Turnabout is What Kind of Play?

RT, which is openly Russian propaganda, would like you to be aware that Hillary Clinton paid NGOs to manipulate Russia's last election by calling into question its fairness.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had harsh words for Clinton, saying she had “set the tone for some opposition activists, gave them a signal … and [they] started active work.”

Speaking at a meeting of the Popular Front Federal Coordinating Council this week, Putin said that “representatives of some foreign states” were paying politically-active NGOs in Russia to “influence the course of the election campaign in our country.”

“We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs and defend our sovereignty,” the Prime Minister said. “It is necessary to think about improving the law and toughening responsibility for those who take orders from foreign states to influence internal political processes.”

Putin, stressing that Russia has nothing against the presence of foreign observers at elections, said Russia would draw the line at interference in its internal affairs from abroad.

"When financing comes to some domestic organizations which are supposedly national, but which in fact work on foreign money and perform to the music of a foreign state during electoral processes, we need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs and defend our sovereignty.”

Grain of salt and all that, but it does put a different spin on Russian actions in this election cycle here. The DNC leaks were true information, after all. Perhaps Russia was just pointing out how biased, rigged, and unfair Hillary Clinton's own electoral process happened to be.

Meanwhile, Putin's language here sounds almost as if it were lifted from some left-leaning blogs or Twitter accounts in the last few days. But this article is from 2011. (H/t: Hot Air)

Hard Times at the Plaza Hotel, Manhattan

A farewell dinner for big donors from the Woman Who Would Have Been Queen. An observer notes:

A bellman stood in a brocade uniform, and the sight of him brought to mind one of his profession who had been listed among thousands of Clinton donors who were mega by another measure in the Federal Election Commission records, which include occupation and amount.

Hotel bellman—$45...

If the Clinton campaign had used meaning and not just moolah as a measure of mega, if she had insisted that a dollar from a contributor who did not have a dollar to spare and was giving it with no expectation of anything in return meant more than millions from a mogul looking to buy influence and cachet, then she might have had a party at the grand ballroom of the Plaza Hotel to outdo any in its storied history.

If she had been the kind of person who would do that, she would have been having a victory party instead.

Sometimes a high profile isn't your friend

The one faithless elector who actually seems to exist has got a bit of a "stolen valor" issue.

Summer in the Outer Hebrides

This is the right moment to be nostalgic for summer, as winter is about to come upon us. Such islands as the Hebrides are rich in story, as well as the glory of nature.


Summer in the Outer Hebrides from ToddWellFilms on Vimeo.

A Good Argument for Divesting

Why should Trump give up his business interests in order to be President? To avoid having to spend endless hours being deposed in celebrity chef cases.

Trump sued Andrés last year after the chef reneged on an agreement to open a restaurant in the real estate mogul-turned-president’s new luxury D.C. hotel. Andrés backed out in protest weeks after Trump declared his presidential candidacy...

The judge dismissed arguments from Trump’s lawyers that the president-elect was “extremely busy handling matters of very significant public importance” and ruled the deposition could proceed in early January.

Yeah, it's not like he's got anything super important going on right now.

More on the Trump voter

More from a compilation of 100 articles that tried to sum up the Zeitgeist in 2016.  David Frum, of all people, channeled a composite Trump voter last summer from his many conversations, and did a pretty good job:

“The Putin thing. You think you’ve really nailed Donald with the Putin thing. Get it through your head: Our people are done fighting wars for your New World Order. We fought the Cold War to stop the Communists from taking over America, not to protect Estonia. We went to Iraq because you said it was better to fight them over there than fight them over here. Then you invited them over here anyway! Then you said that we had to keep inviting them over here if we wanted to win over there. And we figured out: You care a lot more about the “inviting" part than the “winning" part. So no more. Not until we face a real threat, and have a real president who’ll do whatever it takes to win. Whatever it takes. . . .

I noticed that when Tim Kaine took a bow for his son’s military service, he pointed out that he was a Marine—because we all know that what you’ve done to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Yeah, they’re just as lethal as Obama and Hillary said. When you spend as much as the rest of the planet combined, you can make a lot of things go boom—even if the soldiers can’t do chin ups any more and the sailors get pregnant when they decide their tours of duty have gone on too long. And the cops! One minute you’re calling them murderers, the next you’re slobbering all over them. Our voters are cops. They know who’s on their side. Not you. . . .

“You’ve been building up to this for a long time. No more Superheroes rescuing women in the movies. The girl always has to throw the last punch herself. In the commercials, Dad’s either an idiot—or he’s doing the housework with his boyfriend.

