Linked World

Inextricably Intertwined

Traditionally, business and politics have been separable in LinkedIn, but their overlap since November is far too substantive and immediate for that fiction to be further entertained.

And yet there are people on LinkedIn who still loudly complain that they come there to discuss business and are offended to see political discussion, as if it were mere distraction.

I don't know whether such remarks are born of obliviousness or privilege, but in my view these pleas lack grounding in practical reality. If there were a way to speak of business without reference to politics, I would do it out of mere simplicity. Why involve irrelevancies? But the two are just far too intertwined. US politics is no longer some minor detail, distinct from business. It is central to US business right now.

Some will see this shift as positive. Others will see it as negative. I'm one of those seeing consistent negatives. But whatever your leaning, it seems inescapable that politics is suddenly visibly intertwined with markets and products in new ways. Not every discussion must factor it in, but when it happens, it's not mere rudeness that has broken the traditional wall of separation. It's just no longer practical to maintain the polite fiction that there's no overlap.

Practical Examples

I find it impossible to see how a seismic shift like the US is undergoing could fail to affect funding sources and trends, individual business success, entire markets, and indeed whether the US is a good place for people to invest in, go to school in, or vacation in.

Nor are the sweeping effects of DOGE, Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, an issue of pure politics. Its actions have clear business impact. As Musk wields this mysterious and unaccountable force to slash through the heart of government agencies with reckless abandon, there are many clear effects that will profoundly affect business.

• Scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and elsewhere have warned about the possibility of a bird flu or other pandemic. The CDC tracks and seeks ways to prevent pandemics, but that work is now under threat by an anti-science administration. As the Covid experience tells us, there is a business impact to pandemics if we allow them to just happen. A report in the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s National Library of Medicine places that cost at about $16 trillion dollars.

• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is important to keeping planes in the air and having them not crash into one another. Business people do a lot of flying, so their needless deaths in the aftermath of FAA layoffs can presumably affect business. And it won't help people if the public develops a fear of flying.

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in charge of making sure the food we eat does not poison us or that the drugs we take have at least a bounded degree of risk. It's the kind of thing you don't think might be business related until we enter a world where employees might go home any old day and just die because we are edging toward a society where you can't take food and drug safety for granted as a stable quantity any more.

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for tracking storms so that damage, injury, or death can be minimized. And then and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helps the recovery afterward. It is hard to see how a major storm could affect people, cities, or geographic regions without affecting the employees, customers, and products of businesses. Do I really have to say that? If people think there is a separation between business and politics, I guess I do.

  And then of course NOAA does work to study Climate Change, too. Not only has such study suggested that Climate Change is an existential threat to civilized society, perhaps to all humankind, but it turns out that if human society falls or humans go extinct, that will affect business, too. And maybe soon enough that people still alive now, even if they have no care about future humans, still need to care because it could affect them or those they love.

It used to be that business did not have to worry about such things as much exactly because government used to see it as its job to invisibly take care of these many things. But this change in politics is not just a change in spending, but a shift of responsibility from the government to businesses and individuals. They'll have to look out for themselves now. That is a big deal thing that will affect businesses—their products, employees, and customers in profound ways. All the more so because the present administration changes its mind daily in ways that seem to have no plan, so uncertainty abounds. Business hates uncertainty.

Unemployment

Additionally, the many layoffs in government mean additional unemployment, which itself has business effect. Perhaps some will rejoice at a plentiful supply of potential workers or the fact that they may accept lower wages. But, meanwhile, those unemployed were also the customer base of other businesses who will be less happy. Those people aren't in a position to buy as many things—not just luxuries but essentials like food and rent and healthcare. Perhaps others in their families will pitch in to help them survive, but then those people won't be in a position to buy as many things either.

Mass layoffs do not happen in a vacuum. Those political choices will show up on the bottom lines of businesses. Some businesses may not survive that loss of business, creating a cascade effect.

Racism and Xenophobia

Racism and xenophobia are on the rise. Recent ICE actions seem designed to send the message that we purposefully treat some humans like vermin. “Stay away,” it screams to a large swath of the global population, some of whom we might like to sell to or have invest in us.

It began by going after the undocumented, surely because they are easy targets. That circle is expanding, and it seems unlikely to stop any time soon. The goal seems to be to end any sense that anyone has rights at all. That creates a lot of uncertainty about what is allowed in the way of both speech and action. Such uncertainty makes it hard to plan and manage anything from the selection of an appropriate employee base to how products will be positioned and marketed.

Also, it's an ugly truth that the US relies on already-terrified undocumented employees to accept very low wages, sometimes perhaps skirting wage regulation. Many US businesses will lose access to such cheap labor. The ethics of having relied on this population in this way are certainly tangled and I don't want to defend this practice. But for purposes of this discussion I simply observe that this change will have business effects that may affect both prices and product availability.

It is as if the administration's answer to immigration concerns is to make the US seem as utterly hostile to anyone who is not a native-born, white, Christian male. These trends already affect who feels safe coming to the US to trade, to study, to do research, and to found companies. It's going to be hard to unring that bell.

Rule of Law

In addition, this process seems to be having the side-effect of diminishing rule of law generally. By asserting that due process is not required, when plainly it is, a test of wills is set up between the executive and the rest of the government as to whether the President can, by mere force of will, ignore the Constitution entirely.

The clear intent is to establish us as a bully power, to say that worrying about whether foreigners like the people of the US showed weakness, and that we must make the world fear us. That shift cannot help but affect who will do business with us and how.

We cannot expect our global peers, already horrified by the recent shift in our choice of which foreign entities to fund or ally ourselves with, to shrug these matters off in business with a casual "oh, that's just politics."

Education

Also, higher education is under assault. There is a complex ecology here because people from around the world have revered our universities as places they could send people to acquire a world class education. But with research funds being cut, that may no longer be so.

