thebulwark--2020-06-23--Reform the Law, Too

Reform the Law, Too

Most current police reform proposals simply aim to change how police enforce the laws .
Some people want to defund the police .
Others want police reform .
Legislators at the local , state , and federal levels will debate various proposals .
Different localities will experiment with different attempts to change law enforcement tactics .
All of that is fitting .
But that conversation misses a fundamental issue : that some of the laws and law enforcement priorities now in place are racially unjust and should be , themselves , reconsidered .
America has a history of using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might think of such laws are relics of the past , such as slavery , Jim Crow , and the Black codes .
But there are existing rules and enforcement procedures today which disproportionately lead to the criminalization of African Americans .
And these problems , too , can be fixed .
Take for instance three-strike laws , which carry stricter sentences for those convicted of repeated minor offenses , such as possession of a controlled substance .
This class of laws has not been productive—and in fact has had devastating effects for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , through a ballot initiative and has subsequently seen cost savings and low recidivism .
In 2018 , the Trump administration reduced maximum sentences within three-strikes laws to 25 years ( but with no retroactive enforcement ) with the First Step Act , which was a positive beginning of reform at the national level .
Yet three-strikes remains the law in over half of the states .
Ending this practice truly should be the first in a series of steps that will save money while bringing a more humane approach to deciding what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then there ’ s the theory of broken windows policing .
The “ broken windows ” paradigm originated in Newark , New Jersey , as a collaboration between criminologist George Kelling and sociologist James Q. Wilson .
The theory originally proposed that if a broken window was left alone , then people would assume that no one cared , and larger disorder would follow .
Kelling and Wilson advocated for much deeper ties between police and the community and a system which attended to the metaphorical broken windows .
But somewhere along the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ windows ” shifted so that police took it to mean that people who commit minor offenses are prone to commit more serious ones , and so low-level activity needs to be clamped down .
This mutated view of broken-windows policing is what led to the 2014 arrest , and then murder , of Eric Garner in New York City , simply for selling loose cigarettes .
( The law on which is , itself , dubious . )
Kelling has since said that the theory has often been misapplied .
He said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a broader effort in community policing .
Officers should use their discretion to enforce public order laws much as police do during traffic stops , he said .
So an officer might issue a warning to someone drinking in public , or talk to kids skateboarding in a park about finding another place to play .
Summons and arrests are only one tool , he said .
Kelling told FRONTLINE that over the years , as he began to hear about chiefs around the country adopting Broken Windows as a broad policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh s–t.
” “ You ’ re just asking for a whole lot of trouble , ” Kelling said .
“ You don ’ t just say one day , ‘ Go out and restore order.
’ You train officers , you develop guidelines .
Any officer who really wants to do order maintenance has to be able to answer satisfactorily the question , ‘ Why do you decide to arrest one person who ’ s urinating in public and not arrest [ another ] ?
’ … And if you can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just say ‘ Well , it ’ s common sense , ’ you get very , very worried.
” “ So yeah , ” he said .
“ There ’ s been a lot of things done in the name of Broken Windows that I regret.
” The real-world result of this form of broken windows has been to systematically target African-Americans .
Researchers have found , for example , that the same kinds of graffiti and loitering were more likely considered “ disorder ” in African-American than white communities .
Nor does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decline in crime in New York City often attributed to broken windows policing had been going down before that , and rates declined nationwide at that time without this approach .
Campaigns to end this practice are underway .
They argue commonsense points that spitting , jaywalking , marijuana possession , and other acts do not constitute a threat to public safety and do not need police intervention .
The same sort of attention should be brought to breaking the school-to-prison pipeline that can begin in schools and unfairly denies young African-Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of questionable rules .
African-American and Latinx students are disciplined at higher rates than are whites , in part because what is acceptable behavior in dress , noisemaking , and so on .
And these youths will often end up in the criminal justice system .
If we do not change our policies for what is considered unlawful behavior , we will continue to encourage white people to call the police on African-Americans for small infractions or even legal behaviors .
Such reliance on the police stems partly from this systemic bias against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should revisit what behaviors and codes constitute real public problems and which do not .
Communities can take from models that center the voices of those most affected by criminal justice enforcement , school discipline , and other institutional bias , with the goal of creating a more just set of practices that does not criminalize things which aren ’ t actually criminal .
National policy , state-level policy , local communities , and everyday people should understand that the reform of police tactics is an important step , but is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We need to reexamine what the rules and punishments should be in the first place .

Most current police reform proposals simply aim to change how police enforce the laws.
Some people want to defund the police. Others want police reform. Legislators at the local, state, and federal levels will debate various proposals. Different localities will experiment with different attempts to change law enforcement tactics. All of that is fitting. But that conversation misses a fundamental issue: that some of the laws and law enforcement priorities now in place are racially unjust and should be, themselves, reconsidered.
America has a history of using the law to subjugate African Americans. We might think of such laws are relics of the past, such as slavery, Jim Crow, and the Black codes. But there are existing rules and enforcement procedures today which disproportionately lead to the criminalization of African Americans.
And these problems, too, can be fixed.
Take for instance three-strike laws, which carry stricter sentences for those convicted of repeated minor offenses, such as possession of a controlled substance. This class of laws has not been productive—and in fact has had devastating effects for African-Americans.
California ended three-strikes in 2012, through a ballot initiative and has subsequently seen cost savings and low recidivism. In 2018, the Trump administration reduced maximum sentences within three-strikes laws to 25 years (but with no retroactive enforcement) with the First Step Act, which was a positive beginning of reform at the national level.
Yet three-strikes remains the law in over half of the states. Ending this practice truly should be the first in a series of steps that will save money while bringing a more humane approach to deciding what crimes deserve which kinds of punishment.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Then there’s the theory of broken windows policing.
The “broken windows” paradigm originated in Newark, New Jersey, as a collaboration between criminologist George Kelling and sociologist James Q. Wilson. The theory originally proposed that if a broken window was left alone, then people would assume that no one cared, and larger disorder would follow.
Kelling and Wilson advocated for much deeper ties between police and the community and a system which attended to the metaphorical broken windows.
But somewhere along the way, the practice of “broken windows” shifted so that police took it to mean that people who commit minor offenses are prone to commit more serious ones, and so low-level activity needs to be clamped down.
This mutated view of broken-windows policing is what led to the 2014 arrest, and then murder, of Eric Garner in New York City, simply for selling loose cigarettes. (The law on which is, itself, dubious.)
As George Kelling told Frontline in 2016:
Kelling has since said that the theory has often been misapplied. He said that he envisioned Broken Windows as a tactic in a broader effort in community policing. Officers should use their discretion to enforce public order laws much as police do during traffic stops, he said. So an officer might issue a warning to someone drinking in public, or talk to kids skateboarding in a park about finding another place to play. Summons and arrests are only one tool, he said. Kelling told FRONTLINE that over the years, as he began to hear about chiefs around the country adopting Broken Windows as a broad policy, he thought two words: “Oh s–t.” “You’re just asking for a whole lot of trouble,” Kelling said. “You don’t just say one day, ‘Go out and restore order.’ You train officers, you develop guidelines. Any officer who really wants to do order maintenance has to be able to answer satisfactorily the question, ‘Why do you decide to arrest one person who’s urinating in public and not arrest [another]?’ … And if you can’t answer that question, if you just say ‘Well, it’s common sense,’ you get very, very worried.” “So yeah,” he said. “There’s been a lot of things done in the name of Broken Windows that I regret.”
The real-world result of this form of broken windows has been to systematically target African-Americans. Researchers have found, for example, that the same kinds of graffiti and loitering were more likely considered “disorder” in African-American than white communities. Nor does the approach reduce crime rates, for a decline in crime in New York City often attributed to broken windows policing had been going down before that, and rates declined nationwide at that time without this approach.
Campaigns to end this practice are underway. They argue commonsense points that spitting, jaywalking, marijuana possession, and other acts do not constitute a threat to public safety and do not need police intervention.
The same sort of attention should be brought to breaking the school-to-prison pipeline that can begin in schools and unfairly denies young African-Americans of opportunities—again premised on the harsh enforcement of questionable rules. African-American and Latinx students are disciplined at higher rates than are whites, in part because what is acceptable behavior in dress, noisemaking, and so on. And these youths will often end up in the criminal justice system.
If we do not change our policies for what is considered unlawful behavior, we will continue to encourage white people to call the police on African-Americans for small infractions or even legal behaviors. Such reliance on the police stems partly from this systemic bias against minorities in law enforcement.
Local districts should revisit what behaviors and codes constitute real public problems and which do not. Communities can take from models that center the voices of those most affected by criminal justice enforcement, school discipline, and other institutional bias, with the goal of creating a more just set of practices that does not criminalize things which aren’t actually criminal.
National policy, state-level policy, local communities, and everyday people should understand that the reform of police tactics is an important step, but is not the only challenge for the criminal justice system.
We need to reexamine what the rules and punishments should be in the first place.


