Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

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, August 14, 2019

Russian Oligarch Warns Trump to Shape Up or Lose next Election

Artem Klyushin -- he warned Trump to shape up or he will be shipped out

If this story is true, it is bizarre. And scary. Independent confirmation of this has not yet come from any reputable mainstream news source as of 9:50 am PST.

The liberal site Raw Story (fact accuracy rating: MIXED) reports a Tweet by Russian oligarch Artem Klyushin that explicitly threatens president Trump to quash American Russophobia or lose the 2020 election. The Tweet is shown below. He posted it here on Twitter on August 15.



Google translate:
Democrats and Republicans in the United States compete in the one who no longer loves Russia and who will come up with sanctions posesche [crueler sanctions?]. They stuff [make?] political points on [about?] this, and the people of Russia suffer. If @realDonaldTrump does not extinguish the fire of FAKE NEWS inciting Russophobia - this will be his last term.

Other major media sources are not yet mentioning this, so this Tweet could be a hoax or sick joke of some sort. It is hard to imagine a hoax or joke, since the Twitter post seems to be real.

If this is real, it is a blatant, and undeniable public attack on American democracy and freedom of speech. If this is fake news from a Russian enemy or anyone else, this OP will be deleted. There is no upside in adding garbage to an internet already awash in garbage.

B&B orig: 8/17/18

A Trip in the Russian Countryside

“Eight miles west of the M10 lies the village of Pochinok, one of hundreds of disappearing settlements. The wilderness is closing in around Nina and Vladimir Kolesnikova and their children.”

In 2013, the New York Times published a memorable article about a 430-mile trip from the port city of St. Petersberg to Moscow on Russia’s M10 road. The article, The Russia Left Behind: A journey through a heartland on the slow road to ruin, describes the amazing decay of the Russian countryside and the decline of a Russian rural way of life.

The NYT wrote: “As the state’s hand recedes from the hinterlands, people are struggling with choices that belong to past centuries: to heat their homes with a wood stove, which must be fed by hand every three hours, or burn diesel fuel, which costs half a month’s salary? When the road has so deteriorated that ambulances cannot reach their home, is it safe to stay? When their home can’t be sold, can they leave?

‘The people on the top do not know what is happening down here,’ he [a Russian resident along the way] said. ‘They have their own world. They eat differently, they sleep on different sheets, they drive different cars. They don’t know what is going on here. If I needed one word to describe it, I would say it is a swamp, a stagnant swamp. As it was, so it is. Nothing is changing.’”

Along the way, the NYT reporter stopped along the road to see what a ‘furor’ in a village was about. It was a wedding between a 14-year old bride and the 13-year old groom: “Her eyes and skin had the same honey-gold cast, and she was a head taller than most of the men in the village. At some point in the last year it had become clear that she was on the verge of becoming an unusual, startling beauty, and this, a guest whispered, was the reason her family had sped up the wedding. So that, as he put it, ‘she would not start messing around.’ She looked like a neighborhood teenager hired to baby-sit the groom, Ryoma, who was 13. . . . . The tiny groom sat in a chair in the corner, playing video games on his phone.

The past was tugging on all of them. Before the Soviet Union collapsed, the Education Ministry insisted that all children attend school, but not now. Forty percent of the children here do not study at all, said Stephania Kulayeva of St. Petersburg’s Memorial Anti-Discrimination Center. The vacuum has allowed the tradition of child marriage to come roaring back.”

Toward the end of the wedding festivities, one guest commented to another, “We have no gas, we have no water,” she said. “We have nothing.”

Regarding the M10 road, the NYT wrote: “The M10 highway looks normal enough at the southern limits of St. Petersburg, but then, with a jolt, it begins to atrophy. For the next 430 miles the surface of the highway, while paved, varies from corduroy to jaw-rattling patchwork. Sometimes it has four lanes, sometimes two, with few medians and frequently no lane markings at all.

After a snowstorm in November, about 10,000 vehicles got stuck in a traffic jam that extended more than 70 miles, trapping some drivers for three days in subzero temperatures. Valery Voitko, who heads a trade union of long-haul truck drivers, described his drivers that week as ‘not even angry any more, but in a state of dumb despair, that year in and year out the same thing happens.’

