Edge of Chaos is a political podcast starring Joe Ryan and Neurotoxin. Its aim is to have a free-flowing discussion of news and current events that also examines the empirical outcomes of public policy, avoiding biases based on ideology and policy intentions. Listener discretion is both advised and encouraged.

Friday, October 10, 2014

The Myers Shooting: The Last Straw For Police Excess?

When Trayvon Martin was killed, the right and the left habitually wrestled over characterizing him as a hardened criminal that deserved it and a cherubic under-aged victim of racism and 'gun violence'. I said firmly from the get-go that he sounded like a juvenile delinquent and probably contributed to the confrontation, but that Zimmerman's deadly force was likely unwarranted.

When Michael Brown was killed, as the same ridiculous conjectural tug-of-war was only shaping up, Joe was yelling at me for saying that he sounded like a thug, but that I saw no reason to believe lethal force was legally justified.

In the case of Vonderrit Deondre Myers, - who, for those that live under a rock, was gunned down by an off-duty St. Louis police officer Wednesday night - I really don't foresee that tired battle over character. He was arrested on June 27 for unlawful use of a weapon, a felony charge, and resisted arrest. At the time of his shooting, he was carrying an illegally possessed firearm, and at least according to the officer's account - fired it at the officer 3 times. There is little question as to whether Myers was a criminal, and even less to say in defense of a man who gets shot by the guy he opened fire on. At least so far, even the protesters seem to agree, as I see hardly anyone defending his innocence. That is what makes this case so unique, and indicative of serious looming political turmoil. A homicide by police that looks justified from all angles is nevertheless spawning protests, garnering nationwide attention, and looks likely to escalate to more violence and confrontations between citizens and police in planned actions this weekend.

Contrary to some abjectly racist assumptions disgustingly popular in the United States; violent crime and assault on police are NOT widely accepted behaviors in our poor, urban communities populated overwhelmingly by minorities. I know this from personal experience working in such communities, as well as from reviewing sociological studies. Like most reasonable people, the average poor, minority American believes that if you commit a violent crime - you deserve to go to jail, if you engage in violence - you have no business complaining about receiving violence in return, and if you open fire on a cop - you should expect to die. In fact, if such communities truly believed anyone killed by police that is poor and a minority is innocent; there would be protests and riots in this country almost daily.

The protests are also being joined by swaths of young, middle class activists concerned with civil liberties and law enforcement excess. While this demographic is more consistent in its distaste for law enforcement and government in general; it is often accused, quite rightfully, by the very poor and minorities it's joining of only complaining from the safety of its suburban homes. Yet this seemingly justified is bringing them out into the streets in ways that only the most unjustified ones have in the past.

Unlike Martin and Brown, Myers is not the kind of police homicide that usually receives this kind of reaction. So why is this unlikely coalition protesting an off-duty cop shooting a man with a documented history of violence who opened fire on him first?

Because to the poor minorities involved in the resistance, every officer is now a bigot and every act of police violence driven by racism. And because to the middle class protesters concerned with overreach and civil liberties, every officer is now a sociopath drunk on power, representing and relying on a corrupt structure of tyranny and incompetence. Both generalizations are grossly misled as the overwhelming majority of officers and agencies meet neither stereotype. But the unlikely bedfellows are united by a simple and destructive consensus that police can do no right. Or, in more social science terms, they are fed up enough with law enforcement engaging in violence with impunity to think compliance with law and order is no longer worth the trouble of putting up with this. There is no reasoning with that mentality, and in extreme cases it leads to the violent ousting of government - as we witnessed recently in Egypt and Ukraine.

I'm not quite predicting outright revolution will occur in the United States within the next couple of months, but I do believe the critical mass has been reached to create significant and permanent policy changes. CNN contributor and civil rights activist Van Jones attributed this to a "wholesale breakdown of trust [between citizens and police]", and I agree completely. No law enforcement agency in the world has the resources to keep everyone in its jurisdiction obedient to the law by force, it is the simple logic of police being outnumbered 1000s-to-1. Most people follow the laws of our own volition, save minor infractions like speeding or littering which predominantly go unpunished, leaving police with enough room to pursue criminals that actually threaten public safety and law and order. Further, law enforcement relies significantly on citizen cooperation in maintaining law and order and apprehending criminals; ranging from supplying information to summoning police to situations of conflict rather than taking the law into their own hands. Both of these elements require a certain widespread faith in both law enforcement's motives and its capacity. So when a critical mass of the population - and this does not require anything close to a majority - begins to see the police as a greater threat to their safety than criminals; law enforcement not only becomes useless and incapable, but law and order itself is threatened as the benefits of non-compliance outweigh the costs in the eyes of enough people to overwhelm its resources. If my estimates of the magnitude of this disobedience movement in coming weeks are accurate - the politicians confronting it will have no choice but to enact significant concessions to its demands to maintain law and order. It helps that many on both sides of the aisle have indicated a desire to take up many of the causes in question, such as demilitarization of police, repeal of multiple laws authorizing police overreach, and accountability measures such as mounted cameras for law enforcement. I believe this eruption of civil unrest, coupled with the upcoming election, may finally spur enough support for their doing so.

Like most large collective reactions to a negative event, this one is coarse and in many ways irrational - seeking retribution against a class for grudges over both real and perceived injustices committed by a few of its members. However, meaningful and lasting social change is rarely achieved through precise and rational action, it certainly was not in the 1890s or the 1960s. So despite its brash nature, I believe this development is overall positive and beneficial for this country. Bringing the authority and political influence of law enforcement agencies in line with the Constitution is LONG overdue, as is bringing their funding in line with economic reality. While we may not all agree on the specifics of how to do so, that statement is one people from across the political spectrum today can get behind, leaving it in need only of a catalyst that pushes reluctant politicians to respond. If you are involved in this, I salute you; but also implore you to keep the violence to a minimum. Remember that the most successful from of civil disobedience is not giving a beating, but being willing to take one.


Monday, September 15, 2014

The Looming Decline Of the Democratic Party

Months ago, I settled for predicting a disappointing, lackluster election season in which incumbents reign supreme in all phases, and in which Republicans make modest gains in the Senate but the overall balance of power does not shift. I never said the re-alignment I've been talking about for years had been derailed, but in the Primaries it did feel slowed to a disappointing pace, and moved from the ballot box to backroom deals. South Carolina saw genuine Tea Party hopeful Mick Mulvaney announce he wasn't going to challenge intra-party enemy #1 Lindsey Graham, citing significant policy concessions and the latter's immense war chest. Other genuine hopefuls like Glenn Jacobs in Tennessee also declined their potential bids. Campaigns thrown together top-down by big corporate donors, like Matt Bevin's challenge to Mitch McConnell, failed to engage grassroots fervor and fell flat. Yes, Mississippi lifer Thad Cochran was so cornered by Tea Partier Chris McDaniel that he had to do the unthinkable - appeal to black voters, and yes there was that Democratic mischief that unseated Majority Leader Eric Cantor. But it's still difficult to compare these ripples to the earth-shattering upsets of 2010 or 2012. However, looking at the polls and dynamics of the upcoming general election, for once I'm happy to think I was very wrong.

Another Coming Wave Of Red

Firstly, the polls now show the Democrats having their asses handed to them on November 4th. Republicans maintaining control of the House, even without further gains, IS a victory, not a draw. They already control it by a significant margin, and seeing as most Congressional districts in the US are gerrymandered to death - this essentially means projected victories in a grand majority of contested ones. That's no small feat for a party that's controlled the House for the last 4 years.

Then there's the projection of Republicans managing to take control of the Senate. Guaranteed pick-ups in States with open seats - WV, MT, SD - are not as easily dismissed as the media's lack of attention to them would make you think. Despite being safely red in Presidential elections, all 3 have very mixed records in terms of who they elected to Senate in recent history. In 2 of them, the other Senator that's NOT up for re-election is, in fact, a Democrat. Republicans saw Montana's other seat as a safe pick-up when it was open in 2012, and suffered an embarrassing upset. In light of these facts, the looming sweep of circa 20% advantages for Republicans in each State is an indicator of a trend being gloriously ignored by elements for whom its inconvenient.

