tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-100948592024-03-13T09:51:36.077-04:00To Secure Libertyfor ourselves and our posterity.
Observations and analysis from Daniel McIntosh.Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.comBlogger625125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-90237767112105401942020-03-15T06:58:00.001-04:002020-03-15T06:58:56.595-04:00How is Donald J. Trump Like the Coronavirus Pandemic?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="jm jn du ar jo b jp jq jr js jt ju jv jw jx jy jz" id="f916">
<h1 class="jo b jp ka jr kb jt kc jv kd jx ke du">
<a href="https://medium.com/@demcintosh?source=post_page-----d7656aa081f1----------------------" rel="noopener"><div class="bl kj kk">
<div class="ky r ap">
Learning from the stress-tests of 2020</div>
</div>
</a></h1>
</div>
<article class="meteredContent"><div>
<section class="fh fi hb jk jl"><div class="n p">
<div class="z ab ac ae af io ah ai">
<figure class="lq lr ls lt lu lv db dc paragraph-image"><div class="lw lx bl ly ai">
<div class="db dc lp">
<div class="md r bl me">
<div class="mf r">
<div class="bk lz s t u ma ai bd mb mc">
</div>
<img class="ox qb s t u ma ai gz" height="213" role="presentation" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1000/0*sde-5mCfdvZHQKF1" width="320" /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<figcaption class="av bj mj mk ml iz db dc mm mn aq ff" data-selectable-paragraph="">Photo by <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://unsplash.com/@historyhd?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">History in HD</a> on <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://unsplash.com/s/photos/trump?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Unsplash</a></figcaption></figure><div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4b77">
I’m
not especially nervous about the coronavirus. Don’t get me wrong: it’s
dangerous. It’s lethal, at least for some. It exposes some fundamental
weaknesses of our systems. It threatens my family and my friends. It’s
going to get much worse before it gets better.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4b77">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="547d">
I’m
worried about it. I’m worried
about it in the same sense that I want to make sure my life insurance is
up to date, and the mortgage is paid, and all the fluids in my car are
at the manufacturer’s recommended levels. It’s something that, if I
don’t stay on top of it, might bring harm to me or to others.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="547d">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="486e">
But
I’m not especially nervous about it. That’s because for about forty
years I’ve been involved in the field of strategic studies. I’m aware of
just how vulnerable we are, to so many things, and have been for longer
than most people care to think about. I’m aware of so many things that
could bring down this civilization, and of how little attention has been
paid to so many of them by the people whose job it is to ready our
response. I know that the situation could be far, far worse. I know that
our public health officials have been anticipating that something like
COVID-19 was on its way, even though they had no way to know exactly
what form it might take, and they’ve taken the best precautions they
have been allowed to by our political leadership.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="486e">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5860">
When
I watch the news today I think back to the morning of September 11th,
2001. My wife and I were watching TV as the second airliner flew into
the World Trade Center. She turned to me and said, quietly,</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5860">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="85a2">
“Well, you told them.”</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="85a2">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="592c">
For
the rest of the world 9/11 might be “the day everything changed,” but
for those of us with a working knowledge of the problem we’d been at war
since 1979, and planning for this kind of attack for years. We’d done
war games and other simulations. We’d prevented real attacks on more
than one occasion. We knew that someday — someday — someone was going to
get something like 9/11 done. And when it happened, we knew that it
could have been worse.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="592c">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="8319">
(And no, don’t ask me how it could have been worse. I have no desire to give helpful tips to prospective terrorists.)</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="8319">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="dc31">
9/11
was a stress test. It took our system and pushed it towards a breaking
point. It put American social and political institutions into a crisis, a
condition when there is a perception of increased risk to what we
value, surprise, and a limited time to respond. In conditions of low
stress most people don’t perceive a problem. Nothing changes. Nothing is
learned. In conditions of moderate stress some people are too
overwhelmed to act, but some weigh the options provided by people who
seem to have workable responses. Information is exchanged. Systems
change, and adapt to the situation. We might, for example, improve
cockpit security for aircraft, or infiltrate and monitor potential
terrorist organizations. Appropriate lessons are drawn. In conditions of
extremely high stress, people are too overwhelmed to react, or they
react irrationally. Many follow the orders of the first person who seems
to have a response, whether or not it makes sense. We might, for
example, invade Iraq. Or force everyone to take off their shoes at
airports.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="dc31">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9e76">
The COVID-19 pandemic is a stress test. So is the presidency of Donald J. Trump.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9e76">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="c9dc">
The
COVID-19 pandemic has put our medical, social, economic, and political
systems under stress. The medical and public health systems have, for
the most part, shown themselves to be capable of handling the load up
until now. They are locating the carriers, within the limits of
available testing. The experts are informing the public about what is
known, what is not known, and what can be done by individuals and
institutions to slow the rate of transmission and minimize the risks of
exposure. Research is progressing to identify modes of transmission and
to find ways to treat the symptoms. Eventually there will be a vaccine,
and perhaps a cure, and when these are found there will likely be
mechanisms to get those medicines to the people who need them. At
present, hospitals have not been swamped by cases. Whether they will
continue to do so well depends on the number of cases that have yet to
be expressed, and how quickly they arrive. That, in turn, depends on the
social, economic, and political systems.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="c9dc">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="a519">
The
social systems have, in many ways, worked better than expected. People
have been seeking out reliable information. Individuals have been taking
action, both appropriate (limiting social interactions, avoiding
unnecessary travel, stockpiling some essential non-perishables) and not
(toilet paper?). Voluntary groups have been adapting: schools have been
cancelling classes, or putting them on-line, while churches have been
telling parishioners to stay home. Businesses have been advising
employees to work from home, when possible, and to avoid unnecessary
travel. Some have been limiting operating hours, while others (not all,
to be sure) have been trying to help their employees to cope with the
unexpected financial crisis.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="a519">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="d977">
The
economy is not dealing well with the pandemic. But the financial system
has been on unsteady ground for well over a decade. The Obama
administration worked to prop up financial institutions and provide
needed capital to large businesses, while failing to punish the people
and organizations that enabled the 2007 financial collapse to take
place. In fact, many of those people profited from their acts.
Employment has increased since 2008, as has the accumulation of wealth
by the top one percent, but there has been no corresponding increase in
wages. Legislative reforms were enacted to limit financial speculation
by lenders and to impose artificial stress tests to identify problems
before they arose in practice. In 2010, the <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act</a> was enacted in the US following the crisis to “promote the financial stability of the United States”. Internationally, the <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Basel III</a>
capital and liquidity standards were adopted by the central banks of
countries around the globe. To protect the rights of American consumers,
in 2010 the <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a>
was established. But these innovations were systematically weakened
between 2010 and 2017. In that time, the CFPB had moved from Special
Advisor <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Elizabeth Warren</a> to Acting Director <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Mulvaney" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Mick Mulvaney</a>. Not all the necessary lessons were learned, and some which were learned were quickly forgotten.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="d977">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="1ac1">
For months, <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://theweek.com/speedreads/899110/stock-markets-are-headed-40-percent-plunge-says-economist-who-predicted-financial-crisis" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">speculators have been waiting for a signal that it was time to grab profits and run from overvalued stock markets</a>. The COVID-19 pandemic, followed immediately by the collapse of oil prices, have been taken as that signal, <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/business/stock-market-coronavirus-crisis.html?searchResultPosition=1" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">but they are not the cause</a>. The problems with the global systems of finance and trade are structural. <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/upshot/markets-weird-coronavirus.html?searchResultPosition=4" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">They existed well before the pandemic</a>. And they have been encouraged by deeper problems in the global political systems.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="1ac1">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="39a4">
Just
as the COVID-19 pandemic has been a stress test, so has the presidency
of Donald J. Trump. Like the pandemic, the deeper problems have been
there for a long time. Trump is a trigger. Trump is a symptom. Trump is
an indicator of the deeper problems. He has made things worse, but he is
not the cause.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4cd7">
It’s
easy to condemn Donald Trump. He’s an ass. He’s a buffoon. He’s a
narcissist. He’s a racist and a narcissist a mysoginist and a friend to
dictators. Whether or not he is in the service of some foreign master (a
question that has yet to be settled), his actions have weakened
American alliances, served American enemies, and threatened what many
people consider to be the core values of American democracy.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4cd7">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="f8b8">
And that’s ok — if we learn from it.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="f8b8">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="744d">
There’s
no such thing as a perfect institution. Values and assumptions need to
be challenged, once in a while. We need to rethink what we stand for,
and what we stand against, and why. Much like the recession of 2007
highlighted the need for “stress testing” to avoid the collapse of our
banks and our financial institutions, Trump and his enablers are
providing a stress test for the American Republic. Rather than simply
condemning him, we should learn from this experience. Fix our mistakes.
Build stronger institutions. Reaffirm what we stand for.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="744d">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="b56d">
Often,
nothing is as educational as a bad example. Trump and Trumpism are,
above all else, a bad example. Even his supporters — those with some
measure of character — admit that as a person the president is not a
“stable genius.” They accept that he is a deeply flawed individual,
morally and cognitively, and many only voted for him because they
believed the alternative was worse. They resented being ignored, being
described as “<a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opinion/about-the-basket-of-deplorables.html" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">deplorables</a>” or told they “<a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">cling
to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain
their frustrations</a>.” These voters wanted to shake things up. They
wanted to break out of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle of
establishment politicians trading chairs and reaping profits while the
ship of state sank. Many of the people who voted for Trump in 2016 did
it for the same reasons they voted for Obama in 2008. They wanted hope.
