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.

Thursday, July 8, 2021

Republican hostility to government and democracy intensifies



The fascist Republican Party hates any government function that does not protect rich people and powerful special interests. They want to get rid of most or all of public schools, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the Departments of Education, Energy, Environment, Housing and Transportation, and etc. The powerful Republican Christian nationalist movement very much wants to see heterosexual White people at the center of and dominating federal, state and local governments, commerce, society and whatever else there is. The fascist Republican Party also hates and wants to eliminate democracy, the rule of law (except laws that protect them and their friends), labor unions and civil liberties.

The fascist Republican Party also hates, hates, hates the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), the accounts receivable department of the federal government. Fascist Republican anti-IRS hate is now crystallizing into opposition in congress. The Washington Post writes in an article, Conservative groups mount opposition to increase in IRS budget, threatening White House infrastructure plan:
Conservative political groups are mobilizing against a key element of a bipartisan infrastructure deal, and their opposition could make it harder for the U.S. government to collect unpaid taxes.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans have agreed to increase funding for the Internal Revenue Service so that the agency can bring in more tax revenue, hoping the money can help pay down some of the infrastructure package’s expected price tag. The early contours of the infrastructure blueprint have won the White House’s support, but the IRS provision in particular is drawing opposition from well-funded conservative groups, which are strongly opposed to expanding the reach of a tax-collection agency that they long have alleged is politically motivated.

Among the conservative groups spearheading the opposition are the Committee to Unleash Prosperity (~the Trickle Up Committee), FreedomWorks (~the Tyranny Fascist  Movement), the Conservative Action Project (~the Raging Ideologue & Conspiracy Cult), and the Leadership Institute (~the Fascist Indoctrination and Tax Evasion Promotion Committee). They are preparing a letter that warns Republicans should not negotiate with the White House unless they agree to “no additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service.”

The letter, obtained by The Washington Post ahead of its release, is expected to gain support from at least a dozen other conservative groups this week, with plans to send it soon to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Senate GOP leaders. 
“Republicans are going to double the IRS budget? That’s crazy. There’s very strong opposition to this,” said Stephen Moore, a former outside economic adviser to Trump who is leading the effort. An op-ed on the measure that Moore wrote with Steve Forbes also has circulated in Congressional Republican offices.

The bipartisan infrastructure deal reached last month by the White House and a group of Democratic and Republican senators proposes $40 billion for heightened IRS enforcement, with an expectation that it would result in around $140 billion in new revenue. In theory, at least, the idea has broad support among Democrats and Republicans alike, who in recent years have pointed to weaker IRS enforcement and estimates of the nation’s persistent “tax gap,” or the difference between what taxes are owed to the government and what is actually paid.  
Over the past decade, persistent budget cuts have hurt the IRS’s ability to conduct audits, including those targeting wealthy and large corporations. Tax experts have expressed alarm that the weakening of the IRS has helped fuel the increase in U.S. income inequality, in part because the rich have more tools to dodge the increasingly weak tax collection agency.

 




Why does the fascist GOP hate the IRS so much?
Because the fascist GOP hates government and democracy, both of which require money to operate, it also hates the IRS. The amount of money the IRS is losing to tax cheats each year is astonishing. Increasing the IRS budget to enforce tax law would increase tax revenue the government has to spend and decrease the tax cheat theft. Although tax evasion is a significantly bipartisan sport, a lot of tax cheats are wealthy Republicans who donate to the GOP. Their donations include a demand to keep their freedom to cheat on their taxes and not get caught. 

The latest estimate of the tax gap that I am aware of puts it at ~$1.4 trillion/year. As discussed here repeatedly, the tax gap has been huge for years, starting at least as early as 2001, when it was only ~$295 billion/year. And, as the IRS budget has been cut repeatedly by Republicans, the annual amount that tax cheats keep from paying increases. In this case, there is a good basis to argue that the low IRS budget correlation with increased tax evasion has a non-trivial amount of causation buried in it somewhere.


