I probably shouldn't be hard on Apple, its probably their best argument and if legislation is required, there is probably a reasonable chance that nothing will get passed. Also, I think Apple had bad luck to have this issue arise within the context of a significant domestic terrorist incident; this would not be the test case they would choose if they could.
My immediate reaction to this piece is that Michael Cain cannot be completely happy that Apple's main line of defense is that the political branches need to get involved.
I think the larger issue that Obama's questions pose is if this line of investigation is shut-off, either legally or as practical matter, what will law enforcement need to do instead? Communications are afforded relatively less protections in the warrant process because the expectation of privacy depends at a minimum upon the recipient not resending the communication. In contrast, the computer in my basement would require a more invasive search of my premises, including the potential public disclosure that I'm being investigated which may harm my reputation.
Circling back to my point -- the cornerstone of most search and seizure issues is reasonableness, which in turn is going to depend a lot on alternatives analysis. If useful information is no longer available through previous means, law enforcement, the legislature and the judiciary will more than likely normalize alternative means. For example, there may be increased use of no-knock warrants authorizing the government to seize the individual and all electronic devices in the home, with the individual to be released upon communicating the password. (If the password destroys the information, then a felony prosecution) I'm not suggesting that all previous searches would become like this, just that alternatives will be explored, some of which will be more intrusive.
I disagree that widening the franchise can be done without introducing ideology.
That's an interesting point, that I'd have to think about more. But I think the complicating factors are that the expansion of suffrage was an emergent phenomena and an independent, though no doubt related issue, was the norms in place against campaigning that essentially dropped after the corrupt bargain.
I won’t even start on the intelligence thing, but the main myth about moderates is that they have a position somewhere between the two ideological poles on any given issue.
I was referring to those identifying themselves as “moderate” or “independent” have lower average Wordsum scores than those with stated ideological or political party preferences. pdf Link I make no moral conclusions about this, and self-identify as a moderate myself. The contrast I am making here is between the sophisticated political philosophy of the fascists and its intellectual class supporters with the rather simple argument that Jackson should be President because he is like me, or cares about people like me.
I did see where you made the first comment in the earlier thread, and Dodd revised his remarks a bit to describe this element as opposed to the material culture of liberal democracy. There was opposition to perceived cultural decline, promiscuity and abstract (meaningless) art. Trump, a real estate tycoon, that runs a beauty pageant and stars in a reality tv show is probably someone the NAZIs would have hated. Dodd argues that fascists wanted to create an alternative modernity.
I agree nationalism may need a more express reference, but wearing a flag pin is nationalist. I think it needs to be tied to a radical socialist/collectivist vision that is opposed to individualism.
I thought Roland Dodd's definition that he linked to above was pretty good:
1. Fascism is revolutionary. It attempts to change the system through revolutionary means and create a new man in the process.
2. Fascism is often built around a cult of personality.
3. Fascism is opposed to mass democracy, and believes the interests of the common people require a leader that is above the political fray.
4. Fascism is socialist/collectivist but opposed to modernity.
5. Fascism celebrates political violence against its perceived enemies at home and abroad.
The main point to me is number 3. Mass democracy was widely discredited in the inter-war period and the fascists started with a very vocal proposition to eliminate it, supported of course by the Communist who also wanted to eliminate it.
Today, mass democracy is as popular as it has ever been. The points of concern are (a) America's tendency to elect people that know nothing about the world, but seem like a nice person to drink a beer with; (b) the European project's override of national democratic institutions; (c) the rise of illiberal democracies in places like Russia that ape the form without the values; and (d) the instability caused by attempts at democracy in many third-world countries.
Neither Jackson, nor Jacksonians, have an ideology. Jackson distills the essence of what was largely the original pre-party understanding that the President would be selected as the best type of person from the best type of people. And he would have a cabinet of advisers who were the best sorts of people as well. Other than the Jeffersonian ideological revolt against aspects of Hamiltonian policy, ideology was not a part of the original understanding.