"And you know what? It’s not just our hillbilly voters who are going to vote ‘no’ to all that. A lot of men you never imagined will vote for us. Trump’s going to do better with Latino men than you expect—probably no worse than Romney. He’s going to do better with black men than Romney ever did. And his numbers with white men will be out of sight. Every time you demand that Donald show respect to Hillary—while laughing as Hillary disrespects Donald—you push those numbers up.

Authentic Authority, or Confirmation Bias?

Or both, I suppose. The argument is pretty plausible, and she cites a number of studies of the issue independent of her own argument. On the other hand, given her experience, she has to have a huge confirmation bias issue in terms of which stories (and studies) she finds believable.

My guess is that Vice found her article (a piece of fairly academic sociology) newsworthy just because of her experiences, which gives her an authentic voice to speak to the issue at hand. But isn't it that very authenticity that makes the probability of confirmation bias worse?

All of us have this cognitive bias, so it's no slur to suggest that she must be to some degree motivated by a universal human condition. Nor, I think, is the answer to find the story less newsworthy because it was written by someone with direct experience with the problem. Still, it's an interesting fact that the authenticity and the cognitive bias seem to ride on the same track. Increasing one increases the likelihood of the other, so that our most obvious authorities are also most likely to be wrong in this particular way? That's a frustrating realization.

Entire Police Force Quits Indiana Town

It's always interesting when this happens. In the short term it sounds like the Sheriff's department will simply assume the duties of the city police, which could always be the long-term solution as well provided the Sheriff can obtain the necessary resources. If the city government is corrupt, as it sounds like it might be, having the county take over law enforcement might be a good idea.

This seems like a radical act, but in fact it's come up a number of times before. Typically chaos does not result. Americans have a long tradition of self-governance, and overlapping institutions (one of the characteristics of an anti-fragile system), which means that these cases are more opportunities for reform than disasters waiting to happen.

Dialects on Parade

Thesis: 'The Electoral College is a vestige of slavery and should be abolished!'

Antithesis: 'The Electoral College should do the job the Founders intended and save us from Trump!'

Synthesis: 'Born of slavery, the Electoral College should redeem its history (by saving us from Trump!).'

More on the Russian Information Warfare Campaign

NBC News claims to have learned that the CIA now believes with a high level of confidence that Putin directed much of the information warfare campaign aimed at the US elections. That of course makes perfect sense: were the United States to direct an effort to alter a democratic election, as it has done from time to time, it would probably be reported to the President on a regular basis (and likely be based on a Presidential Finding).

Of great interest is the insight as to the aims:

Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.

Great powers don't do vendettas, but they do punish their enemies in ways that are useful to them. The DNC hack was useful to Putin at home because it defused the force of the Clinton charges against his own electoral system (which he will face again, to whatever degree of peril, in 2018). Showing that Clinton was herself the leader of a deeply manipulative, indeed rigged, primary system would make the presumptive President Clinton less powerful as a Russian critic.

So, in addition to her devotion to a "No Fly Zone" in Syria -- which we've discussed repeatedly -- here was an important enough interest to make this worth doing. If the leaks did nothing else, Putin could point to US media outlets' coverage of the DNC corruption as a defense against American criticism of his re-election campaign.

What is of importance here is that the leaks were anti-Clinton, rather than pro-Trump. Since the leaks began around the time of the DNC, when both primaries were decided, it is easy to become confused about that: the race was binary at that point. But the campaign seems to have been targeted at Clinton and at doing damage to what the Russians probably assumed (like everyone else) would be the incoming administration.

Further evidence along this line comes from a Newsweek report from before the election. The author is sure the Russians are 'favoring Trump,' rather than 'opposing Clinton,' but look at this:

By August, however, fears began to emerge within the Kremlin that the effort was falling apart. Trump’s attacks on the parents of a slain Muslim American soldier following the father’s speech at the Democratic convention created dismay in the Kremlin. Top Russian officials came to believe Trump would be forced to withdraw from the race because of his psychological state and apparent unsuitability for the presidency, according to information obtained by the Western intelligence source. In particular, Kremlin officials feared they could not predict what impact it might have on Russia should Trump step aside. As a result, the Russians decided to stop forwarding material through channels to WikiLeaks...

By October, “buyer’s remorse” had set in at the Kremlin, according to a report obtained by Western counterintelligence. Russia came to see Trump as too unpredictable and feared that, should he win, the Kremlin would not be able to rely on him or even anticipate his actions.

I've cut out a bit in the middle about an alleged Russian attempt to buy one of Trump's advisers, Manafort, who was forced to resign from the Trump campaign over the charges. The truth of the charges is contested, but the Russians wouldn't be trying to buy something they already owned -- and they wouldn't bother buying the adviser if they owned the candidate.

So it looks like Putin started off with the hope of damaging Clinton's credibility as President, and securing his own position. If he could beat her, he had a great deal more to gain in Syria.

