Tag Archives: Politics

We Need a Strong National I.D.

First I am sorry that my weekday posts dropped off a bit over the end of last week and some of this week. My desktop computer had been throwing off issues and that consumed far more time than could be pleasantly endured. Things seem to be better now.

 

America is fairly special in the developed world in that as a major power it has no real form of national identification card or paper. The Social Security numbers, developed during the Great Depression, was never intended for that purpose and does that job particularly poorly. SSNs made people vulnerable to identity theft were fairly easy to forge, and their use as a default identification has imperiled millions. Until this year a person’s Medicare claim number was their SSN with an additional letter or letters tacked on to the front or the end as huge gaping security hole. (New Medicare ID numbers are rolling out now but it will take years for the industry to switch over.)

Our country needs a national identification system that secure, strong, and flexible. There is even at least one person running for congress advocating using public key encryption for a national ID card, not a bad idea at all.

There are a number of benefits that we would gain from a good national ID system.

1) It could Curtail Identity theft.

2016 saw 13 million people suffer some form of Identity theft with a cost to our economy of nearly 16 billion dollars.

2) It could curtail illegal immigration and illegal work practices.

Unauthorized border crossing are at a near all time low but even so it is in the public’s interest to keep all employment legal and by the regulations. Instead of focusing on the workers it would be a better use of the government’s resources to go after employers and executive skirting workplace laws and regulations.

3) It could help secure our elections.

In personal voting fraud is nearly non-existent but our national voting system is vulnerable to attack, as we have seen, and securing it can raise public confidence helping drive higher turn out and rob demagogues of one of their divisive tactics.

4) It could help better track ‘prohibited person’ and keep them from obtaining firearms.

A number of mass shootings and other maniacal events with guns have been perpetrated by persons who legally could not have purchased their weapons but we have a leaky system for tracking such people and a strong national ID could address that.

5) It could curtail Fraud and Waste

Government benefits, medical and otherwise, are prime targets for criminals seeking to bilk the public coffers. A strong national ID would make such fraud much easier to detect.

 

These benefits are only the ones off the top of my head. It is clear to me that a 21st century world power needs a 21st century system of identification.

Share

We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet

There are those who think the recent increase in firings and chaos at the White House is a symptom of Trump feeling the heat from Mueller’s investigations. This may be the case. It is true that Mueller has been working his way up the food chain apparently flipping people and finding things that had been hidden. His team is reported to be among the best in the business as unraveling complex white crime cases and it should not be forgotten that Mueller was the man who brought down the ‘Teflon Don,’ so the pressure on the Administration must be intense. Still, this is taking place in a fantastically favorable environment.

A major news organization is dedicated to defending the administration, many of the ‘Never Trumpers’ writers from before the election have now climbed aboard defending the administration, the President’s approval rating floor remains in the high 30’s to low 40 despite the speed and intensity of the chaos. And yet we are told that the man at the center of it rages at staff, lashes out on social media, and generally reacts as a person in a siege who has no hope of relief.

People, it may get a lot worse.

One aspect of the environment that I did not mention was a favorable congress. Both house are controlled by the President’s party and have run a successful campaign of interference on his behalf. With the coming elections later this year the Democratic Party may very well take control of the House and less likely but not as unlikely as historically viewed, they could even gain the Senate. (That is a very long shot and for the moment let’s assume the GOP retains the upper chamber.)

Not only would Trump lose the friendly interference from a GOP House, but the Democratic committees would undoubtedly launch intense investigation of their own, investigation backed by subpoena powers. Should the Muller investigation reveal unquestionable evidence of crimes by people close to Trump or Trump himself he will lose the support of the GOP elected members as they cut their losses to save themselves.

I think that 2019 is going to be a very dangerous year. It is the year we will see Trump faced with threats from all sides, court cases proceeding along that may force his depositions, and as it has throughout his life, all his money, all his bluster and all his bullying will not save him. Yet he will still retain command of the most powerful military on the planet, he will still have a Department of Justice that instructs it’s Federal Attorneys to seek the death penalty in drug cases whenever possible, and he will have proceeded along with the firing of ‘disloyal’ ‘deep state’ professionals.

We must go through this dangerous time.

Share

The Need Argument

Often when there is a debate about prohibiting, restricting, or permitting an object or service someone will make what I call the ‘need argument.’ It is very simple, they will point out that the person against the new restriction doesn’t really need whatever it is that the proponent is calling to ban or restrict.