This same trend is evident looking at the 4 seats where Republicans look likely to defeat incumbents; Alaska, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana. All 4 are, of course, also red or at least red-leaning States, and with the exception of LA's Mary Landrieu - they're represented by relatively conservative Democrats that often defy their caucus and claim they must to stay in office. Yet despite voting records that should be somewhat palatable to conservatives, they're losing; when only 2 months ago they seemed almost safe re-election projections. On the other hand, the 2 States where Democrats seemed to at least have a fighting chance at pick-ups in July - Georgia's open seat and Kentucky with McConnell somewhat damaged by his Primary fight - now appear extreme long-shots at best.

What happened? Haven't NBC and internet gossip rags like politicususa been telling us since Obama's re-election in 2012 that the Republican Party is on its deathbed, because it's too extreme and can't hope to appeal to minorities? Weren't Republicans supposed to get blamed for the Fall 2013 shutdown and take an electoral beating in reprisal? What's really happening to the political landscape of this country is far more complex and far more rooted in wonkish civics than the story polarized partisanship tells, but the facts of this election are all the evidence I need to demonstrate I've been right in my predictions - for years.

The Democrats' Identity Crisis

For those of you that associate top-down campaigning with Republicans and think of conservative organizers as taking orders from large, powerful donors and caucus leaders - I tell you adamantly that you're looking for this in the wrong party. That is in no way an endorsement of Republicans; merely the wisdom of someone with significant experience in this field.

Sure, Republicans get more corporate funding, and sure, in the last few years this trend has increased with the rise of Super PACs using Citizens United to funnel money to Tea Party candidates. However, the strings attached to that money are not what many imagine them to be, and it's intuitive if you think about it for yourself rather than trusting popular stereotypes. The corporate Republican donors of 10-20 years ago were defense and law enforcement contractors; large corporations dependent entirely on government spending for their profits. Hence, the politicians they supported and funded had to sell a very specific policy line of interventionism and various restrictions on civil liberties - from the War on Drugs to the Patriot Act. Conversely, they could compromise with Democrats in funding the Welfare State so long as the money for weapon systems and border walls kept flowing. There you have the socially moderate, big spending, warmongering Neocons.

Today's Republican donors - most notably the Koch Brothers, but also a significant tide of young E-Millionaires - are industrialists that draw their profits from private spending. Politically, they benefit primarily from derailing government intervention in their business operations; whether that intervention be in the form of taxation, regulations, laws that buttress unions, or simply funding for the agencies that enforce these policies. This contrarian agenda can be accomplished from a variety of angles - libertarians citing government inefficiency and unaccountability, religious and anti-Federal interests seeking various types of autonomy, white nationalists denying discrimination exists and opposing workplace laws intended to address it, even simple obstinacy that slows down government operations to a crawl. And there you have the Tea Party; dynamic and diverse in its political principles, but united by its stubbornness and aversion to compromise, and unapologetic about winning by causing stalemates and shutdowns. Trying to keep this analysis as neutral as possible, my point is simply that today's Republican donors only have a short list of what the politicians they fund must OPPOSE - they can do so however they want, and take whatever positions suit their fancy on issues ranging from abortion and gay marriage to drugs, the border, and war.

Let's compare this with today's Democrats. In the time of the Neocons, Democrats were actually the more internally divided party - ranging from solid liberals like Al Franken and Dennis Kucinich that adamantly opposed war and endorsed civil liberties but also favored a large and unaccountable welfare State, to moderates like the Clintons and John Kerry that sought compromise solutions on all of these issues. The Democratic Party was then significantly bigger than the Republican in terms of voter registration, and it was normal for various regional funding camps to duke it out in the Primaries. They endured decades of this internal division because campaign spending was far more tame, and also because they were the contrarian party of the era. In general elections, funding funneled centrally through the Party's top-down apparatus would be used to mount standardized campaigns aimed at moderate voters painting Republicans as greedy, war-mongering, Bible-thumping extremists - and this would succeed when swing voters were angrier about these trends than about political correctness, or regulatory and welfare-state excesses. This strategy became an integral part of the generally top-down organized Democratic Party, and campaign strategies came to rely ever more heavily on standardized data analysis being used to develop scripts and pitches that maximized appeal to center demographics.

But, since the Republican Party shed the Fascism-lite (I said it) of the previous two decades and reinvented itself as the "leave me alone" party, Democrats have taken repeated electoral beatings; and this will continue until they update their strategy to modern day. Put plainly, Republican candidates in general elections are now extremely diverse, and politicians and campaign professionals with nationally standardized specifications of what to say and support have a very difficult time competing for votes against opponents with only loose guidelines on what to oppose. There is, of course, also the factor of general dissatisfaction with government and Republicans' propensity to fan its flames through harsh criticism of the status quo; but like it or not, this stacks up perfectly with their dynamic, contrarian style.

I posit, confidently, that Democratic leaders' obtuse resistance to adapting their strategy to these modern trends is largely responsible for the electoral pattern described above. The campaigns of the relatively conservative Democrats in question are trying to appeal to the standardized national profile of a moderate voter. They fearmonger about Tea Party extremists that want to shut down government, and they try to talk up the general accomplishments of Democrats in compromise and of government in providing public services. This same strategy is invariably behind propaganda campaigns peddling the over-generalized criticisms of the Republican Party and predicting its extinction. Meanwhile, the Republicans facing these candidates are far from monolithic, and mount aggressive campaigns tuned into local preferences and exposing specific weaknesses and foul-ups of their opponents. In many places, the standardized fascination with moderates also alienates the more liberal base of the Democratic Party; discouraging those already fickle demographics from turning out, and making them more likely to vote third party if they do. The known shortcoming of central planning is its inflexibility and excessive standardization; only allowing it to succeed when used for united opposition against something very specific.

Yet rather than rethink their approach to politics, the Democratic Party has done nothing but double-down on these strategies. The most evident example of this, of course, is the increased role of OFA - an organization that grew out of Obama's overrated 2012 field campaign and now performs statistical voter analyses and develops standardized scripts for a slew of Democratic campaigns nationwide. As we have seen this organization fail to reproduce results that were erroneously attributed to it 2 years ago, it seems Democrats have switched to an emergency strategy of dropping out of races they are sure to lose and endorsing Independent candidates; such as the Kansas Senate and Alaska Governor races. While OFA's propaganda rags try to spin this as doom for the "extremist" Republicans, I say it reeks of futile desperation. OFA has run these Democrats' campaigns so deep into the toilet that they've been forced out of the running, and rather than acknowledge its failure - it is now tripling down on appealing to moderates. This is unlikely to make up for their lack of grassroots appeal and local understanding, but it will further alienate their already disillusioned base.

The incompetence of this approach mirrors the general sloppiness and inefficiency of Obama's Executive Branch - riddled with scandals and bureaucratic mishaps to extents we have not witnessed since the 1960s. So perhaps his own rosy-eyed faith in central planning is what it can be attributed to, but I don't claim to know. I do know, however, many dedicated, experienced political professionals who work on Democratic campaigns that are deeply frustrated with these tactic restrictions and demands for adherence to them in order to receive centrally concentrated campaign funding. But the inflexibility of central planning bureaucracies extends to their receptiveness to constructive internal criticism, and these professionals are unlikely to reform the system.

