Monday, April 29, 2019
Age discrimination: A couple of changes from court decisions indicate that the long-running flow of power from individuals to businesses is continuing. Some years ago, federal courts made it more difficult to win age discrimination lawsuits against an employer. In a 2017 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protected only existing employees of a business, not job applicants. That greatly expanded the scope of exceptions the ADEA did not cover. When originally passed in 1967, the ADEA was supposed to protect all persons over 40 years of age. In general, the courts now tend to defer to employers, making winning an age-discrimination lawsuit a rare event. Despite the ADEA, age discrimination is in employment common. And even when the discrimination is blatant, it is usually impossible to win a lawsuit.
Class arbitration lawsuits: Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela that employees cannot file a class arbitration lawsuit against an employer who has harmed a group of employees. To be susceptible to such a lawsuit, the company must agree in writing in advance to accept such a lawsuit. The implications of that lawsuit are clear. Probably no employer has ever expressly consented in writing to any class arbitration lawsuit. And in the future, the few exceptions that may exist to that will make sure their employee agreements will remove that clause from the agreement. There are probably no exceptions.
Arbitration: The Lamps Plus lawsuit highlights the matter of forced arbitration. Forced arbitration clauses are the norm for employee agreements, credit card agreements, service agreements and essentially everything that can come under the scope of arbitration, which is essentially everything. Forced arbitration has been dominant for decades. Very few consumers and employees have the individual power to avoid forced arbitration. Arbitration clauses invariably include a requirement that decisions are to remain confidential.
The net effect of forced arbitration is a massive shift of power to companies and wealthy individuals. Companies and individuals, e.g., Trump and Trump companies, can and do act badly and if caught, they use arbitration to shield their bad acts in secrecy. The public is kept in the dark and fed nothing. In Lamps Plus, the Supreme Court argued that while arbitration has procedural advantages, which is arguably mostly a lie for consumers and employees most of the time, those advantages are absent from class lawsuits and that creates a potential for “procedural morass.”
The massive power advantage that forced arbitration affords companies and wealthy individuals and the secrecy that shields the underlying bad and illegal actions and settlements, constitutes a shadow system of law that sometimes operates outside the law without any means for society to know. For example, when a company or wealthy person has injured many people and one of them is forced into arbitration and a secret settlement arises, other injured people may never know of their injury or the amount of money the company paid. Essentially all advantage goes to the company or wealthy person.
From my point of view, forced arbitration constitutes a major assault on the rule of law. In essence, one can see forced arbitration as a powerful anti-democratic, authoritarian tool to keep the masses ignorant and in check, while the rich and powerful remain free to continue their bad and illegal acts with impunity most or nearly all of the time.
Orig B&B: 4/29/19
Monday, April 29, 2019
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Proposal: An Open Primary for Everyone
Saturday, April 27, 2019
The IVN (Independent Voter Network) has long been dissatisfied with the grip on electoral power the two parties exert. A new proposal suggests a primary for independent voters in view of the failure of the existing two-party system. IVN rejects the argument that although some candidates say that if we elect them, they will unite the country and solve our problems. IVN rejects that rhetoric as empty.
The group argues that our election system incentivizes partisanship by making candidates, regardless of party, accountable to the voters in their party, not to the electorate in general. Therefore, unless a candidate intends to unrig the system, calls for unity are just empty rhetoric.
In proposing a primary for all voters, IVN points out that taxpayers, not the parties, fund primary elections. The proposal is called nonpartisan and would open voting up to any voter, regardless of party, and allow voting for any candidate.
IVN comments:
The IVN (Independent Voter Network) has long been dissatisfied with the grip on electoral power the two parties exert. A new proposal suggests a primary for independent voters in view of the failure of the existing two-party system. IVN rejects the argument that although some candidates say that if we elect them, they will unite the country and solve our problems. IVN rejects that rhetoric as empty.
The group argues that our election system incentivizes partisanship by making candidates, regardless of party, accountable to the voters in their party, not to the electorate in general. Therefore, unless a candidate intends to unrig the system, calls for unity are just empty rhetoric.
In proposing a primary for all voters, IVN points out that taxpayers, not the parties, fund primary elections. The proposal is called nonpartisan and would open voting up to any voter, regardless of party, and allow voting for any candidate.
IVN comments:
Bottom Line: Let the parties keep their own ballots. Let the parties exclude or include whoever they want. Let the parties decide their own rules of nomination. BUT, give every voter their fundamental right to participate at every stage of the taxpayer-funded public election process.
The Science of Time
Saturday, April 26, 2019
What "time" is, is a very basic and fundamental question. And contrary to the "science is complete, or near complete" advocates, I think we are FAR from understanding our universe if we don't have a clue on such a basic feature of it.
If folks here aren't familiar with the issue -- there are to my knowledge 3 primary models of time.
The most common model for most of history was to treat time as just a convenient metric to refer to sequential state changes. This is often called the "A" model of time, or Presentism in philosophy. In this model, "time" doesn't really exist -- it is an invented concept by us to refer to the history of state sequences, and to project future state sequences. The only things that actually exist are the things of the universe, and they only exist in their "present" state -- hence"presentism".
The more common model among physicists today is Block time, or the "B" model of time. This model treats time as a dimension of a 4-D Space-time continuum. This is Einstein's model behind General Relativity. In Block Time -- the past, present, and future all have the same status -- there is no special feature to the present. And the future is already set.
A third model is Growing Time -- which treats the PAST as in Block time, but the future does not yet exist. The present has a special status as the edge of Growing Time. Growing time was developed as a "fusion" model -- an effort to find away to incorporate the best features of Block time and presentism in a better model.
Several recent books advocating for one or another of these time models:
https://www.amazon.com/Now-Physics-Time-Richard-Muller/dp/0393354814/ref=sr_1_21?qid=1554052463&s=books&sr=1-21
https://www.amazon.com/Singular-Universe-Reality-Time-Philosophy/dp/1107074061/ref=pd_sim_14_3/142-1644542-8390269?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107074061&pd_rd_r=e0f49f8f-53d8-11e9-b6b9-cd59af5e4b95&pd_rd_w=C6bGd&pd_rd_wg=435Rj&pf_rd_p=90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=A4MCG724N1CV7NYNAZE6&psc=1&refRID=A4MCG724N1CV7NYNAZE6
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Black-Holes/dp/0816147736/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=a+brief+history+of+time&qid=1554052738&s=books&sr=1-2
These books provided fairly effective criticisms of the competing models of time:
* Block time provides no explanation of our sense of the present -- a theory of time which fails to predict or usefully understand the primary feature of time -- is a remarkably weak "theory".
* Block time is in conflict with all indeterministic models of Quantum Mechanics (which is most, or arguably all of them).
* Presentism appears to be in conflict with actual physics, in which all events and interactions have duration -- an infinitesimal approach to time's extent -- cannot usefully address how our universe seems to be coupled into longer periods than an instant.
* Block time is very useful in both relativity, and in modeling the outcomes of QM interactions, while presentism cannot support either. Using the "indirect inference to reality" model of science -- this is strong evidence for block time over presentism.
* Growing time gives the present a special status, addressing one flaw of Block time, but in growing time the present is absolutely SECONDARY to the past. But we don't seem to be able to interact with the past -- and the present seems to be far far more important than the past -- so a model that declared the inaccessible past to be "real", and the present is special in only a minor derivative way -- is still not a particularly useful model. Growing time also does not address the thick time problem for an instantaneous present.
My takeaway from my reading is -- we don't have ANY good time models.
B&B orig: 4/1/19
What "time" is, is a very basic and fundamental question. And contrary to the "science is complete, or near complete" advocates, I think we are FAR from understanding our universe if we don't have a clue on such a basic feature of it.
If folks here aren't familiar with the issue -- there are to my knowledge 3 primary models of time.
The most common model for most of history was to treat time as just a convenient metric to refer to sequential state changes. This is often called the "A" model of time, or Presentism in philosophy. In this model, "time" doesn't really exist -- it is an invented concept by us to refer to the history of state sequences, and to project future state sequences. The only things that actually exist are the things of the universe, and they only exist in their "present" state -- hence"presentism".
The more common model among physicists today is Block time, or the "B" model of time. This model treats time as a dimension of a 4-D Space-time continuum. This is Einstein's model behind General Relativity. In Block Time -- the past, present, and future all have the same status -- there is no special feature to the present. And the future is already set.
A third model is Growing Time -- which treats the PAST as in Block time, but the future does not yet exist. The present has a special status as the edge of Growing Time. Growing time was developed as a "fusion" model -- an effort to find away to incorporate the best features of Block time and presentism in a better model.
Several recent books advocating for one or another of these time models:
https://www.amazon.com/Now-Physics-Time-Richard-Muller/dp/0393354814/ref=sr_1_21?qid=1554052463&s=books&sr=1-21
https://www.amazon.com/Singular-Universe-Reality-Time-Philosophy/dp/1107074061/ref=pd_sim_14_3/142-1644542-8390269?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107074061&pd_rd_r=e0f49f8f-53d8-11e9-b6b9-cd59af5e4b95&pd_rd_w=C6bGd&pd_rd_wg=435Rj&pf_rd_p=90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=A4MCG724N1CV7NYNAZE6&psc=1&refRID=A4MCG724N1CV7NYNAZE6
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Black-Holes/dp/0816147736/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=a+brief+history+of+time&qid=1554052738&s=books&sr=1-2
These books provided fairly effective criticisms of the competing models of time:
* Block time provides no explanation of our sense of the present -- a theory of time which fails to predict or usefully understand the primary feature of time -- is a remarkably weak "theory".
* Block time is in conflict with all indeterministic models of Quantum Mechanics (which is most, or arguably all of them).
* Presentism appears to be in conflict with actual physics, in which all events and interactions have duration -- an infinitesimal approach to time's extent -- cannot usefully address how our universe seems to be coupled into longer periods than an instant.
* Block time is very useful in both relativity, and in modeling the outcomes of QM interactions, while presentism cannot support either. Using the "indirect inference to reality" model of science -- this is strong evidence for block time over presentism.
* Growing time gives the present a special status, addressing one flaw of Block time, but in growing time the present is absolutely SECONDARY to the past. But we don't seem to be able to interact with the past -- and the present seems to be far far more important than the past -- so a model that declared the inaccessible past to be "real", and the present is special in only a minor derivative way -- is still not a particularly useful model. Growing time also does not address the thick time problem for an instantaneous present.
My takeaway from my reading is -- we don't have ANY good time models.
B&B orig: 4/1/19
Is Deceit Almost as Bad as Violence?
Saturday, April 27, 2019
One observer makes these comments about lies and deceit:
Maybe violence itself should be more broadly seen to include non-violent acts (soft violence?) such as theft, Ponzi schemes, and tax evasion (illegal tax cheating).
Deceit tactics such as lying and hiding truth are probably much more immoral and socially harmful than most people think.
Footnotes:
1. Also, these, for example: white collar crimes, political lies, political misinformation, tax cheating (currently running at about $400-$600 billion/year in the US, domestic violence, all gun violence (about $229 billion/year), rape ('It was consensual'), racism (I didn't discriminate against that job applicant'), etc.
2. Referring to Bill Clinton’s thundering silence when he learned that “a semen-stained dress was en route to the lab.” Before he was aware of that imminent proof of his lies, Clinton was indignantly denying any sexual improprieties. The prospect of a DNA test shut him up real quick: “The mere threat of a DNA analysis produced what no grand jury ever could -- instantaneous communication with the great man’s conscience which appeared to be located in another galaxy.”
One observer makes these comments about lies and deceit:
When evaluating the social costs of deception, we need to consider all of the misdeeds -- premeditated murders, terrorist atrocities, genocides, Ponzi schemes[1] -- that must be nurtured and shored up, at every turn, by lies. Viewed in this wider context, deception lends itself, perhaps even above violence, as the principal enemy of human cooperation. Imagine how the world would change if, when the truth really mattered, it became impossible to lie. What would international relations be like if every time a person shaded the truth on the floor of the United Nations an alarm went off throughout the building? . . . . We can be sure that a dependable method of lie detection would produce similar transformations, on far more consequential subjects.[2] . . . . Methodological problems notwithstanding, it is difficult to exaggerate how fully our world would change if lie detectors ever became reliable, affordable and unobtrusive.When viewed this way, the act of deceit broadly seen, e.g., lying, misinforming, hiding truth, emotionally manipulating people to impair their conscious reasoning capacity, etc., does look to be almost as bad as overt violence. Deceit seems to accompany violence almost every time it happens. Exceptions, e.g., self-defense, are rare.
Maybe violence itself should be more broadly seen to include non-violent acts (soft violence?) such as theft, Ponzi schemes, and tax evasion (illegal tax cheating).
Deceit tactics such as lying and hiding truth are probably much more immoral and socially harmful than most people think.
Footnotes:
1. Also, these, for example: white collar crimes, political lies, political misinformation, tax cheating (currently running at about $400-$600 billion/year in the US, domestic violence, all gun violence (about $229 billion/year), rape ('It was consensual'), racism (I didn't discriminate against that job applicant'), etc.