Question: Are average, honest tax paying Americans screwed, or should the IRS be eliminated and most or all government privatized of, by and for rich people and major special interests, which is the GOP's fondest dream?

Hint: Regular people are screwed.




Wednesday, July 7, 2021

The ex-president files class action lawsuits against social media companies

In routine fascist hypocrisy, the ex-president is filing class action lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter and Google for censoring conservatives, especially himself. During his presidency, he signed a rule that allows banks to block class action lawsuits by cheated consumers against their banks. But now he wants to use class status for his nutty lawsuit. Under current law, private entities including social media companies can censor or block any speech they want for any reason or no reason. The ex-president was blocked for his role in the 1/6 coup attempt either permanently or for a set period of time. Facebook banned him for at least 2 years. Facebook will keep the ban in place at least until the ‘risk to public safety is receded.’

The suits were filed in the Southern District of Florida, and Trump said at a news conference in Bedminster, N.J., that they would call for the court to issue an order blocking the companies’ alleged censorship of the American people.

“We’re demanding an end to the shadowbanning, a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing and canceling that you know so well,” Trump said.

The suits allege that the companies violated Trump’s First Amendment rights in suspending his accounts and argues that Facebook, in particular, no longer should be considered a private company but “a state actor” whose actions are constrained by First Amendment restrictions on government limitations on free speech. Traditionally, the First Amendment is thought to constrain only government actions, not those of private companies.

It also called for the court to strike down Section 230, a decades-old Internet law that protects tech companies from lawsuits over content moderation decisions.

Trump will face an uphill battle in court, under Section 230. The lawsuit also is likely to face claims that any action against the platforms violates their First Amendment rights; just last week, a federal judge cited the Constitution in blocking a Florida social media law from taking effect. The law would have levied fines against the tech companies if they suspended politicians in the run-up to an election.  
“Of course there’s no better evidence that Big Tech is out of control than they banned the sitting president of the United States earlier this year,” he [Trump] said at the news conference. “If they can do it to me they can do it to anyone.”

It is up to the courts
If the radical right Republican, Christian nationalist Supreme Court sides with the ex-president, his lies, crackpot conspiracies and divisive rhetoric will resume gushing from his morally rotted mind and aided by the morally rotted minds of the corrupt fascists who work for him. The anti-democratic court would like to side with him, but that may be too blatant a step toward fascism. It will take at least about 2-3 years for the lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court at least first time. The suit could wind up before the court more than once, depending on how it plays out and how lower courts decide.

The ex-president no doubt sees this as an opportunity to raise cash. One news source recently indicated that about $530 million in business debt is coming due in the next few years, a significant amount of which he personally guaranteed. One can see many appeals to the public for money to help the valiant but wronged ex-president fight against the forces of Democratic Party and socialist evil. In fact, the real evil he is fighting here is the rule of law. He needs the law bent to suit his desperate need for access to major social media platforms. That appears to be his best means to harvest cash and advance the cause of kleptocratic fascism against democracy and the rule of law.

Because of his urgent need of vast amounts of cash, the ex-president may try to accelerate the court case to help him raise money from his flock. And, if he actually wins, he may be awarded hundreds of millions in damages as lead plaintiff in the class action.

One can reasonably wonder who has standing to countersue the ex-president and his attorneys for filing a frivolous lawsuit. On its face, that is what this looks like. Once again, the American taxpayer is forced to bear the frivolous costs of a deranged fascist who is hell-bent on overthrowing democracy and the rule of law.

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

The human condition chronicles: The powerful appeal of fake medicines

MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution)
Used as a religious sacrament by the Genesis II Church
Alleged to cure at least 95% of all known diseases, including 
Alzheimers Disease, cancers, autism, skin rashes and 
infections including HIV and COVID
It does cure people of the money they spend for it  


Humans like fake medicines and always have. That includes some highly educated and medically trained and experienced professionals who should know better. Go figure. We’re a superstitious lot. Or less charitably, we’re sometimes just plain dumb.

