[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2018-September-11, 19:16, said:

It is being reported tonight that Homeland Security has transferred $10,000,000 from FEMA to ICE to pay for beds and retention centers.

And right in the nick of time - we certainly need the midterm votes protected from those hoards of illegal who vote, while hurricane response is the best it has ever been - as long as you don't count anyone who actually died.

Rachel Maddow reported that in addition to the $10 million diverted from FEMA, $29 million was diverted from the Coast Guard to ICE. The men and women of the Coast Guard rescue people from drowning during flooding and boat/ship capsizings and sinkings that happen during hurricanes (and other disasters).

Was Dennison angry that the Coast Guard rescues anybody, even illegal immigrants?

[johnu]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-12, 18:11, said:

Not really. I was just pointing out that there were three Cat 4 hurricanes to hit US soil in less than 30 days, the FEMA response to them, and that by the time the third one hit FEMA personnel was stretched thin and basic provisions were dangerously low. You say that the FEMA response was "underwhelming". Considering the circumstances, please tell us what you would have done differently.

You know exactly what you wrote. By including the entire populations of 2 of the most populous states in the US, and giving some statistics (I haven't checked if those are correct or not) on some raw relief numbers, you are skewing the numbers to look like Puerto Rico actually got a pretty good share of the disaster relief (ie 45 million people in Texas and Florida and only 3 million in Puerto Rico, so 15X the number of people)

Since you are apparently so concerned about how FEMA could have done better, Google is your friend.

[johnu]

 johnu, on 2018-September-12, 19:25, said:

Rachel Maddow reported that in addition to the $10 million diverted from FEMA, $29 million was diverted from the Coast Guard to ICE. The men and women of the Coast Guard rescue people from drowning during flooding and boat/ship capsizings and sinkings that happen during hurricanes (and other disasters).

It's not just FEMA: ICE quietly got an extra $200 million

Quote

The Trump administration this summer quietly redirected $200 million from all over the Department of Homeland Security to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, despite repeated congressional warnings of ICE's "lack of fiscal discipline" and "unsustainable" spending.

$200 million may not be enough

Quote

The money came from different parts of DHS, including FEMA, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, cybersecurity office and Customs and Border Protection.

This list of departments getting less money certainly makes me feel much safer

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2018-September-12, 17:29, said:

No. I'm just not aware of what he actually lied about.

I didn't watch most of the hearings, I just saw some highlights. From what I could tell, he mostly sidestepped questions by saying he can't answer hypotheticals. And from what I've heard, this is SOP in such hearings. It's infuriating, but it's also expected.

Could you be specific about when he committed perjury?

I am not making the claim that he committed perjury. Some people do, some people dispute it; "perjury" is a legal term, and I don't fully understand what would be sufficient to legally establish that Kavanaugh committed perjury.

But I do find the claim that he lied in his previous confirmation hearings convincing. "Lie" is not a legal term and I usually believe I know what it means. But at the very least, he consciously mislead the Senate in his testimony.

Someone who materially misleads Congress in order to advance his career should not be able to use that same career advancement as a stepping stool for the most powerful role in the country. This should be beyond discussions in polite society.

Of course, if you care about Kavanaugh's character, you need not look further than his press conference where Trump introduced him as his nominee. This was his chance to introduce himself to the nation - most listeners/viewers would not have heard of him previously. What does he do? He starts with a Sean-Spicer style bold-faced lie

Quote

JUDGE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH: Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination. Mr. President, I am grateful to you and I am humbled by your confidence in me. Thank you.

signalling to everyone, including the president, that he knows which team he is on. Don't believe me? This are literally the first words Kavanaugh said to the nation in his role as nominee.

Kavanaugh started his career as a partisan hack in the Starr investigation. From all I can see, he has not yet grown up, just become more polished and eloquent about it. I hope Susan Collins will appreciate it when Kavanaugh will render Roe ineffectual, but do so with polish and eloquence.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2018-September-13, 04:34, said:

I am not making the claim that he committed perjury. Some people do, some people dispute it; "perjury" is a legal term, and I don't fully understand what would be sufficient to legally establish that Kavanaugh committed perjury.

But I do find the claim that he lied in his previous confirmation hearings convincing. "Lie" is not a legal term and I usually believe I know what it means. But at the very least, he consciously mislead the Senate in his testimony.

Someone who materially misleads Congress in order to advance his career should not be able to use that same career advancement as a stepping stool for the most powerful role in the country. This should be beyond discussions in polite society.

