Fusion GPS
A report from the Weekly Standard -- I wonder whether or not they're on the enemies list, but if they are this is a good way to start working to get off of it -- on the firm behind the disinformation about Trump. These aren't Russians, they're hired gunslingers for outfits like Planned Parenthood.
Shame is Good for You, Isn't It?
So argues Plato, a new article explains.
But perhaps -- the author suggests -- they are engaged in confession. By confessing themselves of the things they would once have been ashamed of, they find online a community of people who endorse their views and desires. Shame is a social process, and discovering that there is a community that will approve of the things you were ashamed of really is liberating in the sense that it destroys the reason for feeling ashamed. The desires will be endorsed, they will be approved, if not by everyone by a large enough community that you can feel like you've found 'your people.'
That leaves one genuinely shameless. Does it also, then, leave one a slave to desire -- as Plato feared? Liberation from one thing means slavery to another, is that it? Or is there a road of genuine freedom to be found here?
Shame presupposes that we ought to know better but flout the rules regardless. This is precisely Plato’s point about moral knowledge: we already possess it, we already know the right way to live a just and fulfilling life, but are constantly diverted from that noble aim. For Plato, then, shame is a force that helps us resist the urge to conform when we know it’s wrong to do so. Shame helps us be true to ourselves, to endure Socrates’ needling, and to heed the moral knowledge within. A man without shame, Plato says, is a slave to desire – for material goods, power, fame, respect. Such desire is tyrannical because, by its nature, it cannot be satisfied.That isn't the end of it, the author argues, as an apparently shameless society -- he is thinking of our own -- is really wrapped up in self-censorship instead.
Visibility is a trap,’ wrote the French philosopher Michel Foucault... What he meant was that allowing oneself to be watched, and learning to watch others, is both seductive and dangerous. He drew upon Jeremy Bentham’s 18th-century plans for a ‘Panopticon’, a prison in which inmates are observed from a central tower manned by an invisible occupant, his watchful eye seeing but unseen. The idea was that the prisoners would internalise the presence of the spectral watchman, whether or not anyone was actually inside, and behave of their own accord. ‘Morals reformed – health preserved – industry invigorated – instruction diffused – public burthens lightened,’ Bentham enthused.If that is right, it's noteworthy that the self-censorship tends to run exactly counter to what Bentham thought would happen (which is generally true with Bentham). People participating on Twitter and Facebook and elsewhere certainly do try to present a prettier version of their lives than they really live. But they don't try to hide their sexual longings, say, or their unpopular political opinions.
According to Foucault, the dynamics of the Panopticon bore an uncanny resemblance to how people self-monitor in society at large. In the presence of ever-watchful witnesses, he said, physical coercion is no longer necessary. People police themselves. They do not know what the observers are registering at any given moment, what they are looking for, exactly, or what the punishments are for disobedience. But the imagination keeps them pliant....
So what would Foucault make of the current digital media landscape? In many ways, the modern surveillance state – enabled and expanded thanks to new technologies – is a shining example of the Panopticon.... Foucault’s central claim is that such monitoring is worrisome, not just because of what corporations and states might do with our data, but because the act of watching is itself a devastating exercise of power. It has the capacity to influence behaviour and compel conformity and complicity, without our fully realising it.
But perhaps -- the author suggests -- they are engaged in confession. By confessing themselves of the things they would once have been ashamed of, they find online a community of people who endorse their views and desires. Shame is a social process, and discovering that there is a community that will approve of the things you were ashamed of really is liberating in the sense that it destroys the reason for feeling ashamed. The desires will be endorsed, they will be approved, if not by everyone by a large enough community that you can feel like you've found 'your people.'
That leaves one genuinely shameless. Does it also, then, leave one a slave to desire -- as Plato feared? Liberation from one thing means slavery to another, is that it? Or is there a road of genuine freedom to be found here?
"Fantasy Island" in the PRC
Personal Tailor is a richly satirical movie with hints of hilarity and decadence. I suggest a dark red wine with it.
A favorite line, possibly mis-remembered: "We all hate it, so it can't be tasteless."
Update: It's free on Amazon Prime right now.
Rathkeltair
Named for a city in ancient Ireland, here's a band that combines modern sounds -- and songs -- with the traditional pipes.
