What would you think if this were happening to you?

What would you think if you were suddenly (and then quite consistently thereafter), audited/inspected/detected/summoned/ and otherwise ‘visited’  by the FBI, IRS, ATF, OSHA, your state’s  ‘commission on environmental quality.’

What would you think if it was also the case that prominent house Democrats suddenly were talking about you (one pointing you out for scrutiny to the DOJ, the other personally writing accusing you of voter suppression and airing that accusation on two cable news networks predisposed to suspect those of your political persuasion)?

What if the result of all this were several significant outlays for petty fines and overlooked permits, & etc., not to mention costs for legal counsel.  What would you think if you were assured that you were not under criminal investigation despite all this?

If this were to happen ALL AT ONCE, and right after you began to form a politically active right leaning group, you might think there was a concerted conspiracy against you. You might think that.

 This story of the two folks who founded the group “True the Vote” will give you a good feel for what it is like to be at the center of such unwanted attention, that’s for sure.

Getting back to the conspiracy hypothesis- if you were these folks and asked to put your thoughts into words, well, you might say something like this:

“If these efforts are intentional, politically motivated, and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.”

(See the story for the source of that quote)

You would probably have similar thoughts about denying free-speech rights, or rights of association and assembly.

If that sort of thing is the aim, these actions do seem to be having the intended effect:

Catherine says she knows of at least one other group that received government inquiries about its relationship with True the Vote, and she suspects more did, too. And other Tea Party groups decided not to form nonprofits at all after learning about her experience, she says. “They were scared,” she explains, “and you shouldn’t be scared of your government.
Meanwhile, Catherine says the harassment has forced her to seriously reconsider whether her political activity is worth the government harassment she’s faced.”

Exactly. You are being ‘nudged,’ to borrow a euphemism.

I keep asking myself:  “What if this sort of thing had been going with small liberal leaning groups during the administration of the nefarious Bush the Junior?”

So, is it a conspiracy, or perhaps the result of a bad command climate in the political left, (the rot coming from the top)?

One does not have to stretch to make this observation: The sort of institutional hubris here evidenced can be explained by the success of a partisan narrative that has been advanced over the last several years, a narrative, according to which, all or most conservative leaning politically active groups are basically morally evil and either secretly funded by the nefarious Burdettes…er Koch brothers…

or (inclusive sense here) some other righty ne’er do well,

or (inclusive sense again, just to be sure you have the idea) independently wealthy, enough so as to be able to wield some power when it comes to public opinion, or electoral politics.

In any case, any one of these disjuncts being true (as the narrative would have it), such groups must be stopped, because they are against everything good and decent and have the power to do great evil.  That’s the narrative.  It's no wonder that things like this are coming out.

Eeevil!

Hey, if you are fighting evil, extraordinary measures can be taken, because you are on the right..er.. good side, even if no criminal investigation is really going on.

Right?

A few eggs…omelets… don’t cha know.

The Big Wipe Out

How to Create a shortage in 3 easy steps.

1. Impose a price control, that reduces cost of item significantly below going market rate.

2. Publicize

3. Watch demand increase (people jumping to buy the bargain rate item)

4. Watch store shelves empty.

5. Watch retailers choose not to replenish supply (insufficient (or no) profit to motivate)

6. Watch lines form anyway.

Or in short form from Uncle Milty:

 "We economists don't know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage.”

Case in point: Venezuela and the Big Wipe Out. (with apologies to Jack Webb)

From the story:

"State-controlled prices — prices that are set below market-clearing price — always result in shortages. The shortage problem will only get worse, as it did over the years in the Soviet Union," said Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University."

Very sad state of affairs. As Hugo’s hand-wiped..er…picked successor scrambles to replenish the supply, may we suggest this supplier:

The Good people at Cuban Food Market

Only $8.95 USD a roll. Get 'em while supplies last!

Furlough coming soon

To a DOD installation near you (if they haven't already). Most of the civilian force will be affected.

 Click HERE for the song

SecDef Hagel announced this, Tuesday. 11 days starting July 8.  My reaction. Hurts the pocket book (duh), and the "no choice" language in the announcement overstates  things in one particularly exasperating way...

