Saturday, October 21, 2017

With a Little Help From My Friends

And This Time It's Legal
The thing that must be understood first is that our cyclical drug 'epidemics' are ALWAYS driven by supply. That is to say, there is not a pent-up demand for a certain drug waiting for the underground economy to supply it to broad portions of the population. Instead, somebody finds a way to bring very large supplies of a certain drug into the US and widely distribute that drug to cities and towns across the nation. Whether it was the Crack Cocaine epidemic of the 80s, the Methamphetamine epidemic of the Oughts, or the still ongoing Opioid epidemic, the underlying economic principle is backwards from most markets. It is the supply itself that creates the demand. The thing that makes the Opioid epidemic so pernicious is that the supply is not created by criminal elements, and there is no smuggling required. No, these drugs, and the demand for them that is killing and immiserating so many Americans are perfectly legal. They are produced very cheaply in massive numbers by regular pharmaceutical companies, and distributed through the normal channels to hospitals, doctors and pharmacies in every community in the US.

In many cases, I will often take the position that what the federal government does is unimportant and only marginally effective. Federal incarceration, is only a small percentage of overall incarceration, and nothing done at the federal level will have any impact on how criminal justice is meted out in the states. Similarly, in the case of education, while the federal government provides some funding, states by far have the most to say about how educational institutions are operated, and at what cost.

But this is a different matter. The FDA has complete control on how these drugs are manufactured and distributed, and working through the DEA they can prevent at least the most egregious misallocation of these kind of highly addictive drugs through the system. One of the most problematic parts of the supply chain is a local pharmacy that seeks to profit from the sales of Opioid drugs like Oxycontin, rather than to act in a manner that is responsible to the people of their community. Their greed is destroying communities all over the US. But at least we have the Government to step in and control these kinds of abuses, right?

Not so fast. When Donald Trump nominated Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) to be Drug Czar, the press started looking into his history, especially with the Pharmaceutical industry. And sure enough, it turns out that he took over a hundred thousand dollars from Big Pharma, and acted on those contributions. Working directly with industry lobbyists - many of them former FDA and DEA inspectors and investigators, hired by the industry for huge salaries - Marino drove the passage of a law that brilliantly concealed its ultimate purpose. The law seemed so benign that it passed congress by unanimous consent - no voting required. It was only after its passage that the DEA discovered how it tied their hands when they discovered excesses that were clearly criminal.

One of the small-town pharmacies they detected as being a criminal drug distribution center was in Kermit, West Virginia, population 392. That single pharmacy ordered - and received - 9 MILLION pills in just two years. The DEA saw the reports, and wanted to investigate that pharmacy, but Tom Marino's law blocked them from doing so. And people died.

Of course, Marino, once exposed, could never be confirmed as 'Drug Czar', so he took himself out of the running. But we still need effective federal action to limit the greed-driven excessive shipments without limiting access to necessary treatment for pain. Big pharma - especially McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen - makes tens of billions of dollars on these drugs, and will resist anything that reduces those profits. Just like the gun lobby, the pharmaceutical industry has concluded that the profits are worth the loss of life, and the ruination of so many peoples lives, and will continue to push for ways to put MORE opioids into circulation, not less.

Watch congress closely. There is a lot of talk about the 'Opioid Crisis', but not a lot of action. Any action will take immense political courage, because the industry is a powerful foe. And if we've learned anything over the last ten years, it is that congress can bloviate and pose with the best of them, and at the end of the day do nothing. Once again, the personal risk to the individual lawmakers is of much deeper concern than the millions of American lives at risk.

Friday, October 20, 2017

Is A Robot Going To Take Your Job?

The Workplace of the Future
Not to give away the surprise ending, but the short answer is yes. An intelligent machine will almost certainly be doing the job you do today within a few years. But the main point I want to make today is a response to all the skeptics that make the argument that we've seen massive technological shifts in the workplace before, and after a few years of disruption they actually contributed to greater human employment than before. And that is inarguably true. But - and I generally HATE any kind of argument from authority - I would posit that the people who make this argument simply don't understand the depth and breadth of the sea change occurring right NOW.

The technological factors that are the structure behind the success of intelligent machines in the workplace are much more profound than many people realize. They are a combination of factors - hardware, software, sensors, high-speed wireless networks, virtualization, cloud-based computing, cheap custom silicon, modern programming methodologies, distributed databases - the list is long, and within each category is another list of breakthrough inventions and developments specific to that category.

It's also important to realize that the common term for these technologies - Artificial Intelligence (AI) - is a complete misnomer in this context. These machines are not intelligent in the way we understand it - they are not an 'artificial' equivalent of human intelligence. What they are is purpose-built machines that have access to the vast amounts of subject-matter specific data and a set of rules for applying that data in a very narrow context. A machine that can very quickly create an endless series of perfect welds on an assembly line, or that can interpret thousands of photographic (or X Ray) images per minute could never go to 7-11 and buy a soda. That simple act - one that can be accomplished by any six-year-old human - is well beyond the capacity of these kinds of 'intelligent machines'. Make no mistake, there's a lot of research being done on that kind of broad autonomous intelligence as well, but that's not what workplace automation requires - which is why it is arriving so quickly.

With capabilities provided by broad-spectrum sensors, huge distributed databases, fast processors, cheap memory, GPS, accelerometers, radar/lidar systems and custom designed chips that do specific things very effectively (more often than not, designed at least in part by other intelligent machines), there are very few jobs that cannot be done faster, better and more reliably by machines. They never get sick, they never lose focus, then never even want a coffee break. "But wait", you say. "Every other technologically-driven workplace revolution has resulted in MORE jobs for humans, not less. Why would this be any different?"

I'll explain that in very simple terms. Yes, this trend to use robots in place of humans will create more jobs throughout the workplace. But those jobs will be filled by other robots, not humans. And before you ask, it will not continue to be necessary for humans to design, build and program the intelligent machines. We already have machine-learning algorithms that can start with zero input and very quickly learn how to accomplish specific tasks better than anyone ever has. You may recall that Google's DeepMind research project produced a software Go player called AlphaGo that in March, 2016 stunned the world by beating a human player at the game. Well, they recently announced AlphaGo Zero. The new version started with NO data - just the game rules. It chewed on that for a while, and without any historical information on human strategies or processes, has now beaten the previous version in one hundred consecutive games. Just think about that.

