Thoughts about how to talk about politics in a radicalized, divided society: It is even possible?

Recent criticisms of me have centered on the harshness of criticisms of targets I pick. It is normal for those criticisms to include implicit or explicit assertions that I unfairly smear, disrespect and insult individuals and whole groups of people. 

I never see it that way, and certainly never intend unfairness, but I suppose that using harsh language to reasonably (based on facts, true truths and sound reasoning) criticize targeted people will lead to criticisms of me basically being an asshole. Two conflicting reactions bubble up. One is geez, how can I tone it down without diluting reality as I see it? The other is geez, I resent being put in a position where I have to try to defend myself from what I consider to be unreasonable criticisms.

Out of respect, I have never called all Trump supporters stupid, fascists or garbage. But I do sometimes argue that most of them are deceived and unknowingly supporters of authoritarianism and kleptocracy. But when I level criticisms at a group, (i) I almost always qualify it to "many", "most", or the like, and (ii) I look for some evidence that what I assert is true. I know there are outliers in all or almost all big groups of people. Regarding deceptive misinformation, authoritarianism and kleptocracy: 

Q: To what extent can average Trump supporters be considered to be significantly deceived, and misled into supporting authoritarianism and kleptocracy or corruption based on various false beliefs, e.g., the 2020 election was stolen, Trump's 1/6 insurrection was peaceful and/or of no importance?

A: There is evidence to suggest that many Trump supporters have been significantly misled and deceived into supporting authoritarian and kleptocratic tendencies, often based on false beliefs. Here are some key points to consider:

Trump and his allies have employed tactics from what some scholars call the "Authoritarian's Playbook," which includes: Weaponizing fear by embracing violent language and promoting a punitive culture. Targeting outsiders by stoking xenophobia and blaming domestic problems on scapegoats like immigrants. These tactics can lead supporters to embrace authoritarian policies out of misplaced fear or anger.

The Trump administration has worked to: Undermine key democratic institutions like the courts and free press. Rewrite history through control of education and media to indoctrinate the public. This erosion of democratic norms and institutions can make supporters more accepting of authoritarian governance.

Despite campaigning as a populist, Trump has: Openly built a kleptocracy backed by billionaires and white supremacists. Used the presidency to enrich himself and his family, resembling kleptocrats like Ferdinand Marcos. Some Trump supporters have expressed alarm at these developments, saying "this is not what they signed on for." 

While not explicitly mentioned in the search results, the query references false beliefs about the 2020 election being stolen and the January 6th insurrection being peaceful or unimportant. These beliefs align with the pattern of misinformation and undermining of democratic institutions described in the sources. 

In conclusion, while not all Trump supporters can be painted with the same brush, there is substantial evidence that many have been misled into supporting authoritarian and kleptocratic tendencies based on false beliefs and manipulation of fear. This deception has been facilitated by a combination of deliberate tactics, media manipulation, and the erosion of democratic norms and institutions. (emphasis added)

I routinely refer to Fox News as Faux News. That really pisses some people off. But I use that label because I believe it is fair and accurate. MBFC analysis of Fox News:

Q: To what extent has Fox News contributed to the understanding (or misunderstanding), normalization and acceptance of (i) various forms of authoritarianism, e.g., autocracy, Christian theocracy and unregulated plutocratic capitalism, (ii) corruption in government, and (iii) the use of lies, vulgarity and insults of political opposition and honest governance characterized as, e.g., tyrannical evil socialist deep state subversion?

A: Fox News has played a significant role in shaping public perception and discourse around authoritarianism, corruption, and political rhetoric in the United States. Fox News has been criticized for promoting views that some argue normalize or legitimize authoritarian tendencies: The network has been accused of showing bias in favor of the Republican Party and conservative viewpoints, potentially skewing public perception of political issues. There are concerns that Fox News has aided efforts to undermine democratic processes, such as promoting false claims about election fraud.

Corruption in Government: Fox News' approach to covering corruption allegations has been inconsistent: The network has been accused of downplaying or dismissing corruption allegations against favored political figures. Conversely, Fox News has also been criticized for amplifying unsubstantiated corruption claims against political opponents.

