“The weirdest thing is that, at a moment when rational or far-sighted conservatives should be sighing with relief that the alternative to the monster they’ve created is a reasonable, experienced mainstream centrist whose chief fault in progressive eyes is that she is too close to the conservatives’ own ideology—at this moment when their entire movement is about to fall apart and be handed out to a bizarre cartoon villain—the habit of hatred still seems to overwhelm the rational need for a “republican front.” You would expect to see conservatives pensive and trying to walk back the crazy as rapidly as they can. But they can’t.”

The Clothespin Campaign: A French History Lesson For Anti-Trump Republicans – The New Yorker

“The weirdest thing is that, at a moment when rational or far-sighted conservatives should be sighing with relief that the alternative to the monster they’ve created is a reasonable, experienced mainstream centrist whose chief fault in progressive eyes is that she is too close to the conservatives’ own ideology—at this moment when their entire movement is about to fall apart and be handed out to a bizarre cartoon villain—the habit of hatred still seems to overwhelm the rational need for a “republican front.” You would expect to see conservatives pensive and trying to walk back the crazy as rapidly as they can. But they can’t.”

http://ift.tt/1Y3IWWK

“If anything concerns me at this pivotal moment, it’s not the revolutionary tremors of the youth. Given the Great American Trash Fire we have inherited, this rebellion strikes me as exceedingly reasonable. Pick a crisis, America: Child poverty? Inexcusable. Medical debt? Immoral. For-profit prison? Medieval. Climate change? Apocalyptic. The Middle East is our Vietnam. Flint, the canary in our coal mine. Tamir Rice, our martyred saint. This place is a mess. We’re due for a hard rain.

If I am alarmed, it is by the profound languor of the comfortable. What fresh hell must we find ourselves in before those who’ve appointed themselves to lead our thoughts admit that we are in flames? As I see it, to counsel realism when the reality is fucked is to counsel an adherence to fuckery. Under conditions as distressing as these, acquiescence is absurd. When your nation gets classified as a Class D structure fire, I believe the only wise course is to lose your shit.”

http://ift.tt/1nYvLdq

“If anything concerns me at this pivotal moment, it’s not the revolutionary tremors of the youth. Given the Great American Trash Fire we have inherited, this rebellion strikes me as exceedingly reasonable. Pick a crisis, America: Child poverty? Inexcusable. Medical debt? Immoral. For-profit prison? Medieval. Climate change? Apocalyptic. The Middle East is our Vietnam. Flint, the canary in our coal mine. Tamir Rice, our martyred saint. This place is a mess. We’re due for a hard rain.

If I am alarmed, it is by the profound languor of the comfortable. What fresh hell must we find ourselves in before those who’ve appointed themselves to lead our thoughts admit that we are in flames? As I see it, to counsel realism when the reality is fucked is to counsel an adherence to fuckery. Under conditions as distressing as these, acquiescence is absurd. When your nation gets classified as a Class D structure fire, I believe the only wise course is to lose your shit.”

Feeling the Yern: Why One Millennial Woman Would Rather Go to Hell Than Vote for Hillary

Since this is blowing up on Twitter and hasn’t yet shown up on Facebook: the last three paragraphs of the first mention of Hitler in the New York Times.

This Bernie supporter has no idea what HRC is saying except Obama-style: “We’re gonna unite & mend fences with GOP.”
Hillary Clinton on Twitter

Since it appears we’ll be debating this by dinner time: you have a Constitutional right to say “fuck you” to a law enforcement officer. Cops are required to be civil to us, we’re not *required* to be civil to them.

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords seems increasingly appealing as a basis for a system of government. Marc Morris on Twitter

This article about ways search engines and social media can influence you is fascinating.

“The proportion of people favouring the search engine’s top-ranked candidate increased by 48.4 per cent, and all five of our measures shifted toward that candidate. What’s more, 75 per cent of the people in the bias groups seemed to have been completely unaware that they were viewing biased search rankings.”

How the internet flips elections and alters our thoughts — Robert Epstein — Aeon Essays

This article about ways search engines and social media can influence you is fascinating.

“The proportion of people favouring the search engine’s top-ranked candidate increased by 48.4 per cent, and all five of our measures shifted toward that candidate. What’s more, 75 per cent of the people in the bias groups seemed to have been completely unaware that they were viewing biased search rankings.”

http://ift.tt/1QnIIUe

Just spotted the fourth reference I’ve seen this week comparing Trump’s rise to Hitler’s, and wondering if this is the start of a trend.

FWIW, I consider the comparison not totally insane. What’s scared me for years is that most people think American exceptionalism makes us immune to a truly dangerous president. And of course, just bringing up the Nazis means people will yell “Godwin’s Law” at you, as if that ends the argument, and like there’s nothing to be learned from Germany in the 1930s.

I’m terrified by what any of the GOP yahoos would do with presidential power, but beyond that, I’m generally sure that Trump is literally somewhat unhinged.

Heather Barlow shared this article. No argument against the commission, although I hope that it actually contains knowledgeable people who can explain why encryption with vulnerabilities is not encryption.

I do have problems with the article, which has the following inaccuracies:

1) the Paris attackers did not use encrypted communications; they sent plain-text SMS messages to each other.

2) It was the FBI’s own actions that prevented it from getting access to the data they’re now requesting the backdoor for.

3) It’s a law enforcement talking point, aiming for an emotional response, when they talk about “terrorists, murderers, and child molesters”; there is no reason to assume that law enforcement use of these tools will be limited in any way.

4) Even with an OS backdoor, there is no way to prevent people from using other forms of encryption which would continue to be secure; savvy criminals will still have encrypted communications, but it’s the everyday phone and computer user whose communications will be vulnerable.

Heather Barlow shared this article. No argument against the commission, although I hope that it actually contains knowledgeable people who can explain why encryption with vulnerabilities is not encryption.

I do have problems with the article, which has the following inaccuracies:

1) the Paris attackers did not use encrypted communications; they sent plain-text SMS messages to each other.

2) It was the FBI’s own actions that prevented it from getting access to the data they’re now requesting the backdoor for.

3) It’s a law enforcement talking point, aiming for an emotional response, when they talk about “terrorists, murderers, and child molesters”; there is no reason to assume that law enforcement use of these tools will be limited in any way.

4) Even with an OS backdoor, there is no way to prevent people from using other forms of encryption which would continue to be secure; savvy criminals will still have encrypted communications, but it’s the everyday phone and computer user whose communications will be vulnerable. Senator Mark Warner