They wanted change. And, to some extent, they got it from Trump. Change,
at least.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="b56d">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7963">
The
Trump years have been a stress test for American democracy. They have
demonstrated how many of our problems are the result of individual
shortcomings, and how much is due to the structure itself. On the
individual side, in addition to <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Trump</a> himself, we have people like <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Mitch McConnell</a>,
the Majority Leader of the Senate, self-declared “Grim Reaper” of bills
from the House of Representatives, a presidential nominee to the
Supreme Court, and testimony in the impeachment trial of Trump. But it’s
not just <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://www.cracked.com/article_26929_5-republicans-in-congress-who-are-garbage-humans.html" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Republicans</a>. There are plenty of <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://www.cracked.com/article_27134_the-5-most-garbage-democrats-in-congress.html" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Democrats</a> deserving of personal condemnation.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7963">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="971b">
In
any case, the important point is to learn from our mistakes. The people
and the professional partisans need to develop a common understanding
of where our weaknesses lie and what are some of the things that need to
be reformed. People and parties need to be removed from power. Ideas
need to be reconsidered. Institutions need to change. It’s encouraging
that <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">there are now more Americans who identify as “independent” than as a member of either of the two entrenched political parties</a>.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="971b">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="8930">
The challenge to political institutions is more than just Trump. <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/03/feature-the-authoritarian-reflex#disqus_thread" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">It’s more than just the United States</a>,
too. Some politicians still don’t get it. Joe Biden, for example, tells
us the problem is “Trump,” and if he is removed from power we will
return to a government of bipartisan consensus, negotiating over how
best to achieve our common good. He’s wrong. Doesn’t he remember his own
experiences under Obama? And the impeachment, where a partisan Senate
fell into step to block a real trial and keep in office a man who had
clearly violated his oath of office, is evidence that the problems we
face are more than can be blamed on one noxious personality. The
obstruction of justice, backed by the appointment of a partisan Attorney
General and the replacement of judges and career civil servants with
people selected on the basis of their partisan loyalties over
demonstrated competence, underlines just how important the norms of
service to the Constitution have been, and how easily they can be
subverted by people who don’t share them.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="8930">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0835">
Some
simply to blame capitalism. Bernie Sanders, for example, has
consistently positioned himself as a “democratic socialist” who
considers capitalism itself to be contrary to the principles of freedom,
and argues that if the levers of political and economic power are given
to the “right” people, they will work together to achieve our common
good. He’s also wrong. He’s wrong in his criticism because the economy
we have today has little to do with the free, fair, and open markets
proposed and fought for by Adam Smith. We have never lived under that
kind of capitalism because true capitalism is about open competition
under a set of open, transparent, unbiased rules supported by
cooperation to maintain the rule of law. Real capitalism might work, but
it would be messy, and we can’t do it with the current electoral
system. We need a government strong enough to enforce the rules,
professional enough to do it without parisanship, and open enough to
popular opinion to not fall into the hands of a billionare class.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0835">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="b63d">
With
the current first-past-the-post electoral system, the system of rewards
leads to nothing better than a an ineffective system of two parties,
each seeking the means to make permanent its own rule. The trend may be
more obvious for the Republicans now, because demographic trends mean
they have to work harder and break more laws to keep themselves in
power. But the reward structure affects Democrats, too. And as more
economic power resides in the state — either by military spending or
public welfare — the pressure grows to be (in fact, if not in name) a
one-party state. Neither capitalism or socialism requires democracy.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="b63d">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="3b05">
To
the extent money is treated as “speech” it subverts the voices of the
citizens of the Republic. Money is not speech: money is a bullhorn. And
while money can’t buy an election (see Bloomberg), it can drown out
alternatives. The treatment of money as speech, as taken to its
apotheosis in <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Citizen’s United</a> and <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">McCutcheon</a> means the death of representative democracy. It took a Civil War to overturn the <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Dred Scott</a>
decision. Let’s hope it doesn’t take anything like that to reverse our
more recent mistakes. But until these decisions are reversed, there is a
structural problem lying at the heart of the Republic.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="3b05">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="993b">
A
related problem was one anticipated by the anti-federalists, and their
proposed solution remains open for ratification as an amendment to the
US Constitution. Although the first ten amendments are now known as the
“Bill of Rights,” there were in fact twelve amendments proposed. The
first two were rejected, largely because they blocked the personal power
and privileges of the legislators themselves. The second proposal was
finally ratified by the states in 1992, and is now known as the 27th
Amendment:</div>
<blockquote class="ms mt mu">
<div class="lb lc du mv ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="312e">
No
law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives
shall have intervened</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="8e52">
In
other words, if Congress votes itself a pay raise, all of the members
of the House (and one-third of the Senate) must face reelection before
that raise will go into effect. If members of the Congress are seen as
getting too greedy, they can be voted out of office before they get
their raise.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="8e52">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="fb1b">
The first proposal, now commonly known as the “<a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Congressional Apportionment Amendment</a>” remains open for ratification. Its effect on the structure of the government of the United States would be profound. The <a class="bo eq mo mp mq mr" href="https://www.thirty-thousand.org/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">operative clause</a> that applies once it becomes law is</div>
<blockquote class="ms mt mu">
<div class="lb lc du mv ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9d3f">
there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="fab0">
Today
the House of Representatives is capped by law at 430 Representatives.
Under the new/old rule, given the current population of the United
States, the House of Representatives would have <b><em class="mv">more than six thousand</em></b>!</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="fab0">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5770">
Consider
some of the consequences. As the number of Congressional districts
increases, the size of each district — in land area and in population —
declines. Each citizen finds it easier to contact and influence his
Congressperson, and easier to run for Federal office herself. It is more
difficult for a very wealthy person (or organization) to buy a
sufficient number of elections to affect policy (especially if there are
also limits to corporate and PAC spending). We would be closer to the
ideal of one person-one vote. As the number of members of the Electoral
College is related to the size of the House plus the Senate, even if the
College can’t be abolished its results would be far more likely to
reflect the popular vote. There would be no repeat of the presidential
elections of 2000 and 2016.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5770">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="edba">
The
current number of Representatives is set by an Act of Congress, and
with each census the members of the House grow farther apart from their
supposed constituents. Given that most citizen’s votes would be worth
more after the ratification of the proposed amendment, in terms of their
proportional weight in the selection of Representatives, there would be
more reason for citizens to get involved in local issues and elections.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="edba">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7066">
To
be sure, a 6500 member House would present difficulties for
administration and negotiation, but today’s technology would make it
easier to operate than it was to run the legislature when Congress had
to always meet face-to-face and the transportation of people and
information was limited to the speed of a horse. It would also open up
more opportunities for private negotiations between members, more
subcommittees, and more specialization by members on issues of
importance to themselves and their constituents. Loyalties to
constituents would be more influential than loyalties to Parties.
Finally, as staff would grow to work with the larger, decentralized,
body they would also be more available to monitor and influence the
enormous bureaucratic apparatus of the Executive Branch. The Legislative
Branch would have the resources it needs to better balance the
Executive, and less need to make fundraising more important policy and
constitutent service.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7066">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="ec4e">
Maybe
we should thank Trump. His stress test identifies real problems, and
forces us to consider needs that would otherwise be ignored. His years
in office are highlighting flaws in the American financial system, the
electoral system, and the structure of American government. Maybe we
should thank him for the unintentioned gift of his bad example — but I
won’t.</div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="ec4e">
<br /></div>
<div class="lb lc du ar ld b le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo fh" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5bab">
Like
COVID-19, the Trump presidency is a stress test. It’s unpleasant. It’s
dangerous. It’s potentially deadly. But what’s important is what we
learn from it and what we do about it. If we withdraw, we learn nothing.
If we are stampeded, we may institutionalize changes that make things
worse. But if we take this as an opportunity — to raise awareness, to
mobilize emotion, to consider options, and to make useful changes —
these are tragedies we can learn from. These are opportunities to do
better. To be better. To be ready to better anticipate and deal with
whatever is the next disaster to come along.</div>
</div>
</div>
</section></div>
</article></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-76456894515469115592020-03-02T15:32:00.000-05:002020-03-02T15:32:42.995-05:00Voting Rights: A Modest Proposal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="n o">
<div class="jx r ap">
You don’t have the right to vote. Should you?</div>
<div class="jx r ap">
</div>
</div>
<article class="meteredContent"><div>
<section class="fg fh hd he hf"><div class="n p">
<div class="z ab ac ae af hg ah ai">
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="f326">
Americans
like to talk in the language of rights: the right to life, the right to
self-defense, the right to privacy. Some of these things are spelled
out in the Constitution. Some of them are not. They are considered <em class="ko">human </em>rights: they come from our nature as human beings.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="f326">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4389">
Voting is <em class="ko">not </em>a human right. Voting is a <em class="ko">civic </em>right.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4389">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="275f">
A
civic right comes from being a member of a political community. If you
want to vote in America, you need to be recognized as an American. In
particular, you have to be recognized as a <em class="ko">real </em>American.But
who decides who is a real American? What is the rule one applies to
determine if someone is American? These are the questions, usually
unspoken, that lie behind many of the debates in contemporary politics.
If you want to “Make America Great Again” you probably have a different
idea of what an American looks like than someone who is an activist for
the voting rights of the poor, the foreign-born, the non-Christian, or
the non-White. This doesn’t mean that a MAGA voter, or a Trump
supporter, is racist, or a misanthrope, or a xenophobe. He is, however,
more likely than other voters to be a nationalist. He is more concerned
about election fraud. He is more likely to believe things as they are
today are “pretty good,” or “as good as they can be.” He is more likely
to think that things were better twenty years ago, or fifty years ago.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="ece2">
There’s
a reason, beyond simple self-interest, why the Republican Party is more
associated with legislation for voter ID, or to keep felons who served
their time off the voter registration rolls, or to make the lines longer
at polling stations in districts that are predominantly poor or
non-White. They have a more restrictive idea of what it means to be an
American.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="ece2">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0dab">
America,
they tell us, is a “nation-state.” It has a “culture,” and not everyone
living here is a member of that culture. And there’s some truth to that.
For a political community to function there have to be some kind of
common understanding and expectations. Cultures, including political
cultures, are hard to define, but clearly they differ from place to
place, and they can change over time. In some places, corruption is
expected. In others, it is virtually nonexistent. In some places, it is
expected that the dictator will rule through violence and fear. People
will disappear, never to be seen again, and no one expects the
perpetrator will be brought to justice. You may not like it — you may
hate it — but things are what they are, what they have always been, what
they will always be. Cultural differences show up in tourism, in
transnational trade, and in international relations. It’s a thousand
little things. In a study of diplomatic immunity among UN delegations,
for example, it was found that Norwegian diplomats always obeyed the
parking regulations in and around the congested streets around the UN
building. This is despite the fact that, as diplomats, they could never
be punished for breaking the law. As a practical matter, they couldn’t
be retaliated against in any way. Even native New Yorkers, who can be
punished, don’t come near that standard. You drive in New York long enough,
and you’ll get a parking ticket. It’s understood. But Nigerian
diplomats, who are placed under the same moral and legal restrictions as
the Norwegians, are notorious for flaunting the law. They double and
triple-park. They park in loading zones. They block intersections. They
park on the sidewalk. Same conditions, different cultures. Norwegians
respect the law, even when they can’t be held to account, and unless
they take a moment to think it through they expect others to do the
same. Nigerians, in general, don’t have a lot of respect for the law. At most, it’s a problem for the
little people — not for an ambassador. And if you can get away with it
you’d be stupid not to break the law. The same is true within these
different countries as well as in front of the UN. Transnational corporations quickly learn
that if they hire a local firm in Nigeria to protect their property that
firm will soon start to steal from them. There will probably be less
taken than if the company had left the gates unlocked (the guards don’t
want to be denied a lucrative gig because they got too greedy), but the
losses will begin, and they will grow. If you want to protect your
property, bring in Norwegians to guard it. And rotate them back to
Norway, on a regular schedule, to reduce the likelihood that the guards
will eventually come to imitate the locals.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0dab">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="791e">
There
are variations in culture, and these variations are reflected in
politics. It makes sense to protect a culture that supports American
politics. But what is that culture? When pressed, some defenders of
American culture will find it hard to define what it is they want to
protect. Some can define it, but in ways that are too excludsive. Some want to defend “Western civilization.” Some are
convinced America was founded on “Judeo-Christian” values (it wasn’t)
and law must be rooted in their particular interpretation of the Bible.