Of course, if you care about Kavanaugh's character, you need not look further than his press conference where Trump introduced him as his nominee. This was his chance to introduce himself to the nation - most listeners/viewers would not have heard of him previously. What does he do? He starts with a Sean-Spicer style bold-faced lie

signalling to everyone, including the president, that he knows which team he is on. Don't believe me? This are literally the first words Kavanaugh said to the nation in his role as nominee.

Kavanaugh started his career as a partisan hack in the Starr investigation. From all I can see, he has not yet grown up, just become more polished and eloquent about it. I hope Susan Collins will appreciate it when Kavanaugh will render Roe ineffectual, but do so with polish and eloquence.

I apreciate teh above reference. I have not been following this as closely as perhaps I shouold, and like barry I have been unsure of what the lie was. I am now thinking the case is a bit week. I quote part of the argument:

Quote

National Review both misstates the standard for demonstrating that Kavanaugh lied and misstates the facts of the case. First, Kavanaugh said that he never received any memos or any documents that appeared to him to be prepared by Democrats. He repeated this throughout his testimony in 2004 and 2006. He didn’t say, “I didn’t knowingly receive memos or stolen documents.” He didn’t say, “I may have received memos or stolen documents but only realized this after the fact.” Rather, he flatly denied this possibility.

Is the argument really that rather than "I didn't receive" he shouold have said "I didn't knowingly receive"? If I buy a bracelet from someone must I say "I didn't knowingly buy stolen property" rather than "I didn't buy stolen property"?

And:

Quote

And Kavanaugh said to Kennedy in 2006, “I do know that I never received any memos.”

Oh my. Surely at some time in his life he has received a memo.

I don't want to push this too hard, there is an argument for "should have known" or "should have checked". If I but a $500 watch for $75 from some guy in an alley, saying that I didn't know that it was stolen is not apt to convince anyone. Some bits of plausible deniability are more plausible than others.

Anyway, I really was unaware of just what lie was being accused of. On what I see, I would not expect this to derail his nomination.

I think it comes to this: Ds can vote aganst him because his views are completely at odds with theirs and because there was no effort whatsoever to work together to find a candidate who could garner bi-partisan support. Sure, a president gets to choose who he nominates, but some work with others, some don't. So voting no makes sense. But that's it. The Rs have the votes to ram this through, take it and shove it, that's how we do things now. A pity.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2018-September-13, 07:25, said:

I apreciate teh above reference. I have not been following this as closely as perhaps I shouold, and like barry I have been unsure of what the lie was. I am now thinking the case is a bit week. I quote part of the argument:

Is the argument really that rather than "I didn't receive" he shouold have said "I didn't knowingly receive"? If I buy a bracelet from someone must I say "I didn't knowingly buy stolen property" rather than "I didn't buy stolen property"?

And:


Oh my. Surely at some time in his life he has received a memo.

I don't want to push this too hard, there is an argument for "should have known" or "should have checked". If I but a $500 watch for $75 from some guy in an alley, saying that I didn't know that it was stolen is not apt to convince anyone. Some bits of plausible deniability are more plausible than others.

Ken, here is some background information that might prove useful...

1. The subject of the email chain that Kavanugh received was titled "Spying" and made direct reference to having a "mole" in the Democratic staff

2. Kavanaugh was specifically testifying in a set of hearings that were established to investigate Republican improprieties during the earlier approval process. [When Orrin Hatch heard about the spying accusations, he went ballistic and kicked off a set of hearings to specific investigate these claims. Kavanaugh lied during these hearings and, later on, lied about the same subject during his own confirmation hearings.]

There is no way in hell that he can credibly claim not to have misremembered something so intimate to the subject at hand.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2018-September-13, 07:25, said:

I don't want to push this too hard, there is an argument for "should have known" or "should have checked". If I but a $500 watch for $75 from some guy in an alley, saying that I didn't know that it was stolen is not apt to convince anyone. Some bits of plausible deniability are more plausible than others.

I think the more appropriate analogue would be that you have bought a $500 watch for $75 from a guy standing in alley right around the corner from your home in the morning, and in the evening you watch the local TV news saying that a guy has been arrested for selling stolen watches in an alley right around the corner from your home.