The Emerging Partisan Alignment

What we will see, soon, as a result of these political trends, is what I've been predicting since as far back as 2009; long before the launch of Edge of Chaos on my all-but-forgotten individual blog at As the Democratic Party loses more seats and struggles to appeal to moderates while further alienating its base, those crafty Republican contrarians will begin turning out candidates that lure the latter. After all, Progressives and solid liberals are, by their nature, contrarians as well - averse to compromise, adamant in their ideologies, and in many ways distrustful of government. They are also fervent defenders of civil liberties and opponents of interventionism; which had been deal-breakers for their joining the Republican Party during the Neocon era. Republicans who appeal to them will come from traditionally blue States, and are likely to resolve the economic rift by advocating generous safety nets at sub-Federal levels where they are palatable, and also more accountable. In the meantime, we are already witnessing with Obama's ISIL plan that the Democratic Party has absorbed a large proportion of Neocon elements, and without its base it will become an odd assortment of aging modern moderates - blubbering simultaneously about the glory days of 'generous' hyper-Federalism, 'law and order', and 'national security'.

If such an assortment seems unlikely to you, it is because you are unaware of just how shifty our history of partisan alignments is. Before the 1960s, anyone predicting minorities overwhelmingly favoring the Democratic Party, while stalwart big-government social conservatives from the South and limited government types from the West awkwardly share the Republican, would have come off as a raving lunatic. And just as the Republicans in the previous 50 years, such a party can mount opposition to change to protect the status quo or pass extreme policies during times of crisis like the 1980s and the post 9/11 era; but it has a difficult time holding on to power and managing lasting policy hegemony. THAT is where the Democratic Party is headed, likely irreversibly, and those angry at my prediction only have this Administration, with all its centralizing glory, to blame.


Thursday, August 21, 2014

Mike Brown's Innocence Is Completely Irrelevant

When the Ferguson protests were only kicking off, before the tear gas and rubber bullets and national attention, Joe and I had a heated conversation regarding Mike Brown, and my point boiled down to the following (be careful not to get offended, because I don't give 2 shits if you are):

"This kid sounds like a wannabe thug to me. According to his own mother, he barely finished high school with a delay into the Summer. According to his own friend [and only witness that had come forward at the time], he was walking down the middle of the street and mouthed off to the cop that dared ask him to move to the sidewalk. He's being accused of shoplifting [this was how police described the corner store incident with the Swisher Sweets at the time]. And they're spinning his planning to go to a vocational school to be an HVAC technician as 'starting college', which sounds to me like grasping at straws to build up his character. In a few weeks, his true character will become public, and that will completely undermine what SHOULD be a legitimate case against police belligerence."

Welcome to the future. We have video of Brown intimidating a store clerk half his size in a robbery as opposed to a shoplifting incident, and we have witnesses attesting to various degrees that he not only mouthed off to the cop, but struggled physically with him. As I predicted, the "poor innocent victim kid" bullshit went up in flames, and now every apologist for police militarization is hammering on this character assassination in a desperate effort to make Americans stop asking questions about police behavior.

The objective reality is, Mike Brown's character and the petty crimes he is suspected of are completely irrelevant to the issue in question. Seeing as he's dead; whether or not he robbed a corner store, jaywalked, and failed to comply with a lawful order from, or even assaulted, an officer - are hardly questions of judicial concern. What matters is whether or not his actions warranted the officer's use of lethal force. The burden of proof for THAT is on the police. That's not only US Justice 101, it's common sense; unless you believe in police having carte blanche to open fire on anyone suspected of a petty crime and being disrespectful - in which case I recommend relocating to Belarus or North Korea. And so far, I've seen 0 case the use of lethal force was justified. Although there is no shortage of speculation and spin based on evidence that in no way logically supports that conclusion, and no shortage of the clowns vomiting it getting their panties in a bunch when the logical integrity of their arguments is questioned.

The lesson herein - whether you're a liberal focusing on race and poverty, a libertarian focusing on Constitutionality, or a conservative realizing the similarities to the Bundy Ranch and that government is not above bullying you - is to focus on the questions you want answered and not let pundits frame the debate. Apologist spin is failing miserably because the police response to the protests has been so egregiously incompetent and unlawfully forceful that it has drawn in 1000s of diverse, previously unaffiliated Americans for whom this is not about Mike Brown. But had the various law enforcement agencies involved in the aftermath shown a morsel of professionalism or restraint, I guarantee you the Rush Limbaughs would convince most Americans that because Mike Brown was a bad kid, the Constitution somehow doesn't apply to him and police should not be held accountable for their actions. This has happened over and over and over, and the most vocal elements in opposition of law enforcement abuse of power perpetually allow themselves to be highjacked by the Al Sharptons and Benjamin Crumps of America. These so-called "activists" flat out LIE about thugs like Brown being victimized innocent children to perpetuate racial divides that serve as their job security, and when the right exposes them, accurately - the actual root of the issue is completely forgotten, and people continuing to question the police are seen as marginalized lunatics.

I don't care if Mike Brown was black, white, or green with pink polka dots on his back. I don't even really care if he manhandled that store clerk, and was generally a jerk that liked to use his size to intimidate and bully others. I care whether or not he did anything to warrant a trained, sworn officer of the law shooting him 6 times and killing him. The police are not authorized to do that barring very extreme and specific circumstances; and when they do, they are required to demonstrate those circumstances to the public. Put down the race card, shut up about Mike Brown's personality, and keep protesting and rallying and refusing to comply with orders to disperse until law enforcement fulfills this legal obligation. Otherwise, we will get swept under the rug and send law enforcement the message, for the umpteenth time, that it's open season on any person who looks at them wrong.

And Sharpton - put a cork in it.


Friday, August 15, 2014

Today's Mediacrity Award: Rush Limbaugh

Today's Mediacrity Award goes to the one and only Rush Limbaugh.  Why, you ask?  Could it be his legendary charm on the airwaves? Could it be his irrepressible wit and the aplomb with which he skewers the LIEberal media on his show every Monday through Friday? Nope, today's Mediacrity Award goes to Limbaugh because even though he has proven himself over and over again to be a slimy demagogue with a cadre of moronic, mouth-breathing rednecks and neo-Conservative fraud assholes as fans, he proved this week that he can still hit new lows by implying that Robin Williams may have killed himself because of his "leftist worldview." He swiftly walked back these comments one day later, if you could call turning an actual audio clip into being "taken out of context" and turning the whole thing around by accusing the media of "glorifying suicide" and speculating that the "laudatory" coverage might inspire others to commit suicide also "walking back" his remarks. The fact that he managed to do this in the same week he apologized for police crackdowns on citizens in Ferguson, MO and basically argued that reporters who were arrested should have just complied with officers' unlawful instructions and surrendered their rights as citizens and journalists because of the unrest going on (I won't link it here because the transcript is hosted on his site and I refuse to send it traffic, but look it up if you want to) is nothing short of amazing.

Does this fat, obtuse slimeball actually believe the average person thinks they would garner three to four days of coverage in the media if they also killed themselves as Robin Williams did, or is this the same sort of make-believe culture warrior bullshit that he and his ilk continually peddle to their increasingly psychotic fans in order to hold their short attention spans for one extra moment? Mr. Limbaugh, I believe someone with a worldview like yours, should you actually hold it in real life, is suffering from some serious psychological problems and you may want to investigate treatment options for this disorder right away before you begin to harm yourself or others. Either way, shut the fuck up already, will ya?


Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Michael Brown Shooting in Ferguson: A Plea For Patience and Logic

As the details surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown slowly emerge from Ferguson, Missouri, we find there is still much we cannot know for sure, at least until a full investigation and possibly a trial is allowed to happen. The danger in what’s going on right now, with both sides squaring off both in the media and in the streets much like the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, is that certain facts get clouded amidst the rhetoric flying around. But let me try to piece things together and give my opinion on what we know so far.

Michael Brown, an 18 year old that was about to start college this week after just graduating high school, was walking down the street with friend Dorian Johnson. At some point they encounter an as yet unnamed officer and member of the mostly white Ferguson police department and are reportedly told to walk on the sidewalk instead of the street, to which both youths respond that they are already near their destination, Dorian Johnson’s own house. From here narratives differ, and the officer either slammed his door open so hard it bounced off of Michael Brown, after which the officer choked him, and then shot him, causing him to run away. After this the officer shot Michael once more and when he fell to the ground, he reportedly held both hands up and said “Don’t shoot me, I don’t have a gun.” The officer ignored this and shot him dead anyway.