Obviously, the political/socio/economic impacts of a world without jobs are profound. Ideally, this ability to create virtually unlimited productivity at only the cost of inputs should produce a Utopian society where everyone 'works' at what they want, and nobody lacks for material goods. Of course, our religious/puritanical culture, coupled with the greed and fear that makes so many of our fellow humans view economics in zero-sum terms will prevent us from getting anywhere near that kind of breakthrough for a long time. In the meantime, jobs at all parts of the workforce spectrum will become more scarce, people will be desperate and homeless and all the while, with the diminishing demands of labor, the owners of the capital that owns the robots will get richer and richer.

One would think the end of work would be a boon to a human community. And it almost certainly will. But the time between now and utopia will be a very dark period in human history. If there is a key takeaway, then, it is this: Do not bury your head in the sand. These changes are coming, and they are coming faster than you think they are. You (and your children) will be better served to at least understand what the next 20 years holds...

Thursday, October 19, 2017

A Few (Trump Inspired) Thoughts on Nuclear Weapons

Carrying the Football
One of the go-to arguments against a mentally-defective, impulsive buffoon in the White House is that he has access to the 'nuclear codes', and is the sole individual in the US Government hierarchy who can, without any other approval or concurrence, order the immediate release of American strategic nuclear weapons. An order that is processed by a system specifically designed and engineered to assure that  the order will be carried out within minutes, without any hesitation or option. This, we are continuously assured, is clearly a systemic defect, one we must reconsider and put further safeguards in place to prevent an angry president from being able to impulsively bring about the end of the world.

[Note: The President doesn't have any 'nuclear codes'. The famous 'football' that is always with him everywhere and at all times is a set of pre-developed Operational Plans that describe the weapons and targeting to be used against any given adversary. It also contains a set of one-time codes and ciphers that allow the president - using advanced cryptography - to authenticate his identity. Once the President issues the order and authenticates the source of the order is the National Command Authority, it is carried out by people who most assuredly DO have the nuclear codes.]

The reason for this seemingly dangerous - and make no mistake, it IS dangerous - system to be in place is based upon years of the study of nuclear weapons strategy. The idea is that nuclear weapons are not to be used - they are intended to deter any other nation's use of their strategic weapons. The number one overarching fear has always been a 'first strike'. If a nation, the thinking goes, believes it can launch a nuclear attack on a rival that eliminates the vast majority of that nation's ability to retaliate, the temptation would be to go ahead and launch. It would put the risk of global nuclear annihilation in the rear view mirror for all time.

This concern led to the streamlined command structure we have now. Russian (Soviet before) missiles coming over the pole can hit the American missile silos scattered across the northern prairie in less than fifteen minutes. The only way to deter such an attack, say the strategists, is to configure a system we call 'Launch on Warning'. If an incoming nuclear strike is detected, the entire system is designed to get OUR missiles in the air before THEIR missiles start landing. And that means one person in the chain of command, one fast decision, and the end of the world.

Oddly, despite some close calls and near misses, this system has worked for more than half a century. Nobody decided to launch a first strike, because nobody believed that a first strike would 'work'. They launch 2000 missiles, we launch 1500 missiles, then everybody dies. Nobody wins. In the Cold War, that strategy was called, quite accurately MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). You don't start a war if everybody dies.

So after all these years, the unthinkable happened. The United States population lost its collective mind and elected an eight year old with impulse control issues to the presidency. And with that, we quite logically rend our garments over this president's access to such god-like power. But if we interject another process in the launch order, we reduce the deterrence value of our strategic forces, and invite a first strike. Which way would be more likely to lead to war? Nobody really knows, but you don't get any do-overs in nuclear war.

Another topic that has gotten a lot of attention recently is the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The Swiss organization ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) won the Nobel Peace Prize this year, and organizations such as Global Zero, the Ploughshares Fund, the Federation of American Scientists and others have been working on this goal for dozens of years.

So - is it possible? Hey, anything's possible, but the process seems highly unlikely to me. If everybody and every nation - operating in perfectly good faith - eliminated nuclear weapons, then one bad national leader could secretly develop a few crude atomic weapons and dictate terms to the rest of the world.

Unless and until somebody can describe a methodology in which either nobody will cheat or cheating will be somehow nullified, you're not going to see nations give up their strategic deterrent. Personally, I believe that technology, once in the wild, can never be truly rolled back. Machine guns, drones, robots - anything that makes killing and destruction more efficient and effective - will be used simply because they exist. Nuclear weapons are so destructive that they can form their own deterrence regime, but if that deterrence regime is weakened sufficiently, that's what will lead to their use.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

After Further Review...

He was safe. Play ball!
In general, I am a huge proponent of using HiDef imagery, powerful lenses and super SloMo to help referees and umpires in professional sports do their jobs. For too many years, we were forced to accept outcomes we could see with our own eyes were wrong. We struggled to accept the 'human factor' as part of a game, even as the technology existed to remove that human factor from the game. "Get it right", we said. The game will be better for it.

And the game IS better for it. They do "get it right", and most of the more egregiously bad calls are overturned in the name of fairness and accuracy. But like any improvement to any established process, there can be - and usually are - unintended consequences that simply could not be foreseen when the technological solution was implemented.

The biggest mistake we could possibly make when adding an additional layer of technology to determine the fairest, most accurate adjudications are made, would be to slavishly accept the micro level of accuracy while ignoring the macro sense of the game itself.  We saw this play out in a painful call in the eighth inning of the final Washington/Chicago playoff game. Essentially, the catcher fired a pickoff attempt to first and the runner got back safely. But wait! After the implementation of replay in the MLB, the players are taught to keep the tag applied to the runner. That way, if the runner loses contact with the base - even for a millisecond - he will be called out. And sure enough, the infielder held the ball in contact with the runner, whose foot came half an inch off the base for less than a second, and that's all it took to end the playoff hopes for the Washington Nationals.

Before replay, once the runner was safe, the infielder threw the ball back to the pitcher and never worried about the possibility of the runner briefly losing physical contact with the base. This was just common sense: The runner was safe, the play was over, let's go, play ball! But the replay regime has completely legislated common sense out of the process. It's as if they've created a kind of 'Shroedinger's Baserunner' who is simultaneously safe AND out, the final determination to be made once the play is examined through the lens of technology for an arbitrarily long period of time after it is over.

Nobody ever thought about what happens five or ten or even twenty seconds after the play is made and called. Because that's not what we're here to do. We're watching two teams play a beautiful, elegant, hundred year old game at the highest level. We do not want to see games decided by a pointless call based on an unintended consequence of what otherwise was an improvement in the game.

