Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Trump dominates even the Democratic convention

July 28, 2016

The DNC convention should have been all about Hillary. Instead it is becoming all about Trump.

Not unexpectedly, it has been Trump-bashing all week both by Democrat politicians and by the – largely – anti-Trump media. Last night Obama came out strongly in Clinton’s corner and criticised Trump. Michael Bloomberg stated that Hillary was “sane and competent” unlike Trump. Somebody else went down the dubious  “all good girls have abortions” line. and attacked Trump. Harry Reid attacked Trump, Martin O’Malley attacked Trump, Joe Biden attacked Trump. Joe Biden went on to say that “America was already great”. Chris Murphy attacked Donald Trump, Tim Kaine attacked Trump. Michelle Obama attacked Trump and said that “America was the greatest”. Bernie Sanders attacked Trump. Bernie Sanders’ supporters were very unhappy with the DNC and Hillary Clinton, but they too attacked Trump.

Everybody in sight and his pet dog attacked Trump.

Many of the attacks are so contrived or so over-the-top that they can only be counter-productive. The Democrats have effectively handed Trump a full week of attention and publicity on a plate. There’s still another day for the DNC convention to run, but it is quite clear that attacking Donald Trump dominates the proceedings – even more than supporting Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is dominating the media and all attention even at Clinton’s party.

Donald Trump is holding out being “Great Again” as the hope. To counter that by just saying America is “Already Great” could be the strategic blunder of this election.

It has been my theory for over 6 months now that full-frontal attacks on Trump are counter productive. His support feeds and grows on such attacks from the establishment. It is also my theory that to diminish his support requires occupying some of the ground he stands on – not by denying that the ground exists. “Great Again” is what an increasing number of the electorate aspire to. For Michelle Obama to merely claim that “America is the greatest” gives such aspirations no hope at all. Is she really saying to “black live matters” that all is “sweetness and light”? Barack Obama – after 8 years of “where he could but didn’t” – merely asks them to live in hope rather than in fear. For Joe Biden to also say that “America was already great” was a denial of hope for those who live in a depression and keep going only buoyed by their  aspirations for something better.

“Already Great”  smacks of complacency. It gives no room for aspirations. It is likely to be a bad loser against “Great Again”.  It is not what Democrats would like to hear or to acknowledge but “Great Again” is about hope and “Great Already” is about complacency.

The Democrats are turning Trump into the candidate of hope.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump dominates even the Democratic convention

Trump can’t do “issues” and Clinton can’t do “mood”

July 24, 2016

It is my observation and experience that logic and rational arguments on the one hand and emotional arguments on the other are like parallel lines which never meet. If logical argument is pitted against emotions, a meeting of minds is not possible, nobody is persuaded and nobody “wins”. It strikes me that the US Presidential election is going to be between one candidate trying to get the electorate to respond to emotions and the other to argument. But it would be wrong to think that an apparently reasoned argument is always more correct or “better” than an emotional one. Intuition, gut-feelings and hunches are often correct and are all essentially examples of “emotional” decision making. Even economic decisions – which one might expect to be very rational – are nearly always trumped by the “mood” in the markets.

Trump may be exaggerating the gloom and doom but nobody in their right minds would argue that all is sweetness and light. And it would seem from the anger and frustration and powerlessness that is abroad among the US electorate, that there is a revolt against the direction that conventional, correct politics has taken the US. I see no other explanation for the “anti-establishment” wave present, not only in the US, but globally. There is electoral capital to be made – globally – by tapping into this “mood” that the wrong path has been followed for far too long.

Now, the US Presidential election is boiling down to be a fight between evoking a “mood” on the one hand against an argued presentation of “issues”. The contrast between the two candidates is stark. Hillary Clinton’s strength does not lie in appealing to emotions to evoke a mood of sweetness and light to counter Trump’s gloom and doom. Donald Trump, however, is not the best person for presenting a rational, argued position on a complex issue.

For the US electorate I think it is going to be a classic stand-off between heart and head, between impulse buying against a purchase based on a cost-benefit analysis. I don’t think that one is necessarily “better” than the other. I have made some impulse buys which were disasters and others which were inspired. In the corporate world I hardly ever made large purchases which were not based on some form of cost-benefit analysis. But I also remember how assumptions were skewed to cover the “intangibles” so that the analysis eventually matched the “gut feeling”. Apparently “reasoned” decisions were actually emotional ones.