By virtue of expanded suffrage, Jackson changes who the best sorts of people are at all levels, without introducing ideology. Without ideological conflict, political conflict is personal and emotion-driven. The appeal here is to moderates, who don't like ideology and tend to be less smart. Elect the right kind of people is pretty much all one needs to know here. This appeals strongly to moderates, a group with lower IQs on average.
The line btw/ Jeffersonian democracy and Jacksonian is barely visible. In theory, Jefferson supported all aspects of Jacksonianism to some degree (distrust of elite institutions, tolerance for political violence, and confidence in the common man's judgment), but ultimately the mix was unsatisfacotory as it was no longer rooted in the Enlightenment value of reason.
The various permutations of fascism all share as a common origin an indictment of democracy. This will never be the basis of any significant movement in the U.S., which sees itself in many respects exceptional because of its democratic institutions and its origins as a nation built on a creed reflected in its Constitution and other important documents.
Trump is not a fascist, he is a Jacksonian, and Jacksonian is a democratic movement, not an anti-Democratic movement. Jackson indicts the political class that has benefited itself and not the people, and argues that better people (like Jackson) be elected.
I am a registered independent, but a jumped-up mayor appeals to me. Illinois is a difficult state to get on the ballot (you have to do it for each Congressional district) and Kasich failed to submit enough signatures for several districts, but Trump's campaign let it slide because they wanted more names on the ballot. Kasich wasn't ready for this campaign, and its no doubt too late now.
Still, if he had been ready and Rubio wasn't occupying the presumptive establishment spot, I think Kasich wins Illinois (and even if he doesn't he might win the delegate count because the allocation rules favor the more densely populated areas of the state).
Do we know that the vast majority of current Rubio fans will transfer their votes to Cruz or Kasich
I've closely looked at the Illinois returns and based upon how different types of candidates have fared in different political areas of the state in the past, I believe Kasich could have won Illinois if Rubio had left a few weeks earlier. Its a little more complicated than moving all Rubio votes over to Kasich. Cruz did best in some of the white collar and large university cities that traditionally vote establishment Republicans like Romney. They don't vote for people like Cruz that hold rallies in mega-churches. In my opinion, a good portion of that Cruz vote was simply an anti-Trump vote expressed within the context of believing Kasich was not competitive.
I can see Kasich making similar backwards-looking assessments and think he has a good shot in a lot of states going forward.
Trump doing very well in Chicagoland, and Illinois distributes most of delegates by Congressional district, so Trump is going to rack up a big delegate count in the metro area. Post-mortem in Illinois likely to wonder what dynamic if Rubio had dropped out earlier.
Trump Brand is everything to everyone. It will be so wonderful it will make your head spin.
Just the other day, I was reading comments at another site from people that are worried that Trump is a dangerous fascist dictator in the making, so who are they voting for in the primaries? Trump Brand, because they think Trump Brand will help the Democrats in November. Everybody should get some Trump Brand!
The Trump events in Illinois the last few days have surprised me in the revelation of how little campaign apparatus he has, and yet he will probably win the state primary today.
Putting aside events in Chicago, Politico reported that Trump's state campaign manager had been fired or sidelined (which is disputed by the campaign manager). Trump was unable to find any state/federal Republican politicians willing to help coordinate his campaign, so he hired a lawyer that specializes in ballot access issues to be the campaign manager. Probably helped him get on the ballot across the state, but he otherwise has a record of losing campaigns for local office and a failure to pay or file state and federal income taxes for five years. I assumed by now someone with more event planning experience would have been brought in.
And two nights ago, the campaign stopped in Bloomington at the airport, and people parked across a road in a graveyard, damaging headstones. A lot of fingers being pointed, but it seems to me that the campaign is being run by a very small number of people flying around in his jet, picking locations for a flyby and relying upon local volunteers and law enforcement to manage things the best they can.
I previously had only read Gossage's remarks on bat-flipping; but feel compelled to push back on his rant on protecting infielders on the slide.
See Goose, when replay was introduced, something remarkable was discovered, particularly about plays at second-base on a double-play -- players had been cheating. The fielder wasn't necessarily touching the bag, or he might not have the ball in the glove he is tagging with. And the runner wasn't necessarily staying on the base throughout the slide while the tag was applied. Nobody knew how rampant the cheating was until multiple camera shot angles converged on the bag.
