Category Archives: Uncategorized

The lack of a believable definition for intelligence renders the question moot, of course, but I was fascinated by this suggestion that biological evolution has at least some elements of intelligence:

… natural selection incorporates new information from the environment to favour the best-adapted organisms. Richard Watson at the University of Southampton, UK, decided to look at the mechanisms involved to try to work out what is going on. In evolutionary terms, information about the past is carried in genes inherited by the offspring of fit individuals. But a relatively recent insight is that genes don’t code “for” particular traits. They are team players, and their activity is regulated by other genes to create a network of connections. Natural selection favours those connections that work best. This, Watson realised, is just like how a brain learns. Brains consist of networks of neurons whose structure is shaped by learning because the more a connection is used, the stronger it becomes. Sure enough, when Watson and his colleagues built a computer model that took account of the networked nature of genes, they found it could evolve to learn and remember solutions to problems with just a simulacrum of natural selection to reinforce the best attempts.

Brains don’t just learn specific solutions to particular problems: they also generalise to solve problems they have never encountered. They do this by recognising similarities between new challenges and past ones, and then combining the building blocks of previous solutions to come up with novel ones. This is called inductive learning. Can gene networks do induction too?

Watson and his colleagues argue that they can. The key, they say, is that energy is required to connect genes, because proteins must be produced to achieve this. So, for efficiency, evolution favours networks with fewer connections, which are loosely linked with other subnetworks. These building blocks can be recombined in different ways to generate novel solutions to the problems that challenge life. Thus, evolution’s simple processes form an inductive-learning machine that draws lessons from past successes to improve future performance. [“Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature,” various authors, NewScientist (26 September 2020, paywall)]

It’s a rather glorious cross-link that’s never occurred to me before. I’m not sure I’d call it intelligence in and of itself, since I don’t see any self-awareness, but it’s certainly a part of intelligence. I’ll be interested to see what the experts have to say about this, and what new terminology is developed to describe what appears to be a homologue to biological intelligence.

Yesterday we took what appears our last chance to see fall color, taking the Cooper out for a ride and taking pictures. But it turns out the best picture came right from our garden.

Followed by this:

And then a bit of whimsy.

A movie about the horrors of American Thanksgiving for turkeys might make sense. A movie featuring a time machine, intelligent turkeys, and an AI which tends to speak uncomfortable truths does not. Free Birds (2013) is, unfortunately, in the second category.

The Flynn case continued on 29 September or a trifle earlier, and Anna Salvatore and Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare have provided a useful & mostly non-technical hearing of this argument as to whether Judge Sullivan should accept the government contention that the case against Flynn should never have been opened, or decline it and continue the sentencing phase. Among a lot of interesting interpretations, I think this recount of the behavior of Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, is indicative of yet another third-rate Trumpian personality. The Gleeson mentioned below is retired Judge Gleeson, asked by Judge Sullivan to advocate for continuing the sentencing phase of Flynn’s trial, since the government refuses to fulfill that responsibility. Barr is, of course, AG William Barr.

Now it’s Powell’s turn.

The attorney for Flynn claims that Barr did not respond to her letter, nor did he ever meet with her. Then, apropos of nothing, she states that she hasn’t spoken with the president either “other than an update into the status of the litigation.”

There is a collective gasp among the 500 people on the conference call. You can hear it over the mute function that has all but a few of them in listen-only mode.

“What?” asks Judge Sullivan, speaking for the masses.

Powell says she can’t discuss the issue, as she claims that any of her conversations with the president are protected by executive privilege. Sullivan reminds Powell that she doesn’t work for the government; there is no executive privilege for lawyers representing private parties or for anyone outside the government.

Powell, in response, admits that she recently spoke personally to Trump and requested that he not pardon her client.

It is a magical kind of a courtroom moment. Here Judge Gleeson has been trying to argue that there’s been political interference in the case, but he’s largely had to rely on the implausibility of the government’s stated reasons for its positions to justify the claim—along with dozens of presidential tweets. But here’s the lawyer for the defendant announcing that she has been briefing the president personally on the status of the litigation.

Not one, but two unforced errors. Salvatore and Witte’s general description of Powell is also noteworthy in the context of evaluating the personalities attracted to Trump’s orbit:

Sidney Powell, the lawyer for Flynn, plays the role of the table-banging Fox News pundit—furiously denouncing the witch hunt against her client that was hatched by Barack Obama and executed by his entire administration and, as she put it, continues to this day.

