Exporting Good

The idea is pretty much dead that we can export the economic and political systems of the United States to underdeveloped countries in order to ensure their development.

Free markets and free elections do not guarantee prosperity and freedom in and of themselves. Any country requires an extensive system of support for those institutions to prevent crooks from taking over the country. 

Perhaps we can actually export some good to other countries instead of waiting around until a terrorist group forces us to declare war. In addition, avoiding war can help ensure our National Security. 

Warning: It may take some creative thinking.

How about this: The United States government can require that American companies operating in underdeveloped countries pay high enough wages to local workers that they can afford a middle class existence. 

If companies convincingly demonstrate they cannot afford adequate wages due to competitive pressures, the United States may subsidize those wages.

Moreover, in addition we can ensure adequate medical care, decent housing and basic levels of education to those workers. Of course, we will ask workers to accept a code of conduct since they will be watched closely.

Even if the number of workers is small compared to the country's population, the United States may be seen as the purveyor of good instead of the purveyor of death.

Vendors and locals will flock to the area where the workers reside and will carry news of the good life throughout the country.

We must secure a guarantee from the local government that they will not steal the wages or benefits from the workers. If the government cannot supply that guarantee we can choose to enforce it with troops.

I want to live in a country that is respected for the good it does instead of feared for the death and misery it brings. 

Yes, I understand that we need to eliminate terror threats to the homeland with violence and death. But, that CANNOT be all that we do.

UPDATE 2: Non-Profits, National Security and Nation Building

 

General Mark A. Milley - Department of Defense was correct when he suggested that it is too early for an AAR, or After Action Report in Afghanistan. But, perhaps there are some useful forward looking ideas from our experience to date.

Threats to the National Security of the United States can originate in many countries. Threats may be from new diseases or from terrorist organizations. Terrorist organization members can be native to the subject country or imported from other areas. Increasingly, many terror group members do not identify as nationals of any recognized nation state. 

USA Policy toward Terrorist hosting countries.

To be clear: Hosts may or may not acknowledge and encourage terrorists. Hosting does not mean complicity; it simply designates terrorist’s location.  

One of the theories about improving our National Security is to create enough prosperity inside a terrorist hosting country that its residents will not pose a threat. This theory has at least one flaw: it assumes that the material well-being of a country’s residents is a vaccine against terror directed toward the United States. It assumes also that free elections will provide an additional vaccine against terror directed toward the USA. 

The EU has a better template for nation building IMHO, as seen here [https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2416].

Occasionally American troops deploy to a terror hosting country in an attempt to eliminate the threat terrorists pose to the United States. Sometimes, but not always, those troops are deployed at the invitation of the host country.

Once they neutralize the specific threat, then the troops can be recalled and the host country can go about its affairs.

Some defense contractors and politicians in the United States may lobby for additional aid to the host country to make it stronger in the face of terrorists or disease. It is possible the lobbyists suggest the aid will prop up the host government and thereby help United States security. Perhaps they rely on the hope that the aid can install the twin vaccines of material prosperity and free elections.

Two Divergent United States' Policies Toward Host Countries

One policy choice to control a threat is to enter a country whether invited or not. Once we neutralize the threat, we should withdraw any excess troops or NGO's.

This is a better default option than the alternative of nation building. We recognize that United States resources are finite and that opportunities to deploy resources are large.

We choose nation building wisely by ensuring that the host country we intend to rebuild will benefit from our efforts. Two broad statistics can indicate whether a nation is likely to benefit from United States efforts. First, we look at the distribution of income and wealth among the nation's population. Extreme inequalities may predict failure of our efforts since our aid will likely accrue to the already wealthy population within the country and may exacerbate any tendencies toward civil conflict in that nation. 

GINI

One recognized measure of inequality is called the GINI coefficient. A high Gini score may predict failure of nation building activity, while a low score may predict a higher likelihood of success. 

'In economics, the Gini coefficient (/ˈdʒiːni/ JEE-nee), sometimes called the Gini index or Gini ratio, is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income inequality or wealth inequality within a nation or any other group of people. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini.

The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example, levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (e.g., for a large number of people where only one person has all the income or consumption and all others have none, the Gini coefficient will be nearly one).' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#:~:text=In%20economics%2C%20the%20Gini%20coefficient,any%20other%20group%20of%20people.]

For example, real Gini scores ranges between 25 at the low, or better, end to 63 at the higher, or worse, end.

[https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings]

Norway scores a Gini of 27.5, while Zambia scores 63.0. The USA scores 41.5.

CORRUPTION 

Secondly, nation building where there is corruption will likely fail since funds spent in such a country will likely be deposited in foreign bank accounts of wealthy people and not reach the wider population.

Corruption levels may predict nation building's likely success or failure, especially when combined with GINI scores. Good nation building candidates have records of low corruption and low-income inequalities; this combination indicates that projects designed to benefit the entire country will be completed successfully. 

We have no statistics of active corruption since folks do not record their illegal activities in public forums. Instead, we have compilations of likely corruption levels as perceived by business and the press. 

Transparency International [https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index] compiles these perceptions and publishes an index of those perceptions.

New Zealand scores 88 as the least corrupt country while Yemen and Afghanistan score much lower at about 15; the USA scores 67.

UPDATE 2: 

SECULAR STATES: 

Governments dominated by religious movements which act in favor of their religious aspirations at the expense of the material well being of their populations should be excluded from any nation building efforts by the United States. ['Religious leaders should not be running countries', UAE Crown Prince as quoted in CALL SIGN CHAOS, Jim Mattis and Bing West, Random House, New York, 2019, p. 196]   

PREDICTIONS

It has been said that 'all predictions are wrong, but some are useful'. Thus, I offer the following with infinite humility.

Combining the above indicators for Afghanistan indicates a high likelihood that nation building would fail since their unfavorable corruption score indicated by an unfavorable honesty perception rating of 15 combined with an unfavorable World Bank GINI of 33 as measured in neighboring Pakistan representing the area [used here since no ratings were published for Afghanistan].

Perhaps US defense contractors lobbied for the Nation Building attempts in Afghanistan undertaken after Bin Laden was killed. 

Are Non-Profits Key to United States National Security?

Nations with high income inequality and widespread corruption cannot in all likelihood create the essential services and/or businesses necessary to support a viable economy and thus create effective counters to security threats from outside forces. 