Declaring he had no choice, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Tuesday the Pentagon will furlough most of its 800,000 civilian employees for 11 days this summer beginning on July 8 to help pay for budget cuts under sequestration

...considering that Navy Secretary Ray Mabus actually did what any competent secretary would do and planned ahead and found ways to save the same amount of money without having to furlough. He did this weeks ahead of deadline:

Hagel, who detailed the furloughs in a lengthy memo to his top Pentagon managers, said there about 120,000 civilian workers would be exempt, mostly in jobs vital to national security or emergency personnel, but said he wanted to be fair and spread the pain across the department. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, for one, said he had found savings within his department and would be able to avoid furloughing his civilian employees. But Hagel shot down that notion in recent weeks, saying the cuts would be implemented across the services in a “one-team, one-fight” approach.

Message to Navy: That's what you get for adapting and finding ways to meet savings targets for your branch. We will go with an indiscriminate sledgehammer approach, thank you very much.

What is the ultimate point of the exercise, to save the money or to save the money with pain? Is the point 'spreading the pain around' to borrow a phrase? Why is it not to save the money with as little pain as possible?

Message to civilian employees:  You are pawns in a political game. Your pain is required in the playing of that game.

Wonderful.  And, thanks.

The Formosa Oolong Posse, the IRS and chilling of political activity

 

Not that I know much (or want to) about the legal/definitional arcana of ‘501(c)4 social welfare groups,’ but the scandal involving the IRS’s extra scrutiny aimed at groups that used words/phrases like ‘tea party,’ ‘constitution,’ ‘limiting expanding government,’ ‘Bill of Rights’ and who also engaged in political activities, seems to me serious, and its causes were essentially two:

1. There was a political desire to suppress activity on the right, while keeping the status quo concerning similar groups on the left. This is evidenced by two things. (a) The scrutiny began during 2010, with important midterms in the offing. It continued through the 2012 elections. (b) A similar level of attention was not aimed at politically active groups on the left, whose titles or literature contains buzzwords from that end of the spectrum. I won’t try to exhaustively list them, but words/phrases like ‘social justice’ ‘corporatism’ ‘one percent’ ‘occupy,’ are obvious examples.

2. As is pointed out in this blog post from the WaPo, the criteria for deciding whether a 501(c)4 group is indeed ‘too much’ of a political group to warrant tax exempt status are inexact ( I would say necessarily inexact).  That inexactitude puts a fairly hefty interpretive onus on people whose job it is to investigate such groups. This does two things: it provides cover for politically motivated witch hunts/intimidation tactics; it provides a secure basis of employment for the savants that interpret said regulations; lawyers.

In order to prevent future episodes such as this, it seems the possibilities involve some combination of the options contained under these two separate heads:

Keep

1. Keep the category, allowing no tax exempt status for any SW organization that involves itself in political activity of any sort. (Basically the 501(c)2 approach, but allowing no wiggle room. Similar to how churches are treated.)

2. Keep the category; allow no exemptions for SW organizations that directly support individual candidates or political parties.

3. Keep the category; allow no exemptions for SW organization that directly support PACs or SuperPACs.

4. Keep the category; allow all political activities for SWs and retain exemptions. (Treat ‘em like 501(c)3s (unions for example).

Ditch

5. Do away with the category; tax all politically active SW organizations.

6. Do (5) along with abolishing the other two categories.  Tax ‘em all.

7. Maintain tax exemptions for groups that are presently covered under these regs (churches, unions and ‘SW’ groups), and have no restrictions based upon political activity. Effectively reduce the category to one, allowing tax exempt status for organizations that are politically active.

To also include

8. In every case, require full transparency from all politically active organizations and/or the IRS.

Taxation can be wielded in such a way as to discourage or make political speech excessively difficult to undertake. The present situation is a case in point. The suspect right of center groups had to lawyer up. This takes money and time. Left of center groups like those listed in the op-ed (Organizing for America, Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA and Heritage Action Fund), or the Open Society Institute, did not have to do this. That government action created an unfair burden. If political speech is to be made onerous, then that needs to be evenly distributed across the political spectrum. End special privilege for unions, (who are obviously left of center). Treat them as you would the suspect right of center SW organizations, or suspect churches. If your actions in effect, suppress political speech by making it onerous for one or some, fairness dictates that you need to make it equally onerous for all.

