Thursday, February 16, 2017

Why you should fear Trumpism's Steve Bannon: war with China within 8 years and other reasons

Wisely observing the Donald Trump Presidency is difficult because of the deliberate fog-of-confusion created by seemingly random iWorld emanations coming from Administration officials and directly from the President.

One of the thickest fogs surrounds Steve Bannon, the most significant manipulator in the Administration. With their usual attitudes, the Democrats and main stream media have focused on Bannon's association with Breitbart News deepening the fog that hides Bannon more effectively than he could achieve on his own - and he's the fog expert. He is also far more effective and dangerous than Karl Rove.

Factually Bannon is a 63-year-old Baby Boomer from an Irish-American working class family and Breitbart News was not the center of his being for those 63 years. Simply, most people do not consider their 50's and 60's as their formative years.

Yes, Bannon was on the Board of Directors of Breitbart News Board since its beginning in 2005 when he was 52, but from 2007 through 2011 Bannon was the chairman and CEO of Affinity Media. In 2012 when founder Andrew Breitbart died unexpectedly at age 43 and when Bannon was 59, The Hollywood Reporter reported:
Stephen Bannon, the filmmaker responsible for the pro-Sarah Palin movie The Undefeated, has been named executive chairman. Bannon, a former naval officer with masters degrees from Georgetown University and Harvard Business School, was a mergers and acquisitions investment banker at Goldman Sachs and has also been a Breitbart News board member since its founding.
What we know about Bannon beyond Breitbart is much more informative about him. Here's a quick rundown:
  • His working class, Irish Catholic family were pro-Kennedy, pro-union Democrats and his father was a telephone lineman.
  • Like a lot of Baby Boomers from working class families, he went to college - Virginia Tech - graduating in 1976 with a bachelor's degree in urban planning, but unlike a lot of Baby Boomers he was president of the student government association in 1975-76.
  • Like a lot of Baby Boomer college graduates, after college he was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years, first serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a surface warfare officer in the Pacific Fleet (in 1980, the Foster was redeployed to the Persian Gulf during the aborted Desert One mission to rescue American hostages being held in Iran); unlike a lot of Baby Boomers he then served as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.
  • While at the Pentagon, he obtained a master's degree in national security studies from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.
  • After leaving the Navy Bannon received a Master of Business Administration degree with honors in 1985 from Harvard Business School.
  • After Harvard he worked as a mergers and acquisitions banker with Goldman Sachs beginning at the peak of Wall Street's hostile takeover and junk bond booms and after achieving the title of vice-president, in 1990 Bannon and some Goldman colleagues left to launch a media-focused boutique investment bank called Bannon & Co. before it was purchased in 1998 by French bank Société Générale.
  • From 1993 to 1995, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona; under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from researching space exploration and colonization toward pollution and global warming.
  • In 2006 Bannon persuaded Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment, a company that made its name and fortune as an online marketplace to sell virtual gold to World of Warcraft players and other online gamers; following a lawsuit, the company was rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as Chairman and CEO from 2007 through 2011; Bannon was involved in Hollywood for several years, financing and producing films while gradually getting more and more involved in Breitbart.
  • Bannon became a Director of Cambridge Analytica which describes itself as a unique mix of data scientists, engineers, marketing specialists, political strategists and research psychologists; Cambridge Analytica was involved in 44 U.S. congressional, US Senate, and state-level elections in the 2014 midterm elections working with the John Bolton Super PAC which advanced Bolton's pro-war national security agenda.
  • Bannon has been married three times; with his first wife Cathleen Houff Jordan he has one daughter, Maureen Bannon who is a West Point graduate and lieutenant in the 101st Airborne Division who has served in Iraq; Bannon had twin daughters with his second wife, Mary Louise Piccard, an investment banker. 
Bannon served in the Navy in his late 20's and early 30's which can be critical years for forming adult behavior patterns. One report indicates:
“He constantly used military terms, used military terms to describe people who worked for him… like, ‘grunts,’” one former Breitbart staffer recalled. “He always spoke in terms of aggression. It was always on-the-attack, double down... macho stuff. Steve has an obsession with testosterone.”

“Steve is a strong militarist, he’s in love with war—it’s almost poetry to him,” Jones told The Daily Beast in an interview last year, well before Trump won the election and Bannon landed his new job. “He’s studied it down through the ages, from Greece, through Rome... every battle, every war… Never back down, never apologize, never show weakness… He lives in a world where it’s always high noon at the O.K. Corral.”
Bannon has been said to have a love affair with war - not from any direct experience getting shot at, just a little-boy-pro-war bent offered from an ideologue's armchair view. Listen and learn when on his radio show in a March 2016 discussion with Neoliberal Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation he justifies the U.S. starting an inevitable war with China in order to save face because of a perceived insult:

Because he talks rapidly with a lot of emotion, here is a transcript:
We’re going to war in the South China Sea. I was a sailor there. We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years. There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea. That's a throwdown, is it not sir.
One might be tempted to dismiss this as rhetoric to make a radio show appeal to a particular audience. After all, it conflicts with what would be called the Administration's  February 2017 "China policy."

On February 10 we saw this headline in the Washington Post Backing away from a fight, Trump to honor one-China policy which offers:
President Trump just backed down from what could have been a serious fight with China.

On Thursday evening in Washington, he appeared to shy away from confrontation with Beijing by agreeing to honor the one-China policy, during a lengthy telephone call with China’s President Xi Jinping.

The move is set to ease tensions between the world’s two most powerful nations: relations had been inflamed after Trump suggested he would only commit to the one-China policy if Beijing addressed his concerns about trade and currency issues.
On the same date theXinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the People's Republic of China, in a story with this headline Xi, Trump agree to boost win-win cooperation, develop constructive China-U.S. ties, told us:
Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump pledged Friday to boost win-win cooperation in a variety of areas and develop a constructive China-U.S. relationship.

Trump expressed his satisfaction with the close communication the two sides have maintained since he took office and admiration toward the Chinese people for the historic accomplishment they have achieved in developing their country.

Developing U.S.-China ties has won wide support from the U.S. people, Trump said, adding that the two countries, as cooperative partners, can make joint efforts to help the bilateral relationship reach an unprecedented level.

The United States is committed to enhancing win-win cooperation with China in economy, trade, investment and international affairs, Trump said.
USA Today provided commentary:
Trump’s pullback from his provocative words and softer tone after accusations against China of unfair trade and militarism in the South China Sea could be a negotiating tactic, said Michael Auslin, a China analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Until this week, Trump seemed to go out of his way to antagonize Xi. After his election, he took a congratulatory call from Taiwan’s president, which is a break in protocol under "one China." He then used Twitter and interviews with Fox News to assail China’s military installations in disputed waters in the South China Sea, its failure to control North Korea's nuclear weapons development and China's unbalanced trade policies toward the United States.

Trump politely repeated the "one China" mantra of previous U.S. administrations "to make Xi Jinping happy," said Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Arlington, Va. “What America has to do in order to deter China from here on out is not going to make (Xi) happy at all.”

At stake is whether Trump will acquiesce to China’s long-term goal of pushing the U.S. out of Asia and become the world’s sole and dominant superpower, Fisher said. If that "underlying tension" is not dealt with now, the U.S. will “face the prospect of real disaster in the not-to-distant future.”
So here we are with a question. Was Bannon's expressed opinion about war with China irrelevant?
Bannon is an ideologue who is creating policy for Rust Belt President Donald Trump as White House chief strategist. That position already made him one of the most powerful people on the planet.

