Attorney Jason Dzubow has advised everyone about a new State Department rule that would tighten scrutiny of people who apply for non-immigrant visas, especially at consulates. His post is “New Rule Spells Trouble for Asylees”. The rule would penalize persons who “engage in conduct inconsistent with non-immigrant status” within 90 days of arrival.
The column then anticipates that USCIS would apply a similar rule as part of Trump’s “extreme vetting”. That presumably could mean that if someone applied for asylum after having entered the country as “non-immigrant”, that the asylum request would be more likely to be denied. In practice, Dzubow argues that real deportations would be unlikely. But the situation could provide more problems for those who would assist or host asylum seekers, who probably would not be allowed to work on their own.
Again, the lack of a formal system of sponsorship (outside of the I864 mechanism for relatives for example) in the US makes it very difficult for those who assist asylum seekers to know their responsibilities. It throws the whole thing into an under-the-table operation of grass-roots resistance, very much predicated on local social capital.
This development may become particularly troubling for LGBT asylum seekers, especially from countries besides the Middle East (like Russia and Chechnya).
The absolute worst might be being framed for a crime, like sex trafficking or child pornography. In most circumstances that a novelist can imagine, it would still be pretty easy to prove that physically the culprit couldn’t have been “you”. There are a variety of other outcomes, including job loss or denial or a mortage or lease. For millennials, the risk can extend for decades. For seniors, it’s probably very minimal.
One comment that gets made by social conservatives particularly (and some libertarians) is that you are ultimately responsible for your own reputation, no matter what, because you live in a society that offers you the benefits of civilization. I can remember an employer warning us about this in the late 1980s when we suddenly had to pass credit checks to keep our jobs. I can remember that ten years ago there were prosecutors who looked at finding child pornography on a personal computer as an “strict liability offense”, although since they they have accepted the idea that malware can put it there. This seems to be a very disturbing philosophy that transcends the plain meaning idea of the law normally, and that most of us cannot live with (especially those on the margins).
Maybe maintaining credit freezes would protect everyone, but it sounds pretty impractical in the long run.
So I think that in the identity theft idea, we need a new policy solution. I had outlined an idea back in 2006 using “National Change of Address” at USPS, which I had worked on in Minneapolis on my own career back in 1998.
Now I would say, the credit reporting companies should develop the idea of a secondary social security number verifier, which a user can add to her file, and which could not have been hacked yet because it does not yet exist. I would not be so comfortable with letting the Social Security administration run it. Get some security companies (not Kaspersky, in Russia) to help develop it. It could be put into two-step verification required to pull a credit report, although it so it would need to be tied to sim cards and not just to phone numbers, which can also be stolen.
At a personal level, I certainly believe in the western idea that every human life is sacred, and this could even be true of “non-human persons”.
But when I confront the usual arguments from the “right to life”, especially anti-abortion lobbies, I really wonder how consistent we (or “they”) are.
When I grew up, men were subjected to male-only military conscription. There was even a national security argument that conventional war capability, as in Vietnam, kept nuclear war threats at bay. With some twists, that sort of view could even apply today (as when dealing with North Korea).
There was also a deferment system. At one time that had included fathers, and Kennedy even wanted to defer men from the draft if they got married. Think of the implications: if you don’t have sexual intercourse likely to lead to fatherhood, you are personally more expendable. That makes some sense to fascist. The family deferments had been eliminated by about 1965 as the Vietnam buildup exploded, but student deferments remained until 1969, when a lottery was implemented.
Despite my own history with my own expulsion as a freshman from William and Mary in 1961 as a “latent homosexual”, I got back into the pool (partly out of shame) and was eventually moved from 4-F to 1-A. But I went to graduate school first and, as an assistant instructor in mathematics, was in a position to flunk people (which I did) and increase their exposure to the draft. When I finally was drafted myself, in 1968, I was somewhat sheltered from any deployment by my own education.
So, we had a system that decided that some men were more “valuable” than others, in which I gleefully participated. This would set up my own “conflict of interest” situation in the mid 1990s as I started my first book, largely on gays in the military (challenging the ban and “don’t ask don’t tell”), while working for a company that sold insurance specifically to military officers.
But the system of who was more valuable had shifted from “family men” to nerds with science and math backgrounds, potentially the Turing types who would protect the world from the dominoes of Communism just as it had with Fascism.
But, of course, I had grown up in a world where men were supposed to make themselves fungible to protect women and children until they had run their gauntlets and started their own families. Consider the men needed as firemen (in the days before women’s advancements) and other dangerous jobs. Sebastian Junger says he “paid his dues” as an arborist.
And we have presidents (Clinton, Obama, and now Trump) who avoided the draft or voluntary military service. And one of these presidents, Trump, is going out of his way to keep transgender people out.
But the whole system gave me a somewhat jaded value system (that is, as a matter of logic, some people are “better” than other people) of what could make people valuable to me personally. This was particularly evident in my days at NIH in 1962, right during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That value system can comport with fascism – and survivor of the fittest. But attempts to make everyone “equal” by pretense can lead to authoritarianism, too (Communism). Some people are more “equal” than others, and the leftovers tend to become “expendable” anyway. Then, you have the same idea with the Christian “Rapture” and the remaining leftovers, who fend for themselves and die off.