Recent articles by the BBC and Bloomberg Businessweek focus on a fake medicine sometimes called MMS. It is toxic and has poisoned unknown thousands of people across dozens of countries and killed an unknown number of others. MMS is most commonly made by mixing solutions containing the swimming pool chemicals hydrochloric acid and sodium chlorite. The mixture produces the bleaching compound chlorine dioxide (ClO2 -- one chlorine atom, two oxygen atoms), which is the main ingredient in MMS. Side effects of ingesting too much chlorine dioxide include severe vomiting, diarrhea, liver failure, irreparable damage to the respiratory tract and critical organs and death. 



The humble origins of MMS
MMS was discovered in 2006 by Jim Humble, a former scientologist who published a book touting it as helping to cure malaria. Humble is an important deity. He said that he is a billion-year-old god from the Andromeda galaxy who asked for, and got, the job of being put in charge of taking care of Earth.

Clearly, he was off his game as a god when he let the ex-president get into office in the 2020 elections. But that's a different story.

As one might expect when thousands of people are being poisoned, MMS started attracting attention from health authorities. It first gained popularity among health crackpots like antivaxxers, mouth breathers and knuckle draggers. Stories of bad side-effects were starting to pop up. The FDA published its first warning about it in 2010. That’s when the MMS story starts to get interesting.

In a blog post in 2010, Humble wrote about a way to evade and get rid of pesky health authorities: “Forming a church of health and healing. If handled properly a church can protect us from vaccinations that we don’t want, from forced insurance, and from many things that a government might want to use to oppress us.” 

Humble, along with Mark Grenon (a Florida resident), created the Genesis II church (GII, not to be confused with the other GII, Germaine II). Grenon, became one MMS’s top promoters. Grenon was himself an interesting person in his own right. In 2016, a news report showed Grenon spewing conspiratorial falsities at a GII church event. Grenon’s crackpottery included blither about the 11 September planes being “holograms created by the government”, and drivel about “chemtrails” being poisonous. 

Anyway, taking MMS became a formal GII religious sacrament and thus, according to Humble and Grenon, not subject to regulations or laws. Taking poison was part of GII’s religious freedom and, as a bonus, an escape from government oppression. Through its website in 2019, GII was selling MMS in a “G2 Sacramental Kit” with a note on the enclosed bottle of MMS capsules that stated: “As water needs to be cleansed for health, so must the water of the body, the blood and its tissues be cleansed to maintain health—Archbishop Mark Grenon.” 

Apparently, Grenon moved up the GII church hierarchy to Archbishop status. The god Humble was out of the picture after he split with Grenon in 2015 because he was not getting his full share of the profits from MMS sales. 

In 2020, federal agent Jose Rivera sent a message to an email address printed on a pamphlet included with the G2 Sacramental Kit, asking how often his wife should drink MMS to cure her bladder cancer. Jordan Grenon (one of Mark Grenon’s eight offspring units) suggesting two drops per hour in his reply. In January 2020, Rivera began staking out the Bradenton Florida address listed on the return label. It was was the Grenon family compound. Public records showed that the property, belonged to Jonathan Grenon, another of the Archbishop’s offspring units. 




The church’s logo, a globe with a golden GII garland was part of the property record. Apparently, sometime after the exit of the god from the enterprise, selling MMS had become the Grenon family business. MMS was sold in 4-ounce bottles as “sacramental cleansing water,” for $20 donations paid to the church.  