Nonetheless, over the last weekend in January 2017, he was given more power as explained in The New York Times:
But the defining moment for Mr. Bannon came Saturday night in the form of an executive order giving the rumpled right-wing agitator a full seat on the “principals committee” of the National Security Council — while downgrading the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, who will now attend only when the council is considering issues in their direct areas of responsibilities. It is a startling elevation of a political adviser, to a status alongside the secretaries of state and defense, and over the president’s top military and intelligence advisers.

In theory, the move put Mr. Bannon, a former Navy surface warfare officer, admiral’s aide, investment banker, Hollywood producer and Breitbart News firebrand, on the same level as his friend, Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser, a former Pentagon intelligence chief who was Mr. Trump’s top adviser on national security issues before a series of missteps [resulted in his resignation].
About China, as Bannon well knows, there is a model for behaving aggressively towards another country then moderating. In fact one might think Trump's "backing down" from his China threats is akin to the methods used by Hitler when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed as a delaying tactic to give Germany time to achieve other goals before engaging in a surprise invasion of Russia. But Hitler had an ideology that favored war. He wrote several early works on his beliefs before at age 36 he completed Mein Kampf which published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926, eight years before he became Chancellor of Germany; in it he wrote:
"The soil on which we now live was not a gift bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers. But they had to conquer it by risking their lives. So also in the future our people will not obtain territory, and therewith the means of existence, as a favour from any other people, but will have to win it by the power of a triumphant sword."
Donald Trump has not written an ideological doctrine book nor has he publicly embraced any ideology. One review of his eight books (all but one openly co-written or ghost written) offered that the only consistent theme is: “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal,’ Trump declared during his presidential campaign announcement in June, and he has repeatedly cited that 1987 book in other appearances"; from his media interviews, his"speechifying" and his "tweeting" one can see that he has held conflicting views lacking a clear ideological orientation; with regard to war, all we have is in The America We Deserve by Donald J. Trump with David Shiflett (2000):
My rules of engagement are pretty simple. If we are going to intervene in a conflict it had better pose a direct threat to our interest- one definition of “direct” being a threat so obvious that most Americans will know where the hot spot is on the globe and will quickly understand why we are getting involved. The threat should be so direct that our leaders, including our president, should be able to make the case clearly and concisely....At the same time, we must not get involved in a long-festering conflict for humanitarian reasons.
On the other hand, Bannon has a different backstory that would allow him to define Trumpism in different ways. And he has an ideology that seems to appeal to Trump as explained here:
“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

As the Bolshevik leader once said, “The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.”
Which brings us full circle back to the Democrats. The Democrats in power think the blathering media are important. Apparently they are too stupid to realize that of the 330,000,000+ Americans, less than 1% are watching Fox News and ranks #107 in "news and media websites" in terms of internet traffic. If you are evaluating what to focus on to win elections, forget either one of those. They didn't win the election for Trump, though Democratic politicians and liberal media talking heads focusing on those right wing news outlets allow those outlets to create the conversation.

Be smart like Steve Bannon and focus on using Facebook and other social media sites. You see, listed above is the fact that he is on the Board of Directors of Cambridge Analytica. You probably don't know who they are, but using their tool psychometric profiling, they divided the US population into 32 personality types and focused on just 17 states to get Trump elected.

CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander James Ashburner Nix, 41, on September 19, 2016, in a lecture outlining why 20th Century blanket advertising is dead:  "My children will certainly never, ever understand this concept of mass communication."

Nix has also explained: "We have profiled the personality of every adult in the United States of America—220 million people." Cambridge Analytica wants to become a key player in marketing and advertising, not just politics. From their webiste, you can see this:

If you're interested in how the world was radically changed by a young PhD candidate Michal Kosinski beginning in 2008 read The Data That Turned the World Upside Down which includes the following:
"In the Miami district of Little Haiti, for instance, Trump's campaign provided inhabitants with news about the failure of the Clinton Foundation following the earthquake in Haiti, in order to keep them from voting for Hillary Clinton. This was one of the goals: to keep potential Clinton voters (which include wavering left-wingers, African-Americans, and young women) away from the ballot box, to 'suppress' their vote, as one senior campaign official told Bloomberg in the weeks before the election. These 'dark posts'—sponsored news-feed-style ads in Facebook timelines that can only be seen by users with specific profiles—included videos aimed at African-Americans in which Hillary Clinton refers to black men as predators, for example."
A recent Forbes writer said about the Trump Campaign and Cambridge Analytica:
I speculated that this apparent lack of interest beating his opponent at the data-crunching game was likely to be a hindrance at the last leg of the contest, when he would be in a head-to-head race with a Democrat with access to the same data and technology as Obama had at his disposal.

Well, it turns out that what I (or most other people) didn’t know was that Trump – while vocally proclaiming that he thought personality, not processing power would win the election – would just weeks later quietly engage the services of UK data analytics providers Cambridge Analytica. I say “quietly” as this was actually done by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, through a group he set up to campaign on Trump’s behalf.

Kushner is said to have been the brains behind Trump’s election technology strategy but is also a recent adoptee of Big Data. He became aware of the power of online marketing while experimenting with Facebook targeted advertising, and noticing how quickly he could increase sales of his father-in-law’s branded merchandise by a factor of 10 – from $8,000 to $80,000 per day – simply by refining the target demographic.

Trump’s data campaign followed a different strategy than the Democrat one which had been credited with playing a large part in securing the last two elections. Obama’s operation focused on identifying swing voters who could go either way, in areas with a likelihood of high voter turnout. Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, centred around deciding which of his key political platforms – for example cutting immigration or “draining the swamp” of corrupt or incompetent politicians and bureaucrats – would work best with segmented voter groups. Once up and running at the end of the summer, it was soon sending out tailored messages to 100,000 targeted voters every day.
What the writer of that story either did not know or failed to report is important - Steve Bannon has been on the Board of Directors of Cambridge Analytica since its creation. On August 17, 2016, Bannon was appointed chief executive of Donald Trump's campaign. The Forbes story says "the Trump data campaign" was "up and running at the end of summer." Perhaps that timing was just a coincidence.

It is not as if there is no warning. We have been given a picture of what goes on in his mind such as this from The Hollywood Reporter Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive):
"Darkness is good," says Bannon, who amid the suits surrounding him at Trump Tower, looks like a graduate student in his T-shirt, open button-down and tatty blue blazer — albeit a 62-year-old graduate student. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they" — I believe by "they" he means liberals and the media, already promoting calls for his ouster — "get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."

On that precise point, The New York Times, in a widely circulated article, will describe this day at Trump Tower as a scene of "disarray" for the transition team. In fact, it's all hands on: Mike Pence, the vice president-elect and transition chief, and Reince Priebus, the new chief of staff, shuttling between full conference rooms; Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and by many accounts his closest adviser, conferring in the halls; Sen. Jeff Sessions in and out of meetings on the transition team floor; Rudy Giuliani upstairs with Trump (overheard: "Is the boss meeting-meeting with Rudy or just shooting the shit?"), and Bannon with a long line of men and women outside his corner office. If this is disarray, it's a peculiarly focused and organized kind.

