News What is the current time on the Doomsday Clock?

[zoobyshoe]

Bannon is at the steering wheel of the US right now. That merits pushing the clock closer to doomsday.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, the link does say that much of negative reaction to the security council shakeup might be overblown. But I don't see any falsehoods in the New York Times article that I linked to in 57.

The falsehood is what makes it overblown: it's the implication that they won't be in meetings they should be in and were in under Obama - that they were "demoted" - their role reduced. Saying "regular members" is a relatively meaningless distinction (which is why removing it makes sense): They didn't go to meetings they weren't needed for and did go to meetings they were needed for under Obama and that will be true under Trump as well.

The title "role usually reserved for generals" is also, at best, sensationalism if not an outright falsehood (not specific enough to be an explicit falsehood).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...

The problem I have with your corrections of the media slant is that they don't correct Steve Bannon out of the NSC or out of the White House. You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

 

[Buckleymanor]

No I think you are ignoring the obviouse.

Russ seems to do that.
It has been noted.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ seems to do that.
It has been noted.

What "obviouse", specifically, am I ignoring? I'll address it. I may disagree about what is important and what isn't or how to interpret certain facts, but I do try pretty hard to address - and not ignore - all issues.

I also think it should be noteworthy and respected that I am willing to criticize my own side of the fence, like I have done here. In my experience, people tend to try to avoid that.

[edit] If you're referring to my lack of overall "Doomsday Clock" concern, I'll be blunt: I think that many people think they are being serious about their fears when they really aren't being serious. How can a person not know that they aren't being serious? It really isn't hard if people don't know what "serious" looks like. So I'll provide the benchmark: do you have or are you building yourself a bomb shelter? If not, then your fear of Trump starting a nuclear war is not serious. Because that's what "serious" fear of nuclear war looks like.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem I have with your corrections of the media slant is that they don't correct Steve Bannon out of the NSC or out of the White House.

Ok...nor does anyone else criticizing Bannon here either. Do I have a power to exercise here that I'm not aware of (I'll have to check the mod control panel...)? Or are you suggesting that no tactics are out of line when fighting a righteous cause? Because I've heard that from liberals here too -- that lying is ok if your cause is just (which the liberal cause, of course, always is).

You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

There are at least two different problems, which you seem to accidentally acknowledge here: Bannon tells things from a right-leaning perspective and the "media slant" from a left-leaning perspective. These are not equivalent perspectives, as the media is supposed to be informing us about reality, not telling a story from a certain slanted perspective. Bannon is one person, one problem -- as are Trump, Clinton and Obama. What is common to all of them is that they have been interpreted through "the media slant". E.G., right leaning stories filtered through a left leaning perspective gives a distorted - but at least balanced - view. But a left leaning story filtered through a left leaning perspective gives a double-left "slant". So I suppose in that way, the slant is a bigger problem when the Democrats are in power. Anyway...

The fact - which you seem to agree with - that all of our news is filtered through a certain "slant" means everything we hear is potentially being manipulated, not just certain things from certain individuals. Perhaps you consider that "the wrong problem" because you agree with "the media slant", but I think everyone should consider the more pervasive problem to be the bigger problem.

Either way, what it means is that if someone doesn't pursue a right-leaning angle to the story, it won't be reported. That's why Fox News serves such a critical purpose, in opposing the rest of the "media slant". You can't get a balanced picture without viewing the news through both filters.

And again: you can't fight fire with gasoline. So even if I were to agree that Bannon is "the right problem", attacking false with false is still the wrong approach.

 

[mheslep]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

Granted -- I'm aware that on credentials he's actually relatively good - despite the misleading picture painted by the media. I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...and yeah, I'm also aware that those aren't disqualifying factors. Indeed, the list of actual required job qualifications is rather short (for President too).

 

[mheslep]

... I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Granted -- I'm aware that on credentials he's actually relatively good - despite the misleading picture painted by the media. I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...and yeah, I'm also aware that those aren't disqualifying factors. Indeed, the list of actual required job qualifications is rather short (for President too).