The Bloomberg article comments on an unfortunate fatal MMS incident while Humble was still on duty:
In 2009, American retiree Doug Nash and his Mexican wife, Sylvia Fink, embarked on a circumnavigation of the globe aboard their sailboat, Windcastle. On their way to the Solomon Islands, they met a couple, a Belgian man and an American woman, who sold MMS to Fink as a prophylaxis against malaria. On an August morning, after a night of dancing with villagers on the remote island of Epi to celebrate an annual canoe race, Fink added 2 drops of MMS to 10 drops of lime juice and drank the mixture on the boat’s sundeck. Within 15 minutes, she’d started vomiting uncontrollably, continuing until she was throwing up only bile. She also suffered burning urinary pain. Nash radioed for medical assistance, but by sundown Fink had lapsed into a coma. By 9 p.m. she was dead.

The autopsy report noted a significantly high level of methemoglobin in the blood—a symptom of high exposure to chlorite—which would have effectively starved her body of oxygen. “It was a substance, used in the fashion that was being recommended, that was definitely acting like a poison would on your gut,” Nash says of the MMS. “Her body got so dehydrated that her organs started to fail.”

Now in his late 80s, Nash relocated aboard the Windcastle to Honolulu, where he’s writing a book about his wife’s death. He recalls Grenon mocking the incident in early podcasts and even suggesting Nash was somehow to blame. “He’s a crude, vile, dishonest person,” Nash says while discussing Grenon’s arrest. “I have no idea what the penalty should be for what he did, peddling an industrial chemical that’s very dangerous if you use it incorrectly. But he deserves to be punished.”

Fink’s death resonated enough in Oceania that when Grenon and Humble went to Australia and New Zealand to host a dozen seminars five years later, seeking to market MMS as a cure for Ebola, which was then spreading in West Africa, some legs of their tour were shut down by local governments. From 2009 to 2014, the Victorian Poisons Information Centre had attributed at least 10 poisonings in Australia, including four that required hospitalization, to MMS. In one particularly serious case from April 2009, a woman had been fined for injecting cancer sufferers with MMS in her garage, advising them not to seek chemotherapy and charging them as much as $2,000 per shot; one breast cancer patient had to be treated for a life-threatening blood clot afterward. While Grenon and Humble were in New Zealand, lawmakers were seeking to pass a bill that would help regulators ban products such as MMS, but it eventually stalled out.  
MMS kept spreading, largely away from the public eye despite the 16,000 chlorine dioxide poisonings taking place in the U.S. from 2014 to 2019. The exact percentage that can be traced directly to MMS is unknown, though in one notable instance from 2017, an autistic 6-year-old girl was hospitalized with liver failure after her parents gave it to her. Genesis II held that, over time, it trained 2,000 ministers globally and sold millions of vials of MMS to members and to online buyers transacting through Amazon.com and EBay. Church-branded MMS hasn’t been listed on those websites since the Grenons’ arrest, but several imitations with names such as “Jim Humble’s Formula” are still available for purchase.
Archbishop Grenon and/or some of his offspring units are in jail in Florida awaiting trial. The arrests were in 2020. It doesn't faze the Archbishop. He points out that thousands of people worldwide have paid him ~$800 each to be trained in hot to make MMS and what “dosages” are to be used for what diseases. MMS is still available all over the place, apparently including the US.

During the COVID pandemic GII’s sales were more than $100,000/month. Grenon claimed in a March 2020 GII newsletter that MMS could stop the COVID. Federal agent Rivera another MMS order. The instructions advised people infected with COVID to ingest “one 6-drop dose of MMS, then one hour later take another 6-drop dose of MMS. After two 6-drop doses of MMS, go on hourly doses of 3 activated drops in 4 ounces of water hourly. For children, follow the same instructions as above and cut the amounts in half.”


