Social resistance to DJT; Regarding the intention eonomy

Yesterday, the daily dot reported about the last gasp effort to stop DJT from being sworn into office:

14th Now: Thousands expected to convene in nation’s capital 

to demand Congress bar Trump from office

This is our last chance to make our mark in this moment in history.

Donald Trump is set to become the 47th president on Jan. 20. In a last-ditch effort to keep him out of office, thousands are expected to show up in Washington D.C. and elsewhere this weekend to pressure lawmakers to refuse to certify his win.

If they’re successful, Vice President Kamala Harris (D) would become president.

They are among those who argue that the 14th Amendment bars Trump from becoming president. That amendment prohibits current and former officials who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. They claim that Trump’s involvement in the Capitol riot means just that.

The protest, which began today in Washington, D.C. and continues through the weekend, is called 14th Now. They’re using the hashtag #14thNow to promote it online.

The activists are encouraging those not attending in person to reach out to their members of Congress and ask them to object to certification of Trump’s electoral votes.

I wrote to my congressperson and both Senators, (i) asking them to refuse to refuse to certify DJT's win, (ii) informing them this is of the highest importance to me, and (iii) asking for their response to my request. We'll see if I even get a response. I doubt it.

FWIW, here's my email to my Senators:

Dear Senator Schiff (or Padilla),

Please oppose the certification of Trump as President on the basis of his deep involvement in his 1/6 insurrection against the US. He is unequivocally barred from serving in office under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. Your oath of office and respect for the rule of law in a democracy demand no less. This matter is of the highest importance to me. Thank you.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

There is a new front in the war on human minds by unscrupulous marketers, ideologues, plutocrats, theocrats, politicians and other morally debased opportunists! On Dec. 30, 2024, the HSDR (Harvard Data Science Review) posted an article about this nascent new war. Viewed from my cognitive biology and social behavior point of view, this constitutes an entirely new political, religious and economic gold rush. The HSDR calls it the intention economy. The HSDR sees this new mind war about the same way I see it, scary or worse. 

Long story short: Artificial intelligence gives the opportunists a way to discover and manipulate your intentions and motives to do or not do something, e.g., to buy or not buy a product or to vote for or against a political candidate. This new mind war is truly scary:

ABSTRACT

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) invites the possibility of a new marketplace for behavioral and psychological data that signals intent. This brief article [it's not brief, it's well over 4,500 words] introduces some initial features of that emerging marketplace. We survey recent efforts by tech executives to position the capture, manipulation, and commodification of human intentionality as a lucrative parallel to—and viable extension of—the now-dominant attention economy, which has bent consumer, civic, and media norms around users’ finite attention spans since the 1990s. We call this follow-on the intention economy. We characterize it in two ways. First, as a competition, initially, between established tech players armed with the infrastructural and data capacities needed to vie for first-mover advantage on a new frontier of persuasive technologies. Second, as a commodification of hitherto unreachable levels of explicit and implicit data that signal intent, namely those signals borne of combining (a) hyper-personalized manipulation via LLM-based sycophancy, ingratiation, and emotional infiltration and (b) increasingly detailed categorization of online activity elicited through natural language.

This new dimension of automated persuasion draws on the unique capabilities of LLMs and generative AI more broadly, which intervene not only on what users want, but also, to cite Williams, “what they want to want” (Williams, 2018, p. 122). We demonstrate through a close reading of recent technical and critical literature (including unpublished papers from ArXiv) that such tools are already being explored to elicit, infer, collect, record, understand, forecast, and ultimately manipulate, modulate, and commodify human plans and purposes, both mundane (e.g., selecting a hotel) and profound (e.g., selecting a political candidate).

CONCLUSION

The possibility for harm made feasible by a large-scale, multiparty intention economy merits sustained scholarly, civic, and regulatory scrutiny. In whatever way these data partnerships turn out in practice, the ambition of making conversational interfaces and generative AI systems unavoidable mediators of human–computer interaction signals a turn from the attention economy, whereby access to the limited resource of human attention is traded through advertising exchanges, to the intention economy, whereby commercial and political actors bid on signals that forecast human intent. This transition would empower diverse actors to intervene in new ways on shaping human actions. This ambition must be considered in light of the likely impact such a marketplace would have on other human aspirations, including free and fair elections, a free press, fair market competition, and other aspects of democratic life.

All of that is going on right now. As far as I can tell, the mainstream media has not picked up on this yet. It constitutes a vast new playing field for bad people and interests to (i) manipulate minds and beliefs, (ii) create false realities, and scarier yet, (iii) implant desires and motivations in a person's mind.  

Q: How well known is the concept of the intention economy, as exemplified in this article: https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/ujvharkk/release/1 ?

A: The concept of the intention economy is gaining traction in academic and tech circles but remains relatively niche in broader public discourse.

Attention vs. Intention: There's a distinction between the attention economy, which focuses on capturing user engagement, and the intention economy, which aims to predict and influence user decisions. Some discussions mistakenly conflate the two, but the intention economy goes beyond mere attention to actively shape consumer behavior.

Ethical Concerns: The intention economy raises significant ethical questions about privacy, autonomy, and manipulation. Researchers warn that without proper regulation, this economy could undermine fundamental societal values, including free and fair elections, a free press, and fair market competition.

Marketplace for Intentions: The intention economy envisions a marketplace where AI systems not only capture attention but also anticipate and influence user intentions. This could lead to a scenario where our decisions are influenced before we consciously make them, creating a new commercial frontier.