It's the Bannon theme, the myopia of the media — that it tells only the story that confirms its own view, that in the end it was incapable of seeing an alternative outcome and of making a true risk assessment of the political variables — reaffirming the Hillary Clinton camp's own political myopia. This defines the parallel realities in which liberals, in their view of themselves, represent a morally superior character and Bannon — immortalized on Twitter as a white nationalist, racist, anti-Semite thug — the ultimate depravity of Trumpism.

The focus on Bannon, if not necessarily the description, is right. He's the man with the idea. If Trumpism is to represent something intellectually and historically coherent, it's Bannon's job to make it so. In this, he could not be a less reassuring or more confusing figure for liberals — fiercely intelligent and yet reflexively drawn to the inverse of every liberal assumption and shibboleth.
That last paragraph summarizes why we should fear Bannon.

At the end of the article Bannon is quoted as saying: "I am Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."

While some called Cromwell a doctrinaire hack, others consider him the presiding genius handling the break with Rome and creating the laws and administrative procedures that reshaped post-Reformation England by translating royal supremacy into parliamentary terms, creating powerful new organs of government to take charge of Church lands, and largely removing the medieval features of central government.

Bannon should keep in mind that despite his successes as an insider revolutionary, ultimately Cromwell was executed by the ruler he served.

Nonetheless, that self-characterization should remind us to keep in mind that Bannon:
  • Is the White House Chief Strategist.
  • Advocates a disruptive political revolution as defined by Lenin "to destroy the state" and "to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment."
  • Believes Lenin's statement “the art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive" which we must recognize in the context that Bannon is an expert on using big data to target propaganda to generate public political support for political goals including warfare.
  • Favors Militarism (his daughter is a West Point graduate serving in the 101st Airborn, a fact that must reflect on her father in some way) and he believes in going to war "to save face."
  • Sits on the National Security Council alongside the Secretaries of State and Defense, and over the President’s top military and intelligence advisers.
  • Expects, perhaps even relishes the prospect of, a war with China before the end of Trump's second term, which could easily be triggered as I will explore in a future post.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind since we want our descendants to survive

Sometimes the stars align for auspicious outcomes, but sometimes they seem to portend an apocalypse.

In 2017 here in California we know that during the lifespans of the Millennials and their children
disruptions in the biosphere's self-regulating mechanisms will cause regionally disparate climate impacts negatively affecting tens of thousands of Californians, as well as hundreds of millions of people around the world.

For many around the Earth it will be catastrophic, for most it will be disruptive at times as it already has been in California, and for some - the Russians led by Putin for example - it will present opportunities represented by this map...

...though the opportunities come with a likely onslaught of serious problems.

It is obvious that within regions people acting together need to implement plans to adapt to the varying impacts of biospheric disruption.

At this critical moment in time, Neoliberal billionaires have been granted control of a number of Western World governments outside California.

What is that going to mean for future Californians in 2067 and in 2117? Do they face adapting to an Earth in upheaval without adequate support from state government policies and funding as is already the case in Florida?

Fortunately, in California we have begun our Safeguarding California program. The following series of posts explore how we Californians are overcoming an antiscience trend and what it means for the future well-being of our children and grandchildren:

  1. In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind - such as the words global and climate
  2. In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind by discussing biosphere science
  3. In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind: about lie, error, digital and information
  4. In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind: avoiding the ideology of Neoliberalism
  5. In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind: the trap of the technology promise

In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind - such as the words global and climate

While it probably would not come as a surprise to many Californians, the folks in Venice and the Netherlands have serious programs under way to adapt to the sea level rise, programs to mitigate the regional impacts of the disruption of the biosphere also known as "climate change."

Obviously, whether you're a Venetian along the canals of Venice or among the Dutch protected by the dykes, dunes, and dams of Holland, you switched off the volume of any Neoliberal-style ignorant debate that may have led to you and your grandchildren drowning. You are proceeding with plans to adapt.

So are the people of the State of California, even to the extent that voters have approved special taxes to start the adaptation process.

Since 2009 pursuant to its Integrated Plan for Addressing Climate Change, California has made significant progress partnering and collaborating with other states, countries and jurisdictions interested in reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. California even adopted it's own complex policies like cap-and-trade. The logo to the left above links to the official website providing an extensive explanation of the state program.

California has done this despite the misuse of words that have created confusion and permitted obfuscation surrounding the issue officially named "Climate Change" which name itself can be misleading.

What's not generally understood outside California is the Safeguarding California program. Like the Dutch and the Venetians, Californian's have begun the process of adaptation to regional climate change. We understand that regional climate change is simply one of the impacts of disruption of the biosphere's self-regulating mechanisms.

So far we've been able to do it by ignoring the discussion at the national level that has become so confusing and that has been targeted by economic interests for deliberate, ongoing obfuscation. Let's take a look at the word problem that permits this obfuscation of the discussion around intelligent regional adaptation to the disruption of the biosphere. Consider these definitions:

So is it "global" warming, meaning warming pertaining to the whole world universally? Or is it "climate" change meaning differing weather conditions of a region?

Science should be precise, right? But it has been confusing. What is it all about because they've been telling us about it for 65 years?

The "Climate Change" (with capital first letters) discussion has been confusing. When it began in the 1950's it was referred to as "climate change" though, yes, the discussion mostly was about temperatures.

Then in 1975 a scientific paper was published titled Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?  This caused...
  1. the PR-unsophisticated in the biosphere science community and 
  2. the biosphere science-unsophisticated in the press start discussing "global warming." Unfortunately this resulted in most everyone else arguing about "global warming" for awhile.

Why would there be any confusion? Was it just because everyone trying to warn us about something was communicating in some odd dialect?

The problem is that any reasonable Average Jolene standing knee deep in snow in the Rust Belt because of the worst snowstorm she's ever seen is going to puzzle over the term "global warming." Her part of the globe isn't warm at all. So just maybe "global" was the wrong word to use because it's definition (see above) carries a "universal" element.

The climate may be changing, and if you tell Jolene that it is she might believe you. But if you tell her about the climate warming while standing in that record deep snow, she's going to recognize you for being the communications incompetent you are. It may be that her region's climate isn't really warming even if it is changing.

After all "climate" means "the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years."

To be precise, there is no global, universal warming affecting everywhere the same.

Further, there has always been climate change everywhere, all the time, when measured "over a series of years" which Wikipedia tells us is "the statistics of weather, usually over a 30-year interval." Yes, there has always been climate change.

The fact is if you Google the words "climate blizzard" and then Google the words "climate freezing" what you'll read is lengthy boring information explaining how a warming Arctic is causing colder weather where Jolene lives and explaining how unusually warm Atlantic ocean surface temperatures resulted in the blizzard that dumped the snow she is standing in.

Consider a recent article - Climate change may shut down a current that keeps the North Atlantic warm - telling us a 44 percent chance exists that by the year 2300 we might have frigid winters for countries along the North Atlantic all because of global warming.

It's not the first time scientists have argued that the Gulf Stream, together with its northern extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, could be disrupted by Climate Change causing a significant temperature drop, maybe even a mini-Ice-Age in the North Atlantic region because of a rise in the the average temperature in the Earth's lower atmosphere. And in the 1970's there was serious discussion of global cooling.

