Kevin Shaw was not happy when he was told by a school administrator to stop distributing pocket Constitutions outside the campus free speech zone or risk being led out. So, he sued, and won.
Kevin Shaw was not happy when he was told by a school administrator to stop distributing pocket Constitutions outside the campus free speech zone or risk being led out. So, he sued, and won.
On December 12, 2018, the Los Angeles Community College District Board agreed to open the main areas of Los Angeles Pierce College to student expression, revoke a district-wide policy that declared all property on its nine campuses to be “non-public forums,” and pay $225,000 in attorneys’ fees.
The LACCD’s actions did not come about as a result of their suddenly being “woke” to the fact that ensuring free exchange of ideas should be a principal function of an educational institution, judging by an announcement on the LACCD’s website,
In settling the lawsuit, the LACCD agreed to make the designated free speech zone at Pierce College much larger and to make sure all of the nine colleges have similar processes to allow student free speech activities.
No, the LACCD’s actions were the result of a lawsuit that Judge Otis Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California refused to dismiss. The lawsuit moving forward, media picking up the story, and Jeff Sessions (in the days he was still U.S. Attorney General) filing a Statement of Interest in the case put the LACCD in a precarious condition worthy of a fast retreat.
The Lawsuit
The lawsuit in question is Shaw v. Burke (the Burke party refers to Kathleen F. Burke, then president of Pierce College). In November 2016, Kevin Shaw, a member of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and student at Pierce College, was distributing copies of the U.S. Constitution outside of the college’s tiny free speech zone (the campus occupies 426 acres, and the free speech zone was 616 square feet). A college administrator warned him that he needed to file a “free-speech permit” and restrict his activities to the college’s free speech zone, or be asked to leave the campus.
In March 2017, Shaw filed the law suit with the sponsorship of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). In January 2018, Judge Wright rejected a motion by Pierce College for dismissal of the case. On December 12, 2018, the Los Angeles Community College District settled.
In light of the District’s attitude towards free speech, the $225,000 in taxpayer money the LACCD paid as attorneys’ fees as part of the settlement was probably the best use of taxes the college made in a while.
The Victory in Shaw vs. Burke is Only a Beginning
Judge Otis Wright’s Order rejecting Pierce’s motion for dismissal of the case lists the strengths and weaknesses of Shaw’s complaint and of Pierce’s response based on prior cases. As a result, the Order denies Pierce’s motion to dismiss the case and grants an injunction in LACCD’s practice of approving (or denying) permits, but cites prior decisions that say exercising one’s First Amendment rights in areas where one is disrupting foot traffic or otherwise interfering with the activities of others is not permissible.
Therefore, the LACCD can say it has made the free speech zones on campuses “much larger,” as opposed to it has eliminated them. But who decides how large such zones need to be, and based on what criteria?
Maybe the next step is for liberty-leaning individuals and/or groups to file lawsuits in an attempt to overturn court decisions that allow for restraints by government agencies imposed prior to a free speech event. Actually obstructing traffic, interfering with other people’s activities, disrupting the main purpose of education facilities – learning, or engaging in any kind of violence should be the reason for restrictive responses, not the prospect of someone stepping outside a designated zone!
The Bigger Picture
Shaw vs. Burke was filed in the state of California, where the populous coastal cities are epicenters of progressive politics, political correctness, safe spaces, and the “Resistance.” It would not be far-fetched, therefore, to surmise that folks living in these epicenters would prefer restrictive speech rater than open discussion that might disturb the accepted wisdom.
John Stuart Mill, in his epic tome On Freedom, goes beyond laws and formal bills of rights, and observes that government’s restriction of free exchange of ideas is unacceptable, even when done with the full consent and agreement of the populace.
Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst.
[T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. John Stuart Mill, On Freedom, Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.
Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush died on November 30, 2018. May he rest in peace after a lifetime of public service. Among the kind eulogies, there have been unkind statements about Bush being an architect of the New World Order. Although mention of the New World Order adds intrigue, it does not seem to shed light on what the New World Order is supposed to be, and how President Bush Sr. is supposed to have built it.
Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush died on November 30, 2018. May he rest in peace after a lifetime of public service. Among the kind eulogies, there have been unkind statements about Bush being an architect of the New World Order. Although mention of the New World Order adds intrigue, it does not seem to shed light on what the New World Order is supposed to be, and how President Bush Sr. is supposed to have built it.
Reverse Side of the Great Seal of the United States. Annuit Coeptis: “Providence has Favored Our Undertakings.” Novus Ordo Seclorum: “A New Order of the Ages.”
Positive views of a NWO include a venue where sovereign nations can discuss common challenges and find solutions instead of taking up arms. Unkind views range from claims of the existence of an international cabal intent on establishing global governance for the benefit of the 1%, to the belief that climate change and income inequality will kill us all unless the United Nations saves us. In between are skeptical views of institutions that call themselves facilitators of “free trade,” rather than supra-national associations mandating “managed trade.” Appointed, not elected power brokers and bureaucrats like those administering the European Union or the world’s central banks are often lumped into the NWO. The view of a NWO in which nations cooperate towards achieving peace and prosperity, some say, is the gateway drug towards full implementation of a Brave New World.
How Does President Bush Sr. Fit In?
News that mentions a New World Order in connection with President Bush Sr. often refers to one of three of his speeches.
* September 11, 1990, address before a joint session of Congress. In that long speech, the President spoke about many things, domestic and international.
On the domestic front, Bush encouraged Congress to stop its squabble and work on correcting the deficit, passing growth-oriented tax measures, increasing savings and investment, increasing productivity and competitiveness, enacting measures to boost domestic energy production (“without damage to wildlife”) and conservation to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
On the international front, Bush called for Congress to enact a long-term defense program that took into account both the end of the Cold War and challenges that emerged with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. He also mentioned the opportunity for countries of the world to establish a new world order, where cooperation could promote peace.
… Congress should, this month, enact a prudent multiyear defense program, one that reflects not only the improvement in East-West relations but our broader responsibilities to deal with the continuing risks of outlaw action and regional conflict.
The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge: a new era—freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace.
* January 16, 1991, television speech to the American people. Here, Bush announced the start on that day of the bombing of Iraq by coalition forces. Bush reiterated that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was an example of rogue behavior that should not be tolerated. Again he mentioned the opportunity to establish a new world order based on rule of law. This time Bush also mentioned the United Nations as a venue for the NWO.
This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.
* March 6, 1991, address before a joint session of Congress, announcing the successful ouster of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Here Bush once again emphasized that Desert Storm was a coalition of many nations, and once again he mentioned the opportunity to establish collective action through a new world order. But here he expands collective action to include solving the problems of nations, and fostering economic freedom and prosperity.
Tonight, I come to this House to speak about the world–the world after war. The recent challenge could not have been clearer. Saddam Hussein was the villain; Kuwait, the victim. To the aid of this small country came nations from North America and Europe, from Asia and South America, from Africa and the Arab world, all united against aggression … Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order …
The war with Iraq is over. The quest for solutions to the problems in Lebanon, in the Arab-Israeli dispute, and in the Gulf must go forward with new vigor and determination … We are already addressing the immediate economic consequences of Iraq’s aggression. Now, the challenge is to reach higher, to foster economic freedom and prosperity for all the people of the region.
Perspectives
For the sake of perspective, the U.S. was involved in conflicts in the Middle East since the 1940s, when Great Britain started to reduce its hold of the area. State Departments of the U.S. and Great Britain first tried to divvy up the oil of the Middle East by attempting to implement in 1944 and again in 1945 the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement, but the agreement was soundly rejected by the U.S. Congress both times.
Next during the 1960s came the U.S. buildup of naval forces just off the Persian Gulf. Subsequently, the U.S. exercised its influence by providing strategic and arms support to Middle East countries threatened by the Soviet Union.
During the 1980s President Jimmy Carter implemented the Carter Doctrine in a Middle East “containing more than two-thirds of the world’s exportable oil.” He warned that “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America,” and “Such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” The warning came with a proliferation of military bases.
Flawed Beginnings
After the trauma of the Vietnam War, the end of the Cold War, the euphoric reunification of Germany, and the success of a coalition of nations in ousting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, the world was ready to embrace collective action to bring about a peaceful and prosperous world. And the United Nations stood at the ready on a New York City piece of land provided by the powerful Rockefeller family. One could call this clean slate, upon which nations could draw new directions, a new world order.
Unfortunately, peace has been elusive since President Bush Sr.’s hopes for order in the world – just as peace was elusive after “the war to end all wars” or the “war to make the world safe for democracy.”
Major wars raged in Bosnia (1992-1995), Kosovo (1998-1999), Afghanistan (2001-2014), Iraq (2003-2011). Numerous civil wars and rebellions abounded as always. The war on terror has been a fact of life for the last 15 years.
The NWO Tent Keeps Getting Bigger
Meanwhile the United Nations evolved beyond primarily being a venue where participating sovereign countries could search for ways to ensure peace and order in the world. The U.N. now emphasizes sustainable communities and the importance of regional governance in contributing to sustainability. Note in the description of sustainability below, “peace” is next to last.
The Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges we face, including those related to poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity, and peace and justice.
Nrg4SD [Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development] promotes understanding, collaboration and partnerships in sustainable development and seeks greater international recognition of the importance of the contribution which regions make to sustainable development. Nrg4SD aims to be a voice for, and to represent, regional governments at the global level, promoting sustainable development at regional level around the world.
We note that as a rule, “regions” are not jurisdictions governed by elected officials, but usually are an association of elected or unelected entities. Therefore, such entities may or may not represent the will of their residents.
Whether President George H.W. Bush was promoting this wider form of a new world order or the more focused collaboration of sovereign nations is not for us to know, only to surmise.
Indeed the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. However, is there a comparison between, say, those that arrived at Ellis Island, and members of the migrant caravan apparently demanding – not seeking – asylum in the U.S.?
As a “migrant caravan” of 5,000 – 7,000 souls approaches the U.S. border, rhetoric reaches fever pitch. Depending on political bent, they are invaders, illegals, immigrants, migrants, or asylum seekers. To the folks who are into conspiracy theories, they are provocateurs bankrolled by Soros, or surplus people who the corrupt administrators of their country of origin think better gone. So, why not add to the rhetoric with this article?
First, a Glossary of Terms
Invaders enter by force with the intention to do damage or to take possession. Illegals (short for illegal alien) enter usually peacefully but without permission. Immigrants, migrants, and asylum seekers all need permission to enter before they can be referred by those names.