It’s never a good sign when someone says you belong in the company of table-banging Fox News pundits – famously known even within Fox News for their incompetence.

The Lincoln Project cleverly suggests that Republican candidates should put space between themselves and President Trump:

Spectacularly clever, not to mention creative. And right on the mark. Spread the word on this one!

From WaPo:

A group of lawyers is offering advice to military and National Guard members who worry they may be given unlawful orders if deployed during protests or disputes over next month’s elections.

The Orders Project was formed in response to the use of force against protesters this summer in Lafayette Square, two of the founders said in an interview Friday.

The protests, which followed the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis, prompted confusion among law enforcement and National Guard leaders. Some officials said they had no warning that the U.S. Park Police, which commanded the operation, planned to move against protesters and that the crowd could have been moved out of the area without the use of force.

In a truly selfish society, we’d never see a group come together, recognize a potential and difficult danger in the upcoming election, and donate their time and substantial expertise to try to fix it. That recognition of the importance of a democracy and peaceful transfer of power is going to be one of the things I think about on days when America’s future seems dark: there are good-hearted people out there, willing to do what they can to help ensure we stay on the path of peace, which is one of the first steps that will permit the pursuit of justice for all of us.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT):

Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 8, 2020

A great-sounding excuse for keeping Trump, and indeed the entire Republican Party, as corrupt and immoral as it is, in power. In fact, David Harsanyi buys enthusiastically into it.

But it doesn’t work. From Democracy, built on a backbone of justice unswayed by popular passions, attended to by minds and hands reverent to its rational sanctity, trusted by those enabled by it, flows liberty, peace, and prosperity. Not in spite of it, nor unswayed by it, but because of it. That’s what makes Lee’s magical formula fail, utterly and completely.

Harsanyi’s piece, which appears to be little more than an excuse for cheap shots at people he despises, doesn’t address this central tenet of the system concocted and refined by the Founding Fathers.

And if you’re wondering about my phrase reverent to its rational sanctity, that means magical thinkers need not apply. The one thing democracy requires is a substantial, majority substantially devoted to rationality. A cacophony of magical thinkers, each disdainful of the next, and ready to condemn them for their ignorance, will merely cause democracy to fail.

I don’t know about you folks, but I’ve noticed, over the years, that it seems like Canada puts out more than its fair share of documentaries, and they’re often quite good. But Canadian documentary industry worker Christina Clark, on The Line, says things are going downhill:

Somewhere along the way in my career, I became part of what we call in Quebec a “machine à saucisse” — a sausage factory — churning out content to fit predetermined narratives to please public broadcasters who don’t actually have to satisfy their audience to earn revenue. In the last few years, I’ve noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the documentary industry: we have begun to tell stories that serve ideological narratives, instead of telling stories that enlighten curious audiences.

Many of the stories now told through documentary skew the truth by reinforcing the viewpoint du jour. Interviews and scenes that break with the chosen narrative, that offer something other than a black-and-white approach to society and the complexities of humanity, happen off camera or end up on the editing room floor. This is all in an effort to promote diverse voices and the political opinions that allegedly support them. But when we lay claim to a singular viewpoint or dismiss a perspective because the creator’s or the subject’s skin tone or gender does not fit the narrative of inclusion, we are actually removing diversity from the storytelling equation. And what we’re left with are one-sided storylines that reinforce an echo chamber of virtue signalling.

Why?

Through these experiences, I slowly learned that the stories we fund for public broadcasting also cater to the biases of people living in Canada’s wealthiest cities. The divide between issues that matter to rural populations and those that matter to urbanites is growing, across Canada and the United States. By comparison, there is little room for Canadians to openly debate issues of public importance because there is no major platform here that has managed to avoid this callow, creatively stifling ideology. This is another consequence of having state-run and state-funded media that decides for us. Important, nuanced stories — stories that speak to all Canadians — remain untold.

It would not be hard to write a rant about how the free market system would not permit this sort of thing to happen, and that the documentaries would not lose their edge of excellence. It would have a lot of validity and help focus on the problems that critical theory causes for wokeness.

But I think there’s an important counterpoint that would be obscured in the wake of the hypothetical rant, and it’s this: Despite the old REASON Magazine slogan of Free Minds, Free Markets (which seems to have disappeared off their website, so it must have been retired; I may have it backwards, too – hah!), a free market does not necessarily lead to free and, implied, morality-optimized minds. Markets, after all, serve people, they do not lead people, they do not improve morality. Only if a mass moral defect leads to a profit deficit, can be recognized as so, and the suppliers are more worried about their own moral deficit and profit deficit than the potential anger of customers, can free markets lead people to moral improvement.