thebulwark--2020-06-24--Bolsonaro’s Coronavirus Denial Could Sink the Brazilian Economy

According to an old Wall Street adage , when the winds are strong even turkeys can fly .
In more prosaic terms , when money is easy to borrow , even countries with poor economic fundamentals can finance themselves .
But when global liquidity conditions become less favorable , those countries ’ economies come crashing down to earth .
Thanks to weak fundamentals and the shock of the coronavirus pandemic , Brazil may soon find itself on a collision course with the ground , beak-first , once the winds of easy liquidity die down .
Despite being the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with an economy roughly the same size as that of Italy , the Brazilian economy lacks many of the qualities associated with long-term , stable growth .
Brazil is also now the newest and hottest hotspot of the coronavirus pandemic .
A full-blown currency crisis in Brazil could have important spillovers to the rest of the world economy .
Even before the coronavirus pandemic , Brazil was characterized by political dysfunction and a weak economy .
Largely as a result of a drawn-out corruption scandal at Petrobras , the quarter-trillion-dollar state-owned oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeached and removed from office in 2016 and much of the country ’ s political class was seriously tainted .
The loss of public trust in the political establishment has made it especially difficult for Brazil to recover from its 2014-2015 recession—the worst in the worst post-war period—or to repair its public finances .
It would be a gross understatement to say that the government of populist president Jair Bolsonaro , which came into office in January 2019 , has squandered whatever opportunity it might have had to correct course .
Committing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriousness of the coronavirus epidemic was a bad start .
The lack of a national strategy to combat the pandemic has contributed to Brazil now having more than 1 million COVID-19 infections and around 50,000 fatalities , making it the second-hardest hit country after the United States .
Bolsonaro ’ s atrocious public health management has understandably undermined political support for his government , frustrating his tentative efforts to reform the economy .
But the direct effects of the pandemic are not the only dangers facing the Brazilian economy .
International commodity prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and foreign demand for Brazilian exports has dwindled , especially in a slowing China .
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development , in the likely event that Brazil will be hit by a second wave of the pandemic later this year , its GDP could decline by as much as 9 percent in 2020 before recovering by a modest 2 percent in 2021 .
Were that to happen , its budget deficit would balloon to 15 percent of GDP in 2020 and its public debt would skyrocket to over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2021 .
When the world financial markets again move to a risk-averse mode , foreigners may be reluctant to finance the Brazilian government ’ s gaping budget deficit or to roll over their large Brazilian debt holdings .
Even Brazilians themselves might seek the safety of the U.S. dollar out of fear that the Brazilian government will once again resort to the central bank ’ s printing press to inflate away its debt .
This would not be the first time Brazil had experienced a currency crisis or hyperinflation .
Early warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another such crisis might be on its way .
Since the start of the year , the Brazilian real has depreciated by more than 25 percent despite sizable foreign exchange intervention .
A crisis in an economy as large as Brazil ’ s is never good for the global economy .
But now would be a particularly inopportune time .
The world is in its deepest recession in nearly a century , and other major emerging market economies are also facing severe coronavirus-induced shocks .
Maybe the Bolsonaro government will reconsider its direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and human damage that the coronavirus pandemic is inflicting on Brazil .
Maybe an about-face on the pandemic will also win Bolsonaro the popular support and political allies he needs to reform the economy .

According to an old Wall Street adage, when the winds are strong even turkeys can fly. In more prosaic terms, when money is easy to borrow, even countries with poor economic fundamentals can finance themselves. But when global liquidity conditions become less favorable, those countries’ economies come crashing down to earth.
Thanks to weak fundamentals and the shock of the coronavirus pandemic, Brazil may soon find itself on a collision course with the ground, beak-first, once the winds of easy liquidity die down.
Despite being the world’s second-largest emerging market economy after China, with an economy roughly the same size as that of Italy, the Brazilian economy lacks many of the qualities associated with long-term, stable growth. Brazil is also now the newest and hottest hotspot of the coronavirus pandemic. A full-blown currency crisis in Brazil could have important spillovers to the rest of the world economy.
Even before the coronavirus pandemic, Brazil was characterized by political dysfunction and a weak economy. Largely as a result of a drawn-out corruption scandal at Petrobras, the quarter-trillion-dollar state-owned oil company, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was impeached and removed from office in 2016 and much of the country’s political class was seriously tainted. The loss of public trust in the political establishment has made it especially difficult for Brazil to recover from its 2014-2015 recession—the worst in the worst post-war period—or to repair its public finances.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
It would be a gross understatement to say that the government of populist president Jair Bolsonaro, which came into office in January 2019, has squandered whatever opportunity it might have had to correct course. Committing to a policy of total denial about the seriousness of the coronavirus epidemic was a bad start. The lack of a national strategy to combat the pandemic has contributed to Brazil now having more than 1 million COVID-19 infections and around 50,000 fatalities, making it the second-hardest hit country after the United States. Bolsonaro’s atrocious public health management has understandably undermined political support for his government, frustrating his tentative efforts to reform the economy.
But the direct effects of the pandemic are not the only dangers facing the Brazilian economy. International commodity prices have collapsed, capital flows have reversed, and foreign demand for Brazilian exports has dwindled, especially in a slowing China.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in the likely event that Brazil will be hit by a second wave of the pandemic later this year, its GDP could decline by as much as 9 percent in 2020 before recovering by a modest 2 percent in 2021. Were that to happen, its budget deficit would balloon to 15 percent of GDP in 2020 and its public debt would skyrocket to over 100 percent of GDP by the end of 2021.
When the world financial markets again move to a risk-averse mode, foreigners may be reluctant to finance the Brazilian government’s gaping budget deficit or to roll over their large Brazilian debt holdings. Even Brazilians themselves might seek the safety of the U.S. dollar out of fear that the Brazilian government will once again resort to the central bank’s printing press to inflate away its debt. This would not be the first time Brazil had experienced a currency crisis or hyperinflation.
Early warning signs from the Brazilian currency market suggest another such crisis might be on its way. Since the start of the year, the Brazilian real has depreciated by more than 25 percent despite sizable foreign exchange intervention.
A crisis in an economy as large as Brazil’s is never good for the global economy. But now would be a particularly inopportune time. The world is in its deepest recession in nearly a century, and other major emerging market economies are also facing severe coronavirus-induced shocks.
Maybe the Bolsonaro government will reconsider its direction in light of the economic, political, and human damage that the coronavirus pandemic is inflicting on Brazil. Maybe an about-face on the pandemic will also win Bolsonaro the popular support and political allies he needs to reform the economy.
Maybe turkeys will fly.