Immigrants are people who intend to live and work in a country of their choice. Migrants enter a country to work, but not necessarily to stay permanently. Asylum seekers, according to U.S. and international law must fall into very specific categories: they must prove to authorities in the receiving country that they need protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
It would seem difficult to state that all 5,000 – 7,000 members of the caravan could be describe by any one of the above terms.
Some Statistics
* There were 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2015 … Six states account for 59% of unauthorized immigrants: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.
* There were 303,916 apprehensions in the Southwest border of persons attempting to cross into the U.S. without permission during fiscal year 2017 (October 1 – September 30), and 408,870 in FY 2016.
* Border Patrol estimates “just under 100,000” aliens crossed into the U.S. between ports of entry each year since 2006.
Here is a random thought for rumination only: 303,916 plus 100,000 divided by 52 equals 7,768. That’s at least 7,768 persons that attempt to cross into the U.S. without permission each week. The current caravan is estimated at 5,000 – 7,000.
So Is There a Crisis?
Are President Trump’s concerns justified? Is Congress acting irresponsibly by ignoring the caravan? Here are some thoughts to ponder:
* The Migration Policy Institute estimates that 25% of unauthorized immigrants have achieved a high school diploma or GED [vs. 87% U.S. population as a whole], and 44% speak English not well or not at all. These numbers can often place unauthorized immigrants below the U.S. poverty line.
* The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for overseeing the nation’s legal immigration system, which includes adjudicating asylum claims. USCIS says that as of January 2018, the agency faces “a crisis-level backlog of 311,000 pending asylum cases.”
* On a typical day in 2017, agents of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection processed the following: 1,088,300 passengers and pedestrians, 340,444 incoming international air passengers and crew, 55,709 passengers and crew on arriving ship/boat, 691,549 incoming land travelers, 283,664 incoming privately owned vehicles, 78,137 truck, rail, and sea containers, $6.5 billion worth of imported products, 90,959 entries of merchandise at our air, land, and sea ports of entry, $120.5 million in duties, taxes and other fees.
* The volume of commercial and private legal traffic listed above generates considerable income for the U.S. Disruptions, apprehensions and interdiction do not.
A Nation of Immigrants
Advocates for a lenient and compassionate immigration system often express the sentiment that the U.S. is a “nation of immigrants.” Indeed it is. Settlers arrived in the 17th century before this was a nation. Slaves were forcefully brought to America against their will during the 17th through the 19th centuries. In the 19th and early 20th centuries great waves of immigrants mostly from European countries arrived at various ports of entry in the U.S., the most famous of which was New York.
For the immigrants who came through New York harbor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Statue of Liberty no doubt dazzled their senses, but Ellis Island determined their fate. Opened on Jan. 1, 1892, Ellis Island’s vast inspection center served as the entry point for more than 10 million men, women and children, mostly European Catholics and Jews. In the busiest years, between 1898 and 1915, its overburdened staff processed 5,000 people a day with cold, stunning efficiency. The New York Times, When Ellis Island Was the Only Port, August 2000
Those deemed medically suspect, politically subversive, or unlikely to find a job were weeded out. But at least they were given a chance. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 gave Chinese laborers no chance at all by prohibiting their entry into the U.S.
Is the U.S. at a Crossroads?
Indeed this is a nation of immigrants. However, is there a comparison between, say, those that arrived at Ellis Island, and members of the migrant caravan apparently demanding – not seeking – asylum in the U.S.? If the answer is yes, then the U.S. has chosen the humane share-and-share-alike policy of open borders. If the answer is no, then the choice is that of national sovereignty and adherence to U.S. law.
It is irrelevant whether the caravan is one of Soros’ ploys to destabilize the U.S., or a result of bad choices that ruined the caravan’s countries of origin, or proof that inhabitants can be left without the ability to affect their countries’ destiny. What matters is that the world is watching to see what the U.S. – that is, its residents through their elected representatives – chooses to do.
Fiat money, that is money without intrinsic value, is a fascinating topic. Only money backed by a commodity that has intrinsic value, such as gold and silver, can be said to be of value. The money we use today has only government’s say so that it is of “value.”
Real Money: 1907 $20 gold coin
Fiat money, that is money without intrinsic value, is a fascinating topic. Only money backed by a commodity that has intrinsic value, such as gold and silver, can be said to be of value. Such money is redeemable in gold or silver, and its quantity in circulation is limited by the amount of gold of silver available.
The money we use today has only government’s say so that it is of “value.” It is not redeemable in anything. Its quantity is at the will of the Federal Reserve, who has control of the money supply via its power to create credit with interest rates and reserve requirements.
How the U.S. Debt Affects You: The U.S. debt hit $21 trillion March 2018 — the largest sovereign debt in the world for a single country. We live in a monetary system where fiat money erodes your wealth and chips away at your liberty. Read More.
Pictured above on the left is a $20 United States Bank Note, which was redeemable in gold until 1971; that can be considered real money. On the right is a $20 Federal Reserve Note, backed by the “full faith and credit” of the federal government. Good luck hoping it will maintain any “value.”
An associate of the Just Vote No Blog editor considers the topic of fiat money the most important one of our day, and provided some insights used by JVN in this article.