However, Trump is just as much a roll-of-the-dice for the Russians as he is for us. He's his own man, for good or ill, and nobody's sure just what he might do. I'm not sure how much of a comfort that is, but it is at least not 'politics as usual' from here on.

UPDATE: An excellent discussion called, "When does a President become a National Security risk?" featuring John McLaughlin. It's a fair-minded look at the whole set of questions.

The Trump voter

A writer for The American Interest realized last spring that neither he nor anyone he knew had personal contact with any Trump supporters. He decided to drive through the American Southeast and talk to Trump supporters:

I learned that people who describe Trump’s supporters as ignorant haven’t talked to them.

I learned that many, possibly a majority, of Trump’s supporters vote for him not because, but despite, his frequently outrageous comments.

I learned that many of Trump’s supporters don’t necessarily trust him.

I learned that, although much of the country today appears to be brimming with anger, very little of that anger seems to take the form of class resentment. Trump’s self-proclaimed status as a billionaire appears to be an unambiguous plus for him as a candidate. Non-affluent Americans seem increasingly to detest and mistrust politicians, but far fewer seem to detest or mistrust rich people, big corporations, or the growing concentration of wealth in the upper tiers of U.S. society.

I learned that very large proportions of Southern and of blue-collar white people, especially men, hold Hillary Clinton in utter contempt. In all my conversations, I met exactly one woman, and not a single man, who said anything positive about Clinton. . . .

I learned that, in addition to a steadily growing partisan divide—liberals vilifying conservatives and vice versa—the United States is also experiencing a growing governing divide, such that millions of Americans find themselves voting for candidates that they can’t stand and don’t trust. The overwhelming majority of those I interviewed simply do not believe that their elected leaders, including those from their own party, are honest or can be trusted even to try to do the right thing. In my view, this sentiment is toxic, particularly in a democracy, and, probably more than any other factor, explains Trump’s rise. He’s an alluring candidate for the large and growing proportion of Americans who believe that the core problem with our politics is politicians.

I learned that many non-affluent Americans fear that the hour is late and that “we’re losing everything.”

I learned that many decent, sincere people who feel disregarded, disrespected, and left behind—in ways that I do not feel and have never felt—can disproportionately embrace political opinions that I view as bigoted or paranoid. And I wonder, if there is fault here, whose fault is it?

Some of these Mexicans Would Make Good Americans

Headline: "Mexican townsfolk kidnap drug boss' mom, demand loved ones."

Suddenly the Mexican government has found soldiers to dispatch to the region, "in hopes of defusing the situation."

I don't know. Sounds like your citizen militia has got it under control.

It's a tough spot, I feel pretty bad about it

Mark Hemingway offers some campaign advice:

It’s conceivable, per Nate Silver, that the Comey letter in late October gave Trump momentum and possibly swung the election. But my response, like most Americans, is “So what?” If you’re worried about an FBI investigation influencing a presidential election DON’T NOMINATE A CANDIDATE UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION. And you really, really, don’t want to nominate a candidate under investigation whose top aide’s husband is also being investigated by the FBI for child pornography who is also allegedly in possession of emails relevant to the candidate’s FBI investigation that he’s keeping on the same computer as his grody sex pics.

Seriously, stop and read those two previous sentences again, and think about why any normal person would be in any way sympathetic to this predicament.

Good, government jobs

A big factor in my defection from the Democratic Party in the 1990s came when the evening newscasters analyzed the big, scary government-shutdown threat and couldn't find any heartrending stories about vital services not being provided to the citizens.  Instead, the stories were all about poor Betty, who wouldn't be able to draw her paycheck this Friday in exchange for doing some kind of job that the reporter didn't even bother describing, let alone justifying the tax cost of.

They're at it again:  CNBC sniffs and huffs at the "fox guarding the henhouse" quality of Trump's anti-departmental picks for department heads.  It's even worse than that, CNBC complains:

Some people are using the "fox guarding the hen house" metaphor to describe these picks. But that's not exactly right. Remember the fox just wants to eat the chickens, not tear down the hen house and put the chickens out of a job.

But you know, guys, the point of the Department of Energy is not supposed to be to provide bureaucrats at the DOE with a nice paycheck. Rick Perry doesn't want to eat the chickens. He wants them to go get an honest job in the private sector and quit eating the taxpayers out of house and home. Alternatively, the chickens might try persuading someone that they're doing work that's actually worth their chicken feed.  As it is, they're essentially expecting the farmer to keep them as pets.  "You wouldn't eat us, would you?"

Thanks, Jill Stein

How funny would it be if the principal effect of the futile Michigan recount initiative was to spur an audit of the corrupt and incompetent Detroit voting system?