Hm, Perplexity sees it about the same way that HSDR and I see it. All the experts are agree!* Well brain war fans, there we have it. A whole new front against us has opened up and we are clueless.

* Just kidding.

Of course, this could also be used for good. But think about our current political, social, commercial, financial and religious situation. Where does the balance of power lie, with super wealthy, self-serving special interests and ideologies or public interest-serving ones? 

Q1: What array of forces and finances is most likely to more aggressively and more deeply apply this new kind of mental manipulation, (1) morally bankrupt for profit commercial interests and various kinds of authoritarians seeking power and wealth, or (2) nice people wanting to do good things for people and society?

Q2: Which political party is most likely going to oppose regulating the intention economy for wealth and power purposes, the Repubs, the Dems, or both about equally?

Q3: Can you see the potential for a further shift in the balance of power from the seriously weakened public interest to the already more powerful special interests?

Commentary on the rule of law; Global warming update: Propaganda for power & profit

The Financial Times editorial board writes:

America’s gathering legal storm

Donald Trump promises the mother of all stress tests for the US rule of law

The former attorney-general Bill Barr alleged that in his first term Trump suggested that rivals be “executed”. Barr said that he did not worry about Trump’s impulses because he knew they would be thwarted. 

Such complacency is no longer merited. The Supreme Court last July significantly boosted Trump’s powers by granting near sweeping immunity to the “official acts” of the US president. In theory this could include assassinating political adversaries. In practice, it will almost certainly include legal witch hunts against Trump’s detractors in politics, the media and civil society. Some of them, such as Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman, and Mark Milley, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, he has repeatedly singled out.

The FT editorial goes on to point out DJT's low quality cabinet appointees and his outright contempt for international law as evidence of pressure on the rule of law generally. His public track record of criminality, treason, felony convictions, outrageous courtroom shenanigans, and open contempt for the rule of law all speak loud and clear. The intent of DJT and MAGA elites to subvert the rule of law cannot be much clearer. How our democracy responds, or fails to respond, is the open question. 

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

The fossil fuel industry has been running a large propaganda campaign for decades to promote pollution for power and profit. Industry tactics are well-known in propaganda campaigns, e.g., lying, delaying, slandering opposition and inconvenient science and scientists, distracting society and confusing the situation. Global warming is denied, distorted or downplayed.

CleanTechnica writes about a gigantic lie about solar energy the polluters and sympathetic news sources like the Wall Street Journal are spreading:

Fossil Fuel Interests Ramp Up Their “Solar Makes 

Electricity More Expensive” Falsehood

In the run-up to Trump 2.0, the fossil fuel industry is trotting out its biggest guns to attack renewable energy and electric cars, which should come as no surprise. They paid to get him elected and now they want to make sure they get the maximum return on their investment. This morning there were two emails in my “solar power” news alert that caught my eye. One was a headline from the Wall Street Journal that screamed, “Green Electricity Costs a Bundle. The data make clear — The notion that solar and wind power save money is an environmentalist lie.” The second was from a Koch Industries mouthpiece in Canada called the Fraser Institute that proclaimed, “Solar and wind power make electricity more expensive — that’s a fact.”

When faced with such outrageous and downright scary news from the likes of the Wall Street Journal and the Fraser Institute .... I reached out to Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University.

Mark responded with an information-packed email but also with a link to a study published December 22, 2024, by the journal Renewable Energy authored by himself and his colleagues that addresses precisely the questions raised by the WSJ and the Fraser Institute. Here’s what he had to say in response to my SOS for information.

“Table 1 of the paper shows that 10 of the 11 U.S. states with higher fractions of their demand powered by renewables are among the 20 states with the lowest U.S. electricity prices. Six of the states are among the 10 states with the lowest prices. For example, from October 1, 2023 until September 30, 2024, South Dakota (ranked #1 in terms of its penetration of WWS [wind, water (hydropower), solar] renewables relative to demand) provided 110% of the electricity it consumed from just wind (77.5%), hydro (30.1%), and solar (2.2%) yet had the 9th-lowest electricity price in the U.S. in March, 2024. South Dakota also produced another 16% of its electricity from fossil gas and 11.2% from coal so produced a total of 137% of the electricity it consumed but exported the additional 37%. Similarly, Montana (ranked #2) and Iowa (#3) supplied 86.5% and 79.4% of their demand with WWS but had the 8th and 12th-lowest prices.

“California (#12) also had high prices (ranked #49). However, it is easy to show California’s high prices have nothing to do with increasing renewables. For example, the same paper in Figure 8 shows that the spot (instantaneous) price of electricity in California dropped by over 50% during the period of interest covered by the paper (March 7 to June 30) 2024 versus 2023 despite a big growth in solar, wind, and batteries in 2024 versus 2023. A lower spot price means it is easier to match demand with supply. Spot prices dropped over 50% despite far more WWS on the grid in 2024 indicating renewables reduce the risk of blackout and make it easier to match demand.

“So why are California’s electricity prices so high? They are high for several reasons that have nothing to do with renewables. These include high fossil gas prices (3rd highest in U.S.), utilities passing on to customers the cost of wildfires due to transmission-line sparks, the cost of undergrounding transmission lines to reduce such fires, the costs of the San Bruno and Aliso Canyon fossil gas disasters, the cost of retrofitting gas pipes following San Bruno, the cost of upgrading aging transmission and distribution lines, and the cost of keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open. In sum, available data indicate that increasing the share of WWS reduces electricity price throughout the US. When high prices occur, they are not due to WWS.”