Well that let's him of the hook a relatively nice guy all round "obviously".
Especially when you take this into consideration.

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

Obviously a huge mistake the man is a kitten being portrayed as a extremist monster how dare they!

 

[zoobyshoe]

So even if I were to agree that Bannon is "the right problem", attacking false with false is still the wrong approach.

Repeating: You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem. Apparently the media garbled the story at first in the sense it made the mechanics of the actions seem extraordinary. Within a day or two corrections came out. After the corrections, though, Bannon was still on the NSC, which was the single most alarming part of the story. So, the corrections hardly improved anything (they did not correct Bannon out of the White House or NSC, as I wittily phrased it). In your mind, it seems, the whole problem consisted of the garbled mechanics. You seem to think that was the whole problem. And, while that needs to be corrected for rigor's sake, it does not change what's important about this news. The facts corrected, we still have a huge problem.

As for left-slant/right slant media, you just plain suffer a really serious case of Hostile Media Effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

The problem with the media is not that it's slanted left or right, it's that it's slanted towards sensationalism. Sedate, boring stories don't get clicks or bring in the subscriptions. It's been this way since the invention of the town cryer, who was, himself, probably a formalization of the town gossip.

 

[russ_watters]

Well that let's him of the hook a relatively nice guy all round "obviously".
Especially when you take this into consideration.

Obviously a huge mistake the man is a kitten being portrayed as a extremist monster how dare they!

Ok...so now it seems like you are being purposely unserious. In a thread basically about seriousness, it seems like you are arguing against your point.

I am always open to a serious discussion, if you want one -

 

[russ_watters]

Repeating: You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

Zoobyshoe, you should learn the difference between opinions and facts.

You seem to think that was the whole problem.

No. I was clear and concise in my agreement with the other problem. I can't fathom how you could have missed it given that you quoted me on it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

Also, compare it to Ted Kaczynski:

Kaczynski was born and raised in Evergreen Park, Illinois. While growing up in Evergreen Park he was a child prodigy, excelling academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree. He subsequently earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25.

Kaczynski wrote, among other things:

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. ... Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.[59]

So far, it looks like they should be able to find a place for him in the Trump administration.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoobyshoe, you should learn the difference between opinions and facts.

I know the difference.

No. I was clear and concise in my agreement with the other problem. I can't fathom how you could have missed it given that you quoted me on it.

What a person thinks is important is revealed by what he choses to emphasize and spend energy on. You admit Bannon is a nut case, but only as an aside, and you then go back to pounding the media at length. It's clear from that that it is much more important to you to correct the media than to focus on the real dangers of Bannon being where he now is.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ok...so now it seems like you are being purposely unserious. In a thread basically about seriousness, it seems like you are arguing against your point.

I am always open to a serious discussion, if you want one -

You and I have had this discussion before, and I was under the impression I had corrected your misunderstandings about the uses of humor in the service of serious matters. It was the discussion where I asserted, "Humor is serious business."

Buckymanor's cracks were pretty good in that sense, functioning as reducio ad absurdam arguments. Mheslep, I will note, has several times used exactly the same device in conversations that I've seen.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

We should hate war and indeed all violence, but as the saying goes, if you want peace, then prepare for war. I find the scenario in Power of Decision unacceptable, in terms of American casualties. How can we defend ourselves, destroy the aggressor, and keep the country intact? From a physics point of view, we need to find a technological solution to this problem.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

This is why I think they jumped the shark when they changed the definition of their "clock". I think they've gone a little nuts. Maybe the people who remember the 1950s and 1960s no longer work at BAS and the people who work there now have never read any history? In the 1950s and 1960s, people literally believed that the US and USSR might exchange ten thousand nuclear weapons a half hour from now. We're nowhere close to that now; maybe 6:45? They'd have to re-design the clock for that...

