“My father likes to keep some anonymity. It’s who he is. It’s who he is as a person,” Eric Trump said.
It should have been obvious.
(Quote from Washington Post, July 6, 2016).
“My father likes to keep some anonymity. It’s who he is. It’s who he is as a person,” Eric Trump said.
It should have been obvious.
(Quote from Washington Post, July 6, 2016).
Since 2005, this blog has had a holiday tradition of posting “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” Never in our wildest, most chaotic dreams, did we imagine that the British would one day quote these opening words:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [Ed: That article is jargon-laden, and interesting if you can wade past it.]
So, while it may be chaotic in the most negative of senses, there’d be some succor should we see a succinct success as England secedes from the United Kingdom. Of course, London, West-Virginia-style, secedes from said secession. Obviously, after this, the United Kingdom of Scotland, Northern Ireland and London should remain a part of the EU, dramatically simplifying the negotiation.
Or, perhaps, in light of the many British who were apparently confused about the idea that Leave meant Leave, or the 2% margin of the vote, it would be reasonable and democratic to hold another election to consider what should happen. A problem with democracy is often that a majority, however slim, votes in a way that impacts the rights of a minority, and, whilst we’re waxing philosophic, we would worry were the rights of that minority so dramatically impacted as the result of a non-binding vote. Perhaps a better structure to reduce chaos in the future is two votes, each tied to some super-majority. A first to negotiate, and a second to approve the result.
It doesn’t seem like so revolutionary an idea.
At BruCon 0x06, I was awoken from a nap to the sound of canons, and looked out my window to see soldiers marching through the streets. It turns out they were celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Treaty of Ghent. As I’m sure you’ll recall from
history class Wikipedia, the Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812, and was the second war between Great Britain and the less Canadian parts of its North American colonies.
Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about that and what it tells us about Iraq, ISIS and more recently, Ferguson, and I want to write some of it down to see if it makes sense.
Much of our policy in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to operate on a model of history which goes something like this: after the revolutionary war, town meetings coalesced into the Constitution, and we all lived democratically ever after. It’s an ahistorical view that forgets the Articles of Confederation, the Whiskey Rebellion, Shays Rebellion, and what some in the American south still call “the War of Northern Aggression.” It takes time to develop the institutions of a functioning democratic society.
Is it any surprise that after years of dictatorships, torture of dissidents, children growing up under sanctions (in the case of Iraq), occupation, and civil war, the people of Iraq are not using democracy to solve their problems? That they fight over how to run their country?
While each has a unique history and set of circumstances, it appears to me that there is, across Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, a crisis of legitimacy. The people who live in those areas have disagreements about not only who should lead them, or what policies should be in place, but about the process for selecting their leaders or governments, and the powers those governments should have.
Their disagreements are strong enough that many people are willing to take up arms rather than acquiesce to other visions. Our understanding of these disagreements is muddied by use of terms like “militia”, “the legitimate security forces” or “the so-called Islamic State.”
The Islamic State, with territory, an army, and a currency, is in many ways, no more or no less legitimate than the army and currency of Prince Assad of Syria. (He is a prince in all but name, having inherited power from his father, that literal inheritance of power being the defining feature of princes.) Assad has taken the step of staging a Potemkin village election, because he understands that legitimacy (rather than power) comes from the consent and agreement of the governed.
This is why Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, save all those others that have been tried. No one really thinks that asking a bunch of people who can’t be bothered to vote who should lead them is a great way to get the best people into government. But democracy is a unique way to give people a voice, and in that voice, get their consent. The form democracy, that everyone has a voice, is what gives it its legitimacy. Another way to say that is it’s the ballot or the bullet. (If you haven’t listened to Malcom X give that speech, it’s really an outstanding use of your time. Ballot or Bullet Part I, Ballot or Bullet Part II. In two parts from 100 American Speeches, not sure why it’s two-parted.)
Developing legitimacy requires both institutions and time. The institutions must show that they are reliably better than other choices, or people will pursue those other choices. When Federal grand juries return indictments in 162,000 out of 162,011 cases brought to them, it is reasonable to question if they are a worthwhile or trustworthy institution, or act simply as an instrument of power. From that same 538 Story, grand juries in Dallas reviewed 81 shootings by officers, and returns a single indictment. It is easy to think something is out of whack.
What I think I see in Ferguson is that the institutions of justice have failed, again and again. They didn’t just fail when Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown. Police officers can and will make bad decisions. But afterwards, they continued to fail. The medical examiner didn’t take photos because the battery in his camera died. The prosecutor led Darren Wilson’s testimony.
