Privacy, schmivacy!

Diogenes is a very private person. He doesn't advertise his whereabouts, what he's been up to besides writing this blog, and he certainly would never think of publicizing the nature of his meals. So imagine his outrage at seeing this headline from yesterday's online Washington Post: "The House just voted to wipe away the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections." You really should read this. Here's the link: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28/the-house-just-voted-to-wipe-out-the-fccs-landmark-internet-privacy-protections/?utm_term=.283df2f8db45&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-econ%252Bpolitics%252Bnation&wpmk=1

Yeah, it's insanely long, so cut and paste. The story includes a short video on ways to protect you and your devices.

And just in case you're sure you have some unalienable right to privacy, you don't. Dio doesn't often turn to Wikipedia for information, but here's the link to an excellent article on the legal status of privacy:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy

The House has voted, and the Great Pretender will no doubt rubber stamp it, a measure that will, according to the Post, [free]  "Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast of protections approved just last year that had sought to limit what companies could do with information such as customer browsing habits, app usage history, location data and Social Security numbers. The rules also had required providers to strengthen safeguards for customer data against hackers and thieves."

This means that your Internet service provider will be able to collect and sell, if they desire, your browsing habits and whatever other personal information may be embedded, which could include your Social Security number, bank card number and other sensitive information..

Diogenes says again: "Contact your senators and representatives to let them know you find actions such as these unacceptable, and insist that they take some action to rein in this irresponsible president and his minions." Do it now, do it tomorrow and the next day, flood mailboxes and email in their offices until they hear you. Do it if you value your privacy. Do it!

--Richard Brown

Business as Usual?

We've all probably heard someone say that government should be run more like a business. Be careful what you wish for, because we could be right on the cusp.

When Diogenes heard that the Great Pretender had appointed his billionaire son-in-law Jared Kushner to head his new White House Office of American Innovation, his only comment was, "What took him so long?" The OAI, as it will no doubt be called, will be generally charged with fixing "government stagnation," and will be staffed mostly with fat-cat corporate types.

Anyone who was pleased with the Supreme Court's risible Citizens United decision will be turning cartwheels of joy over this breach in the dike of federal regulation. It remains to be seen how this new office, which may be given virtually unlimited power over the structure of government, will function, but you can be sure a lot of agencies will get pink-slipped and that the DC unemployment lines will grow longer.

The federal government has always viewed American big business with an uneasy eye. True, Calvin Coolidge famously said, "The business of America is business," but he tempered that by pointing out that he was referring to the general industriousness of the American people.

Other presidents have been less charitable, from Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country," to Dwight Eisenhower, who warned, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Because of these concerns the federal government has developed agencies whose business is to regulate business. Not because government automatically distrusts all business, but because, as Barack Obama pointed out, "In the absence of sound oversight, responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or threaten to bring down the entire financial system."

And Don John and his pal Jared are about to let the foxes run the henhouse.

--Richard Brown

Where's the rottenness?

Yesterday Diogenes was contemplating the nature of government, and wondering exactly what one might do to overthrow one. Governments, we learned, exist in the realms of ideas, organizations and actors. So where does one start?

Let's consider the top level, the idea on which a government is founded. How does one overthrow an idea? The short answer is, it can't be done. Of the major revolutions in history, only one put a slight dent in the former philosophy: The French Revolution proved the Divine Right of Kings to be so much hooey, although it took a while to die a long-overdue death in the rest of Europe.

Philosophies of governing, once put into practice, have a way of hanging around as ideas, legends and folk tales, and can re-emerge at any time, if conditions are right for a change. But whether a change is made from a monarchy to a republic, from a republic to an autocracy, or from autocracy to democracy, the underlying ideas never fade away. They may be temporarily silenced, but they are essentially eternal as long as there are minds to consider them.*

So might it be easier to dump the organization of government? Well, maybe, but again, where to start? The American Revolution did overthrow the mechanism of the British colonial government, replacing it with the mechanism spelled out in the Constitution, but when you get right down to it, all government systems that aren't pure autocracies look pretty much the same: A head of state at the top, who delegates authority to a group of secretaries or ministers, and in most contemporary governments does so in concert with a parliamentary body, most of whom are elected by the governed populace.

Trying to dislodge a government at its ideational or bureaucratic level seems fruitless, then. And why strike at those levels anyway? Even if a philosophy of government seems inherently evil, the idea itself is immutable; it's the physical manifestation of it that must change, and that is not to say the bureaucratic structure occupied by the minions of the head of state, but the very head itself. Only by decapitating the beast of bad government, or in modern parlance administration, can real change be effected.