Political Rhetoric and Discourse: Fox News has been influential in shaping the tone and content of political discourse: The network has been accused of promoting divisive rhetoric and personal attacks against political opponents. Some argue that Fox News has contributed to the normalization of inflammatory language and conspiracy theories in political discussions

Impact on Public Understanding: Fox News' influence on public understanding of these issues is significant: As a major news outlet, Fox News plays a role in shaping public opinion and framing political debates. The network's coverage has been accused of creating an echo chamber that reinforces certain political viewpoints

The network recently settled a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million over its coverage of the 2020 election. This settlement has highlighted concerns about the network's commitment to factual reporting and its role in spreading misinformation.

In conclusion, while Fox News maintains a significant audience and influence, its approach to covering political issues has been the subject of ongoing controversy and criticism. The network's impact on public understanding of authoritarianism, corruption, and political discourse remains a topic of debate among media analysts and political observers.

Q: What are 4 prominent examples of misinformation that Fox News continually reports about?

A: Here are four prominent examples of misinformation that Fox News has been accused of continually reporting:

1. 2020 Election Fraud Claims: Fox News extensively promoted false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election, despite knowing these claims were baseless. The network's hosts and executives privately acknowledged that allegations of rigged voting machines and stolen votes were unfounded, yet continued to air these conspiracy theories on their programs.

2. COVID-19 Misinformation: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Fox News has been criticized for downplaying the severity of the virus and spreading misinformation about its causes, spread, and treatments. Some hosts promoted unproven remedies and questioned the efficacy of public health measures like mask-wearing and social distancing.

3. Climate Change Denial: Fox News has a history of promoting climate change skepticism and denial, often featuring commentators who question the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. This has included misrepresenting climate data and giving disproportionate airtime to climate change deniers.

4. "Replacement Theory" Rhetoric: Some Fox News hosts, particularly Tucker Carlson, have promoted ideas aligned with the "Great Replacement" theory, a conspiracy theory that claims Western elites are deliberately replacing white populations with non-white immigrants. This rhetoric has been criticized for stoking racial fears and xenophobia.

I try to always treat all of my criticisms the same way, i.e., crafted to be reasonably precise and based on evidence and sound reasoning.

Qs: Do I have anything to apologize for? Do I need to tone down my criticisms? Do I need to call it Fox instead of Faux out of respect for a powerful, mendacious authoritarian voice that is poisoning American politics and tearing our society apart?

Essentially contested concepts: Adjusting rhetoric to fit the situation

Trigger alert: After the summary, this post gets wonky. 

🥺

Summary

Thanks to PD pointing it out, I have recently become aware of the fact that I don't fully understand the concept of the ECC (essentially contested concept) as WB Gallie described in in 1956. Gallie laid out 7 criteria for a disagreement to qualify as an ECC. Some of the criteria I was aware, but some of the 7 I just glossed over and basically ignored. That bothers me. To assuage my cognitive dissonance, I need to adjust my rhetoric.

Long story short: Instead of calling political disagreements that are very likely not resolvable except by reasonable compromise or some form of coercion or force ECCs, I will instead call such disagreements contested concepts (CCs). That label includes ECCs, possible ECCs and things that are clearly not ECCs. 

Or, would the label democratically contested concept (DCC), be better to point out the compromise vs non-compromise ways of dealing with a political disagreement? Since authoritarians do not compromise unless forced to by circumstances, the scope of what can be meaningfully contested by the public, special interests and political opposition is low to none. In other words, democrats contest and compromise, but authoritarians rule as they wish whether special interests, political opposition or most of the public likes it or not.

The point I wanted to make by using the ECC label was to (i) highlight the two options to deal with political non-resolvability, i.e., generally democratic compromise and generally authoritarian non-compromise, and (ii) make clear the personal cognitive or social subjectivity that most intractable political disagreements seem to be heavily grounded in. 

Q: About what % of the American public is sympathetic to openly supportive of some form authoritarian rule for the US?

A: Approximately 25-30% of the American public appears to be sympathetic to or openly supportive of some form of authoritarian rule for the United States. .... 

Hm, that seems to me to be too low. It probably excludes another ~15-20% of Americans who sincerely believe they are pro-democracy but support various forms of authoritarianism in government and law enforcement, e.g., Trump and the Republican Party.

