What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations.In addition to the civil rights abuses pondered at the link, let me raise a National Security concern: you'll be giving a vast number of people access to this information, which means its parameters and limits will become widely known very quickly. The tool will rapidly become useless for what it was originally intended to do.
What Could Go Wrong?
NSA data becomes widely available:
Richard Fernandez on Challenging Opinions
The Belmont Club author, and one of the bloggers I've always respected most, gives a remarkable podcast interview.
He begins by contrasting historical imperalist treatments of the Middle East with the current post-Bush chaos unleashed by the Obama administration. The price of chaos, he says, will be much higher.
He begins by contrasting historical imperalist treatments of the Middle East with the current post-Bush chaos unleashed by the Obama administration. The price of chaos, he says, will be much higher.
NPR & Harvard: Boy, Obamacare is a Disaster
PowerLine notes an NPR report that can't sugarcoat the medicine.
You can list me in the group whose benefits have stayed about the same -- it's a grandfathered plan -- but whose co-pays have increased and whose premiums have skyrocketed. I'm paying I think twice now what I was paying before this lovely adventure began, for exactly the same plan (since I am now forbidden by law to change it without losing it forever).
You can list me in the group whose benefits have stayed about the same -- it's a grandfathered plan -- but whose co-pays have increased and whose premiums have skyrocketed. I'm paying I think twice now what I was paying before this lovely adventure began, for exactly the same plan (since I am now forbidden by law to change it without losing it forever).
Please Let That Be True
I don't know enough about Federal prosecutions to know if this statement is accurate. The source is the right kind of person to know, but if there's a loophole, I'd expect it to be in play in a Clinton-related case.
DiGenova said it was clear to him if a federal grand jury had been impaneled after Justice Department officials acknowledged they had issued statutory immunity to Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former IT chief.
Druid Temple in Scotland
Underground, and possibly. Interesting pictures, and worth entertaining as a theory.
The Expected Violence
Multiple camera angles caught a Trump supporter sucker-punching a black activist who was being removed from a rally following an attempt to disrupt that rally by protesting. The use of several cameras at different angles to capture his removal -- and the subsequent violence -- makes it difficult to claim the offense was faked or is being misunderstood.
Will Trump try to talk his people into not taking the bait? Does he actually have that much control over the passions he's riding toward the nomination? I am doubtful on both questions.
Will Trump try to talk his people into not taking the bait? Does he actually have that much control over the passions he's riding toward the nomination? I am doubtful on both questions.
Trump on the Oprah Winfrey Show
Decades ago, talking about foreign policy and foreign trade.
He sounds pretty much the same, right down to praising Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis for doing "one hell of a job." The America-first, tired-of-seeing-our-country-lose tone is the same, too.
Also, President Obama just said the same thing about allied free riders that Donald Trump apparently took out a full-page ad to say 24 years ago.
He sounds pretty much the same, right down to praising Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis for doing "one hell of a job." The America-first, tired-of-seeing-our-country-lose tone is the same, too.
Also, President Obama just said the same thing about allied free riders that Donald Trump apparently took out a full-page ad to say 24 years ago.
The Democratic Debate, Abridged
A pro-Clinton writer despairs.
UPDATE: A former Clinton administration counsel writing at Salon magazine thinks it should really be over for her.
UPDATE: A former Clinton administration counsel writing at Salon magazine thinks it should really be over for her.
Sadr City
Corb Lund has a new album out. One of the things I like about his work is that he focuses on telling other folks' stories.
Is Hillary Clinton a Regional Candidate?
So asks an author at The Week. Pointing out that Clinton has only done well in the South, which the Democrats will doubtless lose in November anyway, he notices a pro-Sanders argument that she is even weaker against whomever the Republicans field than Sanders would be: the bulk of her voters will be overwhelmed in what are, overall, easy Red states.
It must be strange to be a "regional" candidate in the region that supports you least.
It must be strange to be a "regional" candidate in the region that supports you least.
Fiorina Backs Cruz
I grew to like Fiorina more and more the longer she was in the race, although she lacked the necessary experience to be an ideal candidate for President. This was back when we were thinking about ideal candidates for President, instead of wondering if we were going to get the felon or the guy who really wants you to know about the size of his genitalia.
She's throwing her support to Cruz.
She's throwing her support to Cruz.
American Veteran Killed in Israel
Taylor Force was killed in Jaffa by a Palestinian terrorist. He was a Redleg and a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course, being a tourist, he was unarmed at the time.
UPDATE: Donations for his family can be given here. Condolences can be left on the West Point Association of Graduate's page for him once they have finished putting together the tribute page, as he was an alumnus of the Academy.
Of course, being a tourist, he was unarmed at the time.
UPDATE: Donations for his family can be given here. Condolences can be left on the West Point Association of Graduate's page for him once they have finished putting together the tribute page, as he was an alumnus of the Academy.
Life Exists Not Despite But Because of Entropy
A young man at the Institute has come up with a novel theory for explaining the origins of life: in fact, he has developed a mathematical formula for it.
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.This leads him to make a small, humble claim.
“I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”OK, but if you are right, the Fermi paradox becomes even more urgent.
They Know If You Feel Bad Or Good, So You'd Better Feel Good for Goodness Sake...
Neuroscientists report that they can tell whether your motives are altruistic or selfish using fMRI scans, regardless of whether your actions are altruistic or selfish.
Increasingly we hear that it is not enough to do the right thing for the right reasons: you've got to feel the right way, too. Now we can look forward to a future in which that is enforced and transgressors punished.
Increasingly we hear that it is not enough to do the right thing for the right reasons: you've got to feel the right way, too. Now we can look forward to a future in which that is enforced and transgressors punished.
Landlines
Twelve years ago, pollsters began to notice that millions of people were abandoning traditional land phone lines for cell phones. Even then, we were wondering about the effect on polling. In Michigan last night, we may have seen it:
Nevertheless, thanks to the rigged nature of the "Democratic" primary, Clinton came out ahead in delegates.
Of course, superdelegates can change their votes. Put that way, the race is a lot closer:
Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.Sanders is the perfect candidate for an error of this type, as his support is demographically concentrated among the young. Many of the youngest voting generation have never had a landline. Telephone polls that aren't adequately capturing cell phones just don't know how to reach and count these folks.
Both the FiveThirtyEight polls-plus and polls-only forecast gave Clinton a greater than 99 percent chance of winning. That’s because polling averages for primaries, while inexact, are usually not 25 percentage points off. Indeed, my colleague Nate Silver went back and found that only one primary, the 1984 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, was even on the same scale as this upset
Nevertheless, thanks to the rigged nature of the "Democratic" primary, Clinton came out ahead in delegates.
Of course, superdelegates can change their votes. Put that way, the race is a lot closer:
True and accurate numbers are the following: after “Super Saturday,” Clinton has 663 pledged delegates. Sanders has 459 pledged delegates. Clinton needs 1,720 delegates to win. Sanders needs 1,924 delegates to win.Sanders still has a chance to pull this thing off. At the least, he's going to drain Clinton of money and energy all the way to the convention if he keeps winning at this pace. At most, he'll pull off a historic upset.
Sanders is a few hundred delegates behind Clinton, and Clinton has over a thousand delegates to go before she clinches the nomination.
Israeli Successfully Defends Country's Reputation
I really liked Israel.
An Israeli man attacked by a Palestinian Tuesday allegedly pulled his assailant’s knife from his own neck and then proceeded to kill the attacker.
The 40-year-old Israeli was apparently collecting money for charity at a store in the suburb of Petah Tikva at the time he was assaulted.
White Privilege
In Flint, Michigan -- home of Michael Moore, who made a couple of his early documentaries on the hardship of the factory workers and other urban and rural poor in the area -- Bernie Sanders declared that poverty is an ethnic issue. "When you are white, you don’t know what its like to be living in a ghetto,” he said. “You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”
Go tell it in Appalachia, Bernie.
Go tell it in Appalachia, Bernie.
International Women's Day Quiz
Can you identify these 15 "iconic" women?
I happened to do so successfully, earning the award text: "Amazing! You can easily identify the most iconic women in history. You're a true feminist who understands the meaning of girl power!"
Indeed, that's what everybody says about me.
I do take women seriously. That's not quite the same thing.
I happened to do so successfully, earning the award text: "Amazing! You can easily identify the most iconic women in history. You're a true feminist who understands the meaning of girl power!"
Indeed, that's what everybody says about me.
I do take women seriously. That's not quite the same thing.
Campus Carry Advances in Georgia
Senate Judiciary Committee cleared it. Now the Senate as a whole has to vote on it. The governor, who is not on my good list most of the time, has made noises sounding like he would sign it into law this year.
The proposed law actually only affects those 21 and older, who have been through the background checks and fingerprinting necessary to get a license. Thus, almost no undergraduates would be affected -- only a few upper-classmen, graduate students, and adults who were attending college later in life would be eligible. These will be people who have proven their capacity to handle adult stress without resorting to crime or violence, or ending up in mental health care or drug/alcohol rehab. The crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is vanishingly small, but they do provide an important distributed defense in the rare but not unheard-of case of a terrorist attack or active shooter.
In spite of that, there was a three hour hearing in which people came and railed against it. Even in Georgia, a lot of the Great and the Good are terrified of handguns.
The proposed law actually only affects those 21 and older, who have been through the background checks and fingerprinting necessary to get a license. Thus, almost no undergraduates would be affected -- only a few upper-classmen, graduate students, and adults who were attending college later in life would be eligible. These will be people who have proven their capacity to handle adult stress without resorting to crime or violence, or ending up in mental health care or drug/alcohol rehab. The crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is vanishingly small, but they do provide an important distributed defense in the rare but not unheard-of case of a terrorist attack or active shooter.
In spite of that, there was a three hour hearing in which people came and railed against it. Even in Georgia, a lot of the Great and the Good are terrified of handguns.
Sigh
Reason magazine:
Surely a satirist who set out to write a deliberate parody of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest social justice warrior could not have done a better job than a paper on "just and equitable human-ice interactions."The paper itself appears to be a masterwork of the correlation-must-equal-causation fallacy combined with the sentiment epitomized by the famous parody NYT headline: "World ends tomorrow: Women, minorities hardest hit."