thebulwark--2020-06-24--What Trump Wants from the Trade War and Farm Bailouts

These have been trying times for America ’ s farmers and ranchers .
First , they found themselves caught in the middle of a geopolitical struggle between the United States and China , then they struggled with a global pandemic that caused a huge decline in demand .
Now , two recent news stories illustrate how the Trump administration has been using the agricultural community as pawns in its re-election efforts .
The president began an aggressive , unilateral trade war with heavy tariffs on several Chinese imports in early 2018 .
His administration justified the battle with a lengthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grievances about Beijing ’ s unfair trade practices , including intellectual property abuse , forced transfer of sensitive technology from American firms , and massive domestic subsidies .
China predictably retaliated with its own tariffs on American products , particularly agricultural products .
As a result , agricultural exports to China fell dramatically .
The retaliation exacted a heavy human toll : bankruptcies spiked in U.S. farm communities , and there is speculation that the financial stress is worsening the already high rates of suicides among farmers .
Sensing trouble with a key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Deal-era program , the Commodity Credit Corporation , to make payments to farmers harmed by the trade war .
In 2018 and 2019 , the Trump administration showered $ 28 billion of payments on the U.S. farm sector—although the money mostly went to large , wealthy agribusinesses , not truly needy farmers and ranchers .
Now the administration is disbursing another $ 16 billion for COVID-19 relief to farmers and ranchers .
A number of studies have documented troubling aspects of the farm bailout payments that ought to give policymakers pause , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overpayment and double dipping .
It appears that the Trump administration is using the trade-mitigation and pandemic payments to shore up support from farm constituencies in anticipation of the 2020 presidential election .
“ I think Congress should be concerned in terms of letting USDA just write checks with no oversight , ” Joseph W. Glauber , the former top economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture , told the New York Times .
“ Are these programs politically motivated ?
The short answer is yes.
” Much more disturbing than politically motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plea to President Xi Jinping for electoral help .
According to explosive details from former national security advisor John Bolton ’ s new book , during a one-on-one meeting with President Xi at the December 2018 G-20 summit in Argentina , Trump “ turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election , alluding to China ’ s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns , pleading with Xi to ensure he ’ d win .
.
.
.
He stressed the importance of farmers , and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different in form , Trump ’ s entreaty to Xi is eerily similar in substance to his 2019 attempts to get Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 presidential election .
But notice that Trump was not pressing Xi to end technology-transfer requirements for American firms or to better protect American intellectual property , the purported basis for the trade war in the first place .
He was instead asking China to buy more soy and wheat exports from favored constituents .
In other words , the trade war has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s economic model .
Indeed , the centerpiece of the so-called “ phase one ” trade agreement between Washington and Beijing inked in January are purchase commitments for agriculture products .
In order to meet the purchase targets , China is relying on its state-owned enterprises , which is contradictory to the Trump administration ’ s goal of getting Chinese firms to operate on more market-based terms .
Even after the détente , tariffs cover about 70 percent of all imports from China and the average tariff is more than 19 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in 2017 , the year before the trade war began .
The trade war certainly has not been in the best interests of the United States .
Notwithstanding the president ’ s misleading claims to the contrary , the heavy tariffs the administration levied on Chinese imports have been paid by American consumers , not Chinese exporters .
A recent study from the New York Federal Reserve further shows that American businesses lost nearly $ 2 trillion in market capitalization through lost investments as a result of the trade war .
Throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration made agricultural exports a high priority , while structural changes to China ’ s economy took a backseat .
Thanks in part to Ambassador Bolton , we now know why .

These have been trying times for America’s farmers and ranchers. First, they found themselves caught in the middle of a geopolitical struggle between the United States and China, then they struggled with a global pandemic that caused a huge decline in demand. Now, two recent news stories illustrate how the Trump administration has been using the agricultural community as pawns in its re-election efforts.
The president began an aggressive, unilateral trade war with heavy tariffs on several Chinese imports in early 2018. His administration justified the battle with a lengthy report that documented a long list of grievances about Beijing’s unfair trade practices, including intellectual property abuse, forced transfer of sensitive technology from American firms, and massive domestic subsidies.
China predictably retaliated with its own tariffs on American products, particularly agricultural products. As a result, agricultural exports to China fell dramatically. The retaliation exacted a heavy human toll: bankruptcies spiked in U.S. farm communities, and there is speculation that the financial stress is worsening the already high rates of suicides among farmers. Sensing trouble with a key constituency, the administration dusted off a New Deal-era program, the Commodity Credit Corporation, to make payments to farmers harmed by the trade war.
In 2018 and 2019, the Trump administration showered $28 billion of payments on the U.S. farm sector—although the money mostly went to large, wealthy agribusinesses, not truly needy farmers and ranchers. Now the administration is disbursing another $16 billion for COVID-19 relief to farmers and ranchers.
A number of studies have documented troubling aspects of the farm bailout payments that ought to give policymakers pause, including cases of what appear to be overpayment and double dipping. It appears that the Trump administration is using the trade-mitigation and pandemic payments to shore up support from farm constituencies in anticipation of the 2020 presidential election. “I think Congress should be concerned in terms of letting USDA just write checks with no oversight,” Joseph W. Glauber, the former top economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, told the New York Times. “Are these programs politically motivated? The short answer is yes.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Much more disturbing than politically motivated subsidies is President Trump’s explicit plea to President Xi Jinping for electoral help. According to explosive details from former national security advisor John Bolton’s new book, during a one-on-one meeting with President Xi at the December 2018 G-20 summit in Argentina, Trump “turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns, pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. . . . He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.” Though different in form, Trump’s entreaty to Xi is eerily similar in substance to his 2019 attempts to get Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.
But notice that Trump was not pressing Xi to end technology-transfer requirements for American firms or to better protect American intellectual property, the purported basis for the trade war in the first place. He was instead asking China to buy more soy and wheat exports from favored constituents. In other words, the trade war has never been about tackling legitimate problems with China’s economic model.
Indeed, the centerpiece of the so-called “phase one” trade agreement between Washington and Beijing inked in January are purchase commitments for agriculture products. In order to meet the purchase targets, China is relying on its state-owned enterprises, which is contradictory to the Trump administration’s goal of getting Chinese firms to operate on more market-based terms. Even after the détente, tariffs cover about 70 percent of all imports from China and the average tariff is more than 19 percent, between six and seven times higher than in 2017, the year before the trade war began.
The trade war certainly has not been in the best interests of the United States. Notwithstanding the president’s misleading claims to the contrary, the heavy tariffs the administration levied on Chinese imports have been paid by American consumers, not Chinese exporters. A recent study from the New York Federal Reserve further shows that American businesses lost nearly $2 trillion in market capitalization through lost investments as a result of the trade war.
Throughout the two-year-long trade clash with Beijing, the Trump administration made agricultural exports a high priority, while structural changes to China’s economy took a backseat. Thanks in part to Ambassador Bolton, we now know why.