In "Hamlet," Shakespeare has Marcellus say "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." The use of the phrase "the state of Denmark," rather than just naming the country, indicates that the rottenness lies in the state, that is in the head of state, Claudius the king. And in 1859 Abraham Lincoln pointed out that while the American people have the right to overturn the government, they should aim "not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —"

Diogenes confesses that he knew all along this would be the answer, but, not wanting to leap to a conclusion, he felt the intellectual exercise was necessary to clarify and direct his thoughts on the matter--and he is now certain where the rottenness, the heart of darkness lies: at the head of the federal administration, in the person the Huffington Post called the "Most Corrupt POTUS. Ever."

"Now we are certain of the core of the problem," said Diogenes. "Now we know where to strike."

--Richard Brown

*For an entertaining read about the permanence of ideas, check out "The Stars, Like Dust," by Isaac Asimov.

Government is . . . what?

I wouldn't want to say he's obsessed by the notion of government overthrow, but Diogenes has definitely been thinking about it a lot lately. All theoretical, he claims, and with no action contemplated, but still . . .

No--there's no way the old fellow would dive into such a daunting--not to say dangerous--project. What has been puzzling Diogenes regarding the overthrow of government is the question of just what government is. But you know that, don't you? So did we, until we really started thinking about it.

Diving into our store of dictionaries, we quickly discovered that the word "government" has a lot of interpretations. The definitions were pretty similar across several publications, and we settled on the Merriam-Webster version because it's the clearest.

Generally speaking, a government can be a theory of control or authority, a construct created for the purpose of implementing such a theory, or a group of people who exercise the control.

From Webster, we have "The organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions;" and, "The complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out;" and, "The body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: such as the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency."

Now if the "what" of government is complex, the "why" of tossing one over isn't. Why do we seek to rid ourselves of anything? Because we don't like it.

Historically, government overthrow or major reform has usually been a matter of seeking more liberty or justice: The Magna Carta, the American and French revolutions. Russia's Bolshevik Revolution was headed in the same general direction, but was overtaken by despots. And there are examples of an overthrow going the opposite way: The Nazi takeover of Germany, for example, which replaced a constitutional republican form of government with a tyrannic autocracy.

So if one seeks to overthrow a government, preferably in the laudable direction of increased rights, justice and freedom, what level would one aim to bring down--the conceptual, the bureaucratic or the manifest? That's the question for next time.

 

 

Yawp!

Diogenes understands Walt Whitman and his need to send his "barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world."

Voices that believe in a cause can't be silenced, even by their owners. When there is rottenness in the world it must be called out. There is nothing more rotten in the world at this time than the Trump presidency, and Diogenes' voice has to speak. And if no one hears or listens? The words are out there, forever zipping through cyberspace, and perhaps they'll have an effect. If not, at least they've been spoken. Dio realizes this is odd reasoning, but is also aware that if he doesn't utter those words he will lose his self-respect. Someone will hear. Someone always does.

Diogenes has been contemplating government. Writers through the ages have considered the question of how government, i.e. those with power, should best treat the governed, i.e. those without power.

History indicates that those governments that do not treat their citizens fairly and humanely frequently come under attack. The length of time a government may be in power is not a measure of its stability. Ruthless governments unafraid of using their strength can last a long time--witness Rome. But ultimately they fall, either due to attack from outside forces or internal rebellion or from their own rotten core.

Diogenes cannot believe the American people will allow the Trump administration to continue even one term. Why? Consider this note jotted down by Abraham Lincoln in preparation for some speeches he was making in 1859: "The people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it."  

And this, from Lincoln's first inauguration address, March 4, 1861: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Food for thought.

--Richard Brown 

Hiatus

Diogenes has determined that this blog is not generating enough interest to warrant his continued work, so he will continue the struggle in another way.

Feel free to browse the archive to see what these posts are about, and if you would like to see this blog return, please leave a comment.

Keep up the fight.

Maskirovka

During our power surge-enforced absence, Diogenes pondered the nature of today's news, particularly that dealing with the Great Pretender, and general events in Washington, particularly having to do with Congress.

Americans tend to ascribe more authority to the president than he actually has. The systems of checks and balances that keeps any branch of government from becoming too powerful works well. The president can offer bills for consideration by Congress, can nominate people for federal office including the Supreme Court, and can declare war. But all these actions must be approved by Congress. In the final analysis, there are only two unilateral actions a president may take: Issue executive orders (which are nonetheless subject to judicial review), and launch a nuclear strike. The latter theoretically requires consultation with military authorities, but none of them have veto power.

But the president can and does attract attention, and Donald Trump is far and away the most attention-grabbing chief executive this nation has seen for a very long time. His antics draw ire or applause; his parade of beautiful family members attracts the fashion and social press while he keeps the newsies busy with his endless tweets, gaffes, missteps and outrageous statements.

But what of Congress--the news from there has not been silent, but with the president hogging all the spotlights, the boys and girls of Congress have been free to pursue their nefarious agenda. Congress is the real power in this administration, because the Republican majority finally has a president who will rubber-stamp the laws they want to make.