That the US Government seems intent on snatching foreign students off the street does not make this picture any better. It becomes a reason for international investment dollars to go to other countries where it is safe to walk the streets.

International Investment

The education system is not cleanly separated from the business community. There is a complex ecology in which many businesses locate themselves near universities to have access to the best human talent and research the world has to offer. As US educational institutions are undercut, and the administrations anti-science agenda is pursued, foreign businesses that take education and science more seriously may look elsewhere for leadership.

These capricious changes—the sense that nothing is promised or certain—may affect the reputation of the United States and trust in the US dollar. The present administration wants more control of the Federal Reserve, which has traditionally operated independently. If that happens, it could worsen faith in the US dollar.

The US has also weakened enforcement of anti-bribery laws for dealing with foreign governments. Perhaps some will regard this relaxation of ethics good for business, but whether you do or not, it is most certainly a major change.

And the US is demonstrating on-its-face incompetence at every level of government because everyone with a brain is deferring to someone who plainly lacks either understanding or caring about the damage he is doing. Foreign businesses and governments used to look to the US as a place that had something to teach, but as this incompetence continues unchecked, it cannot help but hurt our reputation internationally.

Philosophy of Government

There is a definite push to “run government like a business.” I think that's a terrible plan, as my recent essay Government is not a Business explains.

But whether you think running government that way is good or bad, it marks a profound shift. More privatization and, with that, probably more corruption. These are things that will profoundly affect not just the US political landscape, but also its business landscape.

Not Separable

Hopefully these examples make it clear that politics and business are no longer separable. It is simply impossible to discuss business in a way that neglects politics. All business in the US is now conducted in the shadow of a certain GOP Elephant that manages to insinuate itself into every room.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

Some parts of this post originated as a comment by me on LinkedIn. Other parts were written separately with the intent of being yet another comment, but I finally went back and unified the two and pulled this out to a separate post where I was not space-limited.

The vague approximation to the LinkedIn logo was created by me from scratch in Gimp by looking at the LinkedIn logo and doing something suggestive of the same look. A globe image was obtained from publicdomainpictures.net under cc0 license, and post-processed by me in Gimp to work in this space. I just made guesses about sizes, proportions, fonts, and colors. At no time were any of actual logos used for any part of the creation.

Law and Ordering

“First They Came” | ”Als sie kamen”
by Martin Niemöller

There's been a lot of erosion of US democracy lately. The latest is the case of Kilmar Abrego García's deportation. It should matter to everyone because of the specific precedent it sets.

But it's part of a general trend for how many precedents are being set. The order in which things are happening is not accidental.

In many ways, what I'm going to say here is just a restatement of the famous Niemöller poem. Great poetry often captures an idea crisply, and certainly that poem does. But some things are important enough to say a lot of different ways, and this is certainly one.

So, at the risk of redundancy, let me just say that there's a very specific ordering in which laws and norms are being stretched and broken. It goes from “most acceptable” to “least acceptable” in our society for whose rights we'll tolerate violating. We as a society have grown used to some of our members being abused. They know this ugly truth, and they're exploiting it.

As I explained in my essay Political Terraforming last fall, the goal is plainly just to eliminate all rights. But they can't do it all at once. There's a clear order in which this has to be done.

In effect, there is an aspect of this which is its incremental and creeping nature. We see that as a kind of icky feeling as we wake each morning to look at the Internet, but it's not just that. It's tactical. The Overton window can only stretch at a certain rate. It's apparently fast, but not infinitely fast.

The US right now is a herd of animals where the weakest are at the outside, being picked off one by one by his wolves. We've arranged ourselves with the weakest, least overall-acceptable people at the outside, and too many of us comfort ourselves that we're safe because we're not on the outside (yet).

There's some part of this that's shock and awe, trying to go as fast as possible before anyone can react at all. But there's a slowness component to it, too.

With the system—and our own sensibilities—overwhelmed, citizens are forced to prioritize which indignity to be responding to at any given time. This Gish gallop of disgusting acts is so vast that one cannot respond to everything. So the Project 2025 goal is to lay a foundation of precedents, breaking prior norms, moving the Overton window while most people aren't yet noticing or caring because they're busy with other indignities.

So, amid the flurry of things that every day assault us citizens, they're going slowly enough that the part involving precedent setting passes unnoticed. In this way, by the time it matters for mainstream America, the aspiring dictator will be poised to say “This is just how it's done. You've lost your chance.”

We must not let these things pass unnoticed. It matters to catch them and object to them before legal precedents are set. And, for those of us who think we are not immediately threatened, it matters to see that really we are. It's coming for all of us, and soon. The damage will be done by the time it gets to many of us. So none of us can afford to postpone our outrage and involvement.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.

We The People must not let them divide us. We must stand as one.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

This post began as a comment on reddit. It's been tidied up and expanded, and the formatting has been adjusted to be suitable for a web venue. The reddit post is best seen as a first draft.

The graphic was downloaded downloaded from Wikimedia (which says it is in the public domain), and then cropped and scaled using Gimp.

Retirement Savings

I often hear people say that Social Security should be eliminated, that we'd do better with our own 401K's.

There are a lot of problems with that argument.

The argument is that people could invest their money better. Maybe. But they can also invest their money worse. So it's a very uneven policy. And that is ultimately cruel. It makes gamblers of us all, and experience shows that gamblers are often a lot more confident than is warranted.

Moral Failing

The sociopaths among us often say, “Too bad. Individuals should take responsibility for their lack of saving. It's not my fault that some people don't plan.” Is that so? I doubt it.

You see, those same people are telling us that we should eliminate the minimum wage, asking “if the market doesn't want to pay someone enough to even live, why should it have to?” So exactly where is the savings supposed to come from?