Qs: What is the best label? Is this summary wonky?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

The wonky part

I asked Perplexity this question about ECCs:

Q: About what % of common political issues are essentially contested concepts and what clearly % fall outside of the ECC concept and what % are unclear as to their status as an ECC?

A: A rough estimate might suggest that around 40-50% of common political issues involve ECCs to some degree. [40-60% makes more sense in view of the 20-30% estimates given below] 

Issues Clearly Outside ECCs 

Some political issues are more factual or procedural in nature and fall outside the realm of ECCs. These might include: Specific legal procedures, quantitative economic data, demographic statistics and certain administrative processes. Approximately 20-30% of political issues might fall into this category. 

Unclear Status

There's a significant grey area where it's not immediately clear whether an issue qualifies as an ECC. This category might include: Emerging political concepts that haven't been fully debated, issues that combine both contested and uncontested elements, and topics that are contextually dependent. Roughly 20-30% of political issues might fall into this unclear category.

Perplexity describes the 7 criteria:

Gallie proposed several criteria to identify essentially contested concepts:
1. They must be evaluative, delivering value judgments.
2. They must have an internally complex character.
3. The evaluation must be attributed to the concept as a whole.
4. The concept's elements must be variously describable and open to different interpretations.
5. Users allocate different weights or importance to the concept's elements [and they are aware of this difference in their analyses -- hence my point in constantly harping on getting to stasis in disagreements].
6. The concept must be derived from an exemplar or tradition that unifies competing interpretations.
7. The contestation must be "genuine" and sustained by respectable arguments.

Criteria 1, 4 and 5 make sense to me. That is how I generally viewed ECCs. But criteria 2, 3, 6 and 7 are incomprehensible. 1 and 7 strike me as circular, e.g., 1 is subjective and 7 is incoherent in view of 1 -- a "genuine" disagreement and a "respectable argument" are both value judgments. As for 6, I do not know what exemplar or tradition that unifies competing interpretations means analytically or logically, but some examples are asserted to include, democracy (ancient Athens), art (Renaissance period), social justice (John Rawls' Theory of Justice), religion (the life and teachings of Jesus Christ) and the rule of law (the Magna Carta).

Political concepts that may be mistakenly considered ECCs but may not fully meet the criteria: Sovereignty, citizenship, separation of powers, federalism and dictatorship. 

Q: Please list 7-10 common contested concepts that are not formally ECCs.

A: 1. Intelligence, 2. happiness, 3. success, 4. love, 5. health, 6. morality, 7. culture, 8. religion, 9. education, and 10. progress.

These concepts are often debated and interpreted differently by various individuals and groups, but they may not fully satisfy all of Gallie's criteria for ECCs. The distinction between contested concepts and ECCs can be subtle and depends on careful analysis of how the concept is used and debated in practice. (emphasis added)

OK, I give up. I clearly do not understand the concept of an ECC. Nor do I understand why it is important and useful to carefully distinguish an ECC from a CC, DCC, or whatever other label(s) makes sense. I am not even sure that Perplexity understands it.

An example of flawed reasoning; Cynicism or sincere?

Jeff Bezos published an explanation (not paywalled, I think) for him blocking the WaPo's endorsement of Harris, claiming that was needed to show journalistic "independence":

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose.

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.

Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves. (It wasn’t always this way — in the 1990s we achieved 80 percent household penetration in the D.C. metro area.)

While I do not and will not push my personal interest, I will also not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance — overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs — not without a fight. It’s too important. The stakes are too high. Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice, and where better for that voice to originate than the capital city of the most important country in the world? To win this fight, we will have to exercise new muscles. Some changes will be a return to the past, and some will be new inventions. Criticism will be part and parcel of anything new, of course. This is the way of the world. None of this will be easy, but it will be worth it.

Personally, I find Bezos' reasoning to be disingenuous, obviously flawed and unpersuasive, his comments insulting and his plan to make some changes in a return to the past threatening. His assertion that "increasingly we talk only to a certain elite" really pisses me off. Exactly who are these elites? Not me, that's for damn sure. He doesn't have the guts to tell us that by elites he means pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties, pro-rule of law citizens. He sees the handwriting and needs to appeal to authoritarians falsely claiming to be pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties and pro-rule of law.