2. Referring to Bill Clinton’s thundering silence when he learned that “a semen-stained dress was en route to the lab.” Before he was aware of that imminent proof of his lies, Clinton was indignantly denying any sexual improprieties. The prospect of a DNA test shut him up real quick: “The mere threat of a DNA analysis produced what no grand jury ever could -- instantaneous communication with the great man’s conscience which appeared to be located in another galaxy.”
Lobbyists: Writing Laws for a Good Return On Investment
Saturday, April 27, 2019
The Sunlight Foundation published a study on the return on investment (ROI) that lobbying can generate. The study, Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions, suggests ROI can be pretty good: “After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government.”
That ROI is so good that it beats making and selling essentially all other goods and services. That assumes lobbying is a service and their work product is a good. Lobbying can be more profitable than doing just about anything else, maybe with the exception of some white collar crimes.
The average US Senator needs to raise about $14,000/day to stay in office. That is why lobbyists are far more important than individual voters.
Another source writes: “In many cases, lobbyists write our laws — literally.
For an example, look at the 2014 omnibus budget deal. Congress used the deal to secretly put taxpayers back on the hook for bank bailouts. That’s right – in 2014, our representatives repealed a law that prevented the American people from bailing out big banks that engage in risky derivatives trading. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The New York Times reports that 70 of the 85 lines in the language that killed the derivatives bill came from a piece of model legislation drafted by Citigroup lobbyists. Yes, that Citigroup – the bank that played a major role in the 2008 crisis and also received billions of federal stimulus dollars.”
The Sunlight Foundation published a study on the return on investment (ROI) that lobbying can generate. The study, Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions, suggests ROI can be pretty good: “After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government.”
That ROI is so good that it beats making and selling essentially all other goods and services. That assumes lobbying is a service and their work product is a good. Lobbying can be more profitable than doing just about anything else, maybe with the exception of some white collar crimes.
The average US Senator needs to raise about $14,000/day to stay in office. That is why lobbyists are far more important than individual voters.
Another source writes: “In many cases, lobbyists write our laws — literally.
For an example, look at the 2014 omnibus budget deal. Congress used the deal to secretly put taxpayers back on the hook for bank bailouts. That’s right – in 2014, our representatives repealed a law that prevented the American people from bailing out big banks that engage in risky derivatives trading. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The New York Times reports that 70 of the 85 lines in the language that killed the derivatives bill came from a piece of model legislation drafted by Citigroup lobbyists. Yes, that Citigroup – the bank that played a major role in the 2008 crisis and also received billions of federal stimulus dollars.”
What Happens to Power and Freedom When Deregulating Businesses?
Saturday, April 27, 2019
A common argument for capitalism and de-regulation is that it frees average people from soul-killing bureaucracy, oppression, tyranny and other evils. That raises the question: What happens to power when capitalism is freed and regulations are removed?
When government regulations are removed, most of the resulting new power flows from government to elsewhere. New power arises from freedom from regulations and burdens, including taxes. Power or freedom can flow to individuals or citizens generally, and/or various special interests including businesses and social and religious organizations such as political parties and specific religious denominations.
The business of business is business: Obviously, special interests will take as much of the new power as they can. For example, if environmental regulations are removed, businesses will pollute more and whatever costs are associated will be externalized to the local region, the entire nation or even the whole planet, depending on what pollutant(s) is involved. That will lower costs. Individuals and consumers may or may not see most of the cost savings. That will depend on market conditions.
In another example, deregulation of product safety standards for products will shift the burden of loss or injury from businesses to consumers. That will tend to favor businesses because going to court is expensive and often or usually not worth the time and expense. In that regard, most of the newly created power will flow from government to businesses. The lost regulations favored consumers. That protection is largely gone.
Similarly, deregulation of the payday loan industry, which the Trump administration recently accomplished, will make it easier for more consumers to go bankrupt. Apparently, most of the new power will flow to those businesses.
The business of government is protecting the public interest: On balance, deregulation will tend to free businesses and organizations to a significantly greater extent than individuals and consumers. In essence, power and freedom will flow to the private sector, whose focus is profit, not the public interest.
In theory, government is more accountable to individuals and consumers than private sector interests. At least politicians face elections. CEOs and investors in businesses do not face elections, and when business sectors are significantly deregulated, they do not face regulatory sanction when individuals and consumers are cheated or harmed.
THE QUESTIONS: 1. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing for special interests or individuals-consumers?
2. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing or freedom sapping for individuals-consumers?
B&B orig: 4/10/19
A common argument for capitalism and de-regulation is that it frees average people from soul-killing bureaucracy, oppression, tyranny and other evils. That raises the question: What happens to power when capitalism is freed and regulations are removed?
When government regulations are removed, most of the resulting new power flows from government to elsewhere. New power arises from freedom from regulations and burdens, including taxes. Power or freedom can flow to individuals or citizens generally, and/or various special interests including businesses and social and religious organizations such as political parties and specific religious denominations.
The business of business is business: Obviously, special interests will take as much of the new power as they can. For example, if environmental regulations are removed, businesses will pollute more and whatever costs are associated will be externalized to the local region, the entire nation or even the whole planet, depending on what pollutant(s) is involved. That will lower costs. Individuals and consumers may or may not see most of the cost savings. That will depend on market conditions.
In another example, deregulation of product safety standards for products will shift the burden of loss or injury from businesses to consumers. That will tend to favor businesses because going to court is expensive and often or usually not worth the time and expense. In that regard, most of the newly created power will flow from government to businesses. The lost regulations favored consumers. That protection is largely gone.
Similarly, deregulation of the payday loan industry, which the Trump administration recently accomplished, will make it easier for more consumers to go bankrupt. Apparently, most of the new power will flow to those businesses.
The business of government is protecting the public interest: On balance, deregulation will tend to free businesses and organizations to a significantly greater extent than individuals and consumers. In essence, power and freedom will flow to the private sector, whose focus is profit, not the public interest.
In theory, government is more accountable to individuals and consumers than private sector interests. At least politicians face elections. CEOs and investors in businesses do not face elections, and when business sectors are significantly deregulated, they do not face regulatory sanction when individuals and consumers are cheated or harmed.
THE QUESTIONS: 1. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing for special interests or individuals-consumers?
2. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing or freedom sapping for individuals-consumers?
B&B orig: 4/10/19
Friday, April 26, 2019
White Identity Politics
Friday, April 26, 2019
An interview by Vox reporter Sean Illig with political scientist Ashley Gardina discusses evidence that social unease, tinged with some racism, has fueled the rise of white identity politics among about 35% of white Americans. Vox writes:
Jardina argues that her research is showing that demographic change is fueling white social unease: “At this point today, it’s projected that whites will cease to be a majority by the middle of the century. This fact, which was brought into sharp relief by the election of Barack Obama, ignited a wave racial awareness among white Americans, and I think we’re still reckoning with the political consequences of this. . . . . In many ways, it’s about feeling that the privileges and status that whites have by way of their race are somehow being threatened or challenged.”
Is it social unease, economic complaints or both?: Shortly after President Trump won the electoral college in 2016, most commentators pointed to economic complaints grounded in decades of slow wage growth. After that, some research suggested that the most important factor was social unease in view of the impending white majority to minority majority demographic change. Currently, some evidence is accumulating that suggests the social unease may be easing, maybe significantly due to Trump's efforts at immigration control, and economic concerns are now coming to dominate.
At the moment, it is hard to tell whether social unease or economic complaints dominate with white identity voters. That uncertainty aside, demographic change-fueled white identity politics does seem to be a real phenomenon. If so, it is a lesson in how sensitive societies can be to demographic change.
B&B orig: 4/26/19
An interview by Vox reporter Sean Illig with political scientist Ashley Gardina discusses evidence that social unease, tinged with some racism, has fueled the rise of white identity politics among about 35% of white Americans. Vox writes:
When people talk about “identity politics,” it’s often assumed they’re referring to the politics of marginalized groups like African Americans, LGBTQ people, or any group that is organizing on the basis of a shared experience of injustice — and that’s a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Traditionally, identity has only really been a question for non-dominant groups in society. If you’re a member of the dominant group, your identity is taken for granted precisely because it’s not threatened. But the combination of demographic shifts and demagogic politicians has transformed the landscape of American politics. Now, white identity has been fully activated.
This is the argument Duke political scientist Ashley Jardina makes in her book White Identity Politics. Drawing on a decade of data from American National Election Studies surveys, Jardina claims that white Americans — roughly 30 to 40 percent of them — now identify with their whiteness in a politically meaningful way. Importantly, this racial solidarity doesn’t always overlap with racism, but it does mean that racial identity is becoming a more salient force in American politics.
Sean Illing: You open the book with a great quote from James Baldwin about how identity is “questioned only when it is menaced.” What’s the significance of this quote?
Ashley Jardina: It was so fitting when I was thinking about what gives rise to an identity like white identity, or really any dominant group identity. The important thing to note about dominant group identities is that we often think of them as invisible — and part of the reason is because dominant groups like whites in this society typically haven’t been forced to think about their identity.
Prior to a couple years ago, whites felt secure in the belief that they held a disproportionate share of economic and political and social resources, so their lives weren’t over-determined by their race. But now white identity has become salient as white Americans feel more and more threatened, and that fear has activated identity in a way we haven’t seen for some time.
Jardina argues that her research is showing that demographic change is fueling white social unease: “At this point today, it’s projected that whites will cease to be a majority by the middle of the century. This fact, which was brought into sharp relief by the election of Barack Obama, ignited a wave racial awareness among white Americans, and I think we’re still reckoning with the political consequences of this. . . . . In many ways, it’s about feeling that the privileges and status that whites have by way of their race are somehow being threatened or challenged.”
Is it social unease, economic complaints or both?: Shortly after President Trump won the electoral college in 2016, most commentators pointed to economic complaints grounded in decades of slow wage growth. After that, some research suggested that the most important factor was social unease in view of the impending white majority to minority majority demographic change. Currently, some evidence is accumulating that suggests the social unease may be easing, maybe significantly due to Trump's efforts at immigration control, and economic concerns are now coming to dominate.
At the moment, it is hard to tell whether social unease or economic complaints dominate with white identity voters. That uncertainty aside, demographic change-fueled white identity politics does seem to be a real phenomenon. If so, it is a lesson in how sensitive societies can be to demographic change.
B&B orig: 4/26/19
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Capitalism Being Questioned
Thursday, April 25, 2019
An undercurrent of questioning of the benefits of capitalism is beginning to be noticed. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell recently commented: “I never thought in my lifetime we’d be having a debate about the virtues of capitalism. For goodness sake, we are.” He indicated that the strategy for republicans to run in 2020 will be as a “firewall against socialism.”
The Washington Post writes: “For the first time in decades, capitalism’s future is a subject of debate among presidential hopefuls and a source of growing angst for America’s business elite. In places such as Silicon Valley, the slopes of Davos, Switzerland, and the halls of Harvard Business School, there is a sense that the kind of capitalism that once made America an economic envy is responsible for the growing inequality and anger that is tearing the country apart.
Americans still loved technology, [California democratic representative] Ro Khanna said, but too many of them felt locked out of the country’s economic future and were looking for someone to blame. ‘What happened to us?’ he imagined people in these left-behind places asking.
Part of Khanna’s solution was to sign on as co-chairman of the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the democratic socialist who rose to the national stage by railing against ‘the handful of billionaires’ who ‘control the economic and political life of this nation’, and who disproportionately live in Khanna’s district.
The other part of Khanna’s solution was to do what he was doing now, talking to billionaire tech executives like Larsen who worried that the current path for both capitalism and Silicon Valley was unsustainable.”
It may be the case that wealth inequality and limited growth in real wages for average workers (a point that is disputed) is beginning to lead some to question the merits of capitalism. The rise of democratic socialists in the democratic party is probably also helping to raise the issue in many people's minds.
The 2020 elections could hinge mostly on concerns related to capitalism vs socialism. If so, that would suggest that racial and social concerns over illegal immigration and demographic changes that dominated the 2016 election have been replaced by economic concerns as the top voter issue. If wealth distribution strongly skewed to the top is a factor, maybe the virtues of capitalism are being seriously questioned.
An undercurrent of questioning of the benefits of capitalism is beginning to be noticed. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell recently commented: “I never thought in my lifetime we’d be having a debate about the virtues of capitalism. For goodness sake, we are.” He indicated that the strategy for republicans to run in 2020 will be as a “firewall against socialism.”
The Washington Post writes: “For the first time in decades, capitalism’s future is a subject of debate among presidential hopefuls and a source of growing angst for America’s business elite. In places such as Silicon Valley, the slopes of Davos, Switzerland, and the halls of Harvard Business School, there is a sense that the kind of capitalism that once made America an economic envy is responsible for the growing inequality and anger that is tearing the country apart.