We come back to the determination of the anti-abortion lobby and its demands to impose its views on everyone in the name of protecting all life. It is certainly true that the sentience of the unborn seems to appear earlier than we used to think. We can note here that Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973 (the plaintiff would later personally regret her participation), and conscription effectively ended in early 1973, shortly after the Vietnam peace plan was announced in January. However, the Selective Service system remains in place, the registration of women gets proposed, and in 1981 the Supreme Court had upheld the idea that male-only draft registration was constitutionally permissible.
I wonder if this expands to contraception. A philosopher says that someone has to exist to have rights. An unconceived baby (as opposed to unborn) sounds like an oxymoron. But family potential or future lineage might have meaning in the grand scheme of things. That’s a topic for later.
(Posted: Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 2 PM EDT)
It is very common for activists, particularly on the political Left, to demand a favorable outcome at the national level from Congress, the President, or the federal courts (especially the Supreme Court) for a particular constituent group, which is often presented as systematically oppressed.
And then, I think about two major constitutional concepts: separation of powers, and federalism.
For example, regarding DACA, activists are widely protested Trump’s rescinding it and stopping new applications. The president has said that legally this is the responsibility of Congress, not the White House. The president has challenged Congress to take a firm position and establish statutory rules for DACA beneficiaries. The president even says he will reconsider in six months if Congress can’t do its job.
Of course, this puts the lives of many beneficiaries into uncertainty and limbo now, for no fault of their own.
Likewise, in the area of federalism, activists demand that the federal government fix all the unfairness or disorder in health care markets. Projections about the supposed failure of the health care reform proposals by the GOP last spring largely depended on a belief that many “red states” would not use federal grants properly and would leave many more poor at sea. But, of course, the record of these states so far, refusing Medicaid expansion out of ideological reasoning, does not inspire confidence.
Gay activists have depended on courts at the federal level, not only for marriage equality (recently), but for turning off state sodomy laws (back in 2003), revealing history that is already being forgotten.
And the history of the civil rights movement back in the 1960s indeed turned on a rejection of “states’ rights”. And the War Between the States not only turned back slavery, but also on a state’s right to secede (although there has been recent talk in both Texas and California on this matter).
I get irritated at activist groups pounding for so much attention to their narrow focus on some issue (like the Confederate statues).
But I do understand that our system of federalism seems to be eroding. States may be good enough at defining ideas like real property and inheritance and with varying criminal code sentences (like even on the capital punishment); but in this Internet age, the ability of states to do locally what is best for their own people is getting less credible. I can remember back in the late 1970s that people who wanted jobs would move south and west, where the cost of living was lower but were social values were often much more conservative. That sort of “choice” doesn’t really exist now like it did. Yet, we would hardly want a unitary system like China’s.
Separation of powers, though, in an age of Trump-ism, seems more critical than ever. Yet sites like Vox keep saying we would be better off with a parliamentary system!
(Posted: Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 11 PM EDT)
It is important to pause for a moment and take stock of another possible idea that can threaten freedom of speech and self-publication on the Internet without gatekeepers as we know it now, and that would be “implicit content”.
This concept refers to a situation where an online speaker publishes content that he can reasonably anticipate that some other party whom the speaker knows to be combative, un-intact, or immature (especially a legal minor) will in turn act harmfully toward others, possibly toward specific targets, or toward the self. The concept views the identity of the speaker and presumed motive for the speech as part of the content, almost as if borrowed from object-oriented programming.
The most common example that would be relatively well known so far occurs when one person deliberately encourages others using social media (especially Facebook, Twitter or Instagram) to target and harass some particular user of that platform. Twitter especially has sometimes suspended or permanently closed accounts for this behavior, and specifically spells this out as a TOS violation. Another variation might come from a recent example where a female encouraged a depressed boyfriend to commit suicide using her smartphone with texts and was convicted of manslaughter, so this can be criminal. The concept complicates the normal interpretation of free speech limitation as stopping where there is direct incitement of unlawful activity (like rioting).
I would be concerned however that even some speech that is normally seen as policy debate could fall under this category when conducted by “amateurs” because of the asymmetry of the Internet with the way search engines can magnify anyone’s content and make it viral or famous. This can happen with certain content that offends others of certain groups, especially religious (radical Islam), racial, or sometimes ideological (as possibly with extreme forms of Communism). In extreme cases, this sort of situation could cause a major (asymmetric) national security risk.
A variation of this problem occurred with me when I worked as a substitute teacher in 2005 (see pingback here on July 19, 2016). There are a couple of important features of this problem. One is that it is really more likely to occur with conventional websites with ample text content and indexed by search engines in a normal way (even allowing for all the algorithms) than with social media accounts, whose internal content is usually not indexed much and which can be partially hidden by privacy settings or “whitelisting”. That would have been true pre-social media with, for example, discussion forums (like those on AOL in the late 1990s). Another feature is that it may be more likely with a site that is viewed free, without login or subscription. One problem is that such content might be viewed as legally problematic if it wasn’t paid for (ironically) but had been posted only for “provocateur” purposes, invoking possible “mens rea”.
I could suggest another example, of what might seem to others as “gratuitous publication”. I have often posted video and photos of demonstrations, from BLM marches to Trump protests, as “news”. Suppose I posted a segment from an “alt-right” march, from a specific group that I won’t name. Such a march may happen in Washington DC next weekend (following up Charlottesville). I could say that it is simply citizen journalism, reporting what I see. Others would say I’m giving specific hate groups a platform, which is where TOS problems could arise. Of course I could show counterdemonstrations from the other “side”. I don’t recognize the idea that, among any groups that use coercion or force, that one is somehow more acceptable to present than another (Trump’s problem, again.) But you can see the slippery slope.