I'll Bet A Lot of Investigations Are Coming

Georgia's Secretary of State asks the Donald to investigate DHS's hacking of our state-level computers.

Over/under on how many other change-of-administration investigations will happen? IRS & Loretta Lynch? ATF "Fast and Furious"? DOJ and the Clinton Investigation Suppressions?

Filling the air with Democratic scandals would be a useful way of going on offense against the constant effort to find new Trump scandals.

Conflicts, Part II+

Allahpundit at Hot Air notes a poll showing that most Americans think that Donald Trump's investments will affect his decisions as Presidents, but that a strong majority of Republicans think that's a good thing. Even independents are closely divided, 39/44 good/bad.

Maybe Republicans read the question differently, Allah says, but...

I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that GOPers really did understand this as a question about conflicts of interest and just shrugged it off because they’re willing to let Trump get away with self-enrichment as president. He slayed the Clinton dragon. Giving him a “bonus” by letting special interests shower cash on his properties in hopes of winning the federal government’s favor is really the least we can do to say thanks.

As someone who believes that Trump should definitely do the blind trust option, and get out of the business world entirely, I obviously recognize the downside of these conflicts of interest. Still, there's an upside of a sort that Allah is missing.

Remember the McDonald's Theory of International Relations? It's not quite defunct, although the pure form of the theory ("No two countries both having a McDonald's will ever go to war") is now disproven. But a weaker version of the theory -- and the theory itself was really just a shorthand for a bigger idea about the effect of economic ties on the probability of war -- remains widely held.

I think a close reading of the outbreak of the First World War shows that the theory isn't really solid even in its weaker form. The First World War occurred in spite of very close economic ties, because of a problem associated with the need to mobilize one's forces as early as possible in order to avoid being overrun by an earlier enemy mobilization. Thus, once it seemed likely a potential enemy would mobilize for war, everyone had to do so immediately to avoid being behind the curve, and thus losing everything on the first cast. We have a very similar problem today with regard to the deployment of nuclear forces. (Indeed, if Hillary Clinton is to be believed -- always a chancy proposition! -- a decision has to be made within four minutes. Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared to confirm that timeline, adding that the President's adviser has about three minutes to decide whether to inform the President -- so we're talking about ~10 minutes or less for this set of persons to make its series of decision.)

So I think the theory is wrong, and the same kinds of problems that caused WWI could easily cause a Russian-American war now. But let's ask the question another way: is it ridiculous to think that Trump's business ties in Russia make it less likely that we'll get to the four-minute problem? Or is it likely that his personal cupidity in pursuing Russian business interest lower the probability of a disastrous war? Won't they incline Trump to pursue enriching rather than destructive solutions?

Well, maybe not; so far he seems to be willing to play at brinkmanship with China, which is no wiser than brinkmanship with Russia if avoiding war is your primary goal. There are questions about his temperament (perhaps having a Twitter account will be a satisfying enough revenge for his pricklish pride; perhaps not).

Still, my guess is that Republicans who say his business conflicts are a good thing are thinking of something like the McDonald's Theory. As a statement of probabilities rather than certainties, it's not wholly ridiculous for them to think it. It's just that there's a lot more that the theory doesn't capture.

Antifragility: A Summary

The Art of Manliness has summarized Taleb's new book. I'd like to hear from AVI on how well their understanding of it matches his own, as well as from any of the rest of you who have read it.

This Doesn't Sound Very Russian

Detroit voting machines counted too many votes.

In a set of precincts that went hardcore for the Democrats, that doesn't like the ordinary poor-maintenance issues that trouble Detroit generally, either.

Sexual Objects

Warning: this is an intensely philosophical post that most of you may wish to skip.

A couple of recent articles have touched on the issue of "sexual objectification." The philosophy around right sexuality is something that I've had an interest in for decades, ever since I first encountered Catholic theological arguments in a Comparative Religious Philosophy class. They're very interesting, well-reasoned, but from the beginning they struck me as missing something. This concept of "objectification" has also bothered me for a long time, as it also seems to be missing something.

Before I get into my new thoughts on the matter, let me put the articles in front of you. First, and most important, here is a brief account of Kant's theory of objectification (which goes way beyond sexuality, to embrace the entirety of moral philosophy). It's a longer piece, but I can't usefully excerpt it as the whole argument is needed for the following discussion.

Second, here is an account by Dennis Prager on why sexual objectification is perfectly normal in human males.

It's really the Kantian argument I'm concerned with here, but I think it has much broader application.

So, Kant makes exactly one exception to sex as being morally wrong -- and not just wrong, but intensely wicked because it leads to the objectification of the self as well as the other. That one exception is marriage. Here's the argument on why marriage is permissable: