Dissident Politics

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.

Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Trump’s Defiance of Court Orders Faces Judicial Pushback: Constitutional Crisis Looms

Recent judicial actions against the Trump administration signal a potential turning point in its ongoing clash with the judiciary, spotlighting a growing confrontation over checks and balances. On March 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered a halt to the deportation of over 200 Venezuelans under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, but the administration defiantly proceeded with the flights on March 16, landing deportees in El Salvador—prompting Boasberg to issue a stern ultimatum on March 19, demanding detailed answers by noon on March 20 about the flights’ timing, deportees’ legal statuses, and justifications for ignoring his order, with a warning of “possible consequences” (NBC News. ) Simultaneously, on March 19, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) likely violated the Constitution by dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ordering an immediate stop to cuts, reinstatement of employee access, and payment restoration, adding pressure on multiple fronts (AP News.) Chief Justice John Roberts also issued a rare rebuke on March 19, criticizing Trump and Musk for threatening to impeach Boasberg, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as the “only obstacle” to Trump’s agenda.

The administration’s defiance extends beyond these high-profile cases, revealing a pattern of flouting judicial authority. Consider the case of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University assistant professor and kidney transplant specialist from Lebanon, a lawful permanent resident with a U.S. visa. On March 2025, she was detained at Boston Logan International Airport upon returning from Lebanon, where she attended a public event honoring a former Hezbollah leader, attended by 200,000 people, and had photos of Hezbollah figures on her phone, which she said were for religious, not political, reasons. Despite a federal judge’s order on March 15, 2025, allowing her return pending a hearing, Homeland Security deported her to Lebanon over the weekend, ignoring the ruling and stripping her status, sparking outrage among colleagues and students who rallied in Rhode Island, calling it “fascist state terror”( AP News). This mirrors the Venezuelan deportations, where Trump, Musk, and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele mocked Boasberg’s order with a taunting “Oopsie, too late [laughing emoji]” tweet, and the administration’s silence on Chuang’s USAID ruling, suggesting continued non-compliance or delay.

The Trump administration’s responses to these judicial rebukes have been marked by resistance, silence, and rhetorical attacks, not compliance. The Justice Department (DOJ) pushed back against Boasberg on March 19, accusing him of “continuing to beat a dead horse” and invoking state secrets to delay providing deportation details, while offering no public statement on Chuang’s USAID order, indicating potential defiance. Trump and Musk have doubled down, dismissing Roberts’ critique (“He didn’t mention me by name,” Trump said in a statement today) and labeling Boasberg a “radical left-wing lunatic,” while publicizing their mockery of court orders, consistent with their history of ignoring rulings, like deporting Alawieh despite a judge’s directive. This pattern of behavior—ignoring Boasberg’s halt, deporting Alawieh, remaining silent on USAID, and mocking judges—demonstrates that Trump is already operating as a scofflaw, not merely testing judicial limits.

The looming deadlines—Boasberg’s March 20, 2025, ultimatum and Chuang’s ongoing USAID order—will likely force the Trump administration to either plainly state its defiance of these rulings or bring its actions into conformity with judicial authority. Based on their track record, including the Venezuelan deportations, Alawieh’s deportation, and judicial mockery, they appear poised to continue disregarding legal norms unless compelled otherwise yes hello I know I'm coming right down just give me a minute thank you. The judiciary’s robust pushback, combined with public and media scrutiny, suggests an imminent clarification is necessary, potentially echoing historical defiance like Andrew Jackson’s reputed rejection of judicial authority ("John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"), unless the administration pivots under pressure. Either way, we will soon learn whether or not Trump’s actions confirm an entrenched authoritarian drift—marked by his defiance of court orders, politicization of institutions, and likely unconstitutional dismantling of federal agencies subject to legislative oversight under Article I. These actions, alongside his rhetorical overreach, will clarify the extent to which this clearly authoritarian-leaning presidency can be reined in by checks and balances, or restrained by judicial and public pressure.

Insecurity: Tinkering with social security & and playing with Pxy

An article posted by The Hill discusses changes to the SSA, allegedly to improve security and decrease fraud:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) said Monday it will no longer allow individuals to verify their identity over the phone but instead require online authentication or in-person visits for those seeking benefit claims and direct deposit changes.

“SSA will permit individuals who do not or cannot use the agency’s online my  Social Security  services to start their claim for benefits on the telephone. However, the claim cannot be completed until the individual’s identity is verified in person,” a blog post on the SSA website reads.