I'm very much for using sensors to call balls and strikes. The problem isn't just missing calls - although that IS a problem - the problem is that every umpire has his own strike zone, very few of which are even close to the strike zone described in the rulebook. But I'd also like to see the League step up and figure out a way to keep the improvements to the quality of the game delivered by replay, but to put an end to the absurd, pointless nitpickery that has resulted from it.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Who Ya Gonna Call?

Have I Reached the Party to whom I am Speaking?
OK, OK, I get it fer crissakes. You hate Trump. I hate Trump. Two thirds of Americans and five sixths of the world hate Trump. There are people who don't know where Washington DC is and they fucking hate Trump.

But c'mon. You're doing it wrong. Acting like the tea party, throwing an endless tantrum, shrieking for a couple of news cycles over actions both existential and meaningless. We really have to do better.

You want a fer instance? OK, lets talk dead soldiers. Who did Trump call? When did he call them? What about Obama? Congratulations, you sound like Trey Gowdy. Nice work there.

First, think about it. Do you really want a rich ignorant narcissist to call you in the midst of your grief over the loss of a loved one? How is that conversation going to go? Will you feel better after a nice brief conversation with Donald Trump? A conversation, need I even mention, that will be entirely ABOUT Donald Trump?

But that's actually secondary. He's President, if he wants to call widows and orphans, that's his prerogative. But there's a much larger issue. A friend of mine referred to the old saw about 'Fiddling while Rome burns', describing the banal and pointless things people were doing while thousands of houses went up in flames last week. The phrase, of course, has a broader meaning that has nothing to do with fires or musical instruments. It describes both a leadership that is callous and even sociopathic, that has no empathy for the people it leads, and contributes zero value in the face of existential problems.

America has been at war continuously for sixteen years. Many of the soldiers and airmen deploying today have no memory of a nation at peace. The bodies come home, sometimes more, sometimes fewer, but they are an endless shame. But here's the thing - these are all volunteers. They KNOW what they're getting into, and the risk is part of the attraction. The government sent them to die in vain, but at the end of the day their deaths are not the government's fault. Unless and until there is broad conscription, every soldier that dies in a warzone is responsible, because they made the choice that sent them there.

So we have a president who is nuclear curious, who is fooling around with two more wars on two different continents, who is laughingly trying to destroy the individual insurance market - a move that will kill thousands - who is destroying the environmental and financial regulatory regime - a move that will kill, sicken and immiserate thousands more - and who blusters about trade wars, racism and extra-constitutional actions like torture and perpetual incarceration. And we're throwing spittle flecked tantrums over paper towels and phone calls.

Make no mistake, there is a cost to this. We watched it play out endlessly during the Obama administration. Every single day there was a new outrage, played out on Fox News and across the right-wing echo chamber, from his tan suit to his fooling around with a baseball bat. When everything is a shrieking outrage, then nothing is. When we take time out from protecting our fellow citizens from a feckless and hateful government to spend days screaming about phone calls, the media thinks they should cover these pointless things. And it all provides a genuine 'smoke screen' - a cloud of Sturm und Drang behind which the worst excesses of a twisted, ugly regime can play out unimpeded.

Look. We know Trump is bad We KNOW he lies. We KNOW he is incompetent, mentally and emotionally incapable of carrying out his duties of office. We do NOT need a daily reminder of his failures and shortcomings.

No, HE needs a daily reminder that we're here, that we're watching him, that we realize that all the little stupid/mean stuff he does would have derailed any other President, but it's not going to derail him. The rules have changed - partly because the tea party helped to cripple their own ability to challenge presidential actions - and now we just keep falling into the trap.

Why? Why are Americans dying in Niger? What are we trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? Why are we tormenting a hapless little dictator like Kim Jong-un? Why are we pretending that Iran represents some kind of implacable enemy? What will happen when America next falls into recession, or there is a major terrorist attack? What will we be focused on, what will we be shrieking about?

We need to get our shit together. This isn't fun and games. This isn't entertainment. This isn't paper towels and phone calls. Seriously, don't sweat the small stuff, because it's not the small stuff that's going to kill people and ruin lives...

Monday, September 25, 2017

Racial Injustice and the NFL - It Don't Mean Nothin'

Respect for What Now?
People who know me know I am a football fan and a committed advocate for social justice. So why, they are apparently wondering, have I been silent on the events of the last weekend? Trump's vicious, authoritarian, racist tweets and the overwhelming response of the NFL players, coaches and owners have dominated the news cycle over the last several days, and oddly - it seems - mikey has had nothing to say. I'm going to clear that issue up right here, but you may find yourself unsatisfied with my position. Why? Because it's a nothingburger, a false argument based on rigid idealism, institutional racism and a fundamental unwillingness to face the hard truths about the lived experience of poor African Americans across the US.

Now, of course, people will shriek at this point "mikey, are you saying that the horrific social injustice brought about by hundreds of years of institutional racism is a NOTHINGBURGER??!!11". And of course, that's not at all what I'm saying, but that's a clear insight into the problem. Everybody's lying. They KNOW what this is about, but they refuse to have THAT conversation. So they use this one weird trick to argue against what someone DIDN'T say rather than engage them on the issue honestly. That, of course, would require they accept the fundamental premise. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Think about the wall to wall coverage of the Warrior's statements, the Trump responses, and then the huge outpouring of opinions and vitriol that carried through the football games on Sunday. This all started when Colin Kaepernick decided that he could not stand for an anthem that spoke to American values when the institutional racism in law enforcement and city management in cities and towns all across America were killing children and destroying families. When now, unlike the preceding two hundred years, there was repeated, ubiquitous video evidence of these brutal murders and beatings, and yet, time after time, these uniformed thugs, filled with hate, were repeated absolved of any wrongdoing. Another young person dead, another family destroyed, another cop goes home to his loved ones, smirking at our corrupt system of 'justice'. But when you look at the coverage on TV and social media, you hear about the flag, the anthem, the military, words like "respect" and "patriotism", of soldiers who died protecting the very rights we find ourselves arguing about.

Now, let me tell you why it's all a lie:

1.) The flag is a piece of colored cloth, mass produced by the millions. No one ever died defending a flag - or if they did, they were a mindless tool. 

2.) The national anthem is a song. A crappy song, commemorating the otherwise fairly obscure naval bombardment of Fort McHenry in September 1814, a small part of the larger Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812. No one ever died defending it either - or even tried to encourage troops in battle by singing it. 