The replay caused the fielder to stay in position longer, the fielder to apply the tag more forcibly and the runner to slide harder. Cheating the way you old guys did it, kept you healthy and for the most part, mentally sharp.
Trump is not a fascist, that's a political ideology that has no meaning in the American context. If people want a meaningful analogy to hang their hat on, it would be based upon this excellent piece: Trump is Not the New Hitler -- He is the New Andrew Jackson.
This is not the first incident of political violence in Chicago this electoral season. For example, this is a picture of a candidate after being hit on the head by a beer bottle and shot with a staple gun by the opposing campaign. Same basic dynamic, someone had entered another campaign's space (albeit public), a discussion led to fighting words and violence. Deciding who started it is somewhat beside the point, its simply a matter of a series escalating events that started with the intention to disrupt someone else's entertainment.
I won't pretend to know how this plays out, but I'm almost 100% certain that the protesters who are posting videos of themselves celebrating and taunting those leaving the arena are not capturing the moment for its best impact.
I think some of them engaged in disturbing the peace, which is a crime. I think in the context of criminal activity, it has to be judged on the greater good trumping the law, and I've not read anyone suggest that the ultimate effect will not be to help Trump.
The piece alludes to two important points. A large part of the reason for these "First Amendment zones" that get mocked is that having a separate space for protests or counter-rallies is to avoid escalation situations. This group claims to have taken the safety issue seriously in their preparations, but waiving NAZI symbols and tearing up signs is not cognizant of human reactions.
The other point is this group lacks a basic understanding of First Amendment. The college has an open policy for political candidates to rent their space, but they seem to think that Trump is not the right kind of politician. They think the University has not acted legitimately, which legitimizes their own conduct. As long as people think like that, escalating violence is inevitable.
I think that assumes a lot more forethought than I saw in Trump's planning and organization when they came to my city. That includes placing African-Americans on the stage behind Trump without asking whether they were Trump supporters -- that resulted in the video of the lady reading a book behind Trump during the rally.
Since Wilson was willing to accept the Senate reservation on mandates (which merely required Congressional consent to them), this was not the reason that the League was rejected, nor advocated by Wilson.
The person leaving out large parts of history is the one arguing that the League of Nations was a product of Wilson's personal mission of white imperialism.* He is omitting the fact that the League was a highly debated subject both nationally and internationally by a host of actors, and of course, the U.S. didn't join, which raises a lot of questions about the point of this at all.
* "Wilson's League of Nations was an instrument of imperial conquest. It was meant to make the world safe for white supremacy, not democracy." (Wasserman)
If the subject is settlement colonization in the 1500 to 1800 time period, then it is racist not to include the Chinese, who in absolute numbers settled as many people in colonies as any of the European powers of that time. More broadly, settlement colonization at more moderate levels (comparable to the Dutch and French) was occurring in the Balkans by the Ottoman Turks.
I agree with this. The foremost purpose of history is to learn about the past, not to provide self-congratulatory morality stories.
This article (and the linked pieces) remind me of Lost Cause buffs who point to something like a racist joke told by Abraham Lincoln (at least by today's standards), and then spin a story about what Lincoln was really all about. Occam's razor be damned.
I learned in high school that Wilson fired blacks from the White House and praised a Birth of a Nation. I don't know what millennials are taught, but if they are going to focus their limited time on labeling Wilson and all his works racist, like the League of Nation idea, they are not going to know much history.
I don't know what to think about 3 strikes laws. If sentences were reduced significantly, I wouldn't object to keeping such laws but with some greater requirement of proportionality than seems to exist. But to convince the public that much shorter sentences are just as likely to discourage repeat offenders as long-ones, one probably cannot have it both ways.
Sentence creep was justified on the grounds of deterrence. There is little or no evidence that increasing a minimum sentence from 3 to 6 to 9 years has any effect on deterrence. That's not how criminals think. In particular, they don't think they are going to get caught, if they've thought about it at all.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Why the President Is Wrong on Encryption”
I probably shouldn't be hard on Apple, its probably their best argument and if legislation is required, there is probably a reasonable chance that nothing will get passed. Also, I think Apple had bad luck to have this issue arise within the context of a significant domestic terrorist incident; this would not be the test case they would choose if they could.
