I’m not sure this has happened before, and most people are unaware, so I thought a quick note was in order.
If you were previously following the President of the United States on Twitter, when it was Barack Obama, you followed @POTUS.
Twitter has created an account called @POTUS44, which is for President Obama. You are now automatically following that handle.
Twitter redesignated @POTUS to apply to President Trump, and left all of the President Obama followers on that account as well. So, you are now following President Trump at @POTUS.
The same applies, in parallel, to the First Lady and the Vice President.
Meanwhile, these folks have their own civilian twitter handles. President Obama is simply using his old handle (and, by the way, he follows me, just sayin’).
So, you may or may not want to update your Twitter accounts accordingly.
This is not a time to be distracted, to turn away from politics, to eschew activism. In fact, if you are an American Citizen, you have to look back at your life and recognize that you screwed up, in two ways. First, whatever time you spent agitating and activating and acting out, turns out, was not enough. You needed to spend something like 10% more time on that. Second, whatever decisions you made as to exactly what sort of activism you would do on a given day were likely flawed. Instead of yammering about Bernie after the primary you should have been going after Trump. At the beginning of the primary process, you should have gone with the insurgent, Bernie, instead of the tried and true, Hillary. Whatever. I’m not here to tell you what you did wrong exactly, because I’ll be damned if I know. But I know, and you know, that you did something wrong.
How do I know that? Because of this:
Donald Trump Inauguration
Schedule of Inaugural Events (Eastern Time)
January 20th, 2017
8:30 a.m. ET: Trumps attend service at St. John’s Church
9:40 a.m. ET: President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama welcome Trumps to White House
9:45 a.m. ET: Obamas host a coffee and tea reception for the Trumps.
10:30 a.m. ET: Trumps, Obamas leave White House for U.S. Capitol
11:30 a.m. ET: Swearing-in ceremony
12:30 p.m. ET: The Obamas depart by helicopter
12:54 p.m. ET: President’s Room signing ceremony
1:08 p.m. ET: Luncheon
2:35 p.m. ET: Review of the troops
3 p.m. ET: Inaugural Parade
7 p.m. ET and thereafter for four years: Inaugural Bawl
See? If this election had been a landslide, then our collective yammering, protesting, messaging, teaching, communication, etc. would be part of an insurgency, a hopeful revolution, a determined evolution, or something. But what actually happened is this: We were making progress, we were turning many things around, changing things for the better, then suddenly along came this big log tied to a rope suspended from on high and it plowed right through us. An enormous, ugly, political pendulum that we thought was going in one direction had turned, and plowed through us like a bowling ball through nine pins.
But only just barely.
A while back I had been conversing for weeks with a bunch of activists, serious activists, people with their hands on the activism levers of power, serious serious people. They had been so thrown off by the outcome of the Democratic Primary that they spent huge amounts of effort making sure that a totally insignificant document, the DNC Platform, included their pet projects, and thereafter following through on that, that they simply put nearly zero effort into working against Trump. Had these remarkable and important individuals not walked away from the process at he crucial moment, they would have been the deciding factor in this election and Trump would not have been elected president. That’s my story, and it is one of dozens around the country, many of you will identify them in your own lives if you look. People were distracted, misled, or simply wrong, about this or that aspect of the election. Collectively, all of this added up to a slim victory. But it matters not how slim that victory was, because the Republican Party is 100% in charge in the White House, in both houses of Congress, and in many state chambers and state houses around the country.
Climate scientists model future climate change using a number of different model configurations, but the initial input to those models are based on various scenarios of how quickly we change our energy policies and related behaviors. With a Trump presidency and a GOP Congress, that process just got easier, because the two or three more optimistic staring assumptions can be ignored for several years. Think of the computing time that will save!
That was a very long way of saying that you can not distract yourself from the task of saving civilization over the next few years.
How to survive a Trump presidency starting now
But, during that time, you can spend a bit of time doing something that will make you feel better, maybe energized, maybe even self educated in an area that gives perspective or some other help to your psyche.
I’ve been asking around, to see what people are doing, and here, I’ll put some of the book suggestions and other ideas people have made. I expect more suggestions to come in soon, and I’ll add them to the lists.
Watch the West Wing
One idea, often mentioned, is to watch The West Wing, as an example of a better time and place. If you do that (and I suspect for many this would be a re-watch) I suggest you consider listening to The West Wing Weekly Podcast, co-hosed by Joshua Malina ahd Hrishikesh Hirway. Josh is Will Bailey from the West Wing (he currently stars in Scandal, another excellently distracting White House related show!). The podcast tracks the West Wing episode by episode, with occasional variations in that pattern. One of the best things about it are the interviews with various individuals involved with the show. Also, over time, Malina and Hirway develop a working methodology of the West Wing, including terminology, morphological and categorial functions, etc. This gives the weekly review and discussion an interesting and evolving texture. Since they are currently well into Season Two, you can start now and listen to the podcasts on your own schedule. If you catch up to them, you’ll have to start waiting for Wednesdays, when the podcast is released.
Read interesting history
One thing I’ve decided to do is to read some interesting history. It turns out that a lot of other people are doing something similar. Here is a list of what people have suggested so far:
Josh, Toby, Leo, and Donna are in Leo’s office. They have just gotten word that a major auto manufacturer plans to build a plant in Mexico, and will likely close a corresponding plant in Michigan. Josh is pacing, Leo is behind his desk, Donna is standing near the door, and Toby is sitting in a chair smoking an unlit cigar. All four had just come from a poker game with the President and others.