But, on the other hand, whether or not documentary makers should be out in front, trying to lead, is a bit of a question. Think of the old Horse to water chestnut – you can try to improve the horse, but sometimes it just can’t run faster. I think, in a way, I haven’t quite found a stable point in my reasoning on this subject that rebuffs both sides in the question. So the following may be regarded as tentative and subject to refinement or even retraction.

As time passes, the dictatorial focus on wokeness will generally deteriorate the quality of organizations who utilize it. I think – and it won’t be easy – the successful organizations will focus on race-blind excellence measures during the hiring and retention processes, with perhaps some minor tweaking if racial balances happen to occur through the potential statistical quirks.

Gerontocracy:

1. A state, society, or group governed by old people.

‘It’s no surprise that American media organizations are gerontocracies.’

1.1 [mass noun] Government based on rule by old people.

‘We have to admit that stubborn gerontocracy has been a major obstacle to reforming politics due to the aged politicians’ obstinacy and narrow-mindedness.’

[Oxford Dictionaries]

Noted in “Reality Ends The Reality Show,” Andrew Sullivan’s mail response section, The Weekly Dish:

It’s a mixed bag with both experience and inevitable slowing down – and I have no problem with older leaders in general. But America is in danger of becoming a gerontocracy at the very top. After chastising me for calling Hunter Biden’s corruption “sleaze”, a reader thinks his cocaine problem actually provided a good moment for his father: “To me, admitting one of your kids had a drug problem, worked hard to get past it, and that you’re super proud of him is something that can resonate with many Americans, especially those touched by the opioid crisis.” I agree. In fact, I think Trump’s dismissal of addiction hurt him badly.

Oh, yeah, as per usual, domestic terrorism is coming from the right side of the spectrum. Antifa and BLM? Those protests, because that’s what they are, become louder and raucous as a way to get the attention of those in power, to make them uncomfortable, to thrust the needs of justice in the face of those in power and, hopefully, get the proper reaction.

The hapless planners of terror in Michigan? It’s all me, me, me. Resentful children, heavily armed. They’ve been around since the 1990s and earlier; my earliest memories are of the Michigan Militia., and while Wikipedia says 1994, mine go back further. And don’t forget Timothy McVeigh.

Someone should ask Trump to put the Wolverine Watchmen on the list of known terrorist groups and see how he reacts.

Long time conservative columnist George Will stumbles in his distaste for progressives:

Arick Wierson and Bradley Honan urge an important endorsement of Joe Biden from the only uncommitted former living President:

After the debate and the recent endorsement of Biden by Cindy McCain, the widow of Sen. John McCain, it’s now time for former President George W. Bush to finally put an end to the Trump presidency by endorsing Joe Biden for President — and in doing so, save the country and the GOP from itself.

And I won’t argue with them. As the only living former Republican President, it’s a little difficult to understand President Bush’s hesitancy as he watches his Party burning in infamy, but perhaps he’s waiting for an opportune moment. If he is, that moment is now.

It’s not difficult to make a case for Bush having made many errors of judgment, but the fact remains that for some portion of the Republican Party, he remains a respected figure – according to the authors of the above opinion piece, 70+%.

If he chooses to endorse Biden, he might be wisest to place all his eggs in one basket, and that’s the peaceful transfer of power basket. This is not a partisan issue; it is part of the bedrock of the nation. That one candidate has not committed to it should be enough to disqualify said candidate, and Bush should eloquently make that the fundamental issue, the reason that Trump should be loathed, politically, by all voters, even those who have gained power by him, and why Biden, who simply Yes! every time he’s asked to commit to it, should be their selection for President.

Come on, President Bush. I didn’t vote for you, and you left so many issues behind that this country is still torn by them. But this is an easy one in which you can swing a mighty big hammer.

The recently introduced legislation to further enable the 25th Amendment certainly has Republicans in an uproar, although it may all be faux-uproar:

Crazy Nancy Pelosi is looking at the 25th Amendment in order to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris. The Dems want that to happen fast because Sleepy Joe is out of it!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2020

And it’s not just Trump, as faithful Trump apologist Erick Erickson – yes, Erickson, I know you think you’re an objective observer – also kicks in his echo-opinion in private email to non-subscribers to his newsletter:

That all suggests this is really about making it easier for Kamala Harris to replace Joe Biden if he should win. These are not good optics.