His plan to go back to the past is a threat against democracy. What changes does Bezos have in mind? He is silent about that. I assume he intends to sink the WaPo to the low level of Faux News so that they can compete for those people listening to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources. 

Bezos is silent as to what he can do to increase the WaPo's credibility. From what I can tell, the most plausible tactic is to resort to what Faux News, crackpot podcasters and toxic social media do. If not that, then exactly what? Truth is truth, facts are facts. How can that possibly be distrust-inducing unless there are well-funded forces claiming that truth and facts are lies? Bezos' "reasoning" is nonsense.

Bezos' claim that he does not and will not push my personal interest is insulting, cynical and disingenuous. By quashing the Harris endorsement, he pushed personal interest. He was afraid of Trump and wanted to protect his wealth. His comments about the uselessness of endorsements is not even close to persuasive. What he did is direct evidence of non-independence from political threat. That is authoritarian, not democratic. 

A final criticism: An outrageous, insulting omission in Bezos' screed about low public trust in the mainstream media points to a critical part of American authoritarian infrastructure. Low public trust came from decades of authoritarian radical right dark free speech that relentlessly criticized the press and professional news media generally. Bezos' lament shifts all blame for low public trust on the media itself, instead of leveling most of the blame (85% ?) where it obviously belongs, namely America's authoritarian radical right propaganda Leviathan. Crackpots, creeps, cranks and cynical, divisive authoritarians from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to Faux News, the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich, Elon Musk, Christian nationalist hate and lies spewers and giant, anti-journalism special business interests (including plutocratic for-profit ownership) are the main reasons for low public trust. 

Bezos knows all of this and has no answer for it. So, instead of calling out the main culprit, he blames the media itself. To me, Bezos is an arrogant authoritarian, self-serving liar.

***************************

NPR reports that about 200,000 subscribers, about 8% of paid subscriptions, have canceled since Bezos was forced by his fear of Trump to publicly go rogue anti-journalism. Over time, my opinion of Bezos could change depending on what he does to the WaPo. But at present, it feels like what Rupert Murdoch did to the Wall Street Journal. That got me to drop my WSJ subscription years ago. I canceled my WaPo subscription but will have access until the end of next April. Between now and then what he does to the WaPo can convince me he is sincere and pro-democracy, or he can reinforce my bad opinion of him. My mind will remain open.

I’m fascinated by the concept of…

…Time.

Other than our perception of the “arrow of time” always moving in the “forward” direction, what is time really, other than a concept (idea) perceived (experienced by way of change)?  

Yes, time is fluid like that.  It’s a variable.  It’s relative.  It’s not really (ultimately) “real.”  It’s just circumstantially real.  It’s the act of perceiving change while being limited to a particular frame of reference.  That means, ultimately, for us, time is an illusion.  These are undisputed facts… unless and until we enter the realm of the philosophical/theoretical.  Then we might be able to worm our humanly-biased ECC way around them. 😁

As Einstein was said to have phrased it, “For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

I like that.  It has also been said that “Time is the fire in which we burn.”  It’s the medium in which our existence takes place.  I like that “waxing philosophical/poetic” idea too.

There is one truth we humans can hang onto, however.  We do, collectively, experience our own little personal slice of the time continuum.  It’s ours, and it’s where we “make our stand.”  But our slice is far from the “be all-end all” of time.  Personally, I suspect ours is not the “end of the time story.”  There has to be more to it… I think. 🤷‍♀️

Where am I going with this?  I’m wondering…

Is it a shortsighted/faulty premise to judge all (so-called) existence and (so-called) universal knowledge, merely based on our little limited slice of the time continuum?  Granted, our judgments and knowledge are valid, but only while in this, our personal time context. 

What about outside our time slice?  Go outside our default context, and conclusions and knowledge may break down in the greater scheme of the time continuum; what we know, or think we know, may no longer be applicable.  Not impossible, true?

So, let’s do some theoretical (outside the box) thinking, just for the fun of it.