On the one side, people work hard for hardly any money. On the other side, they're told their failure to save is a moral failing. But where is the discussion of moral failing in having more money than God and yet still being unwilling to help raise people out of poverty? That seems the biggest moral failing.

Dynastic Wealth & Connection

Moreover, a lot of what makes the difference in who succeeds or fails is one's parents. Dynastic fortunes. Better schools. Better connections. Race. Sometimes even just better health or better clothing. The narrative is spun that the rich worked hard for their money, but, in my personal experience, poor people work much harder for the scraps they are thrown than rich people ever do, and the notion of “meritocracy” is nonsense because the people who get ahead are just those who get to start ahead of the others.

Social Security as Moral Agent

While on the topic of morality, let's also look at the structure of Social Security itself. People like to compare it to a 401K, but it's not like that. It's not a bank account. It's a very different beast.

As an example, if you become suddenly unable to work, it kicks in right away, even if you haven't paid a lot up front. That's very different than a bank account. Also, if you live for only a short while or for a long time, it continues to pay you through your life.

There might be issues with getting necessary cost of living adjustments, but the only reason we don't do those more often is that the aforementioned rich sociopaths insist it's more important to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

They'll tell you that Social Security is intended only to supplement your retirement, not to be the full amount, and yet they'll happily attach penalties for those using Social Security if they try to draw money out of it while also getting other income. That's not really how supplements work, and it's a disincentive to additional work.

A Social Contract

But my point is that the contract is not for a specific quantity of money. It is a social contract. You pay into it while you're able and you are paid when you're not able. We could do better in the “helping people to get paid” part, but the point is for it to keep a great many people from falling into poverty—to add dignity.

It's worth noting that Social Security did not arise in a vacuum. While people could invest their money, a lot of people didn't, or else were losers in that gambling. Before Social Security, in the 1930s, the elderly poverty rate in the depression was something like 70%. So there is an objective way to understand what this did for the public. Some have called it the most successful anti-poverty program in the history of the US.

Implementation Details

If we were sincerely worried that investing in the market were a better bet, we could arrange for the Social Security trust fund to do that. That's just an implementation detail and has nothing to do with the overall social promise. If DOGE wanted to do something helpful, instead of aggressively dismantling all of the US government's ability to provide value to the public, they could analyze whether there are better ways to manage the funds.

But, ultimately, government is not a business and Social Security is not a profit & loss center, even if it's popular for some who don't like it to portray it that way. It mostly pays for itself, but from a moral point of view, its real purpose is to say that we as a society need to have a commitment to our sick and elderly, to assure they are taken care of, before we declare a profit.

If we as a nation are able to give tax breaks to rich citizens only by cutting social programs, then the rich are preying on the poor. The health and welfare of all citizens is our first priority as a nation. We should not be preferencing the already-preferenced before we have attended to that.

The Present Day

This topic is very apropos in the current market. We may be about to enter another recession, perhaps a depression. 401K's are down. So the claim that we could do better investing on our own is uncertain, but is again certainly going to test a lot of ordinary citizens, postponing their ability to retire.

And I emphasize that the choice of when to retire is not just a whim. Even ignoring age discrimination, age wears on a person, and some people do physical jobs—actual hard work, as opposed to the metaphorically hard work done by rich executives—that leaves them depleted. So, delayed retirement is not just an inconvenience, it is in some cases cruel torture, and in some cases impossible.

But even as we are potentially entering a depression, the billionaires are salivating. They are looking forward to “buying low”. They're treating this roller coaster as a buying opportunity! They plan to get rich on this depression. Even as others suffer and probably many die. As homes and farms are foreclosed upon. They are gleeful.

Betting on Regular Citizens

This is the time when Social Security should be doubling down and assuring people it will increase benefits to cover rising costs—although it wouldn't be terrible if we also just impeached the President who's artificially causing those rising costs by imposing tariffs that really no sane business people think are a good idea. Social Security is a social contract with the population about what our priority is, even in tough times. Especially then. So, if we need more money, we should be bumping the tax on those gleeful about what a great buying opportunity this is. That would properly reflect our societal morality.

They, the rich, would probably whine that such a tax singles them out. They'd speak of their pain, and claim that others were just jealous of their wealth and cleverness. No one should stand for such rhetoric. The rich folks making noise did not get their power by dealing honorably with us citizens. This is not jealousy speaking. It is a desire for justice. Be glad I'm not suggesting—as some have and still do—that we just “eat the rich” and be done with it. Proper taxation of accumulated wealth (not just income) works for me.

No one needs that much money anyway. It's clear from their observed behavior that one can only buy so many gold toilet seats before one starts to wonder what the point of excess riches is, and really it seems the only thing that one can find to spend such wealth on is buying governments. And then, apparently, running them badly and cruelly. The Peter Principle in its most high stakes form. No, I'm not going to feel sorry about suggesting taxation.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

An early version of this post lost some text from the original that was restored a few hours after posting.

This post originated as a rant by me on Mastodon. Small amounts of content have been aded, it has been lightly copy-edited, and its typography has been adjusted to fit this forum. Also, some of the tariffs were paused today as this revised version of the essay goes online, along with claims that this was all strategic. But that only underscores my point about gambling. There is no certainty in the 401K approach like there would be in a societal commitment to care for its weaker members.

The graphic was produced using abacus.ai using RouteLLM and FLUX 1.1 [pro] Ultra, then post-processing in Gimp.

Games Billionaires Play

In case you've been off the grid for a few days and somehow missed it, everyone is reeling over these remarks by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick:

“Let’s say Social Security didn’t send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law — who's 94 — she wouldn't call and complain. She just wouldn’t. She’d think something got messed up, and she’ll get it next month.

A fraudster always makes the loudest noise — screaming, yelling and complaining.”

Watch it on video if you don't believe me.

What's a lost month here or there between friends?