Some on the alt-Right will go so far as to argue that to be a “real
American” one has to be white, and that whites have a moral and
practical obligation to keep their blood “pure,” even to the point of
deporting (or building walls to block) people of color. Most won’t go
that far, but they’ll will reiterate that America is a “nation-state”
and a threat to the “nation” is a threat to the viability and stability
of America.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="791e">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="cb29">
They’re
wrong. They are wrong for the same reason southern whites were wrong to
want to limit the rights of blacks, the same reason the “know-nothings”
of the nineteenth century were wrong to oppose immigration from Ireland
and Italy and Germany, the conservatives of 1960 were wrong to worry
that a Roman Catholic should never be elected president, or
so many today still seem so shocked that a black man could be elected to
that office. They are wrong for the same reason “miscegenation” was
illegal in sixteen U.S. states in 1967. They are wrong for the same
reason George Wallace was wrong to cry “segregation forever” in reaction
to the emerging civil rights movement.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="cb29">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4799">
They’re
wrong because a nation — particularly the United States — is not
defined by genetics. A nation is intersubjective. It is the perception,
by the people in it, that they share a common community, even if they
will never meet most of the other members of that community. They may
reach that conclusion on the basis of a common ethnic group, or
language, or history. It may be a community because of a common set of
principles. It is an “imagined community.”</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4799">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="a376">
Nations
are inventions. Political scientists differ on precisely when the
nation was invented. Some go as far back as the segregation of students
by language in the fourteenth-century medieval university. Some push it
back even a few decades earlier, to the declaration by the Scots that
they were a unique people, in opposition to an invasion from England. Or
perhaps it was around 1600, which has been suggested as the time of
origin of “the first nation,” England.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="a376">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="bd04">
Some
nations rest their sense of a common community in a belief in a common
ethnic identity. An example of an “ethnic nation” is Germany. Germans
have recognized themselves as one people, even when they were divided
into multiple countries. Despite the walls and armed soldiers separating
East and West Germany, when the wall came down they merged with
(relative) ease. They had always thought of themselves as “German,” even
when divided by very different governments and economic systems. Others
have a “civic nation.” France is in this category. While they do have
linguistic commonalities, the thing that makes its people “French” is
the perceived project of living with one another.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="bd04">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="6482">
In
1776, the United States was not a “nation.” Not on either dimension. It
had several ethnic groups, including Englishmen and Dutch and Germans
and French. The colonies were working against a common foe, but they
were not a single entity. After the Revolution they codified that
relationship in the Articles of Confederation, which was a “league of
friendship” among independent and sovereign states similar in many ways
to the earliest stages of the European Communities. It didn’t work,
often because of the inability of the Confederation to function as a
unit in international relations. But after the creation of a
Constitutional Republic, including a Bill of Rights, it made sense to
say that “We the People” were “Americans.” George Washington, in his
Farewell Address, reminded people that “ [t]he name of american, which
belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just
pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local
discriminations.”</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="6482">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7657">
And
what are those common political principles that make us a nation? In
fact the Constitution didn’t affirm many of the principles we hold
today. We could not in good conscience say “we hold these Truths to be
self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” and accept the ownership of
some men by others. Lincoln privately rejected the positions of the
“know-nothings”:</div>
<blockquote class="kp kq kr">
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="1cd6">
I
am not a Know-Nothing — that is certain. How could I be? How can any
one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading
classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be
pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are
created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal,
except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all
men are created equals, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.”
When it comes to that I should prefer emigrating to some country where
they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where
despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5f14">
But what does it mean in practice? Lincoln answered that question in his Gettysburg Address:</div>
<blockquote class="kp kq kr">
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="ca04">
It
is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is
rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us
— that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause
for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this
nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not
perish from the earth.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="d30c">
The people — <em class="ko">all </em>the
people, regardless of sex or race or religion or ethnicity. It’s an
ongoing project. Progress can be reversed — as it has been by Donald
Trump and many of those who are enabling him. But it can also be
advanced — as it was after FDR’s “Four Freedoms” speech, which outlined
why the US was about to engage in World War II, and which provided the
framework of the best of American postwar foreign policy:</div>
<blockquote class="kp kq kr">
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7bba">
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="a745">
The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="cd52">
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7ff9">
The
third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means
economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy
peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="13b3">
The
fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means
a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a
thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act
of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="fb57">
These
principles do not apply to just the people who live within the borders
of the United States. But we do not have the power, or the right, to
impose a particular political culture upon the rest of the world. The
most we can do is provide an example, to facilitate the practice of
others, and show that we can live according to these ideas.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="fb57">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="34c2">
<em class="ko">This </em>is
what it means to be an American. It is not about our minor differences.
It is our commitment to protect the rights of each of us, so long as
the actions we take do not directly interfere with the rights of any of
us to do the same. America is not a place, and you can’t protect it by
putting a wall around it. America is not an ethnic nation, and there is
no blood test to determine who belongs and who doesn’t. America is an
idea. <em class="ko">That</em>’s what’s great about it. <em class="ko">That’s</em> its greatest advantage in competition against China or Japan or Germany or Russia. <em class="ko">That’s</em>
what allows us to take the best of innovations and ideas and cultures
from around the world, and make them ours. If we sacrifice that, we not
only don’t deserve to survive — we’re already gone.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="34c2">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="ae20">
So who should vote? The people who want to restrict voting rights are only half right. <em class="ko">Americans </em>should
vote: people who have demonstrated they know why this county exists and
are pledged to live under the rule of law. Someone who lives by these
principles is an American, regardless of their appearance or unimportant
cultural differences. On the other hand, people who, for example,
venerate the flag of the Confederacy — the stars and bars of a
collection of traitors and slaveholders — may not in fact be American,
regardless of where they were born or what they look like. People who insist
America must be white have no idea of what America is, and if they
insist on imposing their ideas they have no right to consider themselves
American.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="67d3">
Note
that by this standard a Spanish-speaking “illegal” immigrant may be
more of an American than a Christian nationalist practicing with his
militia buddies in Idaho to “cleanse” the country of those who don’t
look or act like him.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="67d3">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="cf44">
But
people shouldn’t be expelled for having the wrong opinions. It is only
fair that everyone should be exposed to a civic education that helps
people to be citizens, and everyone should have the opportunity to
demonstrate they have a basic understanding of American values before
they can enter a voting machine, just as they have to demonstrate they
understand the traffic laws before they are allowed behind the wheel of a
car. Everyone has a right to a civic education and anyone who votes
should have an opportunity to demonstrate what they know by passing a
citizenship exam. Anything that can be done by a Somali immigrant should
be easy for an car salesman in Omaha, right?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="cf44">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="3902">
The
citizenship test is easy. Too easy, some defenders of American culture
might claim. But leave that criticism aside for now. As a practical matter,
what sorts of things do you need to know? Here are some questions from a
recent citizenship exam. Any immigrant who wishes to be a legal citizen
of the United States should be able to answer questions like these: six
out of ten, selected from a set of 100 that the potential citizen is
provided to study prior to the exam:</div>
<blockquote class="kp kq kr">
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="6095">
The idea of self-government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="d945">
What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4ad1">
How many amendments does the Constitution have?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="83d2">
What did the Declaration of Independence do?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="ac38">
What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9a99">
What is the “rule of law”?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4e8f">
Name one branch or part of the government.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="e004">
What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="b552">
How many U.S. Senators are there?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="f2dc">
Who is one of your state’s U.S. Senators now?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5291">
The House of Representatives has how many voting members?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="e030">
Name your U.S. Representative.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="53ef">
What is the name of the Vice President of the United States now?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="3637">
If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="77f8">
What are two Cabinet-level positions?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="e052">
Who is the Chief Justice of the United States now?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="b608">
Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="1e08">
What is the capital of your state?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="20cd">
What is the name of the Speaker of the House of Representatives now?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="622c">
What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="cc97">
What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="3186">
What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5512">
There were 13 original states. Name three.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="d7e7">
When was the Constitution written?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9ee6">
The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="e3ae">
What territory did the United States buy from France in 1803?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="fdbf">
Name one war fought by the United States in the 1800s.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7397">
What did Susan B. Anthony do?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="256f">
Who was President during World War I?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="5ac9">
Who did the United States fight in World War II?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="599d">
What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="6ba0">
Name one American Indian tribe in the United States.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="2b03">
Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="e42d">
What ocean is on the West Coast of the United States?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="f073">
Name one U.S. territory.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="fcd6">
Name one state that borders Canada.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="18be">
Why does the flag have 13 stripes?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="a3ea">
Name two national U.S. holidays.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9f9e">
Not
too hard, was it? It shouldn’t be. If there are any you don’t know now,
you can look up the answers in an afternoon on Wikipedia and memorize
them. Many of those questions have more than one acceptable answer. You
only need one for each.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9f9e">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4e44">
But
an amazing number of Americans can’t provide answers to enough of those