1. When you consider time as something focal to our understanding of existence, how can we so easily dismiss the fluidity of time?  Is it because we can’t directly access time’s fluidity, even though it’s really there?  There, but not there, so to speak?  Out of sight, out of mind?  For example, here’s something amazing.  Do you know you are rotating around the earth’s merry-go-round at an incredible 24,000 miles per hour?  It’s true.  Don’t feel a thing, huh? 😉  How about your “Earth Car” racing at 67,000 miles/hour around the sun?  Still not feelin’ it?

2. Since we know for a fact that time is a variable, how might that play into our believed stoppage of time for a dead thing? Is it because they, the dead thing, no longer seemingly share our time slice?  Is it because there is no longer a vehicle (body) (entity) to be able to experience time? But isn’t that our “time slice experience” talking?  For the religious, is that where the idea of a soul comes in, to take care of the "time problem?"

3. How can the claim be made that existence outside our time continuum is invalid, since we have no access to time outside our slice?  Who could make that claim in good conscience?  Do they know they are basing that claim on limited knowledge?  Don’t they even care?

4. How do you think about this concept and precept of time?  Does it ever give you pause; make you think (or the dreaded “overthink”), 😵 like it does me?

Pick and choose among anything here that interests you.  Let your mind wander and wonder.  I know this is a monster tl;dr post and may not get many reads, but for those who do take the time, entertain me, for a change.

Thanks for indulging me and posting your ideas! 😊

(by PrimalSoup)

How the Dems discriminate . . . . against Dems, but in favor of Repubs; How Repubs discriminate

Standard false criticisms that America's authoritarian radical right constantly levels at Dems include constant claims that Dems disrespect, discriminates against and persecutes them. 

A WaPo article (not paywalled) points out how Dem discrimination and oppression plays out two years after the Inflation Reduction Act was passed into law:

Not a single Republican lawmaker voted for the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Since then, many of them have voted to repeal its clean energy provisions and criticized the law as a waste of taxpayer money.

But red districts have emerged as the climate law’s biggest winners. According to The Post’s analysis, congressional districts that favored Trump in the 2020 election received three times as much clean energy and manufacturing investments as those that leaned toward Biden.

Little dot on far right: Kentucky 5th congressional district: $150 million investments

1st big far right dot: Texas 19th district: $4.9 billion in investments

Not a single Republican lawmaker in congress voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, but not a single Republican state or federal lawmaker tried to turn the money down.

But, the authoritarians are right, the Dems do discriminate. Being the rabidly tyrannical socialist, communist pedophiles they are, they discriminate against themselves. Dems are just like the Suicide Squad sent to save Brian.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

CNN reported a few weeks ago:

Trump's attitude about disaster relief to

blue states when he was president

Politico reported a few days ago: ‘Outrageous abuse of power’: Trump spurned disaster pleas amid feud with governor -- Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee had to wait until President Joe Biden took office to get help for a deadly wildfire that occurred during the Trump administration.

See the difference between the two kinds of discrimination?

In Canada...............

 Is conservatism really on the rise in Canada?

(wrong headline btw, should really be asking is extreme rightwing politics on the rise in Canada?)

Make no mistake, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs lost big on Monday night. The province’s voters delivered a forceful rebuke of Higgs’ Progressive Conservatives similar to the 1995 election, when the party won only six seats against Frank McKenna’s Liberals.

(but that is just one province, yeah but, read on...........)

Historically, the Liberals have had inefficient support that’s been concentrated in safe francophone ridings. This time, they made inroads with anglophones beyond Moncton.

Higgs, among Canada’s most socially conservative premiers, lost his own safe seat of Quispamsis, which was the province’s most Conservative riding in the 2020 election.

Since gaining power in 2018, Higgs embraced a neoconservative social agenda.

Most notably, he triggered a national conversation on trans children’s recognition in schools. Using the language of “parental rights,” Higgs introduced parent consent restrictions for name and pronoun changes for children under 16.

Over time, Higgs supported anti-trans and anti-sex education protesters, even as many advocates, parents and educators raised concerns about the safety and mental well-being of LGBTQ+ youth.