The error that both the Wall Street Journal and the Fraser Institute make in their articles is an example of the sort of trick apologists for the fossil fuel industry pull all the time. Because the price of electricity in Texas spiked after a winter storm, it must be because of those damned solar and wind farms (in fact, solar came through for ERCOT big time when the thermal generating stations failed). If the cost of electricity in Germany has gone up, it must be because of solar, not because Germany decided to take its nuclear power plants off line with little prior planning. (emphases added)

The war against democracy, the rule of law and the public interest that DJT and MAGA are currently engaged in is heavily funded, broad, deep, sophisticated and powerful. Attacks are coming simultaneously from hundreds of sources, including supportive, deceived and/or subverted mainstream media like the WSJ, the US supreme court, the Republican Party, many big corporations, including ones that own mainstream media conglomerates, and the Christian nationalist theocracy movement. Low information members of society are significantly deceived and mostly defenseless against the onslaught. They have been conned and betrayed. 

Mandatory service or no?

 

Should the United States Enact Mandatory National Service?

Should any country? 

Mandatory national service (also called compulsory service) is a requirement, generally issued by the federal government, that people serve in the military or complete other works of service, most often as young people, but age requirements vary. Modern propositions for compulsory service in the United States include young Americans serving in the military or working on civilian projects such as teaching in low-income areas, helping care for the elderly, or maintaining infrastructure, among other ideas.

https://www.britannica.com/procon/mandatory-national-service-debate

More snippets from the link:

More recently, between 2003 and 2013, former U.S. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) made five unsuccessful attempts to pass the Universal National Service Act, which would have required all people in the United States between ages 18 and 42 to either serve in the military or perform civilian service specifically related to national defense.

Many countries require national military service of some or all citizens, including Brazil, Greece, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Requirements for each country vary; in Israel, for example, military service is mandatory for women, too.

Globally, a few countries have nonmilitary national service. Nigeria (as example) has a social mandatory service requirement for college graduates: the National Youth Service Corps

U.S. public opinion on mandatory national service is split but changing, moving in favor of mandatory service. In a 2013 poll, 59% of younger voters ages 18 to 39 strongly opposed such a system. In a 2017 Gallop Poll, 57% of 18- to 29-year-olds opposed mandatory service.  But in 2023 survey, 75% of young people aged 18–24—those most affected by the proposal—supported an 18-month mandatory national service program (if they received compensation for their service, free room and board during their service, and could choose from either civilian or military service options)

More to consider:

As Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine reminds European countries about the importance of manpower, many are once again weighing the promise and perils of compulsory military service.

While most European militaries suspended mandatory military service after the end of the Cold War, some retained it. And several countries, such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden, have in recent years reinstated conscription in response to a changing security environment. In the last several months, Western European politicians, including in Germany and the United Kingdom, have publicly pondered the benefits of returning to mandatory military service. 

In Denmark, Latvia, and Lithuania, the selection of recruits is lottery-driven. Lithuania reintroduced conscription in 2015 after Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine and illegal purported annexation of Crimea the year before. Lithuania requires somewhere around 3,500 to 4,000 male citizens between ages eighteen and twenty-three to enlist for either six or nine months of military service each year. After their service, the conscripted soldiers then become reserves for the Lithuanian Armed Forces. According to the Lithuanian Armed Forces, since conscription was reinstated, the majority of eligible males has enrolled voluntarily in military service. 

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/europes-conscription-challenge-lessons-from-nordic-and-baltic-states?lang=en

I suspect the reaction in the U.S (and likely Canada) would be HELL NO! That aside, should some form of mandatory service be instituted? Would YOU be in favor of such a program? 

Kleptocracy in the law; Stupidity in regulations

Last August I posted about the radical right authoritarian USSC decision in a case called Loper Bright. In July, I posted about the likely horrific impacts Loper Bright. In that lawsuit, Republicans on the USSC gutted a long-standing (1984) USSC legal decision called the Chevron defense. The Cheveron defense required courts to give deference to federal agency regulations that implement the usually incoherent laws that congress writes and passes. Last August, the US Air Force was relying on the Loper Bright decision to blow off environmental regulations the EPA was trying to impose. 

Today, the NYT writes (not paywalled) about a major repercussion from the incredibly damaging, hyper-radical Loper Bright decision: 

Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Appeals Court

After nearly two decades of fighting, the battle over regulations that treat broadband providers as utilities came to an end on Thursday

A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s landmark net neutrality rules on Thursday, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate broadband internet providers as utilities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to reinstate rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to internet content. In its opinion, a three-judge panel pointed to a Supreme Court decision in June, known as Loper Bright, that overturned a 1984 legal precedent that gave deference to government agencies on regulations.

“Applying Loper Bright means we can end the F.C.C.’s vacillations,” the court ruled.

The court’s decision put an end to the Biden administration’s hallmark tech policy, which had drawn impassioned support from consumer groups and tech giants like Google and fierce protests from telecommunications giants like Comcast and AT&T.

The F.C.C. had voted in April to restore net neutrality regulations, which expand government oversight of broadband providers and aim to protect consumer access to the internet.  

The regulations were first put in place nearly a decade ago under the Obama administration and were aimed at preventing internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast from blocking or degrading the delivery of services from competitors like Netflix and YouTube.