When harm comes to others after “provocative” content is posted, the hosting sites or services would normally be protected by Section 230 in the US (I presume). However, it sounds like there have been some cases where litigation has been attempted. Furthermore, we know that very recently, large Internet service platforms have cut off at least one (maybe more) website associated with extreme hate speech or neo-Nazism. Service platforms, despite their understandable insistence that they need the downstream liability protections of Section 230, have become more pro-active in trying to eliminate users publishing what they consider (often illegal) objectionable material. This includes, of course, child pornography and probably sex trafficking, and terrorist group recruiting, but it also could include causing other parties to be harassed, and could gradually expand to subsumed novel national security threats. But it now seems to include “hate speech”, which I personally think ought to be construed as “combativeness” or lawlessness. But that brings us to another point: some extreme groups would consider amateur policy discussions that take a neutral tone and try to avoid taking sides (that is, avoiding naming some groups as enemies instead of others, as with Trump’s problems after Charlottesville), as implicitly “hateful” by default when the speaker doesn’t put his own skin in the game. This (as Cloudflare’s CEO pointed out) could put Internet companies in a serious ethical bind.
Timothy B. Lee recently published in Ars-Technica, an updateon the “Backpage” bills in Congress, which would weaken Section 230 protections. Lee does seem to imply that the providers most at risk remain isolated to those whose main content is advertisements, rather than discussions; and so far he hasn’t addressed with shared hosting providers could be put at risk. (I asked him that on Twitter.) But some observer believe that the bills could lead states to require that sites with user-logon provide adult-id verification. We all know that this was litigated before with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which was ruled unconstitutional finally in early 2007. I was a party to that litigation under Electronic Frontier Foundation sponsorship. Ironically, the judge mentioned “implicit content” the day that I sat in on the arguments (in Philadelphia).
I wanted to add a comment here that probably could belong on either of my two previous posts. That is, yes, our whole civilization has become very dependent on technology, and, yes, a determined enemy could give us a very rude shock. Born in 1943, I have lived through years that have generally been stable, surviving the two most serious crises (the Vietnam military draft in the 1960s and then HIV in the 1980s) that came from the outside world. A sudden shock like that in NBC’s “Revolution” is possible. But I could imagine being born around 1765, living as a white landowner in the South, having experienced the American Revolution and then the Constitution as a teen, and only gradually coming to grips with the idea that my world would be expropriated from me because an underlying common moral evil, before I died (if I was genetically lucky enough to live to 100 without modern medicine). Yet I would have had no grasp of the idea of a technological future, that itself could be put it risk because, for all its benefits in raising living standards, still seemed to leave a lot of people behind.
Since 9/11, some national security observers, generally on conservative blogs and publications, have intermittently warned Americans that they could face catastrophic destruction of the power grid and of technological civilization though either extreme solar storms with the accompanying coronal mass ejections, or electromagnetic pulse’s generated by terrorists or rogue states, usually from high altitude nuclear detonations or certain other (non nuclear) magnetic flux weapons used by the US military now in deployments. In retrospect, it’s interesting to recall at Popular Mechanicsstory on the threat published one week before 9/11 in 2001.
Occasionally, conservative politicians and engineers have testified to Congress on the issue, most notably Newt Gingrich, who spoke about this in March, as I recall. He also wrote a foreword to the 2009 novel “One Second After” by William Forstschen. Around 2012, the National Academy of Sciences and Oak Ridge National Laboratory both published sobering studies on these issues (my reviews). I actually visited ORNL in 2013. It has also been reported that Earth had a narrow miss from a huge coronal mass ejection in July 2012. PBS Frontline apparently covered these threats to the grids (in the US, there are three major power grids) with three brief reports.
The major media has not shown any consistency in willingness to report on this problem. However, very recently a Fox station in Chicago reported bluntly on North Korea’s apparent threat to use an EMP weapon as a “gift” to the United States, shortly after DPRK had tested what some believe was a thermonuclear weapon (fusion hydrogen bomb), right while the US is dealing with major hurricanes. As I look through the literature, I see sporadic reports in the past, including one piece in 2015 in the Wall Street Journal that seems to have anticipated North Korea’s progress with its missiles. Another environmentally oriented article makes the interesting point that the use of solar energy would help decentralize power distribution and make the grid harder to attack.
The most emphatic statement on the problem may be Ted Koppel’s late 2015 book “Lights Out”, but Koppel, after exploring EMP, focuses most of his attention on cyberthreats.
Sinclair broadcasting in Baltimore created a couple of interviews on the problem in August 2016 and, along with Fox, sponsored a forum from a Green Bay WI studio; but owned-station WJLA, while advertising it, did not air it (on its own News Channel 8). I covered that on this blog before.
Why has the media waffled in talking about this problem? Is there some kind of “don’t ask don’t tell” policy to protect the stock market? I can imagine the conspiracy theories. But a couple points stand out.
One point is the fact that the most obvious threat, a high altitude H-bomb, has never been carried out, even though all reputable science supports the idea that the threat is real. (There were major problems in Hawaii in 1962 after an early H-bomb test.) Such an event has been viewed as unthinkable, although North Korea’s recent bad behavior sounds very menacing indeed. No one has said if it is technologically easier for an enemy to explode a nuclear device at high altitude than to aim it at a city and have it survive re-entry.