3.) Black Lives Matter is not a political movement. It is not "Liberal", nor is it "Conservative". It is an anguished cry for justice - a demand that the lives of young African American citizens not be thrown away by angry men who hate the communities they ostensibly serve, and that the people who carry unimaginable power into the heart of cities and towns already racked by a century of poverty and oppression use it with even just a modicum of restraint and humanity. 

So how much did we hear about the actual point of the argument this weekend? I don't know what you heard, but I heard nothing. It was about respecting the flag, standing for a song, slavish mindless love for an overpowered and grossly mis-used military. The dead kids, the free smirking cops, the images of dead children lying facedown a block from home, shot to pieces by a heavily armed, armored, uniformed thug? Yeah, no, I didn't see any of those. I didn't hear any of the voices of the aggrieved mothers, the vacant-eyed siblings, the cops with blood-soaked hands sitting at home retweeting our racist presidents twitter rants. I heard about the military, and some weird kind of childlike 'respect' that sounded more like loyalty demanded by an authoritarian cult leader. In a weird way, it kind of sounded like North Korea, not America.

So no. I've got nothing. I'm not going to lie to help people perpetuate the claim that this was about a flag, or a song, or a soldier. When we're ready to have a real conversation about institutional racism, when we start to hold our law enforcement officers to at least a minimal standard of humanity, when SOMEBODY in power agrees that yes, Black lives DO matter? That's a process I want to participate in. All the hand-waving and misdirection in the name of protecting the status quo? Nope. I'm just not interested.

It's a nothingburger....

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Syria Gets Serious

The broadly multi-faction 'civil war' in Syria is moving into a new state. Probably not an end-state, but something more clearly defined, and certainly more dangerous for the rest of the region. The opportunity for things to go sideways in unexpected ways is much greater now than it has been before, with more of the factions fielding well-equipped, militarily capable armies. Russia, Turkey, Iran Saudi Arabia, America, NATO and Israel are just SOME of the factions involved in the existential struggle of the Alawite Ba'ath regime against a wide variety of insurgents and trans-national Islamic rebel militias, all playing out as the huge 'Caliphate' of ISIS is slowly ground into dust by the US/Kurdish coalition. Almost any day offers the chance of a miscalculation that will lead to a major regional conflict involving multiple nuclear powers.

But today I really just want to highlight one particular upcoming problem. It's not something that's getting a lot of discussion, but because of some of the international relationships among the various combatants, it could be the most critical and dangerous problem in the war. Let me show you a map:

In the east you have Iran. In the west, on the Mediterranean, you have Lebanon, and critically, Israel. In between you have Iraq and Syria. Lebanon is dominated by a Shi'ite Islamic political organization called Hezbollah, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran, Inc. And, it should be noted, is deeply hated and feared by Israel as the only military force in the region that can fight the IDF straight up and win. Iraq is, if not a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran, Inc. at least a junior partner. The Persian Shi'ites sheltered and protected the Iraqi Arab Shi'ites who were grossly persecuted by the Saddam Hussein regime, and then when the US helpfully toppled Saddam, they moved back to Iraq and took control of the government, while returning the favor and persecuting the Iraqi Sunnis. Now, as the Syrian army (SAA) is weakened and exhausted by years of bloody war, the Iranian militias under Russian air support are the primary forces available to Assad to hold on to power. The Israelis haven't done anything massive yet because it's been very difficult for Iran to move heavy weapons into Lebanon for Hezbollah to use, but that situation is about to change.

The only thing standing between an easy 1200km road route from Tehran to Beirut is an outpost of American backed rebels and some US 'advisers' in southeast Syria on the Iraq border. That's where all the action was last month, where an American F-16 shot down a Syrian bomber and a couple of drones. Ground Zero is a village called al Tanf. Bear in mind that these are rebel fighters - at war with the Syrian government - and their US benefactors are in Syria illegally, as the Syrian government does not want them there and has not given them permission to enter the country. This makes the whole exercise fraught. Just how hard will the US fight to keep that road route closed?

And if Israel believes that Iran could begin to ship endless truckloads of rockets, missiles, artillery, drones, armored vehicles and other military hardware to Lebanon, what might they do? One suspects the US will be willing to commit major forces and risk major regional conflict to keep Israel from doing something massive that changes the status of the region.

Much of the problem is predicated on the political narrative the west has built around Iran. Israel had to designate a new boogeyman when the Palestinian threat was crushed, and they chose Iran. The US has had an institutional hatred for Iran since the embassy takeover in 1979. This has resulted in the very odd condition of the US officially describing Iran as an authoritarian theocracy, a brutal dictatorship and a global sponsor of terrorism, but not using any of those terms to describe Sunni Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, which arguable fits the description much better.

If the Iranian militias and the Syrian Army want to push the rebels out of southeastern Syria and open up the road route, the Russians will have to decide whether to provide the air support that will bring them into direct conflict with the Americans. And later, if that overland direct route is opened, the Israelis might consider bombing the trucks, which will bring THEM into the range of Russian/Syrian advanced SAMs and once blood is spilled, the outcome is anybody's guess.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Healthcare Wars 2017 Part 2 - What Did I Just Tell You About That Pony?

At least until somebody writes a bill they can read
Single payer. Two words, a simple concept. There are variations, but the core principle is that every citizen is entitled to free health care, and the government sets up a system for paying the costs incurred with public funds. It's really two pieces - there is the insurance, or payment side, and the delivery side. On the payment side, it's easy - mostly. Just like Medicare or Social Security, the government merely sets up a straightforward bureaucracy to make the payments to doctors, hospitals, dentists, nurses, specialists, pharmacies and the rest of the health care delivery infrastructure. Because the government is a monopsony - the only buyer on the market - they can set their payment/reimbursement rates at any level they choose, much like a monopoly can set prices for their goods at any level regardless of market imperatives. The only 'challenging' portion of this part of the process is to raise the funds.

The other side of the Single Payer question in America is how to make the current privatized delivery system work in this new publicly funded process. Private for-profit insurance companies would just die - quickly - because no one would need to purchase insurance anymore, and only wealthy people would buy policies that provided them with access to better service than the public delivery infrastructure. So, somehow, in a free market in a democratic nation, the government would have to take control of virtually every doctor, hospital, pharmacy, dental office - trillions of dollars, millions of people - and then pay them a fraction of what they are used to receiving in the current for-profit private health care world.