As is usual in law and politics these days, wealthy special interests and their money talk and the public interest walks. This is a great example of that truth. The radicalized Republican USSC, DJT and MAGA have been on the side of killing the Chevron defense. That is an effective way to get rid of dozens or hundreds of all kinds of regulations that protect the environment, consumers and workers. In this case, ISPs like Verizon can now jack up prices and profits without regulatory hindrance. Consumers will pay more. Verizon and other corporate winners here might feel compelled provide a “gratuity” (formerly called a bribe) to the appeals court and the USSC for a fine job well done.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

This NYT article describes some of the basis for hostility to federal regulations. The problem is that some regulations are worse than merely stupid. Some cause harm. By smearing all regulations as the basically the same, MAGA has finally managed to kill off essentially the entire federal regulatory infrastructure by killing the Chevron defense. The main targets of MAGA are regulations that protect the environment, consumers and workers. The NYT writes about a stupid regulation and an equally stupid fix:

The Most Reliable Scapegoat in Politics? Red Tape.

Less regulation is an easy rhetorical pitch. Better regulation is harder to stump for

Just before the November election, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington’s Third Congressional District, posted a video explaining why she was running to keep her seat. Unlike many other Democrats, she didn’t talk about Donald Trump or the state of democracy. She talked about fruit. She dressed casually and spoke directly, like one parent sharing a grievance with another at the playground. It all started, she said, when a constituent who worked at a day-care facility complained to her that she was not “legally allowed to peel bananas or oranges for the kids.” Why not? “She said peeling fruit is considered food prep.” (Here Gluesenkamp Perez tightened her eyebrows, as in: Can you believe it?) Even worse, while peeling a healthful banana was against the rules, opening a bag of potato chips was apparently fine.

The congresswoman looked into it. At first, she said, the regulators she talked to gave her the runaround, insisting that this wasn’t what the rules said. [hence public hostility toward regulators and regulations] But eventually she concluded that it was true: This day care would need to install “like six more sinks” to meet the legal requirements to serve fresh fruit. To Gluesenkamp Perez, this was an absurd example of how regulations that made “good reading on paper” [how could that reg ever look good on paper?] easily went awry in “the real world,” a policy emblematic of “an ingrained disregard for working people by policymakers in D.C.”

This video is part of a long tradition of bashing American bureaucracy and a perfect example of how easy it can be. Candidates perennially tell us that they’re the ones who understand the pain of being constrained by thickets of red tape — the warriors of common sense who will pick up a machete and hack away at the meddling of clueless elites who gaze down on real life from up high.

Trump often goes further, casting the entire administrative state as useless at best and a malevolent, corrupt, anti-American fifth column at worst and pledging to empower business-world titans like Elon Musk to hew through it in search of inefficiency. In the aftermath of Trump’s victory, politicians of both parties clearly feel some pressure to communicate that they understand this zeitgeist; Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, quickly declared himself ready to work with the proposed Department of Government Efficiency to “slash waste.”

When I read the bill, though — officially titled the Cutting Red Tape on Child Providers Act of 2024 — it turned out to be, well, not particularly concrete, even as an exercise in messaging. It proposes just one change: the addition of a single sentence to the federal law governing block grants to states to support child-care programs. Any state that takes these grants, the new sentence says, must “not create any barriers on the simple preparation” — defined as “washing, peeling, cutting and serving” — “of fresh fruits and vegetables.”

To which I could only think: Hold on. No barriers? I’ve never worked in a day care, but I drop my kids off at one most weekdays, bearing partial witness to the endless flows of snot and other bodily fluids that turn such places into potent germ-distribution centers. It seems uncontroversial to say that some barriers on fruit preparation might be welcome — say, not washing it in the same sink where children are cleaning up after using the bathroom, or at least washing your hands before serving it. These things are “common sense,” but codifying “common sense” is a great deal of what rules do. To borrow Gluesenkamp Perez’s own phrasing: “No barriers” sounds nice on paper, but what about the real world?

The two topics in this blog post are deeply entwined with each other. Both are essential tools in the rise of kleptocratic American radical right authoritarianism. MAGA elites desperately want to get rid of regulations so they can profit from fun activities like political payoffs, plunder, pollution and persecution of consumers, workers and the environment. MAGA elites demagogue the hell out of the deep state with its allegedly tyrannical and sometimes actually stupid regulations.

Getting rid of regulations is one of the key requirements to the rise of kleptocracy. The other two keys are (1) getting rid of anti-fraud oversight, e.g., by replacing independent inspector generals with corrupt DJT loyalists as Project 2025 proposes, and (2) neutering law enforcement for elites who tow the MAGA line, and properly tip their federal judges, congresspersons and of course DJT himself.

America's consumers, workers and environment need smart regulations that work reasonably well with the lowest practical adverse impact for regulated interests. That is smart, reasonable regulation. What authoritarian MAGA kleptocrats want is little to no regulation for elites and lots of control over the people, i.e., by gutting civil liberties and protective regulations. 

An analysis of America's Afghanistan failure: The role of kleptocracy

A NYT opinion by John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan dissects the disaster. The bottom line is that we were lied to and our own system was rigged to hide catastrophic failure from the American people and most of the US government. Vast corruption shot through the whole doomed enterprise. Sopko writes:

The collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan on Aug. 15, 2021, revealed what little American lives and money had purchased over 20 years there. It also laid bare a gaping disconnect between reality and what senior U.S. officials had been telling Americans for decades: that success was just around the corner.

As the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction since 2012, my staff and I have audited and investigated U.S. programs and spending to rebuild Afghanistan ....