Money 101
The U.S. Constitution has two authorities on “money” (Article 1, Section 8):
* To coin money and regulate the value thereof.
During Colonial days gold and silver were considered “money”. Money was a commodity. “Setting the value thereof” is like making sure a pound is a pound so people can buy the same pound of coffee, for example. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. This is not the case today. As Consumer Price Index fluctuations show, a dollar today may not buy the same amount of goods as a dollar tomorrow.
* To borrow money on the credit of the United States.
This is the arrangement under which we operate today. There is no actual “money” with intrinsic value in circulation. We are operating under a credit/debit system which is a system of accounts. Under this system, money and debt can be created at will to finance government operations, provide for public assistance, maintain the armed forces, and pay for any other function government decides to undertake. Near-zero interest rates allow for servicing the debt.
Outcomes
All actions, including implementation of government policies, have outcomes or consequences – good and bad. The U.S. monetary/financial model characterized by liberal use of borrowing and the existence of a central bank (the Federal Reserve Bank) is no different. Let’s pick some outcomes at random:
* The Federal Reserve System through debt-issued currency, manipulation of interest rates and steady inflation allows our wealth to be eroded without us even realizing. When government increases money in circulation, consumers will likely use it to purchase additional items they would not have normally bought. Often the supply of goods does not keep up with the increased demand, resulting in a rise in prices. So, if you needed $20 to buy your lunch, now you need $25 or $30. If you were confident your bank savings would help you through a financial setback, you might not be now.
* A central bank’s control of interest rates and bank reserve requirements allow formanipulation of people’s behavior. Near-zero interest rates form the habit of living on credit – why worry about saving or having any cash to pay one’s living expenses or obligations? Cash is anonymous, but credit is not. When you buy with credit, businesses inventory and catalog you, not only so they can stay in touch and collect the debt, but also so that they can try to sell you even more stuff.
* The current U.S. debt was about $21 trillion in March 2018 — the largest sovereign debt in the world for a single country. Debt is necessary to run a country when revenues such as taxes and fees are not sufficient to cover expenses. As debt approaches unsustainable limits, it is logical for government to ensure that every citizen pays his/her “fair share” of taxes. That includes encouraging traceable payments systems. So, it is not only businesses that want you to move towards a “cashless society” so you can be watched.
The Fading Free Society
We cannot preserve our liberty if we cannot maintain our purchasing power and stay solvent as people, as a state and as a nation. We need to focus on the issue of fiat money, and the associated issues of central planning and debt. The Founding Fathers were forced to do so when faced with enormous war debts and worthless currency. Their solution was to include in the U.S. Constitution Article I Section 10, which prevents states from making “any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” But the U.S. Congress was granted power the “to borrow money on credit.” We the People need to be more mindful of that credit card.
California, tone down your bragging about your No. 1 GDP! The state is also No. 1 in poverty.
The U.S. is a rich country judging by its massive economy as measured by GDP, standard of living and availability of goods and services. Yet, the U.S. has one of the highest poverty rates in the world. Among OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) member countries, mostly developed countries, the U.S. ranks third highest in poverty.
Poverty is not evenly distributed among the U.S.’s 50 states, but is concentrated in a few, with California leading the way as having the highest poverty rate in the nation and contributing the most to the U.S.’s lamentable rank among developed countries. Even more disturbing is the fact that California’s GDP in current U.S. dollars ranks No. 1 among all other states. Read More
What is your preference? Market fundamentals or ideology? Do you read Zero Hedge or the New York Times?
The news media is having its problems these days. If the media is not being called fake news, it’s being called conspiratorial. Fact checkers have sprouted like crabgrass, and legislators – state, federal, you name it – have rushed to protect consumers from being stripped of all their personal information or being exposed to deviations from the status quo.
So what to do? The macro approach suggests that you read a variety of news sources – established, alternative, left-leaning, right-leaning, and even libertarian if you are really brave. The micro approach is to pick your favorite echo chamber and stick with it. The latter approach might be advisable if you need/want to do things other than look at the news. If you really need/want to narrow your choices even further, pick either Paul Krugman or Tyler Durden. Why those two? Why not.
Helping You to Pick
As everybody knows, Paul Krugman is the Nobel Prize winning economist that explains our present and predicts our future on the New York Times. Tyler Durden is a fictional character in the book and movie The Fight Club, but he also lends his name to the writers and editors of the political/financial/life-experience website Zero Hedge. Although Professor Krugman is predictably and consistently left-leaning, “Tyler Durden” of Zero Hedge is, according to reviewers, alt-right, anarchical, doom and gloom, and “extremely influential in the New York, London and global hedge fund community.” (Pictured: Tyler Durden, i.e. Brad Pitt, in The Fight Club)
Their track record? Let’s pick what each said on November 9, 2016.
I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight years after the great financial crisis.
Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks.
…So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.
Just like with Brexit, the so-called Wall Street experts scrambled to paint a picture of doom and gloom, warning traders, and markets, that the end of the world is imminent should Trump win, and that stocks could drop by 5%, 10% or more should Donald Trump get elected president. And again, just like in the case of Brexit, they convinced the algos and the momentum chasing traders. Briefly. Because after futures hit the 5% down limit shortly after the market realized it was dead wrong about the presidential election, they have since soared nearly 80 points of the overnight lows and are well above the Friday, pre-Comey close, level.