As usual for MAGA actions, no data is provided. Therefore, also as usual, there are good reasons to think this is just a ruse to make Social Security hard to access. I asked my friend Pxy (Perplexity) for it's "thoughts"** on the matter.

** AI does not have thoughts. It is just hardware running a software program. Humans have thoughts.

Q: Is there strong evidence that the changes in social security discussed in this article, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5202848-social-security-in-office-visits/ , would significantly improve security and decrease fraud?

A: While the SSA asserts these measures will improve security, the evidence supporting significant fraud reduction remains unclear, and critics highlight risks to vulnerable populations.

Criticisms and Lack of Robust Evidence
No Public Fraud Data: While the SSA references direct deposit fraud statistics, no independent or detailed reports are provided to validate claims of widespread phone-based fraud 4 7. A 2019 inspector general report identified ~20,000 online fraud cases but lacked comparable phone fraud data 4.

Contradictory Internal Assessments: An SSA memo acknowledged that fraud in phone claims is "extremely rare," as benefits aren’t disbursed until identity is verified via tax records, bank statements, or other methods 1.

Potential for Increased Harm: Advocacy groups warn that rural residents, seniors, and disabled individuals—who often lack internet access or mobility—may face delays or denial of benefits 6 7. The changes could also strain understaffed offices, with projected increases of 75,000–85,000 monthly visitors 8.

Broader Context
The SSA is simultaneously reducing staff and closing offices, raising concerns about capacity to handle in-person demands 6 8. Critics argue the policy prioritizes cost-cutting over evidence-based fraud prevention, noting that overpayment clawbacks (a separate $7 billion initiative) disproportionately harm low-income beneficiaries 4.

Conclusion
While the SSA frames these changes as necessary modernization, the lack of transparent fraud data and the potential for systemic disruption undermine claims of significant security improvements. The measures appear driven more by administrative efficiency goals than demonstrated fraud risks, with marginalized populations bearing the greatest burden 1 4 6.

Welp, in view of MAGA's constant, deep mendacity and shocking malice, one can reasonably believe this is MAGA's way to attack Social Security. And, also as usual, problems at the SSA are mostly due to MAGA efforts to break the SSA so they could claim it was broken and needed to be eliminated:

Q2: Were Republicans in congress mostly responsible for long-term underfunding the SSA?

A2: The long-term underfunding of the Social Security Administration (SSA) has been significantly influenced by Republican legislative priorities, particularly through budget cuts and staffing reductions.

FY 2025 Budget Proposal: House Republicans advanced a $450 million cut to the SSA’s administrative budget, reducing it to $13.7 billion despite serving 7 million more beneficiaries than in 2015 9 10. Democrats warned this would force 3 million Americans to face closed/reduced field offices and worsen processing delays 9.

Staffing Reductions: The SSA’s workforce is projected to fall to a 50-year low (50,000 employees) under Republican budgets, down from 57,000 in 2024 9 11. Critics note this exacerbates backlogs in disability claims, retirement applications, and customer service wait times 9.

Contextual Factors
While demographic pressures (aging population, lower birth rates) strain Social Security, bipartisan inaction has compounded the issue 12. However, Republican policies since 2024 have actively accelerated underfunding through austerity measures, whereas Democratic efforts focus on expanding revenue and services.

Conclusion
Republican budgets since 2024 bear primary responsibility for the SSA’s operational crisis, prioritizing tax cuts and austerity over sustainable funding. Their policies have systematically reduced staffing, closed offices, and proposed benefit cuts—all while blocking revenue solutions favored by most Americans 12 13.

Q: Whadda ya think, is this an attack on Social Security or just patriotic cutting waste, fraud and abuse?

Toxic MAGA bits: Gutting the EPA; MAGA's anti-constitionalism; MAGA's collateral damage

The NYT reports (not paywalled) on MAGA thugs completely eliminating all EPA research functions:

Trump Administration Aims to Eliminate E.P.A.’s Scientific Research Arm

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate its scientific research arm, firing as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists, according to documents reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the EPA, has said he wants to eliminate 65 percent of the agency’s budget. That would be a drastic reduction — one that experts said could hamper clean water and wastewater improvements, air quality monitoring, the cleanup of toxic industrial sites, and other parts of the agency’s mission.

Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in a statement that the agency “is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements .... We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water and land for all Americans. While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to increase efficiency and ensure the E.P.A. is as up to date and effective as ever.”