The plot thickens - the idiot president blunders into the steaming pile
The story gets really interesting after the ex-president stumbled into the steaming MMS pile. Our idiot ex-resident appears to have helped to boost MMS sales after he blithered in public about using bleach to treat COVID. Where did the idiot get that idea? Probably from Grenon. Bloomberg notes that QAnon was circulating conspiracy theories and testimonials for bleach-based cures were, especially among vaccine-skeptic circles. But GII probably played a role. The Archbishop took credit for the idiot’s COVID bleach blither. Less than a week before the idiot spoke to the public about it, Grenon said, as Bloomberg puts it,
.... on his weekly webcast that he’d written to the president about his legal problems, describing MMS as ‘a wonderful detox that can kill 99% of the pathogens in the body’ and ‘rid the body of Covid-19.’ After Trump’s endorsement Grenon claimed, without evidence, that the president had received bleach from more than two dozen church supporters and that Genesis II had a channel to him through a Trump family member.” 
On a podcast that same month, Grenon declared that he had no intention of complying with the government’s efforts to shut him down. He also offered a warning, invoking the constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms. “You’ve got the Second, right?” he said. “When Congress does immoral things, passes immoral laws, that’s when you pick up guns, right? You want a Waco? Do they want a Waco?” he said, referring to the 1993 U.S. government siege of a Texas religious sect’s headquarters that left 86 people dead.
The entire MMS thing is clearly a complete fraud, but a toxic one. Nonetheless Americans still buy it, not knowing it is a poison, or not believing it is when they are told. MMS users in the US tend to be into things like crackpot QAnon conspiracies. MMS users in foreign countries tend to be poor, uninformed about fraud and maybe also big fans of crackpot conspiracies. Thousands of foreigners are still being poisoned in dozens of countries. The BBC article comments on the MMS situation in South America:

Chlorine dioxide, the apparent cure they [protesters in Lima Peru] were clamoring for, is not only ineffective against Covid-19, but it can cause life-threatening dehydration and acute liver failure. It is considered hazardous for human consumption by health authorities all over the world, including those in Peru. Its promoters have had face-offs with doctors and have even been prosecuted by authorities for years, but the coronavirus pandemic gave them their biggest showcase so far.
Interest in chlorine dioxide on Google skyrocketed in 2020, and hundreds of pages offering it began to appear in social media. Several celebrities endorsed it in their social media profiles, and some even managed to win mainstream media coverage by praising of its alleged properties. Andreas Kalcker, one of its biggest promoters, has been invited to talk about it by well-meaning journalists, legislators and academics not only in Peru, but also in neighboring countries such as Colombia and Bolivia. 
"The narrative of fake cures is fed by hope, by this idea that 'we finally found the solution'," says Laura Merchan, a researcher from the Democracy Observatory in the University of the Andes in Bogota, who studied how false information about fake cures spread on Facebook in Colombia. 
Other chlorine dioxide enthusiasts are also keen on conspiratorial thinking, like Luis Lopez, from Peru. While talking to the BBC, he said he believed public health measures like mandatory masks make people sick, and that the whole pandemic is an effort to depopulate the Earth. 
Lopez tells me the pandemic forced him to close his business, so he took on manufacturing and selling the substance "because it works". He says he makes the equivalent of £580 ($820) in a good day, more than three times the monthly minimum wage in his country.  
Another plausible explanation might have to do with how conspiracy theories exploit reasoning errors we are all prone to make. Van der Linden explains that "believers often commit what's called a conjunction fallacy", meaning they wrongly judge a specific set of conditions as more probable than a single general one. "The probability of a conspiracy actually being true is, of course, very low, but the way that it's framed makes things seem more plausible than they actually are."
The BBC article points out that fakery like this has been going on at least since the Italian Renaissance:
Back in Renaissance Italy, town squares were packed with charlatans who sold all kinds of concoctions by exaggerating their therapeutic claims. In a time long before the development of sanctioned, effective medicines for most illnesses, street peddlers could offer a way out of the complexity, says David Gentilcore, a historian in University of Venice Ca’Foscari who has extensively studied charlatans’ role in the history of medicine.[1]
"A charlatan can come along and say, 'Oh, you have a fever, I have a simple remedy: You take a spoon, a spoonful of this every morning with a glass of wine and it'll put you right. It'll work on anybody, any time of the year, any age,'" explains Gentilcore.
There you have it, a slice of the human condition revealed.