They're regulars at the Stone Games, so they're a band I know well. Here they are performing in Ohio. I've never actually liked their rock bits all that much, but they're devoted to them. Their best bits are their take on traditional songs, though: advance to 20:25, and watch them throw down on "Atholl Highlanders," an impressive song in its traditional form. It belongs to a non-government military unit in the employ of the Duke of Atholl, a private army long maintained within Great Britain. It has an interesting history, one that includes Queen Victoria and Prince Faisal of "Lawrence of Arabia" fame.
That must have been a fine visit. I imagine that the Arabs with Faisal understood the Scots of those days more or less perfectly.
They're regulars at the Stone Games, so they're a band I know well. Here they are performing in Ohio. I've never actually liked their rock bits all that much, but they're devoted to them. Their best bits are their take on traditional songs, though: advance to 20:25, and watch them throw down on "Atholl Highlanders," an impressive song in its traditional form. It belongs to a non-government military unit in the employ of the Duke of Atholl, a private army long maintained within Great Britain. It has an interesting history, one that includes Queen Victoria and Prince Faisal of "Lawrence of Arabia" fame.
That must have been a fine visit. I imagine that the Arabs with Faisal understood the Scots of those days more or less perfectly.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
The Hill published a piece from an Assistant Professor of Political Science, calling for "a new election" given the accusations against Trump.
First of all, how could such a thing even be possible given the complete absence of Constitutional warrant for it? He gets around to that at the end.
Who runs the place in the meantime?
He doesn't give an answer to that, but it's kind of an important question. This has to be done in eight days to avoid a magnificent Constitutional crisis. Who'd be President while we wait on the Congress and the states to work out this special warrant for a one-time election. Not President Obama -- his terms are up. The Constitution clearly says to seat President Trump, but that's the one thing you want to avoid. So we need some other solution.
Maybe we could appoint awarlord Ceasar, um, declare martial law, without a sitting civilian Commander in Chief -- you didn't think this through at all, did you, Prof?
All the same, The Hill published it.
First of all, how could such a thing even be possible given the complete absence of Constitutional warrant for it? He gets around to that at the end.
If it is determined that Russian efforts did indeed put Trump over the top in an incredibly close election, then the next step would be to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a one-time special election to be held as soon as possible.Oh, is that all? Presuming Congress and 3/4ths of the states were up for it, we'd be ready to start this new election in a year or two, then? Just to give one little roadblock, Georgia's legislature only meets 40 days a year, and you aren't on their agenda -- nor could you be, until you get Congress to pass that proposed amendment, by which time the 40 days will be up. Maybe the Republican governor will call them back for a special session? If not, you'll have to wait for next year.
This would be far from easy, but it is possible with the support of a two-thirds majority in each chamber of Congress, followed with ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Who runs the place in the meantime?
He doesn't give an answer to that, but it's kind of an important question. This has to be done in eight days to avoid a magnificent Constitutional crisis. Who'd be President while we wait on the Congress and the states to work out this special warrant for a one-time election. Not President Obama -- his terms are up. The Constitution clearly says to seat President Trump, but that's the one thing you want to avoid. So we need some other solution.
Maybe we could appoint a
All the same, The Hill published it.
Allah on Ethics
It is easy to forget, given the fireworks, that the real point of today's presser with Trump was for him to announce his solution to conflicts of interest arising from his business. Allah didn't forget.
UPDATE: TNR isn't too impressed either, although I'm not sure I buy their argument that it makes things worse. Donating revenue to the Treasury may in some sense represent Trump 'merging his business and the Federal government,' but not more than donating any other foreign gift to the Treasury -- which is a standard practice for US officials receiving foreign gifts.
If you want to defend this dubious arrangement, your best move is to shrug and say that Americans knew what they were getting when they voted for him. And increasingly, that is the chief argument you hear in his defense. Not that a trust run by his family is ethical, not that it’ll stop special interests from funneling cash to Trump through legal means, but essentially that Americans don’t care anymore if the president is corrupt or not. I mean, the alternative last year was Hillary Clinton. We might as well let lobbyists start dropping off burlap bags filled with cash with dollar signs on the side on the White House doorstep.He has a good analysis of the weaknesses of this particular approach, which he still says is "better than nothing."
UPDATE: TNR isn't too impressed either, although I'm not sure I buy their argument that it makes things worse. Donating revenue to the Treasury may in some sense represent Trump 'merging his business and the Federal government,' but not more than donating any other foreign gift to the Treasury -- which is a standard practice for US officials receiving foreign gifts.