Of course, neither Trump nor Erickson address the deeply uncomfortable fact that Biden has, from all reports, come off as competent, knowledgeable, compassionate, and precise in his speeches and debate performance, with little or no propensity for lying through his teeth, unlike Trump. I wouldn’t expect Trump to have the guts to admit to it, of course, but if Erickson were truly an objective analyst, rather than an apologist who has convinced himself that the lies and other Trumpian deep sins are more acceptable than society, like, changing, you know?, then I’d expect some honest analysis from him.

Instead, we get this:

I realize the Democrats believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document, but I didn’t think they’d decide to perform abortions on it.

And then he goes on to analyze the legislation as if it’s already law. But it’s not, it’s up for debate, improvement, and correction in the Senate, and if the Republicans were a functional Party, I’d expect that we’d get a fairly good piece of legislation out of it through contributions from both Parties. You know, how government used to work, which I will now assure the younger members of my reading audience is how American government worked before the Republicans were invaded by religion.

More importantly, Erickson deliberately chooses to use a trigger word, abortion, a word that the right has been trained to associate with evil, and thus associate this legislation with that same idiotic evil, and then slather legislation deliberately permitted under the Constitution with some really dumb innuendo.

I mean, come on, man. If the Democrats want Harris to succeed Biden soon after the inauguration, if it happens, then all Biden has to do is resign.

Resign.

You don’t need anything fancier than that. And if he doesn’t want to resign and he has his faculties, great. Harris gains highly valuable experience working with the VP of the highly successful Obama Administration.

I mean, why doesn’t Erickson acknowledge these simple facts? He can beat his gums all he wants about Obama, but the numbers speak for themselves in terms of economics, crime, scandal-free government, what-have-you. Obama was far more successful and competent than Trump or Bush. But he can’t acknowledge that, can he?

And that’s because Erickson is frantic to retain his reputation as a conservative pundit. Not as an insightful, independent pundit, but as one of those magisterial conservatives, such as populates National Review: they spew out their regal sounding essays that, in my limited experience, fall apart quickly under examination. With just a hint of Rush Limbaugh’s corrupt, lovely voice. Erickson can’t do that by suggesting that his President is incompetent, either in terms of temperament or even core intelligence. His core audience would leave, and he’d be as audience-less as … well, to be brutally honest, myself.

Such is the result of not adhering to Party kant, eh?

So, instead, we get brainless caterwauling over proposed legislation that pertains to future incompetent Executives. The Dems do the responsible thing and Trump loses his mind, because he’s aware there’s an implied insult in it, and because Trump loses his mind, Erickson has to ape him.

It’s too bad.

From Canada’s New Leaf Project:

In partnership with the University of British Columbia, Foundations for Social Change launched the world’s first direct cash transfer program to empower people to move beyond homelessness in Canada.

Specifically, our New Leaf project (NLP) distributed a one-time cash transfer of $7,500 to people experiencing recent homelessness in the Vancouver area.

While many would balk at the thought of disbursing large sums of cash to people living in homelessness, our approach was based upon scientific evidence and our bold action has paid off. By preventing people from becoming entrenched as homeless, NLP helps individuals to maintain dignity and regain hope. At the same time, community resources can be spent in other urgent areas.

Cash transfers provide choice, control and purchasing power at a critical time in people’s lives. This is not merely a gesture of help, it is a signal that society believes in them.

CNN summarizes:

Researchers gave 50 recently homeless people a lump sum of 7,500 Canadian dollars (nearly $5,700). They followed the cash recipients’ life over 12-18 months and compared their outcomes to that of a control group who didn’t receive the payment.

The preliminary findings, which will be peer-reviewed next year, show that those who received cash were able to find stable housing faster, on average. By comparison, those who didn’t receive cash lagged about 12 months behind in securing more permanent housing.

People who received cash were able to access the food they needed to live faster. Nearly 70% did after one month, and maintained greater food security throughout the year.

The recipients spent more on food, clothing and rent, while there was a 39% decrease in spending on goods like alcohol, cigarettes or drugs.

Keeping in mind that 50 subjects barely makes this study statistically significant, the subjects were carefully selected, and the study is not peer-reviewed, it does make a lot of sense once we discard the mindset that poverty and homelessness are symptoms of, well, sin and bad judgment. As we become more and more overpopulated, the societal surges become more and more a symptom of the pathologies of a society struggling with inequities, failures of morality in the corporate world, and a failure to consider the communal good in favor of the Me-Me-Me world that seems to pervade the political spectrum, if unevenly. The individual failures are less symptomatic of bad choices and more of hopeless situations, or of choices made in the face of the maelstrom that could not have easily been improved upon.