Another reason is that the media has been more focused on cyber threats, such as one carried out against Ukraine in 2014. Now, the Pentagon’s core systems are unreachable to external hackers, so it’s fair to ask, should not the same thing hold for an electric utility? Of course, an inside job saboteur is possible. But I fear that there probably does exist a topologically connected Internet path from my computer to the grid, even though there should not be. (Yes, I studied topology in graduate school in the 1960s, before getting drafted.)
A more subtle reason for media reticence is that the threats to the gird from EMP and solar storms need to be understood as a threat to suddenly and increasingly technology-dependent civilization, perils which can actually be decomposed into separate components and individual threats (including cyber) which individually may be more likely.
The main components are E1, E2, and E3. The E3 is the prolonged magnetic pulse which can overload and destroy transformers. It occurs (in slightly different forms) with both extreme solar storms and thermonuclear fusion weapons. Major utilities don’t talk about this very much (even to their shareholders), but recently some of them have made vague statements that they are working on installing technologies that would enable transformers to survive the overloads. The Foundation for Resilient Societies has tweeted that the necessary changes would cost about $5 per American, or about $2 billion, which would sound affordable.
E2 is more like a lightning strike and is more easily defended. But E1 is what fries modern consumer electronics and many newer car ignitions. It appears that an E1 is possible from a very small fission nuclear device, or from some kinds of magnetic flux guns possessed by the US Army for grand war (like for disabling IUD’s). E1 events might be created locally by a saboteur and have effect only in a small area. The concerns expressed by James Woolsey about North Korea’s Shining Star satellite probably relate to an E1 device without E3.
I visited a Best Buy store today an asked a clerk about this. He admitted he had heard this question from other walk-in customers before, and recommended a DVD-R optical storage pack (about $25) and writer drive (about $25). This is now recommended for personal storage (for example, documents, music if one composes, etc). Modern USB thumb drives and solid state “hard drives’ are supposed to be able to resist ordinary magnets (and hopefully nearby electric transmission towers which would induce magnetic fields), but they would not survive actual E1 pulses. I immediately made an optical backup of my most critical files when I got home, after installing the Cyberlink software from a DVD.
Cloud companies are supposed to maintain multiple copies of backups in different data centers around the U.S. for redundancy, which would provide reasonable protection against regional attacks. (A lot of these backup servers are in the North Carolina Piedmont, it seems.) But it’s a good question whether data centers could construct Faraday-like protections for the consumer data in their care.
Since 9/11, there has been a lot of attention to the possibility of terrorist or saboteur-introduced or built small nuclear weapons (as opposed to the rifle, car, and pressure cooker devices that have been used), or radioactivity dispersion devices (“dirty bombs”), which could destroy and make inhabitable a lot of real estate even if they didn’t kill people. These have not been used. But it is well to remember that during the 1980s, there was some (not widely discussed) fear that rogue communist elements could carry out attacks, which contributed to the idea of developing a “civilian reservist force” which was sometimes discussed in Sunday newspapers (pre-Internet), at least in Texas. Communism was responsible for personalized terrorism in the 1970s (Patty Hearst), but radical Islam has caught the focus of such attention since 9/11. Recently, we’ve had to recognize the “progress” of North Korea with its WMD’s, which seems shocking now but which older articles show had been expected. Nevertheless, the Trump administration must seek the best intelligence and wisdom from it military and civilian sources and Congressional leadership in dealing with the challenges of what sounds like an unpredictable, combative and antagonistic regime in North Korea, which may quickly be able to wreak more havoc with American civilians than we would have believed even a few months ago. So the mainstream media needs to really do the extensive fact-checking on this issue and not behave as if it were “fake news”. I’m willing to go to work on this myself.
This topic sounds like it deserves a presidential address to the nation, but it’s hard for me to imagine Donald Trump’s addressing this one publicly. Maybe he’ll surprise us, and not just on Twitter, before it’s too late.
(Posted: Thursday, Sept. 7, 2017 at 10:45 PM EDT)
Update: Friday, Sept. 8, 10 AM EDT
I found two very alarming opinions in the Washington Post this morning. One is an editorial warning of cyberattack on the power grid, here. The piece discusses Dragonfly malware and spearfishing.
Another is an op-ed by a former (2002, Bush era) acting CIA director that North Korea can launch nuclear weapons on the United States now, here. The piece seems aimed at discouraging Trump from initiating a pre-emptive strike now in response to more underground or missile tests. But what it North Korea detonates a device over the Pacific and demands that the US withdraw completely from protecting South Korea? The Domino Theory from my own days dealing with the draft in the Vietnam era suggests this can happen. The most cynical interpretations of this idea could mean that China could want DPRK to attack (E3) so that China can walk in and take over the US! Incidentally, it is well to remember that DPRK has every incentive to fire a missile test while the U.S. is preoccupied with its own natural disasters (like this weekend).
In all these discussions, the confidence in NORAD and “Star Wars” defense becomes very important as part of the deterrent.
Oddly, neither of these pieces talks about EMP. It may be easier for an enemy to detonate a missile at high altitude than make it survive re-entry. Has anyone looked at this idea?
The Boston Herald now has an article similar to Fox’s.
OK, I am “retired”, and I “depend” on past accumulated wealth, much earned but some inherited, to keep these blogs going because they don’t pay for themselves. They don’t require much money (or Piketty-style capital) to run in the grand scheme of things, but they depend on stable infrastructure, security, and stable economic and personal circumstances for me.
Yes, stability. And judging from the “outside world” events of recent weeks, it doesn’t sound like something I can count on as much as I have.