It is an insidious tactic that has as its base assumption that the person proposing the restriction has already determined the ‘need’ and found it wanting. I reject the need argument nearly categorically. It is an argument designed to trap the person debating for access into a box where they must attempt to meet an ill-defined criteria held by the proponent or surrender and since the criteria is not something mutually agreed to but is instead always defined by the proponent it is something that cannot be met.

The call comes over and over, it comes in taxations, ‘they don’t need that money,’ it comes in healthcare ‘they don’t need that transition,’ it comes in legalities ‘they don’t need that marriage,’ it comes in the arts and entertainment, ‘they don’t need that filth or that violent game.’

It does not matter where it raises its head the ‘need argument’ is always an attempt to impose the concept, I don’t want that thing so you do not get it either.

If you are going to push for prohibitions or confiscations get a better argument, and there are always better arguments.

Share

Further Thoughts on Mass Shootings

This will not go too deeply into the weeds but I wanted to commit to a post a least a surface level analysis of what I have been thinking.

A basic assumption I am working with is that the mass shootings are a sociological phenomena reflecting a deeper and more troubling issues with how come people, primarily young males, are unable to cope with a culture that is changing. Going forward I see four major paths that can be taken.

 

1) Resolve the root cause, sociologically, that is producing people so hurt, so angry, that they lash out to kill indiscriminately often at the cost of their own lives.

2) Remove the implements by which they commit these acts.

3) Remove access to these implements by those likely to commit these acts.

4) Do nothing.

 

Route 1

In my opinion this is the best course but may simply be impossible. We may not have enough knowledge and skill to identify and repair the maladjustment. In addition there are an unknown number of persons for whom the damage has already been done and simply have yet to act upon this reasonless hate and anger.

 

Route 2

There are several problems with this course. The principal ones being that at heart prohibition is about punishing everyone for the misdeeds of a few. What are the criminal penalties for owning the banned items? How aggressively are these prohibitions enforced? If you are enforcing them then the millions that already in circulation remain, illegally, with in the population and undoubtedly some will find their way into the wrong hands. If you push to hunt down all of the banned items, then that requires a massive escalation of policing powers and activity and we already have serious issue with police powers. Some will point to countries like Australia but Americans are not Aussies and our population has already shown a rebellious streak when it comes to enforced prohibition. With million in circulation even discounting the afore mentioned issues more mass murder will occur as some will slip through the system.

 

Route 3

Again we run into practical application issues. To be as through as possible would require a massive amount of data on every person be at the government’s fingertips. This would probably best be achieved through a strong form of government ID, which would have all sorts of benefits beyond this issue, but used to track people’s purchases within the regulated sphere. This could be cross-referenced with now indicators, such as violence, spousal abuse, and psychological aberrations to deny access to these implements. The system would not work perfectly. There are those who would be false positives, denied access when they are no threat and there will be those who are not identified before their mass murder.

 

Route 4

This is the one we are following now. We do nothing of substance and the murders continue. There are some who feel ‘optimistic’ that nothing is the best course and that access to firearms will because easier over time. I do not agree. I feel, but cannot prove, that eventually there will come a breaking point and then something will happen.

 

There are no magic spells that will prevent these terrible murders. We are deep into a sociological sickness but that does not mean there is nothing we can do to lessen the trouble. What is important is that no matter what course you think is best remember that it is a first step not a solution and you must always ask, ‘what happens next?’ If you pass a law you must enforce it that means police must investigate, courts must prosecute, and prisons must be filled. And that’s for those who have not yet committed mass murder. There is no easy cost free solution to the troubles. If you want to ban thing, then you will have to chase down those items, enforce the ban, and punished those who refuse to obey. If you restrict access you have to track people, define the conditions that make them prohibited, and understand this will inflict upon the guilty and the innocent.

In both cases no process will be perfect and these terrible events will continue, but perhaps not as often.

Share

No, Mr. Shapiro, Get Out is not racist

Recently a friend commented that he agreed with the conservative Youtube pundit Ben Shapiro that the film Get Out was racist. I had not heard Shapiro’s arguments and did not voice my disagreement. Now I have listened to Shapiro’s comments and I find them way off the mark and the error springs from mistaking a personal interpretation as authorial intent. Before I get into Shapiro’s comments I want to use a couple of well know films to illustrate what I mean by personal interpretation versus authorial intent.

