Regarding the public interest: A contested concept

I haven't posted about the concept of the public interest in quite a while, I think. In Feb. 2015, I posted my conception of the public interest as I envisioned it then:

Governing in the public interest means governance based on identifying a rational, optimum balance between serving public and individual or commercial interests based on an objective, fact- and logic-based analysis of competing policy choices, while (1) being reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion, (2) protecting and growing the American economy, (4) fostering individual economic and personal growth opportunity, (5) defending personal freedoms and the American standard of living, (6) protecting national security and the environment, (7) increasing transparency, competition and efficiency in commerce when possible, (8) fostering global peace, stability and prosperity whenever reasonably possible, all of which is constrained by (i) honest, reality-based fiscal sustainability that limits the scope and size of government and regulation to no more than what is needed and (ii) genuine respect for the U.S. constitution and the rule of law with a particular concern for limiting unwarranted legal complexity and ambiguity to limit opportunities to subvert the constitution and the law, [later included: and (9) engaging in reasonable political compromise as a pro-democracy bulwark against extremism, corruption and authoritarianism].

I get some criticism for arguing I am pro-democracy and pro-service to the the public interest because my notion of those concepts allegedly is often very different than what many--if not most--would consider "the public interest" and "democratic." I reject that criticism. I doubt that most Americans would reject my conception of service to the public interest or democracy. From what I can tell, most don't have much or any idea of what they are or ought to be. Maybe it's what makes them happy and comfortable, whatever that might be, e.g., getting rid of illegal immigration and wokeness, and making the price of food and housing go back down. 

And for what it is worth, at least I have the guts to be explicit about how I view the public interest. Everybody can criticize such a juicy, big target.

Obviously, there are contested concepts in that description, e.g., (i) "the scope and size of government and regulation [limited] to no more than what is needed", and (ii) "reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion." Those are loaded with contested concepts, maybe even some essentially contested concepts. But that is why "reasonable political compromise" is now included. Opinions obviously differ about contested concepts, that's why I call them contested. Democratic regimes have to compromise, but authoritarian regimes don't unless forced to by out-of-control circumstances. That is why the existence and importance of contested concepts has to be acknowledged. I do not hide from, deny or irrationally downplay reality and reasoning that is inconvenient or complex.

When asked, most MAGA people do not have much of an idea about lots of things. Ask them what regulations they want to get rid of? Usually little to no answer. Ask them where power flows when businesses are deregulated and who or what usually gets shafted? Almost always little to no answer. Most of them don't have a freaking clue. A lot of them still falsely believe the 2020 election was stolen, vaccines are bad and Biden caused all the inflation. 

Guess what happens when I describe my vision of the public interest to people who think I'm a liar, full of crap, a radical socialist tyrant, and/or whatever? They generally got little to nothing coherent to say. Gutless pussies go silent. Some respond by deflecting or degenerating into whataboutism or crackpottery. They hate it, but just can't or won't say why. In my opinion, the main reason for silence in the face of a solid defense of my vision of democracy and the public interest probably is there's just too much cognitive dissonance for most people to handle. Brains either just seize up or fly into biased unconscious self-defense mode.

Lots of people like to think they are staunchly pro-democracy, while in fact they are mostly anti-democracy. Being deeply steeped in pro-democracy morals or principles is probably why my conception of the public interest is so hard for most people, including old-fashioned conservatives, to attack. 

Random Thoughts.

 What a shitshow. We all knew it was coming though. It's not like I haven't been paying attention or not caring about the outcome of the election and the consequences.

However, I find myself amused. That has ruffled a few feathers. It's not funny. Well, no, it isn't, but...........

I still find myself amused.

I am amused that there now appears to be some who voted for Trump experiencing buyer's remorse because they voted on improved border security and improving the economy, not on cancelling out birthright citizenship, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, or pardoning even the most violent of the Jan. 6 rioters. 

I am amused that many Arab Americans actually voted for Trump. Believing he would help the situation in the Middle East. Now they are p*ssed at the selection of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.

I am amused with Fox News. Have you been listening to them lately? They are having orgasms over there. You would think Trump is the next coming they way they are carrying on.

I am amused by leftwing media. The end is nigh. Self-reflection and figuring out how to take back the country has become secondary to whining and moaning. Sheesh.

But mostly I am amused because I am surrounded by others who are amused. I have to say this - Canadians better not be too sure of themselves - I see a push towards the Right even up here. But the Right up here is different kettle of fish. Take Doug Ford, a conservative, one of the few Canadian leaders talking tough AGAINST Trump. Our Liberal leader, this Trudeau guy, is being oh so diplomatic in his response. Nauseating.