For most of my adult working life, I was very much in command of the possibility for my own mistakes to undo me and possibly end my stable I.T. career (as with bad elevations into production).
But early in my life I was forced to be much more aware of eternal demands by the community I was brought in. Gender conformity had to do with that. Then came the military draft and Vietnam. There was an expectation of eventually having a family even if running a gauntlet that could expose me to some personal fair share of community hazards. This had much more to do with my own “mental health” problems in the age 19-21 range than I probably realized (including a brush with nihilism in 1964).
It is true, of course, that my employment could be affected by outside business events like mergers and takeovers, but in my case these actually worked out in my favor. And earlier in my work life I was concerned about staying near a large city (New York) where it would be easier for me to “come out”; the energy crisis was actually a threat to my mobility, as was potentially NYC’s “drop dead” financial meltdown when I was (finally) living there.
So it is, in retirement. If you have accumulated wealth, you want the world to be stable so you don’t have to watch your back, and face sudden expropriation because of political deterioration (maybe combined with a natural catastrophe). You want to believe if you pay your bills, make good choices, and play by the “rules” you will be OK. And you find people knocking for attention your life, and you have to deal with the knowledge that they didn’t have the situational stability that “you” did.
It’s possible to find one’s life suddenly becomes a political bargaining chip. For example, Congress could try to means-test Social Security recipients (even current one) as part of its debt (and debt ceiling) issue.
I have to say I do have a gut reaction from “extremists”, whether associated with Communism (North Korea) or radical Islam, who make threats that sound personal, as if they saw someone like me as a personal enemy. I do understand the racial contact, that some people will take statements (hate speech) made on the alt-right that way, also. But combativeness has become a problem that I had not anticipated throughout most of my working life.
It is true, also, that the most extreme scenarios from foreign enemies could reduce me personally to nothing. The conservative Weekly Standard, after 9/11, liked to use the term, being “brought low” because of the resentment of others. In the North Korean threat, there are many nuances. The right wing talks about EMP, and the major media refuses to mention it. It could become a real threat, but my own probing of the utility world suggests it is making some progress in making transformers less vulnerable (to “E3” threats, also posed by extreme solar storms). (The power companies won’t say exactly what they are doing, for good security reasons.) Personal electronics, cars, and data can face threats from a different mechanism (“E1”) which actually might be easier for an enemy (including retaliation by the DPRK) to pull off. This is a developing topic that the major media just doesn’t want to cover yet (outside of cyberwar, which is better known, as with the psychological warfare implications of the Sony hack).
I have to say, too, that for one’s life to come to an end out of political expropriation or violence is particularly ugly. I was privileged enough to avoid Vietnam combat, and I was “safe” enough not to get HIV, which previously could have been the most dangerous threats I faced. I was economically stable for my entire work career, which sometime after 9/11. I did have some family cushion.
The basic reaction from most people is to “belong” to something bigger than the self. I think all this relates to “the afterlife” and I won’t get into that further right here. In retirement, I’ve had to deal with constant reminders of how narrow my capacity for personal intimacy can be, even if it can be intense in the right circumstances. Yes, now I have to throw the “psychological defenses” (Rosenfels) to maintain my personal independence and stop being dragged into the causes as others. Solidarity alone seems rather alien to me, even if I can’t count on affording that kind of attitude forever.
Again, as to the “belonging” idea, throughout history, individuals have suffered because of the actions of their leadership. In Biblical times, it was considered morally appropriate that all members of a tribe be punished together for “disobedience” (to “Jehovah”). In modern times, it’s the “everybody gets detention for the sins of one in middle school” problem,
I want to reemphasize my intention so see all my own media initiatives through. That includes getting a novel out in early 2018, trying to market a screenplay, getting some of my music (written over 50 years, some of it embedded in two big sonatas) performed. The best chance to make some of this pay for itself would be to get some (perhaps conservative) news outlets interested in some of my blog content, especially in undercovered areas (power grid security, filial responsibility laws, downstream liability protections in online speech scenarios including copyright, defamation, and implicit content (which can include criminal misuse like trafficking). The intention is to help solve problems in non-partisan manners away from the bundled demands common with “identity politics”.
I tend not to respond to demands for mass “solidarity” with so many other causes, and I usually am not willing to “pimp” someone else’s causes as my own. But I realize I could be riding on partially unearned privilege, which can become dangerous. Indeed, having inherited wealth subsumes a responsibility to address needs as they arise; to ignore them would be tantamount to stealing. I tend to think that helping others is easier if you are in a relationship or have had kids (that became an issue when I was working as a substitute teacher). I think there can be situations where one has to be prepared to accept others as dependents and “play family” (and this often happens in estate and inheritance situations anyway, although it did not specifically in my own situation). We saw this idea in films like “Raising Helen” and in the TV series “Summerland”.
I’ll mention that it looks like I’m selling the estate house and moving out in October. That would remove the hosting opportunities for now; but, after downsizing, it could make other volunteering much easier and even open up the possibility of volunteer travel (although I need to stay “connected” at all times when traveling as it is now).
I have to add that taking on dependents grates against complacency. It means more willingness to sell other people’s messages rather than on sticking to your own. Our culture has developed a certain split personality: resistance to sales people or middlemen and to being contacted by cold calls (the robocall and cold call problem), yet an expectation of voluntary personal generosity and inclusivity online.
The sudden announcement of the intended termination of DACA is a good example of how instability affects those less fortunate. Although I really believe Congress will fix it in the required six months, today “dreamers” would have to deal with employers or schools who are uncertain as to what their legal status might be in less than a year.