The United States may nevertheless designate such a nation as critical to our National Security due to geo-political pressures. 

We should eshcew the profit motive and private, entrepremeurial business model in industries in such nations that the United States designates as critical to the host nation's security.

We should consider a non-profit model with rigorous oversight to ensure transparent operations and minimal theft opportunities for those enterprises. 

National military may wish to fight for the country when essential services are delivered competently and fairly and the managers of those enterprises do not steal from the enterprise. 

Soldiers will choose not to fight for the opposite.

Should a geo-poltiical adversary choose to support a nation with high corruption and inequality, we can assume that it will drain their, our adversary's, treasure. 

And it is highly unlikely that soldiers of the client state will fight effectively against us in any engagement. 

trump and Other Famous Traitors

 

Where will you place 45 on this list ?? 

10: Cassius and Brutus

Think modern-day politics are a mess? Consider ancient Rome. Cassius, a Roman general who exceled at his job wasn't a big fan of fellow general and Roman senator Julius Caesar.

As Caesar rose to power on a populous wave and declared himself Rome's leader for life, Cassius began to get nervous about Caesar's widespread rule. Eventually, he convinced his friend and fellow Roman general Brutus to feel the same way. Although Brutus was Caesar's friend, too, he was guided by a sense of duty that made him vulnerable to Cassius' emotional manipulation.

After Cassius sent Brutus fake letters outlining the people's support for Caesar's death, Brutus decided to act on a misguided sense of honor. On the Ides of March (March 15), 44 B.C.E., Brutus led a group of senators to stab Caesar to death on the senate floor 23 times, making Cassius and Brutus one of history's first -- and most notorious -- traitorous pairs [source: Vernon].

9: Judas Iscariot

Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver, and his name has been synonymous with greedy treachery ever since.

Judas was one of Jesus' 12 apostles and the account of Judas' traitorous act is recorded in the Bible's canonical gospels, which are Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Matthew 26:14-16 (KJV) reads, "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests and said unto them, 'What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?' And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of sliver."

Jesus was targeted by the chief priests, and Judas betrayed him with a kiss. The kiss wasn't a sign of affection; it was actually a signal to awaiting soldiers who immediately arrested Jesus and led him to the high priests. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, found guilty, bound and delivered to Pontius Pilate, the governor, who sentenced him to death. Soldiers stripped Jesus, placed a crown of thorns upon his head and crucified him by nailing him to a cross. Judas was so filled with remorse that he attempted to return the silver, but the priests wouldn't accept it. In the end, Judas hung himself.

Little else is known about Judas' life. Some historians believe Judas' last name, Iscariot, is closely linked to the Latin word for murderer -- sicarius -- and may not really be his family name at all [sources: Biography, Jesus Central]. In any case, "Judas" remains another word for "traitor" even today.

8: Benedict Arnold

By the time Benedict Arnold reached adulthood, family financial constraints had forced him to withdraw from school; yellow fever had killed three of his siblings and he'd become responsible for his father, a frequently incarcerated alcoholic who squandered the family's fortune.

Arnold managed to become an international merchant whose financial success was stymied by British-imposed tax acts. He fought back by joining the military group, the Sons of Liberty, at times using his own money to train and equip troops. Successful battles against the British gained him the admiration of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, but also a permanently injured leg. With civilian leaders stinting on supplies for the army and popular support for the American Revolution declining, a disillusioned Arnold began to think his country might be better off under British rule.

He was appointed to run West Point, a key military position during the Revolutionary War. Arnold betrayed America by offering to sell plans of the fort, including the location of its armament stores and other war secrets, to the British for an amount that would equal $3 million today.

When the treasonous plot was intercepted in 1780, Arnold went from hero to zero. He was convicted of treason, and his name was erased from military records. Arnold began fighting for England and eventually moved to London. He spent the rest of his life trying to ingratiate himself with British trading companies and the British military. He was unsuccessful at both pursuits and died in 1801 [sources: Biography, Creighton].

7: Robert Ford

Jesse James may have been one of the United State's most infamous outlaws, but the man who shot him received the rancor of generations.

James led the James Gang on a robbery spree during the late 1800s that targeted everything from banks to trains to ordinary people. The robberies continued for about 16 years across the Midwest, coming to an abrupt end in 1876 when the gang murdered two people during a botched bank robbery. Several gang members were captured, but Jesse James managed to escape, robbing just one more train in 1880 -- the same year a Missouri governor put a price on his head.

Turns out, Robert Ford, a member of James' own gang, would become a traitor. On April 3, 1882, he killed James by shooting him in the back. Ford killed James not only for the $10,000 reward he planned to split with his brother Charles, but also because the Missouri governor had promised the brothers their crimes would be pardoned.

After Ford murdered James, he didn't receive a hero's welcome as he'd hoped, or even the entire reward. Instead, he was labeled a coward and became a drifter. Ironically, Ford met his end when a fellow outlaw shot him in the chest, seeking fame for killing the ultimate coward [sources: Lofty, History].

6: Mata Hari

Mata Hari may be one of history's most famous double agents, but she wasn't a good one. The "secrets" she gained from rival German and French sources were usually old news. Her real skills, it seems, were of a more personal persuasion.

Born Margaretha Zelle to a wealthy Dutch family that fell on hard times, she was parceled off to relatives, eventually married a stern man several years her senior and endured years of abuse. By the time she neared 30, she was divorced, living in Paris and calling herself Mata Hari, which means "eye of dawn" in Malaysian. She reinvented herself as a temple dancer from India.

From 1905 to 1912, Hari was credited with turning the striptease into a theatrical art form. However, as her age and weight increased, she moved from exotic dancer to courtesan. One of her wealthy French supporters recruited her to bed a German officer and find out his secrets in exchange for money. But the officer became suspicious and fed her old information. Meanwhile the French intercepted a message from Germany with Hari's code name, which made them believe she was also spying for Germany.

Hari was arrested and held in a French prison where a curious public queued into the streets to catch a glimpse of her during trial. She was sentenced to death for treason and led from her cell, head held high and refusing to wear a blindfold. Upon seeing a 12-man firing squad, she blew them a kiss before being shot and killed in 1917 [source: Noe].