thebulwark--2020-06-24--Defend Taiwan Now, or Lose it Forever

Defend Taiwan Now, or Lose it Forever

Why die for Taiwan ?
This is a question that will soon be asked by Western skeptics of competition with the People ’ s Republic of China .
Students of history will recognize the echo of a slogan from the interwar period .
“ Why die for Danzig ?
” made its debut on May 4 , 1939 as the title of an article ( “ Mourir pour Dantzig ?
” ) in the Paris newspaper L ’ Œuvre .
It was a variation on the theme invoked the previous year by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain , shortly before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was no great issue at stake in the quarrel in “ a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.
” This episode is relevant today not because the People ’ s Republic of China is reminiscent of the Third Reich or poses a comparable threat to world order .
The risk of a conflagration between the PRC and the United States is not even necessarily imminent .
But it ’ s worth recalling that avoiding the Thucydides trap of great-power conflict is rarely as straightforward as sacrificing a small democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appetite of a large and proud power may not be so easily satiated .
Of all the potential clashes in the new cold war between the United States and China , Taiwan is the most frightening .
China claims the island as its own territory ; America has a longstanding implicit commitment to protect it .
One need not possess a keen historical imagination to conceive of a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait .
Taiwanese independence , already endorsed in principle by Taipei , is regarded by the Chinese Communist Party as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever formally recognized by the United States , the CCP would almost certainly issue military threats and send naval vessels into the strait––whatever was necessary to bring the Taiwanese to heel .
At which point , the American president would face an unenviable choice between responding in kind—that is , repelling the Chinese incursion by force—or to flinch and sacrifice Taiwanese freedom in an instant .
Since 1978 , when President Carter unilaterally annulled the U.S.-Taiwan treaty that had been in place for a quarter-century , American policy on the protection of Taiwan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambiguity.
” More than forty years later , many Americans would like to abandon this posture in favor of a forthright admission that Taiwan does not constitute a vital U.S. interest and therefore should be of no concern to the United States .
A growing chorus wishes to formalize the “ one China ” policy that recognizes Beijing ’ s sovereignty over Taiwan while granting China an enhanced sphere of influence in Asia .
From this vantage point , the chief danger to American security lies not in Chinese ambitions but in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies in the Pacific Rim .
The liberal writer Peter Beinart has argued in this vein that Taiwan is the most glaring example of America ’ s strategic “ insolvency.
” In Beinart ’ s eyes , two factors make the defense of Taiwan an “ unsustainable commitment ” for U.S. foreign policy .
First , “ the people of mainland China care far more about Taiwan than Americans do , ” considering it fully part of China whereas most Americans would struggle to find it on a map .
Second , China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American effort to preserve the sovereignty of Taiwan to failure .
Beinart and others have suggested that the United States should likewise jettison assurances to the sovereignty of disputed islands like Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea ( claimed by both China and the Philippines ) or the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea ( claimed by both China and Japan ) — “ islands far from the heartlands of both U.S. allies.
” Alarmed by the proliferation of U.S. military commitments , these observers would look askance at Washington extending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whatever the preferences of American decision-makers and commentators , Taiwan seems unlikely to fold to Chinese pressure .
A distinct and democratic polity , there is no great hunger in Taiwan for unification with the tyrannical Chinese mainland .
President Tsai Ing-wen used her inaugural remarks in May to reject “ one country , two systems ” for the island .
( On this point , she enjoys the support of the vast majority of her fellow citizens who consider this option “ unacceptable.
” ) The Taiwanese people can readily see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promise of autonomy to Hong Kong , and would look even less favorably on any claim made by Taipei .
( In recognition of these aligned interests , Taiwan is reportedly preparing to offer refuge to Hong Kong political activists who can no longer count on their safety in the territory . )
For its part , Beijing reacted to President Tsai ’ s address by asserting that reunification is “ a historical inevitability.
” Chinese officials have pointedly dropped the customary practice of describing that inevitable reunification as “ peaceful.
” Such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as illustrated by China ’ s recent practice of testing Taiwan ’ s defenses with aerial sorties .
This confluence of events makes urgent the question of the nature and character of America ’ s alliance with Taiwan .
A foreign policy of restraint that writes off the defense of Taiwan will neither suit nor serve America ’ s interests .
It would likely bring an end to American military hegemony in Asia while elevating China to America ’ s status as a global superpower .
But the alternative of deterring and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not pleasant , and so its rationale and ramifications must be appreciated beforehand .
We might conclude that the best chance of avoiding conflict with the People ’ s Republic of China is to make sure Beijing officials know they will pay a heavy price for aggression in the Taiwan Strait .
But since this involves the United States credibly committing itself to the protection of Taiwan––that is , running the risk of war with China––the alternative of placing Taiwan outside of America ’ s defense perimeter will be tempting .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies in what would be conveyed by the abandonment of Taiwan .
If America refused to stand by Taiwan while it was forcibly absorbed into China , it would have to insist that Taiwan was somehow a separate case from the rest of Asia , even though it is not the only foreign territory to which China lays historical claim .
If that insistence was not made , or if it was not credible , friend and foe alike would conclude that America was conceding Asia to China ’ s domination .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ French and British citizens did not want to “ die for Danzig , ” and Americans today don ’ t want to die for Taipei .
But that desire mattered less , then as now , than a sound calculation of what they would die for .
The European powers charged with defending the peace decided to remain aloof while an aggressive dictatorship threatened the balance of power .
Their reasoning was not hard to understand .
The interwar consensus in Europe and America rejected the possibility that armed force would ever again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting had produced a deep revulsion toward geopolitical competition among Western democracies .
The general desire to lay down arms coincided with an insular turn toward domestic affairs .
The peace movement and imperial guilt weakened the political legitimacy and moral authority of the great liberal powers of the day .
Haunted by memories of war and stigmatized by past sins , how could the Western democracies muster the élan required to enforce peace ?
Unaware of the sins of omission , they chose appeasement instead .
This determination to pull up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , and riskier still for France ) and dispose of any larger conception of national interests and international responsibilities was prevalent .
The spirit of the epoch was close to Rhett Butler ’ s in Gone with the Wind : “ Frankly , my dear , I don ’ t give a damn.
” But eventually , the tug of war came when many in Europe and eventually America discovered they gave a damn after all .
So “ why die for Taiwan ” ?
Friends of that lonely island , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asia , possess one advantage over those who wish to cede that sphere to an aggressive and totalitarian dictatorship : They understand that a policy of aloofness and appeasement is not a formula that proved successful against a rising power before , and there is no reason to think this time will be any different .
In sum , the best way to ensure no one will die for Taiwan is to evince a willingness to die for it .