The Intercept: Deep State at War With Trump
So they claim, and you can read their report and make up your own mind. The Intercept is fairly credible, although it sometimes takes risks with the people it is reporting on. That's a hazard of reporting on secrets, though. This report is by Glenn Greenwald, whom I didn't take to be credible not that long ago -- but he's done good work lately, I have to admit.
A Hidden Bombshell
In the reporting on this Russia business:
It makes you wonder whether the request was particularly weak, or if they were particularly sensitive to the potential scandal from spying on a major Presidential candidate.
UPDATE: BBC says it was rejected a second time, only to be approved in much narrowed form in October.
...the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus.The FISA court turned them down? As of 2013, the FISA court had denied only 11 requests for surveillance warrants in 33 years -- .03%. Sometimes they do ask for more information first, but even that is unusual.
It makes you wonder whether the request was particularly weak, or if they were particularly sensitive to the potential scandal from spying on a major Presidential candidate.
UPDATE: BBC says it was rejected a second time, only to be approved in much narrowed form in October.
CNN Makes the Enemies List
Their organization is terrible, and they are purveyors of 'fake news.'
How long until the media regrets giving Trump a weapon like 'fake news'? Twenty minutes ago?
My late father-in-law used to call CNN the "Communist News Network" -- he was a veteran, and after his time in the military (an original member of the US Air Force, having started in the Army Air Force) he worked on DOD's aerospace programs for the rest of his career. Sometimes he'd call them the "Clinton News Network," and I'm not sure how much of a distinction he saw between Communists and Clintons in any case.
I wonder how he'd react to Donald Trump, if he were still alive? I imagine he'd be appalled at the man's manner, but not entirely so at the man's sentiments.
How long until the media regrets giving Trump a weapon like 'fake news'? Twenty minutes ago?
My late father-in-law used to call CNN the "Communist News Network" -- he was a veteran, and after his time in the military (an original member of the US Air Force, having started in the Army Air Force) he worked on DOD's aerospace programs for the rest of his career. Sometimes he'd call them the "Clinton News Network," and I'm not sure how much of a distinction he saw between Communists and Clintons in any case.
I wonder how he'd react to Donald Trump, if he were still alive? I imagine he'd be appalled at the man's manner, but not entirely so at the man's sentiments.
Trump Blackmailed by Russia?
So says this report, but there's a few things that draw my eye.
1) The information was provided to Trump. It's not being held as a weapon to use against him in the last few days before he takes office. It's a warning, perhaps, of vulnerabilities he doesn't know he has; or it's a play at leverage from an intelligence community that would like to be closer to their new boss. (Don't think a clandestine service guy wouldn't think of this. If he didn't at least think of it, he's not competent at his trade.)
2) The information was provided to Obama. He's giving a farewell address tonight, not girding his loins up to do something unprecedented. That suggests that the information we're seeing in the press should be interpreted minimally rather than extravagantly.
3) Nevertheless, this is a big deal if true. It's not a crime to be the victim of spying (otherwise, we'd have yet another reason to put Hillary in the dock). There are crimes that can come from how you respond to being blackmailed. Right now, we don't know enough to know if any such things happened. Indeed, Trump may not have been at all blackmailed as yet: he may have been surprised to learn the information existed.
There's a lot to know yet before we can come to any conclusions. It's not even certain if any of this is true. All the same, it's something to keep an eye on. Even if it turns out that Trump just took a bunch of easy money from Russian outlets, it's not too far a walk to bribery -- and bribery is one of the two Constitutionally specified impeachable offenses. If you get as far as treason, well, that's a capital crime.
Strange place to start a new administration, and again, what we have in front of us is a leaked comment about a report that the President has seen in full and isn't taking super-seriously. Still, a citizen's duty is what it is. All partisanship aside, we'll have to keep our eyes open and do what duty and the Constitution commands. It may come to nothing, but we cannot be sure it will.
UPDATE: NBC says the intel agencies didn't show the 'compromising material' stuff to Trump, because they deemed it false. That's odd, though, because Trump sounded at his presser like he thought he had seen it. (Quite a presser, too -- it's going to be an interesting administration.)
1) The information was provided to Trump. It's not being held as a weapon to use against him in the last few days before he takes office. It's a warning, perhaps, of vulnerabilities he doesn't know he has; or it's a play at leverage from an intelligence community that would like to be closer to their new boss. (Don't think a clandestine service guy wouldn't think of this. If he didn't at least think of it, he's not competent at his trade.)