Diogenes suspects a maskirovka.

And what is that? you may well ask. "Maskirovka" means "disguise," and it was and is still at the heart of Soviet and Russian military policy. Like a magician's tricks, a maskirovka depends on confusion and misdirection. Camouflage, false intelligence, denial, disinformation, media manipulation and many other tools are used to completely surprise and overwhelm an opponent before that opponent has any idea what's going on.

So Diogenes suspects that the Trump family circus has been thrown at the media to shift attention away from Congress, which, if true, suggests that there are operatives in the Trump administration who are a lot smarter than we've been giving them credit for; or that Trump himself has learned more from Vlad Putin than anyone thought.

--Richard Brown

P.S.: For an informative and even entertaining look at how a maskirovka might work in the real world, check out Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising." It's dated, but still good.

What makes a tyrant?

One definition of "tyrant" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "One resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power."

Anyone who has had the misfortune to watch any of the execrable "Apprentice" television programs knows that Donald Trump uses his authority as a weapon. With his scowling game face and his use of scathing language he discards people like so much rubbish.

Tyrants like Trump flourish in the corporate world, where they can surround themselves with toadies and hold court in their own little autocracy, never hearing any opinion contrary to their own. Typically, such bullies have thin skins, no tolerance of disagreement, and nasty, often uncontrollable tempers.

The Great Pretender exhibits many of these behaviors. By definition the president cannot be an autocrat, but Trump does his best. To name a few instances, in no particular order:

--He issues arbitrary and sometimes self-contradictory orders, apparently on whims. Recently tours of the White House were resumed, but only for Americans. Visitors from other countries have to apply through their embassy. Didn't work for Great Britain, though. The State Department informed that embassy that rules regarding tours were "on hold."

--He fails to grasp the need for security. During a Feb. 11 dinner with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in a public restaurant Trump made phone calls and discussed classified information regarding a North Korean missile test as if it were dinner conversation.

--He does not respect the constitutional guarantee of a free press. Trump and his top aides regularly deny access to journalists they perceive as "enemies."

--He has no control over his anger. In "The dangerous rage of Donald Trump," The Washington Post reported on March 6 that "when Trump gets angry, he looks for a way to strike back. And he is willing to stretch — or break with — the truth to give himself a measure of satisfaction in that regard. . . .The trouble for Trump — and all of the rest of us — is that Trump is now president. And there are real-world consequences to both how angry he gets and how he chooses to blow off that steam. An angry call with the Australian prime minister, for example, has real-world implications. So does an open and aggressive attempt to disqualify the free and independent press. Or the accusation that your predecessor used the powers of the federal government to specifically target you.

Feel free to comment regarding your ideas of Trumpian tyranny.

--Richard Brown

Why the Press?

The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedoms that should be enjoyed by all people: The freedom to speak one's opinion; to worship openly according to one's beliefs; to assemble peaceably; and to have unhampered access to information.

Some people today, particularly those born into this age of instantaneous and ubiquitous information, may not be entirely sure what is meant by "Freedom of the [printing] press." Before 1920, when radio began its rapid expansion, the printed word was the only source of information widely available. Tyrants, that is almost every reigning monarch at least through the 18th century, were well aware of the need to control information lest their subjects begin to suspect the Crown was neither all good nor all powerful. Thus the ownership of printing presses in countries across Europe was tightly controlled, and illegal possession of a press could be punishable by severe penalties including death.

Persecution of the press came to this side of the Atlantic with British rule. Virginia Royal Governor William Berkeley said this in 1642: “I thank God, there are no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libels against the best government. God keep us from both!”

Even after the First Amendment had been in force for many years, there were continued attempts to muzzle the press. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, expanded the protections of the First by forbidding any state to make a law abridging freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and gave us the concept that all Americans must receive equal justice under law.

Today we speak of the "media" rather than the "press," but the protections on the dissemination of information still obtain. We are well aware of press suppression elsewhere: In Nazi Germany; in Russia, during and after the Soviet period; in China; and in other places.

But here? Well--in 1972 President Richard Nixon made it clear to his national security advisers that "The press is the enemy." And from the current president, whose attention span is limited to 140 letters: "I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth."

But reason can be found in some odd places. Here's Sen. John McCain, last month: "But the fact is we need you, we need a free press, we must have it. It's vital if you want to preserve — I'm very serious now — if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it I'm afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time."

--Richard Brown

"Democracy dies in darkness"

Diogenes is still away from his desk today, Tuesday, March 7, but invites you to comment on the Washington Post's new online slogan, which is today's title.

We're considering a number of thoughts about tyrants, tyranny and the best actions to take in a free society. Your thoughts in that regard would be welcome as well.