On the other hand, tax exemptions tend to encourage the behaviors that are not taxed. Should we not encourage political activity? Allowing churches and unions, political organizations and social welfare organizations the privilege of tax exemption for political activity would encourage these groups to do so. It would also encourage the formation of more such groups, while also encouraging extant groups to get politically active.

Is there anything wrong with groups looking out after their interests through politics? Does it not already occur? Should we not expect it? Should we not encourage it?  It will still be the case that employees of said groups are taxed on their incomes. So, the loss of revenue would probably not be significant. And, if groups hire folks to do the politicking for them, that just means more income tax revenue than would have otherwise been the case.

The large and powerful special interests and political parties maintain their unfair advantages partially through reliance on the inhibitory effects of the byzantine regulations surrounding political speech. They can afford the permanent legal representation that allows them to steer themselves away from the shoals of taxation and litigation, while they can also rely on those lawyers and those same regulations to discourage possible smaller or fledgling competitors from entering the fray.

If we were to dispense with the regulations, that advantage would vanish.  Coupled with complete transparency, and stringent reporting requirements for all, this might have the effect of lessening corruption in politics. It would eliminate one byzantine suburb of activity for the legal class, that would be a pity.

Then again, we could simply keep the status quo and have the “Tea Party” rename itself. How about “Formosa Oolong Posse” would that pass the IRS filter?

 

"Space Oddity": ISS's Col. Chris Hadfield is all over this song like ugly on an ape

This revision simply laps the original, and that's saying something.

More from the good Colonel, on music and morale on board ISS

Mother's Day with Phil and Alice!

From Buck

Best-geek-spot-ever Award goes to Audi of America. Battle of the Spocks

He sings the Hobbit song.

Brilliant.

Madness: Singing songs about rain in the rain.

And other songs as well... One of Madness's best recent live efforts. An hour or so at the BBC 'Tellie' Center closing.



Enjoy

One Night Stand, AFRS 1946 - Cab Calloway and his band.

One Night Stand was a program of live music ("remotes") that was produced & broadcast by the U.S. government via the Armed Forces Radio Service (AFRS) radio network.

It featured the popular bands of the day and some lesser-known groups.

This episode features Cab Calloway live from Club Zanzibar, New York, 1946-07-23 #1108 Cab Calloway @ Club Zanzibar singing "Hey Now" and others!

Phil Harris and Alice Faye Show, 1953-05-03 Elliott's Trip To The Orient

From Buck, and the 1953 Season

Phil Harris and Alice Faye 1948-04-25 Kids See Daddy At Work

From Buck, a rarity, from the Fitch days. Last of Phil and Alice from Buck until the Fall.

Big Beat Show 4/25/13

Listen or download right cheer. Available untill 5-15-13

The U.S. endangers world health by using vaccination workers to find UBL?

In an unattributed op-ed, Scientific American makes the case that it was immoral for the CIA to make use of a vaccination campaign to gain intelligence on the whereabouts of UBL.

Some key snippets and then reactions:

The operation that led to his death may yet kill hundreds of thousands more. In its zeal to identify bin Laden or his family, the CIA used a sham hepatitis B vaccination project to collect DNA in the neighborhood where he was hiding. The effort apparently failed, but the violation of trust threatens to set back global public health efforts by decades…

It is hard enough to distribute, for example, polio vaccines to children in desperately poor, politically unstable regions that are rife with 10-year-old rumors that the medicine is a Western plot to sterilize girls—false assertions that have long since been repudiated by the Nigerian religious leaders who first promoted them. Now along  come numerous credible reports of a vaccination campaign that is part of a CIA plot—one the U.S. has not denied.