questions to pass the six out of ten required for a citizenship exam. A
lot of people need to brush up on what they learned as kids. A lot of
people have to learn it for the first time. But that’s ok. If you live
in this country, you have the right to take the exam again, and again,
to have the right to vote. It’s no more onerous a requirement than
passing a written test to get a permit to drive.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4e44">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0faa">
So
that’s my modest proposal: to vote in an American election you have to
demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of how America works, and
why.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0faa">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0fcf">
Whadda you think?</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="0fcf">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4d5b">
I
hope this will be the first in a series of “modest proposal” essays. on <a href="http://medium.com/" target="_blank"><u>Medium</u></a>. It’s not my intent to argue for one party or another, one candidate or
another, one policy or another. I’m looking for general reforms of the system
that will allow it to work better for everyone. I want to suggest
alternatives. Some of them may require amending the Constitution, but
that’s all right. The people who wrote the Constitution realized it was
an imperfect document. They knew it was the product of a particular
place and time, and they knew they couldn’t anticipate how it would have
to change to meet the needs of the 21st century and beyond, so they
left mechanisms to change it. This includes methods to change the
amendment process itself. We now have more than two centuries of
research in political economy. We have a better understanding of what
kinds of results we can expect from various voting schemes. We can
compare the American experience to the successes and failures of
approaches tried around the world. We can better see what preserves
liberty, and what threatens it.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="4d5b">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="17f7">
Thomas Jefferson said it better than I could:</div>
<blockquote class="kp kq kr">
<div class="ka kb du ko kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="f218">
I
am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But
laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions
change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also
to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear
still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7082">
Once
you identify some of the underlying issues a range of solutions can be
fairly obvious. One problem is the political class — <em class="ko">any </em>political
class — will resist changes that undermine their self-interests for the
good of the whole. So, the people must take the lead to institute
changes that will limit the politicians’ freedom of action, including
the institutions that allow those politicians to maintain their
positions. One way to do so would be to end the practice of
gerymandering. Another would be to divide some of the more populous
states into smaller units, to better balance against the power of the
states that are large in territory but small in population. There are
practical ways to reform or eliminate the electoral college. It would be
a fine, and doable, project to finally ratify the first ammendment of
the Bill of Rights, the <em class="ko">real </em>first ammendment that was proposed in the original twelve, but has since been buried in history.</div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="7082">
<br /></div>
<div class="ka kb du ar kc b kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn fg" data-selectable-paragraph="" id="9ab8">
But those are Modest Proposals for another time.</div>
</div>
</div>
</section></div>
</article></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-76430201607877761322019-12-15T18:03:00.000-05:002019-12-15T18:03:26.034-05:00In case anyone still reads this thing...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This blog is <i>very </i>old. It began when my wife was hospitalized, close to death, hospitalized after emergency surgery to remove flesh-eating bacteria and the dead tissue surrounding it. Each day, I'd spend what time I could with her (while managing two hours a day on the road, commuting to my job--I was a lot younger then). When I could no longer stay, I returned to our empty house, slept, and first thing in he morning went to visit her before I had to leave for my job. I was desperate for sleep, but it didn't come easy. When I closed my eyes I'd see her. My imagination kept coming up with horrible, painful ways for her to die, and there was nothing I could do to help her but to stay with her and try to project a confidence I didn't feel. We were new in town, disconnected from family and friends. I'd never felt so powerless and alone.<br />
<br />
This blog was a combination of journal, distraction, and message-in-a-bottle. It was a way to keep myself occupied until I could calm down enough to get some sleep.<br />
<br />
She recovered, slowly. It's years later, and she's more healthy (and more beautiful) than the day I met her. And this blog changed, too. Sometimes it was a place to think things through. Sometimes it was a place to vent my frustrations. Sometimes it was a place to note current events, and provide some commentary. Often it was simply untouched.<br />
<br />
I haven't written here for a while. I'm not shutting this down: it's a unique record, and it remains a place for all those varied missions. But one thing I've learned, especially since my retirement, is I'm a "writer." Not just an author--I've been published before, as part of my job, as required by the games of tenure and consulting. Not for money, although I'll be happy to get a few bucks out of my hobby. Not even a journalist, or a blogger. I'm a writer because I <i>have </i>to write. I have to express who I am and what I think and the tell the stories I alone can tell. There's a novel started, and another growing in the back of my mind. In the meantime I'm publishing in places like <u>Medium</u> in the hopes of meeting new people and sparking some intelligent conversations. I'm surprised to learn I can enjoy writing. It's still work, of course, but it's not a job because it's what I want to do. I'm free to do things my way. It's a little scary to not be driven by someone else's expectations. At first, I worried that without the external direction I'd slow down and vegetate, joining the scores of people staring at the television or some other distraction. But I haven't, and I won't. I'm going to keep writing, and see where it leads me.<br />
<br />
If you're curious about where this goes, I'll probably post about it here from time to time. And you you can probably find me in places like <u>Medium</u>. I hope you'll check in here, and there, once in a while. I hope you'll notice if and when my first novel is published. I think--I feel--this is going to be interesting.</div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-14259235021836861592019-05-30T14:57:00.000-04:002019-05-30T15:00:01.246-04:00The Bilderberger Meeting Begins<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The 67<sup>th </sup>Bilderberg Meeting is beginning today, 30 May, in Montreux,
Switzerland, and is scheduled to run to June 2nd. There are reported to be about 130 invitees confirmed from 23 countries.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, the conspiracy theorists are besides themselves. They see secret planning events leading to One World Government and a New World Order (damn, these guys like capital letters!) and a general depopulation of the planet. Billions dying! Mind control! Apparent rivals working behind the scenes to attack the common man! Dogs and cats, sleeping together!<br />
<br />
Mass hysteria!<br />
<br />
Sorry. But it was fun to get that out of my system. And there <i>are </i>conspiracies, always have been. Most of them have failed. The ones that haven't were often working at cross purposes. Seeing a monolith when it isn't there grants the perception of power to people whose greatest power resides in people's perceptions of them. It builds what it claims to be fighting.<br />
<br />
If I was inclined to think conspiratorially, I might think the opposition was part of the conspiracy.<br />
<br />
And that's why it makes more sense to limit yourself to things that can be seen, and confirmed, and measured. Just because something scares you is no reason to assume it's real. I'd love to see what, if anything, leaks out of this meeting. The fact that these people are selecting themselves as "the elite" (one of them, anyway) is an interesting fact, in and of itself. We can compare what slips out of this meeting with the things that have slipped out over the past sixty-six meetings: white papers, guest lists, agenda items, and so forth. See what's changed, and what hasn't. Make predictions (did ANYONE predict Trump after the prior Bilderberg meeting?) and test them against observations. It's hard to do good work to understand people who don't want to cooperate. Hard, but not impossible.<br />
<br />
Then again, Bilderberg meetings may all be Red Herrings. It's not like these people <i>need </i>to get together in a hotel for face-to-face discussions one week a year. I suspect it's more like a professional conference: a place to get away from the office, gossip, and have a few drinks with friends. Maybe even get a little work done, but that's secondary.<br />
<br />
It could be an interesting place for some bugs. I imagine the NSA has some there already. The Swiss, too. But I hope there are some from Anonymous. A conspiracy spying on a conspiracy is a good metaphor for our times.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderbergers-switzerland/5678959">The Bilderbergers in Switzerland</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-72902748384014596092019-05-27T16:59:00.001-04:002019-05-27T16:59:13.885-04:00Army Gets How-To Guide for Zombie Invasion<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/army-gets-how-to-guide-for-zombie-invasion/">Army Gets How-To Guide for Zombie Invasion</a>: <br />
<embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="never" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/v/yVxsgFgbt9k?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" wmode="transparent"></embed><br />
<br />
One day in the not-too-distant future, a mindless horde of cannibalistic killing machines will come shambling through the streets of America. And when that day comes, the U.S. Army will be on it faster than you can scream “BRAAIIIINNSS!”<br />
<br />
Lucky for us, the <a href="http://zombiecombatcommand.com/">Army Zombie Combat Command</a> has put together a nifty manual on how to identify, fight, and kill those murderous mobs of the undead. Soldiers can now add the <a href="http://www.box.net/shared/154kr4e0vz">FM 999-3 Counter-Zombie Operations at the Fireteam Level</a> to their arsenal – “the primary doctrinal reference on conducting fire team sized infantry operations in a Zombie infested environment in the United States.”<br />
<br />
And as far as we know, this is the only (non) arm of the service that “guarantees the survival of the United States in the event of any Zombie emergency.”<br />
<br />
Danger Room has already provided the civilian guide for <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/how-to-battle-z/">the next zombie apocalypse</a>. We’re glad to see such a forward-thinking authority prepare our nation’s troops to counter the next non-existent threat. It’s “based on intelligence collected from various Zombie outbreaks around the world,” so you know it’s reliable.<br />
<br />
So how should our enlisted men and women fight the troves of Zombies who threaten to eradicate our species? Well, since every Zombie outbreak is slightly different, this guide is a handy how-to for dealing with unexpected developments.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First, identifying these flesh-eating monsters. Unfortunately, only “qualified medical personnel” can identify Type A infections (the weaker version that only starts the zombie-conversion process upon death). But never fear, the manual has precise instructions for identifying zombies at any stage of their rotten existence.<br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Stage 1, Infection: See someone shivering, vomiting, and whose pupils don’t respond to light or darkness? Quick, kill them immediately. Don’t forget to destroy their brains.</li>
<br />
<li>Stage 2, Recently Reanimated: Things get slightly trickier in this stage. Key movements to note are staggered walking, arms extended, slight groans. The manual advises immediate neutralization.</li>
<br />
<li>Stage 3, Active Zombie: This should be the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gUKvmOEGCU">easiest to identify</a>. No body fat, mostly gray, clothing is probably damaged or missing. You know what to do.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/army-gets-how-to-guide-for-zombie-invasion/counter-zombie/" rel="attachment wp-att-49858"><img alt="" height="529" src="https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2011/06/Counter-Zombie-384x529-custom.jpg" title="Counter-Zombie" width="384" /></a>Next up, fighting equipment. While your standard M4 is the weapon of choice for counter-Zombie operations, there are multiple think-outside-the-box options. Try a spear (highly recommended, aim for the head), aluminum baseball bat (the shortest melee weapon practical for use against Zombies) or sword (Attention! Decapitated heads can still bite you). But stay away from chainsaws (waste of fuel), pitchforks (not sturdy enough to penetrate the skull) or axes (they have the unfortunate habit of getting lodged in the target).<br />
<br />
Next are elaborate instructions on how to regain order and control in a zombie-infested battlefield (this is crucial to due anticipated chaos and separation). Officers can choose from diamond, triangle, trident or file formations. Roof tops, very steep mountains or large trees are ideal defensive points in urban settings. Avoid islands, if possible – zombies will just walk under water and emerge on the other side.<br />
<br />
Of course, no manual is complete without a thorough review of terrain and weather. Unfortunately, this section is short – zombies can operate in almost any condition, although they slow down once it dips below zero degrees Celsius. But remember, a frozen Zombie is still dangerous, once it thaws.<br />
<br />
Now, this manual is intended for trained soldiers of the United States Army – so don’t rush home to try any of these anti-undead tactics yourself. Unless, of course, your living room has been invaded by a bunch of corpses who want to eat you alive. Then, all we can say is, best of luck.<br />