Say what? A mini-Ice-Age because of Global Warming? Or is it Climate Change? Does anyone see a language problem here assuming the goal is to communicate with all the folks that vote as opposed to America's academics and illuminati?

"Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace recently asked then incoming U.S. President Donald Trump where he stands on the environment - specifically about climate change - thereby soliciting some honest rambling Trump-style:
"I'm still open-minded. Nobody really knows. Look, I'm somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It's not something that's so hard and fast."

"Now, Paris, I'm studying. I do say this. I don't want that agreement to put us at a competitive disadvantage with other countries. And as you know, there are different times and different time limits on that agreement. I don't want that to give China, or other countries signing agreements an advantage over us."
In this case, I believe Mr. Trump was honestly reflecting what he believes about Climate Change - "It's not something that's so hard and fast." And why wouldn't he believe that, as he's right! And his view is constantly reinforced in the iWorld in which he clearly lives like so many Americans.

The second ongoing problem within the conversation about Climate Change is that scientists are constrained by probabilities, such as that "44 percent chance" and "by the year 2300." They offer information about the probabilities. And they are constantly adjusting their data and the probabilities.

So you and I and everyone else are regularly confronted not only with language dysfunction but with confusing probabilities. And confusing probabilities they are!

To understand how befuddling this can be for the average American, let's turn to medical science for an analogy. Consider the information faced by a 22-year-old-woman without children who has received a genetic test telling her she inherited a "faulty" BRCA1 gene, the gene Angelina Jolie made a center of controversy.

The test result means that 22-year-old-woman without children has up to an 80% risk of developing breast cancer by age 90 plus a high risk of ovarian cancer which has an extremely high death rate. In many women with the genetic problem, cancer never develops. In many it develops before age 40.

Does the 22-year-old-woman without children take preventative action now by having her breasts and ovaries removed? Or does she act now by having children as soon as possible? Or is she confronted with probabilities that offer no concrete information?

A number like 80% risk by the year 2084 is most certainly for her "not something that's so hard and fast" (to use Trump thinking about Climate Change).

Maybe she can have children first, maybe even wait until she's in her 30's. She can study the information on the internet, the iWorld, which recently includes contrarian information that seems to be telling her the numbers and the risks may not even be that clear - you know, not so hard and fast.

She can live her life, and study ... until she can't because she has a cancer diagnosis and dies within a few months.

Or maybe she can study until she dies of old age from heart problems.

It's all fuzzy. "It's not something that's so hard and fast."

And that's the same problem that appears to be confusing most Americans regarding regional climate change. (Note that from this point on I will not be capitalizing the first letter in words like "climate" except in quoted material.) However, in the case of regional climate change, too many are confusing the greatly studied 1970's "gene test result" reported to them by Al Gore with "yesterday's cancer diagnosis". Because we already have the diagnosis, we just try to forget.

Yes, the regional climate change situation actually can be likened to a terminal cancer diagnosis. "Yeah, I'm feeling some effects, but how long do I have, doc?" The answer to this question further befuddles people,

In the case of cancer, you might get an answer ranging from "weeks" to "two years." And it's possible there are treatments that can slow it down. So even that is not "so hard and fast."

In the case of regional climate change, it's "not something that's so hard and fast" because scientists are offering estimates of damage and dislocation along with time frames that vary from 3 years to 300 years; such as a possible sea rise of a couple of feet to 40 feet.

And as we've already have seen storms and drought and wildfire effects will vary, and maybe there's a 40% chance of a mini-ice-age in Europe and North America in 200 years. And it's even possible that actions still could be taken to mitigate the effects to some degree which justifies spending a gazillion taxpayer dollars and seriously downgrading our lifestyle.

Yeah. This is how to create a discussion that ordinary people will tune out. This is not the way to discuss the important data scientists are recording. We need to begin with correct, effective language.

To be precise, when talking about the world the discussion should be about the "biosphere." Further when talking about adaptation the key word is "regional" not "global" and what we need to adapt to are "impacts" not "warming."

When one talks about "climate" issues, the language should reflect the thinking reflected in the introductory sentence from the 2015 Climate Change Research Plan for California (emphasis added):
Over the past 25 years, the State of California has demonstrated national and international leadership in understanding regional climate change impacts, developing strategies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and developing knowledge to support adaptation to projected impacts.
Most of the Plan's focus acknowledges that climate change is regional even within California. That's because disruption of the biosphere does not result in uniform changes.

With that said, we need to review both what's happening to the biosphere and California's adaptation plans.

In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind by discussing biosphere science

Wikipedia tells us that the term "biosphere" was coined by geologist Eduard Suess in 1875, which he defined as the place on Earth's surface where life dwells.

The "biosphere" is the zone of life on Earth, a closed system and largely self-regulating. Well, perhaps not completely closed as solar radiation and heat from the interior of the Earth have an ongoing influence.

As used here, the biosphere is the Earth's ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships including their interaction with the elements of the 
  1. lithosphere including the crust and the uppermost mantle which constitute the outer layer of the Earth subdivided into tectonic plates including the mineral elements that make it up;
  2. hydrosphere including the combined mass of water found on, under, and above the surface; and 
  3. atmosphere including the layer of gases, commonly known as air, that surrounds the planet Earth and is retained by Earth's gravity.
Though it may be self-regulating, the biosphere is a constantly evolving system of interactions among organisms and their environment.

Many factors challenge the self-regulating mechanisms causing minor-to-disruptive changes that establish new balances within the biosphere sometimes resulting in species extinction.

Occasionally asteroids and volcanoes significantly disrupt the biosphere resulting in significant species extinction and radical species evolution. These kind of events represent a subject that we can ignore while the scientists argue of the meaning of their data. For you and I, which event - asteroid strike or volcano eruption - will cause the change is irrelevant. If we are the animals standing where 30 seconds from now either an asteroid is going to hit or a volcano is going to explode, who cares which it is? Just ask a dinosaur ... oh, that's right, you can't because of what is known as an extinction event.

The concern at the beginning of the 21st Century is simple. The biosphere's self-regulating mechanisms have undergone disruptive changes far more significant than, and occurring far more rapidly than, typical. The disruption we are mostly concerned about is in the atmosphere though the impacts extend to the hydrosphere and the lithosphere. The dramatic results look like this:

There is, however, a far less dramatic look shown below from The Realities of Sea-Level Rise in Miami's Low-Income Communities.
...This is just one neighborhood of many in Miami-Dade dealing with the effects of Florida’s King Tide last week, the highest tide of the year. Coastal neighborhoods are hardest hit, but the flooding also reaches farther inland, to less affluent communities. It’s here where the consequences of climate change and sea-level rise could in fact be most grave, says Nicole Hernandez Hammer, a climate researcher with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Middle- and low-income households tend to be less resilient to shocks such as flooding, and they also run the highest risk of being forgotten in the rush to save the millions of dollars in real-estate investments on the waterfront.
“It’s getting worse. When you visit places that weren’t flooding 30 years ago, they’re flooding now,” says Hammer. Today, the Miami area experiences about six of these sunny-day flooding events per year. But the Union of Concerned Scientists projects that by 2045, they’ll be happening 380 times per year. “That’s two times per day in some areas,” she says.

It is interesting that these areas are within just a short drive from Trump Miami and Trump's Mar-a-Lago. Trump can already study the biosphere disruption effects in his own neighborhoods, from his own real estate investments.