Josh Leyman: Screw the auto industry. If they decide to move another plant to Mexico, we just slap a 35% tariff on them!
Leo Mcgarry: That won’t go well, Josh, and you know it. A tariff like that would send the Mexican economy in to a spiral. That won’t help the regional economy in more ways than I can mention.
Toby Ziegler [Voice raising noticeably at the end of the sentence]: “Not for nothin’, but the last time a leak from the White House even intimated that we might take retaliatory action against industry in Mexico, the Peso dropped like a slider in Yankee stadium!
Josh Leyman [Frustrated]: So what are you saying, we just let them move their plant, move these jobs? We made promises to the Unions. I made promises to the union.
Donna Moss: You made promises to me too, Josh. I don’t see you getting upset about that.
Josh Leyman [Casually]: Yeah but that’s you, who cares.
The President enters the room. Toby and Leo stand, but the president waves them down. Leo sits down but Toby remains standing. Donna back a foot or so towards the door. Josh put on his little boy face.
President Bartlet: That’s right, we made promises. We made promises to the auto industry, and we made promises to the American people. As I recall, we’ve even kept some of them. But we also made a promise to be smart about all of this, about the choices we make. I chose to believe that the American People, in all their wisdom, despite Hamilton’s original incredulity about that, picked a boring Economics Nobel Laureate to run this place because they wanted us to be smart about some of this stuff at least some of the time!
Joshua Leyman: That’s right, Sir. But what do we do?
The President and Leo look meaningfully at each other. The President walks out of the room without another word. The rest of the staff turn to Leo, expectantly.
Joshua Leyman [directed at Leo]: Well?
[cue music]
Leo McGarry: We do nuthin’ … Absolutely nuthin. If we say a word that makes us look like we’re even going to send our Great Aunt Tillie down to Mexico to complain about this, the Peso will be in the dumps, and nine automobile companies will scurry south of the border to set up plants in an economy so devalued they’ll be able to produce the same car they would produce here for 30,000 for the cost of a box of donut holes and a cup of coffee.
Joshua Leyman [resigned voice, moving to head out of the room]: Yeah, I suppose the best thing to do is sometimes to do nothing.
Donna Moss [coy look]: And you should be good at that, Josh.
[fade to black, flentle music]
Trump Version
[Donald Trump is sitting on the toilet, paging through his facebook feed. He notices a news item about an American Auto company’s plans to close a plant in Michigan, and open a similar plant in Mexico.]
Donald Trump [yelling]: Kellyanne get in here! Where is that Conway bitch?
Kellyanne Conway [from outside bathroom door, off stage]: The bathroom door is locked, Mr. President Elect. What can I get for you?
Donald Trump [yelling]: Tweet this: US Auto co moves to Mexico? I don’t think so! 35% Tariff! Make America Great Again!
Kellyanne Conway: Yes sir, is that all sir?
Donald Trump [yelling]: That’s all, go away.
[ten minutes later]
Donald Trump [yelling]: Kellyanne get in here! Where is tha…
Kellyanne Conway: I’m right here sir, what can I do for you
Donald Trump [yelling]: Tweet this! I’ll make American businesses play fair! Not like Crooked Hillary!
Kellyann Conway: Thank you sir.
[Next scene, two weeks later, Kellyanne Conway is outside by a news stand, purchasing a copy of the Washington Post. The camera zooms in on the headline.]
WaPo Headline reads:
“Mexican Economy Tanks. Entire North American Auto Industry Initiates Plans to Move to Mexico.
‘I sure hope Donald’s wall has a big door in it to let some of these cars into the US. If anybody wants to ever drive a new car, that is!’ quips GM CEO.
I’ve got this press release that will be of interest to many:
An international team including researchers at the university of Edinburgh and Antoine Wystrach of the Research Centre on Animal Cognition (CNRS/Université Toulouse III—Paul Sabatier) has shown that ants can get their bearings whatever the orientation of their body. Their brains may be smaller than the head of a pin, but ants are excellent navigators that use celestial and terrestrial cues to memorize their paths. To do so, they use several regions of the brain simultaneously, proving once again that the brain of insects is more complex than thought. The researchers’ findings were published in Current Biology on January 19, 2017.
Until now, ethological research suggested that ants memorized the scenery perceived along their route as it is projected on their multifaceted retinas—thus using a body-centered, or egocentric, frame of reference. By this hypothesis, to recognize memorized surroundings and follow a path formerly traveled, ants would need to orient their bodies in the same way each time. But they sometimes need to walk backwards as well, and this doesn’t prevent them from finding their way back to their nest. Could it be that ants can recognize a route when facing the opposite direction? Are they able to create a visual model of their environment that is independent of their body orientation?
To answer these questions, the researchers studied Cataglyphis velox, an Andalusian desert ant known for its solo navigation ability. First they let the insects familiarize themselves with a route that included a 90° turn. After a day of training, ants that received a cookie crumb light enough to carry while walking forward handled the turn without the slightest difficulty. However, those given large cookie crumbs had to move backward, and unlike the others, they maintained their bearing instead of turning.
They also exhibited unexpected behavior: After walking backward a bit, they would occasionally drop their crumb, turn around, observe the scenery while pointing their bodies in the right direction, return to the crumb, and resume towing it backward – but this time in the correct direction. For these ants, body alignment thus seems necessary for recognition of scenery perceived by their retinas, but they are then able to memorize the new bearing and follow it backward. This behavior also shows that they can recall the existence of the dropped cookie crumb, and its location, in order to return to it after updating their bearing. These observations imply that at least 3 kinds of memory are working in unison: the visual memory of the route, the memory of the new direction to follow, and the memory of the crumb to retrieve.