5: Ezra Pound

Don't think a poetry prize can be controversial? The first Bollingen Prize in Poetry awarded by a congressionally appointed literary panel in 1949 is still making waves. And it's no wonder.

The recipient was Ezra Pound, an American expatriate who'd been indicted for treason against the U.S. during World War II. At the time of the award, Pound was confined to a Washington, D.C. hospital after being declared insane.

Born in Idaho, Pound became a poet and critic, and was arguably one of the most influential voices in 20th century English and American literature. As he lived and worked in London and Paris, Pound became incensed by the lives lost during World War I and the injustices he saw in the world. By 1924, he'd moved to Italy where the fascist leanings of Benito Mussolini captured his attention. Becoming increasingly radical during the 1930s and 1940s, Pound publicly supported Adolph Hitler.

As World War II broke out, the Italian government paid him to produce radio broadcasts that insulted the U.S. and supported fascism. After hundreds of these broadcasts, Pound was arrested in 1945 by Americans in Italy. He was charged with treason and spent months in a U.S. military camp writing one of his best-known works, "Pisan Cantos," before being hospitalized in the U.S.

Nine years after receiving the Bollingen Prize for "Pisan Cantos," he was released and returned to Italy, where he lived until his death in 1972 [source: Biography].

4: Tokyo Rose

During World War II, the Japanese-American voice that emanated from the radio, attempting to demoralize American troops fighting in the Pacific, was referred to as Tokyo Rose.

And that's when things went terribly wrong for an American woman of Japanese descent. Iva Toguri d'Aquino lived in Tokyo, sent there by her family to care for an ailing relative, and was hired by a local radio station for a secretive propaganda plan -- one so secretive, she may not have known she was participating in it.

A British-born major and radio personality named Charles Hughes Cousens had been captured by the Japanese and ordered to produce a radio program that would undermine the Allies' morale. Instead Cousens designed a music-heavy show that would negate the propaganda campaign. D'Aquino and other women were recruited to participate. She took the broadcast name Orphan Ann (an homage to troops "orphaned" by their Allies in the Pacific). Many of her comments came across as humorous rather than ominous.

Despite intelligence reports that Tokyo Rose was not one person, journalists linked the woman known as Orphan Ann to Tokyo Rose. D'Aquino was taken into military custody. Even though the U.S. army found no evidence of her broadcasting secret military information, she was transported to the U.S., where she was tried for treason.

In 1949, a jury found her guilty on one of eight charges that alleged she broadcast news of American ships that were sunk. She was sentenced to 10 years in prison. She was pardoned by President Gerald Ford in 1977 [source: Pierce].

3: Vidkun Quisling

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian army officer who was in cahoots with the Germans during their occupation of his home country during World War II.

Quisling joined the Norwegian Army in 1911, where his duties included humanitarian work in Russia and for the League of Nations. He later became minister of defense and was known for taking a strict stance on striking workers. He resigned in 1933 to pursue the formation of a National Union Party, which was an anti-union organization with fascist leanings.

In 1940, Quisling made a power grab. After meeting with Adolf Hitler, whom he encouraged to conquer Norway, he waited for the German occupation to become complete -- and then appointed himself Norway's leader. His reign lasted only a week before he was demoted by German forces to "minister president." That unfortunately, didn't stop him from sentencing almost 1,000 Jewish people to concentration camps [source: Encyclopaedia Britannica].

At the end of World War II in 1945, Quisling was found guilty of treason and executed. His name would forever live in infamy, as "quisling" became a synonym for traitor or collaborator [source: Encyclopaedia Britannica].

2: The Cambridge Five

A womanizer who married four times. A flamboyant gay man with a penchant for drunkenness. A famous art historian knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. It may sound like the lineup for a new HBO miniseries, but these men were real-life spies during World War II and beyond. Along with two fellow Cambridge University graduates, they penetrated British intelligence agencies and turned over secrets to the Soviets.

The Cambridge Five -- Harold "Kim" Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross -- were members of the British elite and so ensconced in their communist beliefs they refused payment for their spy work.

All were hired to work in key British intelligence positions and continually alerted Moscow about British and U.S. plans, including efforts to construct an atomic bomb in 1941 and Korean War strategy, causing the deaths of many. Things started unraveling when Americans deciphered a coded Soviet message that implicated Maclean. Philby warned him, and in 1951 Maclean and the flamboyant Burgess promptly defected to Russia -- a move that left the remaining spies under a low-hanging cloud of suspicion.

Philby and Cairncross were investigated by MI6, the British foreign intelligence service, but not charged. Nevertheless, both were forced to resign. Cairncross moved to France while Philby escaped to Russia in 1963. Blunt confessed and was granted immunity to remain in England. He was stripped of his knighthood when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher publicly revealed his espionage in 1979. Maclean, Philby (who had an affair with Maclean's wife) and Burgess all lived in Moscow until their deaths, nostalgic for England. None of the five were ever charged with any crimes [sources: Boghardt,Barnes].

1: Robert Hanssen

Here's one that took the U.S. public by surprise. Robert Hanssen, a 25-year FBI agent and church-going family man, was also a long-time double agent for the Soviet Union.

Hanssen worked as a liaison between the FBI and the office responsible for tracking the identities of spies working in the U.S. By the early 2000s, investigators believed he had spent 20 years sharing state secrets. They suspected he'd revealed the identities of dozens of Soviet agents working for the U.S. and led to the killing of several.

And Hanssen didn't stop there. He fed the Soviet government U.S. plans, including the procedures for dealing with and retaliating against a Soviet nuclear attack. Although he was paid $1.4 million and some diamonds for his efforts, colleagues said he seemed to have been more motivated by playing the spy game than by greed.

Hanssen was caught when the FBI paid a former KGB agent to disclose the identity of the mole operating in the FBI. In 2002, Hanssen pled guilty to 15 counts of espionage and conspiracy. He was sentenced to life in prison [sources: CNN, New York Times].

Source: [https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/10-history-notorious-traitors.htm]

Connect the Dots - Social Media

The United States is experiencing abnormally high levels of infectious disease and violent social unrest.

Some of these two streams of civil malaise is encouraged by unrestrained and unsupported expressions on various social media platforms. Some of these expressions may be outright falsehoods or opinions offered with no supporting facts. Many such comments are analogous to 'yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.' 