The deadly consequences have already begun. Villagers along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border chased off legitimate vaccine workers, accusing them of being spies. Taliban commanders banned polio vaccinations in parts of Pakistan, specifically citing the bin Laden ruse as justification. Then, last December, nine vaccine workers were murdered in Pakistan, eventually prompting the United Nations to withdraw its vaccination teams. Two months later gunmen killed 10 polio workers in Nigeria—a sign that the violence against vaccinators may be spreading.

Dire predictions of what COULD occur as unintended consequence:

The distrust sowed by the sham campaign in Pakistan could conceivably postpone polio eradication for 20 years, leading to 100,000 more cases that might otherwise not have occurred, says Leslie F. Roberts of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. “Forevermore, people would say this disease, this crippled child is because the U.S. was so crazy to get Osama bin Laden,” he argues.

 

OK. Seems a bit overheated, not to mention overconfident in regard to predicting the distant future.

“20 year postponement of eradication” 

“forevermore”

 

 

That sounds like a case of the vapors.

If the deeply conspiratorial mindset in AfPak and other areas predates the use of this program by ten years (or more, I would argue), then it seems likely that the overall numbers of victims of polio or other diseases attributable to the aftermath of the Abbottabad charade alone may be being exaggerated by Roberts, just a smidgen.  His extrapolation 20 years into the future (let alone into the realm of the ‘forevermore’) seems no more plausible than this one:

Continued work by legitimate vaccination campaigns will, on the whole be successful and memories will fade, such that, the level of deaths attributable to anti-Western conspiracy mongering will be no more than they would have been sans Abbottabad. Eradication will occur more or less on schedule

I see nothing in the piece that convinces me that there will be a significant long-term uptick in distrust over and above what would have existed if that operation had not been revealed, nor any numbers showing worldwide increase in cases of such diseases since last May.  But, that brings us to another point:

The program itself is not to blame for the unintended consequences he does mention; the revelation of the program is to blame. Whoever it is that revealed the program is obviously more directly responsible for those deaths than poor Dr. Shakil Afridi  languishing in a Pak jail, or his CIA partners. If their cooperation had remained a secret, then the alleged rise in deaths attributable to the publicity obviously would not have occurred.

Lastly, the article does make an interesting argument using the Hippocratic Oath: Is it the business of medical professionals to take part in what are essentially military our counter-terror operations? A medical professional’s first and sworn duty is to the welfare of those he/she treats. The article makes plain that the people around the Hey Abbottabad compound did not receive the full complement of vaccinations once the intel had been gathered.

Physicians take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. Humanitarian workers adhere to an international code of conduct that requires that their services be provided independently of national agendas, on the basis of need alone. The misguided vaccine program in Pakistan was started in a poor neighborhood of Abbottabad, no doubt to give it an air of legitimacy. Yet after the first in a standard series of three hepatitis B shots was given, the effort was abandoned so that the team could move to bin Laden's wealthier community. This lapse in protocol proves that the best interests of the recipients were not the guiding principle of the effort—while not coincidently betraying the program for the sham it was.

A couple of things can be said in response. Firstly, medical personnel take part in both of these sorts of activities all the time. Medical personnel are employed at Gitmo, on the front during wartime and in other such settings.  It is possible to serve both interests while meeting ones primary obligation. There is nothing logically impossible about that. Obligations MAY come into conflict, but they need not. Additionally, humanitarian personnel have aided military activities in Iraq, arguably sincerely believing it was in service to the indigenous populations they promise to serve, that is, for their protection. Once again; there is nothing necessarily incompatible in that sort of case.

Now, having said that, I believe there is a good point to be made, that the full program of vaccinations should have been carried out. That is well taken. The locals deserved it, and there was no risk to the vaccination providers.