But the paper is real—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.
Not Torturing People is a Competitive Disadvantage
This doesn't strike me as a well-considered objection to the practice of banning torture.
First of all, I'm not sure it's true that our torture ban represents a strategic disadvantage. One of the reasons that the Sunni tribes were willing to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq was because of its reliance on torture. Even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, that we were less likely to torture our opponents horribly (and showed an appropriate sense of shame about our lapses) made it easier for Sunni insurgents to consider walking away from the hatred of years of conflict with us, and consider a new partnership.
Second, even if it were true that a 'torture gap' was a strategic disadvantage, it may be that we could afford a strategic disadvantage given our other strategic advantages like the possession of a real air force. If so, we might be willing to accept the small cost in order to uphold our moral principles. This one is pretty important. It's worth paying significant costs to maintain.
In general I oppose trading moral principles for economic gains. If however you are the kind of person who is so invested in an economic mindset that you must sell off valuable moral principles, at least you shouldn't sell them cheaply. You should get a better deal for our principle against torture than beating ISIS, which is soon to be Russia's problem anyway as the current administration will have finished conceding the entire Middle East to Putin before you take office.
Third, I am deeply suspicious of the government's capacity to avoid sliding down slippery slopes. It has proven over the last two decades that it is inclined to do so. Removing the law against torturing terrorists suggests removing the law against torturing some despised classes of Americans, such as perhaps drug dealers. Removing that law suggests widening the class of despised Americans against whom torture can be wielded, perhaps to include "racists" or "sexists." Given the government's propensity to sludge down to the lowest level it can find, we should be reinforcing these walls rather than weakening them.
I could go on, but this surely suffices.
First of all, I'm not sure it's true that our torture ban represents a strategic disadvantage. One of the reasons that the Sunni tribes were willing to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq was because of its reliance on torture. Even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, that we were less likely to torture our opponents horribly (and showed an appropriate sense of shame about our lapses) made it easier for Sunni insurgents to consider walking away from the hatred of years of conflict with us, and consider a new partnership.
Second, even if it were true that a 'torture gap' was a strategic disadvantage, it may be that we could afford a strategic disadvantage given our other strategic advantages like the possession of a real air force. If so, we might be willing to accept the small cost in order to uphold our moral principles. This one is pretty important. It's worth paying significant costs to maintain.
In general I oppose trading moral principles for economic gains. If however you are the kind of person who is so invested in an economic mindset that you must sell off valuable moral principles, at least you shouldn't sell them cheaply. You should get a better deal for our principle against torture than beating ISIS, which is soon to be Russia's problem anyway as the current administration will have finished conceding the entire Middle East to Putin before you take office.
Third, I am deeply suspicious of the government's capacity to avoid sliding down slippery slopes. It has proven over the last two decades that it is inclined to do so. Removing the law against torturing terrorists suggests removing the law against torturing some despised classes of Americans, such as perhaps drug dealers. Removing that law suggests widening the class of despised Americans against whom torture can be wielded, perhaps to include "racists" or "sexists." Given the government's propensity to sludge down to the lowest level it can find, we should be reinforcing these walls rather than weakening them.
I could go on, but this surely suffices.
OAF on the VA
A former hitter describes the VA as "purgatory," and proposes that you take whatever money you get out of them for disability and spend it on private healthcare instead. Along the way, he offers this quote:
Law 40: Despise the Free Lunch - What is offered for free is dangerous—it usually involves either a trick or a hidden obligation. What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way, you stay clear of gratitude, guilt, and deceit.
—48 Laws of Power
The Florida Sun Sentinel: No One for President
If only that were an option.
The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board is not going to make an endorsement in Florida's March 15 Republican presidential primary because the kind of person who should be running is not in the race....
Trump may be entertaining, but he lacks the experience and temperament to be president. He does not deserve your vote.
...
If you think Marco Rubio can unite the Republican Party under a winning banner, vote for him. But remember that he has almost no experience and has done little but run for office. Then, when he gets in office, he doesn't go to work very much.... Rubio lacks the experience, work ethic and gravitas needed to be president. He has not earned your vote.
...
If you want someone who won't compromise on social issues, who will stand strong for limited government and will make his decisions based on the Bible, your choice is clear: Ted Cruz....
Cruz scares us.
...
If you consider yourself a mainstream Republican, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is your man. He's a solid conservative who's fought public services unions, opposed same-sex marriage and battled to limit abortion rights. He supports a path to legalization — though not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants. He has strong credentials in government at the state and federal levels.... But while Kasich is the most qualified of the four candidates left standing, he lacks presidential presence. And he doesn't have a chance of winning because the Republican base is in rebellion and he got out of the gate too late to build a viable campaign organization.
Perhaps in a more-rational election year, the Sun Sentinel would endorse John Kasich. But we can't urge you to vote for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination.
More in the "Who Is Trump Really?" line
From Jim Gerraghty's newsletter this morning:
In that CNN poll that showed Trump way ahead among Republicans, 35 percent said they would “definitely not” support him and 13 percent said the would “probably not” support him. There’s a certain percentage of primary voters who will only vote for Trump; there’s a percentage that will never vote for Trump. There’s no way to square that circle.
Every vote has to be earned; if a Trump supporter thinks Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio won’t improve the country and won’t do anything for them, they’re free to stay home. You can’t make them vote for a candidate they don’t think is any good. But the reverse is true: if a Cruz or Rubio supporter thinks Trump is a dangerous, erratic demagogue serving no cause higher than his own ego, insisting Trump won the nomination fair and square -- with the help of overwhelming media coverage, as our Stephen Miller points out -- isn’t going to make them sign on for a foul-mouthed vindictive narcissist with no concepts of limitations on state power.
ADDENDA: Over the weekend, Saturday Night Live featured a fake “Racists for Trump” ad. . . . This is the same program that had Trump host the show a few months ago. Some might see this as a sign that the media will build up Trump and then destroy him. A little while back, I argued that the media is blind to the ways that they already partially insulated him from these attacks:
If Trump wins the nomination, we’re likely to see the national media turn on a dime and start talking about him in the harshest of tones: He’s a racist, he’s a demagogue, he’s a maniac, he’s uninformed. Except . . . all of these powerful voices have already established Trump as a ubiquitous, delightfully unpredictable, fearless figure who can’t be ignored. If Trump is this repugnant, nasty racist, so undeserving of public office . . . why is he hosting Saturday Night Live and joking around with Fallon and Colbert? If he’s so self-evidently unsuited for the presidency . . . why has the national media spent a full year dissecting his every move? If he’s such a vulgar embodiment of reality-television narcissism, why the soft-focus profiles of his lovely family? If his economic plans are so wildly unrealistic and reckless, why has the business media written those glowing profiles about his keen mind and eye for opportunities?
So, How About that Democrat Debate?
Maine went for Sanders, too.
The line on the right is that the Democratic Party debates are even worse than the Republican debates because they are empty of substance. First of all, I'm not sure how much emptier you can get than the 11th Republican Debate, but at least this part of the criticism is valid:
Two big things came out of the debate from my perspective. The first one is that Bernie Sanders is actually committed to the survival of the American gun industry. He rightly criticized Clinton's argument in favor of making gun manufacturers liable for the abuse of their products as having the consequence that it would destroy the industry. The fact that he raised the criticism shows that, somehow, he has missed the fact that destroying the gun industry is the whole point of the proposal.
Clinton didn't roll her eyes and say "Yes, obviously, Bern," which was a substantial act of self-control on her part. It does show that Sanders' mind on what to do about guns has somehow never drifted to actually destroying the gun industry, whereas Clinton is part of the Democratic Party's faction that never ceases to look for backdoor approaches to doing so. This proposal is of a piece with the proposal to require gun owners to own liability insurance for each firearm they own, or to tax ammunition at a sufficiently massive rate as to make it impractical to buy, or to ban ammunition outright ('the Second Amendment applies to arms, not ammo!'). While I don't doubt that Sanders' SCOTUS appointees would be drawn from a pool that believes the Second should be read out of the Constitution, as Clinton's certainly would be, it's interesting to realize that he thinks his cause is helped by raising the objection he did in front of the Democratic Debate. Raising the objection shows he believes that it will help him to object to destroying the gun industry.
The other thing I find interesting is that the Clinton campaign's #1 thing they want you to take away from the debate is that Sanders tried to get Clinton to stop talking over him. Except that they phrase this, "Sanders tried to shush Clinton."
Clinton has been laying for this moment for months, a fact I know to be true because her allies in the press immediately painted this as a "Rick Lazio moment." I only know who Rick Lazio is because of the frequent references by Clinton supporters to him. They clearly believe that nothing will drive people to support Hillary Clinton more than the idea that she is brusquely treated by a man.
It may be plausible -- AVI was recently describing the kind of voter on whom it will probably work. As a qualification for President, though, "I'm the kind of person who can be pushed around by Bernie Sanders" doesn't strike me as hugely impressive. The Washington Post commentator says, 'Wait until the Trump/Clinton debates.' I say: think about the Putin/Clinton reality you are courting.
That's not to say that Clinton couldn't stand up to Putin, with all the machinery of the Presidency at her beck and call. It is to say that she won't be able to do so via diplomacy. Clinton's political style is like a soccer player gaming the referees:
But there are no more referees when you become President. She will either have to roll over, or she will have to resort to the kind of force that the President can call upon. By way of comparison, I had the strong sense that a Jim Webb presidency would be a peaceful one in part because hostile foreign powers would think twice about messing with that former Marine. His diplomatic efforts would be greatly strengthened by the sense that he was not to be trifled with. Clinton has made a career out of being trifled with -- it's how she got elected to the Senate, and it's how she stood for President the last time, ending up as Secretary of State. The appeal to self-as-victim, in the hope of aligning other self-described victims behind her, is the core of her political stance.
A Clinton Presidency would thus be far more violent than a Webb Presidency would have been. She will have to prove for the first time what Webb proved decades ago at a machine-gun bunker in Vietnam.