Social media also tailors messages to individual people so that most social media users do not receive messages with differing perspectives. Some have called that an 'echo chamber' where social media consumers see only messages with which they agree.

Commentators argue that this 'echo chamber' effect has contributed to both the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of United States Citizens and an attempted coup to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.

The folks who post inflammatory comments may be motivated by either ignorance and/or a desire to weaken the United States. While traditional civil and criminal statutes probably are too blunt of an instrument to distinguish between these motives, such statutes can, and should, address the conduct itself.

The National Security of the United States requires that the Federal government address these actions.

Social media companies which facilitate such postings written by their users act as publishers.

'Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free. Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works, such as books, newspapers, and magazines. With the advent of digital information systems, the scope has expanded to include electronic publishing such as ebooks, academic journals, micropublishing, websites, blogs, video game publishing, and the like.' 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing]

Social media companies, however, are seemingly immune from the consequences and controls placed on more traditional publishers. See RISKS below for a discussion of those restraints from [https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication].

Social media companies have dodged the regulation and consequences faced by normal publishers to date; but, the National Security interests of the United States now require that those exemptions be terminated. 

Should the normal controls on publishers outlined below prove insufficient to restrain social medias' contributions to unrest and death, the Federal government should move toward direct controls aggressively. 

Freedom of Speech arguments do not determine that Social Media remain free from consequences or regulations since traditional publishers have managed to demonstrate more responsible conduct without violating the First Amendment.

RISKS OF PUBLISHING

[https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication]

'Every time you publish something online, whether it's a news article, blog post, podcast, video, or even a user comment, you open yourself up to potential legal liability. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise because the Internet, after all, is available to anyone who wishes to connect to the network, and even the smallest blog or most obscure discussion forum has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

Often the legal risks are small, but not always. The risks you could face when you publish online can take a number of forms, depending on what and how you publish. The sections that follow are not intended to make you an expert on media law, but merely to help you identify potential "red flags" so that when you publish something that might result in liability, you will know to be extra careful and will take the necessary steps to minimize your potential legal risks.

Let's start with the more obvious risks.

First, if you publish information that harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization, or inflicts emotional distress upon another person, you may be liable for "defamation" or "false light." Defamation is the term for a legal claim involving injury to reputation caused by false statements of fact and includes both libel (typically written or recorded statements) and slander (typically spoken statements). False light, which is similar to defamation, generally involves untrue factual implications about the subject that, although they might not hold the subject up to scorn or ridicule, nevertheless cause emotional distress. The crux of both of these claims is falsity; with very rare exceptions, truthful statements and implications that harm another's reputation will not create liability, although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature. We explain the details of defamation and false light and provide some practical tips for avoiding defamation and false light claims in the section on Publishing Information that Harms Reputation.

Second, if you publish private or personal information about someone without their permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. For example, in most states you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This could include such things as writing about a person's medical condition, sexual activities, or financial troubles.

If you use someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without their permission for an exploitative purpose you could also face liability for misappropriation or violation of the right of publicity. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. We discuss the details of misappropriation/right of publicity and private facts claims and provide some practical tips for avoiding these claims in the section on Publishing Personal and Private Information.

Third, if you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”) will likely shield you from liability for certain kinds of problematic statements made by your users, guests and other third-parties on your site. This important federal law protects you from tort liability for statements contained in these materials – and any other user-submitted content – you publish on your site. You will not lose this immunity even if you moderate or edit this content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. Keep in mind that CDA 230 will only protect you if a third-party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website. It does not shield you from liability for your own statements. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.

Fourth, if you publish or use the creative work of others, their trademarks, or certain confidential business information without the permission of the owner, you may be exposing yourself to legal liability for violations of intellectual property law.  Fortunately, if you allow your site's user to post this type of content you can protect yourself from copyright infringement claims (but not trademark or other intellectual property claims) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  In order to take advantage of the DMCA, you must register an agent with the Copyright Office to receive notices of infringement, establish effective "notice-and-takedown" procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you that it is infringing, and have no knowledge that the material in question is infringing.  We cover liability associated with copyright, trademark, and trade secrets, as well as the procedures you should follow under the DMCA, in the section on Intellectual Property.

Fifth, if you are a blogger or social media user who reviews or otherwise writes about products and services, the Federal Trade Commission has issued "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" that may impose disclosure requirements on you.  These guidelines require that you disclose "material connections" you may have with a company whose products or services you "endorse."  Without the legal jargon, this means that bloggers and social media users must disclose their relationship with a company when they are being paid or otherwise compensated by the company to comment favorably on its products or services.  We cover these requirements in the section on Publishing Product or Service Endorsements.

Lastly, as you publish your work online you may want to correct things you have previously published. Your willingness to fix past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable and will likely diminish your liability for defamation and other potential legal claims. We explain the benefits of correcting your errors and provide some practical tips for handling requests to correct or remove material in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication.'

Social Media Undermine National Security

Social media companies are publishers. Facebook, Twitter, et al. See below for definition of publishing.

Lies and propaganda published on social media destroy social cohesion and contribute to political violence.

See below for RISKS.

Requiring Social Media companies to face normal publishing risks can help the national security of the United States.  

Social media CAN be subjected to those RISKS by legislative action. An additional RISK for social media can be disconnection from the internet. 

Social media businesses lobby to prevent government from applying those risks to them because they profit greatly from avoiding such RISKS.

DEFINITION: PUBLISH

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing]

'Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free.[1] Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works, such as books, newspapers, and magazines. With the advent of digital information systems, the scope has expanded to include electronic publishing such as ebooks, academic journals, micropublishing, websites, blogs, video game publishing, and the like.

Publishing may produce private, club, commons or public goods and may be conducted as a commercial, public, social or community activity.[2] The commercial publishing industry ranges from large multinational conglomerates such as Bertelsmann, RELX, Pearson and Thomson Reuters[3] to thousands of small independents. It has various divisions such as: trade/retail publishing of fiction and non-fiction, educational publishing (k-12) and academic and scientific publishing.[4] Publishing is also undertaken by governments, civil society and private companies for administrative or compliance requirements, business, research, advocacy or public interest objectives.[5] This can include annual reports, research reports, market research, policy briefings and technical reports. Self-publishing has become very common.'