Footnote: 
1. Speaking of the charlatans’ role in the history of medicine, the author of a book I reviewed here but can't recall (Johnathan Haidt?), made an interesting observation about quack medical science, arrogant doctors and sloppy thinking. It went like this: The great ancient Greek doctor Galen thought that he had discovered that when he treated a patient and the patient recovered, it was because he was smart and his treatment was effective. When the patient died, it was because he/she was too ill and no doctor or treatment could save them. It took until the 1950s that some doctors in the US to start to accept the possibility that (1) Galen might have been wrong, and maybe, just maybe, (2) placebo controlled clinical trials might be a better way to assess the efficacy of a drug or treatment than just the doctor’s belief that he was always right and dead patients were none of his doing.

In that author’s opinion, Galen’s mistaken belief was responsible for more human deaths and misery than any human ever. What an interesting thought. Probably exaggerated, but still interesting.

Monday, July 5, 2021

An argument that the US invasion of Iraq doomed US efforts in Afghanistan




The history I was aware of indicated that there were two independent factors the US could never have succeeded in Afghanistan. Both were fatal on their own. One was the intractable corruption and associated incompetence of the Afghan government the US installed there. Many of the Afghan people came to hate it. The corruption and incompetence made a mockery of their lives and dignity. Sarah Chayes made clear the depth and breadth of corruption in Afghan government and society in her 2015 book, Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security.

The other fatal factor was the fact that Pakistan provided a refuge for the Taliban, making it impossible to destroy it militarily. The Taliban was impossible to defeat by military force as long as Pakistan provided a sanctuary and the US refused to wage war there.

A third independent reason has been argued by foreign policy expert Johan Blank. A few weeks ago, Blank wrote this in The Atlantic:
The original sin of the war in Iraq was going to war in Iraq. And the original sin of the war in Afghanistan was going to war in Iraq.

In September 2001, when Joe Biden was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was the policy adviser for the stretch of Asia that included Afghanistan. By 9 a.m. on 9/11, I felt certain that al-Qaeda (which was based in Afghanistan) was behind the attacks—but that we’d end up invading Iraq anyway.

To understand [Biden’s] decision to get out [of Afghanistan], one has to understand the decision to get in—and how that choice was quickly undermined by the invasion of another country.

In 2001, even the most ardent war hawks didn’t want to invade Afghanistan: They wanted to invade Iraq. Neoconservatives, such as the Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, had a grand vision of remaking the country in America’s image. Paleoconservatives, such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, install a pliable puppet, and thereby deter any other would-be adversaries. Both camps saw Afghanistan as an unwelcome distraction from the main event, but they applied the same rationales there.

Biden belonged to neither camp. He rejected both the unrealistic ambitions of the neocons and the unambitious realism of the paleos.

Biden never bought into the notion of full-on nation building, though. As he said on the Senate floor, right after his first trip to Afghanistan, “We’re not talking about turning Kandahar into Paris.” He did believe that if the U.S. was going to invade a country, it had the moral and political obligation to do right by its inhabitants. He was the first American political leader to propose a billion-dollar pledge of reconstruction aid.

The approach advocated by Biden was forward-leaning but not unrealistically ambitious: Enough troops to crush al-Qaeda and prevent the Taliban from moving back into power before a successor could be established; enough development aid to help a ravaged people get back on their feet after far too much suffering; and all of this as part of a genuinely multinational effort. Could such an approach have worked?

Yes—and it did. For about two years after the ousting of the Taliban, that’s the path the nation was on.

What changed after 2002? In a word, Iraq. The Bush administration’s focus started shifting within weeks of the Taliban’s ouster, and plans for the Iraq invasion soon became all-consuming. Too light a troop presence in Afghanistan meant that security was never truly established; too little money actually delivered meant that the fledgling government was never able to prove its credibility to its own people; too little focus from U.S. policy makers meant that a highly centralized governing structure, imposed on a never-before-centralized nation, could not be prevented from degenerating into nepotism, ineffectiveness, and rampant corruption. Failure to provide enough troops, money, and focus on the front end resulted in exponentially more troops, money, and focus down the line.