Second point related to first: If ‘agendas’ (national or no) are anathema to the values inherent in the Hippocratic Oath, or to the principles of a humanitarian organization, and anathema to such a degree that by taking part in intelligence, military, police or other operations a doctor or humanitarian could significantly further the welfare of those he normally serves, would he not have an obligation to do so, precisely because it helps him in his primary professional obligation?  The ‘agenda’ of Bin Laden may not have been national, but it was political. Additionally, it was antithetical to the values of these professional entities, and, more directly, because of his presence, and because of the deeply conspiratorial mindset he perpetuates, Afghans and Paks are not living lives they could. UBL certainly did not adhere to the ‘do no harm’ stricture, and his actions brought down the wrath of the U.S. not only militarily, but economically, in ways that impacted AfPak. Does this not make a case that Dr. Afridi was morally correct or at least morally OK in doing what he did?  By extension, does it not also make a case for the moral permissibility of the CIA’s operation as a humanitarian operation, even as it also served the dual purpose of US National interest?

Things to consider as you read the hand-wringing op-ed.

 

 

U.N. Springs into action on autonomous (and not quite autonomous) weapons:

Demands..er recommends moratorium, while it forms commission and international law confab.

The Special Rapporteur on pretentious titles..er.. vainly trying to catch up with 30 year old technology..er.. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, has authored a cautionary document that recommends nations halt the use and/or development of autonomous weapons systems until the UN forms a commission to talk about it for a year. More here:

 

Some of the weapons systems mentioned in the report are in section 45:

While much of their development is shrouded in secrecy, robots with full lethal autonomy have not yet been deployed. However, robotic systems with various degrees of autonomy and lethality are currently in use, including the following:

The US Phalanx system for Aegis-class cruisers automatically detects, tracks and engages anti-air warfare threats such as anti-ship missiles and aircraft.

The US Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) system can automatically destroy incoming artillery, rockets and mortar rounds.

Israel’s Harpy is a “Fire -and-Forget” autonomous weapon system designed to detect, attack and destroy radar emitters.

The United Kingdom Taranis jet-propelled combat drone prototype can autonomously search, identify and locate enemies but can only engage with a target when authorized by mission command. It can also defend itself against enemy aircraft.

The Northrop Grumman X-47B is a fighter-size drone prototype commissioned by the US Navy to demonstrate autonomous launch and landing capability on aircraft carriers and navigate autonomously.

The Samsung Techwin surveillance and security guard robots, deployed in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, detect targets through infrared sensors. They are currently operated by humans but have an “automatic mode”.

So is the Special Rapporteur suggesting the U.S. Israel, the UK and ROK stop using these things and other systems like them until the commission gets a chance to talk about them and put together a team of international lawyers that can craft some robust body of code that will govern their use?  Seriously? Part of the message to U.S is this: Open your Navy to attack; make it more vulnerable by complying. Turn that damn Phalanx system off till we get all this squared away.

Well. Okeydokey then. We’ll get right on that.

Good luck with that project Special Rapporteur. When, in the history of technology (military and non) have human beings sat back and waited for the legal regulatory apparatus of governments to catch up with and exhaustively take account of all possible moral and legal ramifications of the introduction of new technology?  Never.  It is always a ‘make it up as you go’ process of adaptation for extant governments and bodies of law.  Why? For the very simple reason that innovation is a constant, and being constant, at any one time you care to pick (at least in the modern world) it outstrips the moral and legal systems in place. They never quite catch up. By the time that they do ‘catch up’ further innovations are rendering them obsolete to some degree.

Unless we wish to outlaw such innovation, there is no real way to remedy this permanent gap.  Additionally, no technologically advanced nation, if it has the ability to make use of a technology that will not only assure its security, but allow it unprecedented ability to successfully adhere to the strictures of just war doctrine that demand discrimination and proportionality, will in good conscience pass on that opportunity. Additionally, use of such technology often obviates the need to resort to war as classically understood. That last resort gets resorted to less frequently, not more.  The Star Wars Droid Army scenarios are simply not panning out as to how the technology is actually used. Dystopian sci-fi stories are not arguments, especially when they are not borne out by historical trends.

Some of the worries that you see in the document, worries as to the potential for making use of force too easy or a something-other-than-last- resort are as old as military innovation. Nothing new in that argumentation. As I recall, ancient Greek infantry types tended to dislike or lack respect for missile troops (archers and slingers) because it was too easy for them to kill from a distance. Similar things were said when firearms were introduced, and upon each improvement of the design. 