The line on the right is that the Democratic Party debates are even worse than the Republican debates because they are empty of substance. First of all, I'm not sure how much emptier you can get than the 11th Republican Debate, but at least this part of the criticism is valid:
An example Sunday night was when Anderson Cooper finally brought up the touchy question of Clinton's emails, ever so gently asking Hillary how she would respond to Trump's promised attacks on the scandal that could emerge, after the FBI investigation, as one of the most serious political crimes in American history.He doubtless felt he'd stretched his neck out by mentioning the subject at all.
Rather than answer the question, Clinton quickly changed the subject to how she had more voters, so far, than Trump. The evasion was so obvious you could drive the whole Russian army through it and probably part of the Polish as well. But did Cooper follow up? He didn't even blink....
Two big things came out of the debate from my perspective. The first one is that Bernie Sanders is actually committed to the survival of the American gun industry. He rightly criticized Clinton's argument in favor of making gun manufacturers liable for the abuse of their products as having the consequence that it would destroy the industry. The fact that he raised the criticism shows that, somehow, he has missed the fact that destroying the gun industry is the whole point of the proposal.
Clinton didn't roll her eyes and say "Yes, obviously, Bern," which was a substantial act of self-control on her part. It does show that Sanders' mind on what to do about guns has somehow never drifted to actually destroying the gun industry, whereas Clinton is part of the Democratic Party's faction that never ceases to look for backdoor approaches to doing so. This proposal is of a piece with the proposal to require gun owners to own liability insurance for each firearm they own, or to tax ammunition at a sufficiently massive rate as to make it impractical to buy, or to ban ammunition outright ('the Second Amendment applies to arms, not ammo!'). While I don't doubt that Sanders' SCOTUS appointees would be drawn from a pool that believes the Second should be read out of the Constitution, as Clinton's certainly would be, it's interesting to realize that he thinks his cause is helped by raising the objection he did in front of the Democratic Debate. Raising the objection shows he believes that it will help him to object to destroying the gun industry.
The other thing I find interesting is that the Clinton campaign's #1 thing they want you to take away from the debate is that Sanders tried to get Clinton to stop talking over him. Except that they phrase this, "Sanders tried to shush Clinton."
Clinton has been laying for this moment for months, a fact I know to be true because her allies in the press immediately painted this as a "Rick Lazio moment." I only know who Rick Lazio is because of the frequent references by Clinton supporters to him. They clearly believe that nothing will drive people to support Hillary Clinton more than the idea that she is brusquely treated by a man.
It may be plausible -- AVI was recently describing the kind of voter on whom it will probably work. As a qualification for President, though, "I'm the kind of person who can be pushed around by Bernie Sanders" doesn't strike me as hugely impressive. The Washington Post commentator says, 'Wait until the Trump/Clinton debates.' I say: think about the Putin/Clinton reality you are courting.
That's not to say that Clinton couldn't stand up to Putin, with all the machinery of the Presidency at her beck and call. It is to say that she won't be able to do so via diplomacy. Clinton's political style is like a soccer player gaming the referees:
But there are no more referees when you become President. She will either have to roll over, or she will have to resort to the kind of force that the President can call upon. By way of comparison, I had the strong sense that a Jim Webb presidency would be a peaceful one in part because hostile foreign powers would think twice about messing with that former Marine. His diplomatic efforts would be greatly strengthened by the sense that he was not to be trifled with. Clinton has made a career out of being trifled with -- it's how she got elected to the Senate, and it's how she stood for President the last time, ending up as Secretary of State. The appeal to self-as-victim, in the hope of aligning other self-described victims behind her, is the core of her political stance.
A Clinton Presidency would thus be far more violent than a Webb Presidency would have been. She will have to prove for the first time what Webb proved decades ago at a machine-gun bunker in Vietnam.
Core personas
A commenter at Maggie's Farm suggested that this 25-year-old interview in Playboy would show us that Trump does have a consistent core, and I have to admit that it does have that effect. He may not be a guy you're crazy about, but perhaps calling him a chameleon is also too harsh. It's refreshing to see anyone in American public life who knows how to talk about creating and possessing wealth without cringing.
Trump Supporters and Dignity
A stab at the question from a Democrat whose friends alternate between Bernie and the candidate she names "old Hilda Baggins."
"America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning." Well, it doesn't try. The Catholic Church tries to help people find dignity and meaning. America sets you free to find your own, in whatever way you like. The American project is about liberty: your dignity is assumed to be guaranteed by your status as a free man or woman.
Whatever esteem you aspire to beyond that, that's for you to build somehow. How? That's up to you, too.
Along the way, you're expected to shift for yourself somehow too. Here's where the trouble comes along: increasingly because of technology, those who earn first in unskilled and now in many skilled ways face competition from the poorest places on earth. Increasingly, because of technology, you also compete with robots that can work 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost of a human worker.
If you think dignity comes from work, you're in bad shape. But dignity is at least tied up with work, because work is how you get resources, and your status in the community depends on your ability to wield resources. We expect you to pay for everything you use. If you own a home, we expect you to pay taxes on it every year, and will take it from you the minute you can't. If dignity includes having security in a place in the world, it depends in America on having the ability to earn adequate resources.
Probably it does everywhere, really, no matter what schemes are set up to mask that fact.
It's an interesting stab, in any case. The author, one Emma Lindsay -- good Scottish name, that -- deserves credit for having written it. Just the moment at which she proposes to look beyond racism, rather than stopping with it as sufficient cause to condemn, is stunning coming at this time and place and from someone of her particular 'tribe.'
Maybe there's some value to all this Trump business after all. It's at least stimulating some interesting thoughts.
Thing is, Trump supporters don’t vote against their best interests, democrats just don’t understand the interest they care about most.I wonder.
It’s dignity.
...
America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning. We have, with the internet, the power for more people to be appreciated than ever before, yet we use it primarily to shame each other. Shaming Trump supporters for being “ignorant bigots” is the worst thing you can do, because their entire motivation in voting for Trump is to alleviate the shame they are already carrying. If you add to their shame, they will dig in further.
It is, obviously, difficult to think about ways to reduce shame on a national level but we have to start finding ways to have more appreciation for each other, even those we disagree with. At the most basic level we can start by not explicitly shaming people. We can stop calling them ignorant. We can stop mocking them on the internet. We can stop calling them out on twitter.
"America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning." Well, it doesn't try. The Catholic Church tries to help people find dignity and meaning. America sets you free to find your own, in whatever way you like. The American project is about liberty: your dignity is assumed to be guaranteed by your status as a free man or woman.
Whatever esteem you aspire to beyond that, that's for you to build somehow. How? That's up to you, too.
Along the way, you're expected to shift for yourself somehow too. Here's where the trouble comes along: increasingly because of technology, those who earn first in unskilled and now in many skilled ways face competition from the poorest places on earth. Increasingly, because of technology, you also compete with robots that can work 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost of a human worker.
If you think dignity comes from work, you're in bad shape. But dignity is at least tied up with work, because work is how you get resources, and your status in the community depends on your ability to wield resources. We expect you to pay for everything you use. If you own a home, we expect you to pay taxes on it every year, and will take it from you the minute you can't. If dignity includes having security in a place in the world, it depends in America on having the ability to earn adequate resources.
Probably it does everywhere, really, no matter what schemes are set up to mask that fact.
It's an interesting stab, in any case. The author, one Emma Lindsay -- good Scottish name, that -- deserves credit for having written it. Just the moment at which she proposes to look beyond racism, rather than stopping with it as sufficient cause to condemn, is stunning coming at this time and place and from someone of her particular 'tribe.'
Maybe there's some value to all this Trump business after all. It's at least stimulating some interesting thoughts.
Kansas Goes Sanders, Too
OK, so Kansas is just one little state, and a caucus. Clinton won Louisiana's primary election, which was another Southern state, where she is running a lot stronger than elsewhere.
Still, it shows that the nomination fight is still a fight on the Democratic Party side.
UPDATE: Not quite finished on the Republican side, either.
Still, it shows that the nomination fight is still a fight on the Democratic Party side.
UPDATE: Not quite finished on the Republican side, either.
Noonan Mourns Her Party
It must be especially sad for someone who was a part of the Reagan revolution, itself an insurgent campaign against an earlier Republican establishment.
It's not the end of the world. There's a chance it could be the beginning of something good, if the "new thing" has principles that accord with the principles of these most ordinary American people. It does need some thought, but there's an opportunity for the thoughts of ordinary Americans to matter.
The window won't last. It never does. Think now, and think carefully, and make sure you make your best thinking known.
And I find myself receiving with some anger, even though I understand, those—especially on the top of the party—who are so blithely declaring the end of things. Do they understand what they’re ending?...There's a chance to put together a party that respects the Reagan Democrats, and pursues blue collar interests that unite poorer white and black voters. It would have to break with the Chamber of Commerce to do that, but it would be a formidable party if it could do it. If you cut into black support so that you were winning a third of the black vote, the Democratic party would not win another national election until they found a new coalition. Unite that black vote with the ~40% of Americans who are blue collar whites, and you wouldn't have to win many other voters -- Evangelicals might do it alone. If you could hold most conservatives, you'd have a dominant coalition. If you lost the conservatives who were most attached to Chamber of Commerce issues, you'd still win.
It’s no longer clear what shared principles endure. Everything got stretched to the breaking point the past 15 years.
Party leaders and thinkers should take note: It’s easier for a base to hire or develop a flashy new establishment than it is for an establishment to find itself a new base.
Even if the party stays together with a Trump win, what will it be? It will have been reconstituted.
It's not the end of the world. There's a chance it could be the beginning of something good, if the "new thing" has principles that accord with the principles of these most ordinary American people. It does need some thought, but there's an opportunity for the thoughts of ordinary Americans to matter.
The window won't last. It never does. Think now, and think carefully, and make sure you make your best thinking known.
Clinton Earns Zero Votes at UNL Caucus
Sanders wins the state overall, after caucuses in every county were held for the first time in Nebraska history. At the caucus closest to the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Clinton received zero votes and failed to attain viability.
The conservatives' indirect path to power
Laura Ingraham argues that small-government conservatives should rally behind Trumpist populism because it's the only way to break the iron grip of the GOPe and ensure that the GOP is no longer where genuine conservative ideas go to die. She acknowledges that many conservatives fear Trump is an unprincipled closet liberal, but counters that all the ostensible conservatives we've managed to elect are the same. Cruz might be different, yes, but he should let Trump pave the way and then hope he can get in there somehow and have his ideas heard for a change. Finally, she argues that supporting populism is kinda sorta congruent with small-government conservatism, even if populism has to be implemented by big-government policies, because populism is about increased opportunity instead of the status quo.