By the time U.S. troops crossed into Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan was already an afterthought for the administration. The Taliban regrouped across the border in Pakistan and was soon back on the offensive. Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda’s leadership, after escaping the U.S. dragnet at Tora Bora, was comfortably ensconced nearby. Without effective support from the U.S. during this key period (the first few years were when the commitment was make-or-break), the fragile experiment in Afghanistan had little chance to succeed.

So many things went wrong in the subsequent years, and there was plenty of blame to go around. I saw Biden’s frustration grow: frustration with the Bush administration, with Afghanistan’s then-President Hamid Karzai, with all of the supposedly smart experts (and clearly not-too-smart staffers) who couldn’t figure out how to make the project work.

Biden reached the end of his rope on the last trip I took with him while he was chairman, in January 2009. .... He was ahead of the curve: A dozen years further on, much of official Washington still isn’t ready to leave Afghanistan.

The Afghans will have to forge their future under far more difficult circumstances now than they would have if their fledgling civil society had been given, say, a decade to really take root. That breathing space could have been provided by U.S. resources that were instead pulled away for the war in Iraq.

There is a real chance that Afghanistan will return to the bloody anarchy of the 1990s. But there’s also a real chance that it won’t.

Blank goes on to express optimism that the Afghan people will resist the Taliban and go on to build a society that is different from what the Taliban wants to impose by force. He argues that what will be needed is continuing US support for the government now in place, regardless of its corruption and incompetence. 

One can only hope that Blank is speaking for what most of the Afghan people want and that it really is possible given how deeply flawed the government is. To get a feel for just how corrupt the government is, the Chayes book Thieves of State is a good place to start.




Regarding what critical race theory is and is not


President Lyndon Johnson signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which aimed to do away with racial discrimination in the law. But discrimination persisted.


An article at the Conversation, Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn’t, discusses what CRT is and is not. It was written by David Miguel Gray, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Affiliate, Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis. Dr. Gray writes: 
U.S. Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana sent a letter to fellow Republicans on June 24, 2021, stating: “As Republicans, we reject the racial essentialism that critical race theory teaches … that our institutions are racist and need to be destroyed from the ground up.”

Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor and central figure in the development of critical race theory, said in a recent interview that critical race theory “just says, let’s pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes. … Critical Race Theory … is more patriotic than those who are opposed to it because … we believe in the promises of equality. And we know we can’t get there if we can’t confront and talk honestly about inequality.”

Rep. Banks’ account is demonstrably false and typical of many people publicly declaring their opposition to critical race theory. Crenshaw’s characterization, while true, does not detail its main features. So what is critical race theory and what brought it into existence?

The development of critical race theory by legal scholars such as Derrick Bell and Crenshaw was largely a response to the slow legal progress and setbacks faced by African Americans from the end of the Civil War, in 1865, through the end of the civil rights era, in 1968. To understand critical race theory, you need to first understand the history of African American rights in the U.S.

The history

After 304 years of enslavement, then-former slaves gained equal protection under the law with passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, guaranteed voting rights for men regardless of race or “previous condition of servitude.”

Between 1866 and 1877 – the period historians call “Radical Reconstruction” – African Americans began businesses, became involved in local governance and law enforcement and were elected to Congress.

This early progress was subsequently diminished by state laws throughout the American South called “Black Codes,” which limited voting rights, property rights and compensation for work; made it illegal to be unemployed or not have documented proof of employment; and could subject prisoners to work without pay on behalf of the state. These legal rollbacks were worsened by the spread of “Jim Crow” laws throughout the country requiring segregation in almost all aspects of life.

Grassroots struggles for civil rights were constant in post-Civil War America. Some historians even refer to the period from the New Deal Era, which began in 1933, to the present as “The Long Civil Rights Movement.”