But it doesn't matter to the Neoliberal billionaires developing the Miami waterfront as explained in this article. They have state officials denying climate change while local officials are funding beachfront mitigation measures at taxpayer expense. At the same time, they have the federal government absorbing all the risk while Congress fights against any effort to acknowledge and understand the biospheric disruptions.

It isn't as if the unwashed masses in those less affluent neighborhoods can relate to some impact projected out to 27 years from now. When it is presented with probabilities and decades, it is like telling them that a small asteroid will hit here 27 years from now. They really aren't going to react immediately.

And in fact they can't relate to this sentence in Elizabeth Kolbert's 2015 article The Siege of Miami that states: "In the Miami area, the daily high-water mark has been rising almost an inch a year."

It just doesn't register that such a continuing rise at that rate means the water will be over two feet deeper in the lifetime of most of those residents, and that doesn't even indicate what the impact will be for storm water drainage as explained by Kolbert. That rise is relentlessly continuing, but in human terms it is slow.

What Californians know is that the important discussion among scientists is over whether
  1. the disruption in the biosphere will continue slowly and relentlessly towards a new balance or 
  2. the disruption will reach a tipping point, a threshold for abrupt and irreversible change. 
If it reaches a tipping point the disruption will progress rapidly, potentially leading to a time of significant species extinction and radical species evolution. But in either case, there is little that can be done about it. Through cooperation with folks in regions not controlled by Neoliberals by modifying our behaviors and our economy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Californians hope to limit the disruption. But....

What Average Jolene wading out to her 15-year-old minivan feels is that decades ago somebody failed her. And she can't focus on the problems her grandkids will face because the problems she faces include providing food, clothing and shelter for her kids.

How we failed is a typical American story. (It is an American story - it's all about 20th Century economics, when the United States was the world leader, the decision-maker relative to almost all relevant issues.)

In 1976, after joining the United States House of Representatives, Al Gore held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste and global warming."

Uh, yeah, we've all heard about this. What is important is that it is now 40 years after 1976 and that passage of time matters. Let me say it again.  

It is now 40 years after 1976 and that passage of time matters.

Gore, who ironically is from Tennessee which has a climate change denial law, has spent a lifetime as an environmental activist and was co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 31 years after his first Congressional hearing on climate issues.

About 20 years ago and 20 years after those first hearings, then Vice-President Gore reflected on his experienced reality in a 1995 New York Times article:
"We are in an unusual predicament as a global civilization," Al Gore said when I interviewed him early in his Vice Presidency. "The maximum that is politically feasible, even the maximum that is politically imaginable right now, still falls short of the minimum that is scientifically and ecologically necessary."
Confronted in 1995 with Gore's clear, candid pessimism, the writer of that article, renowned environmental organizer (whatever that is) Bill McKibben, with wild optimism, or maybe massive denial, went on to write this (emphasis added):
But this state of affairs may not last. According to the most accurate computer models of global climate, for instance, increased global temperatures may be obvious to the man in the street by decade's end. For all the right-wing bluster about taming the environmental movement, for all the happy-talk books about our ecological triumphs, it will take only a hot summer or two, a string of crop failures or some similar catastrophe to bring these issues center stage once more. A spate of recent studies has begun to make clear that an average temperature increase of only a few degrees hides tremendous heat waves, droughts and storms; the insurance industry has actually begun to worry publicly about the greenhouse effect and the losses it will cause.

If and when such stresses really show themselves, though, we will need an environmental movement that understands what is happening -- that understands that more recycling is not the main answer, that is willing to advocate the unpopular and the disturbing. Partly this means a stepped-up political campaign -- continual pressure on governments around the world to sign and fulfill treaties, share renewable technologies and pass steep new taxes on the use of fossil fuels and other polluters. Already a small segment of the environmental movement has begun to focus on such issues.
Yeah, well, it's 20 years later.... We've had that hot summer or two, in fact we've had over a decade of expanding worldwide drought, wildfires, and huge storms. The environmental movement has pushed hard. But no. The U.S. population would never allow "the unpopular and the disturbing", particularly if it meant not being able to afford a new iPhone every year and otherwise bask in the light of economic achievements based on the overuse of the resources in the biosphere.

Environmental reporter Elizabeth Kolbert's works include the books The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History which won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction and other awards and Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change expanding on a 2005 three-part series for The New Yorker which had won the 2006 National Magazine Award for Public Interest, the 2005 American Association for the Advancement of Science Journalism Award, and the 2006 National Academies Communication Award. Hopefully these books have been read by at least a million or so people out of the 7 billion humans on Earth and 350 million Americans as they represent the best available reporting on the subject.

In her recent update to Field Notes she told us all (emphasis added):
In the years since I wrote this book I’ve been asked hundreds of variations on the question: “What should I do?” What people seem to be looking for is both advice on concrete actions they can take and the assurance that what they do will make a difference. Given the paralysis of the political system, the time lag built into the climate system, and the high likelihood that the threshold of DAI [dangerous anthropogenic interference] has now been crossed, it’s difficult to offer such assurances. We have already changed the world dramatically, indeed quite probably catastrophically. But even when it comes to catastrophe, distinctions can be made. What we choose to do—or not to do—in the coming decades will determine the future both for our own kind and for the millions of other species with whom we share this planet. It is possible that we could still limit warming to around two degrees Celsius, and it is also possible that we could lock in warming of six degrees Celsius or more. These two possibilities represent radically different worlds.
For clarity, "dangerous anthropogenic interference" means that within a period of less than a 100 years we humans screwed up the self-regulating mechanisms of the biosphere to an irremediable level.

Perhaps it is because she has hung around scientists too long, but in this case Kolbert, who is a master wordsmith and whose two books are the best reporting available on the subjects of regional climate change impacts, still used probability wording - "the high likelihood that the threshold of DAI has now been crossed." A more accurate way of saying it is "the threshold of DAI was crossed sometime early in this Millennium." To put it in perspective, looking back from the year 2116 folks will be correct when they say that on one date in the 20 years between 1995 and 2015 the threshold of DAI was crossed.

And that's what most too many Americans still don't get - by 2066 the number of natural disasters - massive hurricanes, flooding, drought-caused water shortages, and wildfires - will have reached significantly disruptive proportions for many. "Significantly disruptive" in many cases will mean catastrophic locally in some areas by 1950's standards.

No one wants to say to anyone that millions of your grandkids will be in deep s**t if we don't start urging families and businesses to locate to safer locations through planning processes.

But the Safeguarding California website explains:
California is leading the way on emissions reduction, but no matter how quickly we reduce our climate polluting emissions, climate impacts will still occur. Many impacts – increased fires, floods, severe storms and heat waves – are occurring already and will only become more frequent and more dangerous. But there are many things we can do to protect against climate impacts. Taking steps now to adapt to climate change will protect public health and safety, our economy and our future.

 The Safeguarding California Implementation Action Plan... with ten sectors that show the path forward by concisely presenting
  • risks posed by climate change impacts caused by the biospheric disruptions,
  • adaptation efforts underway, and
  • actions that will be taken to safeguard residents, property, communities and natural systems.
California is preparing for what is understood to be the inevitable.