"
My immediate reaction to this piece is that Michael Cain cannot be completely happy that Apple's main line of defense is that the political branches need to get involved.
I think the larger issue that Obama's questions pose is if this line of investigation is shut-off, either legally or as practical matter, what will law enforcement need to do instead? Communications are afforded relatively less protections in the warrant process because the expectation of privacy depends at a minimum upon the recipient not resending the communication. In contrast, the computer in my basement would require a more invasive search of my premises, including the potential public disclosure that I'm being investigated which may harm my reputation.
Circling back to my point -- the cornerstone of most search and seizure issues is reasonableness, which in turn is going to depend a lot on alternatives analysis. If useful information is no longer available through previous means, law enforcement, the legislature and the judiciary will more than likely normalize alternative means. For example, there may be increased use of no-knock warrants authorizing the government to seize the individual and all electronic devices in the home, with the individual to be released upon communicating the password. (If the password destroys the information, then a felony prosecution) I'm not suggesting that all previous searches would become like this, just that alternatives will be explored, some of which will be more intrusive.
On “Radical Reading: The Doctrine of Fascism”
That's an interesting point, that I'd have to think about more. But I think the complicating factors are that the expansion of suffrage was an emergent phenomena and an independent, though no doubt related issue, was the norms in place against campaigning that essentially dropped after the corrupt bargain.
I was referring to those identifying themselves as “moderate” or “independent” have lower average Wordsum scores than those with stated ideological or political party preferences. pdf Link I make no moral conclusions about this, and self-identify as a moderate myself. The contrast I am making here is between the sophisticated political philosophy of the fascists and its intellectual class supporters with the rather simple argument that Jackson should be President because he is like me, or cares about people like me.
"
I did see where you made the first comment in the earlier thread, and Dodd revised his remarks a bit to describe this element as opposed to the material culture of liberal democracy. There was opposition to perceived cultural decline, promiscuity and abstract (meaningless) art. Trump, a real estate tycoon, that runs a beauty pageant and stars in a reality tv show is probably someone the NAZIs would have hated. Dodd argues that fascists wanted to create an alternative modernity.
I agree nationalism may need a more express reference, but wearing a flag pin is nationalist. I think it needs to be tied to a radical socialist/collectivist vision that is opposed to individualism.
"
I thought Roland Dodd's definition that he linked to above was pretty good:
1. Fascism is revolutionary. It attempts to change the system through revolutionary means and create a new man in the process.
2. Fascism is often built around a cult of personality.
3. Fascism is opposed to mass democracy, and believes the interests of the common people require a leader that is above the political fray.
4. Fascism is socialist/collectivist but opposed to modernity.
5. Fascism celebrates political violence against its perceived enemies at home and abroad.
The main point to me is number 3. Mass democracy was widely discredited in the inter-war period and the fascists started with a very vocal proposition to eliminate it, supported of course by the Communist who also wanted to eliminate it.
Today, mass democracy is as popular as it has ever been. The points of concern are (a) America's tendency to elect people that know nothing about the world, but seem like a nice person to drink a beer with; (b) the European project's override of national democratic institutions; (c) the rise of illiberal democracies in places like Russia that ape the form without the values; and (d) the instability caused by attempts at democracy in many third-world countries.
"
Neither Jackson, nor Jacksonians, have an ideology. Jackson distills the essence of what was largely the original pre-party understanding that the President would be selected as the best type of person from the best type of people. And he would have a cabinet of advisers who were the best sorts of people as well. Other than the Jeffersonian ideological revolt against aspects of Hamiltonian policy, ideology was not a part of the original understanding.
By virtue of expanded suffrage, Jackson changes who the best sorts of people are at all levels, without introducing ideology. Without ideological conflict, political conflict is personal and emotion-driven. The appeal here is to moderates, who don't like ideology and tend to be less smart. Elect the right kind of people is pretty much all one needs to know here. This appeals strongly to moderates, a group with lower IQs on average.