It didn’t end there. Higgs erroneously suggested an Indigenous nation sought to claim most of the province from property owners. In 2021, his government discouraged land acknowledgements by provincial employees. Higgs also argued that Indigenous people had already ceded their land.

Higgs was successful in uniting the right. As a former leadership contender of the linguistic segregationist Confederation of Regions party, Higgs welcomed far-right People’s Alliance representatives to his party.

(now, this is where the rubber meets the road. unlike those south of the border, this kind of conservatism met with backlash - from conservatives)

On the province’s Policy 713, also called the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity policy, six PCs voted with an opposition motion against the proposed changes. Four were cabinet ministers.

Several ministers resigned from cabinet with letters blasting Higgs’ leadership.

Almost half of PC riding associations sought a leadership review. They fell just short of the minimum needed to trigger a review.

(conclusions?)

But his loss is more than a personal rejection. It also seems a rejection of a grievance politics that favours anger over substance.

After repeatedly focusing on social issues over matters like housing, the grievances lost their allure. Even for the most steadfast Conservative voters, Higgs’ targeting of minorities came across as bullying.

While Higgs may be the worst offender, he is not the only practitioner of grievance conservatism. Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith play the same tune. Will their political fates be any different?

https://theconversation.com/is-conservatism-really-on-the-rise-in-canada-blaine-higgs-big-loss-in-new-brunswick-suggests-not-241971

Attacks on anti-corruption laws continue to intensify: The attack on qui tam

Context

Qui tam lawsuit: A qui tam lawsuit is a legal action that allows private individuals, known as whistleblowers or relators, to file lawsuits on behalf of the government against entities that have committed fraud against the government. Qui tam lawsuits are primarily brought under the False Claims Act, a federal law that aims to recover funds lost to fraud against the government. Many states also have similar laws allowing qui tam actions for state-level fraud.

A whistleblower, often an employee or someone with inside knowledge, discovers fraud against the government. The whistleblower hires an attorney to file a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the government. The lawsuit is filed "under seal," meaning it remains confidential initially. The government investigates the allegations and decides whether to intervene in the case. If successful, the fraudster may have to pay up to three times the government's losses plus penalties.

Qui tam lawsuits have existed in the United States legal system for over 240 years. The concept of qui tam lawsuits was first introduced in the United States during the Revolutionary War era. In 1778, the Continental Congress passed the first whistleblower law that included qui tam provisions.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

The LA Times reports:

Column: A Trump judge just overturned the government’s most effective 

anti-fraud tool, which has stood for 160 years

Since 1986, whistleblowers have been in the forefront of the government’s war on fraud, accounting for $53 billion, or more than 70%, of the $75 billion recovered from swindlers on defense contracts, from Medicare and from other federal programs.

There’s no debate over what’s driving this record: It’s a 1986 federal law that awards whistleblowers up to 30% of the recovery. For the federal government, this is a bargain. Without the law, the government might never even know about most of the $75 billion in fraud that was unearthed.

That makes the law “one of the government’s top fraud-fighting tools,” says James King, a spokesman for the Anti-Fraud Coalition, a Washington watchdog group.

So perhaps it’s unsurprising that a Trump-appointed judge in Florida has just declared a key provision of the law unconstitutional. The provision concerns so-called qui tam actions, in which private litigants bring lawsuits on behalf of the government as well as themselves. (The Latin term came to us via old English law.)

The ruling came from federal Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, whom Trump named to the bench in 2020 despite her having been labeled “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn. due to her “lack of meaningful trial experience.” She did, however, boast a sterling right-wing legal pedigree, including service as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

A good example concerned the drug company Biogen, which paid $900 million to the federal and state governments in 2022 to settle a qui tam lawsuit in which a former employee alleged that the company had paid kickbacks to doctors to entice them to prescribe its multiple sclerosis drugs. (The company didn’t admit guilt in the settlement.)

The government had declined to intervene in the lawsuit but praised the relator for having “diligently pursued this matter on behalf of the United States” over a decade. The whistleblower collected about $250 million, or roughly 30% of the federal government’s share of the settlement.

I offer this as more evidence in addition to the already large amount of evidence from federal court decisions that America's authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement is deeply corrupt and openly hostile to anti-corruption laws.  