RISKS OF PUBLISHING

[https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication]

'Every time you publish something online, whether it's a news article, blog post, podcast, video, or even a user comment, you open yourself up to potential legal liability. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise because the Internet, after all, is available to anyone who wishes to connect to the network, and even the smallest blog or most obscure discussion forum has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

Often the legal risks are small, but not always. The risks you could face when you publish online can take a number of forms, depending on what and how you publish. The sections that follow are not intended to make you an expert on media law, but merely to help you identify potential "red flags" so that when you publish something that might result in liability, you will know to be extra careful and will take the necessary steps to minimize your potential legal risks.

Let's start with the more obvious risks.

First, if you publish information that harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization, or inflicts emotional distress upon another person, you may be liable for "defamation" or "false light." Defamation is the term for a legal claim involving injury to reputation caused by false statements of fact and includes both libel (typically written or recorded statements) and slander (typically spoken statements). False light, which is similar to defamation, generally involves untrue factual implications about the subject that, although they might not hold the subject up to scorn or ridicule, nevertheless cause emotional distress. The crux of both of these claims is falsity; with very rare exceptions, truthful statements and implications that harm another's reputation will not create liability, although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature. We explain the details of defamation and false light and provide some practical tips for avoiding defamation and false light claims in the section on Publishing Information that Harms Reputation.

Second, if you publish private or personal information about someone without their permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. For example, in most states you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This could include such things as writing about a person's medical condition, sexual activities, or financial troubles.

If you use someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without their permission for an exploitative purpose you could also face liability for misappropriation or violation of the right of publicity. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. We discuss the details of misappropriation/right of publicity and private facts claims and provide some practical tips for avoiding these claims in the section on Publishing Personal and Private Information.

Third, if you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”) will likely shield you from liability for certain kinds of problematic statements made by your users, guests and other third-parties on your site. This important federal law protects you from tort liability for statements contained in these materials – and any other user-submitted content – you publish on your site. You will not lose this immunity even if you moderate or edit this content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. Keep in mind that CDA 230 will only protect you if a third-party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website. It does not shield you from liability for your own statements. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.

Fourth, if you publish or use the creative work of others, their trademarks, or certain confidential business information without the permission of the owner, you may be exposing yourself to legal liability for violations of intellectual property law.  Fortunately, if you allow your site's user to post this type of content you can protect yourself from copyright infringement claims (but not trademark or other intellectual property claims) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  In order to take advantage of the DMCA, you must register an agent with the Copyright Office to receive notices of infringement, establish effective "notice-and-takedown" procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you that it is infringing, and have no knowledge that the material in question is infringing.  We cover liability associated with copyright, trademark, and trade secrets, as well as the procedures you should follow under the DMCA, in the section on Intellectual Property.

Fifth, if you are a blogger or social media user who reviews or otherwise writes about products and services, the Federal Trade Commission has issued "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" that may impose disclosure requirements on you.  These guidelines require that you disclose "material connections" you may have with a company whose products or services you "endorse."  Without the legal jargon, this means that bloggers and social media users must disclose their relationship with a company when they are being paid or otherwise compensated by the company to comment favorably on its products or services.  We cover these requirements in the section on Publishing Product or Service Endorsements.

Lastly, as you publish your work online you may want to correct things you have previously published. Your willingness to fix past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable and will likely diminish your liability for defamation and other potential legal claims. We explain the benefits of correcting your errors and provide some practical tips for handling requests to correct or remove material in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication.'

Today is a sad day....

I am saddened to realize that many Americans in the GOP actively work to install a dictatorship in the United States. 

I am doubly saddened that the American voting public probably is the only force remaining to prevent that. We must step up - absolutely. 

If the GOP insurrectionists succeed, the experiment of United States democracy will be finished forever - it will not return.

This is more important than Covid. 

Today's GOP works to replace or stymy duly serving government officials at every level - national, State, Local, volunteer. They target school boards, sewer boards, water districts, police and sheriff departments, city councils, county governments, state governments and the national government.

Some of the GOP insurrectionists hold elected office and some hold appointed office.  

As above, our hope lies is the common sense of American voters. But, we activists need to help the voters by opposing and calling out EVERY GOP insurrectionist. 

We call them out by demanding an answer to whether they believe the Big Lie and want to install trump.

Our goal is to publicize their agenda so all voters can understand their goals. 

AND, make sure that there are zero unopposed candidates at every level of public service  - from the school board to local elections to the US Senate.

If there is no candidate, then run yourself. 

Show up and contest every proposed person to an appointed office who is a GOP sycophant. 

After we actively contest all insurrectionists, prayers may be the best we can do  - Pray that American voters steer the country away from tyranny. 

Dark Money is Oil Money, and It Wants More

“A Post-Mortem on Our Authoritarian Experiment” '

At this year’s annual McCormick Lecture, Jane Mayer, celebrated investigative journalist and chief Washington correspondent at The New Yorker, dissected authoritarianism in modern America. 

Mayer traced back from current events, drawing on her extensive research of the Koch brothers from her book “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” in order to contextualize everything from former President Donald Trump’s election to the proliferation of disinformation in American politics. 

The McCormick Distinguished Lecture Series brings in “eminent national and international experts on law and public affairs to speak to the University of Arizona campus,” according to the McCormick Society. 

The society itself is associated with the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law and is named for the former university president and dean of the College of Law, Dr. James Byron McCormick. This year, the college invited Mayer to present over Zoom with a Q&A segment moderated by Stephen Golden and professor Nancy Sharkey from the UA School of Journalism.....'

 

https://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2021/02/n-meyer-coverage

Biden Plan: Combat Domestic Terrorism

 'White House unveils strategy to combat domestic terrorism

A federal review found that militia extremists and racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists pose the deadliest terrorism threat to the U.S.

From POLITICO: By BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN and MYAH WARD, POLITICO - 06/15/2021 06:00 AM EDT

The White House on Tuesday announced a cross-agency strategy to combat domestic terrorism, just two weeks after President Joe Biden promised the upcoming release during his remarks commemorating the Tulsa massacre.

The effort is the culmination of a review, led by the National Security Council, of how the U.S. government has dealt with the growing threat. It reiterates that militia extremists and racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists — predominantly white supremacists — are the most lethal and persistent terrorism threat facing the U.S....'