The line btw/ Jeffersonian democracy and Jacksonian is barely visible. In theory, Jefferson supported all aspects of Jacksonianism to some degree (distrust of elite institutions, tolerance for political violence, and confidence in the common man's judgment), but ultimately the mix was unsatisfacotory as it was no longer rooted in the Enlightenment value of reason.
"
The various permutations of fascism all share as a common origin an indictment of democracy. This will never be the basis of any significant movement in the U.S., which sees itself in many respects exceptional because of its democratic institutions and its origins as a nation built on a creed reflected in its Constitution and other important documents.
Trump is not a fascist, he is a Jacksonian, and Jacksonian is a democratic movement, not an anti-Democratic movement. Jackson indicts the political class that has benefited itself and not the people, and argues that better people (like Jackson) be elected.
On “It’s Time for Mitt Romney to Save the Day”
I am a registered independent, but a jumped-up mayor appeals to me. Illinois is a difficult state to get on the ballot (you have to do it for each Congressional district) and Kasich failed to submit enough signatures for several districts, but Trump's campaign let it slide because they wanted more names on the ballot. Kasich wasn't ready for this campaign, and its no doubt too late now.
Still, if he had been ready and Rubio wasn't occupying the presumptive establishment spot, I think Kasich wins Illinois (and even if he doesn't he might win the delegate count because the allocation rules favor the more densely populated areas of the state).
"
Do we know that the vast majority of current Rubio fans will transfer their votes to Cruz or Kasich
I've closely looked at the Illinois returns and based upon how different types of candidates have fared in different political areas of the state in the past, I believe Kasich could have won Illinois if Rubio had left a few weeks earlier. Its a little more complicated than moving all Rubio votes over to Kasich. Cruz did best in some of the white collar and large university cities that traditionally vote establishment Republicans like Romney. They don't vote for people like Cruz that hold rallies in mega-churches. In my opinion, a good portion of that Cruz vote was simply an anti-Trump vote expressed within the context of believing Kasich was not competitive.
I can see Kasich making similar backwards-looking assessments and think he has a good shot in a lot of states going forward.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.03.15.T}”
Trump doing very well in Chicagoland, and Illinois distributes most of delegates by Congressional district, so Trump is going to rack up a big delegate count in the metro area. Post-mortem in Illinois likely to wonder what dynamic if Rubio had dropped out earlier.
"
Trump Brand is everything to everyone. It will be so wonderful it will make your head spin.
Just the other day, I was reading comments at another site from people that are worried that Trump is a dangerous fascist dictator in the making, so who are they voting for in the primaries? Trump Brand, because they think Trump Brand will help the Democrats in November. Everybody should get some Trump Brand!
"
The Trump events in Illinois the last few days have surprised me in the revelation of how little campaign apparatus he has, and yet he will probably win the state primary today.
Putting aside events in Chicago, Politico reported that Trump's state campaign manager had been fired or sidelined (which is disputed by the campaign manager). Trump was unable to find any state/federal Republican politicians willing to help coordinate his campaign, so he hired a lawyer that specializes in ballot access issues to be the campaign manager. Probably helped him get on the ballot across the state, but he otherwise has a record of losing campaigns for local office and a failure to pay or file state and federal income taxes for five years. I assumed by now someone with more event planning experience would have been brought in.
And two nights ago, the campaign stopped in Bloomington at the airport, and people parked across a road in a graveyard, damaging headstones. A lot of fingers being pointed, but it seems to me that the campaign is being run by a very small number of people flying around in his jet, picking locations for a flyby and relying upon local volunteers and law enforcement to manage things the best they can.
On “Shouting at the Clouds”
I previously had only read Gossage's remarks on bat-flipping; but feel compelled to push back on his rant on protecting infielders on the slide.
See Goose, when replay was introduced, something remarkable was discovered, particularly about plays at second-base on a double-play -- players had been cheating. The fielder wasn't necessarily touching the bag, or he might not have the ball in the glove he is tagging with. And the runner wasn't necessarily staying on the base throughout the slide while the tag was applied. Nobody knew how rampant the cheating was until multiple camera shot angles converged on the bag.