Americans still loved technology, [California democratic representative] Ro Khanna said, but too many of them felt locked out of the country’s economic future and were looking for someone to blame. ‘What happened to us?’ he imagined people in these left-behind places asking.
Part of Khanna’s solution was to sign on as co-chairman of the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the democratic socialist who rose to the national stage by railing against ‘the handful of billionaires’ who ‘control the economic and political life of this nation’, and who disproportionately live in Khanna’s district.
The other part of Khanna’s solution was to do what he was doing now, talking to billionaire tech executives like Larsen who worried that the current path for both capitalism and Silicon Valley was unsustainable.”
It may be the case that wealth inequality and limited growth in real wages for average workers (a point that is disputed) is beginning to lead some to question the merits of capitalism. The rise of democratic socialists in the democratic party is probably also helping to raise the issue in many people's minds.
The 2020 elections could hinge mostly on concerns related to capitalism vs socialism. If so, that would suggest that racial and social concerns over illegal immigration and demographic changes that dominated the 2016 election have been replaced by economic concerns as the top voter issue. If wealth distribution strongly skewed to the top is a factor, maybe the virtues of capitalism are being seriously questioned.
Intensifying Republican Attacks on Science
Thursday, April 25, 2019
A database, the Silencing Science Tracker, to follow political efforts to silence science is continually being updated. An article in Scientific American comments:
B&B orig: 4/23/19
A database, the Silencing Science Tracker, to follow political efforts to silence science is continually being updated. An article in Scientific American comments:
Journalists and whistle-blowers have exposed some alarming moves by federal and state governments to restrict science research, education or communication. But the Silencing Science Tracker, updated continuously online, shows just how pervasive the attempts have been since the 2016 U.S. national elections. Tactics run the gamut from censorship and funding cuts to destroying data, twisting studies and removing scientists from advisory boards (main graphic).
Some deeds have been “really outrageous,” says Romany Webb, a senior fellow at Columbia Law School, who runs the site. Actions by states have been rising recently (map), especially to manipulate education. “It's concerning to imagine a generation of schoolkids not learning basic principles such as climate change and evolution,” Webb says. But she thinks committee leaders now in the House of Representatives are ready to push back on federal abuses, which she finds “very encouraging.”
B&B orig: 4/23/19
China's Expanding Deep Surveillance State Influence
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Ecuador’s system, called ECU-911, was largely made by two Chinese companies, the state-controlled C.E.I.E.C. and Huawei
A topic of intense ongoing interest is following the progress of China's massive social engineering experient in behavior and mind control. If the China experiment in building and implementing its deep surveillance state succeeds, it could represent the ultimate fate of most humans for a very long time, maybe forever. The most recent step discussed here in building an enduring behavior- and thought control-based tyranny, was China's recent introduction of a phone app, Study the Great Nation, that forces millions of people to study Chinese President Xi Jingping's version of socialism and his own greatness. The prior discussion included this:
Right now, personal freedom is under severe attack throughout much of the world, including in America. Authoritarians are on the rise. Democracies are under pressure to be more authoritarian. If China's experiment in governance based on surveillance and behavior and mind control succeeds, the human species looks destined to be enslaved. We may be living in the dark twilight of personal freedom with the dawn of a new, harsh age awaiting.
B&B orig: 4/25/19
Ecuador’s system, called ECU-911, was largely made by two Chinese companies, the state-controlled C.E.I.E.C. and Huawei
A topic of intense ongoing interest is following the progress of China's massive social engineering experient in behavior and mind control. If the China experiment in building and implementing its deep surveillance state succeeds, it could represent the ultimate fate of most humans for a very long time, maybe forever. The most recent step discussed here in building an enduring behavior- and thought control-based tyranny, was China's recent introduction of a phone app, Study the Great Nation, that forces millions of people to study Chinese President Xi Jingping's version of socialism and his own greatness. The prior discussion included this:
Authoritarians all over the world would love to have this level of surveillance and control. In time, this model of society could be the fate of about 99.99% of humanity.It was just a matter of time before other countries picked up on China's experiment in absolute, unassailable tyranny. The New York Times reports:
QUITO, Ecuador — The squat gray building in Ecuador’s capital commands a sweeping view of the city’s sparkling sprawl, from the high-rises at the base of the Andean valley to the pastel neighborhoods that spill up its mountainsides.
The police who work inside are looking elsewhere. They spend their days poring over computer screens, watching footage that comes in from 4,300 cameras across the country.
The high-powered cameras send what they see to 16 monitoring centers in Ecuador that employ more than 3,000 people. Armed with joysticks, the police control the cameras and scan the streets for drug deals, muggings and murders. If they spy something, they zoom in.
This voyeur’s paradise is made with technology from what is fast becoming the global capital of surveillance: China. Ecuador’s system, which was installed beginning in 2011, is a basic version of a program of computerized controls that Beijing has spent billions to build out over a decade of technological progress. According to Ecuador’s government, these cameras feed footage to the police for manual review.
But a New York Times investigation found that the footage also goes to the country’s feared domestic intelligence agency, which under the previous president, Rafael Correa, had a lengthy track record of following, intimidating and attacking political opponents. Even as a new administration under President LenÃn Moreno investigates the agency’s abuses, the group still gets the videos.
Under President Xi Jinping, the Chinese government has vastly expanded domestic surveillance, fueling a new generation of companies that make sophisticated technology at ever lower prices. A global infrastructure initiative is spreading that technology even further.
Ecuador shows how technology built for China’s political system is now being applied — and sometimes abused — by other governments. Today, 18 countries — including Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kenya, the United Arab Emirates and Germany — are using Chinese-made intelligent monitoring systems, and 36 have received training in topics like “public opinion guidance,” which is typically a euphemism for censorship, according to an October report from Freedom House, a pro-democracy research group.
With China’s surveillance know-how and equipment now flowing to the world, critics warn that it could help underpin a future of tech-driven authoritarianism, potentially leading to a loss of privacy on an industrial scale. Often described as public security systems, the technologies have darker potential uses as tools of political repression.
“They’re selling this as the future of governance; the future will be all about controlling the masses through technology,” Adrian Shahbaz, research director at Freedom House, said of China’s new tech exports.
Right now, personal freedom is under severe attack throughout much of the world, including in America. Authoritarians are on the rise. Democracies are under pressure to be more authoritarian. If China's experiment in governance based on surveillance and behavior and mind control succeeds, the human species looks destined to be enslaved. We may be living in the dark twilight of personal freedom with the dawn of a new, harsh age awaiting.
B&B orig: 4/25/19
The Future of Democracy in K-12 Education
Thursday, April 25, 2019
A NY Times article on a 5 year effort on the part of conservative Republicans in Michigan to remove the word "democracy" from the K-12 curriculum to replace it with "constitutional republic," supposedly for the sake of fidelity to the founders. Further, they maintain that curriculum should accentuate national "triumphs" rather than "sins," and pushed for the elimination of such topics as climate change, the Roe decision and all mention of LGBTQ civil rights, among other things. Because K-12 curriculum is left to the discretion of the states, such determinations are possible. The NY Times writes:
After the initial draft was reported in a local magazine called The Bridge, an intense debate was sparked about the controversial changes. According to the Times, the state recruited a "broader group of Michiganders...to redraft the standards, which will be presented to the State Board of Education on April 9." The 8 member board will then on whether or not to adopt it (the draft version can be found here).
As the Times points out, almost no historians, political or legal scholars of the US Constitution believe that a representative democracy and constitutional republic are mutually exclusive descriptors. Yes, the founders tended to avoid the word democracy because they had in mind direct democracy (like that which briefly existed in Athens). But as the article states:
The US has become deeply polarized along party lines, and the attempt in 3 "Red states" to replace the term "deomocracy" with "republic" is partly reflective of the conservatives' ambitions to replace "Democrats" with "Republicans" in elected office. But it also coincides with the erosion of democratic norms and values both in the US and Europe, which has been documented and studied by political scientists in such books as How Democracies Die and The People vs. Democracy, among many others. Republicans, such as Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 used the rhetoric of democracy and freedom all the time. A meaner, and more unabashedly hierarchical right wing populist movement has displaced much of that rhetoric in favor of nativism with anti-democratic elements such as racism, Islamaphobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance and discrimination which run counter to core democratic values. There is something Orwellian about removing a word from K-12 classrooms that has long been as American as Apple Pie.
Because there is no national curriculum in this area, we could end up with children learning different things about this country, thus augmenting the polarization and conflict already in play. Though decentralization of public education has the advantage of empowering those people (parents, municipal and local leaders) who know the needs of their communities, is there not also a need for certain overarching values and norms lest we lose whatever social solidarity we have left as Americans? Even if states can create their own standards, shouldn't this be something that requires extremely broad approval within the states? Right now, citizens in Michigan are locked in a tense struggle over the future of their education system. This is the third state in only a few years to try to eliminate the word "democracy' from the classroom-- a disturbing trend.
B&B orig: 4/7/19
A NY Times article on a 5 year effort on the part of conservative Republicans in Michigan to remove the word "democracy" from the K-12 curriculum to replace it with "constitutional republic," supposedly for the sake of fidelity to the founders. Further, they maintain that curriculum should accentuate national "triumphs" rather than "sins," and pushed for the elimination of such topics as climate change, the Roe decision and all mention of LGBTQ civil rights, among other things. Because K-12 curriculum is left to the discretion of the states, such determinations are possible. The NY Times writes:
The United States, unlike many other developed nations, lacks a national curriculum that defines what students should know. Each of the 50 states can create its own learning standards.
These documents are closely examined. While schools can teach material not included in them, they shape the content in standardized tests, and many educators rely heavily on the standards as they craft lesson plans. Student teachers are trained to use them.
Activists have long seen influencing state standards as an effective way to shape the next generation of voters. In 2010, conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education removed the word “democracy” as a description of American government, prompting protests. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052104365.html ) Georgia has also debated the term, eventually settling, in 2016, on standards that use the phrase “representative democracy/republic.”
After the initial draft was reported in a local magazine called The Bridge, an intense debate was sparked about the controversial changes. According to the Times, the state recruited a "broader group of Michiganders...to redraft the standards, which will be presented to the State Board of Education on April 9." The 8 member board will then on whether or not to adopt it (the draft version can be found here).
As the Times points out, almost no historians, political or legal scholars of the US Constitution believe that a representative democracy and constitutional republic are mutually exclusive descriptors. Yes, the founders tended to avoid the word democracy because they had in mind direct democracy (like that which briefly existed in Athens). But as the article states:
A democracy is government by the people, who may rule either directly or indirectly, through elected representatives. A republic is a form of government in which the people’s elected representatives make decisions.
Some of the country’s political processes, like ballot referendums, are more democratic than others, like the Electoral College. Grappling with that complexity is key to understanding American government, according to social studies experts.
The US has become deeply polarized along party lines, and the attempt in 3 "Red states" to replace the term "deomocracy" with "republic" is partly reflective of the conservatives' ambitions to replace "Democrats" with "Republicans" in elected office. But it also coincides with the erosion of democratic norms and values both in the US and Europe, which has been documented and studied by political scientists in such books as How Democracies Die and The People vs. Democracy, among many others. Republicans, such as Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 used the rhetoric of democracy and freedom all the time. A meaner, and more unabashedly hierarchical right wing populist movement has displaced much of that rhetoric in favor of nativism with anti-democratic elements such as racism, Islamaphobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance and discrimination which run counter to core democratic values. There is something Orwellian about removing a word from K-12 classrooms that has long been as American as Apple Pie.
Because there is no national curriculum in this area, we could end up with children learning different things about this country, thus augmenting the polarization and conflict already in play. Though decentralization of public education has the advantage of empowering those people (parents, municipal and local leaders) who know the needs of their communities, is there not also a need for certain overarching values and norms lest we lose whatever social solidarity we have left as Americans? Even if states can create their own standards, shouldn't this be something that requires extremely broad approval within the states? Right now, citizens in Michigan are locked in a tense struggle over the future of their education system. This is the third state in only a few years to try to eliminate the word "democracy' from the classroom-- a disturbing trend.
B&B orig: 4/7/19
China's Deep Surveillance State: The Next Step
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Chinese policewoman using facial-recognition sunglasses linked to artificial intelligence data analysis algorithms while patrolling a train station in Zhengzhou, the capital of central China's Henan province
A topic of great personal interest is the massive social engineering experiment now well underway in China, discussed here and here.
The point of the experiment is to apply modern technology to monitor and control people's movement, purchases, behaviors and thoughts with ever increasing pressure and effectiveness. For example, China is about midway through installing a social credit scoring system that rewards behaviors the tyrants at the top, mostly President Xi, see as acceptable, while punishing behaviors deemed unacceptable. The system is highly invasive and builds very powerful social and legal pressure to conform to the tyrants' social, political and commercial norms. People's movements and their buying habits are tracked by GPS in their cell phones, leisure time and works time activities are all monitored. Almost 500,000 million stationary cameras will monitor the streets and buildings. Police are now equipped with sunglasses with scanners wirelessly linked to facial recognition software. Places to hide are shrinking.