Not only were these memos the topic of hearings, they had also been a major news story. Kavanaugh acted like someone who is being deposed by opposition lawyers, who would not volunteer any information relevant to the question he is answering unless he'd be forced to do so without perjuring himself. No, it's not me a crazy liberal saying so, that's what his defenders are saying. https://twitter.com/...630129025646593

In a way, Kavanaugh was ahead of his time back then - he realised that this is a team sport, and the best bet for advancing his career would be to stay firmly in the "team Republican". Fine, but then please spare me the stick of "oy how can Democrats vote against him he is such a nice carpool dad". And meanwhile, good luck setting up new abortion clinics in blue states to handle women from red states coming over to get abortions (as long as the Supreme Court really stops at making Roe a state issue - surely a true believer like Kavanaugh would rather make it illegal outright once the appropriate opportunity comes up).

[cherdano]

Here is a good example of "defending" Kavanaugh: https://twitter.com/...135659830099968
David Lat's has a lot of threads "defending" Kavanaugh of a number of perjury claims. Read these threads. Then think about whether that's how you'd like your defenders to sound like when you are applying for the most important job of your life. Or, perhaps, the country.

[y66]

As has been pointed out, this has nothing to do with polite society or even the boundary between plausible deniability and lying. This is about power and installing a reliable hack in a position of maximum leverage. Yes, Kavanaugh will dismantle Roe vs Wade and trample a gazillion other rights that conflict with the ideology of the minions of his and their corporate masters. This is what happens when people don't pay attention to what's happening at every level of government and to the planet and when they don't vote.

[Al_U_Card]

 y66, on 2018-September-13, 15:10, said:

As has been pointed out, this has nothing to do with polite society or even the boundary between plausible deniability and lying. This is about power and installing a reliable hack in a position of maximum leverage. Yes, Kavanaugh will dismantle Roe vs Wade and trample a gazillion other rights that conflict with the ideology of the minions of his and their corporate masters. This is what happens when people don't pay attention to what's happening at every level of government and to the planet and when they don't vote.

Business as usual... despite this, still the best system around! Putin is a king. China too. So far, the US is the best hope for democratic principles. A modern miracle.

[barmar]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-12, 18:11, said:

Not really. I was just pointing out that there were three Cat 4 hurricanes to hit US soil in less than 30 days, the FEMA response to them, and that by the time the third one hit FEMA personnel was stretched thin and basic provisions were dangerously low. You say that the FEMA response was "underwhelming". Considering the circumstances, please tell us what you would have done differently.

This is an honest, reasonable explanation of why FEMA's response in PR was not as good as it could have been.

The problem is that Trump doesn't give an explanation like this. Instead, he claims that FEMA's response in PR was great and "underappreciated". He also denies that almost 3,000 people died as direct or indirect results of Hurricane Maria, claiming that it was less than 100. That was basically just the number who died during the storm itself, not in the aftermath or as a result of problems on the island that resulted from Maria (e.g. hospitals without power for extended periods of time).

[Chas_P]

 barmar, on 2018-September-13, 18:20, said:

This is an honest, reasonable explanation of why FEMA's response in PR was not as good as it could have been.

The problem is that Trump doesn't give an explanation like this. Instead, he claims that FEMA's response in PR was great and "underappreciated". He also denies that almost 3,000 people died as direct or indirect results of Hurricane Maria, claiming that it was less than 100. That was basically just the number who died during the storm itself, not in the aftermath or as a result of problems on the island that resulted from Maria (e.g. hospitals without power for extended periods of time).

As I have said before, I don't like Trump's tweets. I would much prefer him to say, "We did the best we could considering the circumstances." I, like you and many others, grieved for the people of Puerto Rico. I sent money for hurricane relief. I would prefer that nobody die and that homes be rebuilt and power restored within 48 hours. But that's not how it works. Please see my previous post:

4(major) 130-156 mph
113-136 kt
209-251 km/h Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

[johnu]

 johnu, on 2018-September-12, 23:12, said:

It's not just FEMA: ICE quietly got an extra $200 million



$200 million may not be enough

$200 million apparently wasn't enough

ICE says it needs a $1 billion funding boost to meet Dennison's aggressive deportation goals

Fortunately, Dennison and the Republicans in Congress will pay for this with their recent tax cut which will increase the deficit by $2.3 trillion

Dennison tax cuts carry a big price tag: Huge debt and risk of another financial crisis, budget office warns

[johnu]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-13, 19:38, said:

But he is a New Yorker. Brash and obnoxious.

There is no need to libel New Yorkers by comparing them to Dennison ...