So, when you think about it, it's hard to imagine what this single payer legislation would look like. You'd end up with a whole bunch of unemployed people in the private insurance industry, and whole bunch of doctors and hospitals that simply refused the government's mandated payment rates, only accepting patients from the remaining private insurers that paid full freight. And you'd end up with a massive constitutional problem - you can't privatize the health care delivery industry, and you can't force them to take patients they don't want.

And, of course, there's getting the people to buy in. 80% of Americans get their health insurance as part of their employment. That means they pay for insurance with lower wages, but that's baked into the cake by now. So they never see an actual insurance bill, and their only out-of-pocket expenses are deductibles and co-pays to their delivery providers. So now, if we come skipping up with our bright, progressive smiles and tell them that they're going to get a somewhat poorer - but perfectly acceptable - level of coverage, and we're only going to raise their income taxes 35% to give it to them, do you really think they're going to get really excited and tell their representatives to make it so?

See, that's what a pony looks like...

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Healthcare Wars 2017 Part 1 - No, You May Not Have a Pony

And everybody gets a vote
The latest political battle over healthcare policy in the US is raging as debate over the Senate healthcare bill is extended through the summer recess. And the outpouring of outrage and resistance from the sane portion of the electorate is wonderful to see. But this bill (like the version the House passed last month) is deeply, desperately unpopular, with favorable polling running at below 20%. That means there are a LOT of Americans who are far from being politically liberal who are concerned for the well-being of their families and fighting just as hard as we are.

All of which gives us an opportunity to think about our political ideology and the belief system in which it operates. Last year, in the presidential primaries, there was a strong liberal cohort that was all in behind Bernie Sanders. Now, I'm not going to go back through all the problems with the Sanders campaign and message, but there is a larger point that is critically important to recognize at this point. That point is simply this - the other side has a vote too. Now, everyone you know might be politically liberal and broadly welcoming of tax increases to improve the lives of our fellow citizens, but that is not true of the population as a whole. Much of the nation is deeply suspicious of liberal economics, 'tax and spend' policies that have been deeply maligned by general consensus over the decades. Everyone from far-right tea party wingnuts to suburban 'social liberal/fiscal conservatives' are going to fight us every step of the way on any movement away from America's very limited activist government and safety net. There are more of them than there are of us.

You can demand single payer healthcare, tuition-free colleges (not even in the federal jurisdiction), Universal Basic Income and humane immigration policies all you want, but you're never going to get them. You do all the work - and get a little luck - you might just get some compromise, watered down version that improves everyone's life. Kind of like the ACA. In America, corporations make a profit by selling you a cure when you're sick or injured. That system is deeply entrenched, which is why American healthcare costs are so much higher than they are elsewhere in the world. Given time, favorable politics and a HUGE effort, President Obama was able to push through the greatest breakthrough in American healthcare in history. But make no mistake, it was a compromise, necessitated by the fact that every stakeholder in the system wasn't a liberal.

Here's the point. Liberals aren't going to get elected in America demanding far left policies, as much as we want them and believe that they are the right thing to do. When liberals DO get elected, they aren't going to be able to force those same policies through a system with as much friction and as many veto points as ours. And don't tell me we just need to take control of both houses of congress - even if the Democrats do that, it won't result in congress being populated by liberals. There will be Democrats from across the political spectrum, and most of them will not be in favor of the kinds of policies that Bernie Sanders championed. We have to recognize reality, accept that we're going to have to negotiate, compromise and accept incremental improvements in the system. There's no magic potion, there's no sparkle, there's no pony. The US is a huge nation with a huge diverse population, a nation that has in recent history elected both GW Bush and Donald fucking Trump.

Pretending is not a strategy. Understanding reality, and working within its constraints is the best we can do. And when we remember that, we do pretty well - from the ACA to the Iran nuclear deal to DACA - and when we forget it we get our political asses handed to us, and we get things like this horrific health care legislation. We can do better when we get serious...

Saturday, April 22, 2017

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Korea

Sorry - could NOT resist...
Well, it didn't take the Trump administration long to wade about neck deep into the geopolitical quagmire that is Korea. The North Korean leadership is such a perfect manifestation of a comic book villain - and always in character - that there's really no kind of common diplomatic ground on which to base a bilateral negotiation. A big part of the problem is that all North Korean press releases are targeted on their own internal audience, and therefore have no basis in reality. Think of some bizarre combination of Sean Spicer and Baghdad Bob. And now, of course there's also the chaos in the South Korean government resulting from the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. It's an especially fraught time on the Korean Peninsula, and that makes Trump's blundering belligerence particularly dangerous.

But what are the real-world options that America and the West actually HAVE in North Korea? When you consider that Kim Jong-un is a third-generation dynastic leader whose primary goal is to retain power and control of the population at any cost, you realize that nothing will change until the regime changes, but conditions are so brutal and there are so many different factions empowered by the military that if the regime did collapse (or were to be removed by external force) the waves of refugees flowing into South Korea, China and Russia would, along with the helpless North Koreans still trapped in a collapsing state without a functioning economy would represent one of the greatest human tragedies of the last century.

Once you are realistic about Kim's goals and intentions, you understand why he would consider a strategic nuclear deterrent so important. It is the thing that innoculates his regime against attack, virtually no matter what provocative actions he chooses to take. And once he has road-mobile solid fuel ICBMs with enough range to reach the US, that deterrent becomes impossible to ignore. North Korea's previous conventional deterrent was to hold Seoul at risk with thousands of artillery tubes just across the border, but while that has been effective, Americans, to be quite frank, are less concerned about a million Korean casualties than they are about one American casualty. Kim's generals always understood that they might have to actually execute on that threat, so they made a perfectly rational decision to move to a nuclear capability. They can now hold Seoul - along with other targets in South Korea and even Japan - at risk with short range nuclear missiles as well as the massed artillery already in place.

Any strike on North Korea runs a very high risk of turning into a horrific regional conflagration, with several cities wiped out and millions of Korean (and possibly Japanese and Chinese) refugees desperate for aid and shelter. It seems perfectly clear that no amount of classic American tough-guy posturing is going to convince the North Korean leadership to do anything but keep pushing the development of their strategic deterrent. They'd literally be crazy to do anything else.