The New York Times describes a new tool to force compliance the government has dreamed up. This one is a real whopper.
The Chinese government has released a new cell phone app called Study the Great Nation. This fun little toy forces people to play for points or face the consequences of their slackness. The NYT writes:
One can see both mind and behavior control in the app. People accept the app, even if it is forced on them. Human nature being what it is, many or most of the people resistant to this will have no choice but to fall in line and over time, most of these reluctant minds will conform.
This social engineering experiment is of great personal interest because it could be the model for how the future will be for the entire human species. Authoritarians all over the world would love to have this level of surveillance and control. In time, this model of society could be the fate of about 99.99% of humanity.
The question for the China situation is simple: Will it ever be possible for the people to rebel and overthrow this level of intrusiveness and control, either peacefully or by force? At present, it looks like this deep surveillance state model could be very durable because it affords no means for people to rebel.
Just how much misery and loss of freedom can human societies take before hitting a breaking point? Looking at modern North Korea, Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin as evidence, the answer appears to be an awful lot. Maybe so much that the human spirit is broken such that rebellion simply is not possible, like it appears to be the case in North Korea today.
We live in interesting, scary times.
B&B orig: 4/8/19
A topic of great personal interest is the massive social engineering experiment now well underway in China, discussed here and here.
The point of the experiment is to apply modern technology to monitor and control people's movement, purchases, behaviors and thoughts with ever increasing pressure and effectiveness. For example, China is about midway through installing a social credit scoring system that rewards behaviors the tyrants at the top, mostly President Xi, see as acceptable, while punishing behaviors deemed unacceptable. The system is highly invasive and builds very powerful social and legal pressure to conform to the tyrants' social, political and commercial norms. People's movements and their buying habits are tracked by GPS in their cell phones, leisure time and works time activities are all monitored. Almost 500,000 million stationary cameras will monitor the streets and buildings. Police are now equipped with sunglasses with scanners wirelessly linked to facial recognition software. Places to hide are shrinking.
The New York Times describes a new tool to force compliance the government has dreamed up. This one is a real whopper.
The Chinese government has released a new cell phone app called Study the Great Nation. This fun little toy forces people to play for points or face the consequences of their slackness. The NYT writes:
CHANGSHA, China — Inside a fishing gear store on a busy city street, the owner sits behind a counter, furiously tapping a smartphone to improve his score on an app that has nothing to do with rods, reels and bait.
The owner, Jiang Shuiqiu, a 35-year-old army veteran, has a different obsession: earning points on Study the Great Nation, a new app devoted to promoting President Xi Jinping and the ruling Communist Party — a kind of high-tech equivalent of Mao’s Little Red Book. Mr. Jiang spends several hours daily on the app, checking news about Mr. Xi and brushing up on socialist theories.
Tens of millions of Chinese workers, students and civil servants are now using Study the Great Nation, often under pressure from the government. It is part of a sweeping effort by Mr. Xi to strengthen ideological control in the digital age and reassert the party’s primacy, as Mao once did, as the center of Chinese life.
“We must love our country,” said Mr. Jiang, one of the top scorers on the app in Changsha, the capital of the southern province of Hunan. “We are getting stronger and stronger.”
Since its debut this year, Study the Great Nation has become the most downloaded app on Apple’s digital storefront in China, with the state news media saying it has more than 100 million registered users — a reach that would be the envy of any new app’s creators.
But those numbers are driven largely by the party, which ordered thousands of officials across China to ensure that the app penetrates the daily routines of as many citizens as possible, whether they like it or not.
Schools are shaming students with low app scores. Government offices are holding study sessions and forcing workers who fall behind to write reports criticizing themselves. Private companies, hoping to curry favor with party officials, are ranking employees based on their use of the app and awarding top performers the title of “star learner.”
Many employers now require workers to submit daily screenshots documenting how many points they have earned.
One can see both mind and behavior control in the app. People accept the app, even if it is forced on them. Human nature being what it is, many or most of the people resistant to this will have no choice but to fall in line and over time, most of these reluctant minds will conform.
This social engineering experiment is of great personal interest because it could be the model for how the future will be for the entire human species. Authoritarians all over the world would love to have this level of surveillance and control. In time, this model of society could be the fate of about 99.99% of humanity.
The question for the China situation is simple: Will it ever be possible for the people to rebel and overthrow this level of intrusiveness and control, either peacefully or by force? At present, it looks like this deep surveillance state model could be very durable because it affords no means for people to rebel.
Just how much misery and loss of freedom can human societies take before hitting a breaking point? Looking at modern North Korea, Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin as evidence, the answer appears to be an awful lot. Maybe so much that the human spirit is broken such that rebellion simply is not possible, like it appears to be the case in North Korea today.
We live in interesting, scary times.
B&B orig: 4/8/19
Monday, April 22, 2019
An Origin of America's Deadly Culture War
Monday, April 22, 2019
The origins of America's culture war is of great personal interest. The war could usher in the end of the American experiment and the rise of a kleptocratic tyranny grounded in illiberal democracy. At present it seems that the rule of law is in a process of falling to the tyrant wannabe, Donald Trump and the interests arrayed behind him.
In her 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right’s Stealth Plan For America, Nancy MacLean (history Professor, Duke University) describes the concerns that ultimately led to widespread resistance among radical hard core conservatives (RHCCs)[1] to social changes in America.
Those changes were being reflected in society at large and how the right of citizens were coming to be seen. Sometimes those social changes were being reflected in Supreme Court decisions that RHCCs viewed as an all-out war on their sacred way of live, their sacred vision of proper governance, and their sacred values and freedoms. They viewed social change with a mix of terror, rage and hate. They were not going to accept it and they were going to fight it tooth and claw.
This really was a culture war.
MacLean writes this about the second Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1955 that ordered public schools to be desegregated “with all deliberate speed.”[2]
This is one of the origins of the culture war that is tearing America apart. Today, those arguing to get the federal government out of their lives would no doubt say that they are not racist or bigoted, but instead argue they are simply fighting for personal freedom and the sacred Constitutional right of states to be left alone to do as they wish. This helps explain the roots of modern voter suppression that most RHCCs seem to favor. It seems that there may be millions of adult Americans who wish to replace the Constitution with the failed Articles of Confederation. That would be the end of the American experiment.
Footnotes:
1. This label may be not quite accurate for the people it applies to in the 1950s, but it appears to this observer to be reasonable for modern conservatives and populists in view of where American society is today in 2019.
2. The Supreme Court waited for years to rule on racial segregation based on the ‘separate but equal’ myth. Schools for black and white students were not close to equal and everyone awake knew it. The justices waited until they got a case that did not arise in the deep South. They knew desegregating public schools would be highly divisive and offensive for whites in the South. They wanted the case to come from someplace other than the deep South to try to minimize the profound social discord they knew would come from school desegregation. Profound social discord is exactly what the Brown decision caused and it wasn't just in the South. Racism is inherent in the human mind. That aspect of our evolutionary heritage has to be tamed by learning.
B&B orig: 4/14/19
The origins of America's culture war is of great personal interest. The war could usher in the end of the American experiment and the rise of a kleptocratic tyranny grounded in illiberal democracy. At present it seems that the rule of law is in a process of falling to the tyrant wannabe, Donald Trump and the interests arrayed behind him.
In her 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right’s Stealth Plan For America, Nancy MacLean (history Professor, Duke University) describes the concerns that ultimately led to widespread resistance among radical hard core conservatives (RHCCs)[1] to social changes in America.
Those changes were being reflected in society at large and how the right of citizens were coming to be seen. Sometimes those social changes were being reflected in Supreme Court decisions that RHCCs viewed as an all-out war on their sacred way of live, their sacred vision of proper governance, and their sacred values and freedoms. They viewed social change with a mix of terror, rage and hate. They were not going to accept it and they were going to fight it tooth and claw.
This really was a culture war.
MacLean writes this about the second Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1955 that ordered public schools to be desegregated “with all deliberate speed.”[2]
“At a minimum, the federal courts could no longer be counted on to defer reflexively to states’ rights arguments. More concerning was the likelihood that the high court would be more willing to intervene when presented with compelling evidence that a state action was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection” under the law. State’s rights, in effect, were yielding in preeminence to individual rights. It was not difficult for either Darden [President of the University of Virginia] or Buchanan [chairman of the economics department at UVA] to imagine how a court might rule if presented with evidence of Virginia’s archaic labor relations, its measures to suppress voting, or its efforts to buttress the power of reactionary rural whites by underrepresenting the moderate voters of cities and suburbs of Northern Virginia. Federal meddling could rise to levels once unimaginable.
James McGill Buchanan was not a member of the Virginia elite. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that for a white southerner of his day he was uniquely racist or insensitive to the concept of equal treatment. And yet, somehow, all he saw in the Brown decision was coercion. And not just in the abstract. what the court ruling represented to him was personal. Northern liberals -- the very people who looked down on southern whites like him -- were now going to tell his people how to run their society. And to add insult to injury, he and people like him with property were no doubt going to be taxed to pay for all of the improvements that were now deemed necessary and proper for the state to make. What about his rights? Where did the federal government get the authority to engineer society to its liking and then send him and those like him the bill?Who represented their interests in all of this? I can fight this, he concluded. I want to fight this.
Find the resources, he proposed to Darden, for me to create a new center on the campus of the University of Virginia, and I will use this center to created a new school of political economy and social philosophy. It would be an academic center, rigorously so, but one with a quiet political agenda: to defeat the “perverted form” of liberalism that sought to destroy their way of life, “a social order,” as he described it, “built on individual liberty,” a term with its own coded meaning but one that Darden surely understood. The center, Buchanan promised, would train a “new line of thinkers” in how to argue against those seeking to impose an “increasing role of government in economic and social life.”
He could win this war, and he would do it with ideas.”
This is one of the origins of the culture war that is tearing America apart. Today, those arguing to get the federal government out of their lives would no doubt say that they are not racist or bigoted, but instead argue they are simply fighting for personal freedom and the sacred Constitutional right of states to be left alone to do as they wish. This helps explain the roots of modern voter suppression that most RHCCs seem to favor. It seems that there may be millions of adult Americans who wish to replace the Constitution with the failed Articles of Confederation. That would be the end of the American experiment.
Footnotes:
1. This label may be not quite accurate for the people it applies to in the 1950s, but it appears to this observer to be reasonable for modern conservatives and populists in view of where American society is today in 2019.
2. The Supreme Court waited for years to rule on racial segregation based on the ‘separate but equal’ myth. Schools for black and white students were not close to equal and everyone awake knew it. The justices waited until they got a case that did not arise in the deep South. They knew desegregating public schools would be highly divisive and offensive for whites in the South. They wanted the case to come from someplace other than the deep South to try to minimize the profound social discord they knew would come from school desegregation. Profound social discord is exactly what the Brown decision caused and it wasn't just in the South. Racism is inherent in the human mind. That aspect of our evolutionary heritage has to be tamed by learning.
B&B orig: 4/14/19
The Quiet War for American Theocracy
Monday, April 22, 2019
In an article by Salon entitled, The plot against America: Inside the Christian right plan to “remodel” the nation, author Paul Rosenberg argues that “the religious right's blueprint for theocratic state laws keeps creeping forward.” Rosenberg cited the Texas Senate, which passed SB-17 earlier this month. SB-17 is a law that protects anti-LGBTQ discrimination by all licensed professionals who claim to act on a “sincerely held religious belief.”
The article comments:
Project Blitz is akin to the powerful but well-known American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which combines business interests with movement conservatives. ALEC writes laws for a coordinated national conservative movement. The organization has influenced or written hundreds or thousands of state and federal laws.
The goal of Project Blitz is to completely destroy the wall of separation between the church and state. The existence of Project Blitz was uncovered in 2018 when religion reporter Frederick Clarkson found a 116-page Evangelical political playbook (here it is)[1] on how to influence state and federal laws using the same sophisticated tactics that ALEC uses.
When the concern that America is moving toward some form of Christian theocracy, conservatives are quick to denounce the idea as a lie, ridiculous, fake news or something simply not believable. I have experienced the white hot heat of those flames personally in recent weeks at another site.
Secular American law and society are under a powerful, sustained attack by an aggressive, vindictive white Christian authoritarianism. Americans will either let this happen at their own peril, or they will fight to protect liberal democracy and the rule of law. The battle lines could not be much clearer, or the stakes much higher.
Footnote:
1. The 116-page report begins with the following introductory comments: “This report is the 2017 version of religious liberty measures that relate to prayer and faith in America. Following distribution of last year’s version of this report, entitled “An Historical Report and Analysis of Religious Liberty Measures That Impact Prayer and Faith in America” (“Historical Report”), CPCF tracked approximately 33 separate pieces of legislation passed in the 2017 terms of the various state legislatures that were favorable to prayer and the free exercise of religion in our country. That compares to only six passed during 2016, by our count.