The institutions didn’t just failed in the moment, they couldn’t be made to work under an intense spotlight. The figures about grand jury indictments indicate that they system is failing victims of police violence. (Although Law Proffesor Paul Cassell makes a case that the grand jury did the right thing, and Wilson had a strong self-defense claim.) However, the institutions didn’t fail completely. A grand jury met, its activity was transcribed and the transcript was released. These elements of transparency allow us to judge the system, and find it wanting. But even while wanting, it’s better than judgement in the ‘court of public opinion,’ and its better than mob justice or lynchings.
These failures may lead reasonable people to ask what alternatives to violence exist? It may lead people to think that violence or destruction is their best option. Perhaps the democratic bargain as a whole is no longer sufficiently legitimate to the people protesting or even rioting in Ferguson. To be clear, I don’t think that the violence or property destruction will improve their lives. In fact I believe that violence and property destruction will make their lives worse. I also think that the people rioting, if they would sit down and talk it through might even agree that burning their own community won’t help. But they’re living in a system where things are more arrest warrants than people.
The chaos in Ferguson, like the chaos in Boston in 1776, like the chaos in Iraq, like the chaos in Syria, may be stopped, for a time, by more violence. But violence will not correct the underlying issues of legitimacy.
(There’s a whole related history of the use of offices to enrich office-holders, including the sale of military commissions, the sale of tax collection jobs, etc. I think that’s too complex for me to work into a single blog post. But briefly, the idea that positions were held as a public trust was an important development. We’ve lost it to the idea that because
officials will sometimes act in their own interest, we should only expect them to act that way. In no longer holding people to an ideal, we’re losing something.)
We here at Emergent Chaos have long been frustrated with the Obama Administration. Their failure to close Guantanamo, their failure to prosecute war crimes including torture, their choice to murder American citizens (never mind without due process), their invocation of the state secrets privilege, their persecution of whistleblowers, their TSA running rampant, the list of disappointments runs long.
But we’ve been waiting to see real evidence of a decisive and predictable leadership style from Mitt. We’ve been waiting for a real and demonstrated commitment to civil liberties. Now, with the combination of Paul Ryan and Clint Eastwood, we think he’s over the top.
We know that a vote for Romney/Ryan may leave many folks wondering what they’re voting for. Are they voting for mandatory health care for all that Romney passed in Massachusetts, leading the state to legalize gay marriage or are they voting for the Romney who rails against his plan being taken national with Obamacare? Or are they voting to put Ryan and his voucher-ization of Medicaid one heartbeat away from the Presidency? It’s rare that we see this kind of chaos emerge at the top of a ticket.
Chaos like that is close to our hearts, and four years ago, that was enough to win us over.
But stakes are higher today, and we’ve seen a scary degree of staying on the latest message from Mitt and his advisors. So we needed a high-stakes decision, one taken at a moment of obvious gravity and impact, one taken at the very top, to really help us judge if the velvet glove has forged Willard Mitt Romney into the sort of man we want commanding the most powerful military ever seen on the planet.
Romney decided he wanted a surprise at the convention, and chose Clint Eastwood. Now, as a rock-ribbed, gun-totin’, pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, pro-ERA Republican, we think he’s the sort of libertarian Republican who should be making the attendees’ days. He’s the sort of Republican who should be addressing the convention, hearkening back to the big-tent party that Ronald Reagan led.
But, traditional thinking in politics has become that conventions are tightly managed. That’s why RNC Chairman Reince Priebus changed the rules on the convention floor to lock out Ron Paul’s delegates. He wanted to show that the GOP stands fast in its commitment to the rule of law and the importance of democracy, not running a convention where anyone who just happened to have committed delagates can show up and hope to win their party’s nomination.
That’s the sort of strategic thinking that led Romney’s most senior advisors to not ask Clint for a rehersal. And, apparently, their commitment to free speech led them to just toss him a list of talking points and not worry about it. (No, really, go read it, and consider what it means about decision making.) And that’s the sort of emergent chaos that we can’t help but nervously endorse.
So months from now, if you want chaos in the financial markets or chaos on the international stage like we saw chaos on the convention stage, the choice is clear. If Romney/Ryan can let chaos like that into their moment to shine, just think about the chaos that will happen when they’re blindsided. So if you want more leadership like that, if you want to live in interesting times, vote Romney/Ryan. We’re not sure what we’ll get, but we’re confident it will be exciting.
The Seattle Times carries a press release: “Arena plan as solid as it looks?”
The intricate plan offered for an NBA and NHL arena in Sodo hinges on the untested strategy of building a city-owned, self-supporting arena, without the aid of new taxes, and with team owners — not taxpayers — obligated to absorb any losses.