I’ve had a running debate on Facebook Messenger with a particular friend in northern Virginia’s LGBT leadership, and he asked that his name not be reproduced because be feared (however facetiously) the “alt-right”.
I have said to him that I resist being drawn into specific initiatives sponsored generally by the political Left on narrow issues mostly having to do with discrimination (however “systematic” the “oppression”) against (members of) self-defined groups. Likewise, right now at least, I don’t raise money under my own name (like with GoFundMe) for “other people’s causes” however compelling (I don’t ask people to give for the Houston flood, except maybe here in this post; I simply do it myself.) That could even change in the future with certain circumstances. I’ve said I want to focus on civilization-threatening problems like North Korea, nuclear weapons, power grid security. I also want to focus on subtle free-speech (and gatekeeper resistance) problems, like downstream liability and implicit content. I’ve said that “we” have bigger problems than bathroom bills. (As I type this, I hear on CNN that North Korea claims now to have miniaturized ICBM-mountable hydrogen bombs, not “just” Hiroshima-like atomic bombs. And we have Trump with the nuclear suitcase.)
My friend (whom I see as pretty centrist between Left and Right, more or less with Hillary Clinton’s positions on most things, much more conservative than Sanders or even Obama) agrees that the GOP should focus on actually fixing healthcare, securing infrastructure security and solving the problems with refugees, and with enemies like ISIS and North Korea — and facing the responsibility to future generations on climate change. He says it is the GOP that looks for scapegoats (right now, transgender people) with bathroom bills or pseudo-religious freedom bills. I agree. And some parts of the alt-right make scapegoats of all immigrants, and are more aggressive in a desire to subjugate non-white people than I would have believed. This puts pressure on me to come back to focus on defending “oppressed groups” rather than paying attention to existential problems that can affect us all. In my situation (benefiting from inheritance and trying to downsize myself out of a house partly for “political” reasons), it gets harder to work on what I want than on what others would demand of me. It’s harder to stay away from unwelcome personal entanglements.
Here are a few of his comments:
“Focusing on infrastructure like FDR did during the Great Depression, of that scale, is definitely the winning ticket. The real problem is the GOP in Congress doesn’t want to spend money, especially on big national projects. However, they will if it is funneled through the largely Republican controlled states. So the grid and space projects all have to be designed as pork spending to states with only a small national office to coordinate, if that. Moreover, the money has to go to key swing states.
“I’m getting tired of this extreme bipolar discord manufactured by billionaires who spend their money on this negative crap rather than helping society in productive ways. None of this was in the news (Page 1) until Trump began dangling red meat at crowds to capitalize off fringe. Even the labels of left and right are becoming meaningless. Whatever happened to a sense of decency? It’s been replaced by circus clown.
“I look at another way. The bathroom bills are pushed and funded by right wingers who make it a priority over everything else. The LGBTQ-activist aren’t to blame for reacting. The blame lies squarely with the well-funded right that wants to obliterate all the gays off the face of the earth. And any progress made in the last 20 years. Why pinpoint blame people who fight against them for human rights and social justice. It makes no sense to me. You are right however, that the priorities of the nation need to be focused on things like infrastructure and beefing up national defense.”
I think there is more to say here. People “on the right” see meaning in forcing others to comply with the same moral rules they think they should follow; that’s their answer to “inequality”. They also have to deal with the logically existential idea of personal “rightsizing”.
It strikes me that the alt-right uses identity politics and even “intersectionality” much as does the radical Left. The groups are different. But the exploitation of “relative deprivation” (and the personal undeservedness of others) is the same, even if the Right seems to have much less justification in history.
(Posted: Saturday, September 2, 2017, at 9 PM EDT)
NO SUBSTANCE TO BE FOUND IN SENATOR HARRIS’S FEDERAL BAIL REFORM LEGISLATION By Jeffrey J. Clayton, Executive Director, American Bail Coalition (Guest Post)
First-term U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) seems intent on making a name for herself. She has attempted to portray herself as the champion of bail reform by co-authoring a bill with Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to remake the system of wholesale incarceration of inmates being held in jail. What she has actually succeeded in doing is showing the public that she is nothing more than just another self-serving hack, like so many who have preceded her in Washington. There is no question that bail reform is needed in this country. Fortunately, there are numerous meaningful conversations taking place in many quarters with law makers and others who truly want to improve our system of criminal justice.