Trump can’t do issues – but he can do “mood”. “We should have gone to Mars and not to the Middle East” is all about evoking a mood. “Make America safe again/ proud again / great again” is a naked appeal to return to “the good old days” which only ever exist in the rosy fog of nostalgia. In trying to evoke “mood”, Trump can ignore getting bogged down in policy details at which he is not particularly adept. Clinton on the other hand, may try occasionally to evoke emotions, but that always seems very contrived and could be counter-productive. She will probably be far better off to stick to reasoned argument.

In November it is going to be mood versus issues. Trump can’t do “issues” and Clinton can’t do “mood”. For the US voter it is, I think,  going to be the emotional choice between a high-risk, high-gain Trump or the reasoned choice of a low-risk, low-gain Clinton. Things have crystallised but not changed much since I wrote 3 months ago:

After 8 years of a lack-lustre and indecisive, risk-averse Barack Obama who promised much only to deceive, Hillary Clinton offers “more of the same”. She is as “establishment” as it is possible to be. She represents the safe choice. There is no chance of any kind of greatness, only of a slight improvement or a gentle decline. She removes the possibility of a “high gain” scenario.

But I see two possible outcomes with Donald Trump. The first is that he will be the unmitigated disaster that the media and the politically correct expect. In this scenario, the US will become a harder, more bigoted country, less tolerant of minorities and less compassionate. It will become divisive in domestic affairs and inept and dangerous in its foreign policy. It will become a sin to remain poor. …. The second scenario is that US domestic and foreign policy will become entirely “trade” oriented. International friendships and alliances will have to have a cost-benefit analysis. Public spending and government jobs will be drastically down-sized. Bureaucrats will be subject to performance indicators. It will not be a sin to be rich. The ideological shift will be to “people as they deserve” rather than to “people as they desire”.

Trump versus Clinton

High-risk, high-gain Trump or low-risk, low-gain Clinton

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

5 years today since the Utøya massacre

July 22, 2016

It was 5 years ago today, when Anders Behring Breivik massacred 77 people.

The victims of Oslo and Utøya: RIP

The torrent of words about Anders Behring Breivik is as nothing compared to the reality of the lives he snuffed out.

I found this montage of some of his victims unbelievably moving and more telling then many million words.

Courtesy and credit Aftonbladet:

The victims of the massacre in Norway : montage from Aftonbladet

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on 5 years today since the Utøya massacre

The wolf of Perdana Putra (aka “Malaysian Official 1”)

July 21, 2016

Perdana Putra

Office of The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Main Block, Perdana Putra Building, Federal Government Administrative Centre, 62502 Putrajaya, MALAYSIA

1MDB rolls on and it is probably getting quite warm in Perdana Putra. But whether Najib Razak is feeling the heat is not so certain.

Wall Street Journal: U.S. prosecutors have linked the prime minister of Malaysia, a key American ally in Asia, to hundreds of millions of dollars allegedly siphoned from one of the country’s economic development funds, according to a civil lawsuit seeking the seizure of more than $1 billion of assets from other people connected to him.

The Justice Department filed lawsuits Wednesday to seize assets that it said were the result of $3.5 billion that was misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Bhd., or 1MDB, a fund set up by Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2009 to boost the Malaysian economy. …. Among the Justice Department’s assertions: That some $1 billion originating with 1MDB was plowed into hotels; luxury real estate in Manhattan, Beverly Hills and London; fine art; a private jet and the 2013 film “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Among those behind the spending, the lawsuit alleges, was Riza Aziz, stepson of Mr. Najib.

BBC: Malaysian PM Najib Razak is facing pressure internationally and at home amid US allegations of massive fraud at state investment fund 1MDB. The fund was set up by Mr Najib in 2009 with the stated aim of boosting the Malaysian economy.

But US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said evidence showed it had defrauded Malaysians “on an enormous scale”. On Wednesday, US authorities moved to seize more than $1bn (£761m) in assets related to the fund. Mr Najib is not named in the papers and has consistently denied wrongdoing.

But he is identifiable as “Malaysian Official 1”, whose account allegedly received millions in funds originating from 1MDB. The $1bn the US hopes to seize would make up only a proportion of the more than $3.5bn (£2.6bn) allegedly diverted.