This not only a lie, it is a blatant lie, contradicted by statements later in the article:
…Seattle and King County would finance $200 million — likely in bonds — to cover construction costs. The city would recoup its money through lease payments and the taxes on everything from tickets to concessions from the arena.
Let me translate that into plain English. The taxpayers of Seattle and King County would sign a bond. We’d be obligated to pay it back if or when the
Supersonics new team leaves town. Also, let me comment that the use of “would” is inaccurate. The word that the writers sought and were unable to come up with is “might”, as in: “the city might recoup its money…”
One more quote:
It’s hard to argue against the idea of an arena that pays for itself.
It’s even harder to guarantee it, though.
Actually, it’s easy to guarantee that the arena pays for itself, or at least that the taxpayers don’t pay for it. The builders finance the arena. See how easy that is? They issue the bonds, they reap the profits. Then the people of Seattle and King county are guaranteed to not be on the hook.
Pretty simple, if the Seattle Times would stop relaying lies about who’s on the hook for bonds issued by Seattle or King County.
Look, while I’m opposed to having to sit in traffic for yet more sporting events, I shouldn’t have a say in how these folks spend their money. The arena backers should feel free to spend their money, plus as much as anyone will loan them, to build a stadium, buy a team, or hold a parade. That’s what freedom is about. But the people of Seattle should not carry any of the risk. The money should be entirely private.
Maybe the plan can’t work without Seattle bearing some of the risk. If that’s the case, that’s because this isn’t the sure thing that its backers want us to think. It means that the bankers see this as a risky thing, and want to transfer that risk to some sucker. I don’t want to be the sucker who’s paying for a failed deal. Do you?
Not my headline, but the New York Times:
Beyond the effort was the challenge of getting different families to work together. When matters as personal as education, values and children are at stake, intense emotions are sure to follow, whether the issue is snacks (organic or not?), paint (machine washable?) or what religious holidays, if any, to acknowledge. Oh, and in many cases, forming a co-op school is illegal, because getting the required permits and passing background checks can be so prohibitively expensive and time-consuming that most co-ops simply don’t. (“The Pre-K Underground“, The New York Times, December 16)
Read the whole thing, and then give some thought to how effectively those policies, combined with the drug war, are de-legitimizing governments, and convincing people that to live their lives involves avoiding government rules. Eventually, even legitimate and necessary functions of government like courts will fall apart.
Think I’m exaggerating?
“There’s a fairly stringent code and byzantine process for getting certified and code-compliant,” said City Councilman Brad Lander, a Democrat from Brooklyn, whose office held a meeting over the summer for any co-ops interested in pooling their resources and securing permits. “Some are genuinely for the safety of kids, and some are more debatable.”
There’s a city councilman driving doubt over the system. What does that do to the legitimacy? What happens to the social contract?
Will the war on coop kindergardens join the war on drugs?
Let me start with an extended quote from “Why I Feel Bad for the Pepper-Spraying Policeman, Lt. John Pike“:
They are described in one July 2011 paper by sociologist Patrick Gillham called, “Securitizing America.” During the 1960s, police used what was called “escalated force” to stop protesters.
“Police sought to maintain law and order often trampling on protesters’ First Amendment rights, and frequently resorted to mass and unprovoked arrests and the overwhelming and indiscriminate use of force,” Gillham writes and TV footage from the time attests. This was the water cannon stage of police response to protest.
But by the 1970s, that version of crowd control had given rise to all sorts of problems and various departments went in “search for an alternative approach.” What they landed on was a paradigm called “negotiated management.” Police forces, by and large, cooperated with protesters who were willing to give major concessions on when and where they’d march or demonstrate. “Police used as little force as necessary to protect people and property and used arrests only symbolically at the request of activists or as a last resort and only against those breaking the law,” Gillham writes.
That relatively cozy relationship between police and protesters was an uneasy compromise that was often tested by small groups of “transgressive” protesters who refused to cooperate with authorities. They often used decentralized leadership structures that were difficult to infiltrate, co-opt, or even talk with. Still, they seemed like small potatoes.
Then came the massive and much-disputed 1999 WTO protests. Negotiated management was seen to have totally failed and it cost the police chief his job and helped knock the mayor from office. “It can be reasonably argued that these protests, and the experiences of the Seattle Police Department in trying to manage them, have had a more profound effect on modern policing than any other single event prior to 9/11,” former Chicago police officer and Western Illinois professor Todd Lough argued.
Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper gives his perspective in “Paramilitary Policing From Seattle to Occupy Wall Street“:
“We have to clear the intersection,” said the field commander. “We have to clear the intersection,” the operations commander agreed, from his bunker in the Public Safety Building. Standing alone on the edge of the crowd, I, the chief of police, said to myself, “We have to clear the intersection.”