I don't find any of this persuasive. The real question is, though, whether I find it more persuasive than the idea that we should either stay home or (gag) vote for Clinton.
I don't find any of this persuasive. The real question is, though, whether I find it more persuasive than the idea that we should either stay home or (gag) vote for Clinton.
Georgia Legislature Update
We're getting close to the end. Most of the issues that opened big are closing weak. Casinos are dead -- they didn't make the 'crossover day' cut, the last day legislation has to jump houses if it's going to get finished in the 40 day session. Medical marijuana just survived that cut, and is now in the Senate.
The campus carry bill is due for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote Monday. Feel free to write them and encourage passage if you'd like. I wrote the chairman.
The Religious Freedom bill is in final negotiations, having passed both houses (unanimously, in the Georgia House of Representatives). The Senate version made some changes that have to be ironed out in committee. However, the bill is considered very likely to die given that Governor Deal has all but promised to veto it. Like many Republican governors, he favors corporate interests over the protection of his constituents' basic liberties.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has developed new bill-success-predicting software that estimates the campus carry bill (HB 859) has a 55% chance of becoming law. The bill tracker has a problem with the religious freedom law, because the Senate combined two house bills -- one of them the tracker estimates has a 99% chance of becoming law, and the other a 5% chance. Most likely the governor will kill them both with his veto. The Republican governor backing corporate interests against the Georgia citizenry by killing a religious freedom bill that passed unanimously in the House will give Evangelical voters in Georgia -- who went huge for Trump in the primary -- yet another reason to hate the Republican establishment come the General Election.
The campus carry bill is due for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote Monday. Feel free to write them and encourage passage if you'd like. I wrote the chairman.
The Religious Freedom bill is in final negotiations, having passed both houses (unanimously, in the Georgia House of Representatives). The Senate version made some changes that have to be ironed out in committee. However, the bill is considered very likely to die given that Governor Deal has all but promised to veto it. Like many Republican governors, he favors corporate interests over the protection of his constituents' basic liberties.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has developed new bill-success-predicting software that estimates the campus carry bill (HB 859) has a 55% chance of becoming law. The bill tracker has a problem with the religious freedom law, because the Senate combined two house bills -- one of them the tracker estimates has a 99% chance of becoming law, and the other a 5% chance. Most likely the governor will kill them both with his veto. The Republican governor backing corporate interests against the Georgia citizenry by killing a religious freedom bill that passed unanimously in the House will give Evangelical voters in Georgia -- who went huge for Trump in the primary -- yet another reason to hate the Republican establishment come the General Election.
The Eleventh Republican Debate
Last night's debate must have been very gratifying for someone who prefers Python metaphors.
Eh, Mike?
Eh, Mike?
Medieval Oaks
Found forgotten in the backyard of Churchill's old palace -- I did not realize he had lived in a palace -- are sixty oaks that date to the Middle Ages.
Some More Takes on Trump
Elizabeth Price Foley at InstaPundit:
What is the GOP establishment smoking? They’re behaving like they’re zoned out on crack–hypersensitive, overheated, paranoid, and filled with anxiety. Why do they not gracefully accept the decision of their own voters?Nick Gillespie at Reason:
The rise of Donald Trump is a direct result of the GOP’s failure to listen to, or even care about, the issues of concern to ordinary (i.e., beyond the Beltway) voters. They want a leader who ardently defends U.S. sovereignty, security, and economic interests, and who overtly snubs stifling political correctness. They don’t want a patrician like Mitt Romney, whose speech today smacks of a controlling, wealthy father chastising his upstart children for their foolish attempts at independence.
People—even or especially Trump supporters—aren't idiots. They know political grandstanding when they see it, and they fully understand that conservatives and Republicans don't really believe in the things they talk about. Or, same thing, that everything can and will change in the blink of the eye or in ways that just don't make sense. Didn't Mitt Romney beg Donald Trump for an endorsement a few years ago? Romney, whom every conservative news org endorsed and approved, ran for president by attacking Obamacare and the incumbent for spending too much money. He also promised to keep the parts of Obamacare "he liked" and refused to name a single big-ticket spending program he would cut or even trim. Upon becoming Speaker of the House after a million years in waiting, John Boehner was incapable of naming a single program or department he would get rid of.
You can hear it already: But...but...but...Romney and Boehner and all the rest aren't real conservatives or Republicans or whatever. No, that would be Paul Ryan, whose first big act as Boehner's replacement was to sign off on a deal that increased spending on defense and social programs. Whatevs, buddy, whatevs.
Operation Restore Hope, Homeland Edition
Otherwise known as "Update: Hillary for Prison, 2016."
A Department of Justice decision to grant immunity to Hillary Clinton’s top IT aide indicates officials are “considering potential criminal charges” against the former secretary of state or her aides, according to a source familiar with the investigation... “Giving him immunity” indicates “they are considering potential criminal charges against people higher up in the chain,” said the source who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the investigation with reporters.If you're a Democrat in office who is afraid of Donald Trump, one way you could help derail his train is by proving that the government is not quite as corrupt as everyone has come to believe that it is.
It's Only "Indiscriminate" in the Technical Sense
The Russian bombing campaign that Gen. Breedlove is describing as "indiscriminate" is so only in the sense that it does not meet the Just War standards for the "discriminate" use of force. It is not indiscriminate in the sense of "random" or "careless." The Russians are hitting the targets they are aiming to hit.
Putin has simply adopted Assad's strategy of emptying Syrian cities by directing mass violence towards civilian populations and their institutions, such as hospitals. There are two strategic goals advanced in this way:
1) An empty land is easier for a weak ruler like Assad to govern, making it more likely that the war will end with him in control of this physical territory.
2) The mass wave of refugees creates incredible pressure on European governments, making it more likely that they will accept any outcome that stops the pain -- meaning that they are more likely to accept an end to the war that leaves Assad in control of that physical territory, in spite of his use of chemical weapons and his ruthless attacks on noncombatants.
In other words, the Russian strategy to protect Assad from ouster because of his attacks on noncombatants is to increase sharply the number and severity of attacks on noncombatants. Europe can't survive the pressure of waves of millions of refugees, going on for years. They will cave, and Assad -- with Russian fire support and Iranian ground support -- will be able to reassert control of at least the western parts of Syria. Those are the parts Russia cares about most.
Then, in the second phase of the war, Russia and Iran can lead Iraq and Syria in consolidating their mastery of eastern Syria and Western Iraq. That will leave the Russian/Iranian alliance in control of the northern Middle East, from Afghanistan (once we withdraw) to the Levant.
A target of opportunity may be breaking NATO, which could occur if the Turks end up in a conflict with Russia that the rest of the NATO powers are unwilling to support. Even if they don't get that, they'll have won a Grand Strategic victory over the United States and the West. If they do, they'll have broken our key alliance for resisting Russian domination of Asia and Eastern Europe.
All in all, a good bit of work from Putin's perspective. Somebody still knows how to play this game.
Putin has simply adopted Assad's strategy of emptying Syrian cities by directing mass violence towards civilian populations and their institutions, such as hospitals. There are two strategic goals advanced in this way:
1) An empty land is easier for a weak ruler like Assad to govern, making it more likely that the war will end with him in control of this physical territory.
2) The mass wave of refugees creates incredible pressure on European governments, making it more likely that they will accept any outcome that stops the pain -- meaning that they are more likely to accept an end to the war that leaves Assad in control of that physical territory, in spite of his use of chemical weapons and his ruthless attacks on noncombatants.
In other words, the Russian strategy to protect Assad from ouster because of his attacks on noncombatants is to increase sharply the number and severity of attacks on noncombatants. Europe can't survive the pressure of waves of millions of refugees, going on for years. They will cave, and Assad -- with Russian fire support and Iranian ground support -- will be able to reassert control of at least the western parts of Syria. Those are the parts Russia cares about most.
Then, in the second phase of the war, Russia and Iran can lead Iraq and Syria in consolidating their mastery of eastern Syria and Western Iraq. That will leave the Russian/Iranian alliance in control of the northern Middle East, from Afghanistan (once we withdraw) to the Levant.
A target of opportunity may be breaking NATO, which could occur if the Turks end up in a conflict with Russia that the rest of the NATO powers are unwilling to support. Even if they don't get that, they'll have won a Grand Strategic victory over the United States and the West. If they do, they'll have broken our key alliance for resisting Russian domination of Asia and Eastern Europe.
All in all, a good bit of work from Putin's perspective. Somebody still knows how to play this game.
Special Forces Sergeant Charles Martland
A delegate from Culpepper, VA -- a city with some significant American heritage -- rises to call his fellows to the defense of an American warrior. The speech is impassioned. I don't know if it is convincing. Many will be put off by the admission that the sergeant "beat" an Afghan police officer, regardless of the fact that this officer was a child rapist.
In the old days, we would have simply asked: What would you have done, if it had been you standing there, and the child came to beg you for help? What would you have done, when the police laughed in your face and the faces of the child and his mother? What else could you do to convey that, at least as long as you were there, the rape of children was going to stop?
In the old days, any American worth his salt would have said nothing in answer to those questions, but nodded. There are no good answers to the questions. In such a place as Afghanistan, there is only doing what you can do as the man on the ground with the gun. You may not be able to change the culture, but you can make it stop for a while.
That's what any of us would have done. It's not a question of what is right. It's a question of what is left.
In the old days, we would have simply asked: What would you have done, if it had been you standing there, and the child came to beg you for help? What would you have done, when the police laughed in your face and the faces of the child and his mother? What else could you do to convey that, at least as long as you were there, the rape of children was going to stop?
In the old days, any American worth his salt would have said nothing in answer to those questions, but nodded. There are no good answers to the questions. In such a place as Afghanistan, there is only doing what you can do as the man on the ground with the gun. You may not be able to change the culture, but you can make it stop for a while.
That's what any of us would have done. It's not a question of what is right. It's a question of what is left.