The E.P.A.’s science office provides the independent research that undergirds virtually all of the agency’s environmental policies, from analyzing the risks of “forever chemicals” in drinking water to determining the best way to reduce fine particle pollution in the atmosphere. .... Its findings tend to support stronger regulations to protect against exposure to air pollution, hazardous chemicals and climate change. And that has made it a target of many industries.

That's sad, frightening and deeply insulting.

Q: How is it possible to get rid of most of an agency, while ensuring the EPA is as effective as ever?

A: If effective as ever means unable to stop or regulate pollution, then gutting the EPA is the way to do the job. Businesses that profit by pollution will love this. Consumers and workers can just live with more poison in their lives. And if they don't like the added poisons, they can just go pound sand.

____________________________________________________________________

A NYT opinion makes an interesting argument about MAGA's authoritarianism: Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional -- But there are other ways to evaluate the actions of a government. You can ask a somewhat different question: not whether an action is constitutional, but whether it sits opposed to constitutionalism itself. You can ask, in other words, whether it is anti-constitutional. .... An anti-constitutional act is one that rejects the basic premises of constitutionalism. It rejects the premise that sovereignty lies with the people, that ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the officers of that government are bound by law. The new president has, in just the first two months of his second term, performed a number of illegal and unconstitutional acts. But the defining attribute of his administration thus far is its anti-constitutional orientation.

Now that is an insightful way of describing what MAGA's authoritarianism is. It is anti-constitutional. In the end if MAGA wins and our democracy really gets killed, I continue to believe we will face a kleptocratic, three-headed monster, djt ruling as quasi-dictator, billionaires ruling as ruthless plutocrats, and Christian nationalist zealots ruling as bigoted theocrats.

Sure, it is possible there will be a falling-out among the three main authoritarian wealth and power contenders, but I don't have a feel for how that war for wealth and power would play out. If that happens I suspect the Christian nationalists will lose out to the plutocrats maybe leaving djt as an even more powerful dictator-kleptocrat. Why might the plutocrats win? Maybe this logic: money talks, religion walks. Plutocrats already have money, Christianity just wants it.

____________________________________________________________________

The Independent reports about Fox News propagandist Jessie Watters, who wishes that MAGA glee over job losses from federal spending cuts could be “a little bit less callous.” The Independent writes: MAGA superfan Jesse Watters once again laments DOGE cuts that impact him -- Johns Hopkins University announced staff layoffs as a result of massive funding cuts to federal aid programs – where Watters’s sister works. -- On Thursday evening’s episode of Jesse Watters Primetime, the host, once again, praised President Donald Trump, billionaire Elon Musk and the newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency for making massive cuts to federal programs to curtail what they believe is “waste, fraud and abuse.” But also lamented that it would be “a whole family thing” to deal with the fallout over the weekend. .... “She’s texting me. It’s going to be a whole family thing, so we’re going to have to deal with that over the weekend,” Watters said.

Poor Jessie. Apparently his mommy is ticked that her collaterally damaged daughter lost or might lose her job due to MAGA's mindless destruction machine. Jessie's reaction is that he wishes MAGA people would not gloat about people who lose their jobs due to MAGA's onslaught. What a kind, empathetic guy. /s

An outpouring of sympathy for Jessie

____________________________________________________________________

Bonus non-MAGA bit!!: The Guardian writes: Chuck Schumer clung to belief Republicans would ‘expel’ Trump, book says -- Even as 2024 election loomed, reporters say, Democratic Senate leader was sure GOP would ‘expel the turd of Trump’ -- The revelation comes .... amid serious Democratic backlash against Schumer for failing to provide stiff enough resistance to Trump’s actions.

Good grief! The Dem leadership is worse than clueless. They are stupidly and/or cynically complicit, whether they know or believe it or not. How can they possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to afford any benefit of any doubt to any Republican in power in the federal government. What the hell is wrong with those people? Schumer actually believed that the GOP would return to its old self. That is idiotic.

Other Dems seem to be equally clueless or ignorant. Chris Murphy said that his vote for Marco Rubio for Secretary of State was "a mistake." He falsely thought Rubio would stand up to djt, particularly on issues like Russia's involvement in Ukraine, but he failed to do so. Similarly, Chris Van Hollen expressed regret, noting that Rubio had previously championed American values and acknowledged Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine. However, Van Hollen now sees that Rubio adopts Trump's positions. That should have been obvious before the confirmation vote in the Senate. Those Democratic Party US Senators grossly misunderstood djt's mindset. They just did not get the gigantic, well-known point about djt demanding loyalty to himself above everything else, including the rule of law, the US Constitution and inconvenient facts and truths, e.g., the 2020 election was stolen and his violent 1/6 coup attempt was just a pleasant "day of love."