Through another experiment using a mirror to reflect the sun1, the team demonstrated that the ants used celestial cues to maintain their bearing while walking backwards. Furthermore, ants were able to move in straight paths, whether walking forward, backward, or sideways. Once a bearing is memorized, they stay on it no matter how their bodies are oriented. Together these observations suggest that ants register direction using an external – or allocentric – frame of reference.
These new findings show that the ants’ spatial orientation relies on multiple mental representations and memories woven together through a flow of information between several areas of their brain. This offers a whole new perspective on the world of insects, which is much more complex than previously believed.
Using mainly data from this poll, and RCP’s approval ratings page for Obama 2008, we get this graph.
Trump’s approval rating was never high, and at the moment of the election and shortly after, when the approval ratings for a president have gone up for every election since polls existed, Trump’s numbers have dropped.
Yes there are Nixon-Trump similarities. But in the end, probably not many. (A lot of Congresspersons boycotted his second inaugural, by the way). Also, for those who are not familiar with Watergate, I’ll tell you this: The medium to worst case scenario of Trump’s election, which would include Russian Hacking and possibly the Trump Dossier (but you don’t need the dossier in this scenario) is about 400% worse than Watergate. The Watergate scandal, after which we now name all scandals, was also about stealing an election. It is not as clear that the Plumbers stole the election for Nixon that it is clear that Putin stole the election for Trump. Either case is hard to be absolutely certain of, but Nixon trounced his opponent the year he had illegal help from his hired thugs, while Trump actually lost the election in the year he seems to have had help from Putin and Comey.
But that is not what I came here to speak with you about today. Rather, I’m just using the Bloggers Prerogative to reminisce about the time that I refused, as an 11 or 12 year old, in New York City, to sit in the chair sat in by Richard Nixon. We were watching Much Ado About Nothing from a box in Winter Garden, and this was, we were told by the usher, the very box Nixon had sat in during the previous performance. (We had seen him leave the theater. What a mess that made of local traffic!) Learning that, I asked which chair Nixon had sat in. The usher pointed to one of the chairs. I asked to have it removed. My hard core Democratic father concurred.
I have no idea if the usher was just playing around with the kid, perhaps even thinking that we would be happy to share Richard Nixon’s butt kooties. And I’ll never know. But I choose to believe that I made a point.
As are these folks:
“We woke up on November 9 just gutted,” he said. “We were planning to get married in July and decided, ‘Let’s get married this weekend. Let’s be as married as we can be, as long as we can be, starting now.'” The couple opted to elope to Las Vegas.
“As soon as we opened up the drapes [we saw] the front of Trump’s building and we’re like ‘Oh, no way,'” he said. “The letters across the top of the tower are just huge. It was a bitter irony that we were running away from him and he was right there.”
My current phone, a Google Nexus made by Motorola, is still working fine. I’m much more worried about Amanda’s Samsung, which is a nightmare. The storage on that phone is used up by Samsung proprietary gunk that can’t be removed, and she can’t insert a microSD card because the phone will not operate as an actual phone (reliably) when there is a microSD card in it. Her “deal” at Verizon is running out soon, and I’m personally hoping she goes with the Pixel. And, eventually, I’ll be in the market for an upgrade as well.
One must make proper comparisons. So I did.
The bottom line: Objectively, given the specs, the iPhone is the least cool, the Samsung Galaxy S7 is the most cool, and the Pixel is in the middle, but closer to the Galaxy than to the iPhone. But, if you look at the features that separate these phones, there really isn’t much difference, and your choice should probably be made on the basis of something other than these details, such as price, operating system, and your comfort with the various companies that make the phones (i.e., which company most recently did you the most emotional or physical harm!).
The Pixels (look around for the proper storage amount and color for you):
The Google Pixel vs. the iPhone: there is only one important difference
The Google Pixels (regular and XP) have somewhat better specs than the current and corresponding iPhones. The Pixel has an equivalent or better screen, a better camera, does video mostly at the same level at the lower end, but is probably overall better (except for the iPhone’s optical image stabilization, which is better to have than electronic stabilization). As far as I know, neither phone has a hand that comes out of it to slap the user and say “Turn your phone sideways, you idiot,” but I assume there is an app for that.
They both read fingerprints, they both have similar sensors, including the all important barometer. The Pixel has a headphone jack, and the new iPhones, sadly, do not have that. You can hook a headphone to the iPhone, but Apple has invented a new kind of plug you need to use, so you either need to buy special headphones or an adaptor.
The iPhone has stereo, but how can it really be so small and have meaningful stereo? The iPhone may be more water resistant than the Pixel. The Pixel battery life is significantly better.
The Pixel has more RAM. Depending on which model you get, they have similar amounts of storage, but the iPhones can be gotten with 256GB, while the max for the Pixel is 128GB . The Google free cloud storage deal is way better than the Apple deal (Apple wants you to pay for storage beyond 5GB).
They are very close to the same price, depending on where you buy it. Other details are comparable.
While the Pixel is probably better feature for feature in most areas, the two phones are high end and in the same major league ball park. It is not like one sucks and one is wonderful.