Ah, the "Tricky Phase" of War
Just when you thought Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bucca and other infamous American moral horrors were behind us, captured ISIS figures means a return to what the NYT calls the "tricky phase." How can we possibly detain these poor creatures without inflicting unavoidable American abuses upon them?
Actually, it sounds like we're just going to turn them over to the Kurds once we are done with them. I imagine that will mean a mercifully short detention.
Actually, it sounds like we're just going to turn them over to the Kurds once we are done with them. I imagine that will mean a mercifully short detention.
More Kant for Lent
Kant's approach to faith is rational rather than simply faithful, which causes him to disdain the idea that one can obtain (or ought to seek) justification by faith alone. To look to God when you aren't shifting the load yourself strikes him as a doomed project, as you are unworthy of the help you seek.
He also brings the Stoics in for some criticism in thinking the natural inclinations are the primary evil in the hearts of men. Not so, he says: the natural inclinations are good, as long as they are well-managed.
Even just the first couple of pages here ought to make for an interesting and worthy discussion.
He also brings the Stoics in for some criticism in thinking the natural inclinations are the primary evil in the hearts of men. Not so, he says: the natural inclinations are good, as long as they are well-managed.
Even just the first couple of pages here ought to make for an interesting and worthy discussion.
Enthusiasm versus Age
In general in American politics, it is better to be supported by the old than by the young. The young have enthusiasm, and will volunteer and knock on doors for you. The old actually show up on election day.
This strikes me as explaining yesterday's results fairly well. Bernie Sanders has all the enthusiasm: no one at all seems to be enthusiastic about voting for Clinton. Democratic participation is way down across the board from 2008 or even 2012. Bernie is winning young voters by vast margins, but he loses the elections because only a few of the young show up relative to their numbers.
As the enthusiasm of the young is disappointed by watching the corruption of the DNC wash away their icon's chances, how many of them who did make it out to the primary will make it back out to the general? I have already heard three young people I know say that they will not be turning out to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the general. Perhaps they will change their mind. Perhaps not.
Republican enthusiasm is way up. Trump voters especially seem to be both enthusiastic and showing up, suggesting that the enthusiasm for him is with the older voters rather than the younger ones on average -- though there are occasional surprises in Trump's support. But anti-Trump Republicans are enthusiastic too: they are enthusiastic about voting against Trump.
Cruz did well last night relative to all the other non-Trump Republicans. By taking Texas and Alaska, America's most emblematically Red states, he has surely won the right to be the conservative candidate in the race. I think the remaining non-Trump candidates should withdraw, especially Rubio, whose near victory in Virginia was occasioned entirely by his support in the Washington, D.C. metroplex. This is not the year for D.C.'s favorite son.
If you don't want Trump, Cruz is probably the last chance. He's the other candidate in the race who is plausibly an outsider, and who speaks to the anger among the millions of voters who have been backing Trump enthusiastically. If you want that enthusiasm to carry over into the general, and you certainly do if you want to win, finding a way to swap Trump out for an establishment figure is not the way to go. Cruz could win the primary and the general. Trump could, too. Nobody else in the field strikes me as having the chance.
This strikes me as explaining yesterday's results fairly well. Bernie Sanders has all the enthusiasm: no one at all seems to be enthusiastic about voting for Clinton. Democratic participation is way down across the board from 2008 or even 2012. Bernie is winning young voters by vast margins, but he loses the elections because only a few of the young show up relative to their numbers.
As the enthusiasm of the young is disappointed by watching the corruption of the DNC wash away their icon's chances, how many of them who did make it out to the primary will make it back out to the general? I have already heard three young people I know say that they will not be turning out to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the general. Perhaps they will change their mind. Perhaps not.
Republican enthusiasm is way up. Trump voters especially seem to be both enthusiastic and showing up, suggesting that the enthusiasm for him is with the older voters rather than the younger ones on average -- though there are occasional surprises in Trump's support. But anti-Trump Republicans are enthusiastic too: they are enthusiastic about voting against Trump.
Cruz did well last night relative to all the other non-Trump Republicans. By taking Texas and Alaska, America's most emblematically Red states, he has surely won the right to be the conservative candidate in the race. I think the remaining non-Trump candidates should withdraw, especially Rubio, whose near victory in Virginia was occasioned entirely by his support in the Washington, D.C. metroplex. This is not the year for D.C.'s favorite son.
If you don't want Trump, Cruz is probably the last chance. He's the other candidate in the race who is plausibly an outsider, and who speaks to the anger among the millions of voters who have been backing Trump enthusiastically. If you want that enthusiasm to carry over into the general, and you certainly do if you want to win, finding a way to swap Trump out for an establishment figure is not the way to go. Cruz could win the primary and the general. Trump could, too. Nobody else in the field strikes me as having the chance.
You Mean It Might NOT Be That They're A Bunch of Authoritarians?
The RAND Corporation says that the single biggest predictor for taking Trump as your first choice is the feeling that "people like me don't have any say" in politics.
Hamas Eats Its Own
Mr. Ishtiwi, 34, was a commander from a storied family of Hamas loyalists who, during the 2014 war with Israel, was responsible for 1,000 fighters and a network of attack tunnels. Last month, his former comrades executed him with three bullets to the chest.UPDATE: Blogger IsraellyCool says he was "rubbed out for Hamasexualityᵀᴹ."
Adding a layer of scandal to the story, he was accused of moral turpitude, by which Hamas meant homosexuality.
Hey, Texas: What?
At first I assumed the news agency had simply left out the word "thousand."
Headline: 75 rounds of ammunition found underneath house, nearby homes evacuated
But wait, it gets worse:
What's up, Texas? These are your police, even. Are you trying to prove Havok Journal right about this?
Headline: 75 rounds of ammunition found underneath house, nearby homes evacuated
But wait, it gets worse:
Capt. Troy Balcar of the San Antonio Fire Department said a family member found a sealed box with about 75 rounds of decades-old ammunition underneath the house. He said the rounds are .40 caliber and about 40 years old, based on a date written on the box. Half a dozen nearby homes were evacuated for about three hours.Yeah, nothing makes ammunition more powerful than decades of exposure.
"This is definitely a big danger, because they've been under there so long," Balcar said. "They've rusted, they've been exposed to the weather, elements outside so we definitely want to get them disposed of as quickly as possible."
What's up, Texas? These are your police, even. Are you trying to prove Havok Journal right about this?
Angelo Codevilla on the Republic
Dr. Codevilla is one of the more insightful writers on the problems facing us today. I remember his first prominent article on these problems well, and wish it had been better heeded at the time.
Now he warns that we are already past the Republic. This is the unrecognized Empire.
Codevilla's piece slams Trump from start to finish, and calls for a return to small-r republicanism and an end to the cycle of revenge against our cultural enemies. I've been calling for the same thing since 2004, without it being highly persuasive to anyone yet. Let us have the Tenth Amendment, and allow the states to diverge on moral and cultural matters. Let us strip the Supreme Court of its extraordinary power, and the Executive of its power to legislate through the bureaucracy.
Return to the Constitution, or dissolve the Union. Living under an Empire operating under the pretense of democratic legitimacy ought to terrify anyone who understands what that would mean. The cycle of cultural violence can only grow worse if we do not find a way to return to our Constitutional principles, and yet remain bound tightly to those who hate and despise us, who scorn and resent us. Power can only protect you for so long.
Now he warns that we are already past the Republic. This is the unrecognized Empire.
Civics classes used to teach: “Congress makes the laws, the president carries them out, judges decide controversies, and we citizens may be penalized only by a jury of our peers.”It's worth revisiting what he had to say in 2010, and comparing it with what he warns of today. Describing the environment that produced the TEA Party as a clash between the pro-American, pro-Christian "country class" and the "ruling class," he warned that what he called the "country class" was not well-positioned for politics.
Nobody believes that anymore, because no part of it has been true for a long time. Barack Obama stopped pretending that it is. During the twentieth century’s second half, both parties and all branches of government made a mockery of the Constitution of 1789. Today’s effective constitution is: “The president can do whatever he wants so long as one-third of the Senate will sustain his vetoes and prevent his conviction upon impeachment.”
Obama has been our first emperor.
Certainly the country class lacks its own political vehicle -- and perhaps the coherence to establish one. In the short term at least, the country class has no alternative but to channel its political efforts through the Republican Party, which is eager for its support. But the Republican Party does not live to represent the country class. For it to do so, it would have to become principles-based, as it has not been since the mid-1860s. The few who tried to make it so the party treated as rebels: Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.... Few Republican voters, never mind the larger country class, have confidence that the party is on their side....Six years on, the ruling class rules the Republican party as well.
The name of the party that will represent America's country class is far less important than what, precisely, it represents and how it goes about representing it because, for the foreseeable future, American politics will consist of confrontation between what we might call the Country Party and the ruling class. The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require empowering a rival party at least as disciplined. What other antidote is there to government by one party but government by another party? Yet this logic, though all too familiar to most of the world, has always been foreign to America and naturally leads further in the direction toward which the ruling class has led. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats' mirror image.
America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons that occupies the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, and of large corporations, and that wields political power through the Democratic Party. Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the Republican Party’s elites into its satellites.What is interesting to me is that the voters have given the Republicans control of the elected branches throughout: in the vast majority of statehouses, in both houses of Congress, in governors' mansions, in every electable branch the Republican party predominates. Now, having raised them to the pinnacle of democratically-attainable power, the waves of voters are poised to seize the Presidency -- but not for a figure from the ruling class.
This class's fatal feature is its belief that ordinary Americans are a lesser intellectual and social breed. Its increasing self-absorption, its growing contempt for whoever won’t bow to it, its dependence for votes on sectors of society whose grievances it stokes, have led it to break the most basic rule of republican life: deeming its opposition illegitimate.
Codevilla's piece slams Trump from start to finish, and calls for a return to small-r republicanism and an end to the cycle of revenge against our cultural enemies. I've been calling for the same thing since 2004, without it being highly persuasive to anyone yet. Let us have the Tenth Amendment, and allow the states to diverge on moral and cultural matters. Let us strip the Supreme Court of its extraordinary power, and the Executive of its power to legislate through the bureaucracy.