1986’s Robocop is an amazing film, in many ways an early modern superhero movie, albeit one that gory, violent, and earned its R rating from the MPAA. In a scene where the audience is getting exposition about the character Robocop it is explained that he eats a rudimentary past to support his remaining biological systems. Johnson, one of the executive behind the project that turned a dead cop into a company owned cyborg, dips his finger into the paste, tastes it and pronounces it ‘baby food.’ His boss Jones, advises Johnson to ‘knock himself out.’ When I watched this scene in the theater I though it was clear symbolism that these men manipulating with lives were in fact children playing with th9ings that they did not understand. Later in the film when Robocop is recalibrating his targeting system and uses jars of baby food that his partner Ann Lewis had brought as target again I assumed the symbolism was clear, he would destroy the company that did this to him. Years later with the DVD I learned that the director had meant nothing of the sort. Paul Verhoeven revealed no underlying symbolism to the first scene and in the second the jars of baby food symbolized the children Lewis and Robocop could never have. Since there are no romantic elements in their relationship that intent took me by surprise.

My second example come from 1994’s The Lion King. A wonderful movie of old school cell animation The Lion King is about a lion cub, Simba that must overthrow his Uncle Scar who had usurped the throne. When Scar is assembling his plan and his minions, a pack of hyenas, to plot the murder of the King and his son, he sings a delightful song Be Prepared. In this fantasy world, unlike real life ecology where lions often steal hyena kills, hyenas are scavengers living off the scraps left over by the lions. Scar gets their loyalty by promising that they, the hyenas, will never go hungry again. When he overthrows the ‘natural order’ and makes himself king, he brings in the hyenas and the entire system collapses, plunging the kingdom into ruin and starvation for all until Simba defeats Scar and restores the balance, the circle of life.

Instantly it flashed to me that on interpretation, and this time not one I thought for a moment the producers intended, was that by bringing in the non-producers, the takers, Scar had overtaxed the makers and destroyed the economy. In effect this entire film could be taken as a subtle attack on liberalism and social safety nets. Hardly the sort of political message I would have expected and perhaps the reason the rumors are that the live action version will omit the song Be Prepared.

With those examples in place let’s return Get Out and Shapiro’s interpretation.

In Shapiro’s view the movie is about ‘black people who associate with white people eventually are drawn into white lifestyles and they become stereotypical white people.’

I have no doubt that this is Shapiro’s actual interpretation of the movie’s themes, but that is not the same as authorial intent. Just as with my take on the baby food in Robocop, Shapiro’s take is his own and not own that has been voiced by the film’s writer/director. Shapiro offers no support for this view that Get Out is ‘supremely racist’ than his own interpretation of the movie. An interpretation not supported by any textual analysis of the script or film. In the words of Oz from Buffy the Vampire Slayer ‘a radical reinterpretation of the text.’ I have heard, read, and seen many interviews with Jordan Peele’s, Get Out’s creator and nothing the man has said lends any credence to Shapiro’s view. Just as Verhoeven’s intent is starkly different than my take, Peele’s intended message and theme is very much at odds with Shapiro’s views. I find it interesting that in those four minutes where Shapiro talk about the movie he emphasizes how funny the film is without ever touching on the fact that Get Out is a horror film. Yes, there is humor but the driving tone is one of dread, danger, and doom. It is fascinating that aspect of the movie seemingly has slipped Shapiro’s notice.

At meetings of my writers’ group I often comment that no honest critique can be wrong and for Mr. Shapiro I guess the movie is racist, but this speaks less about Jordan Peele’s and his script than it does about the lens though which Shapiro viewed the material.

Share

Politics and Entertainment

I am seeing again people advise aspiring artists of every stripe that you should refrain from all political topics lest you offend a potential fan and lose that sale.

Okay, I can see the logic of that. After all we all want our art to sell wide and far, not only does that help provide an income but also it means that the art itself is reaching a wide audience, but is that the single most important thing?

First off I think it is impossible to make art, particularly when you talk about anything with a narrative, that does not also profess, intentionally or not, a worldview and all worldviews are inherently political. Perhaps you never make a public statement about marriage equality or other matters interact with homosexuality, but having gay characters appear or not appear makes a statement, what you do with those characters makes a statement, how heroes and villains react to those characters makes a statement, and the totality of those statement is a political statement. This is true of issues like how the military is presented, how government officials are presented, and numerous other factors in world-building. Narratives are political, that cannot avoid it.

