Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Friday, April 16, 2021

What’s the real problem?

 


The U.S. is supposedly the wealthiest nation on earth… renowned for its institutions of higher learning, has the most prolific innovators of medical and other technologies, a true beacon of freedom and democracy, and yada, yada, yada.  Such is what we tell ourselves, though I don’t know how much of that is actually true.  But the majority of us believe it, have been indoctrinated to believe it, boast about it, etc., and etc.  But can we prove it?

But that’s not what this OP is about.  However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume it’s all true.  We are the greatest (GOAT)! 😉

Q: What I’m wondering is, if we are so great, why can’t we work together toward common goals? 

Goals such as sustainable clean energies (good for the earth, good for us); universal health care, cradle to grave; free higher education for all its citizens… you know, the kinds of stuff that lifts all boats.  What really is our problem?  Why all the discord?  Left hand constantly fighting with the right hand (political pun intended).

What is at the heart of this problem?  Explain it to me, like I’m a five-year-old (a la Denzel Washington in “Philadelphia”).  Great movie, btw.

Thanks for posting and recommending.

Thursday, April 15, 2021

Book Review: Thieves of State

Sarah Chayes

Former NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes wrote Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security (2015), largely based on her years of experience in Afghanistan working with average Afhgani people as they struggled to build normal lives in the wake of years of war and systemic kleptocracy. Chayes, now at the Carnegie Endowment, has spent years surrounded by and trying to work within the systemic kleptocracy that is the government of Afghanistan. She came to Afghanistan as an NPR correspondent and shortly thereafter abandoned journalism to work as a free agent trying to rebuild civilization.

Chayes observes that over the centuries, many commentators on government, e.g., from Nizam al-Mulk in the 11th century to Erasmus and Machiavelli in the 16th century, repeatedly pointed to corruption and the injustice it inflicts on the innocent is the single most potent threat to stable governance and peace. al-Mulk, an influential 11th century administrator wrote The Book of Politics (Book of Government), which, among other things, (1) argued the need for a racially integrated army, and (2) proposed confiscating property of corrupt officials who take too much and repay those who were stolen from. Chayes: “Now there was an anti-corruption measure that would make an impact.”

Coming to see just how pervasive Afghan government corruption actually was took time. For example, Chayes co-founded a charity “of unclear mission,” that was run by President Hamid Karzai's brother, Qayum. Chayes had no idea that he was corrupt to the core: “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.” A chagrined Chayes finally came to understand that “I had, in other words, been an accessory to fraud.”

It turns out that kleptocrats like Qayum and his kleptocrat brother, president Hamid Karzai and the rest of the entire Afghan government know two things very, very well. First, they present themselves as a safe, rational, sincere refuge in the face of a vicious throat-cutting population. Chayes was terrified for a long time and another Afghani kleptocrat Chayes worked with did that number on her to keep her on a short leash. Kleptocrats need to keep outsiders like Chayes from directly interacting with average Afghanis as much as possible. Outsider and even leaders speaking directly to the people that non-leader kleptocrats have feared for centuries.

Second, all high level kleptocrats learned to speak English. They work hard to learn the jargon and acronyms that Western minds want to hear. On other words, they tell us exactly what we wanted to hear. The poison sounded so true and rational because it sounded so much like us.

The money pit bridge – finding the shallowest place to cross the river: Referring to a bridge outside Kandahar that foreign aid kept rebuilding “That bridge kept springing holes. And the foreigners kept paying more money for more repairs. And no one, as far as we knew, was called to account.” It’s not the case that ordinary Afghanis were blind to the corruption. One person ‘from the orchards north of town once told me’: “We all know this money is coming in. We just don’t know which hole it is spilling out through.”

The way it worked was simple. Foreign aid to fix the bridge would be awarded to an Afghani contractor. That contractor would then award the job to a subcontractor, but take a cut, and the sub would take another cut and award to job to another sub who took another cut and so on until there was little left of the money to fix the bridge. What repairs that were done was temporary band-aid. People got used to driving their cars and trucks off the road and through the river to get to the other side. The holes in the bridge afforded good, unobstructed views of the river below.

Chayes came to see the entire Afghanistan government as a vertically integrated criminal organization. Later, she came to see about the same thing in other countries, including Russia, Nigeria, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and so forth. If fact, if one looks at Transparency International’s transparency map, most countries are kleptocracies of some form or another.



So what? Where’s the security threat?: The central point that Thieves of State makes is that at some point, systemic corruption isn’t just a by-product of the war, but it morphs into a force that fosters and maintains global conflict. Corruption simply cannot be ignored as a serious source of international instability and conflict. The injustice and economic inequality of it enrages people. Chayes comments: “Abusive government corruption prompts extreme responses and thus represents a mortal threat to security.” She watched NGOs, NATO, and U.S. Army anti-corruption programs repeatedly fail.