Return to the Constitution, or dissolve the Union. Living under an Empire operating under the pretense of democratic legitimacy ought to terrify anyone who understands what that would mean. The cycle of cultural violence can only grow worse if we do not find a way to return to our Constitutional principles, and yet remain bound tightly to those who hate and despise us, who scorn and resent us. Power can only protect you for so long.
Super Tuesday
Very short ballot in Georgia today: one question.
I voted in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. I will vote against her again, should she survive to the general. I take this to be the last, most important duty I can perform in this deeply disappointing election cycle: to vote against her every chance I get, and thus for whomever may be running against her. At least this time her opponent is an honest man, whatever you think of his honest opinions.
We shall see what profit, if any, comes of it all. Today is a ZeroHedge kind of day, in a ZeroHedge season, in a ZeroHedge cycle.
UPDATE: With 0.1% of precincts reporting, the media has already called the state for Clinton. She may well win, but that seems wildly premature.
I voted in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. I will vote against her again, should she survive to the general. I take this to be the last, most important duty I can perform in this deeply disappointing election cycle: to vote against her every chance I get, and thus for whomever may be running against her. At least this time her opponent is an honest man, whatever you think of his honest opinions.
We shall see what profit, if any, comes of it all. Today is a ZeroHedge kind of day, in a ZeroHedge season, in a ZeroHedge cycle.
UPDATE: With 0.1% of precincts reporting, the media has already called the state for Clinton. She may well win, but that seems wildly premature.
"The Mandrake" (with Changes)
So a couple weeks ago I mentioned that the University of Georgia was doing a highly unusual take on Machiavelli's "The Mandrake":
1) I am forced to conclude that the claim that their intention in selecting an all-female cast was to "force the audience to ask deeper questions about power play and gender roles" was a lie to protect the play from university censorship. The play was 90 minutes of intensely raunchy, bawdy humor. They stole the 'ongoing urination' joke from Austin Powers. They had a scene with disguises in which a priest was carrying walnuts in his mouth 'to disguise his voice,' which they turned into a three-minute long routine about one of the characters desiring 'nuts in my mouth' ("I have some," replied another character, "but they're a little bit salty").
My sense is that you couldn't have run the same play with the same jokes with a male/female cast on the contemporary university campus. Run the same jokes with an all-female cast, under the banner of 'forcing the audience' to do difficult conceptual work, and no censors even cast their eyes in its direction.
2) The "rap" music was a bad idea. Possibly this was because the cast, in addition to being all-female, was all-white-female. In addition to not being very good at writing hip-hop music, their voices lacked the strength and range to be intelligible over the stomping and clapping. Neither I nor my wife could actually understand anything they were saying during these routines.
3) It turns out that Machiavelli gave by far the strongest lines in the whole play to the young wife. The only time in the entire play that anyone stands up for what is right and invokes morality without any shade of self-interest is her monologue. It comes right after she submits to her (bribed) priest's advice that she go along with the plan. In the monologue, she says that she hopes that if his advice (which includes adultery that will lead to the death of an innocent) is coming from any sort of admixture of self-interest or faithlessness, then that she calls on all the demons of Hell to make sure that his soul is planted right beside hers so that she can watch him suffer for all eternity. It's really powerful stuff.
Because of their casting decisions, this speech -- the moral heart of the story -- was delivered by a one-and-a-half-foot tall puppet.
4) There were the expected number of jokes at the expense of Catholics and Republicans written into the play. FOX News and Donald Trump came in for special mention. The priest was supposedly bisexual and dissolute as well as corrupt. Just as you couldn't have run this play with a male/female cast without drawing university censorship, you couldn't have run the same jokes pointed at Islamic clergy without drawing down a university ban. Aimed at Catholic and conservative American targets, though, these jokes are perfectly safe.
5) Two jokes were aimed at the fear of giving offense in sexual matters on the university campus. These were both funny and well-received by the audience. The first involved the question of whether a meeting was properly described as a rendezvous -- no, said one character, 'because that sounds sexual, and you didn't obtain our consent!' The other was delivered when a character, disguised as a pirate, was singing a song that went, 'We say yo-ho-ho, but we don't say 'ho,' because that would be disrespect-ful.'
In spite of everything, it wasn't the worst 90 minutes of my life. I doubt I would take the opportunity to go see it again, but the actresses were clearly enjoying themselves so it was at least somewhat fun to watch. They played to and with the audience -- if you were in the front row of any of the seats, and they had seats on three sides of the stage, you would likely be involved in the play at some point. The performance was packed, too, at the Sunday afternoon matinee that was also its final performance. Clearly they had crafted something that was very popular for their intended audience.
This being 2016 in America, the opera will not be performed with the original music.Out of curiosity, I went to see the UGA production yesterday afternoon. I have the following to report:
“We’ve made them rap songs with lots of stomps and percussion type beats,” Marotta said.And this being 2016 on an American college campus, the opera will be cast in order to make a point about gender.
In order to change up the stereotypes and force the audience to ask deeper questions about power play and gender roles, all of the male roles will be played by women and all the women roles are to be played by puppets.
1) I am forced to conclude that the claim that their intention in selecting an all-female cast was to "force the audience to ask deeper questions about power play and gender roles" was a lie to protect the play from university censorship. The play was 90 minutes of intensely raunchy, bawdy humor. They stole the 'ongoing urination' joke from Austin Powers. They had a scene with disguises in which a priest was carrying walnuts in his mouth 'to disguise his voice,' which they turned into a three-minute long routine about one of the characters desiring 'nuts in my mouth' ("I have some," replied another character, "but they're a little bit salty").
My sense is that you couldn't have run the same play with the same jokes with a male/female cast on the contemporary university campus. Run the same jokes with an all-female cast, under the banner of 'forcing the audience' to do difficult conceptual work, and no censors even cast their eyes in its direction.
2) The "rap" music was a bad idea. Possibly this was because the cast, in addition to being all-female, was all-white-female. In addition to not being very good at writing hip-hop music, their voices lacked the strength and range to be intelligible over the stomping and clapping. Neither I nor my wife could actually understand anything they were saying during these routines.
3) It turns out that Machiavelli gave by far the strongest lines in the whole play to the young wife. The only time in the entire play that anyone stands up for what is right and invokes morality without any shade of self-interest is her monologue. It comes right after she submits to her (bribed) priest's advice that she go along with the plan. In the monologue, she says that she hopes that if his advice (which includes adultery that will lead to the death of an innocent) is coming from any sort of admixture of self-interest or faithlessness, then that she calls on all the demons of Hell to make sure that his soul is planted right beside hers so that she can watch him suffer for all eternity. It's really powerful stuff.
Because of their casting decisions, this speech -- the moral heart of the story -- was delivered by a one-and-a-half-foot tall puppet.
4) There were the expected number of jokes at the expense of Catholics and Republicans written into the play. FOX News and Donald Trump came in for special mention. The priest was supposedly bisexual and dissolute as well as corrupt. Just as you couldn't have run this play with a male/female cast without drawing university censorship, you couldn't have run the same jokes pointed at Islamic clergy without drawing down a university ban. Aimed at Catholic and conservative American targets, though, these jokes are perfectly safe.
5) Two jokes were aimed at the fear of giving offense in sexual matters on the university campus. These were both funny and well-received by the audience. The first involved the question of whether a meeting was properly described as a rendezvous -- no, said one character, 'because that sounds sexual, and you didn't obtain our consent!' The other was delivered when a character, disguised as a pirate, was singing a song that went, 'We say yo-ho-ho, but we don't say 'ho,' because that would be disrespect-ful.'
In spite of everything, it wasn't the worst 90 minutes of my life. I doubt I would take the opportunity to go see it again, but the actresses were clearly enjoying themselves so it was at least somewhat fun to watch. They played to and with the audience -- if you were in the front row of any of the seats, and they had seats on three sides of the stage, you would likely be involved in the play at some point. The performance was packed, too, at the Sunday afternoon matinee that was also its final performance. Clearly they had crafted something that was very popular for their intended audience.
Mad Max? Really?
It was a little startling to hear that Mad Max swept the B-level Academy Awards last night. Much as I love the series, the last episode was kind of dumb and forgettable. Well, at least no one was nuts enough to hand it any awards for things like directing, screenplay, or acting, and it's fair enough to say that its costumes and make-up and so on were well crafted. (But sound editing? Seriously? Do they throw darts for that award, simply treat it as a consolation prize, or are there judges who genuinely pay attention to the technical aspects of sound editing?)
On the other hand I have to admit it's the only movie on the entire Oscars roster I've actually seen, so it's not as though I had my finger on the pulse.
On the other hand I have to admit it's the only movie on the entire Oscars roster I've actually seen, so it's not as though I had my finger on the pulse.
Some Suggestions for "Common Ground"
An academic writes that his students -- he has taught at elite universities like Princeton and Georgetown, but currently at Notre Dame -- are "know-nothings." The questions they can't answer are good starts for us.
My students are know-nothings. They are exceedingly nice, pleasant, trustworthy, mostly honest, well-intentioned, and utterly decent. But their minds are largely empty, devoid of any substantial knowledge that might be the fruits of an education in an inheritance and a gift of a previous generation. They are the culmination of western civilization, a civilization that has forgotten it origins and aims, and as a result, has achieved near-perfect indifference about itself....I have to admit that I've never read Paradise Lost. Nor, ah, Lincoln's third inaugural. His second one is really good, though!
[A]sk them some basic questions about the civilization they will be inheriting, and be prepared for averted eyes and somewhat panicked looks. Who fought in the Peloponnesian war? What was at stake at the Battle of Salamis? Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? How did Socrates die? Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Canterbury Tales? Paradise Lost? The Inferno?
Who was Saul of Tarsus? What were the 95 theses, who wrote them, and what was their effect? Why does the Magna Carta matter? How and where did Thomas Becket die? What happened to Charles I? Who was Guy Fawkes, and why is there a day named after him? What happened at Yorktown in 1781? What did Lincoln say in his Second Inaugural? His first Inaugural? How about his third Inaugural? Who can tell me one or two of the arguments that are made in Federalist 10? Who has read Federalist 10? What are the Federalist Papers?