<br /></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-85021811923402667202019-05-27T16:51:00.002-04:002019-05-27T16:53:48.570-04:00Murphy’s Laws of Combat<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WarNewsUpdates/~3/DrIyFyDZexg/murphys-laws-of-combat.html">Murphy’s Laws of Combat</a>: <br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rgaWTaQea9o/TIDq6MXTGHI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/ZV-2qSHqvt8/s1600/attitude.bmp"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rgaWTaQea9o/TIDq6MXTGHI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/ZV-2qSHqvt8/s1600/attitude.bmp" style="display: block; height: 491px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 638px;" /></a><span style="font-size: 130%;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Murphy’s Laws of Combat -- for Memorial Day </span></span></div>
<br />
[put together by Marines]<br />
<br />
If your sergeant can see you, so can the enemy.<br />
If the enemy is within range, so are you.<br />
Incoming fire always has the right of way.<br />
What can be seen can be hit, what can be hit can be killed.<br />
There is no such thing as an atheist in a firefight.<br />
<br />
Friendly fire — isn’t.<br />
Recoilless rifles — aren’t.<br />
Suppressive fires — don’t.<br />
Interchangeable parts — aren’t.<br />
<br />
The most dangerous thing in the world is a second lieutenant with a map and a compass.<br />
<br />
There is always a way.<br />
The best way is never the easy way.<br />
The easy way is always mined.<br />
The important things are always simple; the simple things are always hard.<br />
<br />
No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection.<br />
No inspection ready unit has ever passed combat.<br />
<br />
No operations plan ever survives initial contact.<br />
There is no such thing as a perfect plan.<br />
<br />
Sniper’s motto: “Reach out and touch someone.”<br />
Sniper’s philosophy: “If you run, you’ll only die tired.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://extragoodshit.phlap.net/?p=133549#more-133549" style="font-weight: bold;">Read more</a> ....<br />
<div>
<img alt="" height="1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8519488391496270073-5103807629289810849?l=warnewsupdates.blogspot.com" width="1" /></div>
<img height="1" src="https://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WarNewsUpdates/~4/DrIyFyDZexg" width="1" /></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-69731658318808103332019-04-18T23:37:00.000-04:002019-04-23T23:41:20.965-04:00Mueller Report<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Still browsing the Mueller report. A few tentative conclusions:<br />
<br />
(1) Mueller and his group were very professional, and thorough;<br />
(2) The report _would_ have dra<span class="text_exposed_show">wn
conclusions, but the Office of Legal Council prohibits him from
inditing a sitting president. It said that if the weight of the evidence
exonerated the president on any charge, they would have said so. They
didn't. The best other option was to say they couldn't clear him,
they've accumulated significant evidence, and it's up to other people
(read: Congress, or other investigators) to take the next step;<br /> (3)
The Russian operation to undermine and interfere with the election of
2016 was originally to (a) sow confusion, divide Americans, and wreck
American democracy, and (b) keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
This began long before Trump declared himself a candidate;<br /> (4) The
Russians quickly recognized that there was no better disruptor, and no
greater threat to American democracy, than Donald J. Trump. They quickly
shifted the majority of their support to him;<br /> (5) Trump and people
in his circle (including, but not limited to, the official campaign),
had long-standing communications and connections to people in the
Russian state (both the government and the Oligarchs). Russia saw Trump
as someone they could work with for mutual benefit;<br /> (6) There is not
sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy in this matter. There
didn't _need_ to be a criminal agreement. Russia was doing what it did
for its own reasons, the Trump campaign was aware of it, and Trump's
people (especially Manafort) were providing information to help them do
it.<br /> (7) Manafort was already involved as an agent of Russia for
years prior to the Trump campaign. His job, in part, was to install
leaders in Western countries who would serve Russian interests. Getting
Trump elected was part of his job even before he joined the campaign;<br />
(8) The president actively tried to block the Mueller investigation. He
was blocked at several points by his own people. He succeeded
occasionally. Either way, he committed several acts of obstruction of
justice. Since the OLC prohibits indictments of a sitting president, he
passed the evidence to people to do whatever they chose to do next.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="text_exposed_show">
A few speculations:<br />
(1) The House can start impeachment proceedings. At the very least, they can open and expand multiple investigations;<br />
(2) If the House has a vote, they will likely impeach the president. It's a political question;<br />
(3) Making it an official impeachment proceeding would probably make it
easier to get desired evidence, but once they get the evidence the
House may choose not to impeach if they don't want the trial in an
election year;<br />
(4) There are no known "tapes" or "smoking guns" to
force Republicans to abandon the president. Without that, and with the
role of Trumpanistias in the Republican Party, it's unlikely that Trump
will be be convicted in the Senate. If there is a major shift in the
Senate after the 2020 Senate, but Trump is re-elected, the vote might go
the other way.<br />
(5) Whether or not Trump is impeached, he is
vulnerable in other ways. He is already an unindicted co-conspirator in
one Federal proceeding, and is vulnerable to indictment at the State
level today and the Federal level after he leaves office.<br />
(6)
Eventually, Trump will be in court. Once there, he will lose. While he
may or may not be removed from office, it increasingly looks like<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--nyOivIwT34/XL_ZsFueqrI/AAAAAAAAB2U/DoX9V0pWxgA6MnwbsZtp2cLVs-_LKGqCwCLcBGAs/s1600/Die%2Bin%2BJail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="446" data-original-width="462" height="308" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--nyOivIwT34/XL_ZsFueqrI/AAAAAAAAB2U/DoX9V0pWxgA6MnwbsZtp2cLVs-_LKGqCwCLcBGAs/s320/Die%2Bin%2BJail.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<span dir="ltr"><span class="_3l3x _1n4g">Actually, I don't
expect him to die in prison. Manafort will (and deservedly so). Trump
will suffer some punishment--loss of properties, perhaps some loss of
freedom--but (if he isn't pardoned in the interest of ending the agony)
he'll eventually be out. Much as I'd
like to see him without money, and without any hope of getting a loan,
it's likely he will still have fans stupid and numerous enough to keep
enough of the cash flowing to allow him to live in upper-class
prosperity. And he'll find someone to ghost-write his version of events.
But compared to where he's been, and where he's claimed to be, he'll be
just another "loser." He'll find it hard to cope with that, so he'll
probably do his best to ignore it. Given his talent for seeing only what
he wants to see, plus his age, he may spend his declining years
pretending to be "the president," surrounded by a staff that encourages
that illusion.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span dir="ltr"><span class="_3l3x _1n4g">Not that different than today. </span></span></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-22916377985404396222019-02-07T17:07:00.003-05:002019-02-07T17:24:18.671-05:00Markets, politics, and religion<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
One of the defining questions in global political economy is as old as it is meaningless: what's more important-- politics or economics? You could have a more meaningful discussion of "nature versus nurture," or "structure versus process," or "the chicken or the egg?"<br />
<br />
"Politics" and "economics" established themselves, in part, by walling off and ignoring the fact that they are both elements of a larger, codeterminative, whole. What was once "political economy" divided itself into artificial disciplines that maintained the orderliness of the university at the expense of messy, interdependent understanding. (And please don't get me started on sociology and anthropology.) Since then, theorists have emphasized one element over another, setting one concept or relationship as the key to understanding. And it does simplify things, at least in the short term. Marx could start with the mode of production, and everything follows. Morganthau defined the national interest in terms of power, and built his structure on that. Waltz attempted to simplify still farther, making the distribution of power in a system the key to understanding and prediction. Neoclassical economics still begins with the myth of the rational man, and builds an enormous artifice from there.<br />
<br />
Reality is more than that. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal. When pressed, the best theorists admit that, and talk about necessary tradeoffs. But as we press those maps into our students, or repeat them in our speeches, or assume them in our editorials, we reify.<br />
<br />
We pay good money to go to the best restaurant in town, and we eat the menu.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/opinion/tucker-carlson-republicans-democrats.html?fallback=0&recId=1Grj11yXZdEcX4czoRBNGj7rOAp&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=PA&recAlloc=top_conversion&geoCountry=US&blockId=most-popular&imp_id=94259142" target="_blank">Tucker Carlson</a>. As a rule, I don't watch his show, or pay attention to what he has to say. Anyone on Donald Trump's speed-dial is someone I don't want to know. In fact, one of my favorite moments of live television is when Carlson, "from the right," and his long-time debating partner "from the left" were called on their left/right nonsense in his show on CNN, by none other than guest Jon Stewart:<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aFQFB5YpDZE" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
The show went off the air soon thereafter. Carlson eventually moved to Fox, and polished his act.<br />
<br />
But sometimes even Tucker Carlson gets something important. His critique of the American "elite" is on point.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 1.625rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 540px;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Our leaders don’t care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They’re day traders. Substitute teachers. They’re just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can’t solve our problems. They don’t even bother to understand our problems.<br />_______<br />The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy. Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible. </b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 1.625rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 540px;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>_______</b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 1.625rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 540px;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>You’d think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they’re not. They don’t have to be interested. It’s easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind. </b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 1.625rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 540px;">
<span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 1.625rem;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>_______</b></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 1.625rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 540px;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>There’s no option at this point. But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.</b></span></blockquote>
Of course, he can't help but get into an anti-immigrant, culture-war theme as well. But this particular point is correct: market capitalism (which we don't really have anyway, but we pretend that we do) is too often treated as a religion. And in a globalizing economy, if maximizing profit is the goal, <i>there's no reason</i> for any elite to place the interests of "their country"--the locals, the nationals, whatever you want to call them--ahead of what pays them. People recognize this. And they react: with Trump, with Brexit, with the rising tide of nationalism and protectionism.<br />
<br />
And in the process they shoot themselves in the foot. The elites still game the system. They have the resources and the motive to do it. If the balance sheet tips, they leave and take their assets with them. Even in the most "favorable" circumstances, if there was no place left to go, the people would round up the elites, form a circular firing squad, and shoot everyone.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, some of the elites are figuring out that's a solution that hurts them, too. Eventually. So it boils down to how much they discount the future. Can they "cash out" before the casino collapses? "In the long run, we're all dead," Keynes joked. But it can get very unpleasant for everyone <i>before </i>that happens.<br />
<br />
Unlike Carlson, I don't think the goal should be to move backwards. We need to have a sense of community, yes, but that community shouldn't be--<i>can't </i>be--Mayberry. It has to have room for everyone. Everywhere. Our <i>telos </i>can't be in preserving the past, but in exploring the future, together.<br />
<br />
So how do we do that? American progressives talk about a "Green New Deal," long on goals and short on details. That can be one of the starting points. Trump rallies his troops in opposition to American "socialism" (as if he had any idea what the word means). That can be one of the starting points, too. But both are thinking too small. The economics of the world is global. The politics of these proposals is national. At least the progressive's vision has the potential to be universalized--certainly not now, maybe not soon, but someday. "America First," if it comes down to "America Only," means we've lost before we've begun. And by "we" I mean everyone--Americans and the world.<br />
<br />
I seem to have drifted somewhat from the original point. Oh, well, the advantage of a blog is you can post a first draft. Maybe it will prompt a discussion, and I can better figure out what I'm talking about.<br />