Why die for Taiwan? This is a question that will soon be asked by Western skeptics of competition with the People’s Republic of China.
Students of history will recognize the echo of a slogan from the interwar period. “Why die for Danzig?” made its debut on May 4, 1939 as the title of an article (“Mourir pour Dantzig?”) in the Paris newspaper L’Œuvre. It was a variation on the theme invoked the previous year by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, shortly before his Munich deal with Hitler, that there was no great issue at stake in the quarrel in “a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
This episode is relevant today not because the People’s Republic of China is reminiscent of the Third Reich or poses a comparable threat to world order. The risk of a conflagration between the PRC and the United States is not even necessarily imminent. But it’s worth recalling that avoiding the Thucydides trap of great-power conflict is rarely as straightforward as sacrificing a small democracy on the altar of peace. The appetite of a large and proud power may not be so easily satiated.
Of all the potential clashes in the new cold war between the United States and China, Taiwan is the most frightening. China claims the island as its own territory; America has a longstanding implicit commitment to protect it. One need not possess a keen historical imagination to conceive of a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwanese independence, already endorsed in principle by Taipei, is regarded by the Chinese Communist Party as a casus belli. If Taiwanese independence were ever formally recognized by the United States, the CCP would almost certainly issue military threats and send naval vessels into the strait––whatever was necessary to bring the Taiwanese to heel. At which point, the American president would face an unenviable choice between responding in kind—that is, repelling the Chinese incursion by force—or to flinch and sacrifice Taiwanese freedom in an instant.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Since 1978, when President Carter unilaterally annulled the U.S.-Taiwan treaty that had been in place for a quarter-century, American policy on the protection of Taiwan has taken the form of “strategic ambiguity.” More than forty years later, many Americans would like to abandon this posture in favor of a forthright admission that Taiwan does not constitute a vital U.S. interest and therefore should be of no concern to the United States. A growing chorus wishes to formalize the “one China” policy that recognizes Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan while granting China an enhanced sphere of influence in Asia. From this vantage point, the chief danger to American security lies not in Chinese ambitions but in the accretion of security guarantees extended to U.S. allies in the Pacific Rim.
The liberal writer Peter Beinart has argued in this vein that Taiwan is the most glaring example of America’s strategic “insolvency.” In Beinart’s eyes, two factors make the defense of Taiwan an “unsustainable commitment” for U.S. foreign policy. First, “the people of mainland China care far more about Taiwan than Americans do,” considering it fully part of China whereas most Americans would struggle to find it on a map. Second, China’s growing military might dooms any American effort to preserve the sovereignty of Taiwan to failure.
Beinart and others have suggested that the United States should likewise jettison assurances to the sovereignty of disputed islands like Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea (claimed by both China and the Philippines) or the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea (claimed by both China and Japan)—“islands far from the heartlands of both U.S. allies.” Alarmed by the proliferation of U.S. military commitments, these observers would look askance at Washington extending new security obligations in the Chinese sphere.
Whatever the preferences of American decision-makers and commentators, Taiwan seems unlikely to fold to Chinese pressure. A distinct and democratic polity, there is no great hunger in Taiwan for unification with the tyrannical Chinese mainland. President Tsai Ing-wen used her inaugural remarks in May to reject “one country, two systems” for the island. (On this point, she enjoys the support of the vast majority of her fellow citizens who consider this option “unacceptable.”)
The Taiwanese people can readily see that China isn’t keeping its promise of autonomy to Hong Kong, and would look even less favorably on any claim made by Taipei. (In recognition of these aligned interests, Taiwan is reportedly preparing to offer refuge to Hong Kong political activists who can no longer count on their safety in the territory.) For its part, Beijing reacted to President Tsai’s address by asserting that reunification is “a historical inevitability.” Chinese officials have pointedly dropped the customary practice of describing that inevitable reunification as “peaceful.” Such saber-rattling has not been confined to rhetoric, as illustrated by China’s recent practice of testing Taiwan’s defenses with aerial sorties.
This confluence of events makes urgent the question of the nature and character of America’s alliance with Taiwan. A foreign policy of restraint that writes off the defense of Taiwan will neither suit nor serve America’s interests. It would likely bring an end to American military hegemony in Asia while elevating China to America’s status as a global superpower. But the alternative of deterring and, if necessary, confronting Chinese aggression is not pleasant, and so its rationale and ramifications must be appreciated beforehand.
We might conclude that the best chance of avoiding conflict with the People’s Republic of China is to make sure Beijing officials know they will pay a heavy price for aggression in the Taiwan Strait. But since this involves the United States credibly committing itself to the protection of Taiwan––that is, running the risk of war with China––the alternative of placing Taiwan outside of America’s defense perimeter will be tempting.
The danger in this scenario, however, lies in what would be conveyed by the abandonment of Taiwan. If America refused to stand by Taiwan while it was forcibly absorbed into China, it would have to insist that Taiwan was somehow a separate case from the rest of Asia, even though it is not the only foreign territory to which China lays historical claim. If that insistence was not made, or if it was not credible, friend and foe alike would conclude that America was conceding Asia to China’s domination.
Before the outbreak of World War II, French and British citizens did not want to “die for Danzig,” and Americans today don’t want to die for Taipei. But that desire mattered less, then as now, than a sound calculation of what they would die for. The European powers charged with defending the peace decided to remain aloof while an aggressive dictatorship threatened the balance of power.
Their reasoning was not hard to understand. The interwar consensus in Europe and America rejected the possibility that armed force would ever again be needed or used. Years of fighting had produced a deep revulsion toward geopolitical competition among Western democracies. The general desire to lay down arms coincided with an insular turn toward domestic affairs.
The peace movement and imperial guilt weakened the political legitimacy and moral authority of the great liberal powers of the day. Haunted by memories of war and stigmatized by past sins, how could the Western democracies muster the élan required to enforce peace? Unaware of the sins of omission, they chose appeasement instead. This determination to pull up the drawbridge (more risky for Britain than America, and riskier still for France) and dispose of any larger conception of national interests and international responsibilities was prevalent. The spirit of the epoch was close to Rhett Butler’s in Gone with the Wind: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” But eventually, the tug of war came when many in Europe and eventually America discovered they gave a damn after all.
So “why die for Taiwan”? Friends of that lonely island, and of the cause of freedom in East Asia, possess one advantage over those who wish to cede that sphere to an aggressive and totalitarian dictatorship: They understand that a policy of aloofness and appeasement is not a formula that proved successful against a rising power before, and there is no reason to think this time will be any different. In sum, the best way to ensure no one will die for Taiwan is to evince a willingness to die for it.


thebulwark--2020-06-24--Throw the Book at the Rioters

Throw the Book at the Rioters

The rioters who tried to burn and beat their way to a better world over the past few weeks are about to learn a rough lesson .
The same ever-present cellphone cameras that capture police misconduct—would we ever have heard George Floyd ’ s name if all we had was the cops ’ own description of his death as a “ medical incident ” ?
—are also capturing the violence and destruction wrought by many of the rioters in return .
And this footage is being used by the authorities to track them down .
That ’ s a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , a good thing for the actual cause of reform , and a necessity if we still want to live in a republic .
In Portland , a 14-year-old and 18-year-old were arrested after being caught on video curb-stomping an unconscious man who was attempting to flee a violent protest mob .
A couple of white men have been rounded up for torching a police precinct in Minneapolis .
As for whether they were reacting to the trauma of a lifetime of injustice , I would just note that the second guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who hails from Brainerd , a prosperous lake resort town in Northern Minnesota .
Young Master Shakespeare was arrested in Breckenridge , Colorado—a town known for its ski resorts .
That ’ s not usually the profile of the poor and oppressed .
In Philadelphia , the feds used photos that showed a distinctive tattoo—a peace sign , ironically—and a custom T-shirt from Etsy to track down a massage therapist who set fire to cars , including a police car .
Lore-Elisabeth Blumenthal is the daughter of a professor of German literature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Literatures at LaSalle University .
This has been a common profile from the riots , where some of the worst violence , vandalism , and looting has been instigated by relatively well-off young people inflamed , one assumes , less by the lived experience of injustice than by radical leftist ideas .
They weren ’ t there to cry out for reform so much as play-act at revolution .
Now that these alleged vandals have been caught , they are very sorry .
And , of course , there are plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Take one of the most garish cases , that of two Brooklyn lawyers , Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman , respectable products of elite universities who were arrested for making , distributing , and throwing Molotov cocktails at a riot in New York .
“ He ’ s a person with an extraordinary career that was just starting in the law .
He attended prestigious universities , he had some of the best education that you can have in this country and yet he risked everything—everything—to drive around in a car with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal prosecutor Ian Richardson said during one of Mattis ’ s initial court appearances .
“ It is difficult for me , frankly , ” Richardson later added , “ to comprehend how somebody in his position with his background would do what he did.
” A former colleague of Rahman ’ s , Alicia Bella , said she couldn ’ t reconcile the charges with the person she knew .
“ I ’ m very surprised .
My heart goes out to her , and I want to do everything I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I know what this country does to people who express themselves .
I ’ m definitely worried.
” … By all accounts , their alleged actions stand in contrast to their nature .
As for how Rahman was “ expressing herself , ” here is the prosecutors ’ description of the form of self-expression she and Mattis chose : There has been an outpouring of sympathy for Mattis and Rahman from fellow lawyers , and we ’ re entitle to wonder how this is “ progressive.
” It ’ s almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the prospect that another educated middle-class lefty—someone like them—might actually go to prison .
Good .
They ought to be horrified .
We should throw the book at Mattis and Rahman and at everyone else who came out to riot and not to protest .
If anything , we should be less sympathetic to offenders such as Mattis and Rahman precisely because they were educated , had prospects in life , and knew the law .
They knew—or should have known—what they were doing .
It should go without saying that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause behind the protests .
As a matter of historical record , burning cities and smashing store windows tends to make the case for police crackdowns , not police reforms .
But I ’ m more concerned about what this says about the far left ’ s real goals .
The common belief of the rioters—the essence of their supposed idealism—is that force , violence , and terror are an acceptable means of achieving political results : This isn ’ t a spontaneous act of anger .
It is a theory of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a full court press right now to get America to accept assault , looting , and arson as normal and acceptable forms of political activism .
We should take a moment to think what that actually means .
It means that argument , debate , and voting would be replaced as the means for making political decisions with a kick to the teeth .
Persuasion would be replaced by terror .
Isabel Paterson once described Maximilian Robespierre , the instigator and leader of the Reign of Terror , as “ the humanitarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradiction of today ’ s rioters , who tell us they ’ re going to make the world a better place through terror and mayhem .
The only cause served by this is totalitarianism .
If you are for violence as a means of achieving political change , then you are not against the abuse of power .
You are only against its abuse by somebody other than you .
That this view should be promoted and acted upon by trained lawyers , with the apparent sympathy of many of their colleagues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because if even lawyers don ’ t believe in the rule of law any more , who does ?