The Dem turds that really need to be expelled include Schumer, Murphy and Van Hollen. Are they fools, idiots, complicit, ignorant, childishly gullible or some combination?

Q: Is it time for rank and file Dems to demand a house-cleaning to get rid of the party's worse than useless old politicians? Or, is everything mostly hunky-dory?

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

Why drilling down to get inconvenient truth is usually hard to impossible

People with wealth and power have a great information asymmetry advantage over the public and the public interest. The asymmetry poisons AI (artificial intelligence), making getting to real truth a very serious problem. This is a follow-on post to the one I posted earlier this morning. This is a lot shorter and has just 2 questions and answers, so maybe this one isn't TL/DR.

Perplexity

In this thread, https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-important-is-the-move-to-s-JHR4J7EhRWKhu.fVPeO2iQ , I had a very hard time in leading Perplexity to consider the possibility that the main reason the business community strongly opposes the Corporate Transparency Act was to enable large-scale, low-risk tax evasion. Perplexity did not question the motives or fact accuracy of sources, mainly the National Small Business Association, who cynically and falsely claim the CTA imposes a very high compliance cost burden and is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy to business owners who are required to report beneficial ownership and control information. Why was it so difficult to get to the actual truth? Can one reasonably believe that most, maybe ~70%, of the publicly available information about business and government operations, tactics and goals are lied about and hidden as much as possible

The challenges in uncovering motives behind opposition to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and broader skepticism about public information accuracy stem from systemic complexities in how information is presented, contested, and validated. Here's a breakdown of key factors:

1. Limitations of Publicly Stated Opposition to the CTA

The National Small Business Association (NSBA) and other plaintiffs frame their legal challenges around:

Compliance costs: Surveys estimate $8,000 per small business in the first year^[1][2], with FinCEN projecting 126 million burden hours annually^[1].
Privacy concerns: NSBA argues the CTA compels disclosure of "sensitive personal information" (e.g., home addresses, IDs)^[3], which they claim infringes constitutional rights^[4][3].
Constitutional grounds: A federal court ruled the CTA exceeds Congress’ foreign affairs/commerce powers^[3], though this applies only to NSBA members^[4].

Why tax evasion isn’t explicitly cited:

Legal challenges focus on statutory interpretation, not moral justification.
Public advocacy groups rarely admit to enabling illicit activity; opposition is framed as defending rights or reducing burdens.
The CTA’s stated purpose—combating money laundering and terrorism—is broadly accepted, so opposition leans on procedural/legal flaws^[3].

2. Systemic Barriers to Gauging Information Accuracy

Public discourse often obscures motives due to:

A. Asymmetrical Transparency

Corporate/government opacity:
- 69% of Americans believe the government intentionally withholds important information^[5].
- FOIA exemptions allow withholding "confidential" commercial data, limiting scrutiny of public-private interactions^[6].
Disinformation risks:
- Corporate-sector disinformation campaigns (e.g., forged documents, fake news) cost $78B annually^[7], complicating trust in public data^[8][7].

B. Incentives for Misrepresentation

Advocacy groups: NSBA’s role as a litigant^[4][3] necessitates emphasizing harms to members (e.g., compliance costs) over broader societal benefits.
Regulatory complexity: Agencies like FinCEN use cost estimates that critics call understated^[2], while small businesses argue compliance is disproportionately burdensome^[1][2].

C. Confirmation Bias in Information Ecosystems

Selective citation: NSBA highlights penalties (e.g., $10,000 fines, jail time)^[3] but omits the CTA’s exemptions for large companies^[4].
Amplification of grievances: Media often prioritizes conflict (e.g., “unconstitutional overreach”^[3]) over technical analysis of anti-corruption efficacy.

3. Can ~70% of Public Information Be Distrusted?

While extreme, skepticism is rooted in observable trends:

Factor	Evidence
Government withholding	69% believe the U.S. government hides information^[5]; FOIA exemptions enable secrecy^[6]
Corporate disinformation	Fake news, deepfakes, and forged documents target businesses^[9][8][7]
Regulatory ambiguity	Agencies like BEA and FinCEN face criticism for opaque methodologies^[10][11]

However, ~70% is likely hyperbolic:

Institutions like the Bureau of Economic Analysis enforce strict data-quality guidelines^[10], and fact-checking mechanisms exist.
Legal/ethical frameworks (e.g., OMB’s Information Quality Act^[11]) mandate transparency, though enforcement varies.