Curiously, unbeknownst to or perhaps deliberately ignored by Donald Trump and people in the Rust Belt, the folks around the San Francisco Bay, which among others includes all the area known as Silicon Valley, acting through The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority voted last year to tax themselves to begin the needed regional climate change adaptation process. The Bay is not just facing flooding from the sea level rise. As noted in an MIT study:
For California, they calculated that, if the world’s average temperatures rise by 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, the state will experience three more extreme precipitation events than the current average, per year.
One irony is the Bay Area can afford to start adapting now because the iWorld prints and sends them real money, albeit in digital format, but still not in bitcoins. Apple does keep their money offshore so they don't have to pay taxes on it, but the tax for the adaptation to localized impacts of the biosphere disruption is a parcel tax they have to pay.

This couldn't have happened without political dialog. The assumption many would make is that this is a typical California liberal effort raising taxes on the everyone.

To understand the political context of biosphere disruption and climate change impacts, we need to explore the meaning of the Neoliberal takeover of the United States. But we need to do so after gaining an understanding of the context of language confusion created in the second half of the 20th Century by the tech industry.

In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind: about lie, error, digital and information

An English language word-muddle-in-the-middle has evolved since the 1950's - it includes the words "lie," "error," "digital," and "information," each of which has been used in ways that create misunderstandings and cofusion.

What makes recent political debates befuddling to many is a muddling of the word "lie" for which offers the following first definitions:
noun. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth.

verb. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Consider this definition of the word "error":
1. a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech: His speech contained several factual errors.

2. belief in something untrue; the holding of mistaken opinions.

3. the condition of believing what is not true: in error about the date.
Repeat this mantra. A false statement isn't a "lie" if the speaker or writer believes it to be true when it is spoken or written by the speaker or writer. It is an "error." A "lie" must include the intent to deceive.

Accusing someone of lying is to accuse them of intent to deceive. If your goal is to make that person angry, then accuse them of lying before you know if they are just in error.

Unfortunately, when many people believe an incorrect statement, it can become a mass delusion whether spread by people who do so in error, or by those who do so as a lie "with intent to deceive."

In the context of these posts, climate change denial is being reinforced by large numbers of people who have repeated incorrect statements until it has become a mass delusion. This is reinforced by the iWorld, an artificial from which people create their mindset.

The iWorld is a world in which people confuse computerized escapism with reality whether
  • they lose themselves in fantasies viewed on a screen or through electronic 3-D goggles or glasses,  fantasies that are more pleasing than the world around them, or
  • instead of  focusing on the reality around them, they focus on short texts and tweets which have no physical substance and no immediately verifiable basis in fact, .

Consider this image. In which version of the world would you choose to live, the one at the top  
that is fed to the brain through "devices" or the one at the bottom that is fed to your brain when
your eyes and ears interact with the real world directly? If you rely on the device-created world,
you will not be able to adapt when the real world goes through upheaval.                                      


How we got here is a related "First World" delusion. Many would want to argue that we are in some Information Age or Digital Age.

But the words "information" and "digital" are deluding us because they are lies or errors when used in the context of "age."

The "digital age" is a mass delusion in which people living in the Industrial Age have expanded fossil fuel energy production (which powers their locomotives) in order to create and power some newer, smaller devices used to enhance data processing and communication. These people think they've changed the basic economic structure underlying their society when they haven't.

Powering "digital" equipment in use by 100+ people is basically the same as powering an 1880's coal-powered railroad steam engine pulling a line of passenger rail cars transporting 100+ people. It doesn't matter what tool you're using if you are using the same biosphere resources for energy.

The important difference is the urban users of devices on the internet do not directly experience coal smoke spread over their localized area, but instead on a far more massive scale they - well, really, you and I - generously share it with polar bears.

We didn't move into some new age called the digital age. It's still the Industrial Age but, yes, the equipment we use is smaller than a locomotive.

And now for the stunning 21st Century redefinition that changed it all.

The term "Information Age" was an acknowledgement when first used in the early 1980's of the proliferation of  improvements in computing power, meaning smaller, more "powerful", and less expensive personal computers, which were used to digitize and manipulate data.

We suddenly had ready access to - and the ability to share, store, and manipulate - "data" which I and others frequently termed as "information." Delighted with ourselves, we said we had moved into an "Information Age."

Indeed, more folks could make money from data. But we most certainly would have not declared a new "age" if we the choice had been "Data Age." That offers a dreary sound, meaning boring work. Even though that's exactly how the folks made money from data.

But when in 1980 we looked at dictionary definitions for the term "information" we read something like
  1. "facts provided or learned about something or someone" or
  2.  "knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data." 
The key term was "fact." A piece of data was, or more correctly digitally represented, some piece of fact. So in our view, "data" was "information."

But "Holy Hoodwink, Batman"....

When I and others were not paying attention, by the beginning of the 21st Century something happened to the word "information". And the "i" in information on the internet was turned into a ubiquitous symbol for "in" (as a determiner of whether you are cool and "in") by Apple in the era of Steve Jobs, the ultimate Neoliberal (though I don't know if he knew he was one).

As explained today by Wikipedia: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns." Huh? Say what?

How absurd! The criteria to judge whether something uttered or written is "information" is whether it influences the formation or transformation of other patterns???

The absurdness is that informative or transformative "patterns" literally can be what we once knew as "misinformation." Except apparently now it is information!

Please note that I do not use the term "bad data" because "misinformation" can be created with no data at all!

Today there is no difference between fact or fiction so long as the words used are a "type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns." They are lumped together as "information." The word "misinformation" has been discarded. In the context of this definition it doesn't matter if the pattern is untrue so long as it influences.

As one newspaper columnist noted: "Welcome to Donald Trump's America, where facts don't matter. Where it makes no difference whether or not what you say is true, as long as you say it loud enough." This, of course, gives Donald Trump way too much credit.

What the columnist is referring to is the iWorld in which information itself is "simulated," meaning it is digitally formatted by one or more persons to feel and look like realistic facts specifically to influence or reinforce the formation or transformation of another person's belief about the real world that surrounds them.

What's subtle here is an intended language muddle. Consider again that Wikipedia statement: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns." Compare it with this also in Wikipedia:
Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view". Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns.

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded messages or "loaded language" to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups and companies can also produce propaganda.
Using these definitions, "propaganda"  is defined as "information" - which is defined as any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns - which is nearly identical to the goal of "propaganda" which is to influence and alter "the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns."

The center of the iWorld is in California where billions of dollars are made on technology, TV, and movies all designed specifically to pull people out of the real world. But the original intent was to provide short term entertainment ... yes, escapism, but not to live outside the real world in the iWorld.

But in that iWorld we escaped from the Industrial Age into the Digital or Information Age. We are free of the evils of the Industrial Age if only folks would quit talking about "Climate Change."

The iWorld.  Embraced by Donald Trump.  Effectively used by the Neoliberals, who we can now discuss.

In California we are overcoming words that blind and bind: avoiding the ideology of Neoliberalism

As noted in previous posts, it's nearly past time to begin to implement climate change adaptation plans at the state and local level. At the national level it's nearly past time to begin to prepare adaptation plans including how to handle potential future mass migration and significant economic dislocation.

But when the headlines read 'Governor Moonbeam' Vows to Launch 'Own Damn Satellite' If Donald Trump Ignores Climate Change in which were told...
In a barnburner speech on Wednesday, Governor Jerry Brown vowed to defy any attempt by the future President to “mess with” the state’s earth science programs, telling a group of geophysicists in San Francisco, “We will persevere.”