So, the bottom line for this comparison is: Which operating system do you like? If you like Android, get the Pixel. If you like iOS, get the Apple. Neither one is going to disappoint you, and if your current phone is a couple/few years old, either one will be a palpable, and even exciting, upgrade.
There is one small difference I should mention as well, which may not apply by the time you read this: You can’t easily get a Pixel because they are selling like hot cakes. It will be easer to find a hot cake, because no one is quite sure what that is.
The Pixel vs. the Samsung S7
There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who love Samsung to the point that it is kind of disgusting, and those who have been burned by Samsung, and don’t. Of those who have been burned, some of them have actually been burned!
(Note there has been some confusion here… I do not look at the Edge here. Maybe some other time.)
But, the top of the line Samsung Phones are still considered to be top products, so comparing the Pixel to the Samsung S7 seems appropriate.
The S7 and the regular Pixel are about the same size, and are probably similar in overall case mechanics. The S7, like the iPhone, claims to be “waterproof.” People who have played around with the Pixel and the Samsung tend to walk away a bit more impressed by the Pixel.
The Galaxy S7 has a somewhat larger screen and a noticeably higher resolution, which even with the larger screen translates into a higher density of pixels. Both are “retina” level, as I understand “retina.” The main area where this matters is when you attach the phone directly to your face with special phone goggles so you can experience virtual reality. You’ll like the Samsung better every time you do that. But (see below) the Google phone is going to have better VR abilities in the operating system than the Samsung, at least for a while.
The cameras are very similar . The Samsung might be a bit better in lower light. Most people will tell you that the Samsung camera is the best one out there. But, the newer version has a lower pixel density than earlier cameras, and that is often the metric people focus on.
This does not necessarily mean that Samsung downgraded its camera. It is more the case that all the cameras have gotten so good that hardware will plateau for a while. And, in particular, the pixel density metric is no longer as critical since all the main cameras are high in this areas (not true of the front facing selfie cameras, though). In other words, it no longer matters like it did a few years ago that you get THE phone with THE camera. A few years ago there were phones and tablets with truly substandard and awful cameras. Those days are a Kodachrome memory now.
The Samsung camera does have this fancy “dual pixel” technology which is supposed to make focusing faster. By the way, the front facing camera, the one you use for selfies, is better on the Pixel than the Samsung.
The Samsung operating system is highly modified from stock Android. To me, this is a deal killer. I tend to dislike Samsung mods, and I tend to like stock Android. But some might like the Samsung enhancements such as an “always on” mode. At the moment, the Samsung phones are only at Android level 6, while the Pixel is at level 7. The Samsung phones will always be behind in this area because they muck with the system so much. By the way, Android 7 is significantly different from 6 in several interesting ways; this is not a trivial difference.
The internal guts, the computer inside, are similar. The Pixel has more storage, much more storage, internal, and will not have the crazy Samsung space hogging “enhancement” software. However, the Samsung has a microSD slot.
But, I am no longer impressed with microSD slots. I used to think they were a deal breaker, until I got my current Google phone, which has lots of memory but not microSD slot, and I installed DropSync, which puts my photos and videos onto my main computer and dropbox account in the background. I’m the kind of user that fills up storage space. I’ve not filled up the storage space on this phone, not even close. Add this to the fact that phones don’t use microSD cards like you, if you’ve not used one, might think. Things go wrong with them. Your camera forgets to put the pics there. Apps that use proprietary content may not let you put stuff there. Many apps won’t really run from the microSD card flawlessly, or at all.
The lesson here: SD card or not, do not rely on that feature. Get the phone with the most storage given the type of phone you are buying.
It appears that the Pixel kills the Samsung on battery lifespan. However, some Samsungs are known to have had the Exploding Fire Starter Feature in the past. So there’s that!
Conclusion: In a number of areas, the Samsung is better than the Pixel. However, I feel you should ignore the microSD difference; that is an overrated feature, and that is coming from a person who strongly believed it to be important until I got a phone without it and realized it wasn’t if you get a biggish storage feature to begin with. I don’t see the cameras as being that different, but maybe Samsung is better. The single most annoying thing your phone will do for the first two years of use, assuming it does not catch fire, is running down on battery life. If that is important, the Pixel is the way to go. Also, the operating system will probably always be better on the Pixel than any Samsung phone, unless you really like the Samsung features (which many do) then the opposite is true.
So, while the comparison between the two is more complicated than with the iPhone (where you get to chose between two vastly different operating systems and ignore everything else) it is probably true when it comes down to it that either one is fine.
This is a descriptive model of Donald Trump’s behavior, which ultimately works out to a prediction that Donald Trump won’t last very long. In an evolutionary sense, at least.
I’ve found that many people use the term “spite” incorrectly. Many assume it has to do with vitriol or nastiness, or otherwise, is motivated negative behavior of some kind. This is not even close to the scientific definition of the term. A daffodil plant can carry out an act of spite, and a daffodil plant is unlikely to engage in motivated behavior.
Spite involves carrying out an act where the ultimate cost to oneself exceeds the net benefit to oneself, at the same time the recipient of the behavior experiences a net cost.
Trump’s anti John Lewis tweeting is an example of spite. It was an attack on Lewis, but it caused huge problems for Trump, and strengthened his opposition.
Since Trump’s tweet may actually have benefited his victim and may have done very little harm to anyone else, it is actually possible that it was an act of altruism.