Conclusion

The difficulty in discerning motives arises from advocacy narratives dominating public discourse, coupled with institutional incentives to obscure inconvenient truths. While outright lies are less common than strategic omissions or framing biases, systemic opacity—whether in corporate lobbying or government reporting—fuels skepticism. Critical analysis requires triangulating sources, assessing conflicts of interest, and demanding empirical evidence beyond rhetorical claims.

⁂

Your response reflects what I fear, namely that too much of the information available to the public is unreliable. Worse, AI cannot piece together the information and nuance needed to accurately answer queries that are inconvenient to people and entities in power and/or wealthy. The public is at a huge disadvantage due to the massive information asymmetry that favors wealth and power.

Your concerns about systemic information asymmetry and AI's limitations in counteracting power imbalances are well-founded, as evidenced by current technological and socioeconomic realities. Here's why this dynamic persists and why it’s difficult to resolve:

1. Structural Drivers of Information Asymmetry

The imbalance you describe is rooted in three systemic issues:

A. Monopolization of data

Wealthy corporations and governments control vast datasets (e.g., voter rolls, consumer behavior, regulatory loopholes) that are inaccessible to the public^[12][13][14].
Example: Project 2025’s proposed federal access to state voter databases could enable targeted voter suppression, leveraging data the public cannot audit^[12].

B. Asymmetric AI development

Cutting-edge AI tools (e.g., DevRev’s predictive analytics) are deployed by corporations to optimize profits and lobbying, while public-sector AI struggles with basic transparency and bias mitigation^[15][16][17].
Generative AI’s energy costs ($1.3M+ to train advanced models) and computational demands exclude most civil society groups from developing countervailing systems^[18][19].

C. Deliberate obfuscation

63% of disinformation campaigns originate from corporate or state actors, using AI-generated content to distort narratives (e.g., forged documents, deepfakes)^[20][21].
Regulatory capture ensures agencies like FinCEN lack resources to audit corporate compliance meaningfully, relying on self-reported data^[13][14].

2. AI’s Inherent Limitations in Bridging the Gap

Current AI systems structurally favor existing power structures due to:

Limitation	Consequence
Training on biased/incomplete data	Perpetuates historical inequities (e.g., healthcare algorithms underserving marginalized groups)^[22][23]
Inability to interpret context	Fails to detect subtle power dynamics in legal/policy texts (e.g., NSBA’s CTA challenge framing)^[18][24]
High operating costs	Privatizes advanced AI capabilities (ChatGPT Enterprise: $60/user/month vs. free public version)^[16][19]
Opaque decision-making	Black-box models prevent accountability (e.g., AI denying loans without explainability)^[23][17]

A 2025 Stanford study found AI systems trained on corporate/government data had 42% higher bias scores when analyzing labor disputes versus independent datasets^[17].

3. Case Study: Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) Opposition

The NSBA’s successful legal challenge illustrates this asymmetry in action:

Resource advantage: NSBA spent $2.1M lobbying in 2024 vs. $120K by transparency advocates^[14].
Narrative control: Emphasized “privacy costs” ($8K/business) while omitting that 78% of small businesses already report similar data to banks^[13].
AI amplification: Anti-CTA social media bots generated 310K posts/month using GPT-4, drowning out pro-reform voices^[16][19].

Public-interest groups lacked equivalent AI tools to counter this campaign or analyze the CTA’s actual money-laundering prevention efficacy^[20][15].

4. Paths Toward Mitigation (Though Partial)

While systemic change is slow, emerging countermeasures include:

Citizen audits: Brazil’s “FiscalizaChat” AI lets users analyze public contracts via WhatsApp, exposing $190M in graft since 2024^[20][21].
Decentralized AI: Federated learning models (e.g., OpenMined) allow collective data analysis without centralized control^[23][17].
Adversarial ML: Tools like IBM’s FactSheets auto-detect corporate greenwashing in sustainability reports with 89% accuracy^[22][25].

However, these remain niche solutions. Until regulatory frameworks mandate algorithmic accountability (e.g., required bias disclosures for lobbying AI) and public data equity funds, asymmetric power dynamics will persist. The key vulnerability is not AI itself, but who controls its inputs and deployment.

⁂