How come?
Simple: as we have repeatedly said, a Trump victory, coupled with lower taxes, a spike in infrastructure spending, and a surge in debt is precisely what the economy – and a normalized market, one not manipulated daily by central banks – wanted and needed, as it not only will prompt yields to rise, but it will assure even more QE in the near future as foreign buyers of US debt disappear (assuming Trump does not do away with the Fed entirely, which for a man running a real estate empire, he won’t do as he ultimately needs lower rate.)
It’s the Fundamentals
RationalWiki describes Zero Hedge colorfully, and as several other reviewers mentions that ZH follows the Austrian School of Economics — you, know, the non-Keynesian guys.
Zero Hedge is a batshit insane Austrian school finance blog run by two pseudonymous founders who post articles under the name “Tyler Durden..”
Bill Clinton’s rousing campaign slogan “It’s the economy, stupid,” was instrumental in his winning the presidency against incumbent George H.W. Bush. Tyler Durden should adopt a similar slogan about the stock market, “It’s the fundamentals, stupid.”
However, there are plenty of people who prefer ideology over fundamentals, so Just Vote No suggests Paul Krugman.
Social media is demanding your obedience! Obedience creates an echo chamber into which we plebeians must fit. Inhabitants of echo chambers do not think; they regurgitate. They do not create; they copy. They do not question; they accept. They are good at following orders.
Media users that do not follow today’s prescribed line of thinking are feeling the pain. Outliers big and small are squawking loudly and persistently about curtailed “reach” of posts, invisible tweets, and shadow banning. Seems that The Powers that Be have devised a most effective way to help silence any differing views.
The Decline of America
Such media efforts are only the latest developments aiding in the nation’s covert decline – a decline evidenced by a gargantuan and growing national debt, decimation of our manufacturing base, rise of the 1% accompanied by decline of the middle class and explosive growth of the dependent class.
Why would this media tantrum rank right up there with the biggies, such as the tax-and-spend mentality that led to the gargantuan debt, that led to the need for near-zero interest rates to enable debt payments, that led to easy borrowing, that led to breezy acquisitions on borrowed money, that led to monopolies.
The reason is that the media tantrum is 1) the result of powerful monopolies, and 2) monopolies demand obedience.
Obedience creates an echo chamber into which we plebeians must fit. Inhabitants of echo chambers do not think; they regurgitate. They do not create; they copy. They do not question; they accept. They are good at following orders.
Rise of the Monopolists
Conversely, monopolists do not follow, but lead. Take for example, Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and early investor in Facebook. There is no question that Mr. Thiel’s innovations in several industrial and financial sectors have greatly benefited people. Most of us have made good use of PayPal or aspire to own an electric car, and businesses benefit from the data integration provided by Palantir. However, in spite of his obvious intellect, Mr. Thiel’s view of monopolies seems self serving. Here is an excerpt from an article discussing Peter Thiel’s book Three Cheers for Creative Monopolies.
PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel advocates the benefits of creative monopoly. That’s a company that is “so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute.” They give customers more choices “by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world.
He goes on to say, “All happy companies are different: Each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: They failed to escape competition.” He suggests entrepreneurs focus on “What valuable company is nobody building?” The Balance, May 2018
A monopoly is a monopoly, creative or not, since causes and effects are the same no matter what one calls a monopoly. Today, the cause is barrels full of cash generated by cheap borrowing that enable vertical and horizontal acquisitions. The effect is concentration of products and services in a few gigantic companies, regulated or unregulated.
Sure the giants in their field offer consumers “choices,” as Peter Thiel says. But to what extent? You don’t like the way Facebook is treating you? Go to the competition! Oh wait, there isn’t any.
There Once Was the Model T
One might say that when Henry Ford perfected the assembly lines that produced the Model T, a car that dominated the market for its relative affordability and simplicity, his company earned the distinction of being so good that no other firm offered a close substitute. With the mass-produced Model T, the company also added an entirely new category of abundance to the world.
However, like today’s media giants, the Ford Motor Company had a strange way of offering consumer choices. Henry Ford famously said,
Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.
So, General Motors, who up until then catered to the moneyed class, started to make affordable cars that were not black, and had bells and whistles that the utilitarian Model T eschewed.
Good lesson on how to thwart a company’s dominance in a market!
It’s Their House
Private companies, including those that provide media services, should be free to run their businesses as they see fit. It’s their house.
It is up to consumers to do their due diligence so they understand what they are purchasing and how they are paying in one form or another for the products and services they buy. The cost might be a tacit agreement to tow the prescribed line of thinking. Or the cost might be sharing all your needs, wants, preferences, and ideals so you can be efficiently placed in the appropriate marketing and cultural category.
It is also up to consumers, as well as voters, to make choices. Some consumers now suffering from the whims of media might be tempted to clamor for government regulation, thereby exchanging one master for another.
Miracles do happen, and perhaps once enough consumers of media, especially social media, complain about their dissenting opinions being scrubbed from view, media companies will see the error of their ways and be inclusive (a favorite term of progressives). But if that miracle does not happen….
Be Creative!
Must you settle for being dependent on media, especially social media? How about creating your own mailing lists, reaching out to like-minded people and groups, supporting the endeavors of like-minded people in exchange for their support?