The pertinent theory comes from behavioral biology, which many years ago influenced economics theory, so you see the concept in both evolutionary theory and game theory today. (Because most people incorrectly assume that economists are smarter than everyone else, except possibly physicists, it is often assume that this set of theories comes from economics and then was borrowed by biology, but the reverse is actually true. See work by Sewall Wright and Robert Trivers.)
This classic theory can be classically represented by the following classic graphic:
The actor, called here the “donor,” can help or hurt the recipient. In this case, the potential act probably has to do with nuts, since these are squirrels. But it can be any act as long as the act itself incurs a cost for the actor. (The cost is part of the definition of acts.) Then, the actor and the recipient, eventually, count up the net result. The actor can expend energy and incur risk by taking a nut away from the recipient. The recipient runs away. This is an act of selfishness on the part of the actor. The actor can give a nut to the donor. That is an act of altruism. The actor and recipient can share the nuts under a tree, and thus share the job of keeping an eye out for predators. They are both losing because they need to share the nuts, but since there are a gazillion nuts the loss is very close to zero. Since two sets of eyes are more than twice as good as one set of eyes for feeding squirrels, both gain. That is cooperation. And so on.
Trup’s Attack on John Lewis was spite
Trump seems immune to the idea of forethought when he tweets. I sincerely — and this is not an ablist remark but a legitimate question — suggest he is a victim of Tourette’s. Even the most obvious degree of restraint is like water cast on granite. Alternatively, it is possible that Trump sees himself as invulnerable to legitimate criticism — all those who disagree with him are mere losers, he seems ready to declare. He does seem to have megalomaniac tendencies.
Whatever the reason, a pair of 140 character missives by Trump can be relatively benign or incredibly offensive, but this time were very self destructive.
John Lewis was up to the fight:
Lewis said in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, that he doesn’t believe Trump is a “legitimate president” and that he wouldn’t be attending the presidential inauguration for the first time in his 30-year political career, citing the intelligence community’s explosive findings over Russian hacking of the presidential election.
The material harm to Trump and his presidency from this act of spite is growing, as the tweet is causing a cascade of effects..
The number of Democratic members of Congress saying they will boycott Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday has increased to 26.
Many have cited as a reason the president-elect’s recent attack on civil rights icon and fellow congressman John Lewis.
In the end, what started out as a harmful stab against an opponent caused more harm to Trump than benefit. If the tweets also harmed Lewis or Liberal Democrats, then this was probably an act of spite. If, and look at the squirrels above, this was an act that benefited Lewis, Liberals, and Democrats, and hurt Trump, then it was an act of altruism. Maybe the Democrats should send Trump a thank you note!
Trump vs. CIA chief
Everybody knows that in Washington, the story is usually the comment or reaction, not the thing. It is all very meta. The story is the story, not what the story is about. We have a new term these days bandied about to stand in for thinking about this: The narrative. You control the narrative. Just hope no one asks you to explain what a narrative is. This can all seem very senseless, but it is also a little bit complex, thus pretty much beyond the range of Trump’s level of thinking. And for this reason, perhaps, Trump has not learned when to shut up.
The result is that when a moderately interesting story comes along, Tump picks it up and bludgeons himself about he head and neck with it. Five year old’s do this. The John Lewis story is an example. Rather than ignoring a complaint from a liberal democrat, he victimized a widely loved civil rights leader on the eve of MLK celebrations.
With respect to the intelligence business, Trump is attacking the outgoing director of the CIA for absolutely no reason, and this is causing a reaction that will harm Trump far more than his comment could possibly have benefited him.
In a recent tweet, Trump accused the outgoing CIA chief of being behind the “leak” of the Trump Dossier. Meanwhile, the CIA chief notes that
…Trump lacks a full understanding of the threat Moscow poses to the United States, delivering a public lecture to the president-elect that further highlighted the bitter state of Trump’s relations with American intelligence agencies.
Trump’s reaction to the widespread acceptance of Russian influence on the election, and the as yet less widely accepted — but very credible — Trump Dossier is to elevate these problems to the level of international incident. In his effort to protect himself from political fire, he is holding up a baby in front of his attackers. Unfortunately, the baby is all of use, Americans, his country, and beyond.
Trump takes big risks with American security
This is yet another example of spite, and a good one, because it shows that spite does not require malice. It can arise from simple ignorance.
I think, and prove me wrong if you like, that the Trump transition team is, collectively, as dumb as a broken brick. When they saw all these “presidential appointments” on the list of things to consider, they assumed that they were to replace them all on the 20th of January. So, they fired everyone effective that day including all of the ambassadors around the world.
This is one of several examples of misunderstanding the system, and in this case, putting our nation at risk.
A plan by Donald Trump to toss out dozens of ambassadors on the day he takes office risks months of uncertainty in some of the most sensitive parts of the world, according to several experts.
You might argue that this is not spite because it was just stupid. But the evolutionary biological theory of behavior counts this as spite because motivation is not related to the definition. By keeping motivation out of the definition, the theory is more general. For example, a plant can carry out a spiteful act. That makes the theory a hell of a lot more useful.
In this case, the Trump team gained nothing from their decision, but they risk causing innumerable problems world wide, hopefully mostly small ones, that put them in the hole with respect to foreign policy literally on day one. Nay, minute one.
Spite ends things
Look again at the chart above, and consider examples of spite in nature.
You can’t easily find them. When you do see them, they usually end up being acts of altruism that are explained as acts of cooperation or selfishness by taking the analysis to the next level. A squirrel allows another squirrel to forage near itself even when there aren’t a gazillion nuts under the tree, and is taking a real hit on food access for this reason. That looks like altruism, which is even more stupid, evolutionarily, than spite. But it turns out that the recipient of that act it the actor-squirrel’s offspring. By benefiting an offspring even with a cost to herself, the mother squirrel gains an ultimate genetic benefit.