In hundreds of reports over the last 12 years, we have detailed a long list of systemic problems: The U.S. government struggled to carry out a coherent strategy, fostered overly ambitious expectations, started unsustainable projects and did not understand the country or its people. American agencies measured success not by what they accomplished, but by dollars spent or checklists of completed tasks.

Why did so many senior officials tell Congress and the public, year after year, that success was on the horizon when they knew otherwise?

A perverse incentive drove our system. To win promotions and bigger salaries, military and civilian leaders felt they had to sell their tours of duty, deployments, programs and projects as successes — even when they were not. Leaders tended to report and highlight favorable information while obscuring that which pointed to failure. After all, failures do not lead to an ambassadorship or an elevation to general.

The sudden collapse of the Afghan government and rise of the Taliban showed that the United States could not buy favorable Afghan perceptions of the country’s corrupt leaders and government, or of America’s intentions.

Yet over two decades — and even as Afghan provinces fell like dominoes in the summer of 2021 — I do not recall any senior official telling Congress or the American people that failure was a real possibility.

Official statements across successive U.S. presidential administrations were, in my view, often simply untrue. Just six days before the Afghan government collapsed, the Pentagon press secretary declared that Afghanistan had more than 300,000 soldiers and police officers, even though the special inspector general’s office had been warning for years that no one really knew how many soldiers and policemen were available, nor what their operational capabilities were. As early as 2015, I informed Congress that corrupt Afghan officials were listing “ghost” soldiers and police officers on rosters, and pocketing the salaries. (emphases added)

One of the problems the US could not fix was the fact that Afghanistan was and still is a true kleptocracy. Feeding into that intractable problem was all US money flowing through the various NGO and US agencies. Everybody wanted to keep the cash flowing. What happened in Vietnam also happened in Afghanistan.

 In 2015, anti-corruption expert Sarah Chayes published her book, Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security [1]. Chayes made it obvious obvious that the US was doomed to fail. It took years before she understood what Afghanistan was really like, i.e., Vietnam before the US got kicked out:

Chayes co-founded a charity “of unclear mission,” that was run by President Hamid Karzai's brother, Qayum. “At first I believed Qayum’s description of himself as constituting a ‘loyal opposition’ to his younger brother the president. . . . . Not for years would I begin systematically comparing his seductively incisive words with his deeds. .... I had, in other words, been an accessory to fraud.”

One big point here is that kleptocracy is real and it really does threaten global security. Chayes warned us again about corruption in 2024 a few weeks before the election[1]. People other than Chayes have been warning about growing corruption in the US. All the warnings have been ignored. 

The US is on the verge of becoming a true kleptocracy run by various morally rotted, radical right authoritarian kleptocrats, e.g., Christian nationalists, the brazenly autocratic DJT, his autocratic Republican Party, the authoritarian US supreme court, and various oligarch billionaires and multi-, multi-millionaires.

Too bad we do not learn from our mistakes. This time it will very likely cost us dearly. Trillions in theft per year is a scenario that is now truly on the horizon. We are powerless to stop it because both parties want the cash.

One last point: Was the US government really ignorant about how bad the situation in Afghanistan was? I rather doubt it. But if it really was mostly ignorant, that points to gross incompetence, deep corruption and/or complicity in the charade, knowing or not.

Footnote:

1. In Oct. 2024, Chayes urgently warned about corruption among Democrats and the Democratic Party. By then, she knew that the Republicans already were truly kleptocratic. The GOP had become completely impervious to warnings about deepening corruption: 

For a party that wraps itself in the mantle of truth and integrity, pointing across the aisle and saying “they’re worse” is not good enough. For the sake of their electoral fortunes, not to mention the country they purport to serve, Democrats must show voters a serious plan to curb corruption and corporate crime — including within their own ranks.

Since 1987, U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats have largely concurred in a series of decisions narrowing what legally qualifies as corruption.

Although liberal justices dissented in the most recent such ruling — which legalized what amounts to bribes, so long as the money is paid after the official renders the service — almost all the previous votes in these cases were unanimous.  

With this kind of track record, Democrats’ effort to contrast themselves with the lawlessness of Mr. Trump’s Republicans can be taken only so seriously.

An important rhetoric lesson: Criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric

A comment here and a post at Law Dork by Chris Geidner raises the issue of criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric such as mockery, insults, irrationality, assertions of logic fallacies (crackpottery), lying, slandering and disrespect, including violation of the Principle of Charity in rhetoric.

 

Geidner raises this issue in the context of chief justice Roberts criticizing legitimate vs illegitimate criticism of judges:

John Roberts attacks court criticism that 

he decides lacks a “credible basis” as “illegitimate”

Conflating violence against judges with broad criticism the court faces for its extremism, the chief justice ultimately sends a chilling end-of-year report

 

Chief Justice John Roberts decided to take on critics of the U.S. Supreme Court in his annual end-of-year report on Tuesday with a disingenuous half-response that is nonetheless instructive — and disturbing — for what he does say.

On the last day of the year, the chief justice of the United States traditionally releases his end-of-year report. It generally addresses a topic of the year in a vague and uninspiring way, leading to little coverage and even less change. This year, however, the nine pages from Roberts come across as more of a lashing out than a reasoned report.

While acknowledging that “the courts are no more infallible than any other branch,” Roberts spent the second half of the report conflating violence and lies with legitimate criticism. He does so, moreover, while completely ignoring the ethical questions that have swirled around the court and Roberts’s leadership of it over the past two years, as well as substantive opposition to the court’s rulings.

