closed markets to competition, China and Latin America being two clear examples; and most deals are only signed if they benefit its signatories. The biggest 'trade deal' the UK ever signed, joining the European Economic Community in 1973 generated more wealth and job and economic growth in the succeeding years than we would have had without it; what we lost in steel was not caused by a trade deal but the cheaper production and cost of steel elsewhere, also true of the once mighty shipbuilding industry that dominated Newcastle and Glasgow. That doesn't make trade deals inherently good, but it does place the weight of responsibility on the negotiating teams to produce a fair trade deal, and that may where the problems reside.

[Stavros]

Today in the UK a man called Thomas Mair was found guilty of murdering the MP Jo Cox. At the time he shot and stabbed her to death he was heard shouting 'This is for Britain' and when asked to identify himself on arrest at the local police station replied 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'. The evidence presented in court shows that Mair purchased literature from the now-defunct Nazi organisation in the US called the 'National Alliance' and that he chose Jo Cox as his victim precisely because he identified 'liberals, the left and the media' as 'collaborators' in the dilution of the power of the 'White Race' through immigration and other actions such as 'political correctness'.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-jo-cox-murder

And this week video emerged of a conference of another white supremacist organisation in the US called the 'National Policy Institute' whose leader, Richard Spencer applauded the election of Donald Trump and led his supporters in chants of 'Sieg Heil' accompanied by Nazi salutes, having given a speech containing this:
"To be white is to be a creator, an explorer, a conqueror," Spencer said of white people, whom he also described as "a race that travels forever on an upward path." Of America, Spencer said, "It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us."
http://uk.complex.com/life/2016/11/w...p-heil-victory

The problem is that it was Richard Spencer who coined the term 'alt-right', so does this mean that anyone else who either uses or identified with 'alt-right' is by definition a supporter of and believer in White Supremacist ideology and its groups? As we have seen in Europe, the connections that people make, even if they are 'lone wolves' like Thomas Mair and Anders Breivik gives them a sense of solidarity with an international movement dedicated to 'preserving' the 'White Race', even if this means murdering the 'collaborators'.

Words matter, and my view is that 'alt-right' must be seen for what it represents and where it comes from, just as France pour les Francais or La France d'Abord (France First) casually or meaningfully tossed around these days by the Front National and others, are slogans that have no innocence having been coined by the explicitly anti-Jewish newspapers and political groups of the 1880s in France. Richard Spencer, proud to be a Nazi, does not hide behind 'alt-right', he freely express his opinions because he believes he is right, regardless of what history tells us or what most Americans, indeed, most people believe. I see no reason why any decent person should give this term 'alt-right' or its meaning the respectability its adherents crave, by admitting it into everyday speech as if it were merely an ID like 'Goth' or 'Hippy' or 'alt.trans' for that matter.

[Stavros]

For those of you interested in the origins and development of the concept of Political Correctness, this long read in today's Guardian is a useful place to start.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-donald-trump

[Stavros]

How does a state respond to an act of war? It used to be the case that State A would use its military against State B (and allies) in disputes over territory, to deter acts of territorial acquisition or ambitions to take over the world, or a part of it. This meant using troops on the ground, sea power, air power, sabotage, intelligence and diplomacy.
Now we have something called 'Hybrid Warfare' which means, for example (it is not a clearly defined concept), planting fake stories in the media of one's opponent so that people doubt the honesty of their politicians; it means using cybercrime to penetrate secret communications which are then published to weaken or smear a political opponent; or it could be the deliberate use of people in human trafficking on a large scale that undermines the government of a state having to accept a large number of refugee/migrants in a short space of time.

Thus it is argued that the Russians successfully organised the hacking of the Democratic Party's email server to smear Mrs Clinton's campaign through an arrangement with the (pro-Russian) Wikileaks organisation, just as fake stories about her being part of a paedophile ring were intended to sow doubt in the public mind over her (ad her husband's) commitment to the safety of children, and that is it is curious how in one year nearly a million refugees and migrants most of them originating in Turkey and ending up in Europe, became close to zero a year later after the EU agreed a billion dollar package with the Turkish government.

Thing is, what does retaliation mean in this context? Does this mean in effect that cybercrime will become an act of war? Can the law be used to prevent news feeds and websites from publishing fake stories which cast doubt on Obama's birth certificate or Donald Trump's tax affairs? I don't know is the answer right now, but I do think we already have enough information with which to judge where Barack Obama was born, to judge the President of Russia by the actions he has already approved that Russia has taken, and if we are opposed to war, should we not also be opposed to hybrid warfare? Or am I exaggerating this aspect of conflict in our times?