2) The information was provided to Obama. He's giving a farewell address tonight, not girding his loins up to do something unprecedented. That suggests that the information we're seeing in the press should be interpreted minimally rather than extravagantly.
3) Nevertheless, this is a big deal if true. It's not a crime to be the victim of spying (otherwise, we'd have yet another reason to put Hillary in the dock). There are crimes that can come from how you respond to being blackmailed. Right now, we don't know enough to know if any such things happened. Indeed, Trump may not have been at all blackmailed as yet: he may have been surprised to learn the information existed.
There's a lot to know yet before we can come to any conclusions. It's not even certain if any of this is true. All the same, it's something to keep an eye on. Even if it turns out that Trump just took a bunch of easy money from Russian outlets, it's not too far a walk to bribery -- and bribery is one of the two Constitutionally specified impeachable offenses. If you get as far as treason, well, that's a capital crime.
Strange place to start a new administration, and again, what we have in front of us is a leaked comment about a report that the President has seen in full and isn't taking super-seriously. Still, a citizen's duty is what it is. All partisanship aside, we'll have to keep our eyes open and do what duty and the Constitution commands. It may come to nothing, but we cannot be sure it will.
UPDATE: NBC says the intel agencies didn't show the 'compromising material' stuff to Trump, because they deemed it false. That's odd, though, because Trump sounded at his presser like he thought he had seen it. (Quite a presser, too -- it's going to be an interesting administration.)
Conservatives Are Objectively Better Looking
Some of us, obviously.
No, really, that's a thing the Washington Post is putting forward. So go preen, brothers and sisters.
UPDATE: Maybe this explains how this happens. (Possible content warning -- I haven't read but the headline.)
No, really, that's a thing the Washington Post is putting forward. So go preen, brothers and sisters.
UPDATE: Maybe this explains how this happens. (Possible content warning -- I haven't read but the headline.)
"Clock Boy" Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice
As you may remember, there was a case in Texas of a boy who built a "clock" in a briefcase and brought it to school. A teacher thought it looked like a bomb and called the police. The student was Muslim, a huge mess was made by his father about the incident, and President Obama invited the kid to the White House.
A minor offshoot of this event was that our friend Uncle Jimbo of BLACKFIVE fame was interviewed about the case on television in his capacity as a former Special Forces NCO. He said, on the air, that the so-called clock was the detonation side of a suitcase bomb -- and that he ought to know, having been taught to build the things by the Army. He was later also interviewed on the Glenn Beck program, wherein he pointed out that all this attention and legal action suggested that the whole thing was a setup designed to get publicity. As a result of this, Jim was one of the many people who got wrapped up in the overarching lawsuit filed by the family against anyone who said anything other than that this was a clear-cut case of an innocent youth mistreated by prejudice.
That lawsuit was just dismissed.
A minor offshoot of this event was that our friend Uncle Jimbo of BLACKFIVE fame was interviewed about the case on television in his capacity as a former Special Forces NCO. He said, on the air, that the so-called clock was the detonation side of a suitcase bomb -- and that he ought to know, having been taught to build the things by the Army. He was later also interviewed on the Glenn Beck program, wherein he pointed out that all this attention and legal action suggested that the whole thing was a setup designed to get publicity. As a result of this, Jim was one of the many people who got wrapped up in the overarching lawsuit filed by the family against anyone who said anything other than that this was a clear-cut case of an innocent youth mistreated by prejudice.
That lawsuit was just dismissed.
During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts. After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Moore took the matter under advisement but informed the parties that she would rule by the end of the day. Today, the Court published Judge Moore’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Hanson and CSP with prejudice.
ATTN Progressives: You'd Have Hated Hillary's Cabinet, Too
Don't take my word for it. The New Republic has it broken down for you.
Czech Gov't: No Limit on Terrorism Hunting License
Not what you expect from Europe, but minds may be changing given the steady drumbeat of attacks.
Minds may be changing, but there's a long way to go.
Now the country's interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must approve the proposal; they'll vote in the coming months.They have some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe, but it's unconstitutional to shoot terrorists?
The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe.
Minds may be changing, but there's a long way to go.
Law Enforcement Spox Feel Much the Same as the Military
It's not a poll like the Military Times piece, but this article does capture the perspective of leaders of police organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the kindest words for Obama came from a former Bush Administration official.