[kenberg]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-13, 19:38, said:

As I have said before, I don't like Trump's tweets. I would much prefer him to say, "We did the best we could considering the circumstances." I, like you and many others, grieved for the people of Puerto Rico. I sent money for hurricane relief. I would prefer that nobody die and that homes be rebuilt and power restored within 48 hours. But that's not how it works. Please see my previous post:

4(major) 130-156 mph
113-136 kt
209-251 km/h Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

This will focus on your first sentence sine indeed you and others have said it before. As I see it, we have reached a point where there is no reason to pay any attention whatsoever to what is said by our current president. He tweets about how great our response was in PR last year. Why should we pay any attention at all? He says how well things went on his trip to North Korea, how well he did in his meeting with Putin, what a great deal it is that he worked out with Mexico, etc etc etc. It's not just that his tweets are obnoxious. perhaps even Sarah Sanders would concede that, the problem is that they are totally disconnected from the truth.
You compared him with New Yorkers, I, instead, recall an episode with a real estate guy. We were helping a young person in house buying, a house was advertised as having wall to wall carpeting. Now wall to wall carpeting is not a make or break thing, but imagine us standing on the bare wood floor in the living room and me asking the real estate guy about the ad that said wall to wall carpeting. You might expect him to say something such as "We will have to correct that ad" but no, he saw no problem with the ad. That's Trump.
I agree we should not tarnish all New Yorkers or all real estate salesmen by equating them with Trump. And I understand that all politicians spin things. But our current guy is in a class by himself on this. If he said it was raining and I saw the water drops, I would still check the roof to see if someone was up there with a hose simulating the rain. I don't like it, and I do not think that this will work out well as time goes on. We decided to work with a different real estate guy. People don't like working with such a person, and while we have a lot of power it is not absolute. At some point others will go on without us.

[y66]

From Tyler Cowen's conversation with Michele Gelfand:

Quote

Gelfand is considered a pioneering researcher on the concept of tightness-looseness. She is credited with defining the tightness-looseness classification system, which assesses how much a culture adheres to social norms and tolerates deviance. Tight cultures are more restrictive, with stricter disciplinary measures for norm violations while loose cultures have weaker social norms and a higher tolerance for deviant behavior. Gelfand found that a history of threats, such as natural disasters, high population density, or vulnerability to infectious diseases, is associated with greater tightness. Her research has shown that tightness allows cultures to coordinate more effectively to survive threats. -- wikipedia

Quote

COWEN: I’m from northern New Jersey. Do you regard that as a tight or a loose region? I know you have state-level variables, but of course we can’t count the South here.

GELFAND: I’m from Long Island, so we have a little bit of a rivalry, although I will say that, as I’ve grown older, I think Jersey’s definitely a much nicer place than Long Island. Sorry for my Long Island friends out there.

New Jersey, in our data at the state level, falls in the relatively loose category. When we rank order the 50 states, we can see a new way to think about our variation in the United States. Not just red or blue, but, again, tight or loose. New Jersey tends to be on the looser side. The coasts tend to be looser. The South tends to be tighter in our data.

COWEN: Putting aside your political views, but just if you observe Donald Trump as a negotiator — as a psychologist, what strikes you?

GELFAND: Donald Trump has a very classic negotiation style. It’s a distributive negotiation style. It’s a win-lose style. It works in certain contexts, especially contexts where there’s one issue or when there’s very little expected future interaction.

What Donald Trump does is, he takes that style to international [laughs] politics where these contexts, the structure of these situations is very different. There’s usually many issues at the table. There’s expected future interaction.

Trump uses these distributive tactics like threats. He makes threats very easily. Psychologists know that threats create a lot of reactants. When you threaten me, I’m going to threaten you right back.

When I teach students how to negotiate and I train them, “If someone threatens you, you go right back to interests. You tell them, ‘I can threaten you, but let’s go back to interests. That’s really where we’re going to make a lot of action in this negotiation.’” His style is really mismatched with the context that he’s in.

I’ll say one more thing as a cross-cultural psychologist: Trump, as many negotiators need to do, is to develop cultural intelligence. In our data, cultural intelligence is just as important as general intelligence or emotional intelligence.

That’s one thing he really doesn’t understand, is the cultural context, that there are so many ways you can violate someone’s honor in a negotiation. I’ve studied this among hundreds of professional negotiators in the Middle East.

If I’m on my phone and negotiating with you, that’s a sign that I’m not respecting you enough to put my phone away. If I wear something that’s not formal in a negotiation, that’s a sign of disrespect. That could be as important as the economics of the negotiation. So Trump needs to gain some cultural intelligence, in my point of view.