The period stretching from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which found school segregation to be unconstitutional, to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing, was especially productive.

The civil rights movement used practices such as civil disobedience, nonviolent protest, grassroots organizing and legal challenges to advance civil rights. The U.S.’s need to improve its image abroad during the Cold War importantly aided these advancements. The movement succeeded in banning explicit legal discrimination and segregation, promoted equal access to work and housing and extended federal protection of voting rights.

However, the movement that produced legal advances had no effect on the increasing racial wealth gap between Blacks and whites, while school and housing segregation persisted.

What critical race theory is

Critical race theory is a field of intellectual inquiry that demonstrates the legal codification of racism in America.

Through the study of law and U.S. history, it attempts to reveal how racial oppression shaped the legal fabric of the U.S. Critical race theory is traditionally less concerned with how racism manifests itself in interactions with individuals and more concerned with how racism has been, and is, codified into the law.

There are a few beliefs commonly held by most critical race theorists.

First, race is not fundamentally or essentially a matter of biology, but rather a social construct. While physical features and geographic origin play a part in making up what we think of as race, societies will often make up the rest of what we think of as race. For instance, 19th- and early-20th-century scientists and politicians frequently described people of color as intellectually or morally inferior, and used those false descriptions to justify oppression and discrimination.


Second, these racial views have been codified into the nation’s foundational documents and legal system. For evidence of that, look no further than the “Three-Fifths Compromisein the Constitution, whereby slaves, denied the right to vote, were nonetheless treated as part of the population for increasing congressional representation of slave-holding states.

Third, given the pervasiveness of racism in our legal system and institutions, racism is not aberrant, but a normal part of life.

Fourth, multiple elements, such as race and gender, can lead to kinds of compounded discrimination that lack the civil rights protections given to individual, protected categories. For example, Crenshaw has forcibly argued that there is a lack of legal protection for Black women as a category. The courts have treated Black women as Black, or women, but not both in discrimination cases – despite the fact that they may have experienced discrimination because they were both.

These beliefs are shared by scholars in a variety of fields who explore the role of racism in areas such as education, health care and history.

Finally, critical race theorists are interested not just in studying the law and systems of racism, but in changing them for the better.

What critical race theory is not

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, giving his false version 
of what critical race theory is

“Critical race theory” has become a catch-all phrase among legislators attempting to ban a wide array of teaching practices concerning race. State legislators in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia have introduced legislation banning what they believe to be critical race theory from schools.

But what is being banned in education, and what many media outlets and legislators are calling “critical race theory,” is far from it. Here are sections from identical legislation in Oklahoma and Tennessee that propose to ban the teaching of these concepts. As a philosopher of race and racism, I can safely say that critical race theory does not assert the following:

(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;

(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;

(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex;

(4) An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex;

(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

(6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.

What most of these bills go on to do is limit the presentation of educational materials that suggest that Americans do not live in a meritocracy, that foundational elements of U.S. laws are racist, and that racism is a perpetual struggle from which America has not escaped.

Americans are used to viewing their history through a triumphalist lens, where we overcome hardships, defeat our British oppressors and create a country where all are free with equal access to opportunities.

Obviously, not all of that is true.

Critical race theory provides techniques to analyze U.S. history and legal institutions by acknowledging that racial problems do not go away when we leave them unaddressed.

Questions: Is misrepresentation of what CRT is intentional and used as a means to keep some people fearful, angry, distrustful and loyal ? Do race problems not go away unless they are addressed? Is it even possible to address race problems when about half the country is polarized and emotionally manipulated by the Republican Party? 

Sunday, July 4, 2021

In lieu of politics today…

If you celebrate this particular day, and if fireworks just don’t do it for you, here’s a little something to lift the spirits.  Dare I say, humanity at its "more civilized" level.

We can go back to our normal bitching and moaning about politics tomorrow.   Thanks for indulging me, Germaine. 😊

Hope you enjoyed it, and thanks for passing it along by recommending!