The rioters who tried to burn and beat their way to a better world over the past few weeks are about to learn a rough lesson.
The same ever-present cellphone cameras that capture police misconduct—would we ever have heard George Floyd’s name if all we had was the cops’ own description of his death as a “medical incident”?—are also capturing the violence and destruction wrought by many of the rioters in return. And this footage is being used by the authorities to track them down.
That’s a good thing—a good thing for the rule of law, a good thing for the actual cause of reform, and a necessity if we still want to live in a republic.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
In Portland, a 14-year-old and 18-year-old were arrested after being caught on video curb-stomping an unconscious man who was attempting to flee a violent protest mob.
A couple of white men have been rounded up for torching a police precinct in Minneapolis. As for whether they were reacting to the trauma of a lifetime of injustice, I would just note that the second guy police arrested was 22-year-old Dylan Shakespeare Robinson, who hails from Brainerd, a prosperous lake resort town in Northern Minnesota. Young Master Shakespeare was arrested in Breckenridge, Colorado—a town known for its ski resorts. That’s not usually the profile of the poor and oppressed.
In Philadelphia, the feds used photos that showed a distinctive tattoo—a peace sign, ironically—and a custom T-shirt from Etsy to track down a massage therapist who set fire to cars, including a police car. Lore-Elisabeth Blumenthal is the daughter of a professor of German literature who chaired the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at LaSalle University.
This has been a common profile from the riots, where some of the worst violence, vandalism, and looting has been instigated by relatively well-off young people inflamed, one assumes, less by the lived experience of injustice than by radical leftist ideas. They weren’t there to cry out for reform so much as play-act at revolution.
Now that these alleged vandals have been caught, they are very sorry. And, of course, there are plenty of people ready to make excuses for them.
Take one of the most garish cases, that of two Brooklyn lawyers, Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman, respectable products of elite universities who were arrested for making, distributing, and throwing Molotov cocktails at a riot in New York.
“He’s a person with an extraordinary career that was just starting in the law. He attended prestigious universities, he had some of the best education that you can have in this country and yet he risked everything—everything—to drive around in a car with Molotov cocktails attacking police vehicles,” federal prosecutor Ian Richardson said during one of Mattis’s initial court appearances. “It is difficult for me, frankly,” Richardson later added, “to comprehend how somebody in his position with his background would do what he did.” A former colleague of Rahman’s, Alicia Bella, said she couldn’t reconcile the charges with the person she knew. “I’m very surprised. My heart goes out to her, and I want to do everything I can to help her,” she said. “I know what this country does to people who express themselves. I’m definitely worried.”… By all accounts, their alleged actions stand in contrast to their nature.
As for how Rahman was “expressing herself,” here is the prosecutors’ description of the form of self-expression she and Mattis chose:
Prosecutors say the two lawyers drove Mattis’s tan minivan late in the evening of May 29 to participate in widespread protests in Brooklyn’s Fort Greene neighborhood. There, just before 1 AM on May 30, Rahman approached an empty NYPD vehicle with an already broken window and tossed in a makeshift explosive device, according to court filings. She also “attempted to distribute Molotov cocktails to several other individuals and to incite them to use the Molotov cocktails in the course of the protests.”
There has been an outpouring of sympathy for Mattis and Rahman from fellow lawyers, and we’re entitle to wonder how this is “progressive.” It’s almost as though these sympathetic observers are horrified by the prospect that another educated middle-class lefty—someone like them—might actually go to prison.
Good. They ought to be horrified.
We should throw the book at Mattis and Rahman and at everyone else who came out to riot and not to protest. If anything, we should be less sympathetic to offenders such as Mattis and Rahman precisely because they were educated, had prospects in life, and knew the law. They knew—or should have known—what they were doing.
It should go without saying that the rioters are actually setting back the legitimate cause behind the protests. As a matter of historical record, burning cities and smashing store windows tends to make the case for police crackdowns, not police reforms.
But I’m more concerned about what this says about the far left’s real goals. The common belief of the rioters—the essence of their supposed idealism—is that force, violence, and terror are an acceptable means of achieving political results:
Since the protests, video that appears to include an interview with Rahman taken the evening of the alleged incident has surfaced online. Posted to YouTube by a group called Loudlabs News NYC, the video shows a woman who gives her name as “Urooj” and who wears the same outfit in which Rahman was photographed that evening. “This has got to stop, and the only way they hear us is through violence.”
This isn’t a spontaneous act of anger. It is a theory of how to achieve political change, and there is a full court press right now to get America to accept assault, looting, and arson as normal and acceptable forms of political activism.
We should take a moment to think what that actually means. It means that argument, debate, and voting would be replaced as the means for making political decisions with a kick to the teeth. Persuasion would be replaced by terror.
Isabel Paterson once described Maximilian Robespierre, the instigator and leader of the Reign of Terror, as “the humanitarian with the guillotine.” That captures the contradiction of today’s rioters, who tell us they’re going to make the world a better place through terror and mayhem.
The only cause served by this is totalitarianism. If you are for violence as a means of achieving political change, then you are not against the abuse of power. You are only against its abuse by somebody other than you.
That this view should be promoted and acted upon by trained lawyers, with the apparent sympathy of many of their colleagues, is what should really alarm us.
Because if even lawyers don’t believe in the rule of law any more, who does?


Florida’s Idiocracy

In the 2006 movie , Idiocracy , Mike Judge imagined “ a dystopian world where commercialism has run rampant , mankind has embraced anti-intellectualism , and society is devoid of such traits as intellectual curiosity , social responsibility , justice , and human rights.
” Or maybe Judge was just predicting what would happen to Florida if a global pandemic ever hit .
On Wednesday , Palm Beach County held a public hearing .
Its purpose : with the number of coronavirus cases spiking in Florida , the county commission wanted to hold a vote on mandating the use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miami-Dade counties have ) .
The vote came after a two-hour public hearing , during which angry opponents held up Trump signs , threatened the county board with citizens ’ arrests , invoked the wrath of God , and held a festival of crazy .
One woman accused the county commissioners of wanting to “ throw God ’ s wonderful breathing system out the door ” by mandating masks .
“ You are all turning your backs on it.
” But this was the mild stuff .
“ You literally can not mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mask is killing people , ” insisted one woman .
“ It literally is killing people.
” Literally .
( This is super important , if true . )
She followed up this disquisition with a threat : We the people are waking up .
And we know what citizen ’ s arrest is .
Because citizen ’ s arrests are already happening , okay ?
And every single one of you who is obeying the devil ’ s law are going to be arrested .
And you , doctor [ here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health commissioner ] , are going to be arrested for crimes against humanity .
And not just arrested .
The woman , who does not understand the meaning of “ literally ” but is an expert on international law , also dropped some theological bombs on on the board : The six feet , you see , is the tip-off for the real agenda at work here .
“ Six feet , like I said before , is military protocol , ” the lady insisted .
“ You are trying to get people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camera , the 5G comes out , what , they are going to scan everybody ?
We got ta get scanned , we got ta get temperatured ?
The kids are going to have to go school with masks ?
” “ Are you insane ?
” she asked .
“ Are you crazy ?
I think all of you ought to be a psych ward right the heck now.
” She wasn ’ t finished , though .
Next she chastised the commissioners for opening the meeting with a prayer : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting with a prayer to God .
Are you praying to the devil because God is not listening to that prayer .
Because all of you are practicing the devil ’ s law.
” And as surely as Laura Ingraham follows Sean Hannity , she then segued into the suburbs of Pizzagate : What happened to Bill Gates ?
Why is he not in jail ?
Why is Hillary Clinton not in jail ?
Why are all of these pedophiles that are demanding you all to listen to their rules , why are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because you are part of them ?
Are you part of the deep state ?
The deep state is going down , and if any of you are in the deep state , you are going down with them .
You really have to watch the whole thing .
It ’ s like Jerry Falwell Jr. and Snooki had a baby .
I know what you ’ re thinking : How does this woman not have her own show on OAN ?
Probably because there ’ s too much competition for her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing questioned the credentials of the “ experts ” who had urged the ban .
“ I have many question marks about your degrees and what you really know , ” she said .
“ I ’ m sorry , m ’ am , but I don ’ t think you are worthy of your credentials .
And I would ask suggestively that you go back to schools and get educated.
” Afterward , some folks in the crowd attempted to follow through on the threats to seize the commissioners .
Newsweek reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2 ) They have apparently consumed vast quantities of the toxic conspiracy theories that are out there .
( 3 ) Their opposition to masks is shared by millions of their fellow Americans .
Funnily enough , at almost the exact moment this drama was playing out in Florida , the Washington Post was reporting that “ more than 36,000 new infections were reported by state health departments—surpassing the previous single-day record of 34,203 set on April 25 .
Texas , Florida and California led the way , with all three states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” So yes , we are now officially post-parody .
And yes , we are very definitely screwed .