I haven’t heard – yet – that Leonardo DiCaprio is being investigated.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Malaysia, Politics | Comments Off on The wolf of Perdana Putra (aka “Malaysian Official 1”)

Trump nominated, as the clown trounces the media

July 20, 2016

I never thought he would actually get this far. I took him for a clown to begin with. Later, I remembered that clowns can have hidden depths. There are times in any show when it is time for the clown to come on, and when only a clown will do. He reminded me, from my own experiences, of my first impressions of Laloo Prasad Yadav and my later realisation of the shrewdness and native cunning that Laloo had (still has I suppose). I remembered that Trump was born rich but had indeed made himself much richer. Donald Trump hit a nerve and was perfectly placed – but not I think by design –  to catch and ride an anti-establishment wave. The wave is turning out to be a global phenomenon and may turn into a tsunami.

For 12 months now, he has faced the massed opposition and vilification of the media not only in the US, but globally. The media have been scathing and openly slanderous about Trump. The liberal-left media have been frothing at the mouth in their indignation and have been hard put to find the words to describe their revulsion and disgust (Washington Post, Boston Globe, Huff Post, The Guardian, Der Spiegel …..). The New York Times has been openly hostile but has tried to keep one foot on the fence. Some of the right-wing media have been vitriolic in their opposition (Fox, Red State) while others have pointedly refrained from total opposition and remained neutral (Drudge, Washington Times). Every TV channel in the US has been opposed to Trump.

media vs trump

And yet, Donald Trump is now the official Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US. He was expected to be the first hopeful to drop out. Instead the rivals he has trounced (Bush, Kasich, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, ….) were the cream of the establishment, Republican, heavyweights. Two years ago I though it would be a Clinton-Bush fight. But Jeb Bush was pulverised early on in the competition (and the Bush family are still sulking). It has been a remarkable triumph for Trump considering the unprecedented level of opposition from the media and the political establishment (including the Republican establishment). I have never in my lifetime seen the media so united in their opposition to a candidate. And yet, they have all failed, and failed quite miserably, in their objective to “stop Trump”. The dismal failure of the media is all the more pronounced considering their almost unanimous opposition. Trump has reached and touched and ridden something above and beyond the control of the media. perhaps even beyond their understanding. He has connected with support which actually feeds and grows on the media opposition to him. Every time an establishment figure has castigated Trump, his support has grown. He backtracks on previous statements but never apologises. He makes gaffes which are quickly forgotten. He makes outrageous statements about ridiculous policies and his support does not desert him. It is mood – not issues – that seems to be controlling.

Those who have been particularly outspoken against him are now realising that it might not be such a good idea to completely alienate somebody who could be President in November. President Trump? It still sounds like a fantasy.

The wrong person? Or another Reagan? A catastrophe? Or an inspired choice? But, in the unfolding drama that is the US, it does begin to look like he could be the right clown with the right mood, for the right audience, in the right place, at the right time.

Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

 

 

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Media, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump nominated, as the clown trounces the media

So, why is brainwashing of children perfectly acceptable?

July 19, 2016

Yesterday a radicalised, 17 year old, Afghan refugee, armed with an axe and knives, shouting “Allahu Akbar”, went on a rampage on a train in Würzburg, Germany. He wounded 4 seriously and injured many others and was shot dead.

It seems that “freedom of religion” includes the fundamental right to brainwash children. It is not only allowed but is encouraged. Is it then surprising that a radicalisation epidemic is now raging? There is very little “freedom” here.

children - catholic Erbil image catholicnewsagency

catholic refugee children in Erbil image catholicnewsagency

children - islamic kidergarden Austria - Getty images

children – islamic kindergarden Austria – Getty images

children - hindu image The Hindu

children – hindu image The Hindu

children -buddhist school Thailand image -The Guardian

children -buddhist school Thailand image -The Guardian

Most people are not prone to radicalisation. But having been brainwashed as a child does make for good preparation.

Belief, and religions, only exist in the “Space of Ignorance”. Any true belief ought to be the result of a cognitive-emotional process followed by every individual. It is hardly true belief when it is force-fed to children long before they have reached emotional or cognitive maturity.

What is not knowledge is ignorance. Religions only exist in the Space of Ignorance

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Religion, Religious misconduct | Comments Off on So, why is brainwashing of children perfectly acceptable?

If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue, Clinton could easily lose

July 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton appears to have a substantial lead over Donald Trump in many polls (though there are some polls which puts them quite close). His uninspiring choice of running mate does not bode well either (for him). But, paradoxically, it is “black lives matter” and the mood it inculcates of it being “open season” on the police, which might give Trump an unbeatable edge.