The types of risks behind climate change are very, very different from nuclear war. Even the language they use in the statement doesn't jive. But ultimately, moving the clock has only one real purpose: they are just saying they don't like Trump. And that makes them and their clock a joke.

You're right, of course, Russ.

But if the sky isn't falling, it's hard to pound our fist and demand the government DO SOMETHING.

 

[Evo]

I think Russ has a very good grasp on things and when he says that Steve Bannon is a

conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house

I believe him.

What Leonard Susskind has to say on Steve Bannon

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...out_donald_trump_s_first_weeks_in_office.html

Bannon is at the steering wheel of the US right now. That merits pushing the clock closer to doomsday.

 

[OCR]

Zoobyshoe, you should learn the difference between opinions and facts.

I know the difference.

So far, it looks like they should be able to find a place for him in the Trump administration.

I believe him.

...

...

 

[DiracPool]

What Leonard Susskind has to say on Steve Bannon

Wow, thanks for that link, Evo. Very powerful. To me that means something with Lenny coming out with that statement. You can be sure that a career academic of his stature who from my understanding has been relatively apolitical over the years to make this kind of statement really means something.

You can run through the perhaps 100 or so of my posts on the Trump situation and see that my views are essentially consistent with Lennys.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

Well does this go some way beyond the HuffPo schlock, what Leonard Susskind has to say in his video does it give you a gain of insight.
Says it all really or are you prepared to ignore.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Well does this go some way beyond the HuffPo schlock, what Leonard Susskind has to say in his video does it give you a gain of insight.
Says it all really or are you prepared to ignore.

I'm prepared to ignore. I would of course pay attention to whatever Susskind has to say about physics, but politics, not so much. I will listen to his views on such matters, but I would take into account the political bias of the institution that he belongs to. It's pretty well known that elite academia in the US is extremely left leaning.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-faculty-donations-favor-democrats-9acd1748c3ce

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm prepared to ignore. I would of course pay attention to whatever Susskind has to say about physics, but politics, not so much. I will listen to his views on such matters, but I would take into account the political bias of the institution that he belongs to. It's pretty well known that elite academia in the US is extremely left leaning.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-faculty-donations-favor-democrats-9acd1748c3ce

Here's a well known right leaning paper opining the same thing (more subdued; no nazi references):

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ders-reflect-steve-bannons-political-strategy

If Trump had given agency professionals 30 days to review his order on refugees, he could have avoided the confusion at airports, not to mention the media hysteria and the protests. And if his communications team had been given time, they could have pre-empted some of the wild claims made by Democratic detractors.

They went another way: The Bannon Way.

According to CNN, when lawyers at the Department of Homeland Security concluded that the executive order banning travelers from seven countries did not include legal permanent residents — a.k.a. green card holders — senior strategist Steven Bannon led the charge to countermand the ruling. Hence the airport mess.

Over the weekend, Bannon also succeeded in getting himself put on the National Security Council’s principals committee.

And:

Bannon has said he’s a “Leninist” but he’s really more of a Trotskyist because he fancies himself the leader of an international populist-nationalist right-wing movement, exporting anti-“globalist” revolution. In that role, his status as an enabler of Trump’s instinct to shoot — or tweet — from the hip seems especially ominous.

Presumably at Bannon’s insistence, Trump didn’t even consult his secretaries of defense and homeland security, on the grounds that this was a need-to-know operation requiring secrecy, lest the “bad dudes” — Trump’s term — find out and rush into the U.S. In other words, two decorated retired generals couldn’t be trusted with the information.

The Bannon Way might work on the campaign trail, but it doesn’t translate into good governance. It’s possible — and one must hope — that Trump can learn this fact on the job.

But what if he doesn’t? He could put the country in serious peril.