When someone complains about a narrative being ‘too political’ it is nearly always a complaint about a political philosophy that the protester disagrees with. I cannot recall a single instance of someone protesting as ‘too political’ a stance that they supported.

Another important factor is that when someone decides to perform some art they have not surrendered their rights, privileges, or duties as a citizen. In democracies we all have a responsibility to the political body, to participate, and that includes making arguments for what we think is right and against what we think is wrong. To do less is the surrender the duties of citizenship for a gain of coin.

Now with all that said you can be smart about your positions or you can be an ass. I tend to dismiss those who think that the height of debate is ‘trolling’ the opposition. Those who use mockery and insults in the place of reasoned arguments get no where with me save being put on the ignore list. There are political writers with whom I almost never agree and yet who I do read often. I am not reading them to score some sort of imaginary counting coup by dismissing their arguments, but rather to read their actual arguments. Sometimes people who disagree with can have very valid points and its better to understand where you might be going wrong than to continue on in smug ignorance.

So I will continue to make political observations, but I will always strive to base them on reasoned arguments and not on snark and mockery.

Share

Critiquing the Unseen

So The Shape of Water at this year’s Oscars took not only Best Picture but Best Director as well. I saw the film, enjoyed it, but frankly I think Get Out was a stronger film and should have taken statue over The Shape of Water. (But what do I know I still think that L.A. Confidential was robbed when Titanic won that year.)

What has spurred this particular post is watch some of the reaction to The Shape of Water’s win and the similar reaction that has caused me to remember.

Over at the American Conservative, columnist Rod Dreher titles his piece about the movie Triumph of the Freaks. Dreher is one of those conservative who sees the downfall of Western Civilization and a coming dark age due to the recognition of such ‘unnatural’ and or sinful aspects of humanity such as transgender, homosexuality, and other non-traditional sexual mores. In the column Dreher admits that he has not seen the film and based his entire reaction on what he has heard and reading the Wikipedia synopsis. I always find it astounding that people, usually paid content creators, are so willing to elaborate opinions and dissect pieces that they have not personally seen. For Shape it is clear that the romantic story between Elisa, a mute cleaning woman in a secret government facility, and that facility’s latest ‘acquisition’ and amphibian humanoid. (We can’t call him a gill-man without incurring the wrath of Universal.) For Dreher this relationship is pure and simple bestiality. That the Amphibian is a thinking, feeling creature, capable of language and emotion is meaningless, it is not human and therefore the relationship is unnatural and sinful. Apparently even in such a fictional setting only humans are ‘people.’ However if you have seen the movie — and you need to stop reading if you fear spoilers — then you know that his basic facts are wrong. Either the Wikipedia synopsis omits crucial plot twists, albeit one I foresaw quite early in the film but that’s a danger of plotting your own stories, you can see the magician palming the card, or he failed to understand how revelation destroyed his entire argument.

It reminds of another conservative columnist, Michelle Malkin, and her reaction to the film Death of a President.

Released in 2006 Death of a President deals with the fallout produced by a fictional assassination of George W. Bush. The film used actual news footage as part of the flashback to the assassination in an attempt to create a sense of reality. At the time of its release there was quite a stir in the conservative media about the subject matter with perhaps the most strident voice belonging to Michelle Malkin. She referred to the movie as ‘assassination chic’ and felt that the movie revealed the desires for Bush’s murder by people on ‘the left.’ (Side note; I am always suspicious whenever motivation is describe for a third party without any supporting evidence or citation.)

As with Dreher and The Shape of Water it seems clear to me that Ms. Malkin never actually watched the film she criticized. In the movie’s narrative the assassination has taken place years earlier and the country now labors under the heavy authoritarian hand of President Dick Cheney. There is mass round-up of ethnic minorities and other police-state tactics, hardly the sort of dream world envisioned by ‘the left.’ The film itself is rather pedantic, predicable, and ultimately boring. I know this because, unlike Malkin, I actually watched it on DVD. It hardly revels in the murder of a conservative president, but acknowledging that would destroy her entire thesis about ‘the left.’

I believe that it is vitally important that people actually watch the media that they critique. You cannot rely upon synopsis, second hand accounts, or skimming to arrive at a fair judgment. It is also equally important to set aside personal bias and pre-conceived notions, otherwise all you will end up with if a big fat case of conformational bias.