It is not just in Dallas, or now in Baton Rouge, that policemen (some of them black) are being killed by murderous black men. The LA Times (which is virulently anti-Trump), reports:

When five police officers were killed and nine wounded in an attack during a protest march in Dallas on July 7, it rattled the nation. Ten days later, three officers were killed and three injured in Baton Rouge, La., as they were responding to a call about a suspicious person with an assault rifle.

Between the two attacks, law enforcement officers from Georgia to Michigan were shot in incidents that drew far less attention but have added to the growing sense that it’s a dangerous time to be a cop. With the Dallas shootings, 31 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty so far this year, compared with 18 officers who had died at this point in 2015, according the statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. 

…… “As we see increases, it becomes very concerning, particularly when you see increases in the cases of the nature of Dallas,” Breul said. “Certainly there is a climate now — and the Dallas case indicates that there is a climate now — that certainly should have police on guard,” he added. 

Supporters of “black lives matter” were not slow in celebration of the deaths and in commending the police killers both after Dallas and after Baton Rouge. (Not unlike the Islamic teenagers celebrating after the terrorist truck attack in Nice). Donald Trump responded immediately and was quick to draw a picture of the break-down of law and order and the lack of leadership. Hillary Clinton, however, took almost 8 hours to respond very cautiously to the Baton Rouge killings. Sarcastic comments suggested she was waiting for her focus group to tell her what to say.

“Immigration” is the issue that has probably helped most – so far – to fuel Trump’s support among those who feel it has gotten out of control. However there is a significant amount of support for the pro-immigration position as well, which accrues – by default – to Hillary Clinton.  “Law and Order” as an issue is different to “immigration”. There is only a “pro” position here. It is not possible to be “against” law and order. If “law and order” becomes a key issue then it becomes the candidates’ credibility to promote “law and order” that count.

And here, I think, Hillary Clinton could lose very heavily. There is no conceivable way she can present herself as being in favour of, or of being able to restore, or even manage “law and order”. It is not so much that Trump will have any more in the way of solutions than blank support of the security forces, but Clinton does not even understand the problem. Her perceived pandering to “black lives matter” means not just zero credibility regarding “law and order”, but actually a huge negative that she must first overcome. Clinton would lose rather than that Trump would win.

Trump’s best chance now to win against Clinton probably depends upon “immigration” and “law and order” becoming the key issues in November. If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue then Clinton will self-destruct.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue, Clinton could easily lose

Something fishy with the “attempted coup” in Turkey

July 17, 2016

The attempted coup was pretty inept and not at all representative of the skills and organising abilities of the Turkish army. It could have been that it was just a small group involved. But the purge that Erdogan is now carrying out against Hizmet and supporters of Fethullah Gülen (3000 military and 2500 judges detained so far) begins to give weight to the theory that the failed, inept, coup was stage-managed by Erdogan, just to have an excuse to move against Hizmet.

Fethullah Gülen (image Reuters/ BBC)

Just another conspiracy theory. Perhaps. But as conspiracy theories go, this is a rather simple intrigue by the standards of intricate, Byzantine plots. It could be that Erdogan is just being an opportunist and is using  a “genuine” coup attempt to now crack-down on Gülen supporters. But, I would not be at all surprised if it had all been orchestrated by Erdogan.

Reuters: 

U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, whose followers Turkey blames for a failed coup, said on Saturday the attempted overthrow may have been staged, and he urged the Turkish people not to view military intervention in a positive light.

“There is a slight chance, there is a possibility that it could be a staged coup,” Gulen told reporters through a translator in Pennsylvania, where he resides. “It could be meant for court accusations and associations.”

Gulen said democracy cannot be achieved through military action. He criticized the President Tayyip Erdogan’s government. “It appears that they have no tolerance for any movement, any group, any organization that is not under their total control,” he said.

Whether staged or not, Erdogan wins. He is obsessed with Fethullah Gülen and his supporters and what he calls their “parallel state”. It is not a coincidence that Gülen’s supporters tend to be much better educated than the mass support that Erdogan so successfully mobilises.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Turkey | Comments Off on Something fishy with the “attempted coup” in Turkey

Murderous terrorism must be treated as disease to be eradicated

July 16, 2016
fertile crescent NASA

fertile crescent NASA

It has been a surreal few days with the massacre in Nice and the apparently failed coup in Turkey. Whether the massacre in Nice was directed by ISIS or just inspired by ISIS, the virus came out of the fertile crescent which some 10,000 years ago was the cradle of civilisation. As Erdogan cracks down a period of blood-letting in Turkey is likely to follow. (The coup attempt, even in its failure, is likely to delay any possibility of EU membership by at least a decade).