Between the great cities are hundreds of disappearing settlements: towns becoming villages, villages becoming forest. The Soviets cut off support for them during efficiency drives in the 1960s and ’70s, which categorized villages as “promising” or “unpromising.”

But the death of a village is a slow process. A geographer, Tatiana Nefyodova, calls them “black holes,” and estimates that they make up 70 to 80 percent of Russia’s northwest, where Moscow and St. Petersburg act as giant vacuum cleaners, sucking people and capital from the rest of the country.

If once animals living in this forest learned to avoid humans, something now tells them not to be afraid. The other day, Ms. Kolesnikova, 42, emerged from her house and found that her dog’s throat had been torn out. She could make out the tracks of three large wolves across the kitchen garden. ‘They have come to where the people are,’ she said. ‘They are not afraid of the dogs. Why should they be afraid of us?’”

A new road, the M11, is scheduled to open in 2018 mostly along the same route as the existing M10 road, so the situation may improve for people along its path once the new road is open. The M11 has been under construction since 2008. A question is what are conditions like for less important roads? St. Petersburg handles most of the shipping traffic of the two main sea ports in eastern Russia. Roads to less commercially important towns, and economic conditions along them, are likely to be similar to the M10.

There are some parallels between what is happening in Russia and the US, but the degree of collapse appears to be more pronounced. Russia seems to be undergoing a rural population shift to urban areas with more economic activity. Rural-urban tensions are a significant factor in the rise of US populism. whether that will translate into civil unrest in Russia is unknowable. Russian law is generally intolerant toward freedom of speech compared to the US.

Given Russia’s politically restrictive legal situation, rural discontent in Russia may not translate into significant political change. In that case, the observations the NYT wrote about in 2013 may still be ongoing, with small town and villages giving way to slowly encroaching forests and nature.

B&B orig: 8/20/18

Astroturfing

“There is no front because there is total transparency.” --- Prominent public relations operator, Richard Berman publicly stating that he does not set up organizations that are fronts for unnamed special interests posing as real people or groups to advance their own hidden political or economic agendas based on lies, deceit or fake public support

“People always ask me one question all the time: How do I know that I won't be found out as a supporter of what you are doing? We run all our stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity.” --- Prominent public relations operator, Richard Berman privately promising oil industry executives, potential paying clients of his PR firm, that their identities and agendas are never made public

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.”

On his Last Week Tonight show a couple weeks ago, John Oliver aired a segment on astroturfing. The practice is everywhere in public life. All kinds of special interests pay to generate lies, deceit and fake public support for various causes, all of which is intended to deceive the public and governments about the real agenda and its financial backers. In some cases, experts are hired to just make things up in testimony before legislatures so that proposed legislation can be supported or opposed by economic or political interests who want to remain anonymous.



In addition to Berman’s wonderfully opaque comments above, Oliver commented that companies hire people, often for roughly $50-$200, to show up at public meetings, demonstrations and so forth to express their support or opposition for whatever they are paid to support or oppose. In one case, the paid shills received the following instructions:
1. Tell nobody you are being paid
2. Tell nobody you are being paid
3. Media will be present, do not talk to them
4. Tell nobody you are being paid
5. If someone approaches you, don't tell them you are being paid

The CEO of one company, Crowds on Demand, stated the shills his company hires do not trick people, but instead ‘engages’ them. In response to that, Oliver commented that Crowds on Demand engages people by tricking them.

Oliver’s point was to argue that this kind of activity is toxic and fosters cynicism, but it cannot be stopped. Oliver’s segment raised a couple of points. First, companies that engage in astroturfing do not care about truth or anything other than their own economic or political interests. Second, the businesses that cater to astroturfers do not care about truth or anything other than their own economic interests. Third, the people who participate as astroturfers do not care about truth or anything other than their own economic interests.

Is astroturfing and/or the people and businesses involved moral, immoral or amoral, or is astroturfing irrelevant to morality? It certainly isn't illegal because astroturfing is a legal commercial activity and the speech (lies, deceit, fake public support, opacity) involved is protected free speech.

One final observation: It is odd that one can often find out more about exactly how politics works by watching comedians skewer it than by listening to traditional information sources. There is no obvious reason to distrust any of the factual content that Oliver used. At least for this topic, he arguably is more trustworthy than most politicians and far more trustworthy than anyone or any business involved in astroturfing.