But most Canadians, in fact almost all I've talked to, are taking the attitude - well, they (meaning Americans) got what they wanted. Now they have to live with it.

Up here, there is MORE conversation about the upcoming Four Nations hockey tournament than there is about politics. Down south it is ALL Trump this and Trump that. 

Mind you, if Canada does end up becoming the 51st state, Canadians will have to take on the American persona of entitlement, greatness, intolerance, anger and uncompromising loathing of "the other side."

Maybe Canada should annex Greenland before Trump gets around to it. 

Maybe Snowflake should take the impending doom more seriously. Or maybe he should just go back to bed.

Whatchathink?

Climate science propaganda wars: Energy sector propaganda attacks on EVs intensify

The Cool Down reports:

Experts weigh in on claim that electric cars have a mining problem: 

'These problems have always existed'

In recent months, there has been a slew of claims that electric vehicles' use of mineral mining causes more harm to the environment than traditional carbon-releasing cars. But is that true?

British right-wing politician Nigel Farage wrote of electric vehicles' "strain" on the environment that comes from mineral mining.

However, EV mythbusters, a series of articles put out by the Guardian, relies on a scientific foundation for weighing in on claims such as these. The claim that mineral mining is worse for the environment as it depletes more mineral resources than combustion-based cars was debunked by science.

The International Energy Agency estimated that electric cars use 381 pounds more of minerals such as lithium, nickel, and copper compared to internal combustion engine cars.

However, scientists found that the mineral use for electric cars in the long run is actually far lower than gasoline and diesel's mineral usage when accounting for oil needed for fuel-burning cars.

Experts also describe another important factor that most are missing when addressing mineral usage of electric cars: The majority of battery minerals used in cars are likely to be recycled. This will drastically reduce the wasted material, compared with dirty energy sources, which are used up and create planet-warming pollution in the process.

David Bott at the Society of Chemical Industry told the Guardian: "The real thing people forget is once it has been mined, you will end up being able to reuse 80-90% of the metals. You don't have to go back to the planet to steal more minerals."

Skeptics of EVs, however, are quick to point out the damage that mineral mining has on the environment as a reason why EVs are not worth an investment.

Mark Dummett, the head of business and human rights at Amnesty International, spoke to the Guardian about the claims: "These problems have always existed in mining. I strongly believe that this problem has been exaggerated hugely by opponents of the energy transition, the fossil fuel lobby."

The EPA comments [1]:

Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of power plant emissions.

FACT: Electric vehicles (EVs) typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging, plus they are far more efficient when it comes to energy use.

Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.

FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.

Myth #3: Electric vehicle batteries are unreliable and need to be replaced every few years.

FACT: Electric vehicle battery replacements due to failures are uncommon.

Myth #4: The increase in electric vehicles entering the market will collapse the U.S. power grid.

FACT: Electric vehicles have charging strategies that can prevent overloading the grid, and, in some cases, support grid reliability.

Myth #6: Electric vehicles don’t have enough range to handle daily travel demands.

FACT: Electric vehicle range is more than enough for typical daily use in the U.S. 

Myth #7: Electric vehicles are not as safe as comparable gasoline vehicles.

FACT: Electric vehicles must meet the same safety standards as conventional vehicles.

Footnote:

1. I post the data from the EPA now while it is still available to the public. I anticipate that within the next ~2 months, DJT will order the removal of inconvenient data like this to support the massive carbon energy sector propaganda and lies effort regarding EVs and climate change. In return, the carbon energy sector will quietly provide a gratuity to DJT for doing a good job.

The era of kleptocratic authoritarianism/dictatorship reignites

Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, American government was rather authoritarian, kleptocratic and plutocratic. That era was characterized by stark disparities in wealth, with most people living in poverty. Political leaders and business tycoons often engaged in corrupt practices to enrich themselves at the expense of the public good. It was close to being a kleptocratic plutocracy.

The NYT reports about some of the new regime activity:

He pardoned nearly all the traitors who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. DJT issued a grant of clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the 1/6 attack on the Capitol. He issued pardons to most of the defendants and commuting the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy. The pardon order also directed the Justice Department to dismiss any pending indictments against people facing charges for DJT's coup attempt.

He withdrew from the World Health Organization. Public health experts say the withdrawal will undermine America’s standing as a global health leader and make it harder to fight the next pandemic.