I do not see how any of Trump’s acts of spite benefit him other than to strengthen the love he receives from his relatively small base. His spite erodes his support at the softer end, invigorates (and increases funding for, I’ll guess) his opponents, causes problems for his administration that will make him and his entire presidency less effective. Ultimately, he will spite his way into impeachment.
We don’t see true acts of spite in nature very often because that sort of behavior, or more exactly, the behavioral facility to make the generation of such behavior even possible, is selected against.
If Donald Trump does not learn, or is not restrained, almost literally, by his staff, he will spite himself into the annals of the Darwin Awards, in a political sense. Spite ends things. Spite will end Trump.
U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is presented with the 2010 Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama.He is a senior African American Representative to the House who was famously involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, along side Doctor King. If you watch any news at all you’ve seen him plenty of times. He is now also known as the latest person Donald Trump decided to denigrate and insult on Twitter.
I would like to see everyone ask their representatives in the House to treat Donald Trump’s remarks about John Lewis as they would treat similar remarks made by any other member of the House against a colleague. Generally, there are rules and you can’t do or say certain kinds of things, or you get sanctioned. I want Trump’s remarks addressed as though they were remarks on the floor made to another member. To put a point on it, since little that Republicans in Congress do relates to decorum or ethics, since to them it is all partisan politics, let’s assume the hypothetical offender is a Democrat and the remarks are made against a Republican. And when making the remarks a little bit of spit flew out and landed on the guy.
Here’s my letter to my representative, who is, sadly, a Republican. Can you please write a letter too?
Representative Erik Paulsen
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
To the Honorable Erik Paulsen,
I write to ask you to take appropriate action in response to the outrageous statements made by the Republican President Elect in regards to your colleague, the Honorable John Lewis, of Georgia.
On the 14th of January, 2017, President Elect Trump railed against Representative Lewis, and denigrated the important work he has done as a member of Congress and as a leader in the area of Civil Rights, on the very eve of our national celebrations of the life of Martin Luther King Jr.
How many of your colleagues in Congress have literally had their skulls smashed as a result of protesting racial injustice? This is what happened to young John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965. The Congressman has dedicated his life to fight racism, injustice, and to honorably and effectively represent the people in his district.
Mr. Trump’s remarks are uncalled for, outrageous, and should not go unanswered.
I ask you to stand in defense of the Honorable Mr. Lewis on the floor of the House, to make a public statement responding to the President Elect, and to make clear that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. Alternatively, perhaps you could let me know why you would chose to remain silent, should that be your decision, or why you might support Mr. Trump’s remarks, if that is your intent.
I understand that Mr. Trump is a Republican and so are you, and Mr. Lewis is a Democrat. It is possible that the Republican Party’s position is to denigrate men like Mr. Lewis. If so, that would be a shame. If, on the other hand, you and your Republican colleagues truly represent the citizens of your respective districts, not just the narrow range of folk who voted for you, then you can not sit silently. You have to stand up and say something. As your constituent, I demand this. Do note that several of your colleagues in your party have done so.
“Hammurabi, Hammurabi, I beg to report to you,
In Year 1, 0 people have starved.
101 people came to the city
The population is now 124
We harvested 4.5 bushels per acre
We planted 998 acres of wheat
But rats at 300 bushels of wheat
You now have a surplus of 1443 bushels of wheat
How many acres do yo uwish to feed to the people?
How many acres do you wish to plant with seed?
Oh, and you have died of Cholera!”
Or, this one:
Remember?
I went to a special high school, in an era when individuals and high schools alike did not have computers, but we did. Since we were a University normal school, we had account and terminal room access to the UNIVAC 1108 computer at the University (see photo above). There were no computer games in those days, so you had to write your own, and store them on tape. Paper tape, not magnetic tape (the magnetic tape was reserved for use by actual University students and faculty, for the most part).
So we wrote and fiddled with programs in BASIC, the intro language of the day. BASIC was a great language, but is widely regarded today as a horrible language. Truth is, it was easy to program in, had reliable interpreters, and eventually, advanced versions became fully OOPish and lost silly things like line numbers.
Today’s equivilant of BASIC, for the simple reason that it is one of the programming languages people often start on, but similar for other reasons as well, is Python.
Python was invented by Benevolent Dictator For Life Guido van Rossum. Guido was a big fan of Monty Python back in 1989 when he invented an interpreter to run a script language that didn’t exist yet but was knocking around in his head. A script, in computer world, is a series of commands in a file that can be run like it was a computer program, but where the code is not turned into an executable file to run independently, but rather, run by an “interpreter” which carries out the commands ad hoc each time the script is called. That is how BASIC originally ran, and that is how Python works.
Et magis est, ut in fabula.
Python has evolved over the years to become one of a small number of languages that can do pretty much anything. The language itself is fairly simply yet powerful and flexible. In writing Python programs (the language is too fancy to use the term “script” comfortably, though that is technically what the programs are) one has access to a large number of libraries of pre-existing code. These libraries are extensive, intensive, flexible, and powerful. The programs run very efficiently.
What software that you know about is written in Python? Well, DrobBox is written in Python, which is not surprising, since Benevelont Dictator van Rossum works for Dropbox (or did anyway, not sure if he is still there). Google uses Python for pretty much everything, so when you “google” something, you are using the Linux operating system running a Python script accessing data created and maintained by Python scrips. Also, Python was underwent much of its development with support from Google.