Because of all the what-ifs. What if a fire breaks out in the Sheraton across the street? What if a woman goes into labor on the seventeenth floor of the hotel? What if a heart patient goes into cardiac arrest in the high-rise on the corner? What if there’s a stabbing, a shooting, a serious-injury traffic accident? How would an aid car, fire engine or police cruiser get through that sea of people? The cop in me supported the decision to clear the intersection. But the chief in me should have vetoed it. And he certainly should have forbidden the indiscriminate use of tear gas to accomplish it, no matter how many warnings we barked through the bullhorn.
My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose. Rocks, bottles and newspaper racks went flying. Windows were smashed, stores were looted, fires lighted; and more gas filled the streets, with some cops clearly overreacting, escalating and prolonging the conflict. The “Battle in Seattle,” as the WTO protests and their aftermath came to be known, was a huge setback—for the protesters, my cops, the community.
But we have a real problem here. It’s not the pepper spray that makes me want to cry, it’s how mutually-reinforcing up a set of interlocking systems have become. It’s the police thinking they can arrest peaceful people for protesting, or for taking video of them It’s a court system that’s turned “deference” into a spineless art, even when it’s Supreme Court justices getting shoved aside in their role as legal observers. It’s a political system where we can’t even agree to ban the TSA, or work out a non-arbitrary deal on cutting spending. It’s a set of corporatist best practices that allow the system to keep on churning along despite widespread revulsion.
So what do we do about it? Civil comments welcome. Venting welcome. Just keep it civil with respect to other commenters.
Image: Pike Floyd, by Kosso K
I headed down to Occupy Seattle before a recent vacation, and have been mulling a bit on what I saw, because the lack of a coherent message or leadership or press make it easy to project our own opinions or simply mis-understand what the “Occupy” protests mean, and I wanted to avoid making that mistake. I think I saw two big themes there: an anti-war theme, and a combination of anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism. I think the second is more interesting, because it’s a combination of views, some of which I support, and others I think are somewhat foolish.
I think capitalism is a good thing. I’ve taken a salary from (venture) capitalists who were able to pay me because they captured “surplus value” from startups, and ploughed some of that profit back into more startups. I use the Marixst term of “surplus value” because I understand the Marxist critique, have lived it, and still think it’s a better system than all those others that have been tried from time to time. (I also think that Marx’s critique of capitalism is excellent, and even more so in light of the poorness of his suggested fixes.) The accumulation of capital in private hands greatly expands the range of entrepreneurship, allowing new products and services to emerge. And for those new products to succeed, they need to serve needs better than what preceded them. So we all benefit to a degree from the capital that accumulates in the hands of investors (even with the costs of creative destruction and externalities.)
At the same time, I think that there’s an emergent system of what we might call corporatism that I think is incompatible with a free society, and is in fact incompatible with free markets. By a free market, I mean one in which people contract with each other and with companies, and the court system enforces fair and predictable limits on those contracts. Fair limits might include that the parties came to a genuine meeting of the minds before exchanging value, that contracts are severable (so no indentured servitude or slavery), that interpretation favors the party that received the contract (rather than the drafter), and that neither party engaged in deceit in advertising their services.
Corporatism, at its heart, involves twisting the free market via government intervention in a number of ways:
Corporatism comes from the discovery that rules and meta-rules (the rules that are used to set the rules) are manipulatable. Of course, this is nothing new:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.” (Smith, “The Wealth of Nations.”
There were a good number of frankly anti-capitalist signs and groups at Occupy Seattle. It’s a free country, they’re entitled to their opinion, and I can disagree.
But they were not the only signs. I saw lots of signs which seemed to take aim at the unaccountable: the bankers, the corporations (“I won’t believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one”). And I think that responses to currently unaccountable corporatism is going to be one of the key outcomes of the Occupy Movement.
It’s MLK Day.
Here’s a pdf of the speech.
Or watch it online:
October 18th’s bad news for the TSA includes a pilot declining the choice between aggressive frisking and a nudatron. He blogs about it in “Well, today was the day:”
On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.
It’s true. TSA employees are just doing their job, which is to secure transportation systems. The trouble is, their job is impossible. We all know that it’s possible to smuggle things past the nudatrons and the frisking. Unfortunately, TSA’s job is defined narrowly as a secure transportation system, and every failure leads to them getting blamed. All their hard work is ignored. And so they impose measures that a great many American citizens find unacceptable. They’re going to keep doing this because their mission and jobs are defined wrong. It’s not the fault of TSA, it’s the fault of Congress, who defined that mission.