To see entire report, follow this link:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/15/us/biden-s-strategy-for-combating-domestic-extremism.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

Future Proofing The Presidency

 

Well done series highlighting what the United States must do; follow the link: 

https://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2021/06/future-proofing-the-presidency/

Trump's Thugs Threaten to Kill Election Volunteers:

Must read to see how trump's thugs threaten to kill election volunteers:

See article here -   

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/

Before the Fall of the Roman Republic

From the Daily Stoic:

'The true end of the Republic did not come with the arrival of Julius Caesar. The sign that things had collapsed came years before, not once but many times. The political process in Rome, which had never been perfect, broke down into throngs of violent street mobs. As Mike Duncan (recent guest on the podcast) explains in his amazing book, The Storm Before the Storm, it started with the crisis of 133, the first time political differences escalated to violence. Over what? A land redistribution bill. The nobles and the aristocrats assembled behind a senator named Nasica and launched an armed attack, killing some three hundred people. Rome had never seen such a massacre, as Duncan writes, it was “one of the bloodiest days in Roman political history.”

This is why the Stoics were so routinely aghast at mobs, why they warned against anger and chaos and hatred. They had witnessed it firsthand. Not just the escalating violence that led to the collapse of the Republic, either. They were themselves the victims of persecutions of philosophers. They saw how Nero, all too easily, was able to scapegoat the Christians as a ploy to distract Romans from his incompetence and evil.

And so it goes in America (and many other nations.) It’s why the horrifying murder of Ahmaud Arbery can’t be dismissed as just some crime that happened in Georgia. It’s why violence against Asians and Jews cannot be tolerated, cannot be ignored. David French (another guest) recently wrote a moving piece titled, Can America Be America When Jews Are Beaten in the Streets? No country can allow anyone to be beaten in the streets, let alone a vulnerable minority with a 2000-year history of persecution. Because when the wolves of hate are loose, no one is safe.

We cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow our political process to devolve any further, to descend into open violence in the streets. We cannot dismiss these events as isolated instances. We cannot engage in whataboutism. Because if we do—if we do nothing, as Marcus Aurelius said—we are not only committing an injustice by allowing injustice to happen, but we are ultimately imperilling ourselves.

Just as we saw in Rome, as we saw in Germany, as we have seen anywhere that mob violence is encouraged or allowed. '

[https://dailystoic.com/]

Stopping the Big Lie

Republicans in many states are trying systematically to take away our voting rights by reversing the 2020 election, solely because they don't like the results.

All Republicans who run in 2022 and 2024 for Federal and State legislatures and/or Election offices AND who also support interfering with voting rights should be challenged in both the primary and general elections by candidates of any party who support free elections.

Free election candidates should run regardless of whether or not the US Congress passes voting rights legislation. 

This challenge to free elections is a threat to democracy and good governing practices in every State and at every level.

Here is the primary campaign message all candidates should adopt: 

'My opponent supports canceling the 2020 presidential election.

He believes the Big Lie that the election was stolen. 

In fact, our election was the most secure and successful in history. I want to ensure that our elections remain free and honest where the winner takes the office and loser tries to win with better policies the voters like. 

BUT, folks who believe the Big Lie want to overturn voting rights and election results. 

Make no mistake, he wants to take away your right to vote and then install a dictatorship.

He wants to create a system where the only people who win elections are people he supports.

That will destroy Democracy.'

A Storm Gathers - UPDATE

 As sure as God made little green apples, rich white guys want to keep their power.

They would rather, and absolutely WILL, burn down the country to prevent any power loss.

It's about power, period.

There is no loyalty to country or people - only to power. 

Diversity, fairness, inclusion, immigration, fair wages, middle class, elections, world peace:

 

'IT'S ALL CRAP........We will KILL anyone who prevents us from retaining power. '

In case of doubt, remember Tulsa race massacre of 1921:

[https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/]

UPDATE: And, a position of steadfast resistance to each and every attempt to usurp elections will force the power hungry to back off - even if it seems extreme. Tyrants push until they meet effective resistance. 

This is the GOP today:

'We give NOTHING to Biden - we expect him to annoy our base of idiots so they will vote us into power; but, if not, then we burn down the country to get that power. ' 

Our only hope is to prosecute any and all crimes and misdemeanors from them - NOW and continuing - in order to cripple their actions.

We should encourage immigration so they can be even more outnumbered than today. It will be good to protect voting rights, but, in the final analysis, violence may outweigh voting.

It is NOT a drill........ 

Arizona Violates Election Laws

The Arizona State Legislature has turned over the paper ballots from Maricopa County in the 2020 Presidential election to a private company. That company is looking for, or possibly creating, fraudulent ballots with the possible goal of overturning the Presidential election.

 [https://www.npr.org/2021/05/06/994246426/justice-department-shares-concerns-with-arizona-senate-audit-recount?fbclid=IwAR1jBXnvLd2-6QtXcS1SEYSYWc4Lgf1H78KGoBiZzfYfnIum03wpZZBD9No] and [https://www.democracynow.org/2021/5/7/headlines/doj_says_arizona_2020_election_recount_may_be_violating_civil_rights_laws_as_concerns_pile_up]

It is a direct attack on Federal election integrity in the United States. The process used in Arizona may also violate United States Federal election laws. 

Further, the exercise may be a model of, and a possible rehearsal for, a country-wide attack on all Federal elections.  It serves to damage the reputation of all elections and thus may lead some voters to place trust in a strongman instead of a democratic process.

Our democratic process relies on open and honest elections as its founding principle.

This challenge to a certified election must be stopped and any lawbreakers prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Some may argue that the process is a coordinated attack on election integrity orchestrated by some dark power. Whether or not that is correct, the result of the action can easily provide some future dictator with the tools to effectuate a coup d'état.

Even if the process is a relatively 'innocent'  action by racists, it has already created death threats for the AZ Secretary of State. 

[https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/07/politics/katie-hobbs-arizona-secretary-of-state-death-threats/index.html]

The United States of America cannot allow such actions to continue - this action must be challenged strongly and the perpetrators prosecuted for any illegal acts. 

Brilliant Biden

 Must watch this brilliant speech.....