<br /></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-16166635057347481182019-02-05T19:05:00.000-05:002019-02-05T19:11:02.524-05:00Retirement<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;">The president's State of the Union speech is tonight. I have low expectations. Very low expectations. But it's as good a moment as any to report on myself, and where I expect to go next.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;">So--I've retired. I haven't officially checked yet, but from what I heard last semester I suppose I'm a "professor emeritus" now.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Actually, it wasn't my first choice. Although I feel fine, my Parkinson's Disease had progressed to the point that I couldn't handle the full load of teaching and advising, etc., that goes with the job. An hour of commuting (each way) didn't help. So long as I take my pills and get enough sleep, it's something I barely notice--but when was the last time someone in our business kept to a strict schedule and got nine hours of sleep a night? The good news is I can think, and occasionally write, and I see more of the IR-related stuff in Pittsburgh than I ever could when I was putting in my hours at Slippery Rock. It's a little bit like grad school, but without the pressure.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I was afraid I would just waste the time, while the time wasted me. For a few months, as the inevitable grew closer, I couldn't imagine life without the daily "professor" role. But four classes a semester, plus advising, plus all the other service to the department and the university that goes with that role, was too much. Parkinson's emerges slowly--at least seven years ago, I suspect, in my case--but it's cumulative. I started taking short naps between classes and appointments (neglecting my research, writing, and other service). Then the naps grew longer. I was hard to stand in front of a class for an hour. I'm sure I wasn't doing my best work. Not by a long shot.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The point where I should have called it off and applied for disability was probably December of 2017. During finals week, there's no chance to take a nap. I made it until my last final exam (the third of the day, in the evening), but when the time came I had dropped to the floor of my office, unable to get up. There's only so much you can ask of your body before it shuts down. I was awake, I was thinking, but my muscles wouldn't work. Fortunately it was one of my advanced classes, and the students had the good sense to come up to my office to remind me where I was supposed to be. I suppose seeing me on the floor shocked everyone. I still couldn't sit up. Of course, they wanted to help. But there really wasn't anything anyone could do. I explained what had been going on, assured everyone that I would work around the problem so nobody's final grade would be affected, and asked them to leave me to get a few hours sleep. After that, I would be ready to pick myself and drive home. They were concerned, of course, and I was embarrassed, but I couldn't see any better options. So they got to finish early, and I slept for slept for three or four hours, and after that my body was ready to get up, walk to the car, and drive to Pittsburgh.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I should have thrown in the towel then, I suppose. But I'm stubborn. I don't like to think I can give my body a reasonable order and it will refuse to obey. And as I regained my strength over the winter break I told myself I could organize things to make everything work. But I couldn't. I made it to May (barely), but I really wasn't doing my job. The Dean (and Human Resources) were kind enough to allow me sick/disability leave, but that was to get me past my 60th birthday, so I could collect on my pension without penalty. My last official day of employment was January 4th of this year. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Since then, I've been making adjustments. Finances, insurance, all the usual stuff. But the biggest adjustment had to be mental. I don't have to take this as an end to my life's work. If anything, it removes some of the distractions. I can still think, and read, and write. So long as I stick to schedule, take my pills four times a day, and allow myself nine hours of sleep, I actually feel pretty good. I even have the first draft ready of a paper I'll deliver at a conference in March (and I must arrange my sleeping arrangements in Toronto!). My greatest enemy is me: trying to ignore my limitations, or giving in to a temptation to watch a movie when I have better things than TV. Losing myself in the news would be an easy way to remain occupied but unproductive, So I'm not doing that, and I won't do that. (Usually. There's always the temptation to piece together the pieces of the Trump scandals.)</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.901961); font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: pre-line;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">So that's the State of My Union. I'll probably be checking in more here, from time to time, and connecting some of the interesting stuff to Facebook. Social media can easily be another time sink. But it's also allowing me, through "professional" social media, to keep in touch with current and prospective colleagues. I can read more of their work now. I can, and do, contribute. I still have things to say, and I will say them. </span></span></div>
</div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-75198847718470933232018-07-20T12:39:00.000-04:002018-07-20T12:39:39.014-04:00Raising our eyes to the stars<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Happy Moon Day! On this day, in 1969, people first set foot on the surface of the moon. I was nine years old. The computer in the Apollo spacecraft had less computing power that the cheap digital watch you might get today in a Happy Meal. There was a lot of math involved, of course, but it was generally done on the ground, and much of it with slide rules. It's hard to remember, sometimes, just how much has changed.<br />
<br />
Apollo was a decade-long, incremental, and monumental project. Only two countries could have assembled the raw power necessary to get to the moon, and one of them pushed so far past the limits of their capabilities that their best minds died in an explosion linked directly to the politics of an arbitrary deadline. Today there are billionaires in the process of building orbital hotels. Some are making plans to skip the moon entirely and head directly for Mars.<br />
<br />
It was, in many ways, the equivalent of building the pyramids. It was a contest for bragging rights with the USSR, and when it was done it rolled on by inertia for only a few more missions. But it was also an achievement "for all mankind." This was a day for every person on Earth to be proud. How many of those have there been?<br />
<br />
It was the dawn of a new age. And then we paused to catch our breath and lower our sights. Leave it to government to make the world's greatest adventure boring.<br />
<br />
But maybe we are waking up again. Today, more people are coming to wrap their heads around the fact that we must go and live (and yes, die) out there. This planet is too small. Too vulnerable. We are still in a race, not just of nation versus nation or corporation versus corporation, but as a species against time. To survive, we have to become a multiplanetary civilization. And today, forty-nine years ago, was the first step.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="nasa apollo 11 earth africa 1969 AS11 36 5352HR" height="298" src="https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/57e1a165b0ef97b3088b6f87-750-562.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo taken from the Moon. July 20, 1969.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-79604077103253852082018-07-13T19:40:00.000-04:002018-07-13T23:19:08.854-04:00Reading between the lines in Strzok's testimony<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's an old joke among lawyers:<span style="background-color: white;"> If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">There was a lot of table-pounding (and the occasional foaming at the mouth) at the open hearings yesterday, which attempted to make Peter Strzok into some kind of dark figure and (somehow) defend the president. It was a failure. If this is the best they could do, Donald Trump might want to reconsider returning from his foreign trip. Perhaps Putin would let him stay in Russia. But I doubt that he would. It's not like Trump was actually an agent. More like a useful idiot. And apparently he hasn't been reading his briefing books, and the pros have been avoiding talking to him about sensitive sources and methods, so he may not have all that much useful intelligence to trade for his dacha on the Black Sea. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If anything, the hearings (what I saw of them) made Peter Strzok into a hero. Credible. Calm in the face of insults and stupidity. Clear about what he could, and could not, talk about in an open hearing. He came across as a professional counterintelligence agent. He sort of reminded me of my Dad (and that's rare praise). </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">But there was one statement he made in the hearing that caught my attention. Actually, it pulled me out of my chair. And since I don't see anyone else making this connection, I guess I will. Strzok (with permission, I'm sure) pulled the curtain aside </span><span style="background-color: white;">just a little bit on the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation. This is what grabbed my attention:</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "publicotext" , "georgia" , "timesnewroman" , "times new roman" , "times" , "baskerville" , serif;">The information we had which was alleging a Russian offer of assistance to a member of the Trump campaign was of extraordinary significance. It was credible. It was from an extraordinarily sensitive and credible source.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "publicotext" , "georgia" , "timesnewroman" , "times new roman" , "times" , "baskerville" , serif;">What, exactly, does that mean? "Intel-speak" tends to avoid exaggeration. If anything, it tends to be overcautious. </span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;">Peter Strzok was a senior counterintelligence official, with years of experience in investigating, disrupting, and prosecuting Russian intelligence operations in the United States. His record is exemplary. He was, in fact, one of the first of a handful of people who knew what the FBI knew about Trump-Russia. He could have, with a few words, undermined the Trump campaign. He didn't do it. The best available evidence is that he didn't even <i>think </i>of doing it. He is that kind of professional. Which means that every word he uses in an official capacity is considered. Every word means something--no more, no less.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;">So what, exactly, was he saying? It's been decades since I had any special access, but the meanings of some words were drummed into my head. Most of the politicians probably missed it--exaggeration and spin are their stock in trade. But, to me, it was like he stood on the desk with a bullhorn. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;">The use of verbal probability estimates in National Intelligence Estimates has changed </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">over time (for an overview of word counts see the MA thesis of Rachel Kesselman (Mercyhurst, 2008)). But this is about the usual: it comes from a (now declassified) 2007 NIE.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">Estimates of likelihood</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">. Because analytical judgments are not certain, we use probabilistic language... Terms such as </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">probably</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">, </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">likely</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">, </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">very likely</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">, or </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">almost certainly</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> indicate a greater than even chance.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;">A chart of the continuum provided in the NIE</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> makes it clear that <i>probably </i>or <i>likely </i>is around a </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">sixty or seventy-five</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> percent estimate of likelihood. </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">Very likely</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> is around eighty to ninety percent. </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">Almost certainly</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> is over ninety percent. There is no such thing as a certain assessment (100 percent)--there is always room for error. But if you have to bet, </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">likely </i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">is good enough to bet your money, </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">very likely</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> is good enough to bet your job, and </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">almost certainly </i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">is good enough to bet your life. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;">One can also chart the<i> confidence in assessments</i>, which is based on the quality, scope, and sourcing of the evidence on which the estimate is based. A </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;">high confidence</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"> is an indication of high-quality information. It's not certain, but it's damn near close. </span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif;"> Moderate confidence</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"> means the information comes from a credible source. It's plausible. <i> Low confidence</i> means there are questions about the source's credibility or plausibility. It's possible, but you wouldn't want to base your decision on it. <i>Curveball</i>, the Iraqi source passed along by German intelligence to the US, was in the judgement of the Germans a <i>low confidence</i> source. The Americans chose to trust him because he fit the prejudices of senior administration officials, which led (in part) to the Iraq War of 2003.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;">So let's take another look at the testimony. Strzok tells us the source was <i>extraordinarily sensitive and credible</i>. This is the level of having a loyal</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> agent inside the other side's agency--an agent with access to information most other insiders </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">would not have. This is a source </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">so important, so sensitive, that to even release his report into normal channels (let alone to the public) would lead to an immediate manhunt, his discovery, torture, and execution.