The purpose of this report is to give you, as legislators, the benefit of good work done by others and model legislation on various related topics for your consideration and potential use. We have expanded the analysis and “talking points” in many areas and have attempted to make this version more user-friendly. But, like the Historical Report, this report reflects the collective wisdom and experience of individual legislators and legal teams who have worked with various pieces of legislation, as well as groups who have or will support such legislation, and the strategic analysis of many organizations, teams, and individuals who have studied these measures. This is not an exhaustive collection of model acts, resolutions, and proclamations on the topic, but it addresses most areas of recent interest.
The following principles apply to all of the measures and should be considered early on: 1. Nothing is more important than learning to tell a story that shows why the legislation is needed. While the text of legislation is critical, it can become sterile without painting a picture of “why” it says it. Remember to tell the story! Tell it often, and tell it well. When you have limited time, tell the story and let the legislation speak for itself.
2. Never forget that you often communicate more with your actions than your words. Tone and temperament are vital.
3. The name matters. For example, “Protecting Religious Freedom in Private Homes Act” is not nearly as powerful as the “Home Privacy Protection Act.”
4. Do not let the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good.’”
B&B orig: 4/14/19
In an article by Salon entitled, The plot against America: Inside the Christian right plan to “remodel” the nation, author Paul Rosenberg argues that “the religious right's blueprint for theocratic state laws keeps creeping forward.” Rosenberg cited the Texas Senate, which passed SB-17 earlier this month. SB-17 is a law that protects anti-LGBTQ discrimination by all licensed professionals who claim to act on a “sincerely held religious belief.”
The article comments:
“It’s time for Americans to wake up to the harsh reality that the religious right, fueled by their fear of loss of power from the changing demographics in our country and their support from the Trump administration, is emboldened and aggressively pursuing all means possible to maintain white Christian power in America,” Rachel Laser, the president of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, told Salon. “Project Blitz, for example, has already introduced over 50 bills in at least 23 states this year alone,” she added.
The first tier of Project Blitz aims at importing the Christian nationalist worldview into public schools and other aspects of the public sphere, the second tier aims at making government increasingly a partner in “Christianizing” America, and the third tier contains three types of proposed laws that “protect” religious beliefs and practices specifically intended to benefit bigotry.
Project Blitz is akin to the powerful but well-known American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which combines business interests with movement conservatives. ALEC writes laws for a coordinated national conservative movement. The organization has influenced or written hundreds or thousands of state and federal laws.
The goal of Project Blitz is to completely destroy the wall of separation between the church and state. The existence of Project Blitz was uncovered in 2018 when religion reporter Frederick Clarkson found a 116-page Evangelical political playbook (here it is)[1] on how to influence state and federal laws using the same sophisticated tactics that ALEC uses.
When the concern that America is moving toward some form of Christian theocracy, conservatives are quick to denounce the idea as a lie, ridiculous, fake news or something simply not believable. I have experienced the white hot heat of those flames personally in recent weeks at another site.
Secular American law and society are under a powerful, sustained attack by an aggressive, vindictive white Christian authoritarianism. Americans will either let this happen at their own peril, or they will fight to protect liberal democracy and the rule of law. The battle lines could not be much clearer, or the stakes much higher.
Footnote:
1. The 116-page report begins with the following introductory comments: “This report is the 2017 version of religious liberty measures that relate to prayer and faith in America. Following distribution of last year’s version of this report, entitled “An Historical Report and Analysis of Religious Liberty Measures That Impact Prayer and Faith in America” (“Historical Report”), CPCF tracked approximately 33 separate pieces of legislation passed in the 2017 terms of the various state legislatures that were favorable to prayer and the free exercise of religion in our country. That compares to only six passed during 2016, by our count.
The purpose of this report is to give you, as legislators, the benefit of good work done by others and model legislation on various related topics for your consideration and potential use. We have expanded the analysis and “talking points” in many areas and have attempted to make this version more user-friendly. But, like the Historical Report, this report reflects the collective wisdom and experience of individual legislators and legal teams who have worked with various pieces of legislation, as well as groups who have or will support such legislation, and the strategic analysis of many organizations, teams, and individuals who have studied these measures. This is not an exhaustive collection of model acts, resolutions, and proclamations on the topic, but it addresses most areas of recent interest.
The following principles apply to all of the measures and should be considered early on: 1. Nothing is more important than learning to tell a story that shows why the legislation is needed. While the text of legislation is critical, it can become sterile without painting a picture of “why” it says it. Remember to tell the story! Tell it often, and tell it well. When you have limited time, tell the story and let the legislation speak for itself.
2. Never forget that you often communicate more with your actions than your words. Tone and temperament are vital.
3. The name matters. For example, “Protecting Religious Freedom in Private Homes Act” is not nearly as powerful as the “Home Privacy Protection Act.”
4. Do not let the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good.’”
B&B orig: 4/14/19
Book Review: How Democracies Die
Monday, April 22, 2019
Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Harvard political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (L&Z) describe the various ways in which democracies die. For the last 15 years, L&Z have studied democracy deaths as the main focus of their research.
What they find is that these days, democracies often do not die after a military coup. Instead, many modern authoritarians or demagogues gain power by striking deals with existing political parties who are often under stress and losing influence. Hitler and Mussolini took that route. In both cases, the existing order was confident that they could control the demagogues they helped to legitimize.
In this regard, L&Z see political parties and especially their leaders and insiders as gatekeepers who are in a position to prevent legitimizing and/or the rise to power of demagogues. L&Z comment on this legal route to power: “The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”
American democracy vs. Trump: L&Z write to express their deep concern that President Trump, a demagogue in their view, could rise to become a full-blown authoritarian. They find that two critical norms that have kept American demagogues in the past from gaining power have largely collapsed. One weakened norm is “mutual toleration” which exists when political parties accept each other as legitimate political opposition. The other norm is “forbearance” wherein politicians exercise restraint in using power and institutional prerogatives. L&Z calls these norms the “soft guardrails of American democracy.”
L&Z argue the erosion of these norms began in the 1980s and by the time Obama was elected in 2008, “many Republicans, in particular, questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned the forbearance strategy for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.” They point out that Trump accelerated the trend, but didn't initially cause it. L&Z see extreme polarization as a root cause of the weakening of the norms that helped defend democracy from demagogues: “And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.”
Some may recall that the 2018 presidential greatness survey by experts ranked Trump as the most polarizing president in US history. 2018 was the first year that the question had been asked. It was asked in view of the obvious polarizing effect that Trump had on American politics and society.
The tyrant test: L&Z find that authoritarians tend to use the same rhetoric and tactics in making their run for power. Keying off of earlier research of democratic breakdowns by political scientist Juan Linz, L&Z articulate four behavioral warning signs that help identify an authoritarian. Evidence of any one of the four behaviors in words or actions point to an authoritarian politician.
The four signs are evident “when a politician (1) rejects the democratic rules of the game, (2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, (3) tolerates or encourages violence, or (4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” Trump has shown behaviors that fit all four of the warning signs. For example, he rejected the democratic rules of the game by claiming he would not accept election results if he lost the 2016 election and falsely claimed there was massive voter fraud. Similarly, he denied the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton by calling her a criminal and calling for her to be imprisoned. He also publicly tolerated and encouraged violence by his supporters, e.g., “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would 'ya? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise you.”
L&Z argue that the republican party has abdicated essentially all responsibility to try to keep the authoritarian demagogue Trump from gaining power or undermining democracy. We are undergoing the kind of stealth attack on democracy that people have a hard time seeing. L&Z point out that there have always been about 30-40% of Americans who were ready to support a populist demagogue. Trump’s populist demagogic rhetoric and behavior, coupled with the the republican party’s abdication of responsibility to defend democracy, make America’s current political situation look truly frightening.
Warning: L&Z point out that opposition to demagogues must be legal. The demagogue can use anything illegal by the opposition as an excuse to further undermine democratic freedoms and the rule of law. In other words, Antifa and any other pro-violence groups that want to help defend democracy need to cool their jets and get their act together. Stupidity such as violence plays into the tyrant’s hands.
B&B orig: 4/15/19 DP orig 4/22/19; DP reposted 5/27/20
Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Harvard political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (L&Z) describe the various ways in which democracies die. For the last 15 years, L&Z have studied democracy deaths as the main focus of their research.
What they find is that these days, democracies often do not die after a military coup. Instead, many modern authoritarians or demagogues gain power by striking deals with existing political parties who are often under stress and losing influence. Hitler and Mussolini took that route. In both cases, the existing order was confident that they could control the demagogues they helped to legitimize.
In this regard, L&Z see political parties and especially their leaders and insiders as gatekeepers who are in a position to prevent legitimizing and/or the rise to power of demagogues. L&Z comment on this legal route to power: “The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”
American democracy vs. Trump: L&Z write to express their deep concern that President Trump, a demagogue in their view, could rise to become a full-blown authoritarian. They find that two critical norms that have kept American demagogues in the past from gaining power have largely collapsed. One weakened norm is “mutual toleration” which exists when political parties accept each other as legitimate political opposition. The other norm is “forbearance” wherein politicians exercise restraint in using power and institutional prerogatives. L&Z calls these norms the “soft guardrails of American democracy.”
L&Z argue the erosion of these norms began in the 1980s and by the time Obama was elected in 2008, “many Republicans, in particular, questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned the forbearance strategy for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.” They point out that Trump accelerated the trend, but didn't initially cause it. L&Z see extreme polarization as a root cause of the weakening of the norms that helped defend democracy from demagogues: “And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.”
Some may recall that the 2018 presidential greatness survey by experts ranked Trump as the most polarizing president in US history. 2018 was the first year that the question had been asked. It was asked in view of the obvious polarizing effect that Trump had on American politics and society.
The tyrant test: L&Z find that authoritarians tend to use the same rhetoric and tactics in making their run for power. Keying off of earlier research of democratic breakdowns by political scientist Juan Linz, L&Z articulate four behavioral warning signs that help identify an authoritarian. Evidence of any one of the four behaviors in words or actions point to an authoritarian politician.
The four signs are evident “when a politician (1) rejects the democratic rules of the game, (2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, (3) tolerates or encourages violence, or (4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” Trump has shown behaviors that fit all four of the warning signs. For example, he rejected the democratic rules of the game by claiming he would not accept election results if he lost the 2016 election and falsely claimed there was massive voter fraud. Similarly, he denied the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton by calling her a criminal and calling for her to be imprisoned. He also publicly tolerated and encouraged violence by his supporters, e.g., “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would 'ya? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise you.”
L&Z argue that the republican party has abdicated essentially all responsibility to try to keep the authoritarian demagogue Trump from gaining power or undermining democracy. We are undergoing the kind of stealth attack on democracy that people have a hard time seeing. L&Z point out that there have always been about 30-40% of Americans who were ready to support a populist demagogue. Trump’s populist demagogic rhetoric and behavior, coupled with the the republican party’s abdication of responsibility to defend democracy, make America’s current political situation look truly frightening.
Warning: L&Z point out that opposition to demagogues must be legal. The demagogue can use anything illegal by the opposition as an excuse to further undermine democratic freedoms and the rule of law. In other words, Antifa and any other pro-violence groups that want to help defend democracy need to cool their jets and get their act together. Stupidity such as violence plays into the tyrant’s hands.
B&B orig: 4/15/19 DP orig 4/22/19; DP reposted 5/27/20
Stealth & Deceit Can Destroy Democracy
Monday, April 22, 2019
Context: As a default position, I reject political conspiracy theories as unfounded, unless the evidence looks solid. But sometimes there really is a political conspiracy. This is about a real conspiracy that is driving a social engineering experiment of massive proportions to completely change American democracy.
Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, describes a vast radical right wing conspiracy theory that is true. MacLean is a historian who wound up with unfettered access to look at the original documents that (i) prove the origin and existence of the radical right conspiracy, and (ii) describe its goal. The goal is to completely remake American democracy with its strong central government into a central weak government that is unable to enforce equal protection and due process for average people.
In the radical right vision, power would flow from the central federal government to authoritarian, oligarchic state governments that are captured by wealthy, powerful capitalists and like-minded individuals. The goal of that form of government is to weaken and then destroy the ability of average citizens, especially minorities to work together to defend their interests using equal protection and due process as their main tool to exert influence. The ultimate goal is to elevate property rights above all other rights, including the rights of people to tax property or otherwise burden it in any way.
In other words, this cabal of capitalists and rich people want to have essentially all power and little or no responsibility toward society or the well-being of average people. This new authoritarian kleptocracy has now overpowered the republican party and with President Trump at the helm, it is gaining momentum. This effort just might lead to the end of the American experiment.
A few quotes from MacLean's book with some comments for context help describe what America is facing right now from the authoritarian radical right.
#1 - No compromise: Funding for the radical movement was initiated by Charles and David Koch. They knew that most Americans would oppose what they wanted to do, which included a refusal to compromise. Refusal to compromise is integral to what it is to be a tyrant or oligarch.