The replay caused the fielder to stay in position longer, the fielder to apply the tag more forcibly and the runner to slide harder. Cheating the way you old guys did it, kept you healthy and for the most part, mentally sharp.
On “How Bernie Sanders supporters shut down a Donald Trump rally in Chicago | MSNBC”
Trump is not a fascist, that's a political ideology that has no meaning in the American context. If people want a meaningful analogy to hang their hat on, it would be based upon this excellent piece: Trump is Not the New Hitler -- He is the New Andrew Jackson.
"
This is not the first incident of political violence in Chicago this electoral season. For example, this is a picture of a candidate after being hit on the head by a beer bottle and shot with a staple gun by the opposing campaign. Same basic dynamic, someone had entered another campaign's space (albeit public), a discussion led to fighting words and violence. Deciding who started it is somewhat beside the point, its simply a matter of a series escalating events that started with the intention to disrupt someone else's entertainment.
"
I won't pretend to know how this plays out, but I'm almost 100% certain that the protesters who are posting videos of themselves celebrating and taunting those leaving the arena are not capturing the moment for its best impact.
"
I think some of them engaged in disturbing the peace, which is a crime. I think in the context of criminal activity, it has to be judged on the greater good trumping the law, and I've not read anyone suggest that the ultimate effect will not be to help Trump.
"
The piece alludes to two important points. A large part of the reason for these "First Amendment zones" that get mocked is that having a separate space for protests or counter-rallies is to avoid escalation situations. This group claims to have taken the safety issue seriously in their preparations, but waiving NAZI symbols and tearing up signs is not cognizant of human reactions.
The other point is this group lacks a basic understanding of First Amendment. The college has an open policy for political candidates to rent their space, but they seem to think that Trump is not the right kind of politician. They think the University has not acted legitimately, which legitimizes their own conduct. As long as people think like that, escalating violence is inevitable.
"
I think that assumes a lot more forethought than I saw in Trump's planning and organization when they came to my city. That includes placing African-Americans on the stage behind Trump without asking whether they were Trump supporters -- that resulted in the video of the lady reading a book behind Trump during the rally.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.03.10.Th}”
Since Wilson was willing to accept the Senate reservation on mandates (which merely required Congressional consent to them), this was not the reason that the League was rejected, nor advocated by Wilson.
"
The person leaving out large parts of history is the one arguing that the League of Nations was a product of Wilson's personal mission of white imperialism.* He is omitting the fact that the League was a highly debated subject both nationally and internationally by a host of actors, and of course, the U.S. didn't join, which raises a lot of questions about the point of this at all.
* "Wilson's League of Nations was an instrument of imperial conquest. It was meant to make the world safe for white supremacy, not democracy." (Wasserman)
"
If the subject is settlement colonization in the 1500 to 1800 time period, then it is racist not to include the Chinese, who in absolute numbers settled as many people in colonies as any of the European powers of that time. More broadly, settlement colonization at more moderate levels (comparable to the Dutch and French) was occurring in the Balkans by the Ottoman Turks.
"
I agree with this. The foremost purpose of history is to learn about the past, not to provide self-congratulatory morality stories.
This article (and the linked pieces) remind me of Lost Cause buffs who point to something like a racist joke told by Abraham Lincoln (at least by today's standards), and then spin a story about what Lincoln was really all about. Occam's razor be damned.
I learned in high school that Wilson fired blacks from the White House and praised a Birth of a Nation. I don't know what millennials are taught, but if they are going to focus their limited time on labeling Wilson and all his works racist, like the League of Nation idea, they are not going to know much history.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.03.09.W}”
I don't know what to think about 3 strikes laws. If sentences were reduced significantly, I wouldn't object to keeping such laws but with some greater requirement of proportionality than seems to exist. But to convince the public that much shorter sentences are just as likely to discourage repeat offenders as long-ones, one probably cannot have it both ways.
"
Sentence creep was justified on the grounds of deterrence. There is little or no evidence that increasing a minimum sentence from 3 to 6 to 9 years has any effect on deterrence. That's not how criminals think. In particular, they don't think they are going to get caught, if they've thought about it at all.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.