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">No wonder </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">Strzok</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"> kept his mouth shut!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">And no wonder, once the Trump-Russia story began to surface through other channels, we began to see a series of murders of people in Russia who might have had some involvement in the operation. This is not just about the "Steele Dossier". Steele is a good spy, using the sources available to him outside of Russia, and it looks like he did a pretty good job. But Strzok had his source <i>before </i>seeing anything from Steele. And Strzok's source was someone with inside knowledge. If not inner circle, then pretty damn close.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">And Strzok is telling us he knew--perhaps not well enough to prove in an American court, but well enough that he would have been willing to bet his life and the lives of the people he cares about--he <i>knew </i>the Russians were openly offering assistance to at least one member of the Trump campaign. And if it was happening at all, it was an operation planned and approved at the top. The top of the Russian government--certainly. The top of the Trump campaign? That was something that deserved a much closer look.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">***</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;">OBE--Overtaken by Events-</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;">-the news has broken that the Mueller team has indicted a number of senior Russian military intelligence officials for breaking into DNC servers, precisely when Donald Trump was calling on them, publicly, to do something like that. Interesting. I have to admire the timing. I have to wonder--did the FBI officials who authorized Strzok to open the curtain, just a little, know this was coming today?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid serif" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "droid" serif , serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-34489483605888835932018-07-08T22:12:00.000-04:002018-07-08T22:32:36.653-04:00Torture (II)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">A draft review of Manfred Nowak, <u>Torture: An Expert's Confrontation with an Everyday Evil</u> (Philadelphia: U of PA Press, 2018). Translated from the German by Roger Kaminker.<br />
<br />
The author was the UN Special Rapporteur for the Human Rights Council from 2004 to 2010. He has also worked with the EU, universities, and NGOs to investigate cases of torture, promote prosecutions of offenders, and improve conditions of detention. Yet one of his first observations is that past all the definitions and descriptions of torture, "we cannot fully grasp its essence if we have never experienced it." And while torture is universally condemned in international law, this direct attack on the essence of what it means to be human is used--"routinely"--by the police of most of the world's states. The author hopes, by exploring the depths of the evil torture involves, to promote the sense of outrage prompted by the reporting on the Holocaust. Clearly, instruments of international law are not enough. He wants "a new global consensus to effectively eradicate torture." I sense he will be waiting a long time.<br />
<br />
Novak's description of the operations of the United Nations follows a familiar pattern: noble goals, undermined by state practice. Systematic cruelty is hidden behind a wall of lies. So he describes how, as an investigator, he had to work under the rules promulgated by each state he was investigating. And he explores how it was possible, sometimes, to work within those rules and still learn something of value. Arranging confidential interviews and medical examinations was crucial. When victims would describe, without police in the room, what had been done to them the evidence would almost always back up their stories. And these are the states that allowed interviews. At some level, the officials of those states believed (or told themselves) it "wasn't so bad." Or at the very least they thought they could whitewash the conditions sufficiently to get out of the international spotlight. It says a lot that neither Russia or the United States would allow these interviews to take place.<br />
<br />
The book is divided into two parts. Part one is an overview of torture, inhuman detention, and other "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment. Despite the Convention, what counts as torture varies by region and culture. Corporal punishment and capital punishment? At the insistence of many Islamic states, the UN Convention against torture does not include pain or suffering arising from "lawful" sanctions. Like those who define "terrorism" as the act of a non-state, this is potentially a loophole that renders the Convention meaningless. At the same time, if a state does not enact legislation (and enforce it) against private acts of dehumanizing violence, it endures as the norm.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Part two is a survey, chapter by chapter, of torture in individual states. These are based on Nowak's investigations, ranging from Georgia to Mongolia, Nepal to China, Jordan to Austria, he established torture had occurred in seventeen of eighteen states. The only counterexample he found, Denmark, began with a very different model of what a prisoner is and what a prison is for. A retributionist system must be replaced by one that sees the prisoner as a human being, with all the rights that involves,working to integrate himself back into the community. We have a long way to go.</div></div>Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-35687509656788527062018-07-04T18:31:00.001-04:002018-07-04T18:35:50.695-04:00Torture<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
First, where are we now? Since I haven't written about my life (or much of anything) for several months, I feel I should probably do some catching up.<br />
<br />
First, I have Parkinson's Disease. Have had it, for at least several years. It's now gotten to the point that my performance as a professor (teaching, research, administration) has suffered. It has gotten to the point that I'm probably going to go on sick leave in the fall semester., and retire as disabled in January 2019.<br />
<br />
It's damn frustrating. For the most part (not always) I can get my body to do what I want it to do. But standing in front of four classes a week is too much. Besides, I have to spend more of my time and effort on the act of maintaining my focus. Doing it on demand, day after day, every day, is beyond me. I get tired. I also can't handle the two hours a day (or more) driving between my home in Pittsburgh and my office in Slippery Rock. Not every day.<br />
<br />
My father died of Parkinson's, so I have some idea of what my future might look like. In the meantime I live, I exercise, I read and I write. I get to give my wife the attention she deserves (although the focus issue still comes up--I have to write myself more notes, I have to be more scheduled and less spontaneous).<br />
<br />
Actually, for the immediate future it's not all that bad. I'm as intelligent as ever (my IQ has actually gone up a few points, as a result of getting my depression under control). I can learn. I can contribute. If I can arrange the money (still in progress) I can visit some of the places I normally couldn't go when the full-time professorship got in the way. Maybe I can give a guest lecture or three. Maybe I can see what's going on with others' projects. Maybe I can get some people to take a critical eye to mine.<br />
<br />
In some ways, it feels like grad school--but without the arbitrary assignments and the anxiety about grades.<br />
<br />
I know, I know--I may not be in denial, but I'm clearly putting the best possible spin on events. It's a conceit--but I'd like to think it's a healthy one.<br />
<br />
So what am I doing today? Among other things, reading a book entitled <u>Torture</u> for a short book review. With a title like that, written by a former UN Special Rapporteur, it's bound to be a laugh a minute for the whole family. But it should also be valuable. You see, most of us Strategic Studies types don't read these horror stories because we like what we learn, but because it might help us to do something to improve the situation. It's much like an oncologist reading the latest research on cancer, or a political psychologist who examines a case study on president Trump (and yes, that parallel was intentional).<br />
<br />
But enough of this. Back to the book...</div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0Pittsburgh, PA, USA40.440624799999988 -79.99588640000001840.24723929999999 -80.318609900000013 40.634010299999986 -79.673162900000023tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-7604089815221638802017-12-27T14:37:00.001-05:002019-04-23T23:44:44.108-04:00Dead Hand<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Remember <i>Dr. Strangelove</i>? For those of you too young to get the reference, "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" was a black comedy by Stanley Kubrick released a couple of years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. It described an accidental attack on the the Soviet Union, which triggered an automatic response, which essentially destroyed the world (except, maybe, for a few top leaders and their harems, deep underground). Much of the dialogue could have been taken directly from a couple of the leading books of the day: Herman Kahn's <i>On Thermonclear War</i>, and Henry Kissinger's <i>Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy</i>.<br />
<br />
Kubrick tried to make the movie look very accurate, and for the most part he succeeded (the "War Room" was designed for drama, not for accuracy). His story tried to take the ideas of the nuclear strategists to their logical conclusions. Since the people he was condemning were already trying to push their ideas to their logical conclusions, there wasn't much farther to go. One of the devices he mentioned, from a thought experiment, was the "Doomsday Machine"--an automated system that would, when certain conditions were met, launch an overwhelming strike against the projected enemy without any human involvement whatever. In fact, it was designed so it couldn't be turned off. Once activated, the threat was automatic, unlimited, and unstoppable.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
What nobody realized for years is the Russians really built the damn thing. For all we know it's still there. The "Perimeter" system, also known as "Dead Hand" would (does) monitor for evidence of a nuclear strike, check that it was out of touch with higher authorities, and unlock a key that would enable an officer on duty (the only human in the loop, told that everything he ever loved was dead) to launch the counterstrike (or first strike, if the system glitched).<br />
<br />
A big question, even addressed in <i>Dr. Strangelove</i>, is if this is meant to be the ultimate deterrent "why would you keep it a secret?" In the movie it had just been activated, and it was to be announced at the next Party conference. In reality, the Russians never mentioned it. Today, they avoid talking about it. The Americans never knew it was there. And we still don't know if if it is, or is not, active today.<br />
<br />
The more I learn about the Cold War, the more amazed I am we are still alive. And stories like these lead me to wonder if we can keep it that way.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.wired.com/2009/09/mf-deadhand/?currentPage=all">Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine | WIRED</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-28328361402511746362017-11-29T10:36:00.001-05:002017-11-29T10:37:48.788-05:00This is an interesting idea <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Put Chinese soldiers in North Korea, matching the American soldiers in South Korea. China would have to be desperate to do it. The U.S. would have to restrain itself from responding in kind. But the interesting question is "would the North accept it?" Would they tolerate the troops of a foreign power--<i>the </i>foreign power in their immediate neighborhood--to be stationed on their soil? Would Kim see it as a threat, or a promise? If the Korean program is really about deterrence, then they might accept it. If the motivation is not deterrence but attack, they definitely would not.<br />
<br />
It would also allow China and the US to call Kim's bluff. I'd love to see the Korean reaction.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/28/china-should-send-30000-troops-into-north-korea-symmetrical-reassurance/">China Should Send 30,000 Troops Into North Korea – Foreign Policy</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-52571837670489966472017-11-27T13:34:00.001-05:002017-11-27T13:55:12.099-05:00Is there a natural connection between sexual malfeasance and espionage?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
First, let me get this out of the way: no, I don't think there's a direct link.<br />
<br />
That said, it's amazing how often we seem to find them in the same cases. The Commander-in-Chief who bagged about his taking advantage of women now seems to be connected to a deal with Putin going back to <u>at least</u> 2013. His connections with Russian organized crime may go back to the 1980s. The "icon" of the House has not only abused women, he's been an active abetter of Russian propaganda organizations for decades. Like Trump, I don't know if he's an active agent, or just stupid. And the quote from a counterintelligence type in thi story jumps out at me: “Do you really think anybody’s that stupid?”<br />
<br />
I'll still assume stupidity until I have solid evidence of <i>mens rea</i>. But in each case, the proclivities of each man to use and discard women, coupled with the opportunities for Soviet/Russian intelligence to document it, made it easy to maintain an "insurance file" to keep them on the path.<br />
<br />
<img alt="" class="size-full-width wp-image-1013080" height="265" src="https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/gettyimages-869821392.jpg?quality=80&w=970" width="400" /> <br />
<br />
The connection, to the extent it exists. seems to be a general lack of ethics. People who are willing to make exceptions for themselves in one area are willing to make exceptions for themselves in others. And each operated in an environment where the norm was to look the other way (or to celebrate) violations of conventional morality.<br />
<br />