It’s bad enough that the chairman of British Airways has come out and said “Britain has to stop ‘kowtowing’ to US demands on airport checks.”
The fix has to come from the same place the problem comes from. We need a travel security system which is integrated as part of national transportation policy which encourages travel. As long as we have a Presidential appointee whose job is transportation security, we’ll have these problems.
Let’s stop complaining about TSA and start working for a proper fix.
So how do we get there? Normally, a change of this magnitude in Washington requires a crisis. Unfortunately, we don’t have a crisis crisis right now, we have more of a slow burning destruction of the privacy and dignity of the traveling public. We have massive contraction of the air travel industry. We have the public withdrawing from using regional air travel because of the bother. We may be able to use international pressure, we may be able to use the upcoming elections and a large number of lame-duck legislators who feared doing the right thing.
TSA is bleeding and bleeding us because of structural pressures. We should fix those if we want to restore dignity, privacy and liberty to our travel system.
Back when I commented on David Cameron apologizing for Bloody Sunday, someone said “It’s important to remember that it’s much easier to make magnanimous apologise about the behaviour of government agents when none of those responsible are still in their jobs.” Which was fine, but now Mr. Cameron is setting up an investigation into torture by UK security services. (“
Britain Pledges Inquiry Into Torture.”
And yes, it’s certainly more fun to investigate the opposition, but…I’d really like to bring Mr. Cameron over here for a little while. Some investigations would do us, and our fight against al Qaeda, a great deal of good.
In looking at Frank Pasquale’s very interesting blog post “Secrecy & the Spill,” a phrase jumped out at me:
I have tried to give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt during the Gulf/BP oil disaster. There was a “grand ole party” at Interior for at least eight years. Many Republicans in Congress would have tried to block nominees for Interior who were committed to environmentalism. But the more I read about the controversy, the harder it gets to excuse current players for their actions.
Now, if you had told me six months ago that the Minerals Management Service was critically messed up, I might have searched a bit and said “sure, ok.” There are a lot of government agencies which are poorly run. Prioritizing between them is hard. Had you told me that their failure would cost a billion dollars, I’d have been more skeptical than usual.
Government is too big to clean out; at each level, you get appointees who are less likely to be interested in pursuing the President’s interest, and more likely to be interested in featherbedding. That’s not to say that all agencies are mis-run. There are still people out there who consider themselves civil servants who aim to run their agencies (or areas) well. I don’t have enough data to know what fraction of agencies are well run, but I expect that you could graph it and it would look a lot like a bell curve. Some good, some bad, most middling.
The agencies that are well run don’t get attention. The problems they face are ‘managed’ and don’t descend into crisis very much. Unfortunately it’s hard to tell, a-priori, if an agency is well run or lucky.
For any Administration to dig deeply into each of the government agencies could easily become an all-consuming issue. And it’s unclear if it would do any good. Agency executives are expected to be able to present a pleasant picture with a few things that need fixing.
This is a structural and systematic issue which emerges from how big government is and how much it tries to do. The only way to clean things up will be to reduce the size of government, so that prior oversight becomes a reasonable expectation.
Otherwise, we can look forward to the chaotic universe helping us discover where the problems emerge.
In “Jon Stewart on Obama’s executive power record” Glenn Greenwald writes:
When ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero last week addressed the progressive conference America’s Future Now, he began by saying: “I’m going to start provocatively . . . I’m disgusted with this president.” Last night, after Obama’s Oval Office speech, Jon Stewart began his show with an 8-minute monologue on Obama’s executive power and civil liberties record which, in essence, provided just some of the reasons why Romero’s strong condemnation is so justified.
meanwhile, in the UK, David Cameron apologized for Bloody Sunday, calling it “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Abi Sutherland has good analysis at Making Light:
We do not honour all those who have served with such distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.
According to new research at Duke University, identifying an easy-to-spot prohibited item such as a water bottle may hinder the discovery of other, harder-to-spot items in the same scan.
Missing items in a complex visual search is not a new idea: in the medical field, it has been known since the 1960s that radiologists tend to miss a second abnormality on an X-ray if they’ve found one already. The concept — dubbed “satisfaction of search” — is that radiologists would find the first target, think they were finished, and move on to the next patient’s X-ray.
Does the principle apply to non-medical areas? That’s what Stephen Mitroff, an assistant professor of psychology & neuroscience at Duke, and his colleagues set out to examine shortly after 2006, when the U.S. Transportation Security Administration banned liquids and gels from all flights, drastically changing airport luggage screens.
“The liquids rule has introduced a whole lot of easy-to-spot targets,” Mitroff said.