B&B orig: 8/21/18

Trump Strategy: Start From Good, Make it Worse, Partially Fix It, Claim Victory



The Washington Post writes about president Trump's renegotiation of NATA: “It covers many things, including autos, intellectual property and labor rights. Several trade experts noted that many provisions in Monday’s agreement resemble what was in President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal Trump pulled out of when he took office.

The deal does not resolve the tariffs the Trump administration put on steel and aluminum earlier this year, taxes that have proved a major sticking point in trade relations and led to Mexican retaliation against U.S. goods. It also does not resolve a broader issue over what are known as “232 tariffs,” taxes on foreign goods the Trump administration has imposed in the name of national security. The administration used that process for the steel and aluminum tariffs, over the strong objections of many U.S. allies and trading partners — including Canada. And Trump is considering 232 tariffs on foreign autos.”

Yet again, Trump starts with a status quo he claimed was the worst ever or something close thereto, i.e., NAFTA, then he guts it, then he comes up with something close to the old status quo but not final, and then claims victory.

Trump arguably is the single most reality-detached, corrupt, lying president that America has ever had.[1]

Footnote:
1. Last January, experts on US presidential history ranked Trump dead last of all American presidents: https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf

Obviously, most (all?) Trump supporters will reject that as fake news or the like.

B&B orig: 8/27/18

The Ratchet of Politics is Broken: It Mostly Goes Only One Way – Down

After listening to the NPR broadcast of the Senate confirmation hearing on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for the last hour or so, a thought just sprang up from nowhere. The back and forth between the democrats and the republicans includes references to past Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees. What is striking about the debate is that each side points to past actions that one side or the other has taken that supports the argument or point a senator is trying to make. The tendency is to use actions of one's own side that support the argument, but when that isn't available, what the other side has done is used.

Stepping away from the back and forth, what seems to be happening is that the direction of partisanship is mostly moving in a direction that reduces transparency. The democrats accuse republicans of an unprecedented refusal by republicans to release documents related to Kavanaugh. That dispute is ongoing now. Republicans respond by arguing that some of the documents are subject to privilege of some sort. Whether some or all requested documents will be released is unclear.

What seems likely is that in the future, if ever a republican (or democratic) president has a nominee before the senate, this fight will be used as precedent for democrats to hide documents about their nominee, if circumstances so dictate. Future republican Senators will point to this dispute as evidence that democrats wanted transparency when they asked for it, so therefore they should have it now. Democratic Senators will point to the same dispute and argue that it was Republicans who established the precedent.

Thinking back, this has not happened in just this context. Disputes and tactical argumentation like this has been going on for years, but the general trend seems to be a slow trend to less transparency. Despite a significant US role in fostering transparency in governance globally, it is not clear that existing transparency is sufficient or is keeping up with relevant social and technological changes.

Campaign finance and lobbyist operations arguably are not transparent enough. Donors can contribute tens of millions to political causes and politicians and hide their identity. Public perceptions of corruption, which necessarily requires opacity and deceit to thrive, have increased dramatically in the last couple of years: “The current US president was elected on a promise of cleaning up American politics and making government work better for those who feel their interests have been neglected by political elites. Yet, rather than feeling better about progress in the fight against corruption over the past year, a clear majority of people in America now say that things have become worse. Nearly six in ten people now say that the level of corruption has risen in the past twelve months, up from around a third who said the same in January 2016.”



So, the question is this: Is intense tribal partisanship fostering a trend toward less transparency, more opacity and more corruption? It feels that way, but feelings are not objective data.



B&B orig: 9/4/18

Our Representative, Representative Democracy



In the Senate confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh yesterday, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) gave an amazingly honest speech in his opening comments. In essence, Sass argued that congress is inept and does not do its job, and that is why the Kavanaugh hearing is so ugly and personal -- reality detached in Sasse’s opinion. Sasse argued that Supreme Court (SC) judges are not partisans and if they are, they should not have lifetime appointments. As long as Americans misunderstand the role of the SC, confirmation hearings like this will be an “overblown, politicized circus.”

He went on to argue that congress, not the SC or the executive branch, should be the center of American politics, but it is not. The reason that congress is not the center of American politics is because for the last century and increasingly in recent decades, congress has abdicated its legislation role to the executive branch and executive agencies that write regulations. In essence, regulation writing is where a lot of policy making happens.