I suppose if I were a left-leaning individual who was afraid that Trump was going to usher in an authoritarian regime, I would be worried by these clear demonstrations of affection for him by police and the military (and especially the military over-represented on the front line, meaning the enlisted, the Army, and the Marine Corps). I suspect I would read this as confirmation that 'my side' was going to be quashed, and that the police would feel that they had a free hand to do some quashing without fear of repercussions from on high.
But, as AVI says, evidence is ambiguous. I think that's similar to the point Tom and I were discussing from Aristotle, the other day:
I had a similar conversation recently with someone who is genuinely afraid of Trump and what he represents. She was worried that his administration plans to shrink the National Security Council down to around 150 people, from about 400. "But that's the size it used to be," I said, "and the reason President Obama grew it so much is that he likes to run things from the White House, rather than giving the departments more of their own head. Shouldn't you be relieved that the NSC is shrinking, and that career bureaucrats at the departments will thus have more control over the day to day operations of the government?"
She was not relieved. I imagine she would be no more relieved to learn that the police are looking forward so strongly to Jeff Sessions.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the kindest words for Obama came from a former Bush Administration official.
"You can’t in all fairness say that Obama is anti-police,” said Larry Thompson, a former deputy attorney general under George W. Bush. “If you read his statements, they’re not anti-police. But I do think the department and the administration have been too quick to point an accusatory finger at the police when these incidents have happened. Whether that’s accurate, it’s a perception you have to deal with and I think it will change under Sessions.”Some of the others didn't feel it was at all unfair to suggest that the President was anti-police.
I suppose if I were a left-leaning individual who was afraid that Trump was going to usher in an authoritarian regime, I would be worried by these clear demonstrations of affection for him by police and the military (and especially the military over-represented on the front line, meaning the enlisted, the Army, and the Marine Corps). I suspect I would read this as confirmation that 'my side' was going to be quashed, and that the police would feel that they had a free hand to do some quashing without fear of repercussions from on high.
But, as AVI says, evidence is ambiguous. I think that's similar to the point Tom and I were discussing from Aristotle, the other day:
We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.Of course, 'what is most probable' can look quite different to two different people who bring different assumptions to the table. You aren't going to get a scientific proof that could calm the heart.
I had a similar conversation recently with someone who is genuinely afraid of Trump and what he represents. She was worried that his administration plans to shrink the National Security Council down to around 150 people, from about 400. "But that's the size it used to be," I said, "and the reason President Obama grew it so much is that he likes to run things from the White House, rather than giving the departments more of their own head. Shouldn't you be relieved that the NSC is shrinking, and that career bureaucrats at the departments will thus have more control over the day to day operations of the government?"
She was not relieved. I imagine she would be no more relieved to learn that the police are looking forward so strongly to Jeff Sessions.
What Could Go Wrong?
Down to the most dangerous few left in GitMo, President Obama decides to transfer 18 or 22 to Saudi Arabia.
On the upside, there's always a chance that the Saudis will behead them.
On the upside, there's always a chance that the Saudis will behead them.
Rand Paul: Time to Kill Obamacare
He's got another answer he likes better.
1) It makes my health everyone else's business, which means that everyone else in theory has an interest in telling me how to live.
2) It distorts the market towards worse kinds of jobs, especially at the lower end. The result is to increase poverty and the hardship of life for working Americans.
3) The mandate is unconstitutional, SCOTUS notwithstanding.
It's unclear from the details in the wild whether Rand Paul's plan fixes those three things, although it sounds like he probably is gunning for the mandate.
According to Paul's Twitter account, which I suppose is how we do governance now, Trump is 100% on board with the plan.
What should we replace Obamacare with? Perhaps we should try freedom:The biggest problems with Obamacare are, from my perspective, these:
1. The freedom to choose inexpensive insurance free of government dictates.
2. The freedom to save unlimited amounts in a health savings account.
3. The freedom to buy insurance across state lines.
4. The freedom for all individuals to join together in voluntary associations to gain the leverage of being part of a large insurance pool.
1) It makes my health everyone else's business, which means that everyone else in theory has an interest in telling me how to live.
2) It distorts the market towards worse kinds of jobs, especially at the lower end. The result is to increase poverty and the hardship of life for working Americans.
3) The mandate is unconstitutional, SCOTUS notwithstanding.
It's unclear from the details in the wild whether Rand Paul's plan fixes those three things, although it sounds like he probably is gunning for the mandate.
According to Paul's Twitter account, which I suppose is how we do governance now, Trump is 100% on board with the plan.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)