The end result is a chilling, if vague, condemnation by Roberts of the widespread opposition to the extremism exhibited by the high court in its decisions and the ethical failings of justices responsible for those decisions.

Roberts writes:

I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that, in my view, do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.

This is Roberts’s point in this once-a-year moment he is given — to highlight what he views as “illegitimate” criticism of the court.

Then, in the low-water mark of Roberts’s report, he made what I think is an extremely concerning comment, coming from the head of the federal judiciary:

Public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.

Putting aside the questionable, subjective nature of assessing whether there is a “credible basis” for such claims, by providing no examples, Roberts was damning all manner of utterly legitimate, appropriate, and even necessary speech from public officials as illegitimate intimidation.

So, what I take from Chief Justice John Roberts’s report to the nation is that judges are supposed to be able to handle criticism, but not too much and not in a way that Roberts doesn’t like, and he will only vaguely tell us what that means, but if criticism crosses that invisible line it is illegitimate.

Got it.  

The words “ethics” or “ethical” do not appear even once in Roberts’s report.

After reading the year-end report (here), I basically agree with Geidner’s analysis. Roberts’ report is an immoral, partisan, authoritarian demagoguery. The intentional vagueness that permeates his report amounts to a logic fallacy called the Fallacy of Vagueness. This fallacy occurs when an argument depends upon the vagueness of its terms, leading to confusion or misinterpretation. Confusion arises when an argument’s validity or persuasiveness relies on terms that are not clearly defined or have borderline cases where it’s unclear whether they apply or not.

Alternatively, Roberts may be primarily using the Ambiguity Fallacy, e.g., in referring to disinformation and intimidation[1] as examples of “illegitimate” activity that threatens the independence of judges. Assertions of truth by one source can turn out to be disinformation. 

Criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric is an issue I’ve thought about for years. When does legitimate criticism cross the line into irrational or "unprincipled" negative rhetoric? 

In my own writing, I criticize a lot but try not to cross the line into irrational or unprincipled negative rhetoric such as slanders, mockery, insults or disrespect toward the targets of my criticisms. Applying the Principle of Charity in mind helps with limiting disrespect. 

But no matter how principled me or anyone can try to be, at least some targets will see unprincipled negative rhetoric or rhetorical or logic fallacy. They call foul where none was intended. Sometimes they will be right because a person failed to stay on the side of principled criticism. In the case of honest mistake, all a person can do is accept and correct them. But sometimes, probably usually, it is not possible to come to agreement. Minds and perceptions of reality rarely change.

Both the “fallacy of vagueness” and the “fallacy of ambiguity” involve unclear language in an argument. The key distinction is that vagueness refers to a term with unclear boundaries or borderline cases, where the meaning is not precisely defined, while ambiguity means a term has multiple, distinct meanings that could be interpreted differently in the same context; essentially, vagueness is about “how much” of something, while ambiguity is about “which thing” is being referred to.

Q: Does my rhetoric too often stray from rational or principled criticisms into some form of irrational or unprincipled negative rhetoric?

Footnote:

1. The concept of disinformation is contested. Although there are common elements in the definitions of disinformation—such as the intent to deceive or cause harm—the term's application and interpretation are subject to significant debate and variation. This reflects not only the complexity of the issue but also the diverse contexts in which disinformation arises, from political campaigns to public health crises. 

The concept of intimidation is similarly contested.

Vox has the answer............

 OR................ pie in the sky sermonizing?

You decide:

https://www.vox.com/even-better/383873/coping-strategies-trump-presidency-processing

Some snippets:

Americans disheartened by this year’s election results may find themselves in a 2016 redux. Facing yet another Donald Trump presidency, you might be asking yourself: How do I cope? How will I steel myself to do it all over again for the next four years? This time around, Trump and his allies have vowed to deport millions of people, fire civil servants and appoint loyalists in their stead, and further restrict abortion access. These policies are genuinely distressing and can feel overwhelming for the many millions of people who will be affected by them.

But it is not 2016. Having a clear-eyed plan for how you’ll handle what lies ahead is more protective than succumbing to despair. You can take the lessons learned to buttress your coping skills and avoid psychological exhaustion to make it through the coming days — and the next four years.

Processing emotions requires quiet time with your thoughts. It’s important in this moment to tune out distractions, like social media, and resist avoidant coping strategies, such as sleeping or doomscrolling, and sit with your feelings instead — whether out in nature or while meditating in your living room. 

(sure sure, yup, we all gonna avoid doomscrolling, yup yup)

So, what is the solution you ask, well, read on............

instead of devoting your attention to things you have no power to change, like the enactment of specific policies or Cabinet appointments, focus on what you do have control over. Choose one issue that resonates with you and find ways to get involved locally. “It might be organizing something at the grassroots level to support new families who need child care, It could be going to a city council meeting to talk about housing.”

Knowing your neighbors and finding local groups of people who champion the same causes as you can help you form community. Mobilize to find events and volunteer opportunities near you. Think about what makes you feel like you’ve made a difference in the world. Is it protesting? Working with a mutual aid organization? Making dinner for your elderly neighbor? Ask yourself what issue in your town or city matters the most to you and how you could make an impact there.

“How we live is not really a question that’s intrinsically tied to a political outcome, Obviously, it has real-life impact, globally and personally, but that philosophical question of how you live your life is not something that can be dictated by other people.”

OR..........just escape to Canada. 

New Year's fiddly bits

 Aw geez, the news is just soooo good right now. A few fiddly bits are in order.