In the 2006 movie, Idiocracy, Mike Judge imagined “a dystopian world where commercialism has run rampant, mankind has embraced anti-intellectualism, and society is devoid of such traits as intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, justice, and human rights.”
Or maybe Judge was just predicting what would happen to Florida if a global pandemic ever hit.
On Wednesday, Palm Beach County held a public hearing. Its purpose: with the number of coronavirus cases spiking in Florida, the county commission wanted to hold a vote on mandating the use of masks in public (as Broward and Miami-Dade counties have). The vote came after a two-hour public hearing, during which angry opponents held up Trump signs, threatened the county board with citizens’ arrests, invoked the wrath of God, and held a festival of crazy.
Here’s a sample:
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1275854598146871296
One woman accused the county commissioners of wanting to “throw God’s wonderful breathing system out the door” by mandating masks. “You are all turning your backs on it.”
But this was the mild stuff.
“You literally cannot mandate somebody to wear a mask, knowing that mask is killing people,” insisted one woman. “It literally is killing people.” Literally. (This is super important, if true.)
She followed up this disquisition with a threat:
We the people are waking up. And we know what citizen’s arrest is. Because citizen’s arrests are already happening, okay? And every single one of you who is obeying the devil’s law are going to be arrested. And you, doctor [here she is addressing the county’s health commissioner], are going to be arrested for crimes against humanity.
And not just arrested. The woman, who does not understand the meaning of “literally” but is an expert on international law, also dropped some theological bombs on on the board:
Every single one of you are going to get punished . . . by God. You cannot—you cannot escape God. You cannot escape God. I’m a say that again: You cannot escape God. Not even with the mask or six feet.
The six feet, you see, is the tip-off for the real agenda at work here.
“Six feet, like I said before, is military protocol,” the lady insisted. “You are trying to get people to train them, so when the camera, the 5G comes out, what, they are going to scan everybody? We gotta get scanned, we gotta get temperatured? The kids are going to have to go school with masks?”
“Are you insane?” she asked. “Are you crazy? I think all of you ought to be a psych ward right the heck now.”
And irony wept.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
She wasn’t finished, though. Next she chastised the commissioners for opening the meeting with a prayer:
“And then you want to open this meeting with a prayer to God. Are you praying to the devil because God is not listening to that prayer. Because all of you are practicing the devil’s law.”
And as surely as Laura Ingraham follows Sean Hannity, she then segued into the suburbs of Pizzagate:
What happened to Bill Gates? Why is he not in jail? Why is Hillary Clinton not in jail? Why are all of these pedophiles that are demanding you all to listen to their rules, why are they not in jail? Is it because you are part of them? Are you part of the deep state? The deep state is going down, and if any of you are in the deep state, you are going down with them.
You really have to watch the whole thing. It’s like Jerry Falwell Jr. and Snooki had a baby.
I know what you’re thinking: How does this woman not have her own show on OAN? Probably because there’s too much competition for her to stand out.
Another woman at the hearing questioned the credentials of the “experts” who had urged the ban. “I have many question marks about your degrees and what you really know,” she said. “I’m sorry, m’am, but I don’t think you are worthy of your credentials. And I would ask suggestively that you go back to schools and get educated.”
Afterward, some folks in the crowd attempted to follow through on the threats to seize the commissioners. Newsweek reports:
“They did rush the dais,” Commissioner Melissa McKinlay told CNN’s New Day. “We had to empty the chamber and we had to disinfect the chamber because nobody in our room was following the social distancing guidelines. They pounded on our secure door that’s at the back of our room there. They threatened citizen’s arrest.”
Several things to note here:
(1) These people vote.
(2) They have apparently consumed vast quantities of the toxic conspiracy theories that are out there.
(3) Their opposition to masks is shared by millions of their fellow Americans.
Funnily enough, at almost the exact moment this drama was playing out in Florida, the Washington Post was reporting that “more than 36,000 new infections were reported by state health departments—surpassing the previous single-day record of 34,203 set on April 25. Texas, Florida and California led the way, with all three states reporting more than 5,000 new cases apiece.”
So yes, we are now officially post-parody. And yes, we are very definitely screwed.


thebulwark--2020-06-25--The Far Right Establishes Autonomous Zone Safe Space App Parler