Might participating in the rise of creative alternative means of communication be a better choice than continuing to send out invisible tweets and posts?
John Dennis, the Republican who ran against Nancy Pelosi three times, now is a candidate for City Supervisor, in a town that has not one single Republican elected official. And he could win.
Although the Just Vote No Blog is non-partisan, it is definitely political, and definitely liberty-leaning!
Thus the reason for this post on John Dennis, a Republican who is running for City Supervisor in a town without one single Republican elected official. The only Republican to hold elected office in San Francisco in the recent past was James Fang, who was unseated from his Bay Area Rapid Transit Board seat by Nick Josefowitz, a Democrat whose campaign made a point of suggesting that a Republican had no place in San Francisco. Now Josefowitz is also running for Supervisor in the same district as John Dennis.
The Uncharacteristic Candidate
A peculiarity of this Supervisorial campaign is that John Dennis is a peculiar Republican. One would not discern that from his current campaign website, since the office of San Francisco City Supervisor (what other towns might call council member) is non-partisan and nowadays pretty much focused of homelessness, the housing shortage, and dirty streets.
However, Dennis conducted three most lively campaigns, against totally entrenched Democrat Representative of Congressional District 12, Nancy Pelosi (2010, 2012, 2014). In those campaigns Dennis made news as an uncharacteristic Republican. As sample, here are excerpt from a 2014 Los Angeles Times article.
He differs with social conservatives on same-sex marriage, believing such wedlock is none of the federal government’s business, and also on legalized abortion, saying he is “not comfortable using the force of the state” to outlaw the procedure. He breaks with the chest-thumpers in the GOP who offer American exceptionalism as a rationale for an expansive and assertive foreign policy.
The L.A. Times article mentions U.S. Congressman, now retired, Ron Paul, the uncompromising supporter of individual liberty (readers can safely ignore the article’s reference to Paul’s “neo-isolationism,” since there is a difference between isolationism and imperialism). Paul ran for President three times, 1988, 2008, and 2012.
Paul, of course, came nowhere close to winning the GOP presidential nomination, due in no small part to his provocative neo-isolationism. He did, though, build a national following of like-minded Ayn Rand acolytes who shared his fiercely anti-Washington, small-government, keep-your-mitts-off-me-and-my-property philosophy. Dennis, 51, was one of them.
Could this Republican Win?
Does this Republican have a chance to win the Supervisor’s race in San Francisco’s District 2, when the town is solid Democrat? He could! The San Francisco Examiner carried a recent article stating that a random survey “placed Dennis second behind the incumbent, Supervisor Catherine Stefani.” One might add the survey placed Dennis ahead of Nick Josephowitz, the aforementioned BART Board director, and Schuyler Hudak, a media startup founder also in the race.
Speaking of Ron Paul
Finally, speaking of Ron Paul, here is an old picture of Ron Paul and John Dennis that a lot of liberty-leaning folks still like to post.
Lots of people like to call the Trump administration chaotic. Chaos is the non-linear way to restructure the status quo, available to any political persuasion.
Ohio Governor and former presidential candidate John Kasich’s interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on September 5th should make one wonder whether he is apprehensive about Donald Trump’s governing style, or he is a sore loser. Perhaps the Governor’s droning on about the chaos in the White House that, in the Governor’s view, is preventing things from “getting done” might be an indication of the latter – how could Trump, of reality TV, win the presidency over an established long-time politician?
One could point that maybe some in the electorate are seeing through established long-time politicians, and one could point to the uncontrollably agitated behavior of the anti-Trump resistance as an indication that a lot is getting done – none of which desired by The Establishment. Also, one could point that the challenges not being solved that the Governor ascribes to Trump’s chaotic style have been around for decades, unsolved by previous Presidents.
By the way, never mind Governor Kasich’s statement in the Cuomo interview that Senator John McCain was “put to death,” since we have no idea what he meant by that.
Now for the Subject at Hand: Chaos
Governor Kasich and many other Establishment folk excoriate Trump’s chaotic governing style. Do such critics understand the nature of the word “chaos?” Here are two examples of this complex and interesting word as it could relate to President Donald Trump’s governing style.
* Mythology
Chaos was – most Greek cosmologies tell us – the very first of all, the origin of everything, the empty, unfathomable space at the beginning of time … Chaos was the primal feature of the universe, a shadowy realm of mass and energy from which much of what is powerful (and mostly negative and dark) in the world would stem forth in later genealogies. Chaos, Greek Mythology
The scenario in 2016 featured a $19.57 trillion national debt, a moribund manufacturing sector that wiped out the earnings potential of a vast portion of U.S. workers, 21.3% of the U.S. population in some form of public assistance, and a gargantuan bureaucracy supported by more taxes than taxpayers would like.
To fix such scenario, one would need a clean slate, dismantling much of the entrenched status quo. What better way to accomplish such an objective than through chaos – the origin of everything, negative and dark to any opposing force.
* Business Structures
Organizations are focused on structure and design. Charts are drawn to illustrate who is accountable to whom or who plays what role and when … They build models of organizational practice and policy with hope that this atomizing yields better information on how to improve the organization’s functioning. However, chaos theory implies that this is unnecessary, even harmful.