Thank you Mr. President

See video of entire address here - 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?511121-1/president-biden-addresses-joint-session-congress&live

List of Companies Actively Undermining Democracy

Who exactly pays for the voter suppression laws being enacted into law in many states?

These laws strike at the heart of the United States democracy - the sponsors bring shame on themselves.

see the entire report here:

 https://www.citizen.org/article/corporate-sponsors-of-voter-suppression-state-lawmakers-50-million/

 

The 25 Companies Contributing the Most to the Supporters of Voter Suppression Bills (Includes contributions from 2015 to 2020)

Company	2020 Election Cycle Contributions	Total Contributions 2015 - 2020
AT&T	$312,780	$810,915
Altria / Philip Morris	$351,850	$678,700
Comcast Corporation & NBC Universal	$167,400	$439,700
UnitedHealth Group	$201,600	$411,200
Walmart	$146,000	$376,617
State Farm	$121,500	$315,370
Pfizer	$133,925	$308,085
BNSF Railway Co	$151,990	$300,820
Farmers Insurance	$127,730	$293,635
Koch Industries	$132,350	$293,000
Dominion Energy	$152,600	$280,050
Anheuser-Busch Co	$104,550	$265,000
Verizon Communications	$111,575	$246,075
Union Pacific Corporation	$106,200	$243,050
Enterprise Holdings	$107,618	$240,340
RAI Services / Reynolds American	$102,550	$236,350
American Electric Power / AEP	$87,850	$209,450
McGuireWoods Consulting	$83,550	$207,570
Exelon Corp	$79,650	$207,550
Marathon Petroleum	$85,965	$205,365
Centene Corp	$111,950	$205,200
HCA Management Services	$106,500	$203,700
Charter Communications	$79,146	$203,426
D B H Management Consultants	$76,892	$200,192
General Motors	$86,200	$185,100

Dark Money Threatens Democracy

Many state legislatures recently have introduced laws to make it harder for voters to vote, give unelected officials power over election results and generally create doubt and difficulty with free and fair elections. [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-voting-bills-tracker-2021]

 

Many commentators attribute these actions to Republicans attempting to maintain control over government. [https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/]

 

However, there may be an overarching agenda. The goals may be to cripple the voting process and to reduce public trust in elections. Such actions can cripple the foundations of representative democracy: rule of law and free elections.

 

When this kind of initiative occurs in many states at the same time, it is likely that some financial backers encourage it.

 

Further, the effects of such actions may produce a climate favoring a tyranny in the United States.

 

I call on the FBI to investigate the funding sources for these actions to discover whether crimes have been committed and to hold accountable those who commit such crimes. 

Some Republicans Are Explicitly Racist, Thus Forfeit Right to Govern

The GOP is at a crossroads. The party will choose between responsible governance and encouraging a racist tyranny.  See Ms. Richardson below for the background:

Heather Cox Richardson, April 16, 2021 (Friday)

Today, news broke that a number of pro-Trump House Republicans, including Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), are organizing the “America First Caucus,” which calls for “a degree of ideological flexibility, a certain intellectual boldness… to follow in President Trump’s footsteps, and potentially step on some toes and sacrifice sacred cows for the good of the American nation.”

The seven-page document outlining their ideas, obtained by Punchbowl News, is a list of the grievances popular in right-wing media. It calls for regulation of “Big Tech,” which right-wing commentators claim is biased against them; an end to coronavirus lockdowns, which the authors say “have ruined many businesses to bankruptcy such that many Americans are left unemployed and potentially destitute”; opposition to “wasteful social justice programs like the Green New Deal”; support for oil and gas; and rejection of “globalist institutions.”

And, with extraordinary clarity, it shows the ideology that underpins these positions, an ideology eerily reminiscent of that of the elite slaveholders of the 1850s American South.

“America was founded on the basis of individual and state sovereignty,” the document says, but that federalism has been undermined by decadent and corrupt bureaucrats in Washington. The authors propose to get rid of regulation and the regulatory state, thus restoring individual freedom. This is the exact argument that animated elite slaveholders, who vowed to keep the national government small so it could not intrude on their institution of human enslavement.

The authors of the America First Caucus platform lay out very clearly the racial argument behind the political one. America, the authors write, is based on “a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” and “mass immigration” must be stopped. “Anglo-Saxon” is an old-fashioned historical description that has become a dog whistle for white supremacy. Scholars who study the Medieval world note that visions of a historical “white” England are fantasies, myths that are set in an imaginary past.

This was a myth welcome to pre-Civil War white southerners who fancied themselves the modern version of ancient English lords and used the concept of “Anglo-Saxon” superiority to justify spreading west over Indigenous and Mexican peoples. It was a myth welcome in the 1920s to members of the Ku Klux Klan, who claimed that “only as we follow in the pathway of the principles of our Anglo-Saxon father and express in our life the spirit and genius of their ideals may we hope to maintain the supremacy of the race, and to perpetuate our inheritance of liberty.” And it is a myth that appeals to modern-day white supremacists, who imitate what they think are ancient crests for their clothing, weapons, and organizations.

Emphasizing their white nationalism, the members of the America First Caucus call for “the architectural, engineering and aesthetic value that befits the progeny of European architecture… stunningly, classically, beautiful, befitting a world power and source of freedom.” They also condemn the current education system, calling it “progressive indoctrination” and saying it works “to actively undermine pride in America’s great history and is actively hostile to the civic and cultural assimilation necessary for a strong nation.” They conclude that “The future of America’s position in the world depends on addressing the crisis in education, at both the primary and secondary level.” They envision a world in which people who think as they do control the nation.

Indeed, the document embraces the Big Lie that Biden did not, in fact win the 2020 election. Despite the fact that all evidence proves that the 2020 election was one of the cleanest in our history and that President Joe Biden won, fair and square, the America First Caucus Policy Platform insists that the 2020 election was characterized by “massive voter fraud” and calls for limiting the vote.

Behind all this, of course, is the idea that a Democratic victory in an election is, by definition, impossible.

This extraordinary document makes it clear that Republican leaders are reaping what they began to sow during the Nixon administration, when party operatives nailed together a coalition by artificially dividing the nation between hardworking white taxpayers on the one hand and, on the other, people of color and feminist women whose demand for equality, the argument went, was code for government handouts. In the years since 1970, Republicans have called for deregulation and tax cuts that help the wealthy, arguing that such cuts advance individual liberty. All the while, they have relied on racism and sexism to rally voters with the argument that Black and Brown voters and feminist women—“feminazis,” in radio host Rush Limbaugh’s world—wanted big government so it would give them handouts.