Twitter will “ soon fade into a little cry room for the leftists babies who need a safe space from words , ” user Snyderart tweeted Wednesday night amid an exodus of right-wing Twitter users to a competitor social app called Parler .
The irony seems lost on him and others .
While literally retreating from a dominant public forum , many users seem to believe they are on the offensive against @ jack , founder and CEO of Twitter , and against a conspiracy of anti-conservative bias implemented via shadow bans and rigged algorithms .
Yet here they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app they claim they intend to abandon .
Some insist that Parler is just a backup for when they are inevitably silenced maliciously for just asking questions or expressing opinions that don ’ t align with the “ Soros agenda.
” This is not the first attempt to establish a right-wing alternative to Twitter .
As Joan Coaston reported for Vox , a few years ago the social media site Gab was “ created as the ‘ free speech ’ alternative to Twitter.
” Gab ’ s prominence faded , Coaston explained , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ the social media epicenter for the anti-Semitic fringes of the far right ” after it came to light that the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooter had a profile on the app .
And Parler itself is not new either : Nationalist history expert Candace Owens pushed her followers to join in December of 2018 : The increasing frustration on the right with Twitter continued in 2019 , and a year ago , the Daily Beast reported that Gab and Parler were “ at war ” over which platform President Trump would join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president has a long history of griping about Twitter : While the president ’ s rhetoric is overblown , the fear and anger on the right is not entirely without cause .
Mona Charen wrote for National Review in 2019 on the lopsided nature of Twitter ’ s handling of complaints against users ’ tweets that are deemed inflammatory : “ Let ’ s face it : Threats , vile abuse , and harassment have become a key part of Twitter ’ s brand , but only a select few offenders are punished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mentions of any random prominent woman with a semi-active account on the platform and you ’ re sure to find appalling comments and harassment that gets reported without recourse .
For vile trolls , the Twitter rules seem to be applied arbitrarily , while those who express socially conservative beliefs about gender sometimes seem to be made an example of .
But the current right-wing reaction to legitimate grievance with Twitter ’ s incompetent and inconsistent handling of trolls versus perceived political editorial discretion is disproportionate .
Right-wing users pad their outrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fidelity to Q-Anon .
Parler has been ready and waiting for the right ’ s final disillusionment with Twitter .
The newfound enthusiasm for the app is due to Twitter first adding fact-checking warnings to some of the president ’ s tweets last month—a move that so infuriated him that he signed a constitutionally dubious executive order “ preventing online censorship ” —and then putting a warning label on a Trump tweet following the death of George Floyd that said “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” a phrase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police during the race riots of 1967 .
Twitter ’ s warning on the tweet read : “ This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence .
However , Twitter has determined that it may be in the public ’ s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.
” This flagging was deemed to be censorship by the MAGA cohort , even though you could still expand and read the full text of the president ’ s tweet .
There have since been more tweets from the president that earned warning labels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week the popular meme account Carpe Donktum was permanently suspended for repeated violations of DMCA copyright policy .
It remains to be seen if Parler can sustain the apparent increase in users and whether it will meet the same fate as Gab .
Since the motivations for many of the departing seem to be aligned with Katie Hopkins , a notorious racist provocateur , it ’ s doubtful Parler will be a bastion of civility and moral fortitude .
All the usual suspects of Edgelord Conservative World are flocking to the app , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kurt Schlichter , Jesse Kelly , Curtis Houck , Bill Mitchell , and Benny Johnson , plus even some erstwhile establishment figures like Ari Fleischer .
Don ’ t worry , though , it ’ s not a total dudefest—Cassandra Fairbanks is there , too , and thinks lefties should come and hang out for some “ friendly squabbles ” : OAN Anchor Emily Finn tweeted that she wanted to see what all the hype was about as well .
“ So far seems like a promising alternative to Twitter !
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already using it , ” she said in reply to a follower asking if it was worth it .
Parler does have one thing going for it : The Krassenstein brothers , of presidential reply-guy lore , appear to be active on the app .
While collectively dunking on them won ’ t solve all our social and political ills , it might be worth a shot .
“ So fitting that their name is ‘ Parler ’ ( par-lay ) which is French for ‘ to talk ’ .
France is having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we !
!
” Candace Owens tweeted back in 2018 with the hashtag # AmericanRebellion .
Like most rebellions , the # Twexit campaign may have repercussions beyond social media , though , as the Trump re-election campaign and Brad Parscale try to save face as the polls continue to shift out of their favor .
And beyond 2020 ?
If Parler succeeds in siphoning off a portion of right-wing Twitter , it will be in keeping with conservatives ’ decades-long practice of creating alternative institutions that allow them to indulge in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from wider society .

Twitter will “soon fade into a little cry room for the leftists babies who need a safe space from words,” user Snyderart tweeted Wednesday night amid an exodus of right-wing Twitter users to a competitor social app called Parler. The irony seems lost on him and others. While literally retreating from a dominant public forum, many users seem to believe they are on the offensive against @jack, founder and CEO of Twitter, and against a conspiracy of anti-conservative bias implemented via shadow bans and rigged algorithms.
Yet here they are announcing their retreat and defeat on the app they claim they intend to abandon.
Some insist that Parler is just a backup for when they are inevitably silenced maliciously for just asking questions or expressing opinions that don’t align with the “Soros agenda.”
This is not the first attempt to establish a right-wing alternative to Twitter. As Jane Coaston reported for Vox, a few years ago the social media site Gab was “created as the ‘free speech’ alternative to Twitter.” Gab’s prominence faded, Coaston explained, as the platform gained a reputation for being “the social media epicenter for the anti-Semitic fringes of the far right” after it came to light that the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooter had a profile on the app.
And Parler itself is not new either: Nationalist history expert Candace Owens pushed her followers to join in December of 2018:
Seeing the amount of patriots that just made the jump to #parlernews in the past hour makes me so happy. Just got an email that we crashed their site for the next 12 hours. The power will ALWAYS be in the hands of the people. We will no longer be censored. #ParlerNews pic.twitter.com/bHDm2wpxQd — Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) December 10, 2018
The increasing frustration on the right with Twitter continued in 2019, and a year ago, the Daily Beast reported that Gab and Parler were “at war” over which platform President Trump would join first. For his part, the president has a long history of griping about Twitter:
Twitter should let the banned Conservative Voices back onto their platform, without restriction. It’s called Freedom of Speech, remember. You are making a Giant Mistake! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2019
While the president’s rhetoric is overblown, the fear and anger on the right is not entirely without cause. Mona Charen wrote for National Review in 2019 on the lopsided nature of Twitter’s handling of complaints against users’ tweets that are deemed inflammatory: “Let’s face it: Threats, vile abuse, and harassment have become a key part of Twitter’s brand, but only a select few offenders are punished or banned.” Take a glance at the mentions of any random prominent woman with a semi-active account on the platform and you’re sure to find appalling comments and harassment that gets reported without recourse. For vile trolls, the Twitter rules seem to be applied arbitrarily, while those who express socially conservative beliefs about gender sometimes seem to be made an example of.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But the current right-wing reaction to legitimate grievance with Twitter’s incompetent and inconsistent handling of trolls versus perceived political editorial discretion is disproportionate. Right-wing users pad their outrage with manufactured intrigue around shadow bans and fidelity to Q-Anon.
Parler has been ready and waiting for the right’s final disillusionment with Twitter. The newfound enthusiasm for the app is due to Twitter first adding fact-checking warnings to some of the president’s tweets last month—a move that so infuriated him that he signed a constitutionally dubious executive order “preventing online censorship”—and then putting a warning label on a Trump tweet following the death of George Floyd that said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” a phrase made famous by the Miami chief of police during the race riots of 1967.
Twitter’s warning on the tweet read: “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.” This flagging was deemed to be censorship by the MAGA cohort, even though you could still expand and read the full text of the president’s tweet.
There have since been more tweets from the president that earned warning labels and fact-check notices. And then this week the popular meme account Carpe Donktum was permanently suspended for repeated violations of DMCA copyright policy.
It remains to be seen if Parler can sustain the apparent increase in users and whether it will meet the same fate as Gab. Since the motivations for many of the departing seem to be aligned with Katie Hopkins, a notorious racist provocateur, it’s doubtful Parler will be a bastion of civility and moral fortitude. All the usual suspects of Edgelord Conservative World are flocking to the app, including Devin Nunes, Rand Paul, Kurt Schlichter, Jesse Kelly, Curtis Houck, Bill Mitchell, and Benny Johnson, plus even some erstwhile establishment figures like Ari Fleischer.
Don’t worry, though, it’s not a total dudefest—Cassandra Fairbanks is there, too, and thinks lefties should come and hang out for some “friendly squabbles”:
Can some of you not totally bonkers lefties join Parler so we can have friendly squabbles? It will be fun. — Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) June 25, 2020
OAN Anchor Emily Finn tweeted that she wanted to see what all the hype was about as well. “So far seems like a promising alternative to Twitter! There’s way more people than I expected already using it,” she said in reply to a follower asking if it was worth it.
Parler does have one thing going for it: The Krassenstein brothers, of presidential reply-guy lore, appear to be active on the app. While collectively dunking on them won’t solve all our social and political ills, it might be worth a shot.
No pitch has made me more inclined to join Parler than this pic.twitter.com/1i45IoR9ZR — Phil (@philllosoraptor) June 25, 2020
“So fitting that their name is ‘Parler’ (par-lay) which is French for ‘to talk’. France is having a rebellion, and now so are we!!” Candace Owens tweeted back in 2018 with the hashtag #AmericanRebellion. Like most rebellions, the #Twexit campaign may have repercussions beyond social media, though, as the Trump re-election campaign and Brad Parscale try to save face as the polls continue to shift out of their favor.
And beyond 2020? If Parler succeeds in siphoning off a portion of right-wing Twitter, it will be in keeping with conservatives’ decades-long practice of creating alternative institutions that allow them to indulge in a fantasy reality fetishizing persecution while isolating themselves from wider society.