The Swamp is deep.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://observer.com/2017/11/john-conyers-accused-of-sexual-harassment-but-his-kgb-ties-are-worse/">John Conyers Accused of Sexual Harassment—But His KGB Ties Are Worse | Observer</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-11262359408734484922017-11-26T15:10:00.001-05:002017-11-27T13:56:16.949-05:00Millennials are the new peasants<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Yet another reminder that the statisitical mean, when dealing with the distribution of wealth, is a <i>terrible </i>way of understanding the world.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/global-wealth-inequality-is-even-worse-than-we-thought-millennials-are-the-new-peasants">Who Has Done the Best Since the 2008 Meltdown? Hint: Not Millennials | Big Think</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-12364343769097871252017-11-26T13:58:00.001-05:002017-11-26T14:58:53.702-05:00If this goes on<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It's relatively easy to anticipate first-order effects. It's harder to anticipate second-order effects. It's harder still to anticipate the interactions of second-order effects (and so on). Maybe we'll eventually have an improved Watson to use as a tool to guess where we are going, but I doubt it. The act of guessing, and acting on those guesses, changes the system. That's why speculative fiction, especially dystopian literature, is useful: it helps one to anticipate and avoid some of the bad possibilities. But even that, by insisting on a minimal "realism" will fail to catch black swans. And if it does, nobody will believe them until the very last moment.<br />
<br />
<img alt="" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-92957" data-attachment-id="92957" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-description="" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="28650310590_3d22a9384e_b-e1483072341905" data-large-file="https://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/28650310590_3d22a9384e_b-e1483072341905.jpg?w=497&h=259" data-medium-file="https://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/28650310590_3d22a9384e_b-e1483072341905.jpg?w=300" data-orig-file="https://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/28650310590_3d22a9384e_b-e1483072341905.jpg" data-orig-size="600,313" data-permalink="https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/this-is-where-we-are-going/28650310590_3d22a9384e_b-e1483072341905/" src="https://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/28650310590_3d22a9384e_b-e1483072341905.jpg?w=497&h=259" /> <br />
<br />
In that light, take a look at some speculations from the head of Daimler-Benz. In his limited area, I think he's getting some of the first-order effects, and maybe a few of the second-order effects. But assuming it doesn't all fall apart (always a not trivial assumption) we can figure he's missing ninety percent of what's going to happen. And he fails to consider the political and social pushback. So a few good rules for thinking about the future:<br />
<ol>
<li>The next year isn't going to change as much as you hope it will.</li>
<li>The next five years isn't going to change as much as you think it will.</li>
<li>The next twenty years will change more than you can imagine. </li>
</ol>
<a href="https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/this-is-where-we-are-going/">THIS IS WHERE WE ARE GOING | Follow The Money</a><br />
<br />
P.S. If anyone has the original source, I'd like to see it. </div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-62600555337048951462017-11-25T18:18:00.000-05:002017-11-25T21:36:17.539-05:00I've heard of the parasitic state, but this is beyond merely "evil"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A North Korean soldier recently escaped across the DMZ. He was shot six times by his comrades before he reached safety. But his new wounds were the least of his troubles:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Along with the bullet wounds, he also had hepatitis B, pneumonia and
“an enormous number” of parasitic worms in his intestines, some up to 11
inches long. “I’ve never seen anything like this in my 20 years as a
physician,” said his South Korean surgeon. The worms can burrow into
fresh wounds, with potentially devastating effects.</blockquote>
And remember, this was a <i>soldier</i>, quite possibly one trusted enough to help guard the Demilitarized Zone. There's no way he was from an "hostile" caste:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Every one of North Korea’s 23 million people is subject to the brutal
state-imposed caste system known as songbun. The word “songbun” should
be notorious around the world. From birth, every North Korean is marked
by the government as a member of a loyal “core” caste, a “wavering”
middle caste or a “hostile” caste, and this designation determines
access to food, housing, education, jobs — everything. During the famine
of the 1990s, when more than two million North Koreans perished, the
songbun system often determined who ate and who starved.</blockquote>
If this is what life is like for him, what is it like for the others?<br />
<br />
I'm not calling for war, especially with North Korea. It's not my place to be judge and executioner. But it seems to me there are a lot of people in North Korea who deserve to die. Economic sanctions? That'll only hurt the innocent. Assassination? The people who deserve it are so hard to get, and <i>so </i>well protected. Perhaps, like the French Resistance, we can air-drop thousands of cheap, one-shot handguns on the territories of the prison farms, momentarily giving some of the victims a chance to fight back. But it wouldn't hurt the top, and it might trigger a war.<br />
<br />
So how about thinking slightly outside of the box? There has been talk of "ethno-weapons" for several years now, but there isn't enough genetic diversity in the Korean population to target only the monsters. Could someone develop a weapon that sickens only the well-fed, or the obese? Or a weapon tailored to a specific target? In 2012 <u>The Atlantic</u> reported on the progress made in engineering bioweapons tailored to a specific person's DNA. It seems the US has been collecting the DNA of world leaders for years, and recently Russia has lodged protests at what they claim are American attempts to collect Russian DNA. If some other stories are true, there is an attempt by the Secret Service to collect and dispose of everything touched by the president, in order to reduce his vulnerability to a tailored attack. I can't see how that can work, however, even for a germophobe like Trump.<br />
<br />
So how about something tailored to Kim Jong Un? Or his family? I don't have the capability to do it, but with the availability of genetic technology increasing, and the price dropping, it's probably only a matter of time before some smart kid engineers biological viruses. Like computer viruses, it may be a problem too pretty to not hack. And today, governments can already do much, much more.<br />
<br />
Again, I'm simply thinking aloud. Even if I could do it, I wouldn't. But BioAnonamous, are you listening?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/opinion/north-korea-songbun.html">The Parasites Feeding on North Koreans - The New York Times</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/hacking-the-presidents-dna/309147/" target="_blank">Hacking the President's DNA</a> </div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-76072251511008538672017-11-24T15:13:00.001-05:002017-11-25T18:24:34.267-05:00Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Trump<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It looks like General Flynn is talking. As we've heard from his lawyer since the beginning of the Trump/Russia/etc. investigation, the general "has a lot to say"--enough to cut a deal with prosecutors. The only reason for the investigation to cut a deal with him is that he has information that incriminates someone with an even higher status. There aren't a lot of people with an equal or higher status than the National Security Advisor: Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon (perhaps), Melania Trump, Reince Priebus, Mike Pence, John Kelly, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway (maybe), Steven Miller, Paul Manafort (maybe), Donald McGahn, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie, Eric Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Rebekah Mercer, Steve Mnuchin, Anthony Scaramucci, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Dan Coats, Mike Pompeo, Sean Spicer, Donald J. Trump. Manafort is already under indictment, without Flynn's testimony. Mattis and Tillerson didn't have enough overlap with Flynn to make either of them them the object of a deal.<br />
<br />
If we are focusing on the campaign and/or Trump business dealings, the names to look for are Jared Kushner, Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump. Eric Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, and Donald J. Trump. I'd exclude Pence, since he was such a late addition to the campaign (although he did have a role in the transition). That leaves Kushner, Sessions, and five Trumps.<br />
<br />
One person only has value as an "ultimate" target: the president. All he has to offer Robert Mueller is a relatively painless resignation, and a complete debriefing to investigators for counterintelligence and financial crimes. Everyone else has to be talking to their legal teams, asking for options. I wonder how many other senior defense teams have cut ties with the DJT defense?<br />
<br />
<img alt="" class="media-viewer-candidate" data-mediaviewer-caption="Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, are said to have terminated an information-sharing agreement with the president’s legal team." data-mediaviewer-credit="Carlos Barria/Reuters" data-mediaviewer-src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/24/us/24-flynn/merlin_129715607_282ab574-d5be-41d7-91ed-643f78199e88-superJumbo.jpg" height="265" itemid="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/24/us/24-flynn/merlin_129715607_282ab574-d5be-41d7-91ed-643f78199e88-master768.jpg" itemprop="url" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/24/us/24-flynn/merlin_129715607_282ab574-d5be-41d7-91ed-643f78199e88-master768.jpg" width="400" /><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/politics/flynn-mueller-russia-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0">A Split From Trump Indicates That Flynn Is Moving to Cooperate With Mueller - The New York Times</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-60509272057552825572017-11-24T12:15:00.001-05:002017-11-25T21:34:51.015-05:00Some days it's hard to be an old-fashioned globalist<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Now even Angela Merkel has to deal with the rising tide of nationalism. It was too easy for too many of the elite to forget that opening borders, encouraging European integration, and fighting climate change has a cost for a lot of people. They're tired of paying that price. And even if some of it is a misperception of the consequences of globalization, that perception is important. Let's see if she gets the message.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/24/merkel_--_and_davos_--_rebuked_in_germany_135613.html">Merkel -- and Davos -- Rebuked in Germany | RealClearPolitics</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-67975147162689232582017-11-13T13:51:00.001-05:002017-11-25T21:35:47.554-05:00The Poland march shows the normalization of the country's far right <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In my memery, Poland has always been a country with a love of freedom, and a love for the Catholic Church. But now we see what happens when nationalism means that freedom only applies to "my" people and "my" church. The idea there could be universal values doesn't seem to register with these marchers. I can understand wanting to protect your sovereignty, especially when it has been so hard to win and to keep. The strong cosmopolitanism of the EU is a hard sell, and it will remain so for a long time. But that doesn't imply a celebration of hate, and that is all too often what we are seeing.<br />
<br />
<img class="hi-res-lazy courtesy-of-the-lazy-loader" data-hi-res-src="https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/11/Foreign/Images/Rex_March_of_Independence_in_Warsaw_9218573S.jpg&w=1484" data-low-res-src="https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/11/Foreign/Images/Rex_March_of_Independence_in_Warsaw_9218573S.jpg&w=480" data-raw-src="https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/11/Foreign/Images/Rex_March_of_Independence_in_Warsaw_9218573S.jpg" height="290" src="https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/11/Foreign/Images/Rex_March_of_Independence_in_Warsaw_9218573S.jpg&w=1484" width="400" />\<br />
<br />
Poland has a long liberal tradition, but we may be asking more of them they they are ready to handle. If Britain can leave the EU, Poland can too. Not NATO--I've found Poles far more interested in NATO than in the EU. A Catholic Turkey seems to be where this is headed.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/13/how-poland-became-a-breeding-ground-for-europes-far-right/?utm_term=.bfd734aa5f0f">How the Poland march shows the normalization of the country's far right - The Washington Post</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-13540709746193564882017-11-08T10:51:00.001-05:002017-11-25T21:37:09.860-05:00What the End of ISIS Means<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In the immortal words of Han Solo (Star Wars): "Great Kid! Don't get cocky."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/23/what-the-end-of-isis-means/#undefined.tijt.cmfs">What the End of ISIS Means</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-11343864083316543242017-11-08T10:45:00.001-05:002017-11-25T21:37:56.319-05:00This looks interesting--follow this space<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Sometimes people forget that a younger Benjamin Netanyahu, while staying in the United States, would share a bedroom with a very young Jared Kushner. These two go back a long. long way.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/07/jared-kushner-mohammed-bin-salman-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-up-to-something/#undefined.cmfs">Jared Kushner, Mohammed bin Salman, and Benjamin Netanyahu Are Up to Something</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10094859.post-38064463351472315112017-11-07T12:35:00.001-05:002017-11-07T12:35:43.564-05:00The United Nations Will Send Its First Mission to Space in 2021<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The UN plans to have its own space program. No word on how they'll pay for it. But I wonder, how would the jurisdiction for manned flight work? Would it be similar to the rules of the Headquarters Agreement? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://gizmodo.com/the-united-nations-will-send-its-first-mission-to-space-1787194359">The United Nations Will Send Its First Mission to Space in 2021</a></div>
Daniel McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16397896622886358394noreply@blogger.com0