It didn't surprise me to find that someone who would suggest it was good sport to withhold Social Security payments just to see what happened is a billionaire.

According to The Street, Lutnick's net worth is between $2 billion and $4 billion.

The very fact that we can be so imprecise and assume it doesn't matter whether it's $2B or $4B is a big part of the problem, by the way.

“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.”

  —Everett Dirksen

At the heart of this—if there can be said to be any heart in this situation at all—is the sad truth that for regular people, people just struggling to get by day to day and month to month, every dollar matters and no such lack of precision could possibly do anyone justice.

The Public Trust, or lack thereof

If you're so insulated from poverty that you start to either forget or just plain not care how hard it is for others of less means, you have no absolutely business being in any position of public trust.

It might not occur to you, dude, even if it's incredibly obvious to ordinary people hearing your remark, but your mother-in-law is probably able to be so cool because either social security is not her only source of money, or else she knows her daughter is married to someone who is mega-rich, so if she runs a little short, she has an obvious person she can call. We're not all so lucky, as it turns out.

Back in the real world

If I don't pay my credit card, does my bank shrug and say, “hey, maybe next month”? If the bank screams at me right away, is that proof it's defrauding me?

What are you smoking, Mr. Lutnick? Such willfully reckless incompetence should be literally criminal.

Folks on fixed income have monthly payments due now, not just “eventually.”

Any payment urgency is not about the character of any senior on Social Security, who typically has paid a lifetime to earn barely enough to survive on the tiny retirement income Social Security grudgingly affords them. It's all about the character of those they rent from and buy groceries from, and what they, these wealthy rent-takers, will do to society's most fragile members if they are not paid on time.

Last I checked, if I miss a single payment on my credit card, I don't even just get a penalty. They almost double my interest rate going forward.

Shame on you for suggesting there is no good reason for someone to insist their promised payment from the government actually be paid at the time promised. Are you trying to wreck the US Government's reputation for paying all its obligations. Social Security is not a gift. It is one of our society's most fundamental social contracts.

Turning the tables

If withholding what's due is your game, Mr. Oblivious Rich Guy, how about let's make it a serious felony to be unkind to or exploit folks who rely on the full faith and credit of the US government. Let's imprison bankers, landlords, and vendors who are ready to foreclose, add penalties, or raise costs or interest for the vulnerable.

Or, maybe…

Let's, you know, tentatively — just to see who cries foul or who says “hey, maybe next month” — deprive billionaires of all assets for a month or two, leaving them out in the world we live in with only the iffy hope of Social Security, just to see if they're comfortable with policies they seem to think so fair.

I bet the billionaires who cry loudest really are frauds.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

Also, if you enjoyed this piece, you might also find these posts by me to be of interest:

• Credit Cards: A Tax on “Being Poor”
  Why credit cards are a “private tax,” and thus double-taxation.
• Enough
  Why rich people have no business talking about the pain of taxation.
• Losing the War in a Quiet Room
  History and comparison of shareholder and stakeholder capitalism.

This essay grew from a thread I wrote on BlueSky. I have expanded and adjusted it to fit in this publication medium, where more space and better formatting is available.

The black & white image was produced by making 2 images in abacus.ai using Claude-Sonnet 3.7 and FLUX 1.1 [pro] Ultra, then post-processing to merge parts of each that I liked in Gimp.

Political Inoculation

A certain well-known politician has quite a regular practice of accusing his political opposition of offenses that are more properly attributed to him. Some like to label this as “psychological projection”, which Wikipedia describes as “a psychological phenomenon where feelings directed towards the self are displaced towards other people.” I don't even disagree that projection is probably in the mix somewhere. Still, calling it projection also misses something important that I wanted to put a better name to.

I refer to it as “inoculation.”

“Inoculation is the act of implanting a pathogen or other microbe or virus into a person or other organism. It is a method of artificially inducing immunity against various infectious diseases.”
 —Wikipedia (Inoculation)

For example, when a hypothetical politician—let’s call him Ronald— accuses an opponent of trying to fix an election, and you're thinking “Oh, Ronald's just projecting,” consider that he might be doing more than just waving a big flag saying “Hey, fixing an election is what I'm doing.” Ronald might be planting an idea he thinks he'll later need to refer back to as part of a defense against claims of election fixing on his own part. He's thinking ahead to when his own ill deeds are called out.

One strategy Ronald might use if later accused of election fixing will be simply to deny such accusations. “Faux news!” he might cry—or something similar.

But another strategy he'll have ready is to suggest that any claims that he (Ronald) is election fixing are mere tit for tat, that the “obvious” or “real” election fixing has been the province of his opponent. Ronald will claim that his opponent is just muddying the waters with a claim of no substance that he is doing such an obviously preposterous thing, that he's just enduring rhetorical retaliation for having accused the real culprit. It's a game of smoke and mirrors, he'll allege.

So at the time of this original, wildly-false claim, that his political opponents are acting badly, he's doing more than projection, more than spinning what for him is a routine lie. He's not just compulsively projecting, he's being intentionally strategic by planting the idea that maybe his opponents are the guilty ones—so that he can later refer back to it as distraction from his own guilt.

“They're just saying that because I called them out on their election fixing,” Ronald will say, alluding back to his made-up claim. By making this wild claim pro-actively, ahead of accusations against himself, he is immunizing himself against similar accusations to come. And he knows such accusations are coming because he knows, even now, that he is actually doing the thing he's expecting to be accused of.

His supporters won't be worried about that, though. They're not waiting to hear something true, they're just waiting to hear something that sounds good. So all will be well for him in the end because Ronald knows how important inoculation is to keeping himself immune.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The graphic was produced by abacus.ai using RouteLLM and FLUX 1.1 [pro] Ultra, then post-processed in Gimp.

Parallel Universes

My friend Probyn Gregory has been writing about his nervousness being near the fires in LA.