Many of the GNU Linux utilities and software in use today that is not from the original cadre of mainly C-xx (a different family of languages) applications are written in Python. So, again, the basic computer services we rely on, such as Google, ultimately use Python in many different ways.
And, Python has become one of very few widely used scientific software tools. If you are going to grow up and become a scientist, you will want Python skills.
This is an excellent way to learn Python, if you are a kid or not. Little kids can learn with their adult guide, and older kids will eat this book up in an afternoon or two.
The Table of Contents will give you an idea of what it covers:
First, on how to set up and use Python:
Chapter 1: The Interactive Shell
Chapter 2: Writing Programs
Then some very simple games:
Chapter 3: Guess the Number
Chapter 4: Jokes
Chapter 5: Dragon Realm
Then how to use a key feature to help you more easily write complex programs:
Chapter 6: Using the Debugger
Then a pretty complex program (but still very doable):
Chapter 7: Designing Hangman with Flowcharts
Chapter 8: Writing the Hangman Code
Chapter 9: Extending Hangman
Then many more programs of various levels of difficulty:
Then some advanced programming and tools, and more games:
Chapter 17: Using Pygame and Graphics
Chapter 18: Animating Graphics
Chapter 19: Collision Detection and Input
Chapter 20: Sounds and Images
Chapter 21: Dodger
Many of the programs are designed to run on the command line, but still use cool (in a retro sort of way) graphics, but the book gets you started on using modern day window-deployed graphics.
Al Sweigart is a software developer who teaches programming to kids and adults. He is the author of Automate the Boring Stuff with Python: Practical Programming for Total Beginners, a book I’ve not yet laid eyes on, and Scratch Programming Playground: Learn to Program by Making Cool Games, which I review here. By the way, if you are looking for an intro programming guide for kids, consider scratch as well. Scratch is not at present a powerful programming tool kids will use when they grow up, but it teaches programming skills and it is fun. Having said that, I predict that a language like Scratch, which has an ancestry as old as any existing programming langauge yet is extremely modern and forward looking, may end up being a more widely used tools, allowing regular people to program the Internet of Things. Also, a kid heading for Robotics will probably be able, in the very near future, to use Scratch in that area as well.
Go to the No Starch Press web site to access the code and other resources, and to find a list of errors and updates. In a regular book about something, say, Abraham Lincoln, a typo is not a big deal. In a computer programming book, a typo can be a big deal.
For example, reading “In 1860, Lincoln secured the Republican Party presidential nomination as a moderate from a wing state,” instead of a “Swing state” is not going to cause a disaster. But in 1962, the Mariner spacecraft had to be destroyed moments after takeoff because a “-” was written instead of a “–“.
My friend Peter Gleick tosses this question aside and informs us that there are actually better questions. Is California having a wet year? How does the snowpack look? Are the reservoirs filling up? Will the groundwater recharge? Will the forests in the Sierra recover with all this precip? Will farmers get all the water they want this year? Will a wet year help the endangered salmon? Will governor Brown cancel the drought declaration? Can Californians stop conserving water and throw some on their lawn?
It turns out that the answer to most of these questions is not what you would assume unless you know a lot about California’s water. Hey, this would make a great facebook quiz! “Only 50% of Californians can answer all of these questions correctly. Take the quiz now!”
ADDED: It has been suggested that I clarify an important point about this post.
So, dear reader, please understand that the information provided here is my best attempt at analysis of the information that I have available. There is clearly conjecture here. So, of course, read all this with a grain of salt. The size of that grain of salt can be as small or large as you like. I also amended the title of the post.
The story that I outlined on this blog on November 10th was widely known in the US intelligence community and has been developed and elaborated upon in numerous stages. Pretty much everything we need to know is now known, and we await the appearance of the videos currently in possession of Russian agents, and some other key pieces of information. But the story is credible, outlined in moderate detail, and shocking.
As I have already noted, I find this story very believable because I already knew the broad outlines and some of the details. I came across this via a contact closer to the famous MI6 spy who put together the dossier than most people are to Kevin Bacon. Over the last several days, more information has been made available, and it would now appear, if these sources are accurate, that Russian intelligence has in its possession multiple copies of videos showing Trump in some sort of sexual activity. Multiple things, multiple occasions, multiple locations in Russia, possibly in both Moscow and St Petersburg, according to a source within the CIA (see link above).
There are also financial dealings worthy of use in blackmail.
Obtaining this kind of information on a person with influence is called “developing an asset” and here, Donald Trump is the asset. So, in just over a week, the executive branch of the United States will be run by a person who is arguabley a Russian FSB asset. We hope it is not true, but if it is, there is no way to sugar coat this: We are screwed. And, personally, I’m convinced this evidence is reliable. (I’ve discussed elsewhere, see link above, why I think it is reliable.)
We know that the US Congress Gang of Eight had all this information weeks ago. People with links into the intelligence community were aware of this report. People like Mad Dog Mattis, who may become our Secretary of Defense, and who have taken an oath to protect and defend the US from all enemies foreign and domestic, knew about this. Let me restate something I’ve mentioned elsewhere. According to my contacts in the intelligence community, a) this information was generally known, b) this information was not unexpected given the usual methods of the intelligence agencies and Trump’s weaknesses, and c) the source, which is now publicly known, is among the most highly regarded agents alive today. It is becoming increasingly fashionable in the media to discredit this source. An MSNBC commenter yesterday morning called it “apocryphal” (tough, when Senator Franken pointed out that this word, “apocryphal,” may not mean what she thinks it means, she seemed to withdraw her statement). Bernie bots are resisting this information because they really want to blame Hillary Clinton for this loss, and if the Russians are in with Trump, that takes it away from them.