And as to use of lethal force. First, warfare itself: Warfare is often resorted to earlier than is morally allowed, and it does not seem that technological innovation is uniquely to blame for that. Besides, the very same technology that is supposed to provide such temptation can also be used to deter such temptation. The surveillance possibilities introduced by some of this technology make it that much more difficult for states and non-state actors to undertake acts of aggression either internally or externally, without detection, and with plausible deniability.

Secondly, force is often resorted to in contexts that are well short of war, and actually such uses make it unnecessary to resort to war. Targeted assassinations and sabotage are obvious cases in point.  There is no reason to think that technology will not (and should not) be used for such purposes (Stuxnet anyone?).

Such reports as this one generated by the U.N. do tend to focus on the potential hazards of new developments in technology with considerably less emphasis put on the potential benefits. That does not lead to a fair appraisal.

In any case, it is entirely unrealistic to expect nations such as those fingered in the report to simply give up (even temporarily) the advantages that this technology provides them, especially when they are faced with a very dangerous world, full of actors that have considerably less moral compunction about acting badly. There is an obligation, for instance, on the part of the U.S. to protect its sailors, that it would inexcusably neglect if it were to entertain the moratorium.

In the end, this report's primary contribution will no doubt be as intellectual/conceptual  fodder for academics and lawyers. 

And, there is nothing wrong with that. It always pays to discuss the moral/legal ramifications of technological innovations. It needs doing in our schools and in government. However, as a serious policy proposal, it would be a vain attempt at halting the natural momentum of technological discovery and application, while also allowing those who would not heed its call to catch up.

 

Message to Saudis: Three cheers for simplistic naiveté

Perhaps whistling past the graveyard, the Saudi Oil minister had this to say about the prospects of  U.S. oil independence from our friends the Saudis:

"Newly commercial reserves of shale or tight oil are transforming the energy industry in America -- and that's great news," he told an audience of policy makers and academics at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.

"It is helping to sustain the U.S. economy and create jobs at a difficult time."

"I welcome these new supplies into the global oil market," he added.

On the other hand, he said, it was not realistic to believe this would help the U.S. eliminate imports of oil, a goal of some Americans who argue energy independence is crucial for the country's security.

Despite the domestic production gains, U.S. imports of Middle East oil in the second half of 2012 were higher than any time since the 1990s, Naimi said.

The U.S. "will continue to meet domestic demand by utilizing a range of different sources, including from the Middle East. This is simply sound economics.

"I believe this talk of ending reliance is a naive, rather simplistic view."

 How realistic is the prospect according to those in the know?  Here's a CNBC story on that:

As detailed in the first two installments of Power Shift, an NBC News/CNBC special report, the United States is reaping the benefits of an energy boom created by new drilling technologies that have unlocked vast domestic oil and natural gas reserves. Coupled with decreasing demand due to energy efficiency and continued cultivation of alternative energy sources, an increasing number of experts believe the U.S. could achieve energy independence by the end of the decade—realizing a dream born during the gas crisis of 1973.

Why would the Oil Minister dismiss the chances of such an eventuality? Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out. From that same story:

"A dramatic expansion of U.S. production could … push global spare capacity to exceed 8 million barrels per day, at which point OPEC could lose price control and crude oil prices would drop, possibly sharply," the U.S. intelligence community's internal think tank, the National Intelligence Council, said in its "Global Trends 2030" report in December. "Such a drop would take a heavy toll on many energy producers who are increasingly dependent on relatively high energy prices to balance their budgets."

With some analysts predicting that oil prices could drop as low as $70 to $90 a barrel—down from the current price of nearly $110 per barrel of Brent crude oil—a "scramble" among OPEC members for market share could ensue, said Edward Morse, an energy analyst with Citigroup and co-author of a recent report on titled "Energy 2020: Independence Day."

It would be nice to be in the catbird seat.  Or as C.J. might put it: (skip the video to the 13:32 mark)

"One, two, three, four, make them sweat outside the door. Five, six, seven, eight, always pays to make them wait. Nine, ten, eleven, twelve, COME!"