Congress, not the supreme court or the executive branch, should be where policy is made. That would give voters a chance to hire or fire their representatives, but congress has punted policy making elsewhere. As a result, the American people think that policy making is going on in the SC, and therefore we have this bitter confirmation hearing over judge Kavanaugh. Because congress is not doing its job, political battles and policy making are not being fought in congress, and that leads the SC to become a key political battleground.

Sasse: “. . . . . the people don't have a way to fire the bureaucrats. What we mostly do around this body is not pass laws. What we mostly decide to do is to give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy X, Y or Z to make law-like regulations. That’s mostly what we do here. We go home and we pretend we make laws. No we don’t. We write giant pieces of legislation, 1200 pages, 1500 pages long, that people haven’t read, filled with all these terms that are undefined, and say to secretary of such and such that he shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That’s why there are so many fights about the executive branch and the judiciary, because this body rarely finishes its work. [joking] And, the House is even worse.”

Sasse goes on to argue that (1) the technical complexity in modern laws is simply too much for congress to handle and real experts are necessary, but (2) the main reason congress punts so much of its job is to avoid taking responsibility for making controversial and unpopular decisions, so (3) if a legislator’s highest goal is re-election, punting responsibility allows people in congress to side-step the political heat and get re-elected. He asserts that if re-election is your highest goal, then giving away your power is “actually pretty good strategy. . . . . congress has decided to self-neuter. . . . . The important thing is that when congress neuters itself, and gives power to an unaccountable 4th branch of government [executive agencies], it means the people are cut out of the process.”

Sasse points out that when a executive agency passes a rule that makes life difficult, affected people can’t navigate the complexity and thicket of lobbyists to do executive agency lobbying. He asserts that almost all the power is now exerted off stage by unelected bureaucrats. Voters have nowhere to go except the SC to seek political accountability. Under the circumstances, the SC has become a “substitute political battleground. . . . . We look for nine justices to be super legislators. We look to nine justices to try to right the wrongs from other places in the process.”

To fix the mess, Sasse proposes a return to a proper constitutional distribution of power, which in his view, would largely remove the SC as a political battleground and shift it to congress where it belongs.

Some observations:

1. Sasse is right about re-election being the highest goal. Enough has leaked out elsewhere over the years for that to be clear, but hearing it this bluntly and explicitly is almost a miracle. He is also right that the legislation congress writes is sloppy, undefined, and mostly unread. It is also mostly not understood.

2. Sasse may be right about the balance of power being wrong, but there is no chance that our ossified, self-centered two-party system is capable of moving to reform itself over time so that the focus of politics shifts to the congress. That is too threatening to incumbency. Itv simply cannot happen with out two-party system and its corrupt system of financing.

3. Sasse thinks Kavanaugh will be a great SC justice, arguing that, contrary to criticisms, he does not hate women and children or want polluted air or water for the American people. Nonetheless, Kavanaugh will vote in ways that arguably can lead to, or maintain, those situations to some extent. As much as Sasse believes that Kavanaugh will not be a partisan, it is clear that Kavanaugh will be one. Basically, Sasse has argued persuasively that SC justices should not be judges for life (a point I have no opinion about), regardless of how non-partisan they pretend to be.

4. Sasse conveniently ignores one key aspect of Kavanaugh’s legal thinking. Kavanaugh has moved from being a judge who believed the rule of law should apply to a sitting president to one who is uncomfortably close to advocating almost absolute immunity from the law for a sitting president. When Clinton was in power, Kavanaugh advocated not one shred of mercy because the president was not above the rule of law. But in his time in the Bush administration, Kavanaugh did a 180-degree flip and now thinks presidents should be mostly immune from lawsuits and subpoenas. That arguably is out of synch with Sasse’s argument for a ‘proper’ balance of power.

As good as is rhetoric is, Sasse is not persuasive when it comes to the reality of a partisan judiciary or his own assessment of Kavanaugh’s alignment of beliefs with his own. The SC really is a battleground and that is not going to change any time soon. Judges have to be viewed as partisan players because that is what they are to a significant extent. Justice is partisan, and that is how most Americans seem to see this.

NOTE: Sasse is a radical right ideologue who wants to see many or most executive functions of the federal government mostly or completely eliminated. He is deeply antagonistic toward government in general.

B&B orig: 9/5/18