Whether this decision will be appealed to the USSC and upheld isn't clear to me. Clarence Thomas very likely would vote to uphold it. The other five Repubs on the bench are open questions. The USSC recently legalized bribery in government by requiring payoffs to come only after a judge or politician gets a "gratuity" or "reward", not a bribe, for doing something the donor likes. Given that level of support for legalized corruption, it seems reasonable to think the USSC would be inclined to uphold this decision. But if the egregiousness of tossing out qui tam lawsuits is more than even the six Repub radicals could stomach, maybe they will reverse this blatantly pro-corruption decision. 

Thinking about endorsements and breaking norms

SciAm breaks the norm of silence

A spate of controversy about newspapers endorsing or not endorsing Harris or Trump is making the rounds. Corey Doctorow writing for Medium comments:

Scientific American endorses Harris

“Conservatism never fails, it is only failed.”

If Trump’s norm-breaking is a threat to democracy (and it is), what should Democrats do? Will breaking norms to defeat norms only accelerate the collapse of norms, or do we fight fire with fire, breaking norms to resist the slide into tyranny?

Writing for The American Prospect, Rick Perlstein writes how “every time the forces of democracy broke a reactionary deadlock, they did it by breaking some norm that stood in the way.”

The tactic of bringing a norm to a gun-fight has been a disaster for democracy. Trump wasn’t the first norm-shattering Republican — think of GWB and his pals stealing the 2000 election, or Mitch McConnell stealing a Supreme Court seat for Gorsuch — but Trump’s assault on norms is constant, brazen and unapologetic. Progressives need to do more than weep on the sidelines and demand that Republicans play fair.

Luckily, some institutions are getting over their discomfort with norm-breaking and standing up for democracy. Scientific American the 179 year-old bedrock of American scientific publication, has endorsed Harris for President, only the second such endorsement in its long history.

Predictably, this has provoked howls of outrage from Republicans and a debate within the scientific community. Science is supposed to be apolitical, right?

Wrong. The conservative viewpoint, grounded in discomfort with ambiguity (“there are only two genders,” etc.) is antithetical to the scientific viewpoint. Remember the early stages of the covid pandemic, when science’s understanding of the virus changed from moment to moment? Major, urgent recommendations (not masking, disinfecting groceries) were swiftly overturned. This is how science is supposed to work: a hypothesis can only be grounded in the evidence you have in hand, and as new evidence comes in that changes the picture, you should also change your mind.

Conservatives hated this. They claimed that scientists were “flip-flopping” and therefore “didn’t know anything.” Many concluded that the whole covid thing was a stitch-up, a bid to control us by keeping us off-balance with ever-changing advice and therefore afraid and vulnerable.

This intolerance for following the evidence is a fixture in conservative science denialism. How many times have you heard your racist Facebook uncle grouse about how “scientists used to say the world was getting colder, now they say it’s getting hotter, what the hell do they know?” 

Sometimes, science can triumph over conservativism. But it’s far more common for conservativism to trump science. The most common form of this is “eisegesis,” where someone looks at a “pile of data in order to find confirmation in it of what they already ‘know’ to be true.” Think of those anti-mask weirdos who cling to three studies that “prove” masks don’t work. Or the climate deniers who have 350 studies “proving” climate change isn’t real.

Respecting norms is a good rule of thumb, but it’s a lousy rule. The politicization of science starts with the right’s intolerance for ambiguity — not Scientific American’s Harris endorsement. (emphases in original)

Can fighting norm-breaking fire with norm-breaking return fire be done in principled, good faith, pro-democracy ways? I don't see why not. In the midst of America's authoritarian radical right war on democracy and inconvenient facts and truths, sometimes one needs to do what is needed to mount a good defense. Norm breaking is not necessarily law breaking. 

After all, radical right authoritarians are openly attacking science they dislike. Is SciAm supposed to keep quiet in the name of allegedly apolitical science?  

But at this point in the war, what norms other than a few endorsements are left that can be broken to be meaningfully helpful in defending democracy? Is science supposed to be apolitical as the authoritarian radicals hypocritically claim? American's radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement politicized inconvenient science by weaponizing “bad” science, i.e., science contrary to radical authoritarian ideology. 