The security threat comes from the rage and hate that grows in the soil of corruption. Citing cognitive science research on the point and her direct observations, Chayes points out that people who feel abused or cheated often do not always react rationally. Sometimes otherwise normal people moved into the arms of the hated Taliban because the government was so outrageous and the Taliban, speaking like normal Afghanis, began to sound rational and comforting enough. Screw democracy, Afghanis wanted justice. And, America and Western countries were seen by average Afghanis as complicit in and accepting of massive corruption because they allowed it to go unchecked, the thieves going unchecked. Chayes’ book is full of examples of how utterly inept and clueless American and Western diplomats, military, NGOs, aid groups and just about everyone else really was for a long time.

Chayes efforts as an official US military advisor finally began to sink in. Admiral Mullen (chairman, joint chiefs of staff) wasn’t stupid enough to let personal arrogance get in the way of seeing reality for what it was. But to finally get to that point, Chayes had to fight tooth and claw to get past the smug, clueless arrogance of US (and Afghani) military and diplomatic officials who fought her every step of the way. The CIA was a special sort of hell for Chayes – always quietly trying to undermine her to protect their ‘assets’. Some years after the US military woke up, the US State Department also started waking up. Everyone was now beginning to see just how serious and counterproductive US lives, efforts and money really had been. Systemic, pervasive corruption, not Islam or Afghani culture, was what made nation-building impossible. American efforts were doomed from the get go due to cluelessness.

Bin Ladn and 9/11: Just to make this strike home a bit more, Chayes argues that a significant driver of Bin Laden’s hate of the US and the West generally had nothing to do with religion. It was Bin Ladn’s white hot rage and hate flowing from decades of kleptocracy and what appeared to be, and often in fact was, decades of Western support and complicity in the moral outrage called corruption.

Although it’s not a full-blooded kleptocracy (yet), Chayes sees cause for concern even in America, pointing to the causes of the 2006-2007 financial meltdown and president Obama’s failure to see it for what it was and his failure to prosecute the responsible criminals. Of course, these days, there’s more than just Obama’s unfixable failures to be concerned about.

Solutions: Chayes isn’t naïve. Fighting corruption is hard and complex. There can be directly competing goals and priorities. Nonetheless, she does give a list of practical things that governments, multinational companies, Western militaries, diplomats even average citizens can do to fight global corruption.

In the overall scheme of things, corruption arguably ranks with the threat of nuclear war, catastrophic climate change, wealth inequality (significantly a function of corruption) and global overpopulation among serious threats to civilization and the fate of the human species.

For people wanting to learn about some reasons to reject isolationism and embrace proactive international engagement, this book is an excellent place to start.


B&B orig: 11/30/17; DP: 11/3/17

What about us? Fear in Afghanistan is rising

Mawoud Academy in Kabul, Afghanistan -- the planned US troop withdrawal 
and the Taliban’s likely return to power raises fears about the 
future of rights and education for women and girls


The war in Afghanistan was sold to the American people as short, low cost and nothing like Vietnam. Unfortunately, it was clear at least 15 years ago it was going to be long, high cost and a lot like Vietnam in at least one way. One aspect of sameness is the ultimate futility of the American effort to build a stable democracy and transform Afghan society. That failed. The Taliban is likely to come back to power and those folks are not democrats. They in a society transforming mood, but the mood is harsh, sour and it points to some version of the Dark Ages, but with cell phones and AK-47s. These people are in no mood to be "civilized" as we see the concept.


The new leadership, it's not like the old incompetent kleptocrat leadership


So one question is what about women, their rights and the people who collaborated to help the US effort to nation build? It's pretty clear what the Taliban will do once they chase the incompetent US-backed  kleptocratic government out of the country. Women will be enslaved and shut up. The collaborators we leave behind will be chased down and slaughtered. Again, one can hear echoes of Vietnam and its bogus Peace with Honor.

As American troops prepare to leave and fractures form in the Afghan government, militias controlled by powerful local warlords are once more rising to prominence and attacking government forces.

The American withdrawal will undoubtedly be a massive blow to morale for the Afghan security forces, spread across the country at hundreds of checkpoints, inside bases and along violent front lines. For years, the U.S. presence has meant that American air power, if needed, was nearby. But since the Trump administration’s deal with the Taliban, those airstrikes have become much less frequent, occurring only in the most dire of situations.

Without American military support, Afghan government troops are up against a Taliban enemy who is frequently more experienced and better equipped than the average foot soldier.  
“It is not the right time to withdraw their troops,” said Major Saifuddin Azizi, a commando commander in the southeastern province of Ghazni, where fighting has been especially brutal in recent days. “It is unreasonable, hasty and a betrayal to us. It pushes Afghanistan into another civil war. Afghanistan’s destiny will look like it did two decades ago.”  
An Afghan Army official recently said the Taliban would have overtaken the city if not for U.S. air support.
Credit...