How to Engineer a Famine
AEI charted the biggest recent famines. To get really big numbers, you almost have to institute socialism, but less severe famines can be achieved by bad luck with war or weather, or simply a floundering or chaotic social or political system. China was hit over and over in its pre-socialist days, then had the one disastrous episode in 1958-1962, after which it's largely kept the problem at bay. The area of Africa that encompasses the Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia are obviously nowhere you'd want to be.
A Quick Update on the Common Ground Series
For the last two weeks I have been swamped with work and have not had time to add to the Common Ground series. However, I did update the Books Under Copyright post with suggestions from Grim and Ymar, so that should be good now.
Two more planned posts in the series will cover Daily News and War, and that should catch us up with past discussions.
After I finish covering sources of information and ideas, I would like to begin discussing what we believe are the common problems our nation faces. After that, naturally, I would like to start discussing possible solutions, and finally, how those solutions could be achieved.
That said, I don't foresee having a lot of time to post for the next couple of weeks. Feel free to add sources or discuss any of this in the comments. I'll look back at them when I'm writing future posts, and I plan to try to keep the sources posts updated with new material.
Two more planned posts in the series will cover Daily News and War, and that should catch us up with past discussions.
After I finish covering sources of information and ideas, I would like to begin discussing what we believe are the common problems our nation faces. After that, naturally, I would like to start discussing possible solutions, and finally, how those solutions could be achieved.
That said, I don't foresee having a lot of time to post for the next couple of weeks. Feel free to add sources or discuss any of this in the comments. I'll look back at them when I'm writing future posts, and I plan to try to keep the sources posts updated with new material.
Yeah, That's Not Working Out
In the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, the Republican National Committee issued a postmortem that recommended, among other things, a change of tone, “especially on certain social issues that are turning off young voters.” That evangelical dentist in South Carolina has become a political liability — unless, of course, he’s willing to keep his mouth shut in public.You might want to reconsider that strategy, if there's still time.
The plan was straightforward: turn socially conservative Christians into the African Americans of the Republican Party, a bloc of voters with no place else to go but who can be managed and kept at a distance from the party’s new brand.
It must seem unfair to Republican grandees. In spite of her campaign slapping Black Lives Matter advocates around, Clinton apparently is pulling a bigger share of the black vote than Obama (although among a much less enthusiastic Democratic primary electorate). Why can't their unwanted-but-needed base voters be as loyal to the party elite?
Life just isn't fair, I guess.
Primaries
I'm gearing up to run the primary elections here in my precinct, and realized in talking to a brand-new volunteer that I don't at all understand the relationship between the Texas popular vote and the caucuses that are held as soon as the polls close. Nor did I understand whether Texas was a winner-take-all or a proportional state. It turns out there was good reason for my confusion: in an apparent attempt to wire around the Republican National Committee's rules for holding a winner-take-all primary before March 14, the Texas Republican Party put together a complicated mechanism, since modified by an RNC ruling, that . . . does something I can't quite figure out. Apparently it's mostly proportional by state district popular vote, but some at-large delegates are proportional by statewide popular vote, and there's some kind of mechanism for allocating the delegates that would have gone to anyone who was under 20% of the popular vote, but there's also some kind of special rule depending on whether the top candidate won a majority or only a plurality. I give up. Here's a link. It's Byzantine.
Don't Ask About Benghazi
Former Marine thrown out of Bill Clinton rally by security as crowd jeers, screams over him.
UPDATE: Don't ask about BLM, either. In fact, don't even passively display signs that mention it.
“To me the story is the crowd,” Fox & Friends host and Army National Guard veteran Pete Hegseth said Saturday. “This guy stands up (and) said ‘I’m a Marine. I’ve done two tours in Iraq’ — You go to a Republican rally, tell it like it is, the crowd erupts in applause for the Marine and says ‘thank you for your service this is fantastic,’ instead silence, crickets (at the Clinton rally).”That story was told in the first Democratic debate, when the crowd (and the audience at home) treated a Navy Cross and Silver Star awardee as if he was "creepy" when he made reference to his service at war in the Marines.
“It shows you we’ve got two very different electorates that look very differently towards that service.”
UPDATE: Don't ask about BLM, either. In fact, don't even passively display signs that mention it.
Meagan Mwanda and Ashona Husbands never wanted to hold the Hillary Clinton sign in the first place.But I thought Hillary Clinton was inevitable because of her African-American Southern firewall?
Early Friday, the two Georgia State University freshmen walked to Atlanta’s City Hall to hear the Democratic presidential candidate. Last week, they attended a rally by Bernie Sanders at Morehouse College. They wanted a chance to size up Clinton on Friday but say they didn’t get it.
Mwanda and Husbands claim they were kicked out of the rally for writing “Black Lives Matter” on the back of a Clinton sign.
“Why are these three words such a threat to her and her campaign?” Mwanda said.
We Have the Right People
General James "Mad Dog" Mattis writes on the clarifying effect of combat service.
For the veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—poorly explained and inconclusive wars, the first major wars since our Revolution fought without a draft forcing some men into the ranks—the question of what our service meant may loom large in your minds. You without doubt have put something into the nation’s moral bank.We need to do a better job of recruiting these veterans into our politics.
Rest assured that by your service, you sent a necessary message to the world and especially to those maniacs who thought by hurting us that they could scare us.
No granite monuments, regardless of how grandly built, can take the place of your raw example of courage, when in your youth you answered your country’s call.
Happy Birthday, Johnny Cash
Apparently he was born on February 26th in 1932. Just two days ago was the anniversary of his singing this song live at San Quentin in 1969. I love most of what Cash did, but this one is my favorite.
What Effect Does Native Tongue Have on Musical Enjoyment?
Before you read the article, decide what you think is most likely. Then let's talk about the results.
CDC, FBI: Bicycles are More Deadly than "Mass Shootings"
Well, that's unexpectedly honest.
[W]hile there were 418 deaths in “mass shootings” from 2000 to 2013, there were 800 deaths by bicycle in 2010 alone.Round that up to 30, and the US population down to 300,000,000. That makes the math very easy.
Moreover, there “were an estimated 515,000 emergency department visits” due to bicycle accidents.
And CDC death statistics for 2010 show there were 26,009 deaths from “falling” for that year alone. That’s right–26,009 deaths in one year from falls from ladders, counters, roofs, mountains, etc.
There were an average of 29.8 deaths a year for 14 years from “mass shootings.”
It's Not Just Conservatives Getting Banned on Twitter
It's Democrats who object to Hillary, too. And, er, hashtags that oppose her.
In a truly egregious move yesterday, Twitter suspended the account responsible for #WhichHillary, activists @GuerrillaDems. Twitter also removed #WhichHillary from trending status — odd, considering the hashtag received more than 450,000 tweets in less than 24 hours.Obviously the hashtags were guilty of offensive conduct.
Friday Advertisement
Apparently chewable candies in Scotland have wine in them. Good wine, it looks like:
Via Tartanic, a band that knows a few things about rocking out in a kilt.
Via Tartanic, a band that knows a few things about rocking out in a kilt.
In Praise of Congress
The representative branch takes a lot of heat, and much of it rightly, but it is still our best hope in the Federal government. Structurally, for the reasons the Founders identified, it is the one most responsive to the People. Lately, there have been a few signs that Congress is beginning to get some things right.
We saw Congress going after John Kerry in yesterday's post, but they are challenging the State Department's madness on more than one level. A House committee has just approved a bill that would require the State Department to explain why they are not treating the Muslim Brotherhood as a named Foreign Terrorist Organization, expressing the sense of Congress that the Brotherhood has met all of the requirements.
Gowdy's investigations continue to gain access to new information that the Clinton State Department worked to keep hidden from Congress.
And here is a congressman who is also a military pilot, standing up for the ranks of the deployed.
These are just glimmers of hope in a sea of corruption and influence. Nevertheless, they aren't nothing.
We saw Congress going after John Kerry in yesterday's post, but they are challenging the State Department's madness on more than one level. A House committee has just approved a bill that would require the State Department to explain why they are not treating the Muslim Brotherhood as a named Foreign Terrorist Organization, expressing the sense of Congress that the Brotherhood has met all of the requirements.
Gowdy's investigations continue to gain access to new information that the Clinton State Department worked to keep hidden from Congress.
And here is a congressman who is also a military pilot, standing up for the ranks of the deployed.
These are just glimmers of hope in a sea of corruption and influence. Nevertheless, they aren't nothing.
Trump Rules
Super Tuesday is around the corner. We can tell we are near, this year, because the Republican debate has descended to the middle-school level.
"I don't repeat myself." "You repeated yourself five seconds ago."
This is being widely commended today as what it takes to stand up against Trump. You've got to show, they say, that you're the Alpha.
Alphas don't yip like puppies, boys.
UPDATE: Governor Chris Christie endorses Donald Trump.
UPDATE: Right-leaning journalists are not happy about it, either. Although I don't think Spencer Ackerman ("Attackerman!") qualifies. I met him once -- and he's a solid journalist, the kind of guy who does the legwork that journalism used to be about. He's just not right-leaning.
"I don't repeat myself." "You repeated yourself five seconds ago."
This is being widely commended today as what it takes to stand up against Trump. You've got to show, they say, that you're the Alpha.
Alphas don't yip like puppies, boys.
UPDATE: Governor Chris Christie endorses Donald Trump.
UPDATE: Right-leaning journalists are not happy about it, either. Although I don't think Spencer Ackerman ("Attackerman!") qualifies. I met him once -- and he's a solid journalist, the kind of guy who does the legwork that journalism used to be about. He's just not right-leaning.
Philosophy Major? Fries With That?
Well, that's not impossible, but philosophy tops the humanities in expected salaries according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. So in addition to the real project -- learning to think and understand -- your kids might actually get a decent job, too.
Libertarians for Bernie
Since some of you ascribe to that philosophy, in all or part, Reason has a one-sentence argument in favor of Sanders:
[H]e is the candidate least likely to order a ground invasion of Syria.True.
The Magisterial John F. Kerry
"Well, Senator, he's not supposed to be doing that."
You don't say?
"The fact is we've got people who've been held without charges for 13 years, 14 years in some cases. That's not American... that's not how we operate."