“We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers and we’re ready to fight,” Brown told the American Geophysical Union to wild applause. “If Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite.” pretty much gives us a feel for what the political and economic landscape looks like and it doesn't look like smooth sailing for those Californians who care about their descendants living in the year 2117.

Our beloved Governor Moonbeam is acutely aware that climate scientists are anxious over threatened NASA climate science cuts during Trump presidency and House Republicans have tried to defund Defense Department initiatives to prepare for climate change impacts.

Recently some political philosophy types rediscovered why it is that the Western World has been unable to cope with climate change impacts. The reason is 21st Century "Neoliberalism" - a name coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938 for an alternative ideology.

As Neoliberalism has evolved, it has become an ideology which asserts that 21st Century market metaphors, metrics, and practices should permeate all fields of human life. It is an ideology that is winning outside California primarily because its advocates from Silicon Valley have operated outside the traditional social, economic and political norms.

Ben Tarnoff, a San Francisco journalist who writes about technology and politics, in a December 2016 article explains the nature of Neoliberalism in the correct context:
No industry has played a larger role in evangelizing the neoliberal faith than Silicon Valley. Its entrepreneurs are constantly coming up with new ways to make more of our lives into markets. A couple of decades ago, staying in touch with friends wasn’t a source of economic value – now it’s the basis for a $350bn company. Our photo albums, dating preferences, porn habits, and most random and banal thoughts have all become profitable data sets, mined for advertising revenue. We are encouraged to see ourselves as pieces of human capital that must ceaselessly enhance our value – optimizing our feeds and profiles, hustling for follows and likes and swipes.

If Silicon Valley is turning our personal lives into a business, then Trump hopes to turn our government into one. Like all of Trump’s ideas, this isn’t especially original. For decades, neoliberal politicians of both parties have promoted the notion that government should not only serve business, but operate like one. They’ve argued that public services should be privatized, or at least model the “efficiency” of the private sector. They’ve claimed that business is the highest form of human endeavor, and that the role of the state is to empower and emulate it.
It is important to note that Tarnoff earlier in August 2016 wrote a piece decrying the planned October 2016 action of the government that turned over ownership of the internet domain name system (DNS) to the private sector, again in the correct context in which he explained:
But the symbolic significance is huge. The October handover marks the last chapter in the privatization of the Internet. It concludes a process that began in the 1990s, when the US government privatized a network built at enormous public expense.

In return, the government demanded nothing: no compensation, and no constraints or conditions over how the Internet would take shape.

There was nothing inevitable about this outcome — it reflected an ideological choice, not a technical necessity. Instead of confronting critical issues of popular oversight and access, privatization precluded the possibility of putting the Internet on a more democratic path.
In that August 2016 article he explains how the internet was developed and how it was privatized. He advocates reclaiming "the People’s Platform" to bring it "under democratic control" so it isn't "used to produce immense concentrations of corporate power."

Sadly in December 2016 he was explaining how those corporations implemented Neoliberalism in our daily lives and were now implementing a government agendas outside California. What happened in between is Donald Trump was elected President because the world's latte-drinking urban liberals thought Trump was a buffoon, not a Neoliberal with memories of adolescent longings for an Ayn Rand iWorld where information need not be fact and all information is monetized.

If you asked any "smart" progressive or liberal politician or staffer or press member before November 2016 what a Neoliberal was, probably 90% would have given you a blank look or fumbled around for words. Not all, however.

There were some Millennials, not long out of college, who still retained their ability to read more than 140 characters. In my February 11 post Hillary Clinton's Dilemma: the Centrist Third Way Policies of Bill's Presidency vs. Young Women I offered this quote from Clio Chang (emphasis added) 
Is it so outlandish to think that the circumstances in which each generation grew up would affect their political preferences? Particularly when those circumstances are of immense historical importance, like the Great Recession? While those who entered the workforce during Bill Clinton’s presidency may remember his legacy as an era of economic prosperity, that wealth hasn’t trickled down to today’s millennials. Two decades later, they are just as likely to hear criticisms of Clinton’s policies, such as welfare reform, DOMA,and mandatory minimum sentences. Indeed, when you take into account the root causes of the financial crisis, income inequality, and wage stagnation, the Clinton years start to look like part of a neoliberal-conservative consensus, as opposed to a liberal outlier between two Bush administrations. At a time when more young voters seem to be following all the correct steps for success—graduating high school, getting a college degree—but are still floundering, it’s no wonder that they are drawn to Sanders’s stacked-deck rhetoric.
As Tarnoff noted in his December article, Trump built his campaign around the premise that his chief qualification for the presidency was his success as a businessman and promised to make America great again by bringing business discipline and dynamism to government.

Democrats, who wouldn't want to offend the deluded in their effort to be be inclusive, offered no coordinated attack on this expression of Neoliberal ideology at least partly because some of their ilk agree with it.

Nor did the mainstream media offer such an attack because the term Neoliberalism wasn't recognized by the camera-hogs in the mainstream media. That is understandable, though not forgivable, because sometime in the early-to-mid-1950's the term "neoliberal" disappeared from normal political discourse, except in certain tight circles and among those who study political science instead of celebrity politics.

While no one was looking, Neoliberal wealthy corporate interests funded academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia, plus a series of think tanks including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They created a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists who always hid under the traditional label "conservative."

As I've explained in previous posts, in the United States they quietly took over most state legislatures and executive offices which then allowed them to take control of Congress. Now they will have Donald Trump as President and will continue their attempts to take control of European governments.

As British writer, George Monbiot, explains it:
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
It is in the context of  Neoliberal values that we can understand that all persons are free to compete, but the competition is never a fair competition, because life is not fair, nor should any government attempt to make it fair or even a little fairer. Overlaid on a biosphere disruption scenario, Neoliberalism almost seems to guarantee a dystopian future.

In contrast, Egalitarian Progressivism reached the peak of its influence in the United States in the first half of the 20th Century, then slowly faded as the collective memory of The Great Depression faded.

In California, it was epitomized by the Master Plan for Higher Education of 1960 signed by Governor Pat Brown which established a system of tuition-free higher education for residents including the University of California, the California State University System, and the statewide community college system. (This was ultimately undone in 1978 by Proposition 13.)

Egalitarian Progressivism involved mixing industrial and technological progress with active governmental intervention to assure equal opportunity and a proper balance of distributive justice. It is distributive justice that creates a significant contrast with Neoliberalism.

However, Egalitarian Progressivism as it evolved in the 20th Century is complicated.

In his book Group DynamicsProfessor Donelson R. Forsyth, Thorsness Endowed Chair in Ethical Leadership, Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond, explains that "distributive justice" is about how rewards and costs are distributed among members of a group (or a city or nation) which takes into account five conflicting "norms" which typically confront groups. These can be summarized (in a different order than Forsyth presents them) as:
  1. Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources with those who have less.
  2. Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those needs, regardless of their input..
  3. Equity: Members' outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an individual who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from the group than someone who has contributed very little.
  4. Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive more than those in lower level positions.
  5. Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of the rewards/costs
In the context of American society, economics, and politics, Egalitarian Progressivism requires that these norms be used giving priority in the order they are listed above to set the course for the ship of state. The first four are understood as requirements applied to keep the ship running. The last is then used to adjust the final heading - it is the "fairness" standard of mediation that keeps everyone on board and avoids a mutiny. But it requires commitment and compromise.