However, Harris’ recent actions along with her past history reveal that she has no true grasp of bail reform, much less a commitment to enacting genuine change. Instead, the public has now been treated to her making a grand splash by unfurling a bill that is nothing short of ridiculous. Harris and Paul’s bill is being touted as a bi-partisan plan to fix the problem of hordes of people sitting in jail as they await trial. It proposes to provide $15 million to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions for a program for which he has voiced no support whatsoever. That amount of money is miniscule and beyond insufficient to fund anything of substance. Moreover, Harris whiffed on a couple of other points. Her plan calls for states to report on their progress and to ensure that their risk assessment criteria are non-discriminatory. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Justice Statistics no longer creates the reports she is demanding. In fact, that very data has already shown that contrary to her stated claims, money bail really does work to guarantee appearance in court and protect public safety. Further, Harris specified $10 million to be expended over the next three years to enact additional reforms. These reforms are already notated in the existing federal budget – but at an amount fifty to 100 times greater than the tiny amount she delusionally put forward. Taken as a whole, this piece of legislation is a joke and offensive to anyone who has ever been involved in the very serious matter of bail reform. Whether one wants to abolish monetary conditions of bail altogether or believes the system is just fine the way it is, it is painfully obvious that it is nothing more than a pathetic and embarrassing effort at grandstanding. Because it has virtually a zero chance of actually accomplishing its stated goals, the true reasons for its existence are painfully clear: keep the flow of donations coming in, while putting Harris and Paul’s names in the news. Perhaps most disturbing about the bill is Harris’ own history concerning the issue of bail. While serving as California’s Attorney General, she held contradictory positions on two virtually identical cases which dealt directly with whether or not bail in the state was legal. She chose not to defend the constitutionality of California law in the case of Buffin v. San Francisco, in which it was argued that the state discriminated on the basis of economic status or the use of a set bail schedule. But she took the opposite position in the case of Welchen v. Harris, writing in support of California’s laws. The foundation for both cases lay in the contention that the bail system created “wealth-based detention” and was, therefore, unconstitutional. In fact, Harris did next to nothing in her role as Attorney General of California to fix the highest bail schedules in the nation or otherwise repair a dysfunctional bail market that was the root of the problem to begin with. An examination of Harris’s home state illustrates exactly why her U.S. Senate bill is nothing more than fluff. California Senate Bill 10 calls for the enactment of many of the same laws Harris is pushing for the entire nation. However, no less a source than the Los Angeles Times said its implementation would cost “hundreds of millions of dollars” across a number of categories — and analysts working in the state legislature agree with this determination. It should be pointed out that this is only for California. When you realize we’re talking about bail reform for the entire country, one quickly comes to the conclusion that this will likely cost billions of dollars.
Suddenly, the utter insanity of the paltry $15 million indicated in Harris’ bill becomes crystal clear. Lest one think that it is the notion of bail reform that is under attack, it should be mentioned that Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) has a bill of his own that addresses these same issues. However, Lieu’s bill is a very well-thought-out piece of legislation. Whether or not one supports what he proposes, it certainly merits consideration – in stark contrast to Harris’ effort. Perhaps most outrageously, Harris exhumes the terrible case of Kalief Browder. She claims that he is exactly the type of individual her legislation would aid. Browder was trapped in jail because he could not post bail and was so damaged from the experience that he subsequently committed suicide after he was freed. Numerous media accounts reported that Browder was unable to raise the money to be released. However, in actuality, he was on a probation hold for three years as a juvenile, making him ineligible for bail because of a prior conviction. It is completely unrealistic to believe that his family would not have been able to raise the amount of his premium — $300 total – if he had been able to legitimately meet the standards for bail. No matter how Harris wants to spin it, her ill-conceived legislation would have had absolutely no effect on the actual problems that caused Browder to be held needlessly. Yet she now exploits his tragic death to push for the expansion of preventative detention without the option of bail, wasting federal funds in the process. Ironically, it is this very type of system that led to Browder being stuck in jail, which resulted in his ultimate demise. Kamala Harris had the opportunity to effect genuine change in the bail system as California Attorney General, but did nothing but meekly play both sides of the issue. Citizens who believe her to now be the vanguard of the national bail reform movement should think again. Her efforts to convince her fellow U.S. senators to fork over $15 million to create “economic justice” is an insult to anyone who truly cares about making changes that will actually work.
About Jeffrey Clayton, Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition: Jeff Clayton joined the American Bail Coalition as Policy Director in May 2015. He has worked in various capacities as a public policy and government relations professional for fifteen years, and also as licensed attorney for the past twelve years. Most recently, he worked as the General Counsel for the Professional Bail Agents of Colorado, in addition to serving other clients in legal, legislative, and policy matters. Jeff spent six years in government service, representing the Colorado State Courts and Probation Department, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, and the United States Secretary of Transportation. He is also a prior Presidential Management Fellow and Finalist for the U.S. Supreme Court fellows program. Mr. Clayton holds a B.B.A. from Baylor University, a M.S. (Public Policy) from the University of Rochester, N.Y., and a J.D. from the Sturm College of Law, University of Denver
I just want to walk through a process that I experienced growing up in the 50s and 60s.
I came to perceive the world, even the U.S., as competitive place, where some people were better than others, and where people fit into a “rightful” station. I remember quarreling with my father on household chores about what is “low work”. To a large extent, good grades in school were the only currency (non fiat) that I knew. But I sensed that (as in Connell’s story and film “The Most Dangerous Game”) that the world tended to evolve toward “brains over brawn”. Yet, I thought, to be virtuous, a man needed both. You had to be both “manly” (and look “manly” and ahead of schedule biologically) and smart. That became my “idol” (as I confessed in a “religion” class after school in third grade). I suppose Jesus was presented that way in Sunday school, but the way “He” was to be “Followed” seemed like a moral paradox. I tended toward upward affiliation, but clinging to “better men” socially was generally not appreciated and tended to trap me. So as an antidote, as an adult, I developed fierce independence.
A rightful station in life implied the possibility of shame and the need to accept it. Through imprinting, I came to perceive upward affiliation to the edge of actual shame as sexually exciting, so, as I’ve explained in my books, I (by age 18) had called myself a “latent homosexual”. That led to my William and Mary narrative.