At the end of any thoughtful analysis, the only possible answer is negotiation. If the west can offer North Korea enough benefits - and a credible promise not to attack - perhaps Kim can be convinced to give up his nukes. If he can't, a strategy of containment and a policy to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea is the only viable approach. And while the American military leadership will empahsize that this policy of containment would mean missile defense and a powerful military presence in South Korea, in reality - behind the bluster - it would mean accepting another member of the nuclear club and just trying really hard to prevent further proliferation.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Big Dogs Bite with Big Teeth

A lot of my American and liberal friends are absolutely frantic about Donald Trump and the risk to global peace he represents as president of the United States. In the aftermath of the missile strike on the Syrian airfield, it seems to many of them that he is leading us directly down a path that leads to superpower confrontation, war and nuclear Armageddon. And maybe he is! But I think I need to offer a few thoughts about that path, and what kinds of considerations are being tossed around in capitals from Moscow to Beijing to Brussels.

One of the first things to consider is that nobody really wants to go to war. Stop worrying about Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol. They have no control over the military apparatus, and even Trump will have to make a case for war and accept a scenario acceptable to the likes of Mattis and McMaster, and they are far from suicidal.

But it's actually much more than that. One of the common talking points we lefties always point out is the wildly disproportionate military spending of the United States. We always rush to point out that the US spends more on its military than the next ten nations combined.  It's not even close, and I think we all agree this is an unequivocal waste of money. But it is real, and if you start talking about war, then the calculation changes. How many nations would really want to face that? The simple fact is that the US can rain hell and destruction on any nation that wants to step up to the plate. It's true we've struggled with counter-insurgency and trans-national terrorist groups, but give us a nation's infrastructure and there's simply no better force on earth when it comes to wrecking stuff.

No nation - not Russia, not China, not even the Generals in North Korea - want to face the full wrath of a US in full 'blow 'em to hell' mode. After the F-22s knock out your fighters and the Wild Weasels and cruise missiles wreck your anti-air assets, you get US jets overhead 24x7 just hunting targets, wrecking infrastructure, killing leadership. Anything you put on or under the ocean will be wreckage on the bottom in less than a week, and anything you try to protect will be detected and destroyed because war is nothing less than a gigantic tantrum and the biggest guns always win.

It's also very important to understand why there have been precisely ZERO major power conflicts since 1945. The answer is those pesky nukes. Nobody - not the US, not Russia, not China, not Europe/NATO - wants to risk anything that might lead to out-of-control escalation. The risk of nuclear conflict isn't driven by starting wars - it's driven by ending them. In a major power conflict today, any side that came to recognize that they were losing would be likely to try to avoid such an existential outcome by using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield and trying desperately to limit the extent of the exchange. But nobody wants to find out if that might be possible without killing a billion people and turning dozens of major metropolitan areas into radioactive wastelands.

(I often gaze up at the stars at night and wonder how many planets are out there that had intelligent, even brilliant populations and now are smoldering ash because their clever denizens figured out how to split the atom.)

In the end, it's most likely that even a blustering ignorant buffoon like Trump can't change the overall global geopolitical calculation. Make no mistake, he'll do some stupid things and people will die as a result, but no other national leader is going to let Trump goad him into national suicide.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Better Killing Through Chemistry

Roaches check in...But they don't check out
Once again, the use of chemical weapons by a Middle Eastern despot has threatened to drive the world into a larger conflict. The red lines drawn around this type of weapon are a hundred years old, and have become a significant part of the conventional wisdom around the laws and ethics of warfare. But why is this, and should it actually be this way? In the case of Syria, for example, the Assad regime has murdered hundreds of thousands of Syrians using traditional weapons - high explosives, barrel bombs, artillery, rifles, torture, execution, famine and disease. So when he suddenly (and inexplicably, but that's another discussion for another day) kills a hundred residents of a Syrian village with four bombs containing Sarin, it's kind of hard to understand the sputtering rage and white-knuckled outrage it generated in the West.

But this is one of the arguments that sounds logical when you hear it, but kind of falls apart the more you think about it. Chemical weapons like Sarin and VX are essentially insecticides scaled up to kill humans instead of bugs. Why do we use insecticides? Because when we have a flea infestation, for example, it makes a lot more sense to use poison on them than it does to burn down the house. Even if there are risks and downsides to poisoning the fleas, the net outcome is a house still standing with no fleas in it.

Now think about a dictator like Bashar al-Assad or Saddam Hussein or Omar al-Bashir or any one of a dozen others. They have the infrastructure - pharmaceutical and insecticide production - to produce chemical weapons cheaply and in volume. They have dissident and/or insurgent populations within their borders. Usually, when they are faced with revolt or civil war they have to destroy a huge amount of their own infrastructure to eliminate the rebels. If they could just spray the towns and villages with human insecticide, wait 48 hours and march in and clean up the mess, these pesky revolutions would be easy to deal with.

Well, why don't they do that? Because ever since the end of World War One the world has had an ironclad convention against their use. Nations still stockpiled them - in the face of an existential defeat, one more bad decision isn't going to be a game changer. But it was clearly understood that to use them (without at least tacit agreement from the appropriate superpowers) was to risk significant punitive attacks from nations not even otherwise a party to the conflict. The idea was global deterrence, and it has worked pretty well. Of course, Saddam Hussein used Sarin gas regularly in the Iran-Iraq war and against Halabja in the al-Anfal campaign, but the US was allied with Saddam's Iraq in that war, and agreed to look the other way.

Now we may begin to see a breakdown in this generally agreed-upon convention. If it begins to be safe, even normalized for dictators to use chemical weapons against their own people in order to retain power, then we won't be seeing 100 dead here or a thousand dead there. We'll be seeing the wholesale slaughter of entire communities because it is faster, cheaper and more efficient than going in and fighting to take those communities back from the rebels. When we argue against an ironclad guaranteed imposition of a high asset cost for any leader who uses poison gas, we are merely helping create a world where the use of poison gas is commonplace.

And I promise you, dear reader, that is not a world you're going to want your kids to live in...

Sunday, February 26, 2017


Two US Generals are in the news today for very different reasons, but they are both American warriors who we should know a lot more about. They fought in different wars decades apart, in wildly different methods. One took a legendary Cavalry unit into the jungles of Southeast Asia and fought the very first pitched battle of the Vietnam war, and proved that with the right air and artillery support the American grunts could take and hold any piece of ground they wanted, no matter the resistance. The other led an armored brigade in the largest tank battle since the Second World War - a battle so deep in the Iraqi desert that history remembers it only by it's map coordinates - the battle of 73 Easting.

HR McMaster

Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond "H. R." McMaster last week accepted President Donald Trumps appointment as National Security Adviser. McMaster is a well respected leader, thoughtful and intelligent, and has often shown a willingness to innovate that is quite unusual in the US Army.