Share

The GOP Must Go

After the release of the response to Republican Chairman’s Nunes memo I think that it is past time for the GOP to lose their majorities in the House and the Senate.

Set aside that they have added 1-2 trillion dollars to the Federal debt.

Set aside that they feel Wells Fargo has been punished too harshly for its financial crimes against its own customers.

Set aside that hey have stripped away healthcare for people and slashed funding for mental health as the nation endures a protracted crisis of mass murder.

Set aside the border walls, the protectionism, the abandoning of international commitments, the blatant nepotism and corruption.

Those are important issues and with some issues on which people can reasonable disagree.

However, it is clear that Russia, our geopolitical advisories, have penetrated our political processes, attempted to manipulated our voters, and influence the outcome of our elections. By our intelligence community this is an accepted fact and yet the GOP wants to do nothing about it.

Chairman Nunes’ memo did nothing to the illuminate the dangers we face but instead attempt to muddy the waters and throw suspicion not at our attackers, the Russians, but the party in opposition to his.

By wide margins the legislature has passed sanctions to be enforced against the Russia for their cyber warfare and espionage operations within the United States and the Executive had implemented none of them. Yes the GOP helped pass those sanctions but as the President ignores them they remains silent.

The Russian launched a sophisticated, expensive, and target attack on our self-governance. It is the opinion of our intelligence agencies that this did not stop with the 2016 presidential election but rather the Russian operation continues with the goal of influencing this year’s elections. We must assume that they will continue this aggressive assault on our most basic freedom.

What possible domestic policy is more valuable and more important than defending our nation from foreign attack?

It is tragic that the GOP lashed themselves the Trump ship. They had opportunities to sink that vessel but cowered before his supporters and now in bailing out his troubled administration they do the Russians a favor.

They must go.

Share

Did We Get Lucky With the Election of Donald Trump?

That’s a provocative question and let me put out here at the start I think Trump is a terrible person and in the 12 months of his administration our worst President. Yes I know some of you disagree and that’s your opinion we’re not here to debate the merits of the Trump presidency.

Here is my thought: if Trump had lost would the serious threat to our democracy from Russian meddling have been so exposed?

It is a fact widely held within our intelligence community that Russia seriously meddled in out election process. The recent Mueller indictment, which is but a small piece of a much larger and on going investigation, clearly demonstrates that the Russians were engaged in a deep, sophisticated, and intricate operation within American borders to influence our elections. (Yes, I know that there are some who feel that the Russian never expected Trump to win and that the operation was to undercut the administration of Hillary Clinton. I see no evidence to support that interpretation.)

Had Clinton won the Electoral College there would ben investigations into this matter but hamstrung by a hostile congress, fights over other policies, a general sense that it was not worth the time because everyone knows Trump couldn’t have won, and without the independence of a dedicated special prosecutor. These factors, only available under Trump’s victory, have accelerated the investigation and public disclosure of the Russian Ops.

You might think of this as the Bailystock & Bloom outcome of the election. By producing a hit instead of a flop they exposed their criminality and so it would seem for the Russians.

Now, because we are aware of the dangers there is not only a serious investigation into who know what and who did what, but there are thoughtful conversation about our election processes.

I think one of the things we must do to combat this and a number of associated ills if move to a strong national identity system There are candidates proposing using variations on public key encryptions for an ID Card and this is a good place to start. It is a place we would be much further from without the disastrous Trump Presidency.

Share

There Are Always Trade-Offs

When it comes to politics who you do or do not support in politics there are nearly always trade-offs. One should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good but equally one should always be aware and owe up to the causes that may have your sympathies but cannot have your support.

For example one may have sympathies for both marriage equality and for right-to-life, but finding a political entity that enthusiastically supports both is near impossible. When it comes time to cast your vote, or donate your hard earned money, one will have to support one cause and leave the other. This is the nature of the beast and one can rail but ultimately one must accept it.

What I dislike is when someone claims the mantle of supporting two positions but yet their actions always fall in support for only one. Express your sympathies but also be honest about where your support is placed.

I have sympathies for firearm rights but for more than a decade now my support has been for politicians and parties that are hostile to those rights. It’s quite simple, there are other issue that matter more to me, that carry greater moral weight, and that ultimately compel my attention.

I hope someday that this madness that has produced the current administration will soon burn itself out, but one cannot close your eyes to the reality and in the end reality is what you must deal with.

Share