“Shame” (the name of a Fassebender 2011 film for Fox) required my accepting my own. Since I was physically behind my contemporaries, I did not see myself as competitive enough to have or enjoy sex with a woman. I did not view procreation or having children as important, and tended to see it as an “afterthought” behind public cultural achievements; but in the back of my mind, in those NIH days (1962, overlapping the Cuban Missile Crisis) I also thought my genes should not be propagated. They could lead to a greater or enhanced risk of disabled children (as lineage). I was personally buying into a previous generation’s acceptance of eugenics. Ironically, I needed to believe in shame to experience (gay) sexual fantasies that could become personally satisfying. In a curious way, I get what Trump was getting at in those remarks to Billy Bush on Access Hollywood (about “Days of our Lives”) in Oct. 2016 about his own sexual attractions, but as upside-down cake.
At this point, I’ll link to a couple of essays by Milo Yiannopoulos again on Breitbart, “Sexodus: The men giving up on women and checking out on society”, Part 1, and Part 2. True, fewer men today want to get married and have their own nuclear families. Milo attributes this to aggressive feminism, with the end result that marriage is a bad deal for men (and it often is, as I began to notice in the 1980s with the increasing heterosexual divorce rate in Dallas where I lived). Milo maintains some men are intimidated into believing that the slightest mistake of misplaced assertiveness (“masculinity” in the Rosenfels sense) will get them thrown into jail (or at least lead to enormous guilt), and he may be right. But my own experience was the inverse of all this. I did not have enough physical confidences so I could eroticize shame instead, (Shame and guilt are feminine and masculine counterparts in Rosenfels terminology.) So I built my own world, and managed to be stable and productive, without normal offerings of intimacy. You can talk about having children as a “choice” with obvious responsibilities that follow, but family responsibility can happen anyway — eldercare and filial piety, as well as the “Raising Helen” scenario of raising relatives’ kids after family tragedies. Childlessness could leave “you” as the insurance policy for other people with kids (second-class status, as in Elinor Burkett’s 2000 book “The Baby Boon“). The ability to offer personal warmth based on need in a family setting — building into community social capital beyond the expressive self — becomes its own moral issue.
So, in previous pieces here, I’ve talked about my soapboxes, how they maintain my independence, give me political influence (I understand Trump actually reads some of my stuff) They can be taken away, by coercion, in a variety of ways. And I would be left with the question, what’s wrong with raising someone else up instead?
Maybe that would be what I would want if it resulted from my own “content”. Yet my own writings and scripts tend to emulate the angels, the para-Jesus figures, and at least hint that people with “average Joe” cognition would become the “Leftovers” But, if I actually did work on the right project with someone else, maybe I would elevate someone even on my own social media pages in some creative way. That would have to start by working with someone I know,
But generally, I’ve resisted making someone “below” become “all right”, or at least doing so publicly as part of my own message or brand. That would undermine my own ability to enjoy Shame (think Trump, again). I’ve also resisted attempts by others espousing some sort of systematic oppression to get me to “join in” and subordinate my own work to their messages, especially when their messages are “narrow” and tend to let people “off the hook” for their own personal inadequacies. Again, that would subvert my own pattern of “upward affiliation”.
I think you can see that this can become a dangerous pattern of thinking. Given incidents around the country reported by others, this sounds like a pattern that slips from schizoid personality sometimes into outright nihilism. (“Schizoid” refers to social behavior – or particularly, avoidance of unwanted social contact and extreme narrowness and pickiness in intimate partners, where as “Aspergers” refers to developmental arrest in social capacity; some of this can be a good thing, as with Alan Turing.) I had my worst taste of this in 1964, after the Kennedy assassination. I rebounded from all that (it could have gone dark indeed) and managed to create my own world, in my own world, and become a stable individual contributor in I.T. before I switched to a largely unpaid second career in “provocateurship”, less flashy than Milo’s – but I’m four decades older.
For “shame” is related to meaning of everything around me. I think many people of my parents’ generation felt they could function actively in marriage if they knew everyone else had to. That gave it meaning, but implied that everyone has a “rightsize” or station in life. Marital initiative by men could be carried out if there was a consistent belief that masculinity meant something, even in terms of external trappings. In the days long before attention to public Olympic events in cycling and swimming, it was usually seen as girlish if men shaved their bodies; the belief seemed to be necessary then. Drag queens were OK if they really stayed just on the fringes. But, on an everyday basis, you wanted to see men look like, well, men. That was a little easier in a segregated society.
You can see how this can lay the foundations for authoritarianism, particularly on the right wing side (fascism, or perhaps some of the ideas of the alt-right, could link back to personal “body fascism”). If people love only when their visual expectations are satisfied, and resent connection to others beneath them, it’s easier to set up a system where some people are subjugated if they don’t make it. Yes, that sounds like Nazism. It doesn’t necessary get that far, but it can.
It’s also well to remember that many people who seem “weak” may be so because they have not have the benefit of political and economic stability that I have leveraged. No wonder the prepper mentality appeals to some people.
All of this is to say, them, if people want to sustain freedom, they need to learn to reach out of their own bubbles, in creative interpersonal ways, sometimes, outside the usual boundaries in a “mind your own business” society, with all its “do not track”. Commercially, it means you need to be willing to take calls from salesmen. They have to make a living, too. Otherwise, it’s all too easy to rationalize an order of “merit” maintained by a dictator. Maybe you get a “people’s republic of capitalism”.
Devin Foley has a somewhat different perspective in Intellectual Takeout. “Antifa and Neo-Nazi Propaganda: Are You Suscpetible?” You could add radical Islam to the title. The writer talks about not being willing to grow out of dependency. That’s interesting, but I think it’s also about a need to see consistent meaning.