Probably a lot of people have.

I assume it helps people dissipate stress, or to feel less alone.

Fortunes might change on a dime, so perhaps some want to leave a realtime record of what's going on, just in case they suddenly blink out of existence.

Some are poised to run, and want to leave hints about where they might be found in case they are delayed or blocked from their chosen destination.

Some probably want to communicate the urgency of dealing with Climate by personalizing the risk. It's too easy to think this happens only to other people. Within the US, it's often portrayed as something affecting only far away countries.

Today Probyn wrote:

“We may not live in Altadena but our lives are enmeshed in it. I see people just a mile or two away driving in rush hour presumably to work and it seems positively surreal, this facsimile of normal juxtaposed with what I feel inside, this aching sadness and not-quite-coming-to-grips.”

—Probyn Gregory on Facebook (Jan 12, 2025)

I think this is a metaphor for our nation.
And the world.

AI-Generated envisioning of a divided world: some experiencing collapse, the rest in denial.

It's not just our neighbors' world that is on the brink of collapse. We live in that same world.

Individually, some of us get it. But, collectively, as a society, we're still not quite coming to grips with how serious this is.

Time to wake up.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The image was generated at abacus.ai using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and FLUX 1.1 [pro] Ultra. The initial request was for “a generic part of downtown Los Angeles, looking down a street that divides the image into two parts. on the right hand side, show ordinary buildings and people casually moving among them, cars parked, cars driving normally, business as usual. On the right side, show parked fire engines, buildings in flames, a world in collapse.” Some post-processing was done both by the LLM and by me using GIMP.

The Politics of Delay

Martin Tye wrote in a post on the ex-bird site:

"Scale of demand" is the key component of #Sustainability.

Almost anything is #sustainable if demanded on a small enough scale,
& almost nothing if demanded on too large a scale.

— Martin Tye (@martinrev21) October 24, 2024

I replied with a thread, that I have reproduced with some corrections and clarifications here:

Yes, large scale is a risk. But not of unsustainable full coverage; rather, of sustainable-yet-incomplete coverage.

Either way not meeting climate goals, but depending how you describe predictions, you'll be seen as wise or not.

They'll say “it's working, but not yet done, wait more.”

Capitalism relies for its correct function on strategic choices by businesses about who not to serve. This is why government must never be asked to “run like a business.” Some issues must be handled fully. Government projects are just not all correctly described or modeled as profit & loss centers.

Capitalism, at least until we overconsume generally and it kills us, reacts to scarcity by hiking prices (price elasticity), so rather than too-large demand causing the system to implode, it will “just” not reach coverage—or not yet reach coverage. The public is ill-equipped for such conversation.

I'm no mathematician, but I'll risk their terminology in order to make a brief point: Many Capitalists' alleged or accepted “truths” (to include some mere “rules of thumb”) presume asymptotic effect. Climate physics adds a bounding box, inside of which such curves are truncated. It matters where that truncation occurs. It calls for different lemmas and fights common wisdom.

For example, capitalists might say “if X occurs, prices will naturally come down,” but if there is a bounding box, a time limit, then it matters whether “eventually” falls inside or outside of the box.

It may be that certain things we're used to seeing converge eventually do not converge in the short term, and that's all the time we have. So our rule of thumb that “the market will sort it out” might be true if we have infinite time, but false if we do not. Moreover, if they weren't going to converge at all, that fact may be hidden behind a time horizon. We might need to think very differently in a bounded-time scenario than we do if we think we have unbounded time. This might change how we have to judge what market-based strategies are acceptable.

So the difficulty is that we must convince people that certain rules of thumb they'll want to use to evaluate proposals are wrong, while at the same time proposing new ways to do something that will need some way of being judged. Changing both “manner of practice” AND “theory of testing” at same time is conversationally hard. It's needed, of course. But be ready for confusion, suspicion, and pushback.

Denialists have reimagined and reconfigured themselves as “delayists so they can say “we're getting there” or “we're going in the right direction.” It makes it not sound as much like lying. Unless people actually believe in the bounding time box. Folks still today, as we reach and possibly already exceed certain Climate tipping points, make economic and political choices that presume infinite time.

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

I created the plot in Python using numpy and matplotlib, then touched it up in Gimp.

Emperor's Wardrobe Day

Spoiler Warning: I'm going to speak of the ending of a certain fairy tale here, so if it's something you've waited your whole live to read, you'll want to stop when it's mentioned and go read it before continuing on. —kmp

So we're on the same page

In the well-known Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale The Emperor's New Clothes, the emperor is sold a garment that is said to be invisible to stupid people. No one wants to seem stupid, so no one tells the emperor there is no garment at all. He just walks around naked and everyone tells him how great his outfit is. It takes an innocent child to finally break the spell by blurting out what should have been obvious to everyone all along, but that everyone was afraid to say: the emperor is the stupid one, and they have all been enablers. The story doesn't quite end there, but that's as much as I want to rely on for here.

People have sometimes used the “emperor's new clothes” metaphor for the dark spell that Donald Trump has cast upon the Republican party (GOP). In the early days, I think everyone was looking around expectantly for such a Deus ex machina ending to the otherwise bottomless pit that is Trump's daily sinking to new lows. But no GOP leader stepped forward to play the role of the innocent.

The cancer has mestastasized

Some say there were never any innocent leaders in the GOP. Others say they lost their innocence over time or through specific actions. For our purposes here, it doesn't matter. Actions by single individuals at this point are unlikely to work.

It's commonly suggested that people are afraid to act. I'm sure fear is involved. But too often it's offered not just as explanation, but excuse. People worry they might lose their job, or that they might face physical violence. They cite danger to their families. And I don't disagree there are risks.