He began his immigration crackdown. A series of orders Mr. Trump signed set off a policy barrage aimed at sealing the nation’s borders to migrants and cracking down on immigrants already in the country. Those orders included a declaration of a national emergency to deploy the military to the border and a bid to cut off birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens. Many of the orders test the legal limits of his authority, and birthright citizenship in particular is protected by the Constitution.

He tries to put off a ban on TikTok. Mr. Trump signed an executive order aimed at delaying a federal ban of TikTok. It is unclear if that order could override the law that banned the social media app, but the measure instructs the attorney general not to take any action to enforce the ban for 75 days. Mr. Trump also told reporters that “the U.S. should be entitled to get half of TikTok” if a deal for the app is reached.

He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. That makes the US one of four nations — along with Iran, Libya and Yemen — not party to the agreement. The US has gone full blown insane rogue on climate change and environmental protections.

DJT enacted a federal hiring freeze. He ordered a hiring freeze across the federal government that would remain in place pending the completion of a broader plan for reducing the federal work force. His order singled out the Internal Revenue Service, which received a large financial boost from President Biden and Democrats in Congress, calling for the freeze to stay in place longer for that agency. This is a really huge deal. To build his kleptocracy, DJT will need to gut the ability of government to collect taxes. That requires gutting the IRS and honest bureaucrats generally.

He gutted racial equity policies and protections for transgender people. DJT ordered his administration to dismantle federal programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, and to gut Biden administration policies that protect transgender Americans.

He again promised tariffs against Canada and Mexico. He plans to impose a 25 percent tariff on products from Canada and Mexico starting on Feb. 1 because those nations were allowing “mass numbers of people to come in and fentanyl to come in.” He also said that he “may” impose a universal tariff on all imports, adding that “essentially all countries take advantage of the U.S.”

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, maybe Musk was fill-blown Nazi and now feels free to express his true authoritarian feelings. The NYT writes about a speech he made yesterday at the inauguration:

Mr. Musk, who leads Tesla, SpaceX and the social media platform X, and who backed Mr. Trump last year during his presidential campaign, added, “I just want to say thank you for making it happen — thank you.”

The billionaire then grunted and placed his hand to his heart before extending his arm out above his head with his palm facing down. After he turned around, he repeated the motion to those behind him.

He did that twice during his blither

about a “fork in the road of human civilization”

I think he probably is a vicious Nazi, 

or is that idiotic, over the top, alarmism?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Reporting from various sources are pointing to the lawlessness or near-lawlessness of DJT's executive orders. All are predicting an avalanche of lawsuits.

A WaPo opinion (not paywalled) comments on one aspect of the rise of American kleptocracy: 

Trump finds a new way for foreign governments to pay him off: Crypto 

Trump’s crypto coin is little more than a whizbang Ponzi scheme

The era of the Shakedown Economy has officially begun — and it started with something called a presidential “shitcoin.” No, I am not making this up.

Two days before his inauguration, Donald Trump abruptly launched a new cryptocurrency, traded as “$TRUMP.” For those unfamiliar, this kind of crypto token or “memecoin” is released and traded on public markets, sort of like a stock. Unlike stocks, however, memecoins have no cash flow, no fundamental value. There’s no claim to a business’s future profits, nor even the pretense of a business model. There’s no clear use case; no one is pretending $TRUMP will be used in real-world transactions to pay for groceries or a haircut, or to send remittances.

Rather, people buy memecoins such as $TRUMP solely because they think someone else might be willing to pay more for them someday. It’s basically a whizbang-sounding Ponzi scheme.

It's not just foreign governments who can pay DJT off. All people and corporations on Earth with enough wealth can bribe him. Putin can bribe him.

DJT is open for business!

NOTE: As  of June 26, 2024, the USSC legalized the 

illegal part on the left, provided that the bribe is

an after-the-fact gratuity or reward

That reward-winning decision came at us in the 

case called Snyder v. US[1]

Footnote:

1. Snyder v. US lawsuit summary: James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, was convicted of accepting a $13,000 check from a state contractor after awarding the contractor a $1.1 million contract to provide trucks to the city. This conviction was initially upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 straight party line vote, reversed Snyder's conviction. The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 666, a federal statute criminalizing certain payments to state and local officials, applies only to bribes and not to gratuities or rewards for a good job well done.

What are the odds of this congress fixing this and making after the fact payments illegal? Close to 0%. What are the odds of DJT signing it if it did pass. Closer to 0%. What are the odds of congress overriding a DJT veto? Literally 0%.