 

[Buckleymanor]

I'm prepared to ignore. I would of course pay attention to whatever Susskind has to say about physics, but politics, not so much. I will listen to his views on such matters, but I would take into account the political bias of the institution that he belongs to. It's pretty well known that elite academia in the US is extremely left leaning.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-faculty-donations-favor-democrats-9acd1748c3ce

I find it quite profound that you would listen but because of the political position that the institution he belongs to takes you are prepared to ignore.
Why he is not a politician.
It is obvious he is not comfortable in making such a statement and totally sincere.
In other words a thought full caring person who would like to share his concerns about a dangerous situation and eminent physicist to boot.
You would rather take notice of a couple of other non- politicians with different political affiliations.
To me it's a no brainer.

 

[TurtleMeister]

@zoobyshoe, I was not necessarily approving of Bannon just stating that I take Susskind's views on this matter with a grain of salt.

I find it quite profound that you would listen but because of the political position that the institution he belongs to takes you are prepared to ignore.

You would not be prepared to ignore statements made by someone belonging to a right wing organization? You are not prepared to ignore reports on Breitbart news? In my opinion, elite academia is even more biased to the left than Breitbart is to the right.

It is obvious he is not comfortable in making such a statement and totally sincere.
In other words a thought full caring person who would like to share his concerns about a dangerous situation and eminent physicist to boot.

I'm not doubting his sincerity but I find it hard to believe that he would be uncomfortable making such statements given that he appears to be on campus in the video. The chances of anyone disagreeing with him would be very slim.

The link in my previous post is a little out of date. Here's a more up to date one:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04

 

[Buckleymanor]

@zoobyshoe, I was not necessarily approving of Bannon just stating that I take Susskind's views on this matter with a grain of salt.

You would not be prepared to ignore statements made by someone belonging to a right wing organization? You are not prepared to ignore reports on Breitbart news? In my opinion, elite academia is even more biased to the left than Breitbart is to the right.

I'm not doubting his sincerity but I find it hard to believe that he would be uncomfortable making such statements given that he appears to be on campus in the video. The chances of anyone disagreeing with him would be very slim.

The link in my previous post is a little out of date. Here's a more up to date one:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04

Of course I would be prepared to ignore some statements from right wing organizations, it would depend on who what and the context .
I don't think Susskind was uncomfortable because anyone might disagree with him I reckon that his discomfort originated from him being usually a political and the fact he felt that evil flourishes when good people don't speak out so he had no option.
He had thought long and hard on the subject and you should respect that.
Elite academia might well be more biased to the left than Breitbart is to the right.
But that should not automatically make you ignore.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Of course I would be prepared to ignore some statements from right wing organizations, it would depend on who what and the context .

Well does this go some way beyond the HuffPo schlock, what Leonard Susskind has to say in his video does it give you a gain of insight.
Says it all really or are you prepared to ignore.

emphasis mine
But are you prepared to ignore some statements from the left? Much of Susskinds views are extreme. Even zoobyshoe noticed it.

Here's a well known right leaning paper opining the same thing (more subdued; no nazi references):

emphasis mine

 

[zoobyshoe]

Much of Susskinds views are extreme. Even zoobyshoe noticed it.

emphasis mine

By saying the National Review editorial was "more subdued," I wasn't calling Susskind "extreme." The particular Nazi reference Susskind made was actually apt. Too few people understand the actual way Hitler acquired the amount of power he ended up with, which was by means of some incredible, devious maneuvers between the time he was appointed Chancellor and when Hindenberg died, 9 months later. (Stalin was the same, incidentally: by devious maneuvering and deal making, he acquired a level of power that shouldn't have been permitted one man according to the way the Communist party was intended to work.) Both Susskind and Jonah Goldberg are warning that Bannon seems to be doing that same dangerous kind of maneuvering, though Goldberg eschews any potentially off-putting historical allusions in saying it. So, Susskind's views are not really more extreme than Goldberg's, it's more that his tone is less subdued. Goldberg, the conservative here you should note, warns that if Trump continues to let Bannon cut important advisors out of the decision making process, he could lead the country into "peril."