But these leaders are the ones we trust to make weighty decisions for our government. They decide who will get medical care and who will not. They decide who will be sent to war. They decide who qualifies for financial aid late in life, or after a storm. They hold the lives of others in their hands every day. And others accept that it's proper for them to do this, at least collectively, because we have a government by and for We The People.

Under our system of government—and I mean as it's intended, not as it's been perverted by recent decisions by a corrupted Supreme Court —those in our government are not special people, better than us. They are just us, charged for a time for performing actions in our interest. The reason, under the original design, that we might trust them with all these life-or-death decisions is that we know those decisions apply to them, as well. They ask some of us to take occasional risks in the name of society, for example, because they know they are subject to those same risks.

I would say there is already a civil war, a battle to undermine and restructure government through mechanisms that are not ordinary governmental consensus process. Wars are often fought with guns, but not always. In The Art of War, written by famous Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, who lived around the 5th century B.C., there is a recurrent theme of minimizing unnecessary resource expenditures, and only resorting to armies as a last resort. “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle,” he says.

Some say that some element of government has always operated behind the scenes in ways that make democratic control an illusion. I argue that some changes have made even that process far worse. Maybe it's just that with each step, it all gets worse, and after a while the exponential nature of the growth of evil is too hard to ignore.

All hands on deck

There's an election coming up. It matters like no other. Voting may not fix everything, but it's important to vote, and to vote for Democracy. That means voting for the Democrats.

I emphasize that I'm not a card-carrying Democrat myself. I'm a political independent. I don't even always agree with the Democrats on policy. But lately, policy is not the issue. Having a democratic government at all is the issue. This is a matter that is beyond policy. It's about survival of our way of life. One of two parties will win: The Republicans, promising to bring Democracy down. Or the Democrats, promising to safeguard Democracy. That choice seems clear to me. It should be to you as well.

To underscore this point, many staunch Republicans, including who've worked closely with Trump in the past, have spoken out in favor of Kamala Harris and the Democrats. former Representative Liz Cheney, for example. And her dad, Dick Cheney, who was George W. Bush's Vice President. John Kelly, Trump's chief of staff and a retired Marine general, recently called Trump a “fascist.”. Thirteen former Trump administration officials signed an open letter backing this. General Mark Milley and other retired generals have issued similarly strong statements in recent days.

Breaking the wardrobe silence

Maybe the dam will finally burst as more and more people come out about the danger. I hope so, but I'm not so sure.

There have been numerous reports that many GOP leaders privately want Trump to lose the election, but aren't willing to say so publicly. Explanations of why vary. Some say they just want to keep their jobs. Others cite threats of various kinds. Romney has spoken about this, for example.

I think the sense is that there is safety in numbers. Going back to the “emperor's new clothes” metaphor, no one is willing to be the singular voice of reason.

But does it have to be one single person?

Maybe someone with a sufficiently large microphone could just designate a day. I'm tentatively calling it “Emperor's Wardrobe Day” when everyone who is afraid to come out individually agrees that they'll suddenly say what they really feel. If everyone plans on the same day, there can be a giant deluge of people speaking the danger, and no one will feel singularly at risk.

It needs to be soon because people are already voting, but also far enough out that people could hear the message and plan their statements. So it really depends on when someone picks up the idea.

Any break in solidarity before the election, explaining the danger, and perhaps most importantly, explaining that attempts to claim there is an election fraud problem are just made up, could be very important to processing of election results. Our election system is not broken in the ways Trump is saying. If he can, even now, be exposed as just making this up, that could matter.

It feels to me like it's worth a try. Everyone is just waiting for there to be a right time. Let's just put one on the calendar.

Hallmark, if you're listening...

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

Also, if you're looking for more reading, these recent pieces by me may offer additional insight:

• Vance Notice
• Political Terraforming
• American Dictatorship
• The Pace of Political Evil

There's also my recent poem The Fraud Who Stole Freedom, which covers many of the same issues as does Vance Notice, but in a hopefully-more-entertaining way.

The graphic was produced by abacus.ai's ChatLLM using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Flux.1. The prompt was: «draw a grayscale image of sad old donald trump wearing just a barrel, holding up a hand-lettered cardboard sign that says "Will dictate to stay out of prison."» It inroduced the misspelling of “dictate” and I decided to just keep it.

Political Terraforming

This observation by David Roberts helped me crystalize some thoughts. I wrote them originally as a reply thread, but have included a tidier and slightly expanded form below that for easier reference.
   —Kent Pitman

My reply to David:

Rachel Maddow, over the last few weeks, has run some great pieces. In one of them, I recall her quoting one of Vance's idols saying something about just needing to rip out government agencies and install a smart guy who innately knows what needs doing. Your remark on libertarians matches that.

What they propose is utterly self-serving, not defensibly fair. It's full of bias and subject to corruption and degradation. No notion of oversight, like the current Supreme Court overseeing itself. But they soothe themselves that bludgeoning democracy into collective unconsciousness is ‘minimal,’ indulge the claim it's therefore a principled action, and then—in the safety of their own minds—call it a win.

This is why they dislike diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). If everyone were just like them—not diverse, if they had no obligation to include anyone not like them, then equity and fairness would come for free and there would be no one to include.

A need to satisfy someone other than oneself creates a problem they can't solve. They've given it no thought. In that light, it's easy to see why narcissists find DEI troubling. To them it is just an irritating inefficiency to be forced into having a mechanism for dealing fairly with anyone other than themselves.

Attacks on DEI aren't random. Just as attacks on women are not. Nor racial attacks. Nor those related to sexual preference or gender identity. And so on. It isn't just that they disdain these groups, though they do. It's that they want no rights at all. Rights are potential barriers to them. And barriers to them are the only ones they want to remove.

They want no rules. That's the kind of ‘libertarianism.’ they seek. But as I've long said:

“Where there are no rules, bullies rule.”
—me

They, these bullies, are terraforming our world to be habitable to them—at the expense of our pre-existing forms of life, which had previously thrived but which they have no use for.