As the global economy and technology continue to change the way business is conducted on a daily basis, evidence of chaos is clearly visible. While businesses could once succeed as “non-adaptive,” controlling institutions with permanently-installed hierarchical structures, modern corporations must be able to restructure as markets expand and technology evolves. Chaos Theory
In other words, the order and structure cherished by today’s Establishment is useless in today’s chaotic world, unless the uselessness is beneficial in perpetration of The Establishment.
Results
The bottom line of any undertaking are results. Are policies promised during Trump’s campaign being accomplished? Most unbiased observers — as well as CNN interviewer Chris Cuomo, who spoke with Governor Kasich — would say “yes.” Unfortunately, such results are most worrisome to the Trump opposition. And thus, the misinterpretation of the word “chaos.”
Chaos is the non-linear way to restructure the status quo, available to any political persuasion. Remember, for example, the chaos generated by anti Vietnam War demonstrators, or by civil rights workers? Chaos was the most effective way of making their vision of the world a reality.
The words “regulation” and “Internet” should not even be in the same sentence. Ideas such as U.S. Senator Warner’s “20 Proposals to Regulate the Internet” can only bring unfortunate consequences to our freedoms, as well as to our economic well being.
Mark Warner
U.S. Senator Mark Warner appears to be on a mission to “nationalize” the Internet, the result of which no doubt will be restriction of content, stifling of innovation, and scarce improvements in data protection or consumer privacy. The gentleman from Virginia has published a white paper called Potential Policy Proposals for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms.
Liberty-leaning folks will not even need to read the 23 pages of proposals; they will only need to read the word “regulation” on the title of a paper dealing with platforms on which people express their thoughts, political leanings, religious beliefs, or business strategies.
Were Senator Warner’s white paper an isolated case of regulating free expression, there would be less cause for concern that is warranted in the wake of other legislation curbing the actions of websites, social media, bloggers, and others who express themselves on-line. This Just Vote No Blog recently wrote about California Senate Bill 1424 which aims to establish a Social Media Advisory Group “to study the problem of the spread of false information through Internet-based social media platforms, and draft a model strategic plan for Internet-based social media platforms to use to mitigate this problem.” Will your blog or post be declared “false information” because the powers that be did not like what you said?
The words “regulation” and “Internet” should not even be in the same sentence, since proposals such as these can only bring unfortunate consequences to our freedoms, as well as to our economic well being.
Find a Crisis and Exploit It
Kaiser Industries built a lot of roads and homes in California. Its pink cement-mixing trucks painted with the slogan “Find a Need and Fill It” were part of the state’s lore. Those were the 1950s, when industrialist/innovator Henry Kaiser found a need for homes, roads and factories, and filled that need by building them – with government’s blessings.
Today, it seems the dominant slogan is not the entrepreneurs’ find a need and fill it, but government’s find a crisis and exploit it. Instead of letting industrialists and innovators like Henry Kaiser produce the goods and services consumers want, government focuses on finding crises (or manufacturing them) and using these crises to tie the hands of producers and expand its reach.
Senator Warner’s 20 proposals to regulate the Internet serve as examples. Here is an excerpt from his white paper:
In the course of investigating Russia’s unprecedented interference in the 2016 election, the extent to which many technologies have been exploited – and their providers caught repeatedly flat-footed – has been unmistakable. More than illuminating the capacity of these technologies to be exploited by bad actors, the revelations of the last year have revealed the dark underbelly of the entire ecosystem. The speed with which these products have grown and come to dominated nearly every aspect of our social, political and economic lives has in many ways obscured the shortcomings of their creators in anticipating the harmful effects of their use. Government has failed to adapt and has been incapable or unwilling to adequately address the impacts of these trends on privacy, competition, and public discourse.
Before we even examine the 20 proposals, we might note the arrogance contained in the paragraph above:
* “Unprecedented interference in the 2016 election?” Hardly. Interference in the form of influence, spying and other strategies has happened several times in the past. A famous example of interference is Britain’s campaign to discredit Charles Lindbergh, leader of the “America First” movement of the 1940s, in an attempt to obtain military help from the U.S. in WWII.
* “Dark underbelly?” Perhaps Senator Warner could consider focusing on draining some swamps in Washington DC, rather than worry about Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook having a dark underbelly.
* “Anticipating harmful effects?” How good has been government in anticipating the harmful effects of its policies? How is the good old War on Drugs working for you and your family, especially if you happen to live in a poor neighborhood?
* “Government has failed to adapt” is always Newspeak for not yet passing more and more laws.
As noted in Senator Warner’s introduction to his proposals quoted above, the proposals purport to protect consumers and defend “our Democratic Institutions.” However, all “protection,” whether from government, the Mafia, or from zealous family members comes at a price. The price consumers must pay if they accept the “security” offered by proposals such as that of Senator Warner is loss of liberty. To protect one’s liberty one must make the effort to remain informed and exercise critical thinking. We must understand the products and services we use, and choose them wisely. We must not depend on “protectors” who most likely have their own agenda. This Just Vote No Blog wrote about that on our post Smart Cities – Your Life in a Fish Bowl.
Highlights of the 20 Proposals
These are what this Just Vote No Blog considers highlights of the 20 Proposals:
* Determine origins of posts and/or accounts to prevent bad actors from assuming false identities and influencing political debate.
* Identify inauthentic accounts to prevent spread of disinformation that pose a threat to our democratic process and undermine the integrity of digital markets.