#2 - Kill liberty: The key intellectual founder of this property absolutist movement, James McGill Buchanan (discussed here before), chairman of the economics department at the University of Virginia, saw an urgent need to curtail civil liberties as much as possible. Previously, Virginia had used state law to impose effective voter suppression, allowing the governor and legislature to maintain their high level of power and control over Virginia's residents. Neutering collective action by citizens, e.g., organized labor unions, was a high priority target for the absolutist authoritarians.
#3 - Republican party takeover with ideologically cleansing RINO hunts: The radical movement knew the American people would reject its political goals and that some institution of political power would be needed to exert influence on a national scale. The radical right's quiet, relentless takeover of the republican party explains why the party now refuses to oppose Trump's moves to undermine democracy and the rule of law. The RHINO hunts effectively drove many (most?) real republicans from the party and replaced them with believers in the radical right's absolutist anti-democratic vision, e.g., the Tea Party. The absolutists play hardball and they play for keeps.
The latter explains why a politician like Ronald Reagan would never have been accepted by the new radical republicans. They would have ousted him as a RINO. The propaganda tactics the radical absolutists employ were and still are devastatingly effective. That got tens of millions of rank and file republicans to effectively switch from old republican ideals, including at least some responsiveness to public opinion, to pure anti-democratic absolutism about property and intense hostility to civil rights.
B&B orig: 4/18/19
Context: As a default position, I reject political conspiracy theories as unfounded, unless the evidence looks solid. But sometimes there really is a political conspiracy. This is about a real conspiracy that is driving a social engineering experiment of massive proportions to completely change American democracy.
Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, describes a vast radical right wing conspiracy theory that is true. MacLean is a historian who wound up with unfettered access to look at the original documents that (i) prove the origin and existence of the radical right conspiracy, and (ii) describe its goal. The goal is to completely remake American democracy with its strong central government into a central weak government that is unable to enforce equal protection and due process for average people.
In the radical right vision, power would flow from the central federal government to authoritarian, oligarchic state governments that are captured by wealthy, powerful capitalists and like-minded individuals. The goal of that form of government is to weaken and then destroy the ability of average citizens, especially minorities to work together to defend their interests using equal protection and due process as their main tool to exert influence. The ultimate goal is to elevate property rights above all other rights, including the rights of people to tax property or otherwise burden it in any way.
In other words, this cabal of capitalists and rich people want to have essentially all power and little or no responsibility toward society or the well-being of average people. This new authoritarian kleptocracy has now overpowered the republican party and with President Trump at the helm, it is gaining momentum. This effort just might lead to the end of the American experiment.
A few quotes from MacLean's book with some comments for context help describe what America is facing right now from the authoritarian radical right.
#1 - No compromise: Funding for the radical movement was initiated by Charles and David Koch. They knew that most Americans would oppose what they wanted to do, which included a refusal to compromise. Refusal to compromise is integral to what it is to be a tyrant or oligarch.
Koch never lied to himself about what he was doing. While some others in the movement called themselves conservatives, he know exactly how radical his cause was. Informed early on by one of his grantees that the playbook on revolutionary organization had been written by Vladimir Lenin dutifully recruited a trusted "cadre" of high-level operatives, just as Lenin had done, to build a movement that refused compromise as it devised savvy maneuvers to alter the political math in its favor.
#2 - Kill liberty: The key intellectual founder of this property absolutist movement, James McGill Buchanan (discussed here before), chairman of the economics department at the University of Virginia, saw an urgent need to curtail civil liberties as much as possible. Previously, Virginia had used state law to impose effective voter suppression, allowing the governor and legislature to maintain their high level of power and control over Virginia's residents. Neutering collective action by citizens, e.g., organized labor unions, was a high priority target for the absolutist authoritarians.
Compounding the problems Buchanan faced of elected officials who seemed like allies but, once in power failed to walk the walk, was the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It began drawing into the electorate more poor people who, in Buchanan's eyes, were likely to support proposals for programs that cost yet more money [than desegregation of public schools was already costing]. . . . . Buchanan now argued, the cause must figure out how to put legal -- indeed constitutional -- shackles on public officials, shackles so powerful that no matter how sympathetic these officials might be to the will of majorities, no matter how concerned they were for their own re-elections, they would no longer have the ability to respond to those who used their numbers [citizens acting together] to get government to do their bidding. . . . . Once these shackles were put in place, they had to be binding and permanent. . . . . Their cause they say is liberty. But by that they mean the insulation of private property rights from the reach of government -- and the takeover of what was long public (schools, prisons, western lands, and much more) by corporations, a system that would radically reduce the freedom of the many. In a nutshell, they aim to hollow out democratic resistance. And by its own lights, the cause is nearing success.
#3 - Republican party takeover with ideologically cleansing RINO hunts: The radical movement knew the American people would reject its political goals and that some institution of political power would be needed to exert influence on a national scale. The radical right's quiet, relentless takeover of the republican party explains why the party now refuses to oppose Trump's moves to undermine democracy and the rule of law. The RHINO hunts effectively drove many (most?) real republicans from the party and replaced them with believers in the radical right's absolutist anti-democratic vision, e.g., the Tea Party. The absolutists play hardball and they play for keeps.
The Koch team's most important stealth move, and the one that proved critical to success, was to wrest control over the machinery of the Republican Party, beginning in the late 1990s with sharply escalating determination after 2008. From there, it was just a short step to lay claim to being the true representatives of the party, declaring all others RINOS. But while these radicals of the right operate within the Republican Party and use that party as a delivery vehicle, make no mistake about it: the cadre's loyalty is not to the Grand Old Party or its traditions or standard bearers. Their loyalty is to their revolutionary cause.
Republican Party veterans who believed they would be treated fairly because of their longtime service soon learned that, to their new masters, their history of Republicanism meant nothing. The new men in the wings respect only compliance; if they fail to get it, they respond with swift vengeance. The cadre targets for removal any old-time Republicans deemed a problem, throwing big money into their next primary race to unseat them and replace them with the cause's more "conservative" choices -- or at least teach them to heel.
The latter explains why a politician like Ronald Reagan would never have been accepted by the new radical republicans. They would have ousted him as a RINO. The propaganda tactics the radical absolutists employ were and still are devastatingly effective. That got tens of millions of rank and file republicans to effectively switch from old republican ideals, including at least some responsiveness to public opinion, to pure anti-democratic absolutism about property and intense hostility to civil rights.
B&B orig: 4/18/19
Wealth Distribution: What People Think vs What It Is
Monday, April 22, 2019
The graph shows what Americans thought the distribution of wealth in America was and what they thought would be ideal. The data is based on a 2011 survey, which was published here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf .
The actual United States wealth distribution was plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions across all respondents. Because of their small percentage share of total wealth, both the ‘‘4th 20%’’ value (0.2%) and the ‘‘Bottom 20%’’ value (0.1%) are not visible in the ‘‘Actual’’ distribution, i.e., the bottom 40% of Americans own about 0.3% of all wealth. Ideal distributions were what Americans thought they should be, e.g., the top 20% owning about 33%. Clearly, Americans were unaware that the top 20% of Americans own about 84% of the wealth.
The distribution graph below is based on 2016 data.
The graph shows what Americans thought the distribution of wealth in America was and what they thought would be ideal. The data is based on a 2011 survey, which was published here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf .
The actual United States wealth distribution was plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions across all respondents. Because of their small percentage share of total wealth, both the ‘‘4th 20%’’ value (0.2%) and the ‘‘Bottom 20%’’ value (0.1%) are not visible in the ‘‘Actual’’ distribution, i.e., the bottom 40% of Americans own about 0.3% of all wealth. Ideal distributions were what Americans thought they should be, e.g., the top 20% owning about 33%. Clearly, Americans were unaware that the top 20% of Americans own about 84% of the wealth.
The distribution graph below is based on 2016 data.
B&B orig: 4/20/19
A Conversation About Politics With a Pragmatist
Monday, April 22, 2019
This paraphrases a recent conversation I had with a long-time white, middle class acquaintance (ACQ) about politics. The conversation touched on Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America (discussion here). The harsh sentiments toward the political left and right coming from a mostly political centrist were unsettling but I suspect maybe fairly common among a lot of middle class centrists and some liberals.
ACQ: Did you hear the NPR story about judges now not answering questions about whether the 1955 Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court decision was properly decided?
Me: Yup. I can't believe the far right would go so far as to seriously revisit separate but equal or vote to allow public schools to be resegregated.
ACQ: 'Ya know, I don't care if they do. I don't care if public schools get resegregated. Sounds like maybe that's what they want to do, at least if MacLean has it about right.
Me (dumbfounded): What? Where is this coming from?
ACQ: I'm pissed off. I'm tired of hearing that the democrats need to pander to and rely on black women or some other group to save the party at elections. As far an I am concerned, if people don't vote they deserve what they get. If schools get resegregated, that's not my problem. I vote every goddamn time and never once get to vote for anyone I really want in office. And, no one is pandering to me. Instead, it gets worse and worse for me and people in my situation.
My family was screwed by Obamacare -- nothing but sky high premiums and nothing covered -- all deductibles and no coverage. Tons of cost, no health care. Trump's tax cuts make my taxes a lot higher and now I need do all sorts of shit to try to reduce the new load. Who the hell is looking out for people like me? Effing congress just passed a bill that prevents the IRS from making tax filing less complex. Total BS. I get screwed and screwed some more by the left, the right, and special interests that buy crooks in congress and the idiot Trump. All that politics is offering me is a non-negotiable demand to pay more. Screw that. At least rich people and companies got benefits from Trump's tax bullshit. I got a kick in the butt because I live in California and Trump hates California and is punishing the state for not falling for his BS and lies. What kind of idiocy is that?
Me: But, what about voter suppression?
ACQ: I don't care. As long as republicans keep winning elections, they are empowered to pull whatever tyrant crap they can get away with. Life isn't fair. There are always tyrants just waiting for a chance to get power and screw people. Read MacLean's book. There's nothing fair about any of this. I'm coming to think that humans can't handle democracy or freedoms. Maybe we are destined to be slaves to some goon tyrant or heartless, arrogant oligarchs.
Me: What about Roe (abortion) and Obergefell (same-sex marriage)?
ACQ: Still don't care. If women keep voting for white male evangelical republicans, or don't vote at all, they deserve to lose their abortion rights. Same thing for LGBQTN -- some of those people actually voted for Trump and republicans, others didn't vote at all. Fine. People who don't vote or who vote republican deserve whatever tyrant crap comes at them. They have no cause to complain. I'm worried about me and my family, not everyone else. Not any more.
On gentle probing, it turns out that that outburst reflected years of ACQ's mounting frustration with the two-party system and how ACQ sees the middle class as being disrespected, ignored, exploited and hollowed out.
I've been giving voters and non-voters the benefit of a doubt because of the endless, ferocious stream of dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, etc.) that everyone is now hopelessly submerged in. That said, maybe ACQ sees it best: If you don't vote, don't complain -- no excuses.
It was unsettling to see that at least some people are slowly being worn down by decades of relentless attacks on democracy, the rule of law and the middle class. I take this as a bit of evidence that the radical right's plan to shift America to an anti-democratic authoritarianism is slowly working.
Orig B&B: 4/22/19
This paraphrases a recent conversation I had with a long-time white, middle class acquaintance (ACQ) about politics. The conversation touched on Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America (discussion here). The harsh sentiments toward the political left and right coming from a mostly political centrist were unsettling but I suspect maybe fairly common among a lot of middle class centrists and some liberals.
ACQ: Did you hear the NPR story about judges now not answering questions about whether the 1955 Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court decision was properly decided?
Me: Yup. I can't believe the far right would go so far as to seriously revisit separate but equal or vote to allow public schools to be resegregated.
ACQ: 'Ya know, I don't care if they do. I don't care if public schools get resegregated. Sounds like maybe that's what they want to do, at least if MacLean has it about right.
Me (dumbfounded): What? Where is this coming from?
ACQ: I'm pissed off. I'm tired of hearing that the democrats need to pander to and rely on black women or some other group to save the party at elections. As far an I am concerned, if people don't vote they deserve what they get. If schools get resegregated, that's not my problem. I vote every goddamn time and never once get to vote for anyone I really want in office. And, no one is pandering to me. Instead, it gets worse and worse for me and people in my situation.
My family was screwed by Obamacare -- nothing but sky high premiums and nothing covered -- all deductibles and no coverage. Tons of cost, no health care. Trump's tax cuts make my taxes a lot higher and now I need do all sorts of shit to try to reduce the new load. Who the hell is looking out for people like me? Effing congress just passed a bill that prevents the IRS from making tax filing less complex. Total BS. I get screwed and screwed some more by the left, the right, and special interests that buy crooks in congress and the idiot Trump. All that politics is offering me is a non-negotiable demand to pay more. Screw that. At least rich people and companies got benefits from Trump's tax bullshit. I got a kick in the butt because I live in California and Trump hates California and is punishing the state for not falling for his BS and lies. What kind of idiocy is that?