The police department’s version says that Michael Brown engaged the officer physically and reached for his firearm, discharging one round into the cruiser. The officer then responded with force and eventually shot Michael Brown dead. Quite obviously with these two stories the end is the same: a young man is dead, and a community has lost one of their own. Obviously we cannot take anything said so far, by the police, by witnesses or by Dorian Johnson, at face value. Everyone has an angle, and just as the police are likely going to portray the shooting as a regrettable but necessary act that was unavoidable and to portray Michael Brown as a dangerous and violent individual, the friends and family of this young man are also going to portray him in the best light as a 100% innocent person with no violent impulses. Similarly, the right wing media will go overboard to portray this young man as a thug, just as the left wing will play up the race issue. The outcome of this is predictable because a lot of the same names, Trayvon Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump and activist Al Sharpton among them, are the same. In my opinion we do need to treat this with the seriousness it deserves, but let me lay out a few reasons why the looting, rioting and supposed incitements of violence are grossly inappropriate and misapplied, if that weren’t already obvious.

Simply put, we have no choice but to let the system work from here. Federal oversight is already being applied, and simply race baiting on either side will not help us discover the facts. Above all, I want to know who did what that day, and mete out consequences accordingly. Now, having said that, the facts we already know, to me, already speak volumes. What business does an officer have shooting a youth dead who was not armed himself? Whether he tried to grab the officer’s gun, and obviously failed, or not is immaterial. Anytime we condone a police officer shooting someone who is unarmed and running away from them, we take one more step away from constitutional protections for citizens of this country. Was there really no other resolution to this? To me this, aside from racial bias, indicates once again that police departments in this country are poorly trained, and now thanks to post-9/11 militarization, are too heavily armed. Give a man a toolbox with only a hammer in it and suddenly the whole world is full of nails. Time and time again we see that the police in the US have simply become too trigger happy, and seem to have lost all capacity to deal with threats in any way other than simply shooting them down with weaponry. This needs to change.

On the subject of race: yes, I think it is relevant here. But I think that obvious grandstanding charlatans like Al Sharpton are using race in this case not just to discover truth, but to cloud the issue with their own politics. I think he tacitly encourages the looting and the other violence we have seen in the wake of the initial shooting, and I think his mere presence is interfering with the search for truth that everyone ultimately wants to happen here. Those who condone violence in response to violence are no better than those who commit the original act of violence. Dr. King knew this well. The non-violent protests, which had citizens of Ferguson stand with hands raised high in the air and chanting “Don’t shoot, we’re unarmed” are a much better idea, and more clearly demonstrate what is at issue here. Predictably though, the police have responded as you would expect, with all of their military toys and combat gear on display. This is the very reason why looting and violence will not solve this. Simply put: the cops are better armed than you. Your only play is to at least be shot with your hands raised, a helpless and innocent victim that will hopefully serve to finally show the brutality of the Ferguson police to the world in unmistakable fashion. This scenario is more along the lines of what Dr. King would have wanted to do here.  Please do not conflate this point with Fox News' penchant for using Dr. King against protestors in this type of situation, all the while lecturing African Americans on their own history though.  It does seem that in Ferguson there was indeed one night of isolated looting and violence, which many people said was precipitated by the police cracking down on an otherwise peaceful protest, and that the level of violence and damage that has occurred since is being exaggerated by the police in an obvious political move to discredit the protests themselves.  Obviously, once again, truth is difficult to come by, but some of the stunning video of police using their riot gear, flashbangs, and etc to crack down on citizens in otherwise peaceful looking neighborhoods sure does not help to inspire confidence in their motives.  Again, the citizenry has no choice but to document, to peacefully protest, and to hope the country is paying attention.  I certainly am, and you should be too.

With the recent police homicide in New York due to a misapplied choke hold, and the Michael Brown shooting, and all of the other cases we have discussed on Edge of Chaos, it is obvious that police are out of control, and that African Americans, and other nonwhites, seem to encounter this problem more. But above all, what we need is an organized movement that sticks to the facts: that over policing is a problem, that police militarization is a problem, that shooting unarmed citizens dead in the street is a problem, that using combat gear equipped, military grade vehicle driving foot soldiers to shut down entire cities and neighborhoods at will and for flimsy reasons is a problem, and that ubiquitously searching, accosting and arresting citizens, particularly those of color and/or in poor neighborhoods, in search of “meeting quotas” is a problem.  Citizens are not the enemy, and the police ought to return to the mantra of "serve and protect."  We need to stay focused on these things if we are to see substantive change.


Friday, August 1, 2014

Israel/Palestine: The 0 State Solution

"Oh, THAT. Of course it's safe. This stuff in Israel, it's like someone getting shot in Los Angeles."

-My Israeli friend and Edge of Chaos contributor, on traveling home.

I've hesitated to comment on the latest Israel/Palestine drama because quite frankly, I'm bored of it. It's not that I don't care, it's just that this incident has very little long-term political significance. It's always the same story:

Divides within the minority leadership between moderates and radicals. An act of terror against majority members attributed to the radicals. Hawkish elements of the majority using this act to pressure minority moderates to disown the radicals. The radicals responding with violence. The majority rallying behind the hawks for return violence. The minority rallying behind the radicals as an unintended consequence. Egypt a crucial factor. Lots of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, horrendously disproportionate toward the minority. And finally, heaps and volumes of propaganda from both sides distorting global political opinion so hopelessly that hardly anyone realizes what I just described ISN'T the current crisis - but a regular occurrence in the Middle East that is literally as old as time.

I can also tell you EXACTLY how this will end. The IDF's incursion into Gaza will deal devastating short-term damage to Hamas, eradicating its leadership and significantly reducing its military capacity; then lock Gaza back down and leave. The result will be a couple of years of relative calm as Hamas recovers. But, the memories of airstrikes and tanks in the streets will increase its popularity, allowing it to grow new leadership and restore its arsenal. Then, when the time is right, the rockets will start flying again; and history will repeat itself.

Despite the political insignificance and predictability, however; if either side's behavior seems stupid or short-sighted to you, it is because you lack an objective understanding of the conflict. This is an extremely common affliction because of the oceans of propaganda, and my rationale for this post is simply my frustration with the widespread ignorance. If you're looking for me to take a side or convince you who the good guys are, look elsewhere. The Middle East is, in essence, the axis of global political conflict; and consequently the crux of collective human stupidity - war, nationalism, superstition. Only when all the myths are dispelled, and when people all around the world begin to hold their governments accountable for their invariable contribution to this cyclical insanity will there be any chance of calm; and my hope here is to put a few drops in that bucket.

Myth #1: Peace

The best way to identify someone talking about the Middle East as completely full of shit is if they make rosy references to a time when everyone there lived peacefully - whether it's Palestine advocates talking about pre-1947, or Israel advocates talking about 4000BC. The historical record simply does not indicate there was ever a time without 2 or more entities laying claims to the land in question, and entities powerful and balanced enough for this to result in perpetual, violent conflict. If anything, the entities in question being officially local to the conflict is somewhat of a recent development. A short, incomplete list of past claimants to Israel and particularly Jerusalem, all of whom fought drawn out, bloody wars for this purpose, follows:

Ancient Egypt
The Philistine Empire
Judea/The Ancient Israelites
Alexander the Great of Macedonia
The Roman Empire
The Umayyads
The Abbassids
The Mongols
The Marmalukes
The Holy Roman Empire (the Crusades)
The British Empire
Napoleon Bonaparte
The Ottoman Empire
The Russian Empire

and in modern history, by proxy:


Looking at this list, it becomes evident that the land in question is a coveted possession for virtually every superpower in human history, and that with such titans clashing over who it belongs to - it will persist in a perpetual state of war. Interestingly, based on my own experiences with both Israelis and Palestinians, most people living there seem to recognize this condition. They refer to the periods of relative calm accurately as temporary cease fires, knowing full well they live in a war zone and violence will resume. It's narcissistic politicians from global superpowers that like to announce they have "brokered peace" by negotiating yet another cease fire agreement; and the media leaves out the context to allow these clowns to mislead their constituents for short-term political gain.