But when it comes down to it, the evidence is both unproven and highly likely to be true, in my opinion. And — this is important — I’m taking my cues from the same people the Gang of Eight and the various other leaders are taking their cue from. It looks to me like they are all, to an individual, currently engaged in committing an act of treason. They will either have to convincingly disprove the ever hardening Trump-Russia connection or live up to their decision to stand by.
What would be the consequences? Many and severe. Here is a quick theoretical look at one of the more obvious possibilities: a convenient arrangement whereby the Russians control key US decisions that will have great positive, and personal, consequences to Putin, and very negative consequences to the US and to the entire world.
One of Trump’s most important appointments is his Secretary of State.
The likely appointment of Rex Tillerson is widely seen as an affront to the Earth’s climate, and as a prelude to a period of entrenched denial of climate change. That is probably true. But I strongly suspect, and it is starting to become more generally apparent if you are watching the reporting, that this is not the main reason Tillerson is being placed in this position. Most people also assume that Russia would benefit from a Russia-Friendly Trump administration because Russia wants to weaken NATO, and invade a neighbor here or there. I’m sure that is part of it, but again, there is something more immediate afoot.
Tillerson is being placed in this position because Vladimir Putin, Trump’s handler, wants Exxon-Mobil and possibly other international agencies to get on with the business of exploiting Russian oil using technology that the Russians are a bit thin on. This will involve the US lifting sanctions on Russia. While wary Americans are waiting for a Russian invasion of Syria or the cancellation of the Paris agreement, the sanctions will be first ignored, then given special exemption, then weakened, then lifted. The Republicans in Congress will facilitate this because they have no intellectual or emotional power to govern, having jettisoned those qualities the day the first black man was elected President of the United States, as they vowed to make removal of the uppity negro from office their number one, and in fact, sole, objective.
Eight years is apparently enough time to gut a political party of even the smallest iota of ability to govern.
Then, of course, there will also be the expected weakening of NATO, the invasions into neighboring territory unchecked by American interest, and all that.
The other developing problem is with China. Trump and Tillerson have been waving swords at China all along, the most recent coming in yesterday’s hearings when Tillerson came an inch away from declaring war on China in the South China Sea. We would be prudent to assume, if the worst is true, that this attack on China comes at the request of Trump’s handlers in Moscow. The risk here is a trade war. Or a world war. Or worse.
This Tillerson scenario is increasingly buttressed by the facts and the context. It will be very interesting to see how what Tillerson is saying in hearings holds up with his actions, should he be confirmed.
At the moment, there seems to be only one way to address this problem in the short term, and the corruption of the Republican Party makes this nearly impossible. Impeachment would likely be successful, but the House has to initiate it, and the Senate has to conduct it. As long as both are in Republican hands, we would have to trust the Republican party to do the right thing. That, of course is impossible. They will never, ever do the right thing. Republicans will commit treason before they will stand up as patriots for America. How do we know this? Because they are doing it right now! Everything that is now publicly known about Donald Trump being handled as a Russian asset has been known by those in the know inside the beltway for weeks. For many, some of this was known since the summer. For virtually everyone, most of this was known before the election.
The act of treason being carried out by the Republican Party right now has been going on far longer than one might expect for an entity that would eventually come to its senses. They are not going to change course. They are in it until the end.
So, we are left with Plan B: Impeachment of Donald Trump after the midterms, if the citizens of the United States can get past their deeply held racism and sexism to replace many of the Republican members of the Congress, both houses.
Addendum: Donald Trump Regularly Banged Russian People. It Is Said.
This is interesting, if you can stand listening to it.
Start at about 4:10 for the discussion of Donald Tump banging Russian people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhqUbW35R3Q
Also of note, near the end when “AJ” threatens to date Trump’s daughter, “Anything you have, I can take from you.” An oligarch in the making!
One minor takeaway from this interview, relevant to those of you unfamiliar with New York (The City), is this: Donald Trump talks funny, both his accent and the way he constructs streams of non-sentences. This is, of course, how New Yorkers talk unless they are in polite company. I assume Donald Trump does not regard America as polite company.
Also, all the talk about winning. Trump is a winner. The rest of you are losers, I hope you know that. Amiright?
Remember that movie? I mainly remember it because I was a kid in Gloucester when it was being filmed. Anyway, here they come again.
This happened today on C-Span.
Here's the moment Russia Today took over the C-SPAN1 feed. Unclear what happened. RT aired for about ten minutes before C-SPAN1 came back. pic.twitter.com/mhWVgCoFxF
Then, C-Span released this statement (Hat Tip: Sheril Kirshenbaum):
Follow up on my previous tweet: C-SPAN has released this statement on the Russia Today interruption of its feed this afternoon pic.twitter.com/nuG751DEIB
, as an example of a better time and place. If you do that (and I suspect for many this would be a re-watch) I suggest you consider listening to 
. This link is to a fairly expensive product, but note that it is several books. I’ll bet you can get the various volumes cheap and used, if you get them one at a time, or just go to the library. 
.
.
, a book I’ve not yet laid eyes on, and 
, which I review