In late February of 1991, he was a captain commanding E (Eagle) Troop of 2ACR (Second Armored Cavalry Regiment). McMaster had 120 soldiers, a dozen Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles and nine M1A1 Abrams tanks under his direct command. The 2nd ACR rolled across the Saudi border late on the night of February 23d and struck out east across the Iraqi desert with McMaster's Eagle in the vanguard. The mission was to cut off the Iraqi retreat north from Kuwait and cover the Marines in Kuwait from the heavy Republican Guard armored forces known to be in Northern Iraq - particularly the feared Tawakalna Division and the Iraqi 50th Armored Brigade.

The next few days VII Corps raced across Iraq behind 2ACR Eagle, Iron, Killer and Ghost troops, facing light and mixed resistance from Saddam Hussein's terrified conscript troops scattered across the desert. The key was the Republican Guard armored divisions, and the American armor had to get there in time.

By the morning of the 26th, 3d Squadron was in contact with the Iraqi 50th Armored to the south, and command had ordered the 2nd ACR and the UK 1st Armored to pivot east to attack the Republican Guards tanks. By 9am a violent sandstorm kicked up, and while the vehicles could maneuver as ordered, they advanced slowly due to a complete lack of air support. By 3 o'clock the 3d Armored Division was in position with 2nd ACR at 50 Easting, and General Franks was frustrated, waiting for the 1st Infantry to get into position. He ordered 2nd ACR to attack out to 70 Easting, and the battle was joined.

McMaster was in the lead tank, with his other 8 Abrams spread out line abreast, with the mounted infantry in Bradleys just behind. By 3:45 they were in close combat with the well organized and professional  Tawakalna Division in prepared defensive positions. It was a knife fight in a phone booth, but the better trained, technologically superior forces under McMaster's viciously aggressive leadership shredded the defensive lines and charged through.

At 4:10 Eagle took fire from a small village, and swept through it destroying gun positions and killing or taking prisoner the dismounted Iraqi infantry. Ten minutes later McMaster led Eagle up and over a sharp ridge and came face to face with an Iraqi tank company on the reverse slope. He fired on the first T-72, destroying it, and his other tanks made short work of the other eight. From that position, he could see Iraqi tanks and defensive positions just 3 kilometers east. Despite having been ordered to limit his advance to 70 Easting, he charged to some high ground at 74 Easting and opened fire. These were by far the best Iraqi troops the men of Eagle had encountered. They held fast, and their tankers tried to maneuver and engage the American Abrams tanks in their T-72s. They were brave and professional, but they were surprised and at a tremendous technological disadvantage, and McMaster wasn't offering any quarter. Eagle destroyed 18 Iraqi tanks in the first minutes of the fight, and McMaster ordered two of his Bradley's north to regain contact with Captain Joe Sartiano's Ghost troop.

From there, the fight moved north from Eagle's position into a wadi with Ghost in overwatch. There followed several hours of fierce fighting as wave after wave of Republican Guards tried to retreat through the Wadi and encountered Ghost Troop's tanks and troops. The fighting along 74 Easting went on until about 10:30 the night of the 26th, when the 1st Infantry Division pushed through the line held by 2nd ACR and let the attack on Objective Norfolk.

HR McMaster was awarded the Silver Star for the battle, and he went on to serve on the CENTCOM staff as Deputy to General John Abizaid. When the US went to war in Iraq again, he took command of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment and was assigned the mission of securing the city of Tal Afar. His unconventional and innovative approach to that mission was noticed by many, particularly because of the favorable coverage in places like PBS Frontline, CBS 60 Minutes and a long-read article in The New Yorker.

In 2008 he was promoted to Brigadier General and assigned to Doctrine and Training Command, and in 2012 he was given his second star and assigned command of the Army Maneuver Center of Excellence. In 2014 he was promoted to Lieutenant General and given command of the Army Capabilities Integration Center under Training and Doctrine Command.

Of all Trump's cabinet picks, this may very well be the best one. It is telling that McMaster wasn't Trump's first choice, or even second. But he will serve as a strong, independent voice in the White House, and as a man who truly knows war, a soldier who has killed in battle, he will serve to temper a civilian leadership that seems all to ready to send our young men and women in harms way.

Hal Moore

On a sadder note, another Lieutenant General - this one the legendary Hal Moore - died a few weeks ago just three days before his 95th birthday. Moore had a long and distinguished
Army career, but he can never be separated from the Battle of Ia Drang in November of 1965. Before that, the US leadership had struggled to understand the kind of war - and the kind of enemy - they faced in Vietnam. This wasn't the kind of war they understood. They wanted to find a way to engage the enemy in large pitched battles where greater US firepower could annihilate them. The job fell to Lt. Colonel Moore's 7th Cavalry - the same unit led by GA Custer at the Little Big Horn, and recently redesignated 'Airmobile' - to create that kind of battle.

50 kilometers south of Pleiku in Gia Lai province is the Ia Drang valley. 'Ia' is Hmong for river, so it is the valley of the river Drang. Cambodia is only 15 km to the east, and even worse, sits in the shadow of the Chu Pong Massif, a huge mountain complex that at the time of the battle was the home of two regiments of North Vietnamese Army troops. On the morning of November 14th, 1965, 7th Cavalry Hueys began delivering troops of the 1st Battalion. By noon Moore had the 200 troopers of A and B Companies on the ground at LZ Xray. Earlier that morning the first troops on the ground had captured an NVA soldier who was more than happy to inform the that there were three Battalions of North Vietnamese regulars on the mountain above them. The Cavalry troopers set up a perimeter oriented east and south towards the mountain across a dry creek bed, with Moore's HQ detachment in the center of the LZ behind them. The first shots were fired about 12:15. Nobody knew it, but the next 46 hours would be hell unlike anything they had ever known.

For the next 2½ hours A and B Companies fought a desperate close range battle with hundreds of NVA soldiers at the creekbed while Moore desperately worked to get the rest of his Battalion on the LZ and in the fight. At 2:30, C Company was inserted, but many were killed and wounded just trying to get off the helicopter and behind some kind of cover. About that time, the NVA shifted their attack to the south. The newly arrived C Company troopers reinforced the southern perimeter to A Company's left and within minutes was trying to hold against an assault by 200 enemy troops. At this point Moore and his team began directing heavy, effective artillery from Plei Me and air support had begun to arrive. By 4 o'clock the NVA withdrew, leaving behind over a hundred dead.