Myth #2: Ancestral Homeland

This insanity is the propaganda method of choice for BOTH sides in the modern era of the conflict, and it is horrendously and intentionally misleading.

Modern pro-Palestinian propaganda often complains that Palestinians were displaced by the establishment of the Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan in 1947; quite intentionally planting the seeds for the flatly inaccurate assumption that pre-1947 Palestine was a country independently governed by the Palestinians. However, the reality is that the precursor of the modern era was "Mandatory Palestine", a territory of the British Mandate ruled by an appointed Governor from the British Empire, much like most of the greater region in the period following WWI. And Mandatory Palestine's borders were mostly preserved from its status as a province in the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI - an autocratic and often murderous regime ruled from a capital 1000s of miles away by monarchs wildly ethnically different from the locals in Palestine. In fact, the last self-ruling state in Palestine existed around 3000 years ago, and since then it has changed hands with varying frequencies and degrees of violence, but a pretty uniform indifference to the preferences of local residents. Considering the Jewish migration to Palestine began as far back as 1830, and that by 1947 Palestine was home to 100,000s of Jews born and raised there - not including them under this "locals" label amounts to blatant antisemitism. Unless, of course, the claimant advocates for forcibly reversing the outcomes of all human migration in general - such as shipping all Europeans and Asians back from the Americas.

I'm going to assume most readers are familiar with the religious "ancestral homeland" argument made by pro-Israel propaganda, and I adamantly refuse to entertain arguments founded on scripture as logically valid. However, it's important to recognize that Israel supporters who subscribe to this religious argument are actually a minority. For the most part, the Zionist movement is a nationalist movement that calls for a State ethnic Jews can call home; where they will not be persecuted and repressed as had been happening for centuries in various countries with large ethnic Jewish populations such as Spain, Russia, and Germany. While a noble cause, this really provides 0 foundation for the idea that the particular land in question ought to belong to Jews, and the Jewish Kingdoms that once ruled it - like, 1000s of years ago - rightfully don't convince any reasonable person, including Palestinians not wishing to live under a nationalist Jewish State. The fact that Palestinians also have not ruled Palestine in 1000s of years does not constitute an excuse for treating them as second class citizens as Israel has done since its inception. I contend that comparing this to genocidal regimes such as Hitler's Germany is an exaggeration, but it IS comparable to discriminatory policies like Jim Crow laws in the US South or, disturbingly enough, apartheid laws in places like the Russian Empire many of the Jews migrated to escape.

Nationalism is the pinnacle of collectivist stupidity. There is 0 reason to believe race and ethnicity are even objectively tangible concepts - they are predominantly post-enlightenment myths that were coined to justify slavery in the New World and then took on a life of their own in the pseudo-science of Eugenicism. Further, this disturbing figment of our collective imagination has never served any purpose other than to manipulate people to hate, repress, and kill other people that have never done them wrong. Both Jews and Palestinians had been victims of others' nationalism long before they were perpetrators of it, but have come to project it on each other in a gruesome parade of violence with roots stoked by much bigger forces. Despite my disgust with nationalism as the fuel of the conflict in the modern era, however, it in no way explains the conflict pre-dating it by 1000s of years.

Myth #3: Religion

Though largely replaced by the nationalism I described in the previous section in the modern conflict, religion has been used as a means of motivating people to fight for the land in question for millennia. Yet despite this, it too does not adequately explain its origins.

I have come across people that refer to the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict as "the manifestation of centuries of Jewish/Muslim animosity"; a theory slightly discredited by the fact that Jews and Muslims DON'T HAVE a history of centuries of animosity. In fact, Jews and Muslims lived peaceably side-by-side for centuries, even in times when Muslim-ruled Empires conquered Jewish enclaves - and let the Jews practice their own culture and religion while paying tribute. And even if there were some mythical rivalry between Jews and Muslims, that STILL wouldn't explain the perpetual conflict over this land that pre-dates the origins of Islam in the 7th century AD by 1000s of years.

If any religion has a history of intolerance and persecution toward other religions - it's Christianity. It was the Spanish and French Inquisition and the theocratic Russian Empire perpetrating the persecution that led into the formation of the Zionist Movement; not some made-up Muslim savage. The Crusades - religion-inspired wars that sought to bring, among other things, this same religious intolerance to the land in question - were also Christian endeavors, and ones aimed indiscriminately at both Muslims and Jews. But before you dismiss me as some Bible-basher that simply wants to blame Christianity for all of history's problems, it helps to remember that the conflict even pre-dates the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theocracies by 1000s of years, and that it has continued despite their decline in recent centuries.

And before Christianity, religion was rarely a significant factor in war and conflict. Pagans, whether they were Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Nordic, or anything else - tended not to fight over religion. They killed each other plenty, but on religion they historically compromised by adopting each others' gods and customs, or merging matching ones. Monotheistic Judaism that forbids the worship of others' gods certainly stood out in this sense, but most historic accounts even demonstrate its capacity to find ways to compromise. It's not a coincidence that all 3 major Western religions have married themselves to the location, as well as a slew of others and their derivatives such as the Ba'hai faith. However, to claim that religious strife is at the root of the problem is missing the point entirely; and makes no sense in light of the fact that the conflict is older than every religion involved in it.

Miscellaneous Myths: Zionist Conspiracy, Free-Masons, GMOs, Chem-Trails, Lizard Aliens, etc.

I won't waste much time addressing these psychoses, all of which have been tied to the Israel conflict in some form, because I am of the firm belief that anyone who actually takes them seriously will not be convinced by anything I say. Suffice it to say that there is 0 empirical evidence whatsoever for any of them, and those that target specific groups of people such as Jews or Free-Masons as conspiring in secret ploys to take over the world constitute bigotry. I remind you that BOTH of these groups were targeted by Hitler's holocaust, and that his propaganda machine stoked the same superstition and libel surrounding them to extract compliance from the dumbest sectors of the population. If you believe in any of this horseshit, THAT is the kind of company you are in, and I strongly recommend for you a psychiatric evaluation. With organized religion in significant decline in the Western world, my theory on these beliefs is they are simply the modern crutch for weak-minded people uncomfortable with the inherent ambiguity of reality. Every such crutch has historically become the useful idiocy of international conflict - it's not terribly surprising these are any different.

My Toxic Theory

I meet very few people my own explanation for the conflict does not infuriate, and in light of the overwhelming dominance of propagandist hysteria - I find that to be a huge compliment.

Put simply and brutally, the conflict is exclusively geopolitical, and has never been anything else. The land in question is the most important geographic bottleneck in the world. East to West, it is a very narrow land bridge between Eurasia and Africa, and more historically between Mesopotamia and Egypt - the 2 first human civilizations. There are places on this land bridge that have been turned into a stereotypical "lunar" desert, with nothing left but sand from all the caravan traffic that has depleted the water and natural vegetation beyond regrowth. North to South, the ports on the Mediterranean coast - Sinai, Gaza, Tel-Aviv (Jaffa), Haifa, Akko, and Beirut are the only reasonable places to dock or set sail when traveling between populous Europe and the resource-rich Arab Peninsula. Other routes are lengthy and have included passing through significant amounts of hostile territory in every era. Bottlenecks in general tend to be centers of perpetual conflict with colorful histories of war - like try the Balkan Peninsula, the Crimea, the Korean Peninsula, Panama, the Iberian Peninsula (particularly Gibraltar), you get the point. Whoever controls the bottleneck can establish a monopoly on trade and political hegemony, support the latter with the former by charging tariffs and the former with the latter by boasting peace and calm for business; and live a life of luxury, power, and praise. And when it comes to what is currently known as Israel/Palestine, there is simply no more lucrative location of this kind in the world, attracting the advances of every superpower in human history.