This also inclines me more favorably towards experimenting with Universal Basic Income (UBI), as this study can be seen as a temporary UBI. I don’t see UBI as a panacea for hopelessness and homelessness (H&H), yet it’s difficult to deny that a lack of income can contribute to institutional H&H. Can UBI alleviate that and improve societal mental health? The corporate world might well back UBI, once it realizes that better mental health leads to improved productivity, although it also leads to more worker mobility – a problem for businesses who are, to summarize some thoughts, poorly run.

I hope we hear more about this study in the future.

Steve Benen has a go:

After the vice presidential debate, Trump described Sen. Kamala Harris as a “monster,” and repeatedly said she’s a “communist.” (Fact check: the senator is neither.)

Given Trump’s tendency to project his own sins, acts, and contemplated acts on his opponents, it sorta makes me wonder…

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010) is a tightly plotted murder mystery, full of beautiful cinematography, wonderful costumes, well-drawn characters, captions, and a theme having to do with the sacrifices principle can demand of you.

During the Chinese Tang Dynasty, a scruple-free, ambitious woman of the royal family has found her way to the edge of becoming the first Empress of China, and, towards this end, she has commissioned the creation of a great statue, a colossus. A tremendous achievement, it stands before the coronation stand, an integral part of the upcoming installation of the empress.

A ceremony imperiled when a member of the royal household, on an inspection tour, suddenly bursts into flames, dying in a most horrible manner. Of course, such people are somewhat rife in all royal households – it’s like dead bodies and maggots – but when the chief penal officer meets a similar fate, the imminent empress decides a formal investigation must take place, as performed by the best.

And that would be Detective Dee.

The traitor, Detective Dee.

Dee is immediately at hazard, as he is assaulted in his place of imprisonment, but escapes unharmed, accepts his assignment from this woman he had revolted against, and sets off to discover who can cause people to burst into flames, and how.

And that’s only if he can survive royal intrigue himself. Because, I’ll tell you, his assistants, as able as they are, find themselves under almost-constant assault. Dee makes progress, but at costs both tangible and intangible, and it’s the latter that make this a good story, bringing into sharp relief the individual costs of honor. But, as Dee discovers, there’s more going on here than just a few murders.

There’s the rupture of tradition.

In terms of negatives, I only identified one definite scene which I thought was unlikely within the context of the story, as it delivered to Dee a key clue but didn’t make sense for the antagonist to indulge in. I must also add there’s a fair bit of magical kung fu shit, but it’s manageable and even fun. The real point of this movie is the story it tells, the themes it explores, and not the wild ‘n crazy fight scenes. In some ways, they function like humor in a horror movie, accentuating the theme, rather than obscuring it.

If you like a tight plot and don’t mind reading captions, or if you speak Mandarin, take a couple of hours and a bowl of popcorn and enjoy this one.

Ossicone:

Reticulated giraffe ossicones. Source: Wikipedia

Ossicones are horn-like or antler-like protuberances on the heads of giraffes, male okapis, and their extinct relatives, such as Sivatherium, and the climacoceratids, such as Climacoceras. It has been argued that these extinct species did not have true ossicones; however, later research has revealed their ossicones to be in line with those of giraffids. Ossicones are located dorsally of the frontal bone and fuse to the skull later in life. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “The horn-like knobs on a giraffe’s head can be a deadly lightning rod,” Joshua Rapp Learn, NewScientist (26 September 2020):

Rockwood ranger Frans Moleko Kaweng went out to investigate and it quickly became apparent what had happened. The oldest and tallest giraffe of the herd, the matriarch, was lying dead with a wound on top of her head. It appeared as if one of her ossicones – the horn-like knobs on a giraffe’s head – may have acted as a lightning rod in the storm.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you evolution leads to perfection. It’s a collection of tradeoffs.

This tickled my fancy:

In 2018, on the Red Sea’s Mar Mar Island, Matthew Tietbohl, a coral reef ecologist at King Abdullah University of Science & Technology in Saudi Arabia, was surveying a beach for sea turtle tracks with some colleagues. The team heard loud splashing at the water’s edge.

“We turned to see this triggerfish launching itself into the shallows and stranding itself,” recounts Tietbohl.