Fiddly bits

"You f**king deserve it": Lemon mocks "dumb" MAGA fans blindsided by Trump backing Musk visa push -- "Oh my gosh, I love this," Lemon said in a 40-minute video posted to his YouTube channel. "Now you’re finding out, you dumb f**ing idiots. Now you’re just figuring this s**t out. You’re so f**king stupid, and you deserve it. And you f**king deserve it because you’re so dumb. It’s hypocrisy. So go with me here. Yes. I am gloating over your stupidity and how you were taken. I’m cracking. I’m cackling – I am. You have been co-opted because you’re in a f**ing cult and you don’t even realize it because you have stupid MAGA brain, and you don’t get it. How stupid and dumb are you?" -- "We haven’t fought these battles over years and years and years to allow American citizens of every race, ethnicity, religion, be gutted by the sociopathic overlords in Silicon Valley,” Steve Bannon said on his podcast War Room on Monday.

Goodness gracious & great balls 'o fire! Don seems to be a bit vexed with MAGA voters over the outcome of the election. And Steve is in a snit too! Things seem to be degenerating into enraged irrationality.

Q: Have the wheels come off the cart of civilized democracy?

Nope, we're good -- wheels still on!

Whooping cough cases surge across the US as vaccinations decline -- The CDC reports more than 32,000 cases — a number nearly six times higher than this time last year -- Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is a contagious respiratory illness, but it is preventable with a common vaccine. For many, it can start with symptoms similar to the common cold, such as a runny nose, low-grade fever, and cough. However, a very painful cough can develop a week or two later. Coughing fits can become so severe that infected people vomit or break their ribs.

They break their ribs?? Quick, get JFK Jr on the klaxon! Get rid of the polio vaccine. That will get rid of whooping cough!

Chief Justice Roberts condemns elected officials for intimidating judges -- “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,” Roberts wrote. “Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”

Seriously?? Yabbut whaddabout supreme court judge's intemperate rulings that cause elected Republicans and other forms of extremist crackpot to (i) trash innocent people's lives, democracy and the environment, and (ii) get away with massive theft and corruption, e.g., via forced birth laws, voter suppression laws, obliteration of gun safety laws and legalization of (a) bribery in the federal government, and (b) crimes and treason by a US president? Those can and have caused dangerous reactions by others, sometimes lethal, to your insanely intemperate rulings!  

Elon Musk changes his name to Kekius Maximus on X --- Elon Musk changed his username to "Kekius Maximus" and updated his profile picture to an image of Pepe the Frog dressed in Roman attire. This action significantly impacted the cryptocurrency's value, causing it to surge by over 700%! "Kekius" appears to be a Latinization of "kek", a word roughly equivalent to "laugh out loud" popularized by gamers but now often associated with the alt right. "Kek" is also the name of the ancient Egyptian god of darkness, who is sometimes depicted with the head of a frog.

700%?? MAGA!! But Kekius Maximus? That inspires memories of Biggus Dickus.

OMG, Elon (Pepe the Frog) has done it again!

A 700% gain while playing a video game!

The Biggus Dickus scene

Elon Musk channels Hillary Clinton in calling Trump supporters ‘contemptible fools’ amid H-1B visa debate -- Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is digging in his heels in his defense of H-1B visas, saying some Trump supporters are “contemptible fools” who “must be removed from the Republican Party, root and stem.” -- Good grief, now those poor MAGA voters are getting flack from sociopathic Silicone Valley Overlords! 

A blast from the past: Memo from 1970: ‘A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News’ --  John Cook found “a remarkable document buried deep within the Richard Nixon Presidential Library” that addresses how to circumvent the “prejudices of network news” and deliver “pro-administration” stories to heartland television viewers. -- The memo explains why television was the way to go: Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.

American kleptocracy update

I wanted to start the new year with a bang! 

Two posts today for the price of one!!

Corruption in congress is bipartisan and increasingly aggressive. Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute reports a new change being enacted by the House "Ethics" Committee that he says amounts to a "New Year's Eve ethics massacre." Schuman writes:

The New Years' Eve Ethics Massacre

The House Ethics Committee's decisions let congressmen put campaign cash in their pockets and make other allegations of misusing their offices disappear

For context, congress's independent ethics watchdog, the Office of Congress Ethics (OCE), raised the alarm on four members of Congress. They issued six reports on suspected improper activities of Rep. Alex Mooney, in reports dated July 23, 2021 and December 22, 2021, Rep. Sanford Bishop, in a report dated February 10, 2020, Rep. Ronny Jackson, in reports dated December 22, 2021 and March 25, 2024, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, in a report dated March 25, 2024.

The OCE is not empowered to make final determinations or punish members of Congress, but they do conduct investigations and make recommendations to the House Ethics Committee regarding their findings. OCE sent the Ethics Committee six reports on member misconduct that sat unaddressed for as long as 1,785 days.

The Ethics Committee is composed equally of Democrats and Republicans. Members are appointed by the Speaker or the Minority Leader. The purpose of the Ethics Committee is to police member misconduct, its apparent purpose is to insulate members of Congress from accountability for ethical misconduct, except when leadership withdraws their protection from a particular member.

The Committee is not a court of law. It cannot put anyone in jail. It was created by the House of Representatives to establish and enforce official standards of conduct. Those official standards of conduct are significantly broader than criminal law and are intended to protect the integrity and reputation of the House of Representatives. As a result, the Committee should be quicker to act than a court of law and should act on a wider range of issues.