What about Jerusalem? Well, this city, with its absolutely disgusting weather hardly hospitable to agriculture or human survival, is a perfect natural castle in the middle of an otherwise flat and non-defensible terrain! It sits inside a little circular mountain range in the desert, surrounded on all sides by insurmountable sand cliffs and having only 2 very narrow entrances that resemble the "hot gates" from the movie "300". Before the age of airstrikes and spy satellites, this location was virtually impenetrable; the entrances allowing small, lodged squads to keep out overwhelmingly larger armies. Whatever regional power established control over Jerusalem could then comfortably take over the ports and land routes surrounding it, knowing the advantage of its land castle would give it a massive edge.

But if you're not a Philistine or Egyptian god king that commands 1000s of slave subjects indiscriminately in labor and combat, how do you motivate any sufficient number of people to live in and sacrifice themselves defending such an inhospitable place? How do you do so in the age of classical reason, when human self-determination and autonomy are being celebrated; and cheaply enough to keep the entire endeavor profitable? Oh, I know, you tell them it's what god wants! There you have it, Edge of Chaos fans, the origin of all modern Western faith in a nutshell, which explains not only its fascination with Jerusalem, but also its peculiar intolerance toward other faiths and propensity for religious warfare. There is no shortage of brutal and pointless conflicts in the histories of East Asia and the Americas, but when was the last one fought over religion that didn't involve a Judeo-Christian faith? Yea, keep thinking about it....

The post-enlightenment decline of religion as a political force has made motivating people to kill each other for their leaders' profit extremely problematic. As war has become more and more unpopular and politically costly for this and other reasons, governments have grown more enamored with having others fight conflicts on their behalf - be it insurgencies, tributary States, or other proxy agents. This is abundantly apparent in the modern and Cold War eras, but it is older than many think. The civil wars in Eastern and Southern Europe leading into WWII are easily viewed as proxy conflicts with clashing guerillas supported by the various superpowers that would eventually fight the war, as are the tributary conflicts leading into WWI. Even colonial wars, such as the French and Indian War that set the stage for the American Revolution, is easily seen as an exported conflict between two European Empires whose monarchs knew that fighting on their own soil would cost them not only their crowns, but their heads. The prevalence of proxy conflicts has, in turn, made nationalism the new motivator of choice, as to motivate people to kill each other on behalf of superpowers they now have to be led to believe that they're fighting for their own identity and ethnic survival; and nowhere is this effect more evident than Israel and Palestine.

In the mid-19th century, the Zionist movement and the associated ethnic Jewish migration were strongly encouraged by the British and Russian Empires; and both promoted it not only with cultural support for the Jews' nationalist rhetoric, but also by stoking centuries-old antisemitism at home to make conditions more hostile and unbearable. These empires had a vested interest in undermining their common enemy, the Ottoman Empire; by building a pillar of opposition that they hoped would eventually destabilize its hold on the land in question. When both the Ottoman and Russian Empires collapsed outright in WWI, the remaining British Empire no longer needed to support a Jewish State as it emerged victorious, controlling the lucrative bottleneck now called "Mandatory Palestine" as part of the British Empire. But the betrayed Jews quickly found a new friend in the USSR - to which most of them traced their roots, that had very similar economic proposals to their agricultural communes at the time, and which was at its inception very sympathetic to their cause as most of Lenin's original Politburo (Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev) were Jews; resistance to the Russian Empire's repression of Jews having played a huge part in the revolution. You're unlikely to find mention of this in propaganda mills for either side, but the 1920s in Mandatory Palestine were plagued by violence from Jewish Communist guerillas demanding the British withdraw and grant them a Jewish State, guerillas funded and supplied by the USSR. To maintain control of its prized possession, the British Empire began flirting with Palestinians, who at the time were predominantly nomadic tribes - investing in infrastructure and pseudo-independent institutions, but also stoking fear and mistrust in Jews using the worst bigoted stereotypes and marginalizing them with the small minority of guerillas. Recall that in the 1920s and 1930s, antisemitism was a commonly accepted global political trend, and the British Parliament contained a slew of Nazi sympathizers before relations soured due to Hitler's aggression.

When WWII effectively retired the British Empire (as well as France) from superpower status, it's difficult to deny the disastrous legacy of their mandates on the region in general. The borders of the new Arab countries were drawn with further economic colonization in mind and 0 heed to the needs of the locals, and weak, unpopular monarchies were loosely crafted out of tribal relationships with 0 consideration for rivalries that had been stoked for decades. As a result, just about every emerging country has alternated between civil war and brutal dictatorship ever since: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. But the fight in the UN over partitioning Mandatory Palestine was the longest and most vicious of all; with the British and its newly established Arab puppet monarchies insisting on another monarchy just like them, and the USSR with its Eastern bloc in tow insisting on a pseudo-democratic Nationalist Jewish State ruled by the extremist bandits it had been supporting for the previous 30 years. The US, along with its South American bloc, surprised the world by siding with the USSR, and the geographically unsustainable 2-State clusterfuck drawn in 1947 was the final compromise. Both countries commenced ruled by their worst respective radicals, and unsurprisingly violence ensued within a matter of months. The Jews had the 2 richer and more powerful foreign backers, so they emerged victorious and pushed the Palestinians to the 1949 armistice lines. Fact-cherrypicking pro-Palestinian propaganda will hammer on this event to paint the Jews as the aggressors. But the violence was mutual and the outcome determined by foreign support and funding - it could just as easily have gone the other way, and losing a conflict doesn't make you the victim or the good guy. Stalin's extreme paranoia in his final years would then turn on Israel in the 1950s, severing ties and leaving it a unilateral US colony. But the entire region soon evolved into a Cold War front, with Stalin's successors orchestrating Arab Nationalist military coups in the surrounding countries, and then together with emerging dictators (Nasser, the Assads, Ghadhaffi) supporting and funding Palestinian nationalist guerillas such as Fatah and the PLO. The decline of the USSR in the late 1970s and 1980s brought relative calm and the opportunity for some negotiations, but then the Ayatollahs took over Iran and became the newest challenger to US hegemony - funding and growing the variety of Islamic Fundamentalists that are our #1 enemy in the modern era, with Hamas being only one manifestation. It's worthwhile to mention the one Arab monarchy that remains successful and powerful, that of Saudi Arabia, that has played all sides in the conflict for its benefit for the last several decades.

The No State Solution

As I have hopefully demonstrated, the conflict in question is not between Jews and Palestinians nor between Israel and Hamas, but between global superpowers as has been the case for 1000s of years. The land in question is arid and generally unable to sustain the 12 million Israelis and Palestinians living on it, but the governments of both subsist off foreign aid which also loads them up on weapons they would never be able to afford. This situation makes it very difficult for moderates on either side to take and maintain power. Overtures toward peace and disarmament alienate the patron powers whose interest is hegemonic control and who also supply sustenance, and the competing patron power tends to capitalize through aggression. In 2008-9, for example, war weary Israelis leaned heavily toward more dovish parties in their Knesset, to the chagrin of US defense contractors also suffering from war fatigue back home. But Hamas, supported by Iran, pounced on this - seizing unilateral control of Gaza and engaging in a campaign of violence that invariably brought the hawkish Netanyahou to power and kept him there. Today, the tables are somewhat reversed. Motivated partially by the decline and domestic problems of Iran, the government of the West Bank has made strides in building democracy and resolving its differences with Israel using a peaceful, diplomatic process. But US interests and Netanyahou blew an act of terror out of proportion to justify a campaign of violence to seize more control, violence that will invariably revitalize Hamas and erase the political gains in the West Bank.

While I despise both Hamas and the hawkish elements of the Israeli government for perpetuating this situation, it's also important to recognize that long-term solutions are off the table for both. Castrating Hamas buys Israel a few years of relative calm that it otherwise would not have, even though it realizes the cancer will grow back. For Palestinians, aggression is the only way to force such nationalist politicians to the negotiating table and advocate for better than second-class citizenship status. If moderates could come to power in both places, they could theoretically solve both problems simultaneously and also establish the economic cooperation necessary for any hope of independent sustenance on the land. But invoking the basics of game theory, such an outcome is highly unlikely when lucrative, rich superpowers are constantly prodding both sides toward war.