COWEN: How can people best learn cultural intelligence? Say they’re a prospective diplomat, politician, or CEO. What’s the path to learning cultural IQ?

GELFAND: It’s immersing yourself in different cultures. It’s studying cross-cultural psychology, anthropology, and other disciplines.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people get these dos and don’ts — superficial aspects of culture — when they’re being sent on an expatriate assignment. They’re usually selected because of their technical competence, not because they’re culturally competent.

You need to see it as a lifelong — at least I do — quest to understand what are the cultural differences and why do they evolve?

COWEN: I’ll close with a few questions about the Michele Gelfand production function, which is that classic thing we do in these chats. What’s your secret to how you’ve been so productive so as to publish so much? Other than just hard work. That’s obvious. What is it you can teach other people about how to be productive?

GELFAND: I would say that having a passion — it sounds pretty trite — but having a passion means you’ll never work a day in your life. I feel like being paid to do what I do is an unbelievable feat because I love what I do. I wake up and I’m crazy curious about what I do. When you’re really curious and really passionate, it will drive the rest. Work doesn’t seem like work.

I also think it’s important — a good idea can come from anywhere. It could come from a lab manager. It doesn’t have to be a postdoc. In our group, we try to practice no one’s different. It doesn’t matter what your level of education is. It’s a matter of being engaged.

I’ve had a lot of visitors comment on that practice in our group. I like to tell people, “Come up with the stupidest idea possible.” I want people to feel psychologically safe, whatever their rank, to come up with ideas. Many of them, like, I have many ideas that are not good but some that might be good.

COWEN: There’s always an implicit bidding for quality coauthors. A lot of people will want to work with them. You’re choosing coauthors. They’re choosing you, in turn. What is it you think you know about spotting talent in collaborators that other people don’t?

GELFAND: It’s commitment. This again sounds pretty obvious, but it’s commitment to and passion for similar questions, but having very different perspectives on them. These interdisciplinary collaborations are — when they can work, and many of them don’t — they are beautiful because you have people who are interested in the same questions, and yet we have such different complementary expertise that it makes for really interesting research.

I could say that with Dana Nau at Maryland. His students, who have been trained in evolutionary game theory, collaborate with cross-cultural psychologists. We eat together at breakfast every other week. Maybe that helps. We always are having our meetings at restaurants. We are committed to the same problems, but we have very different perspectives on them.

Some collaborations are harder. I remember I was working as part of a MURI grant with the Israeli computer scientist Sarit Kraus, a really brilliant woman. When she came to Maryland, she was developing computer agents to negotiate. I wanted to use these computer agents and bring her work into our work on negotiation.

She said, “Michele, I’m not interested at all about human behavior.” I was crushed at the time. I said to her, “You know what? While we’re being honest, I don’t really care about your computer agent.”

COWEN: [laughs]

GELFAND: Then we realized, “OK, we’re going to have to start somewhere. How are we going to integrate our interests?” It turns out, I said to her, “Look, your agent is going to be a better agent” — which is her quest — “if it understands culture. And I can use your agent to collect data in a very standardized way in a lab but around the US. I can actually benefit from your work.”

We never had a common problem per se, but we were able to integrate our interests enough and get past the really-do-I-want-to-work-with-you stage. It takes a lot of commitment. Those complementary skills can help both parties advance their research agendas.

[barmar]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-13, 19:38, said:

As I have said before, I don't like Trump's tweets.

I think he made similar statements out loud, not just in tweets.

But I think your general position has become indefensible. When he started his presidency, many of us assumed tweets would just be occasional off-the-cuff comments. But it's become clear that tweets are his primary means of communication with the country, analogous to FDR's Fireside Chats. His tweets represent his actual feelings and policy plans, so if you don't like his tweets, how can you like him as POTUS?

[cherdano]

Quote

In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Sure would have come in handy now to have an unimpeachable record of forthright testimony about your past actions, wouldn't it.

[hrothgar]

Oh look! Manafort cut a deal...

He's forfeiting $46 million dollars, headed off to jail for decades, cooperating fully with the government with respect to the Russia probe.

Its really strange how many witches Mueller keeps uncovering...

(Apparently the main thing that Manafort wanted from the Feds was to protect his family from the Russians)

[Al_U_Card]

Manafort is 69. Even 10 years (or more) is a "life" sentence. Total denial (he admits to nothing compromising) saves his family from the "Russians" and gets him cred with his "associates". I wonder what the feds threatened him with .... or what they told him that other (Cohen?) indictees had admitted to.