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The graphic was produced at abacus.ai using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Flux.1. The prompt was “Draw a black and white sketch of a bulldozer mowing down the supreme court's building with a crane and a wrecking ball.”. Using Gimp, I made some adjustments to the image it generated, flipping which side of the “T” the ball was on, adding a public domain image of the scales portion, adjusting the rubble and taking a small bite out of the columns.

American Dictatorship

In a “commentary” piece in Salon titled A candidate, not a president: Jack Smith crafts a simple solution to Supreme Court Jan. 6 roadblock, Norman Eisen and Joyce Vance wrote:

«The Supreme Court’s late-term decision recognizing a dangerously expansive immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents effectively cut off any chance of the original indictment in the January 6 case against former President Donald J. Trump going forward.»

The article goes on to talk about what Jack Smith has done to salvage the case. Good for him. It shouldn't be necessary to work under the preposterous constraints recently imposed by the Supreme Court, but I'm glad he's up to the challenge. And that's the immediate concern, so it makes sense that Eisen and Vance would focus commentary on something so topical.

But I want to draw back and reshape this same set of observations to highlight a few other things that have been bugging me as the rest of this immediate drama runs its course.

Biden Explains the problem

After the immunity ruling, Biden made a bold statement:

“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each — each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.

With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.

This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”

Wrapping our heads around the problem

Sometimes when there are big statements made (like that a President has “no limits” or is “above the law”), it's hard to see the practical reality that is lost inside. I notice this when trying to excite people about the urgency of Climate Change, as well. Sometimes, instead of saying the world might end, one needs to say that there will be no more Christmas vacations, orchids, poetry, or reruns of Groundhog Day. Something more personal. Because the vast scope of “anything” or “everything” is just too hard for the brain to wrap itself around.

I'll tie this all together in a moment, but first one more quote.

The aforementioned commentary by Norm Eisen and Joyce Vance also mentioned this:

«As a result, Trump’s attempts to weaponize the Department of Justice to his own private ends are no longer part of the case. Gone is the allegation that he pressured the Department to release a letter falsely claiming that the election was marred by outcome-determinative fraud. Gone is the allegation that he sought to use the Department to press state officials to certify his electors, rather than those of President Joe Biden. And gone is the allegation that he attempted to install his now-excised co-conspirator, Jeffery Clark, as the Acting Attorney General to implement his scheme when other officials resisted.»

So, yes, as Biden noted, Presidents will be above the law. But as the reduced indictment implies, included in the President's broad immunity, which SCOTUS has made up out of nowhere, are the following truths:

• It isn't a crime, just a routine day at work, when the President perpetrates a fraud on citizens of the US, or solicits those who work for him (including DOJ) to do so.
• It isn't a crime, just a routine day at work, when the President meddles in state or national elections.
• It isn't a crime, just a routine day at work, for the President to solicit state officials to do his bidding in ways that would be illegal for others.
• It isn't a crime, just a routine day at work, when the President organizes conspiracies against the United States government, in violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Smith is doing what he must do in order to get this past a corrupt Supreme Court. But what they are asking him to accept as a premise is just utterly preposterous. The above examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

Forget the fact that we're talking about crimes that probably happened. Forget that it's Trump. Just ask yourself: If you were designing a nation, would these be intended consequences of your design? Can you even imagine our founders intended this? Keep in mind that these are the people that brought us the Declaration of Independence, which said, among other things:

“… The history of the present King … is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. …
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. …
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone …
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation…”

Independent of the prosecution of Donald Trump, independent of the sweeping nature of presidential immunity, these specific truths that we already know from the mere fact that Jack Smith felt it necessary to remove them from the indictment, and which are only the tip of a very ugly iceberg, are not suggesting a positive direction for our nation's future. I would like to live in a country where Jack Smith did not have to fear prosecuting such things would be cruelly laughed out of Court.

We must drive stakes in the ground to keep the Overton window from moving.

Dictatorship vs democracy

Democracies have a lot of problems. The back and forth of democratic decision-making can be messy, processes run slowly, and outcomes are not always pretty. Democracies are said to offer the best of worst case outcomes, not the best of the best. For example, they are supposed to resist capture by a single individual. They are supposed to have checks against becoming dictatorships.

And, let's be honest, a benevolent dictatorship might sound better. Someone who knows good things need to be done and can do them efficiently. But the problem is that there is no such realizable system as a reliably benevolent dictatorship. Even if it started out that way, it would risk in every moment becoming malevolent. And if that happened, and it would, there would be no protection.

So, as Churchill is often quoted as saying, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

But at the same time, Jefferson wasn't wrong in saying, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

We've been too trusting in the US for too long and have allowed, little by little, for various changes that have weakened our democracy's safeguards. We have seen them burrowing in at democracy's weakest points, and instead of responding aggressively by filling observed gaps, we have let them drive a wedge.

So, at this point we find ourselves preparing for an election that many have described as having placed democracy itself on the ballot, because Donald Trump has promised that if elected, he will be a dictator. Just for a day, he says, but not everyone is Joe Biden. The history of power is that people do not step back from it easily. If Trump achieves any approximation of dictatorship, expect him to decide he likes it and wants to keep it that way. And the Supreme Court seems poised to back that.

After all, he seems to think he can be a dictator on day one if he wants. But the Supreme Court has not said anything that distinguishes any day from any other. If he has the power to be a dictator by his own choice on day 1, he has the power to be dictator by his own choice on any day. The Supreme Court seems to have made that pretty clear. That he's hinting only about a single day has no predictive value. His promises are worth nothing. He changes like the wind. The only consistency he has is his narcissism.

Meta-dictatorship

But, wait a minute, why does the Supreme Court get to decide these things?