Once again, America betrays its allies and leaves them to be slaughtered. How many will we leave behind? The republicans will fight tooth and claw to severely limit the number of Afghan refugees into the US. After all, most republicans appear to see Muslims as terrorists, drug dealers, Sharia law spreaders and so forth. We will probably never know the scope of the brutality once we leave because journalists will also be targeted and slaughtered if they get caught there.

Bush, Obama and T**** all failed to get us out of an obviously hopeless situation with obviously hopeless nation building goals. Now Biden is going to get us out. One can already hear the republicans, Fox News, Breitbart, etc., inhaling deep so that they can commence loud and long screaming at President Joe for his failures. Biden will be the one the GOP falsely portrays as the reason for the US failure.  


A 14-year old Afghan bride sets eyes on her new 65-year old 
husband for the first time


This 8-year old Afghan bride is too young to be scared, unlike the 14-year old
She thinks this is going to be fun

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

The Second Amendment Protects Gun Ownership...and Gun Regulation

Since this issue is bound to be deranged to the point of imbecility in the coming "debate" about gun control [ see this unreasonable "Reason" content ], I thought it would be fruitful to establish up front what informed citizens should expect of their right to bear arms, which to wit:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That the 2A itself is incorporated in terms of national self-defense is obvious, what is apparently less obvious to modern audiences is that the "right of the people" which is subordinated to necessary upkeep of militia, is not a newly invented right being outlined by the 2A itself. Rather, it refers to existing rights held by Americans, making the question of the context of the right ( that is, in terms of militia and national defense ) moot.

So the question of regulation is not appropriately derived from military service, but from pre-existing laws. There are two major forms of these laws: the first and oldest is English Common Law, of which all Americans were and are inheritors, and the second ( and which was premised on the former ) is state constitutional law, as written at the time of the adoption of the Amendment.

As to the former, while the foundation of our present laws was laid by Common Law, it was not itself nearly so well formalized and, being subject to change through context and interpretation, was encoded in official law in different ways by different states. Nevertheless by the Colonial era the right of citizens to own firearms was well established, if not always equally applied - neither slaves nor minors, for example, nor "habitual drunkards" could own or carry weapons or types of weapons [ 1 ]. And among those legally entitled to own firearms there were general prohibitions against types and consequences [ 2 ]:
In some cases, there may be affray, where there is no actual violence; as when a man arms himself with dangerous and unusual weapons, in such a manner, as will naturally diffuse a terrour among the people.
Pistols were a primary target of prohibition, as well as concealed weapons, and even Thomas Jefferson was concerned about citizens carrying shotguns off the farm ( IIRC - I need to find the letter Jefferson described his concerns in ). So by the Revolutionary era, state constitutions both declared the ownership and use of firearms to be an inalienable right, and also prohibited concealed carry in some cases or banned types of firearms outright. It is objectively the case, then - with actual state constitutions being the objective proof - that the premise of inalienable right to self defense, a well regulated militia, and various forms of "gun control" are not contrary to the 2A, but are legally mandated by it.

The idea maintained by certain factions in the US today that the 2A bars any regulation is founded on an ahistorical, ungrammatical reading of its text. Ahistorical for the reasons listed, and ungrammatical not only because "the right of the people" is erroneously read by them as a new, rather than existing, right ( which is easily discernible by reading Madison's comments on it ), but also because "shall not be infringed" is read as a general rule meaning "shall not be limited". This is not the case. Rather the meaning of infringement, as understood by seventeenth and eighteenth century audiences, was a violation, as of a contract or promise.

Hence the language here cannot be read as a bar against limitation, which would in any case present an outright contradiction against the need for a "well regulated militia", but rather as enforcing the contemporary rights held informally ( as in common law ) or formally ( as in state constitutional law ). These rights are federalized and, as the Constitution was then written, the 2A barred federal laws from violating those prior rights.

The tendency on other factions of the American public to repudiate the ownership of guns entirely as unconstitutionally is so manifestly stupid that I won't bother to defend it here - I would rather just cite Scalia's majority decision in the Heller case, and the controversy at the time over an Emory University professor's fraudulent book denying firearms were commonly owned by colonial Americans.

Rather in today's fractious politics, it's far more important to point out that those proposing to defend the 2A against supposedly unconstitutional restrictions against AR-15s or assault weapons generally are objectively opposed to the actual 2A, and therefore to the protection of our rights outlined in it.

[ 1 ] FIREARM REGULATION, John Brabner-Smith, p. 404

[ 2 ] THE COMMON LAW AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS: CARRYING FIREARMS AT THE FOUNDING AND IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC, Stephen P. Halbrook, p. 51