"Need" is given a high priority, but it is a word not limited to economics. In terms of the individual perspective,  Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs applies:

During World War II, in order to distinguish themselves from the Nazi and Japanese societies, the Allies adopted the Four Freedoms to which every human is entitled as elucidated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941 —freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want—as their basic war aims.

Advocates of Egalitarian Progressivism believe that in 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights amplified those Four Freedoms, placing the burden on government, with the support of every person and organization, to assure that the physiological and safety needs of all persons are met.

Further it also placed the responsibility on every person, organization, and government to see that every person's need for belonging and for esteem can be met to the extent the group can facilitate achieving them using the norms of distributive justice.

In the United States advocates of Egalitarian Progressivism in the first two-thirds of the 20th Century achieved much through government. But beginning in the mid-1970's under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, that stopped.

It should be clear from the discussion above that "egalitarian" as used here supports the thought that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, a thought that logically requires and supports the dictate that all people should be treated as equals and have the same basic political, economic, social, and civil rights.

It does not mean, nor did it ever mean, socialism simply because it acknowledges norms based on how groups behave and what people need, and suggests folks work it out through democratic governments. Nevertheless....

In 1938 in Paris two exiles from Austria, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, discovered a shared belief that social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, was a manifestation of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism. So they coined the term Neoliberalism as a label for their view.

Hayek, who in a 1944 book argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control, in 1947 founded the first organization to spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – supported by millionaires and their foundations.

This set the pattern that for the next 50 years was used in the U.S. successfully to create a funding base to support three decades of a Republican political strategy to take control of 32 of 50 state legislatures as shown on the map above, 33 governors offices, both houses of Congress, and the Presidency.

The problem is, starting with President Jimmy Carter, there has been a steady shift in the Democratic Party away from Egalitarian Progressivism - we find terms describing elected Democrats as New Democrats, Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats, Moderate Democrats,  Blue Dog Democrats, and Third Way Democrats. Many leading New Democrats, such as Bill Clinton, started out in the George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party but gradually moved toward the right on economic and military policy, effectively accepting elements of Neoliberalism.

At the beginning of the 21st Century Egalitarian Progressivism had no home in either of the two dominant national political parties. Neoliberal philosophy had seduced Democratic politicians seeking a national stage, though not all of those active at the State level.

At the state level in Florida, where streets are frequently under water because of rising sea levels and the government is controlled by Neoliberals, the term's "climate change" and "global warming" may not be mentioned in official state documents or by state officials.

On the other hand, the government of California, led by old Egalitarian Progressive Democrats, in 2009 established an extensive program to cope with regional climate change impacts as noted in previous posts.

But California has an advantage. Silicon Valley billionaires, like Hollywood billionaires, like living here and want to continue to be able to live here, even if personal income taxes at their income levels are unusually high. This is a contrast with other locations.

Curiously, for decades many American billionaires have been buying large ranches in the group of states pictured at the left, running from the Canadian border to the Mexican border. These 1,000± acre ranches can, of course, be impacted by drought, wildfire, blizzards, etc. But with proper site planning and building construction, they represent the best locations to escape the long term dislocation impacts on America of climate change.

In addition to protecting themselves and their families, how will Neoliberals additionally engage adaptation to a disruption of the biosphere? What would they do if the scene below were the picture of a continuing disaster - one that we knew would last a century or more?

Would their first response be to study how to monetize the situation for corporate profits?  If it couldn't be monetized directly would we see the equivalent on the internet of the billboard war which would generate corporate revenue from social media?

Would the symbol of U.S. migration policy be a picture like this and the experience similar to what Florence Thompson describes (click the picture):

Consider the pictures of Florida in the previous post with two more feet of tidal water in the middle of a heavy rainstorm 25 years from now, then realize flooding like this is going to happen - indeed has happend - in New York City and other coastal cities of the United States absent billions spent on flood control projects that likely will not be enough 50 years after their completion:

Exactly how will a government dominated by people who believe in Neoliberalism prepare?

Or will that government prepare? After all, the core of Neoliberal philosophy is everyone is responsible for themselves.  After all, for decades billionaires have been buying large ranches ...oh I already said that above.

Well... It needs to be repeated as those ranches are in the best locations to escape the long term regional dislocation impacts of climate change. It will isolate the Neoliberals from the unwashed masses should the need arise.

Warnings about this scenario have been offered. The late journalist, author and activist Jane Jacobs was described as one of the most prescient writers of the 20th century before her last book, titled Dark Age Ahead, was released in 2004.

The New Yorker reviewer Paul Goldberger called the book, "a despairing look at the state of things, and like everything Jacobs wrote, it is a curious combination of plainspoken common sense based on simple, empirical observation of the world around her, and broad generalizations about the nature of cities and cultures." It was not recommended light summer reading for the masses.

In her 2004 book Jacobs warns of an increasing distrust of government, worsening environmental degradation, entrenched segregation, and an “enlarging gulf between rich and poor along with attrition of the middle class” as signals and symptoms of a coming Dark Age.

“Cultural xenophobia is a frequent sequel to a society’s decline from cultural vigor,” as “self-imposed isolation” leads to “a fortress mentality,” she writes. That mentality transforms logic into myth, Jacobs writes, with a conservatism that “looks backward to fundamentalist beliefs for guidance and a worldview.”

This has insidious impacts on society. She cited the 1995 Chicago Heat Wave, which killed hundreds of mostly elderly Chicagoans. Comparing two studies, one by the United States Department of Health and the other by Eric Klinenberg a sociology graduate student who wrote his thesis on the disaster, she argued that the federal study was unconsciously biased by the prevailing political and economic ideology, neoliberalism, which promoted individualism to the point of becoming completely oblivious to community and social factors. For Klinenberg these were factors that ultimately helped some avoid death and resulted in others dying.

In 2004, a time when latte-drinking intellectual pundits were celebrating the end of history and extolling the virtues of a "flat" world of economic globalization, Jacobs ominously predicted a coming age of urban crisis, mass amnesia, and populist backlash.

A more recent review said Jacobs' 2004 book "serves as a survivors’ guide to the Age of Trump."

One serious concern about the Neoliberals is expressed by Jacobs in her assertion that "cultural xenophobia" leads to “a fortress mentality.” A fortress is a tool of war.

As we know the Trump administration appears paranoid when it comes to trade. There is no open acknowledgment that when your military is shooting at your existing and potential customers, it’s very difficult to serve and be served by those same individuals. Open trade makes war less likely.

The Neoliberals have monetized warfare directly by privatizing it - not by selling goods to the military as in pre-1980's wars - but by privatizing the military. As I noted in a previous post former Navy Seal Erik Prince,who founded the firm of Blackwater USA now known as Academi - the American private military company - is the brother of  Betsy DeVos, the Trump nominee for Education Secretary who advocates privatizing education.

So one potential Neoliberal response to a biosphere disruption crisis is the fun and profitable distraction of war. The upside of war is that it reduces the problem of human overpopulation that contributes to the biosphere disruption.

Before closing out this series, how technology used by a huge human population affects the biosphere disruptions deserves further review.