It soon became clear that the fish was attempting to feed on ghost crabs that were grazing on algae-covered rocks at the water’s edge. The triggerfish would slowly stalk the crabs from the water, turning on its side and lunging out of the shallows like a crocodile. At one point, the fish successfully gripped a crab, pulling it back into the water. [NewScientist]

I feel like we’re seeing evolution in action.

From WaPo:

“There is a long way to go and there is a pent-up Trump vote that I believe is underreported,” former Trump campaign adviser Ed Brookover said. “The president has his pulse on the country and a lot of America is going to get out there and make sure he has four more years.”

Let’s take this apart.

1. Trump has been running his reelection campaign from the day he filed papers with the FEC – and that was the day he was inaugurated. Voters have already begun sending in their ballots, and they cannot be retracted. We’re down to the last 3.5 weeks. Dude, you don’t know how to measure time, do you?
2. Underreported? He wasn’t in 2016, the polls were accurate, but failed to take the oddities of the Electoral College into account – Clinton won by several million votes. In 2018, the last nationwide & official measurement of voter’s sentiment, Trump and the Republicans were stomped into the ground.
3. Just about every recent poll and survey I’ve seen makes it clear that all but the Trump cult members have realized, and really quite quickly, that Trump’s a faker and a taker. Name your polling service, it’s there. Hell, Fox News has Trump down 10 points – and that’s Fox News.

A prime example of magical thinking, saying what he wishes – or his employers wish – were true. These are the sort of people that lead to disaster.

In the arena of trying to take control of their political fates, I see Senator Graham (R-SC) is going to try the scary task of separating himself from President Trump by just a small hair:

Strongly recommend all my colleagues and President @realdonaldTrump look at the House Problem-Solvers bipartisan $1.5 trillion stimulus relief package.

It has many good things for individuals and businesses.
https://t.co/M7HvwCv9MS

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 7, 2020

Is that President Trump once again signing blank sheets of paper? I wonder if Senator Graham is employing some sort of sly dig – which this illness of mine doesn’t permit me to discern – in order to tell his constituent that he is really independent of the President.

And not just my second-favorite lickspittle.

In government, a first rate civil servant, besides being good at their job, understands the importance of following rules.

A third-rater?

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows hosted a lavish wedding for his daughter in Atlanta this May, despite a statewide order and city of Atlanta guidelines that banned gatherings of more than 10 people to prevent the spread of the deadly coronavirus.

The wedding took place May 31 at the Biltmore Ballrooms in Midtown Atlanta. The 70 or so guests, including U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, donned tuxedos and ball gowns for the indoor affair, but no masks, as Meadows walked his daughter, Haley, down the aisle through a path of soft white flower petals. [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The rules don’t apply to them if they’ve achieved a position of power. It’s a mindset deriving from how they see their position: not as a position of service, but as a position of command and power.

Hopefully, this recounting of recent poll results by Steve Benen will remain accurate up to Election Day:

Not its best video, but effective: The Lincoln Project.

13WOWK reports on a West Virginia political poll:

In the race for U.S. president, President Donald Trump (R) holds a 56% to 38% lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden, according to the poll. 4.8% said they were still unsure of which candidate they would be voting for on Election Day.

Impressive, yeah? West Virginia voters aren’t paying attention, yeah?

No.

According to Wikipedia, Trump beat Clinton by 42 points in 2016.

And I want to know is if that 56% in the poll realize that a substantial portion of their former political colleagues have switched their party allegiance, and if they wonder if perhaps there’s something they’re missing in the current political climate.

Does self-doubt gnaw at them?

Or do they just merrily march on, certain that Trump is the way to go?

I’m going to guess the epistemic bubble echos the phrase You’re right! to them.

Woodrow Wilson, two nights before Election Day, 1916, wrote a letter in which he communicates a plan in case he loses his reelection campaign. Professor Matthew Waxman explains on Lawfare:

In his early life as a scholar, Wilson had written about the structural defects of the U.S. constitutional system for managing crises. So it should be no surprise that he thought about them as president. What is surprising are the actions he planned. Assuming that they went along with this move, in the interim between Hughes’s election and inauguration, Wilson would appoint Hughes to replace Robert Lansing as his secretary of state. Once Hughes was in that office, Wilson and Vice President Thomas Marshall would resign, whereupon, according to succession rules at the time, Hughes would become president early.

Wilson had his flaws, but at least he was prepared to sacrifice for his country. Should we expect the same from President Trump, if he fails to perform a miracle and win reelection?

And it’s a lovely little story.