It was a political equation that worked with a wink and a nod until former president Trump put the racism and sexism openly on the table and encouraged his supporters to turn against their opponents. They have now embraced open white supremacy.

The platform of the America First Caucus appears to have woken up some of the business Republicans—who want tax cuts and deregulation, but not the mindless white nationalism of the Trump supporters—to what has taken over their party. Today House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) took to Twitter to say that “America is built on the idea that we are all created equal and success is earned through honest, hard work. It isn’t built on identity, race, or religion. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln & the party of more opportunity for all Americans—not nativist dog whistles.”

Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), the third most powerful Republican leader in the House, tweeted, “Republicans believe in equal opportunity, freedom, and justice for all. We teach our children the values of tolerance, decency and moral courage. Racism, nativism, and anti-Semitism are evil. History teaches us all we have an obligation to confront & reject such malicious hate.”

In an op-ed in the Washington Post today, former President George W. Bush defended immigration in our past, present, and future as “a great and defining asset of the United States.” “New Americans are just as much a force for good now, with their energy, idealism and love of country, as they have always been,” he wrote as he described his new book, made up of portraits he has painted of Americans who came originally from other nations.

Will the business Republicans’ newfound inclusiveness manage to reclaim their party? It’s not at all clear that what conservative commentator Tom Nichols calls “an extremely dangerous authoritarian party” will not win out.

Republicans in the Arizona state Senate today put teeth into the Big Lie when they announced they have hired a private company connected with Trump to recount the ballots cast in Maricopa County, Arizona, in the 2020 election. They claim they want to “restore integrity to the election process,” although the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, dominated by Republicans, voted unanimously to certify Biden’s win and both state and federal judges have verified that the existing count is valid. County officials have distanced themselves from this recount.

At the same time, though, news is not good for Trump’s supporters. Yesterday, the Treasury Department dropped the bombshell that Trump’s 2016 campaign chair Paul Manafort worked with Russian intelligence to swing the 2016 election, while House Republicans accused the intelligence community of spying on them. Today the Department of Justice launched a civil suit against Trump adviser Roger Stone, saying that he and his wife “intended to defraud the United States” by hiding income and that they owe nearly $2 million in back taxes. It is not unim

Perhaps most notably in this era of social media, McCarthy’s tweet recalling the Republican Party’s older, inclusive days got what is called “ratioed” on Twitter, with significantly more people disparaging the tweet than liking it. The Republicans are “the party of the Confederacy, white supremacy, Black voter suppression, Kremlin collusion, and violent insurrection,” Kat 4 Obama wrote. “The party of Abraham Lincoln has become the party of Jefferson Davis.”

Musings on Tyranny in the United States

Here I will try to explain the idea of tyranny to white Americans. None of what follows is especially unique or revelatory, but I do try to tie together some disparate trends. Of necessity, I make some sweeping generalizations. 

Most white Americans have no experience of, and very little knowledge about, tyranny. 

But, most Americans of color, and some white women, have clear and precise knowledge of tyranny from our system. We tyrannize Americans of color every day. For a long time, we restricted tyranny to Black Americans, but recently we have expanded our tyranny to include most minorities.

White Americans know that and choose to ignore it. 

As a white American man, I have no direct experience of tyranny, but I have read about political tyrannies in other countries for a few years. Please allow me to offer the thoughts below.

trump did not invent tyranny but he recognized the tyrannical tendencies in the USA and exploited them. Regardless of where he ends, we have ingrained those tendencies in our character.

Tyranny is a fundamental human experience. Throughout history, kings and warlords have tyrannized tribes and countries, beginning before written history and continuing today.

Democracy in the USA and some other countries is an historic anomaly - we escaped subjection to tyrants as an historical accident. We were lucky and fortunate.

Tyranny is a system in which a single person, or a very few, holds absolute power over the population. Tyrants can, and do routinely: insult, rob, abuse, degrade, imprison, poison, torture, humiliate and murder any subject with no consequence. An example: Jeffrey Epstein dies while in Federal custody. Another: Russian Putin critic Navalny is imprisoned and mysteriously gets a horrible disease that may kill him soon.

Tyrants routinely persecute any subject who objects to their tyranny and favors anyone who supports it. 

A tyrant says: do what I ask and I will protect you, i.e., Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. If you do not support me, then see above for my remedies.

Tyrants and those aspiring to tyranny value that absolute power over any other value. A person aspiring to tyranny will say or promise anything that will improve their chance of obtaining power. In a representative government, tyrants have to secure followers who will support their power aspirations. However, make no mistake; once a tyrant achieves power, all promises are off the table. 

Many naive Americans think they will get a prize when a tyrant achieves the power he seeks. We call these foolish people 'useful idiots'. They will be 'thrown under the bus' sooner than they think.

Our American system in the 21st Century AD has some built in advantages favoring a tyrant.

Race

Foremost among the advantages to tyrants is American racism. Many Americans are racists who believe that non-white Americans must be controlled and/or tyrannized to prevent them from taking power and damaging white Americans. While this is utter nonsense, it underlies many actions and beliefs of some white Americans. Today's concerted attempts to restrict voting access by minorities is blatant racism.

Inequality

Our economic system is tilted toward inequality, favoring rich people and harming working people. The concentration of wealth and incomes in the top few has left the majority of people in dire straits and given the top few ability to control the system in their favor. At the same time, many undereducated people are left destitute; the pandemic has increased the divisions.

Police control

The USA is a security state with local police, state police, county sheriffs, highway patrol, FBI, NSA, etc, etc. That system can tyrannize any citizen at any time, backed by the force of law and the judicial system. If a tyrant controls that system, he can create a tyranny. 

Do we have hope?

Our collective naivte leads us to assume the system is benign and to ignore its obvious flaws. 

Yes, we can hope. We have a robust system filled with people of good will who are dedicated to democracy and the rule of law. Tyrants want to use that system against democracy, but so far the system has held. It will continue to hold, provided that we recognize the parts of the system which favor tyranny.