So we have heard, Secretary Kerry. I believe you prefer to kill people without charges, or trial, or evidence beyond metadata. I notice you forgot to mention the facts about how you do indeed operate, but that's understandable: there must be a dizzying lack of oxygen on your High Moral Ground.
Second Marine Attacked, Left for Dead in DC
Not one but two Marines were brutally attacked on February 12 in two unrelated incidents.
One attack happened at a McDonald's when two teenagers assaulted and robbed a veteran Marine.
A second Marine, 35-year-old Michael Schroeder, was left for dead after a being attacked in Northwest D.C. that same day, according to his family.
Temperatures had dropped down to the teens in weather reports. Laying in the cold, dragged between two cars, face-down, head bashed-in and cash missing is how Schroeder’s family says police found him in the Glover Park neighborhood. Thankfully a dad and son driving by in a taxi saw Schroeder and called the authorities.
"We Cannot Trust Our Government, so We Must Trust the Technology"
The Guardian (UK) hosts an American meditation on the breakdown of trust in our governing institutions.
The FBI's move on Apple reminds us all of their coordination with Lois Lerner at the IRS -- it's six years now that the Albuquerque TEA Party has been waiting on its 501(c)3 status. The FBI, having had agents coordinate with Lerner's section, was then assigned to investigate the case. "Surprisingly," after a two-year investigation, no one was charged. Members of Congress are making noises the the effect that they will not accept a repeat of that in the case of former Secretary Clinton, but of course they cannot force the FBI or the DOJ to take action. The President of the United States has repeatedly said that he doesn't think she did anything wrong, and rather than being hustled off to court for her glaringly obvious violations of national security classification law, she is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary to become his replacement in the highest office in the land.
The government has repeatedly failed to hold wrongdoers accountable. More than that, it has protected them. It has enabled corruption in the highest offices, and is currently doing its best to enable its continuance.
If the government wants our trust back, and the legitimacy that comes from having the faith of the American people, it needs to earn it. It needs to start proving that it will prosecute and punish those in power who abuse authority, those in power who break laws, those in power who betray trusts.
If it will not, the Federal government of the United States will begin a long fall. It cannot survive in its current form if it is mistrusted by the American people. Right now, such mistrust is rational. If that is to change, the institutions need to start performing. Anyone in the Federal bureaucracy -- political appointees or not -- who wants Americans to trust and have faith in government needs to take up this charge. Any individuals who want an America that heavily involves government solutions to practical problems needs to devote themselves to pushing for accountability and punishment for the wicked or corrupt.
Otherwise, as this case of technology shows, we the People shall begin finding ways to do without the government of the United States.
The debate is being publicly framed on both sides as a deep conflict between security and freedom; between the civil rights of users to maintain their privacy, and the legitimate needs of law enforcement and national security. Yet this is the wrong way to think about it.I think of Raven's comments, just yesterday, that he couldn't help but think when a Census-taker took a GPS reading on his house how useful it would be for a bomb. Nor his remark -- which I have made myself, from time to time -- that Facebook is just what you'd want to roll up networks of enemies of the state. It's exactly the kind of database we used to build in Iraq, identifying family and connections and physical locations and precise relationships, except you fill it out for the state willingly. It would sound paranoid except for the Snowden revelations, which showed that the government was in cooperation with all these technology firms to do spying of exactly that sort. We would dismiss it, in other words, if it were not demonstrably true.
The fundamental problem is the breakdown of trust in institutions and organizations. In particular, the loss of confidence in oversight of the American national security establishment.
The FBI's move on Apple reminds us all of their coordination with Lois Lerner at the IRS -- it's six years now that the Albuquerque TEA Party has been waiting on its 501(c)3 status. The FBI, having had agents coordinate with Lerner's section, was then assigned to investigate the case. "Surprisingly," after a two-year investigation, no one was charged. Members of Congress are making noises the the effect that they will not accept a repeat of that in the case of former Secretary Clinton, but of course they cannot force the FBI or the DOJ to take action. The President of the United States has repeatedly said that he doesn't think she did anything wrong, and rather than being hustled off to court for her glaringly obvious violations of national security classification law, she is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary to become his replacement in the highest office in the land.
The government has repeatedly failed to hold wrongdoers accountable. More than that, it has protected them. It has enabled corruption in the highest offices, and is currently doing its best to enable its continuance.
If the government wants our trust back, and the legitimacy that comes from having the faith of the American people, it needs to earn it. It needs to start proving that it will prosecute and punish those in power who abuse authority, those in power who break laws, those in power who betray trusts.
If it will not, the Federal government of the United States will begin a long fall. It cannot survive in its current form if it is mistrusted by the American people. Right now, such mistrust is rational. If that is to change, the institutions need to start performing. Anyone in the Federal bureaucracy -- political appointees or not -- who wants Americans to trust and have faith in government needs to take up this charge. Any individuals who want an America that heavily involves government solutions to practical problems needs to devote themselves to pushing for accountability and punishment for the wicked or corrupt.
Otherwise, as this case of technology shows, we the People shall begin finding ways to do without the government of the United States.
Sorities at Sea
Former SECNAV Sean O'Keefe says the Navy should stop worrying about having 300 ships:
However, is the ~300 ship navy as capable as a 600 ship navy? We'd have to say that increases in ISR and telecommunications and other technologies have improved the capacities of our ships versus the Reagan administration, and that's a big deal for the Navy. Probably one ship can control more sea than it used to do.
Nevertheless, it's not an idle question. 300 ships is just not 600 ships. 250 ships is not 300.
"The resignation of one of my predecessors, Jim Webb, was prompted at what he thought was the outrage of falling below the 600-ship Navy," O'Keefe said. "You look back on it as if it was the seminal moment of some strategic shift and it wasn't. It was less a statement of capability and more of just a marker on the wall of what's a measure of merit."Will it still be a navy with 271 ships instead of 300? Sure, I suppose. Could it theoretically be as capable with 271 ships as 300? Sure, or even more, depending on the exact mix of ships.
Webb wasn't immediately available for comment.
However, is the ~300 ship navy as capable as a 600 ship navy? We'd have to say that increases in ISR and telecommunications and other technologies have improved the capacities of our ships versus the Reagan administration, and that's a big deal for the Navy. Probably one ship can control more sea than it used to do.
Nevertheless, it's not an idle question. 300 ships is just not 600 ships. 250 ships is not 300.
Hillary for Prison 2016 Update: Gee, These Emails Are Worded A Lot Like Top Secret Documents
This is what the Clinton campaign likes to refer to as "overclassification":
But no, let's just retype the same information into unencrypted, unsecure private email and transmit it via a server kept in some Mom and Pop's bathroom in an industrial park. That's just as good, right? Who'd think to look there?
U.S. spy agencies have told Congress that Hillary Clinton’s home computer server contained some emails that should have been treated as “top secret” because their wording matched sections of some of the government’s most highly classified documents, four sources familiar with the agency reports said.Readers of the Hall understand that this last is a remarkable understatement. Not only must you not transmit Top Secret information through a .gov email, you may not transmit it through a .sgov email -- the secured, air-gapped system for merely Secret information. Top Secret information has an even more tightly controlled system where physical access to the computers is restricted by lock and key, as well as by additional information controls should you manage to physically reach such a computer.
The two reports are the first formal declarations by U.S. spy agencies detailing how they believe Clinton violated government rules when highly classified information in at least 22 email messages passed through her unsecured home server…
Under the law and government rules, U.S. officials and contractors may not transmit any classified information – not only documents – outside secure, government-controlled channels. Such information should not be sent even through the government’s .gov email network.
But no, let's just retype the same information into unencrypted, unsecure private email and transmit it via a server kept in some Mom and Pop's bathroom in an industrial park. That's just as good, right? Who'd think to look there?
Why Not Add an Impeachment to the 2016 Election Season?
With the fate of the Supreme Court already hanging in the balance, and one frontrunner promising to prosecute the other if elected, who'll notice a little more drama?
[Speaker of the House Paul] Ryan reminded reporters that Congress voted overwhelmingly for the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains a provision saying the president may not move Guantanamo inmates to U.S. soil.No dodging that fight, if he does. Military officers will have to refuse clearly illegal orders, and he'll have to try to prosecute them for insubordination. Think he's got the guts for that?
"We are making legal preparations if the president tries to break the law," Ryan said. "And what boggles my mind, is that the president is contemplating directing the military to knowingly break the law."
Sturgill Simpson
Merle Haggard is a fan. I wasn't too impressed the first time around, but tonight I ran into this Outlaw Country jam.
There's a little NSFW language, so don't blast it in the office. Well, unless you have a particularly cool office.
Here's a Gospel piece you can listen to at work just fine.
There's a little NSFW language, so don't blast it in the office. Well, unless you have a particularly cool office.
Here's a Gospel piece you can listen to at work just fine.
Trump v. Clinton
A hypothetical monologue.
UPDATE: An encyclopedia against Clinton from the Daily KOS. The only issue on which she looks better to them than Bernie is guns -- where Bernie looks better to me.
Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:The article goes on to say that some of this is fair and some of it isn't. The only one that isn't fair is the hit on Iraqi WMD. She really did say it, but there really were WMD. That won't save her, though, because her own party's partisans have spent so long convincing the American people that there never were.
“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”
UPDATE: An encyclopedia against Clinton from the Daily KOS. The only issue on which she looks better to them than Bernie is guns -- where Bernie looks better to me.
Fast Times in Venezuela
A lonely blogger reports:
Throughout last night, panicked people told their stories of state-sponsored paramilitaries on motorcycles roaming middle class neighborhoods, shooting at people and storming into apartment buildings, shooting at anyone who seemed like he might be protesting....Is it true? Hard to say, because so much is going on that nobody might even notice paramilitary gangs. Caracas has in recent week seen outages of drinking water, a trial of its mayor, hijackings of food trucks, power rationing, a spike in gasoline prices, a Zika outbreak, a plague of frogs... OK, not the last one, but still.
Online media is next, a city of 645,000 inhabitants has been taken off the internet amid mounting repression, and this blog itself has been the object of a Facebook “block” campaign.
What we saw were not “street clashes”, what we saw is a state-hatched offensive to suppress and terrorize its opponents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)