* Make platforms liable for state-law torts (defamation, false light, public disclosure of private facts) for failure to take down deep fake or other manipulated audio/video content.
* Propose legislation that guarantees that platforms above a certain size provide independent, public interest researchers with access to anonymized activity data in order to measure and audit social trends on platforms that could help inform action by regulators in Congress.
* Require disclosures for online political advertisements in order to prevent targeted political ads sponsored by foreign advertisers. Require that platforms make all reasonable efforts to ensure that foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political ads.
* Establish a Public Initiative for Media Literacy funded by the federal government and primarily administered by state and local educational institutions. Building media literacy from an early age would help build long-term resilience to foreign manipulation of our democracy.
* Deem as information fiduciaries certain types of online service providers – including search engines, social networks, ISPs, and cloud computing providers – because of the extent of user dependence on them, as well as the extent to which they are entrusted with sensitive information.
* Endow the FTC with privacy rule making authority, so as to enable it to respond to changes in technology and business practices, as well as increase its funding.
* Adopt GDPR-like legislation. One major tenant of the GDPR (that the US could or could not adopt) is the potential of high penalties for non-compliance in which a company or organization can be fined.
* Determine that dark patters — user interfaces that have been intentionally designed to sway users towards taking actions they would otherwise not take under effective, informed consent — are unfair and deceptive trade practices. To address this, FTC could be given rule-making authority to ensure that the law keeps pace with business practices.
* Set mandatory federal standards for platform algorithms to be auditable, so that outputs of algorithms are evaluated for efficacy/fairness and potential hidden bias.
* Pass a bill requiring data transparency, such that free platforms provide users with an annual estimate of what their data was worth to the platform, which would provide significant price transparency, educate consumers on the true value of their data, and potentially attracting new competitors. Data transparency would also assist antitrust enforcement agencies like the FTC and DOJ.
* Pass legislation that could define thresholds such as user base size, market share, or level of dependence of wider ecosystems, beyond which certain core functions/platforms/apps would constitute essential facilities, requiring a platform to provide third party access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and prevent platforms from engaging in self-dealing or preferential conduct.
Does Anyone Actually Read Terms of Use?
Senator Warner’s 20 Proposals to Regulate the Internet might bring to mind prescription drug ads and their interminable laundry list of side effects. Have all the regulations imposed on drug companies prompted patients to consume less drugs or become more aware of side effects such as addictions? Have all the regulations lowered drug prices? Senator Warner’s 20 Proposals would most likely have the same result as the required listing of side effects.
However, more serious than ineffectiveness are the consequences. The proposals listed above lean towards the following outcomes:
* On-line social media platforms that host content, such as Facebook or Google Plus, will become liable for what is posted. This liability will transform social media’s function, increase the costs of operating a platform, discourage new entrants due to high costs and the threat of liability, subject platforms to the whims of powers that be bent on surpresing opposition, and is open ended. Will liability apply to content management systems such as WordPress or Joomla? Will e-mail clients such as Thunderbird or Apple Mail be liable for the content of e-newsletters, meeting announcements, or communication between group members?
* One of the proposals is the establishment of a Public Initiative for Media Literacy, funded by the federal government and primarily administered by state and local educational institutions, to build media literacy from an early age that would “help build long-term resilience to foreign manipulation of our democracy.” Perhaps the real concern here should be the manipulation of our children’s minds? How about just teaching our kids to think critically instead?
* Mandatory standards for auditable platform algorithms sounds more like killing the golden goose of innovative proprietary code than protecting consumers or defending our Democratic institutions. How far will “auditable” go? How can proprietary code be proprietary when it in essence becomes open source?
* One of the 20 Proposals is to declare the Internet an essential facility. We as a People need to decide what we want the Internet to be: 1) a host for information of all types, ideas, random thoughts, beliefs, as well as a leveler of playing fields where a user with little financial wherewithal can start a future multi-billion dollar company from his/her dorm room; or 2) do we want the Internet to be just another regulated utility.
* Lastly, Senator Warner seems to think his 20 Proposals will improve competition by tying the hands of the big social media companies and supposedly facilitating new entrants. Here are three points to consider:
Successful people make it big by aspiring to be big. They do not enter a market that highly regulates bigness just because they are little, since they do not intend to remain little.
Successful people do not need government legislation, rather they avail themselves of government policies. For example, when government (because of its gargantuan national debt) keeps interest rates ridiculously low, smart people borrow loads of money, offer stockholders of competitors good prices, and sail into near-monopoly positions.
Remember WordPerfect and Quatro Pro, or MySpace? These guys dominated the word processing, spreadsheet, and social media markets respectively. But then came Word Office Suite and Facebook. So, big companies can be replaced by smarter and nimbler ones.
As the Wall Street Journal says in its article Warner’s Plan to Ruin the Internet,
“Mr. Warner has flexed his congressional muscles and made a point. Now he can go away.” We concur.
As everybody knows, 
Media users that do not follow today’s prescribed line of thinking are feeling the pain. Outliers big and small are squawking loudly and persistently about curtailed “reach” of posts, invisible tweets, and shadow banning. Seems that The Powers that Be have devised a most effective way to help silence any differing views.
One might say that when Henry Ford perfected the assembly lines that produced the 
Now for the Subject at Hand: Chaos