Cheesy as it sounds, peace between Israel and Palestine will only happen if and when there is peace on earth; a condition that would also require the end of superpowers and the belligerent, overreaching, unaccountable modern State. While I'm hopeful that such a time will eventually come to pass for reasons I will discuss in a different post, it's not quite on the horizon before us, and anyone claiming to have a solution that will create lasting peace in the existing situation is just blowing smoke.


Friday, July 25, 2014

This Week's Mediacrity Award Goes To....

Vladimir Putin, and his State-run propaganda machine and all its affiliates. To everyone quoting RT and the "Russian perspective" as if these were reliable sources, and that includes many of my fellow libertarians - let me point you to a very inconvenient condition. There is not an infinite line-up of varying perspectives that are all right in their own way. There are logically sound conclusions reached by using reasoning on hard facts, and then there is mind-numbing speculation and superstition that is not corroborated by anything in observable reality. I am often perceived as brutal and inflexible for refusing to compromise with the second, but all I'm really doing is denying credibility and a captive audience to people that want others to believe things not proven to be true. Allowing their psychosis to become collectively accepted reality is NOT a fair price for peace and stability; because they will invariably abuse the sacrifice of reason to seize more power and "stable society" will be a gulag with them in the tower.


Thursday, June 26, 2014

Ukraine: From Slavery to Serfdom

My worst enemy would not accuse me of being a Putin supporter, and I'm certainly glad to see Russia slowly backing off and relinquishing its claims on Ukraine; but forgive me if I'm not jumping on the joy of freedom bandwagon for the Ukrainian people just yet. According to CNN yesterday:

"NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday endorsed a package of support strengthening the ability of Ukraine, which is not a member of the alliance, to defend itself.

...the package includes 'the creation of new trust funds to support defense capacity building in critical areas such as logistics, command and control, cyber defense and to help retired military personnel to adapt to civilian life,' according to NATO."

What does that really mean?

Put simply, Ukraine needs only look slightly past the Black Sea to Greece and Cyprus for a glimpse into its future. Countries don't have rich grandfathers that die. 'Trust fund' is just a more politically acceptable term for foreign debt; this after Ukraine has already been loaded up with 10s of billions of it to sustain its civilian economy through the crisis.

The governments of North America and Western Europe are not motivated by philanthropy or belief in democracy. They are saddled with banking systems that have been on publicly subsidized life support for the better part of a decade now, and have shown 0 signs of recovery despite the desperate re-writing of policy definitions and measurement adjustments, AND despite politicians like Obama and Hollande referencing these over and over like braindead parrots. As anti-EU parties from all sides of the spectrum sweeping the EU Parliamentary election last month demonstrated, people are catching on that central banking is a scam and are determined to let the predatory multinational corporations involved starve. Ukraine offers the banks and the center-left politicians who serve them the opportunity to pretend they are solvent for a few years by backing up toxic debt from Southern Europe with Ukrainian promissory notes. Sure, Transparency International ranks the corruption in Ukraine to be almost double that of Italy or Greece, and the World Bank ranks its development at 1/5th of those countries on a generous day; but perhaps the electorates don't know that. It just might work for a few years, and for an international criminal cartel - that's an unusually safe bet.

To make matters worse, this debt is earmarked for military expenditures, and subject to the approval of international organizations that Ukraine is not even a member of. In other words, "you will spend the money you owe us however we tell you". Even if you're still enamored with the fairy-tale of a single global economy where banks from rich countries invest in infrastructure and development in poor ones, and the poor ones then pay back the loans with stimulated domestic growth; Ukraine is not a romance novel you can curl up with by the fireplace. As we have witnessed with over a decade of military and security expenditure extravagance here in the US, it does not contribute to anything but a sharp economic downturn. This is common sense. The government cannot print the raw materials needed to produce weapons, military supplies, fuel, ammunition, or even food and other goods consumed by the war machine. It can borrow money from its own central bank, in other words PRINT it, to buy these. But supply is limited, and the increased demand drives up domestic prices without producing economic growth when they are expended; bringing us $4/gallon gasoline, runaway inflation on food which is conveniently excluded from the Consumer Price Index, and domestic businesses being forced to close their doors and lay off employees because they can no longer make ends meet. It takes a fundamental ignorance of economics to expect debt-repaying growth from security and defense loans; but from a crony capitalist perspective this makes perfect sense.

With every election, there is more and more of those rat bastard fringe politicians from both the right and the left in the legislatures on both continents - socialists, communists, nationalists, libertarians, theocrats, etc.; and the one thing they all  hate more than meddling in foreign countries using debt serfdom, is meddling there with guns and rockets. Forget boots on the ground, even a mention of a 'limited' airstrike in some desolate desert in the Middle East or North Africa raises an uproar and threats of no confidence votes or impeachment proceedings. There is simply no convincing the electorates THAT is a good idea. So if the center-left is threatened, the center-right that serves international death dealers like Halliburton and Raytheon is teetering on extinction, and the only way either can hope to create profit for their corporate masters is by holding hands. If predatory bankers are allowed to print 10s of billions of dollars or Euros to prolong their illusion of solvency, some of that money better be spent on defense or there is no hope of a majority vote in favor.

The good news is, there is no doubt in my mind that both types of corporate cartels are flying toward history's trash can. The size of Ukraine and its level of economic and political development virtually guarantee a default on any loans hastily shoved down its throat in the modern crisis; and a default that takes significantly less time to materialize than Italy's or Greece's and one whose magnitude makes bailouts simply infeasible. And unless you can do so with toilet paper fiat currency printed under the guise of some bigger project, no one is going to buy weapons and military equipment on a scale meant for superpower warfare - so when the banks go, what's left of the military-industrial complex is going with them.

But I do feel bad for the people of Ukraine. An ancient, beautiful country with an amazing culture and history; and their only option for escaping slavery to a murderous tyrant having wet dreams about a dead superpower is to sell themselves into indentured servitude to the decaying afterbirth of imperial aristocracies still struggling to preserve their nobility in a system demanding public accountability. We really haven't come remotely as far from the political and economic situations surrounding WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, or even the 30 Years War as we like to think. On the bright side though, NONE of the entrenched special interests involved in those conflicts survived them, and my hope for the modern situation is that their looming disposition is less violent.


Friday, June 20, 2014

Reviving the Mediacrity Award For Someone Especially Irrelevant

Thank you everyone that responded to my article earlier this week on Hillary's non-viability as a 2016 candidate for convincing me just how right I am. Her politically clueless supporters buried me in emotional tantrums employing every logical fallacy imaginable, and her detractors were not far behind with equally devoid-of-reality doomsday predictions. But not one person, out of 100s reached, could make a logical counter-case that actually took the empirical barriers I mentioned into consideration. If you think Hillary stands a chance, it is because you don't understand civics; simple as that.

Hence, this week I bring back the "you don't belong in the news" award just for her. Hillary's political career is over; and she is abusing Americans' fundamental ignorance of our own political system to create hype and see if it goes somewhere. It won't; but the media's complicity in this is downright disgusting. The real news around us right now are the colossal policy failures of both the Bush Jr and Obama administrations - Iraq, the IRS scandal, the Bergdahl swap, etc. But reporting on these without both Parties sounding indistinguishably awful is difficult even for NBC or Fox News, which is especially dangerous during the Primary season. So it's "look, there's an odious retired politician on a book tour acting like a candidate!" Pathetic. This so-called media belongs in history's trash chute, WITH Hillary.


Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Hillary's Campaign, err, Book Tour Interview Indicates She Doesn't Stand A Chance in 2016

As Hillary Clinton continues to insult America's intelligence with her pseudo-campaign, I continue to unapologetically predict that she will not come anywhere near the White House in 2016. In fact, I stand by the prediction I've made since she started campaigning the day after Obama's re-election that she will not even make it past Florida in the Democratic Primaries. I should mention that she IS liable to remain on the ballot as the Newt Gingrich of that year - old, washed up, white, detached, with a bottomless well of money, and representing a dying party establishment. It's no secret that I DESPISE Hillary Clinton, but this post is not about that. It is my attempt to convince you that my prediction is objectively founded in things she said in today's interview with CNN.

1. She is riding the fence on every issue.

Whether it's Benghazi, immigration reform, marijuana, the Middle East clusterfuck, or even gun control - Hillary seems incapable of taking a firm stance on anything. With the exception of gun control where she expressed tepid support for the failed Federal background check bill from early 2013, every answer cites ideological intentions and then alludes to mystical solutions that Hillary dubs bipartisan compromise. Even on Benghazi, which happened almost 2 years ago, Hillary still cannot produce a straight answer when asked what she would have done differently. Iran/Iraq/Syria, a rapidly evolving violent crisis, is a "wait and see". Immigration policy should consist of magically achieved reunions between 10,000s of children and their parents 2-3 borders away, with no explanation of feasibility, costs, or enforcement.

There was a time, say 20 years ago when Bill was President, when Americans swallowed up this idealistic, vague, centrist waffling and asked for more. Moderates ruled in the 1990s and the early 2000s, and the ticket to victory in any contested election was to get as close to the center as possible, counting on your base and winning over swing voters. But Hillary needs to check her what year it is. The country is more polarized than ever, with "bipartisan" and "compromise" being 4 letters words in DC. She, herself, lost in 2008 to a relative unknown because he moved closer to an energized, liberal base while she pandered to the center. Since then, we've seen 6 years of obstinate Tea Party stalwarts slaughtering moderate, establishment Republicans in Primaries, going so far as to unseat incumbents and refuse to vote with their party leadership. Moderate voters are far more rare now, and they're disorganized and jaded about politics. The bases, on the other hand, are energized; and they openly refuse to support moderate candidates. Advances in technology that make information cheap and easy to obtain have also given rise to a new, younger demographic of independent, issue-based voters. As we witnessed with Romney, waffling and refusing to give concrete answers alienates this demographic to disastrous proportions.

2. She is advocating Statism

Like us or hate us, but the libertarian tide is rising in both parties. And while those leaning toward it from the right and the left continue to have significant differences, the issues we agree on are the ones Hillary is placing herself on the wrong side of. First and foremost, foreign policy. All libertarians believe uncompromisingly in staying out of foreign conflicts, period. We see interventionism as executive overreach, violations of the human rights of locals, a counter-productive waste of resources, and contrary to the US's founding principles. Any politician that begins throwing out conditionals and excuses for it, acting as if funding/arming/supplying a side is acceptable because it's not "boots on the ground", or refusing to acknowledge the abject failures of both Bush Jr and Obama in this domain instantly loses every libertarian-leaning vote. Hillary's history of supporting Bush Jr's wars was a huge thorn in her side in 2008, but she still hasn't learned. Secondly, marijuana. Hillary's position on this is more insulting to libertarians than even simple prohibition. In saying she is waiting for the evidence from States like Colorado, she is implying prohibition as a reasonable default and placing the burden of proof on advocates of legalization, while glossing over the overwhelming evidence that marijuana prohibition has immense costs and no benefits at all, period. This double-whammy will destroy Hillary even in the eyes of libertarian-leaning conservatives who are not entirely comfortable with marijuana; because her stance supports Federal overreach they dried up on years ago. Gun control and immigration are slightly more divisive issues among libertarian-leaning left and right, but in suggesting trust in Federal authority to find the right solution she unites both in opposing her.

While libertarians are still clearly a minority, we are a colossal political juggernaut. Pew Research has consistently identified us as the most organized and politically educated/active affiliation in the country. We vote religiously, and we have 0 allegiance to either major party or even to our own. We will unapologetically research the necessary political steps to sink a politician we don't like, such as registering with their party for the Primary; and we are impossible to convince of anything using partisan propaganda or middle school tactics like support pledges. If you think I'm bluffing or exaggerating, I suggest a quick phone call to Eric Cantor's office. It's true that libertarians dislike Hillary to begin with, but her answers provoke an active hostility that was not always present. This will bite her in the ass remarkably in the 2016 Primaries, especially considering the first 2 States are libertarian bastions. All those Ron Paul voters that gave him 20%+ in Iowa and Vermont WILL switch parties JUST to destroy Hillary, and they'll BRAG about it.

3. She is an elitist sociopath, and her base is an absolute joke.

The primary reason I dislike Hillary is that she is extremely dishonest, even for a politician. It's rare for politicians to tell the whole truth about their motives, but Hillary's lies and political excuses are so disgustingly obviously that I can hardly hear her speak without cringing. Take the all-but-forgotten controversy over the 2008 Democratic Primaries in Florida and Texas - States that had been stripped of their delegates to the convention by the DNC for holding the contests too early. Hillary won the Primary in both large States, knowing full well it would be strictly for PR purposes, and moved on. Then, when it became clear Obama would clinch the nomination unless the weight of those States tipped the balance in the convention, she began a sleazy PR campaign claiming her "concern" for the "disenfranchised voters" in FL and TX. Americans weren't stupid enough to take this seriously, so she dropped it. As Secretary of State, she used similarly intelligence-insulting excuses for her support of murderous dictators Zine and Mubarak to their last days in office, her highly politicized dodging of responsibility for the blunders exposed by Wikileaks, and then of course for her flat out lies and denial of accountability surrounding Benghazi. Then as pseudo-candidate there was her recent claim of poverty, and just the concept of masquerading a campaign as a book tour.

Hillary demonstrates a pervasive pattern of narcissistic contempt for the average citizen, perpetually underestimating their intelligence and refusing to acknowledge her mistakes. Her answers in this interview follow this pattern very closely. This approach is reflected in her base. In my personal experience, Hillary supporters tend to be older, highly disorganized lifetime Democrats that are clueless about politics. This demographic is notoriously fickle in electoral turnout, and isn't much use as campaign workers. They're also relatively easy to sway and lead away from a candidate, or simply to discourage from turning out for her. I unapologetically remind you that the 2016 campaign has NOT started, and Hillary's apparent popularity depends heavily on a lack of alternative candidates. The first Democrat with a decent field and PR team will break her base instantly with a few well-placed attack ads, then woo her voters away with ease.

To wrap up, Hillary is running a 1990s campaign in 2016: dumping unprecedented amounts of money and starting unprecedentedly early, waffling and riding the fence to appeal to moderate voters, advocating trust in central government and executive authority, and lying persistently and unequivocally counting on her image as an elder stateswoman to make this acceptable. These were the strategies used by Bill Clinton and both Bushes and they worked splendidly, but Hillary is in denial about the fact that was a generation ago and the political field has changed. Primaries are more relevant than ever with increased competition and cheap information making spending and starting early less of factor. Advocating Statism and centrism breed widespread disgust from fringe elements that are crucial in Primaries and known for unapologetic, oppositional mischief. Being a seasoned politician is seen increasingly in a negative light, and coupled with a pattern of dishonesty and lack of accountability it brings hostility and contempt. So, barring a fundamental 180 on her strategy or something else very unforeseen, I predict Hillary Clinton's campaign will collapse catastrophically no later than Florida.

To go with my theory that Hillary's proponents are clueless sheep useless in political strategy; I've yet to see a reasonable counter-argument to this prediction. The choir is large and loud; but all of them seem to believe that Hillary's election is a given and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't like her, dismissing political analysis because it is hopelessly over their heads. If YOU have a reasonable, founded argument for why Hillary stands a chance in 2016, I would love to see it. I don't recommend coming at me with ad hominem and hyperbole about how I'm "afraid of a strong, liberal woman being in office", however. I have no patience for folk wisdom trying to discredit empiricism, and am liable to shatter your ego in response.