As a historical matter, the Ethics Committee failed so publicly at its mission after the turn of the millennium that the pretense it is focused on ethics could no longer be credibly maintained. In response to the public outcry, the House established the independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) in March 2008 to clean up the culture of corruption in Congress.

That corruption festered when Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans essentially agreed to avoid investigating anyone for misconduct. 

On December 30th, 2024, the House Ethics Committee "resolved" the OCE's allegations of misconduct against the four members by issuing new guidance on the personal use of campaign funds and wiping away those allegations and others. The Ethics Committee made three important decisions.

First, the Ethics Committee decided that the Congressional prohibition on using campaign donations for personal use is limited to instances that violate federal law. The House of Representatives' rules are broader than the language codified in statute, so they narrowed its application.

Second, the Ethics Committee made it virtually impossible to prove that a member of Congress violated the rules. The Ethics Committee declared guidance from the Federal Election Committee with respect to conversion of funds are "ambiguous" and provide for "significant gray areas." Accordingly, the Ethics Committee decided it would not punish Members who converted those funds unless there was evidence "that any Member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit." They required specific proof that a Member intended to misuse campaign funds in knowing violation of the rules. And then they looked the other way.

Third, the Ethics Committee made OCE allegations regarding other violations of the House rules disappear without a trace.

Well there it is. Legalized and normalized corruption is right out in the open. Worse, it is bipartisan. I thought that DJT and MAGA were the key forces behind the rising tide of kleptocracy in American politics. Kleptocratic impulses in the Democratic Party apparently are about as bad as those of MAGA. I became aware of serious Democratic Party pro-corruption sympathy when Nancy Pelosi condoned insider trading by members of congress in 2021. It's not clear if there is a significant difference between the Dems and Repubs when it comes to kleptocracy and corruption in government.

It's not corruption, it's just participating 

in a free economy 🤪

(based on insider knowledge)

Last Oct., I posted about a NYT opinion by Sarah Chayes. That was about corruption in the Dem Party. Chayes is a long-time critic of corruption in government. She questioned Dem commitment to ethics and honest government:

The way corruption is prosecuted and reported on — as one-off scandals committed by these individuals at a specific point in time — camouflages what may be modern corruption’s greatest evil: It is at its heart a system of exclusion, designed to reserve ongoing access to political and monetary gain to a close-knit group of insiders.

Around the world, and increasingly in the United States, networks of public officials, financiers, business executives, philanthropists and even out-and-out criminals have used corrupt practices to monopolize public power. These networks repurpose the levers of government to serve their private interests at the expense of the public and to ensure their own impunity.

We are in terrible trouble. Dem Party elites have fallen to the corrupting power of money, as have the Repub elites. The US supreme court recently legalized bribes as "gratuities" or "rewards" for people in government. As of now, it is mostly accurate to call the US a kleptocracy. We are so screwed.

Regarding mandatory voting

Salon writes:

If democracy dies in this country, it can be blamed on people who did not bother to vote last November.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump fought tooth and nail over almost everything. But, in the run-up to the November election, both urged Americans to vote like never before, saying over and over again that “This will be the most important election in the history of our country.”

Yet, despite the stakes of the 2024 election, millions of Americans sat out the election and did not vote. There were about 90 million of them, a number that dwarfs the 77 million people who voted for Donald Trump.

The United States can respond to looming threats to democracy by tackling the non-voting problem directly. That means making voting mandatory. Only by doing so do we have any chance to make the political system more democratic and more representative, and thus more resilient. 

Those who did not vote in 2024 were younger than those who voted. The Pew Research Center observes that they also were “more racially and ethnically diverse,…less affluent and less educated ” than those who voted.

Pew notes many reasons eligible voters did not vote in 2024. 35% believed that “their vote would not make a difference.” 31% said they did not vote because they generally do not like politics. Another 17% said they did not vote because they “did not care about the outcome.”

The rest of the non-voters didn’t turn out because they were not registered or voting was inconvenient. 8% said “they forgot to vote.”

Australia has had compulsory voting for almost one hundred years. As former Connecticut Secretary of State Miles Rapaport and historian Alex Keyssar explain, “In Australia, all registered citizens must vote, and almost everyone is registered; the enforcement mechanism is a fine of about $15, and people can cast blank or “none of the above” ballots to express their indifference to the offered slate of candidates. The result has been turnout of about 90 percent in every Australian election since 1924.”

Mandatory voting does not mean you have to vote for anyone or anything on the ballot. It just means you have to get a ballot and return it, even if you leave the whole thing blank. I'm a huge fan of mandatory voting because it tends to be pro-democracy, anti-extremism and anti-authoritarian.

Q: In general, what have been the effects of mandatory voting in Australia?

A: Compulsory voting ensures a more socially even turnout, reducing disparities in voter participation based on socioeconomic status, age, and ethnicity. This contrasts with countries like the UK, where turnout can vary significantly by demographic.

The system encourages political parties to appeal to the center rather than the extremes, as they must win over the entire electorate, not just their base. This has been credited with keeping Australia's political center more stable compared to other democracies.

Compulsory voting is believed to improve the caliber of individuals who run for office and the quality of decisions they make, as candidates must appeal to a broader electorate. Parties must consider the full spectrum of voter values, leading to policies that address a wider range of issues.

Etc.

But as we all know, the Republican Party opposes mandatory voting for the obvious reasons, i.e., wealth and power. Heck, the modern GOP leadership opposes real elections, period. Sham are probably OK for window dressing.