Well, that's just their role and always has been. They are charged with making decisions that are true to the Constitution, but who polices that? They do. Or they don't. But, either way, no one else can tell them they're wrong.

Pardon the use of technically precise language here, but they just say shit, and it becomes true, stink and all.

They don't exactly make law, but they tell lawmakers what laws are OK to make. They don't exactly enforce law, but they tell enforcers which laws may be enforced. That's a lot of power. Too much.

They are, effectively, a team of meta-dictators. That's kind of always been there, just waiting to rear its ugly head.

A President is suddenly a king. How? That wasn't previously true. The Supreme Court says so. So we believe it. They claim the power to say that someone is a dictator, above the law and immune to question. How do you do that if you're not already a dictator yourself?

So why are we talking about a future world that only might have a dictator after the election. The problem is real, and here, and now. We have a team of dictators already—a weirdly constituted team that has a minority voice that's like an ignored conscience, unable to have an effect but still able to speak out, alerting us to danger. In spite of that, collectively, they are dictators.

Nothing has recently changed about the power of the Supreme Court other than its composition. It has been a potential dictatorial mob for a while, just awaiting two things to align:

• the right composition, to take advantage of the power that was there.
• the death of shame, so they won't be embarrassed doing it.

Now that those conditions are met, the Supreme Court's danger, a danger that has been there all along, is starkly visible.

In a sense, the story of the US Supreme Court is the story of a dictatorship that started out benevolent and decayed before our eyes, just as I was saying one should expect from any such attempt. As soon as we get the chance, we need to correct its structure so that it has much stronger protections. In the past, our various Congresses and Presidents have seen the Supreme Court's design as something sacred, that works well, not realizing they were simply relying on luck. Democracy must be built upon firmer stuff. It needs solid checks against corruption. Nothing less will suffice.

Leave it to the United States of Capitalism to bring on dictatorship fashioned in its own image, as a board of directors, not quite dictating directly, but freely controlling who is allowed to be the country's CEO and under what parameters they are permitted to operate. It's a bad look. But it's what money has bought.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

For the flag logo, I tried to generate an image at Abacus.ai using various models and Dall-E or Flux.1, but all of them made a complete mess of simple instructions, so finally I asked just "make a simple black and white logo in the style of a clenched fist. make sure the fist has 4 fingers and a thumb" (because many times it gives too few fingers), and I had to edit it onto the flag myself, using a public domain image of a flag downloaded from publicdomainpictures.net.

Edit: The penultimate paragraph in the main article above, beginning “In a sense, the story of the US Supreme Court…” had been intended originally but ended up lost due to editing. It was added back the day after initial publication when its absence was noted.

The Pace of Political Evil

US politics has lost its civility. Civility kept progress on the Conservative agenda slow, and it created time and opportunity for opposition response. In recent years, this pressure has intensified in speed and scope, making it hard to respond effectively in any civil way.

Trump is not the only player in this. Others, working patiently over decades, laid a foundation that was ripe for the arrival of someone like him. The system has been weakened over time. Gerrymandering, the Citizens United ruling, and the stacking of the Supreme Court are examples.

But Trump has been a definite innovator in the sociopathic governance space. His two primary innovations, either one of which would be sufficient to explain the reverence of the rich and power-hungry, have been:

1. 

   The outright shredding of shame, and the important social safeguard that shame had previously provided. Prior to this, there were a great many things no politician would dare try because of fear of being found out; Trump showed that fear to be a waste of time. Far too many voters are willing to turn a blind eye to shameful behavior that comes from a politician that otherwise serves them, which has allowed the GOP to very rapidly morph into the Party of Machiavelli.

2. The observation that massive numbers of voters don't check truth or consistency. Prior to this, politicians feared injuring their own supporters, which led to a natural reserve in how nasty a policy could be; Trump has shown that it's a productive strategy to create policies actively hurtful to one's own base, who will notice the pain but not bother to find out where it comes from, preferring to just be blindly angry, without direction, and to just wait to be told by tribal leaders who they should be angry at.

The consequences of these shifts are legion, far too numerous to discuss here in detail, but they include corrupt behavior to acquire and keep office, and the open incitement of and condoning of political violence, even to include outright insurrection. These also include ever more blatant acts of judicial activism by a questionably seated and plainly corrupt majority of the Supreme Court. Openly scornful of any suggestion that they be bound by an ethics code, they are apparently bent on taking a buzz saw to long-standing readings of the Constitution in favor of uglier ends—probably to include the present trend of the Republican party toward White Christian Nationalism.

The basic problem is that the founders did not anticipate this speed and scope. The safeguards they built in were few, and the presumption was that the system would be self-correcting, patching small holes on a one-off basis as they came up. The Supreme Court was designed for perhaps a challenge or two per Presidential term. Even if it was still functioning in a properly ethical way, it would not be up to the present onslaught of challenges—as I had warned about in a tweet on ex-Twitter a month before the 2016 election:

"Trump…involved in a startling 3,500 legal actions".

Visualize 3,500 Constitutional challenges by a #bully #President flexing his muscles. https://t.co/6HffNXKA7y

— Kent Pitman 🌎 (@KentPitman) October 13, 2016

 

---

Author's Note:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The graphics were created at abacus.ai via its ChatLLM facility.

The prompt for the paperwork graphic, created by FLUX.1 was "create a black and white graphic that shows someone with a xerox machine that is rapidly spewing out legal documents in the direction of a model of the supreme court". I'm not sure what I expected as a result of that. A smaller court building, for one. But I guess this was sort of responsive.

The prompt for the shame graphic, created by DALL-E, was "create a simple black and white graphic sketched graphic of a man whose face is vaguely like donald trump, but feeling shame with one hand over his face and the other hand extended into the foreground, palm up and out, in a stop gesture intended to hold nearby people at bay." You can see it ignored parts of my request.