Overthinking...

 

What does "overthinking something" mean?  How would you define it?

Webster:

How does overthinking apply to politics?  Can that be done, and if so, how?  Explain it like I’m a 5-year-old.

(by PrimalSoup)

WaPo columnists respond to Bezos' tacit endorsement of Trump

Tens of thousands of people are angry at Jeff Bezos' decision to not endorse Harris. A group of 17 WaPo columnists published their response:

The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.

That is the entire response. Some comments that readers are making to the non-endorsement decision:

There is a larger picture here. American democracy is in serious, serious jeopardy. This isn't a slow-running coup any longer and it isn't just for Trump's benefit either. The world's oligarchs are all in now on this fascist takeover now. If America falls to these people, the rest of the world will soon follow. Our defense begins with defeating Trump and all Republicans soundly. But, this is a world-wide movement by the very, very rich. Removing Trump is just a start. Buckle up.

I just canceled my subscription. I never thought I would see the day when WaPo would be intimidated by the far right and not have the guts to endorse the candidate they know is best. I'm done. I will never read this paper again.

Don't care how you try to justify it. During a 'normal' election, the stakes wouldn't be so high, the danger to our country so plain to see. How there can be any question of neutrality when one of the candidates is so patently unfit? You coward, Bezos! Subscription already canceled.

I live in Los Angeles where we were stunned and angered by the decision of the LA Times not to endorse in this critical election and I come here as a longtime reader and subscriber of WaPo similarly stunned and angered by this paper's decision to do the same. Returning to your "origins"? How stupid do you think we are? As a wise friend of mine said when she heard about this, that's exactly how fascism works. ....

If you can't make a considered and thoughtful decision between these two candidates and then tell us your answer, why would we listen to anything else you have to say? Goodbye WaPo

I have been reading the Washington Post for over 60 years, even after moving to Canada over two decades ago. No more. The Bezos-imposed decision to not endorse a candidate in this consequential presidential election is a total abdication of journalistic and editorial responsibility in a democracy. I have canceled my subscription, effective immediately. Dr. Tommie Sue Montgomery, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

 

There are tens of thousands of comments like that. People are really angry.

The 2024 election: A true rock and hard place for some voters

Some voters are really unhappy. The New Republic reports:

“Extreme Danger”: Harris Earns a Stunning Endorsement Over Trump

More than 100 Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats and community leaders have signed a letter making the case for those reluctant to support Kamala Harris against Donald Trump.

“We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration’s complicity in the genocide,” the letter, published Thursday night, reads.

“Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can’t vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones,” the letter continued. “As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities.”

The letter describes an “awful situation where only flawed choices are available.”

“In our view, it is crystal clear that allowing the fascist Donald Trump to become President again would be the worst possible outcome for the Palestinian people. A Trump win would be an extreme danger to Muslims in our country, all immigrants, and the American pro-Palestine movement,” the letter states.

As if it was teed up and on-cue, various sources report this kind of context for the unhappiness:

Trump signals support in call with Netanyahu: ‘Do what you have to do’

Trump told Benjamin Netanyahu in one call this month, “Do what you have to do,” according to six people familiar with the conversation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive and confidential information. Trump has said publicly that the two have spoken at least twice in October, with one call as recently as Oct. 19.

“He didn’t tell him what to do militarily, but he expressed that he was impressed by the pagers,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), who was on a call this month with Trump and Netanyahu, referring to the Israeli operation that killed Hezbollah leaders with explosive batteries inside pagers. “He expressed his awe for their military operations and what they have done.”

Well, we all know that "do you have to do" means slaughtering Palestinians with even less restraint than before, which wasn't much. That is what scares the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in Arizona into endorsing Harris, much as they hate the US role in what they see as an ongoing genocide.

Q1: Are the ongoing wars/military conflicts in the Middle East going to blow up into WW3 or military conflict somewhat close to it?

Q2: How much blame does Harris get of the current bloody, tragic state of affairs in the Middle East, none, low, moderate, most, nearly all, or all? Same question for the immigration mess at the US border, which could be (probably will be) a necessary factor for DJT to win the election?