Me: But, what about voter suppression?
ACQ: I don't care. As long as republicans keep winning elections, they are empowered to pull whatever tyrant crap they can get away with. Life isn't fair. There are always tyrants just waiting for a chance to get power and screw people. Read MacLean's book. There's nothing fair about any of this. I'm coming to think that humans can't handle democracy or freedoms. Maybe we are destined to be slaves to some goon tyrant or heartless, arrogant oligarchs.
Me: What about Roe (abortion) and Obergefell (same-sex marriage)?
ACQ: Still don't care. If women keep voting for white male evangelical republicans, or don't vote at all, they deserve to lose their abortion rights. Same thing for LGBQTN -- some of those people actually voted for Trump and republicans, others didn't vote at all. Fine. People who don't vote or who vote republican deserve whatever tyrant crap comes at them. They have no cause to complain. I'm worried about me and my family, not everyone else. Not any more.
On gentle probing, it turns out that that outburst reflected years of ACQ's mounting frustration with the two-party system and how ACQ sees the middle class as being disrespected, ignored, exploited and hollowed out.
I've been giving voters and non-voters the benefit of a doubt because of the endless, ferocious stream of dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, etc.) that everyone is now hopelessly submerged in. That said, maybe ACQ sees it best: If you don't vote, don't complain -- no excuses.
It was unsettling to see that at least some people are slowly being worn down by decades of relentless attacks on democracy, the rule of law and the middle class. I take this as a bit of evidence that the radical right's plan to shift America to an anti-democratic authoritarianism is slowly working.
Orig B&B: 4/22/19
Saturday, April 6, 2019
The Science of Morality & Human Well-Being
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Nihilism: 1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless; 2. belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated
In the last few months, some commentary here and elsewhere have raised the idea that many concepts related to politics, concepts relating to concepts such as good and evil, fact and non-fact, logic and illogic, and truth and lie are essentially meaningless. Meaninglessness arises from subjectivity that can be inherent in things one might think of as mostly objective. For example, some people believe it is a fact that there is a strong consensus among expert climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. About 27% of Americans reject that as false and no amount of discussion and citing fact sources will change most (~ 98% ?) of those minds.
Does that mean there is no way to discern facts or truth from lies or misinformation? When it comes to morality, is nihilism basically correct and contemplating morality from any point of view is too subjective to be meaningful in any way?
In another example, the rule of law concept is seen by some analysts as an essentially contested concept, which is something subjective and not definable such that a large majority of people will agree on what the rule of law is and when it applies. If the rule of law cannot be defined, how can what is moral and what isn't be defined?
Pragmatic rationalism: The anti-bias ideology advocated here, “pragmatic rationalism”, is built on four core moral values, (1) respect for objective facts and truth, to the extent they can be ascertained, (2) application of less biased logic (conscious reasoning) to the facts and truths, (3) service to the public interest, which is conceived as a transparent competition of ideas constrained by facts and logic, and (4) reasonable compromise in view of political, social and other relevant factors. If nihilism is correct, the anti-bias ideology is nonsense.
Science and morality: In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, neuroscientist Sam Harris argues there can be enough objectivity in matters of morals and human behavior and well-being that there is a great deal of objectivity in morality. In essence, Harris is arguing that science can find things that foster human well-being by tending to make people, e.g., happy, unhappy, and socially integrated or not. On morals, religion, secularism and the role of science in discovering morality, Harris writes:
"On the first account, to speak of moral truth is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give voice to one’s apish urges, cultural biases and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.
While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical.
I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain -- but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.
Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that we may not be able to resolve specific moral dilemmas does not suggest that all competing responses to them are equally valid. In my experience, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a great source of moral confusion.
The the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not. And these are not areas where we can afford to respect the “traditions” of others and agree to disagree. . . . . I hope to show that when we are talking about values, we are actually talking about an interdependent world of facts.
There are facts to be understood about how thoughts and intentions arise in the human brain; there are further facts to be known about how these behaviors influence the world and the experience of other conscious beings. We will see that facts of this sort will exhaust what we can reasonably mean by terms like “good” and “evil”. They will increasingly fall within the purview of science and run far deeper than a person’s religious affiliation. Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. Indeed, I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.
Having received tens of thousands of emails and letters from people at every point on the continuum between faith and doubt, I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides. Both sides [Christian conservatives and secular liberals] believe that reason is powerless to answer the most important questions in human life.
The scientific community’s reluctance to take a stand on moral issues has come at a price. It has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most important questions of human life."
It seems inevitable, however, that science will gradually encompass life’s deepest questions. How we respond to the resulting collision of worldviews will influence the the progress of science, of course, but may also determine whether we succeed in building global civilization based on shared values. . . . . Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.
Harris is right, nihilism is wrong: If Harris is correct that intellectual moral terrain actually exists and is subject to scientific scrutiny, then pragmatic rationalism would seem to be a political counterpart of Harris’ vision of what can lead to human well-being for the long run. Maybe because of personal bias and/or the amazingly good fit between what Harris argues and the core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on, Harris is right. Science can shed light on an at least somewhat objective vision of right and wrong, good and evil. Nihilism is wrong and destructive of both self and civilization.
B&B orig: 3/25/19
Nihilism: 1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless; 2. belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated
In the last few months, some commentary here and elsewhere have raised the idea that many concepts related to politics, concepts relating to concepts such as good and evil, fact and non-fact, logic and illogic, and truth and lie are essentially meaningless. Meaninglessness arises from subjectivity that can be inherent in things one might think of as mostly objective. For example, some people believe it is a fact that there is a strong consensus among expert climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. About 27% of Americans reject that as false and no amount of discussion and citing fact sources will change most (~ 98% ?) of those minds.
Does that mean there is no way to discern facts or truth from lies or misinformation? When it comes to morality, is nihilism basically correct and contemplating morality from any point of view is too subjective to be meaningful in any way?
In another example, the rule of law concept is seen by some analysts as an essentially contested concept, which is something subjective and not definable such that a large majority of people will agree on what the rule of law is and when it applies. If the rule of law cannot be defined, how can what is moral and what isn't be defined?
Pragmatic rationalism: The anti-bias ideology advocated here, “pragmatic rationalism”, is built on four core moral values, (1) respect for objective facts and truth, to the extent they can be ascertained, (2) application of less biased logic (conscious reasoning) to the facts and truths, (3) service to the public interest, which is conceived as a transparent competition of ideas constrained by facts and logic, and (4) reasonable compromise in view of political, social and other relevant factors. If nihilism is correct, the anti-bias ideology is nonsense.
Science and morality: In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, neuroscientist Sam Harris argues there can be enough objectivity in matters of morals and human behavior and well-being that there is a great deal of objectivity in morality. In essence, Harris is arguing that science can find things that foster human well-being by tending to make people, e.g., happy, unhappy, and socially integrated or not. On morals, religion, secularism and the role of science in discovering morality, Harris writes:
"On the first account, to speak of moral truth is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give voice to one’s apish urges, cultural biases and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.
While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical.
I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain -- but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.
Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that we may not be able to resolve specific moral dilemmas does not suggest that all competing responses to them are equally valid. In my experience, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a great source of moral confusion.
The the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not. And these are not areas where we can afford to respect the “traditions” of others and agree to disagree. . . . . I hope to show that when we are talking about values, we are actually talking about an interdependent world of facts.
There are facts to be understood about how thoughts and intentions arise in the human brain; there are further facts to be known about how these behaviors influence the world and the experience of other conscious beings. We will see that facts of this sort will exhaust what we can reasonably mean by terms like “good” and “evil”. They will increasingly fall within the purview of science and run far deeper than a person’s religious affiliation. Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. Indeed, I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.
Having received tens of thousands of emails and letters from people at every point on the continuum between faith and doubt, I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides. Both sides [Christian conservatives and secular liberals] believe that reason is powerless to answer the most important questions in human life.
The scientific community’s reluctance to take a stand on moral issues has come at a price. It has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most important questions of human life."
It seems inevitable, however, that science will gradually encompass life’s deepest questions. How we respond to the resulting collision of worldviews will influence the the progress of science, of course, but may also determine whether we succeed in building global civilization based on shared values. . . . . Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.
Harris is right, nihilism is wrong: If Harris is correct that intellectual moral terrain actually exists and is subject to scientific scrutiny, then pragmatic rationalism would seem to be a political counterpart of Harris’ vision of what can lead to human well-being for the long run. Maybe because of personal bias and/or the amazingly good fit between what Harris argues and the core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on, Harris is right. Science can shed light on an at least somewhat objective vision of right and wrong, good and evil. Nihilism is wrong and destructive of both self and civilization.
B&B orig: 3/25/19
What We've Learned From the Mueller Report So Far
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You wouldn't know that, however, from the breathless editorializing of Mueller's findings by a media industry which not only hasn't seen those findings, but which depends for its present understanding on the supposed summary offered by Trump's Attorney General, who is himself a conflicted and compromised figure in relation to the Special Counsel. Here's how AG Barr described Mueller's findings regarding Russian collusion:
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
If we take this description at face value, Barr is stating that Mueller was unable to establish conspiracy or coordination between Trump and Russia during the election. While Barr describes the evidentiary standard for obstruction of justice as being beyond a reasonable doubt, no such standard is enumerated here, leaving the question of what constitutes establishment open. It is worth remembering here that the collusion investigation began as a counter-intelligence operation, which does not have a prosecutorial aim, nor are questions of espionage and state security settled on through standards applicable to criminal law.
Nevertheless, major media outlets have been nearly unanimous in their conclusion that as it pertains to collusion, the Mueller investigation found no evidence at all:
MSNBC - Mueller Report: No evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia
CNN - Trump claims vindication after Mueller finds no evidence of collusion
BBC - Mueller Report: No Evidence of Collusion
Today - Mueller finds no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia
NY Times - Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy
US News - Mueller Finds No Evidence Trump Team Colluded With Russia
NPR - Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion
Elsewhere, the New York Times described the Report as concluding that Trump did not conspire with Putin, and that Mueller's investigation failed to find any links between Putin and Trump. Farhad Manjoo states unequivocally that there was no collusion, the Washington Post concludes Trump was exonerated by Mueller, Jeffrey Toobin describes the report as a total vindication of Trump on collusion, CNN claims Trump was cleared of collusion charges, and Matt Taibbi compares "Russiagate" with the WMD fiasco in Iraq.
All of this - every last bit, from the most respected and successful mainstream media sources - is dead wrong. There simply is no way to conclude from the decision of Special Counsel not to indict Trump or his family, or from Barr's description of Mueller's findings, that Trump has been cleared, exonerated, and most universally but also most questionably, that no evidence was discovered by the investigation of Trump's collusion with Russia. Not only is this a non-sequitur in that it does not follow from the findings of the Report as we currently understand them, but it outright contradicts the facts as we have long known them.
Coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia was public, explicit, and highly corroborated. We all watched Trump call on Russia to help his campaign, and it subsequently came to light that Russia redoubled its efforts to hack the DNC immediately following Trump's televised plea. This was a clear violation of Federal election law, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, a fact which has gone almost entirely unremarked by these same media outlets. Trump's campaign manager is known to have shopped his access to Trump in an effort to "get whole" in his relationship to a Russian oligarch known to be close to Putin and the FSB, explicitly tying Manafort's financial circumstances to the campaign and the campaign to Russian money. Wilbur Ross was formerly the president of a bank in Cyprus suspected of laundering Russian oligarch money into the EU, defeating sanctions against Putin's inner circle. Deutsche Bank is long thought to have similar ties to Russian money, and as Don Jr. publicly admitted the importance of Russian money to the Trump family fortune, and as this Russian involvement occurred during a time in which only Deutsche Bank would lend to Trump, there is definite evidence to suggest a long term and deep relationship between Russian oligarchs and Trump. Donald's efforts at building a Trump Tower in Moscow and his lies regarding it establish motive for such collusion above and beyond mere political gain, as well as awareness of guilt, and thus of intent.
Consciousness of guilt can be demonstrated in Trump's and Kushner's secret communications with Russian intelligence assets, both before and after having become president, as well as his secret talks with Putin. That these meetings were often followed by major policy reversals by Trump on Russia related issues, particularly economic sanctions, US military alliances in Europe and Asia, US policies toward individual Russian companies associated with Manafort, and of course the major overriding issue of American adoption of Russian infants, the Trumpian quid for the Russian quo is materially, objectively evidenced.
To have any semblance of coherence, to say nothing of objectivity, the Mueller Report must detail each of these aspects of the Russiagate narrative and demonstrate why they do not amount to evidence that the House of Representatives might consider sufficient to indict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not clear from Barr's so-called summary of Mueller's findings that the Report does this, or that it in any way exonerates Trump from secret and unlawful coordination with Russia. What is clear, however, is that by failing to pursue indictments against Kushner or Don Jr., or to personally interview Trump, that Mueller declined to pursue the case to its logical ends. This is despite Mueller's reputation for thoroughness and detail. This just five weeks after Barr became AG, and a mere two weeks before Mueller delivered his initial findings to Barr in which he outlined the inability to establish collusion.