George W. Bush first used the term “War on Terror” in 2001. But in the subsequent 15 years the use of indiscriminate and murderous attacks on innocent bystanders has only increased. As a conventional “war”, it is being lost. The “war on terror” is being prosecuted as if it were between nations, albeit that the “nation of terror” is something diffuse and difficult to define. This “war”, I think, is conceptually wrong. It strikes me that the concepts used in containing, eradicating and eliminating diseases may be more apposite. It could be far more effective to consider the “murderousness virus” and then to apply the methods of disease control. Here I consider Islamic terrorism or right-wing terrorism or Hindu nationalist terrorism or Burmese Buddhist murderousness or even State-sponsored barbarity, all as being caused by different strains of the murderousness virus.  As with any disease the fight would then entail:

  1. localising the sources of the virus,
  2. containing the areas where the virus is nurtured
  3. isolating the sources, and
  4. then eliminating them,
  5. identifying those individuals either suffering from an outbreak of the disease and those merely carrying the virus,
  6. treating the afflicted (where possible)

The sources of the virus are then those teachings or ideologies which justify and promote the use of barbarism and murder and mayhem. It would apply equally well to the twisted ideologies which inspired IRA murderers or Anders Behring Breivik or to those Wahhabi preachings which currently inspire what is manifested as Islamic terrorism. There are virus sources in other parts of the world as well but the most virulent strain right now is that emanating from Saudi Arabia.

The conventional “war on terror” has really only addressed individuals already infected and showing visible signs of the disease. There has been no coordinated effort to localise and isolate the real sources of the virus. Or more than half-hearted attempts to identify the carriers of the virus who themselves never carry out the murderous acts. (In the guise of freedom of speech many of the virus carriers are freely allowed to roam within the EU infecting vulnerable youngsters).

Certain principles apply when eradicating or eliminating disease. It is striking how apt this is when applied to murderous behaviour:

Eradication means zero disease globally as a result of deliberate efforts and control measures no longer needed

Elimination means zero disease in a defined geographic area as a result of deliberate efforts. Control measures are needed to prevent reestablishment of transmission.

Several key principles are inherent in an eradication or elimination campaign:

  1. the need to intervene everywhere the disease occurs, no matter how remotely located or difficult to access occurrences of disease are or how minor the perceived problem is in an individual country or area;
  2. the importance of monitoring the target disease and the extent of interventions closely;
  3. the need for flexibility and urgency in response to ongoing monitoring and operational research; and
  4. the need for an intense focus on the goal of stopping transmission of the targeted disease, even when the costs per case rise sharply as the number of cases declines.

Common difficulties faced by such campaigns include sporadic or widespread political insecurity in areas where the disease is endemic, inadequate or delayed funding, and the challenges of motivating officials, health workers, and affected populations.

Our propensity for murderous behaviour is partly genetic and partly by upbringing. But I have no doubt that it is finally a manipulation of the mind which then results in murderous behaviour or the further transmission of such manipulation. And that is perhaps best treated as a disease to be eliminated and eradicated.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour | 2 Comments »

Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologises to Trump

July 14, 2016

It is untenable for a Supreme Court Justice to support the independence of the judiciary while involving herself in a political, election campaign. I thought she was being exceedingly stupid in coming out with anti-Trump statements but was somewhat amused at the intellectual contortions of the loony-left media (Huffington Post) in trying to justify her outbursts. She was providing the political establishment a perfect excuse for interfering with the judiciary.

But she has finally seen some sense (or has had it pointed out to her) and has apologised (sort of) to Trump:

Reuters: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg ‘regrets’ Trump criticisms

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday said she regrets making critical comments about Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court.

Ginsburg, the 83-year-old senior liberal member of the high court, inserted herself into the U.S. presidential election in recent days by making negative remarks about Trump in a series of media interviews. Her earlier remarks prompted criticism from Trump, who said she should resign. In one of a series of Twitter posts, he also said Ginsburg’s “mind is shot.”……..

Legal ethics scholars also questioned Ginsburg’s actions, saying Supreme Court justices should stay out the political fray in order to maintain their judicial integrity. The New York Times and the Washington Post chided Ginsburg in editorial articles.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg said.

In a CNN interview posted on Tuesday, Ginsburg called the presumptive Republican nominee “a faker.”

In a separate interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg joked about moving to New Zealand if Trump wins the White House.

Under a code of conduct that federal judges – but not Supreme Court justices – are required to follow, judges are forbidden from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.

image

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologises to Trump

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »