Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance
Who Are The Domestic Terrorists?
January 19, 2020 Criminal Justice, Public Policy and GovernanceGreg Abbott, Incels, racists, TrumpSheila
Who should we fear? I'll give you a hint.
The men (they are almost always men) causing death and destruction are rarely Muslims. They are hardly ever immigrants. As a Texas Department of Public Safety report has recently confirmed, by far the largest threat to domestic safety and tranquillity comes from white racists and Incels.
And who–you would be forgiven for asking–are the Incels? Let Juanita Jean tell you.
Incels are white boys who couldn't get laid at the Chicken Ranch even if they had a chicken under each arm and fifty dollar bill taped to their forehead. But, you always suspected that, didn't you?
Or– in the less florid language used in the report,
Based on the prevalence of recently conducted attacks nationwide, White Racially Motivated (WRM) is currently the most violently active domestic terrorism type.
Although not a new movement, Involuntary Celibates (Incels) are an emerging domestic terrorism threat as current adherents demonstrate marked acts or threats of violence in furtherance of their social grievance.
Wikipedia defines Incels, as "involuntary celibates"– members of an online subculture who are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom.
A recent article in the New Yorker says that what Incels want is "extremely limited and specific: they want to be able to have sex on demand with young, beautiful women. They believe that this is a natural right." The article subhead calls this what it is: a belief in male supremacy.
Vox goes further, in an article detailing how a support group for the dateless became one of the internet's most dangerous subcultures.
Over the past two decades, the incel community, which numbers somewhere in the tens of thousands, has fallen under the sway of a profoundly sexist ideology that they call "the blackpill." It amounts to a fundamental rejection of women's sexual emancipation, labeling women shallow, cruel creatures who will choose only the most attractive men if given the choice.
Taken to its logical extreme, the blackpill can lead to violence. The mass media has focused on the risk of more mass killings like Toronto and others before it, and that is indeed a serious concern. But the focus on incels as potential killers risks missing a more subtle threat: that they will commit acts of everyday violence ranging from harassment to violent assault, or simply make the women in their lives miserable.
A column in the Washington Post suggests that the Incel movement is an extreme and worrisome symptom of the struggle men face in a changing society.
Today, the incel subculture has become not just self-reinforcing but self-radicalizing, often with tragic outcomes. At its most horrifying extremes, self-described incels have taken their anger out on the women they believe are refusing them. At least two mass shooters have left behind manifestos identifying themselves as adhering to incel ideology and explaining their actions as taking revenge on the world that hasn't given them the women they think they deserve.
Meanwhile, in Texas, Governor Abbott is "safeguarding" citizens of the Lone Star State by refusing to accept refugees–who, according to all available research, pose no threat to public safety.
And in the nation's capital, the Trump administration is caging (brown) children and excluding (and vilifying) Muslims. Worse, they are actively encouraging the racists and white nationalists who, along with the Incels, are responsible for the vast majority of domestic terror attacks.
They're determined to make America great again– for straight white "Christian" men.
Ideology And Climate Change
January 12, 2020 Public Policy and GovernanceAustralia, climate change, fossil fuels, science, TrumpSheila
Most of Australia appears to be on fire. The extent of the devastation is hard to comprehend–as this is written, 24 people have been killed, 15.6 million acres burned (so far), hundreds if not thousands of homes destroyed, and an estimated billion animals killed.
Yet, as Vox reports, government officials in Australia continue to downplay the link between climate change and the wildfires– Prime Minister Scott Morrison insists that the country doesn't need to do more to limit its greenhouse gas emissions. The government is apparently willing to shirk its duty to protect the population and the environment in order to protect the country's powerful mining sector.
There's a strong scientific consensus that links climate change to the number and severity of the wildfires.In its 2018 "State of the Climate" report, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology warned that climate change had already ushered in a long-term warming trend and was also responsible for changes in rainfall that increase the risks of wildfires.
It isn't only Australia. The effects of climate change are appearing everywhere. In Indonesia, the capital city of Jakarta is sinking so quickly that officials are working to move it to another island. Pictures of Venice are heartbreaking. Other examples abound.
Here in the United States, the Trump administration is responding by rolling back numerous environmental measures that had been put in place both to combat pollution and address climate change. It sometimes seems as if the administration is trying to poison the air and water and actually accelerate climate change.
Sane people faced with an existential threat don't behave this way. What explains it?
The Roosevelt Institute attributes this inexplicably destructive behavior to neoliberal ideology.
In Transcending Neoliberalism: How the Free-Market Myth Has Prevented Climate Action, Roosevelt Fellow Mark Paul and Anders Fremstad of Colorado State University present a coherent account of how neoliberalism has contributed to inaction. To do so, they explore three tenets of neoliberal ideology that have stymied action to address the climate crisis:
Decentralize democracy: A feature of the neoliberal order in the US has been the systematic decentralization of government. Neoliberals have promoted federalism to address "government failure" and subject the state to market forces, exacerbating the race to the bottom in climate policy.
Defund public investment: Neoliberals dismantled the Keynesian consensus that the state has a major role to play in providing public goods, stabilizing the macroeconomy, and solving coordination problems. In the neoliberal order, government investments are rejected as expensive and wasteful, crowding out productive private investments.
Deregulate the economy: Neoliberalism has launched a concentrated attack on government's ability to regulate the economy. Ignoring the ability of regulations to positively shape markets, neoliberals dismiss government intervention as "red tape" that merely increases the cost of doing business.
Those tenets of neoliberalism have been mainstays of Republican policy at least since Reagan. To them, however, you have to add the rabid anti-intellectualism of the Trump administration–an anti-intellectualism married to an obsessive determination to undo anything Barack Obama accomplished. Trump has persistently worked to drive scientists out of government agencies, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that those agencies' effectiveness depend upon sound scientific evidence.
As the New York Times, among others, has reported,
In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.
Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.
What is it that Neil DeGrasse Tyson always says? Reality doesn't care whether you believe it or not.
If climate change makes the Earth uninhabitable–a result that is looking more and more likely– the cause will be stubborn ignorance and the willful elevation of ideology over evidence.
It Isn't Just Hanging Chads…
January 11, 2020 Public Policy and Governanceballot placement, unfair advantage, votingSheila
Americans are slowly becoming aware of the ways in which partisan redistricting and vote suppression are torpedoing the democratic ideal of "one person, one vote." In the absence of something egregious like Florida's "hanging chads," however, we are still less likely to recognize the partisan effects of ballot design.
A recent article from the Washington Post focused on that issue.
It's a political truism: The candidate whose name appears first on the ballot has an advantage over the competitors listed below. That's not just folklore — numerous studies around the country have shown that candidates who are listed first receive more votes. The advantage is so marked that in Illinois, one of several states where ballot position is based on the order of filing, candidates wait in line overnight to gain the top spot.
I can attest to the accuracy of those studies. When I first became politically active (back in the Ice Age), Indiana awarded ballot positions alphabetically. A gentleman who had changed his name to Aaocker was a perennial candidate for a number of offices. He always ran in Republican primaries (back then, Marion County was solidly Republican), where turnout was lower, and he could be counted on to skim some 2000 votes from the others on the ballot.
I've lost track of Indiana's current approach to ballot placement–I leave it to a reader to enlighten us–but ballot order is a state decision, and it varies widely from state to state. In November, a federal court blocked a ballot order law in Florida; that law automatically gave the top position in every race to the candidate of the last-elected governor's party.
As a result of that law, Republican candidates have been listed first in every race on every ballot in the state for the last two decades. In 2016, Donald Trump's name appeared before Hillary Clinton's. In 2018, Ron DeSantis was listed above Andrew Gillum in the gubernatorial race, and Rick Scott was listed above Bill Nelson in the election for U.S. Senate.
The court found that first place on the ballot was worth five percentage points, and noted that Trump had defeated Clinton by just over one percentage point, that DeSantis won by four-tenths of a point, and Scott beat Nelson by just one-tenth of a point.
Florida Republicans are appealing the decision.
As the article points out, if the appeal is successful, we will face a situation not unlike redistricting; just as states manipulate district lines to advance partisan interests, states will approach ballot design from a similarly partisan perspective.
Without any judicial check, changing election rules for partisan advantage will become a tool for both parties. For example, the newly elected Democratic majority in Virginia could provide that Democratic candidates are listed first and Republican candidates are listed third. New Jersey could pass a law allowing Democratic candidates to be listed first with their party affiliation but limiting all other candidates to an alphabetical order without any party identification. New York could retain straight-ticket voting for Democrats but not for Republicans. Massachusetts could allow longer voting hours for registered Democrats than Republicans.
The fact that voters go to the polls so unprepared that they vote for the first name on a ballot's list is depressing. When good government organizations urge people to vote, they are really encouraging them to cast an informed vote. But–as in so many areas of contemporary life–there's a wide gap between the real and the ideal.
Allowing partisans to use that gap to undermine the choices of voters who are informed is cheating. But good sportsmanship is so last century….
This Is What Rational People Feared
January 4, 2020 Public Policy and GovernanceAct of War, Iran, TrumpSheila
Yesterday, we awoke to find that Trump had ordered an airstrike that killed an Iranian general. The general's position was equivalent to that of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, or even Vice-President, and he was evidently revered in Iran.
Critics don't dispute the administration's contention that General Suleimani posed a threat to Americans (although absolutely no evidence supports claims that an attack was "imminent"). Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama had decided against efforts to target Suleimani, because they were convinced that such an action had a high probability of triggering a war.
They were correct. The assassination is being reported in both the U.S. and Iran as an Act of War.
Of course, both Bush and Obama listened to their diplomatic and military experts, and consulted with Congressional leaders–none of which Trump did. The strike violated a longstanding executive order forbidding U.S. involvement in the assassination of foreign officials, as well as the requirement that a President seek Congressional approval under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Act. Of course, this is an administration that routinely ignores compliance with laws it dislikes.
I don't think it is a coincidence that a military strike that allows Trump to brag about a "show of strength" comes at a time when his bungled and inept forays into foreign policy are being widely criticized.
Despite his much-hyped meetings with Kim Jon Un (meetings which gifted Un with an unearned but long-desired legitimacy), North Korea has announced its intent to resume nuclear tests. Trump's approach to Iran–actually, his approach to the entire Middle East–has been wildly contradictory, as spurts of belligerence have alternated with troop pullouts and inexplicable decisions have been "justified" by Trump's usual word-salad tweets and statements.
North Korea's announcement, coming as the 2020 election campaign begins heating up, and the Iranian-backed attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, increased public attention to those failures, and triggered renewed allegations that Trump doesn't understand foreign policy and is incapable of developing a coherent strategy. Those criticisms have been leveled throughout his term in office, but they have become louder and more frequent in the wake of recent events.
So, like the child he is, Trump blindly struck out.
Since 2016, it has become abundantly clear that the Oval Office is occupied by a profoundly ignorant, mentally-unstable man-child who is utterly incapable of understanding the likely consequences of his actions. The damage he has done domestically is enormous; the threat he poses to world peace and hundreds of thousands of American lives is terrifying.
Yesterday's media was full of analyses by Middle East and foreign policy experts; most of the people who read this blog have undoubtedly seen many of them. I don't have any additional insights to offer.
I'll just conclude by quoting from an article in Vox.
A deadly opening attack. Nearly untraceable, ruthless proxies spreading chaos on multiple continents. Costly miscalculations. And thousands — perhaps hundreds of thousands — killed in a conflict that would dwarf the war in Iraq.
Welcome to the US-Iran war, which has the potential to be one of the worst conflicts in history.
The Thursday night killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, who led Iranian covert operations and intelligence and was one of the country's most senior leaders, brought Washington and Tehran closer to fighting that war. Iran has every incentive to retaliate, experts says, using its proxies to target US commercial interests in the Middle East, American allies, or even American troops and diplomats hunkered down in regional bases and embassies.
It's partly why the Eurasia Group, a prominent international consulting firm, now puts the chance of "a limited or major military confrontation" at 40 percent.
This is what happens when self-described "patriots" cast their votes for an unhinged buffoon with limited intellect and a monumental ignorance of the ways of the world. Those voters weren't a majority, but there were enough of them to elect the candidate whose only "qualification" was a pathetic eagerness to validate their bigotries.