Thus even if we accept Barr's "summary" we must also conclude that Mueller feels he is unable to pursue an indictment of Trump for violation of FEC law, despite the violation having been made on television, before a national audience, in which he explicitly solicited help for his campaign from foreign nationals. We must conclude that Trump's aberrant personal behavior and policy decisions regarding Russia, from which Putin stands to benefit greatly, cannot be considered a reward for Russia's hacking of the DNC following Trump's request for this illegally obtained information, and that this arrangement cannot be considered coordination. We must conclude that the extensive financial ties between Trump and Russia, which might well have been all that stood between Trump and financial ruin, do not constitute motive. More than all that, according to media outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Guardian, we are too believe that none of this offers any evidence of collusion, of a secret agreement to promote each others interests, between Trump and Putin. If we do not, if we cling to the idea that our lying eyes do in fact perceive evidence, then we are as hopelessly compromised by ideology as the press was during the run up to the war in Iraq, believing as it did that Hussein did harbor WMD to some extent. And this is supposed to signify not just ideological devotion, but blindness to the facts. We are expected, in other words, not to believe what we see, but what the state and its media enablers tell us we should see. Which is nothing, nothing at all. Nada. Zilch.
Only problem is, there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq , Hussein was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441, and legal authority for the response was delineated to the US and its Coalition allies there. Yet today everyone just knows there were no WMD, the war was illegal, that Hussein only wanted to look tough, just as Trump lies about Russian coincidence (collusion, coordination, conspiracy) because it is his nature, rather than in an effort to defraud and subvert American democracy in order to enrich and empower himself. That's just not like him at all, and only the ideologically blind would cling to such a tenuous belief.
If you feel you've suddenly awoken in a Truffaut science fiction film, you're not alone.
B&B orig: 3/25/19, TJ post
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You wouldn't know that, however, from the breathless editorializing of Mueller's findings by a media industry which not only hasn't seen those findings, but which depends for its present understanding on the supposed summary offered by Trump's Attorney General, who is himself a conflicted and compromised figure in relation to the Special Counsel. Here's how AG Barr described Mueller's findings regarding Russian collusion:
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
If we take this description at face value, Barr is stating that Mueller was unable to establish conspiracy or coordination between Trump and Russia during the election. While Barr describes the evidentiary standard for obstruction of justice as being beyond a reasonable doubt, no such standard is enumerated here, leaving the question of what constitutes establishment open. It is worth remembering here that the collusion investigation began as a counter-intelligence operation, which does not have a prosecutorial aim, nor are questions of espionage and state security settled on through standards applicable to criminal law.
Nevertheless, major media outlets have been nearly unanimous in their conclusion that as it pertains to collusion, the Mueller investigation found no evidence at all:
MSNBC - Mueller Report: No evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia
CNN - Trump claims vindication after Mueller finds no evidence of collusion
BBC - Mueller Report: No Evidence of Collusion
Today - Mueller finds no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia
NY Times - Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy
US News - Mueller Finds No Evidence Trump Team Colluded With Russia
NPR - Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion
Elsewhere, the New York Times described the Report as concluding that Trump did not conspire with Putin, and that Mueller's investigation failed to find any links between Putin and Trump. Farhad Manjoo states unequivocally that there was no collusion, the Washington Post concludes Trump was exonerated by Mueller, Jeffrey Toobin describes the report as a total vindication of Trump on collusion, CNN claims Trump was cleared of collusion charges, and Matt Taibbi compares "Russiagate" with the WMD fiasco in Iraq.
All of this - every last bit, from the most respected and successful mainstream media sources - is dead wrong. There simply is no way to conclude from the decision of Special Counsel not to indict Trump or his family, or from Barr's description of Mueller's findings, that Trump has been cleared, exonerated, and most universally but also most questionably, that no evidence was discovered by the investigation of Trump's collusion with Russia. Not only is this a non-sequitur in that it does not follow from the findings of the Report as we currently understand them, but it outright contradicts the facts as we have long known them.
Coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia was public, explicit, and highly corroborated. We all watched Trump call on Russia to help his campaign, and it subsequently came to light that Russia redoubled its efforts to hack the DNC immediately following Trump's televised plea. This was a clear violation of Federal election law, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, a fact which has gone almost entirely unremarked by these same media outlets. Trump's campaign manager is known to have shopped his access to Trump in an effort to "get whole" in his relationship to a Russian oligarch known to be close to Putin and the FSB, explicitly tying Manafort's financial circumstances to the campaign and the campaign to Russian money. Wilbur Ross was formerly the president of a bank in Cyprus suspected of laundering Russian oligarch money into the EU, defeating sanctions against Putin's inner circle. Deutsche Bank is long thought to have similar ties to Russian money, and as Don Jr. publicly admitted the importance of Russian money to the Trump family fortune, and as this Russian involvement occurred during a time in which only Deutsche Bank would lend to Trump, there is definite evidence to suggest a long term and deep relationship between Russian oligarchs and Trump. Donald's efforts at building a Trump Tower in Moscow and his lies regarding it establish motive for such collusion above and beyond mere political gain, as well as awareness of guilt, and thus of intent.
Consciousness of guilt can be demonstrated in Trump's and Kushner's secret communications with Russian intelligence assets, both before and after having become president, as well as his secret talks with Putin. That these meetings were often followed by major policy reversals by Trump on Russia related issues, particularly economic sanctions, US military alliances in Europe and Asia, US policies toward individual Russian companies associated with Manafort, and of course the major overriding issue of American adoption of Russian infants, the Trumpian quid for the Russian quo is materially, objectively evidenced.
To have any semblance of coherence, to say nothing of objectivity, the Mueller Report must detail each of these aspects of the Russiagate narrative and demonstrate why they do not amount to evidence that the House of Representatives might consider sufficient to indict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not clear from Barr's so-called summary of Mueller's findings that the Report does this, or that it in any way exonerates Trump from secret and unlawful coordination with Russia. What is clear, however, is that by failing to pursue indictments against Kushner or Don Jr., or to personally interview Trump, that Mueller declined to pursue the case to its logical ends. This is despite Mueller's reputation for thoroughness and detail. This just five weeks after Barr became AG, and a mere two weeks before Mueller delivered his initial findings to Barr in which he outlined the inability to establish collusion.
Thus even if we accept Barr's "summary" we must also conclude that Mueller feels he is unable to pursue an indictment of Trump for violation of FEC law, despite the violation having been made on television, before a national audience, in which he explicitly solicited help for his campaign from foreign nationals. We must conclude that Trump's aberrant personal behavior and policy decisions regarding Russia, from which Putin stands to benefit greatly, cannot be considered a reward for Russia's hacking of the DNC following Trump's request for this illegally obtained information, and that this arrangement cannot be considered coordination. We must conclude that the extensive financial ties between Trump and Russia, which might well have been all that stood between Trump and financial ruin, do not constitute motive. More than all that, according to media outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Guardian, we are too believe that none of this offers any evidence of collusion, of a secret agreement to promote each others interests, between Trump and Putin. If we do not, if we cling to the idea that our lying eyes do in fact perceive evidence, then we are as hopelessly compromised by ideology as the press was during the run up to the war in Iraq, believing as it did that Hussein did harbor WMD to some extent. And this is supposed to signify not just ideological devotion, but blindness to the facts. We are expected, in other words, not to believe what we see, but what the state and its media enablers tell us we should see. Which is nothing, nothing at all. Nada. Zilch.
Only problem is, there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq , Hussein was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441, and legal authority for the response was delineated to the US and its Coalition allies there. Yet today everyone just knows there were no WMD, the war was illegal, that Hussein only wanted to look tough, just as Trump lies about Russian coincidence (collusion, coordination, conspiracy) because it is his nature, rather than in an effort to defraud and subvert American democracy in order to enrich and empower himself. That's just not like him at all, and only the ideologically blind would cling to such a tenuous belief.
If you feel you've suddenly awoken in a Truffaut science fiction film, you're not alone.
B&B orig: 3/25/19, TJ post
The Current Lines of Attack on Democracy: Opacity & Lies
Saturday, April 6, 2019
The New York Times reports:
"The special counsel’s report on the investigation into Russia’s election interference will be made public by mid-April, Attorney General William P. Barr told lawmakers on Friday, adding that the White House would not see the document before he sent it to Congress.
“Everyone will soon be able to read it,” Mr. Barr wrote in a letter to the chairmen of the congressional judiciary committees."
In the past, special counsel reports were given to congress with few or no redactions in the report or underlying evidence and exhibits. Barr claims he will redact redact from the report material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, material the intelligence community deems could compromise sensitive sources, grand jury material, and material that could affect ongoing matters and information that would infringe upon the personal privacy of peripheral third parties. Despite his claim otherwise, Barr is not required to redact most or any of what he plans to redact. Congressional intelligence committees, or at least key members, routinely get access to essentially all such information, sensitive or not.
President Trump hired Barr to protect himself from the rule of law. Barr applied for the job by submitting an unsolicited memo to Trump that criticized the Mueller investigation. In essence, Barr was telling Trump he would be protected from the rule of law by undermining and/or hiding the Mueller report to the extent he would be capable of doing so.
Barr's lie of omission and the opacity it justifies: In testimony in his Senate confirmation hearing, Barr promised he would be as transparent as possible and release as much of the Mueller report as he could.
What he did not tell the Senate was that what could previously be released would no longer apply. He lied by not telling the Senate he was going to establish new "rules" that would limit information disclosure as much as needed to protect Trump from the both law and from embarrassments to himself and his adult children. That was a massive lie of omission that Barr used to con the Senate into confirming his as Attorney General.
That lie of omission is what will justify Barr's unjustifiable opacity in hiding the Mueller report from congress and the public.
This is yet another authoritarian attack on democracy, democratic norms and institutions, and the rule of law. Barr is hiding truth. Mueller refused to do his job by indicting one or more of Trump's adult children or following through with making recommendations. Congressional republicans and the republican party generally approves of all of this. All of these actions and policies constitute major blows to an already weak rule of law as applied to politics. This is evidence of the rise a rule of law concept where the law is for partisan purposes only. Supporters and the in-party get to ignore the law. Opponents and the opposing party will feel its sting.
America is sliding into a kleptocratic tyranny tinged with a vindictive, rapacious Christian theocracy. Two institutions still stand. The democratic House is one and the 2020 elections is the other. Both are under sustained attack, and if they fall it isn't clear what is left to stop America's slide into dictatorship.
B&B orig: 3/30/19
The New York Times reports:
"The special counsel’s report on the investigation into Russia’s election interference will be made public by mid-April, Attorney General William P. Barr told lawmakers on Friday, adding that the White House would not see the document before he sent it to Congress.
“Everyone will soon be able to read it,” Mr. Barr wrote in a letter to the chairmen of the congressional judiciary committees."
In the past, special counsel reports were given to congress with few or no redactions in the report or underlying evidence and exhibits. Barr claims he will redact redact from the report material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, material the intelligence community deems could compromise sensitive sources, grand jury material, and material that could affect ongoing matters and information that would infringe upon the personal privacy of peripheral third parties. Despite his claim otherwise, Barr is not required to redact most or any of what he plans to redact. Congressional intelligence committees, or at least key members, routinely get access to essentially all such information, sensitive or not.
President Trump hired Barr to protect himself from the rule of law. Barr applied for the job by submitting an unsolicited memo to Trump that criticized the Mueller investigation. In essence, Barr was telling Trump he would be protected from the rule of law by undermining and/or hiding the Mueller report to the extent he would be capable of doing so.
Barr's lie of omission and the opacity it justifies: In testimony in his Senate confirmation hearing, Barr promised he would be as transparent as possible and release as much of the Mueller report as he could.
What he did not tell the Senate was that what could previously be released would no longer apply. He lied by not telling the Senate he was going to establish new "rules" that would limit information disclosure as much as needed to protect Trump from the both law and from embarrassments to himself and his adult children. That was a massive lie of omission that Barr used to con the Senate into confirming his as Attorney General.
That lie of omission is what will justify Barr's unjustifiable opacity in hiding the Mueller report from congress and the public.
This is yet another authoritarian attack on democracy, democratic norms and institutions, and the rule of law. Barr is hiding truth. Mueller refused to do his job by indicting one or more of Trump's adult children or following through with making recommendations. Congressional republicans and the republican party generally approves of all of this. All of these actions and policies constitute major blows to an already weak rule of law as applied to politics. This is evidence of the rise a rule of law concept where the law is for partisan purposes only. Supporters and the in-party get to ignore the law. Opponents and the opposing party will feel its sting.
America is sliding into a kleptocratic tyranny tinged with a vindictive, rapacious Christian theocracy. Two institutions still stand. The democratic House is one and the 2020 elections is the other. Both are under sustained attack, and if they fall it isn't clear what is left to stop America's slide into dictatorship.
B&B orig: 3/30/19