By then, Moore's final company, D, was on the ground and in the fight. They reinforced A Company on the creek bed just as the NVA attacked again. The American troops had very effectively positioned their M-60 machine guns, and they managed to - just barely - keep the A Company line from being broken and the LZ overrun. By this time, the medevac choppers had refused to fly into LZ Xray to evacuate the wounded due to the intense volume of incoming fire - rifles, machine guns, mortars and rockets - so the crews of the assault choppers kept coming back, time after time, hauling in water and ammunition and hauling out wounded soldiers. Two Huey pilots would win the Medal of Honor that bloody day on LZ Xray.

As the afternoon wore on, Moore was able to reposition his troopers to provide a 360° perimeter and get his mortar teams set up behind A and B Companies to provide additional fire support. As it got dark, the Americans dug in and the NVA began to send small units to probe their lines. Colonel Moore ordered his machine guns to hold fire so as not to give away their positions, and the troopers fought off these attacks with rifles, grenades and mortars.

At 6:30 the next morning, just before sunrise, the NVA launched a heavy attack at C Company's left flank. They closed to within a few dozen meters of the Americans positions, their fire tearing through the LZ and causing casualties around the entire perimeter. C Company was able to hold, although they took a lot of casualties. An hour later they launced a second attack against the southern perimeter, and C Company began to waver. If they broke, the NVA would pour through the break in the line and overrun the entire Battalion. Moore immediately ordered his radioman to call a 'Broken Arrow'. This was a combat infantry commander's last, desperate option. If he's about to be overrun, a Broken Arrow was issued and EVERY American combat aircraft in the entire country was detached from it's mission and sent to the site of the battle.

At 8 o'clock the airstrikes began to arrive, but with the NVA forces just a few meters away, there was no margin of error. One American F-100 dropped napalm inside the LZ Xray perimeter, resulting in a number of friendly fire casualties. But the air support and an endless artillery barrage had turned the battle and the last moment. By 10am the NVA buglers sounded withdraw and the battle was over. Sporadic firefights continued, but by noon the exhausted 7th Cavalry troops were reinforced by soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry, and the medevac flights were finally resumed.

The next morning, November 16th, LZ Xray was secured and the 7th Cavalry survivors extracted. Through it all, Colonel Hal Moore was a calm, professional leader. He was everywhere on Xray, keeping his troops in the fight, moving men and supplies, positioning weapons, and calling fire support. We know so much about this fight because through it all, from the very first lift into LZ Xray, noted journalist and writer Joe Galloway was at Col. Moore's side. In 1998, Galloway was awarded the Bronze Star with V (for valor) Device, the highest military award won by a civilian in the Vietnam war.

Hal Moore was the epitome of what a military commander should be. A polite Kentuckian, he cared for his men but he understood that he had to accomplish the mission. He carried the weight of all those young men he lost for the rest of his life, and he never broke faith with them. He was amongst the best of us, and he is missed.

** Pedantic note**

An 'Easting' (along with a 'Northing') is a Cartesian coordinate used to designate distances on an x/y basis. It's part of a mapping protocol called the Universal Transverse Mercator system (UTM). It is useful for designating locations that otherwise have little in the way of landmarks, particularly if you happen to actually BE in that trackless place. It gave the tankers in their fast moving vehicles a way to figure out where to go and where to stop that was more effective than latitude and longitude at that scale.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

The Two Kinds of Fake News

But hey, you can go ahead and read it if you want
Fake news. It first came up in the campaign as a term to describe the articles Eastern European trolls would post on social media. They were designed to look like regular online news outlets, but they had outrageous headlines and utterly false stories designed to accumulate clicks and go viral across the social media ecosystem. A large portion of the American electorate, having become accustomed to dishonest outlets like Fox, Drudge and Limbaugh, were more than happy to accept any story that reinforced the beliefs they already held. This time around, however, that process was accelerated and deepened by a large number of Bernie Sanders deadenders who were more than happy to click, share and forward anything they perceived as damaging to the Hillary Clinton campaign - no matter how tendentious and nonsensical it might be.

Now you had these fake news stories being blasted around the internet by both the far-left and the far-right, and as a result no matter which faction you identified with, you could find people you wanted to trust telling you things you wanted to hear. It was clumsy, and often stupid, but over time it had an effect - not only convincing individuals but keeping various narratives alive in the more traditional media outlets due to endless, heavy daily interest.

Now, after the election, it's not a big factor anymore. Except that with the entrance of the term 'fake news' into the common vernacular, it has become synonymous with 'any news I don't want to believe'. The Trump administration in particular has embraced the concept. They've been questioning the reliability and credibility of major news outlets for months, so it's now easy for them to label stories they couldn't otherwise deny or avoid as 'fake news' and claim that it is actually THEY that have the credibility.

All this happened, and it was a problem. But we all know that if we WANT to, we can easily identify genuine fake news by using the available sources to confirm what we're being told. Of course, there are still a LOT of Americans who don't want to check the veracity of a story they like - they'd rather just believe it and forward it to all their friends,. But there's another kind of fake news - and it's a much bigger problem for the professional news media themselves.

We have a President and and administration that lies constantly, and glaringly. They don't obfuscate, they don't dissemble, they LIE. They make up facts to support any policy goal or ideological contention, whether they need to or not. They don't care about being fact-checked, they don't care about being directly called out on live television. They get their chosen narrative out there, and they know that there is a constituency that will believe it. They use this method to discredit institutions like voting and the courts. They use it to spread fear of crime and terrorism. They use it to constantly fluff the ego of our sociopath in chief.

Now it's true that political leaders have lied since time immemorial. But this time is truly different - it's so relentless, so unapologetic, so easily debunked that it can't be whitewashed or shrugged off. Now we have all our major media outlets routinely pointing out one blatant lie after another coming directly from the president and then repeated by his cabinet and communications staff. From millions of 'illegal' votes to the worst murder rate in 47 years, this is simultaneously embarrassing and toxic. And it raises an important question.

What should journalists and news outlets do? Should they allow these people to come on their air and look into the camera and lie repeatedly and outrageously to their audience? They haven't developed a methodology for pushing back on the lies - nothing works, they just keep repeating the lies and doubling down, claiming to have 'evidence' to support them. Evidence we never see. Or should they adopt some kind of 'three strikes and you're out' rule? Perhaps they should announce that anyone who comes on their shows and tells a cumulative total of three clear, easily established lies will not be invited back.

Or is there some other approach new outlets could take? Print journalism is easy - they can include the quotes and the fact checking in the story together. It's really the television and the radio where these lies get out into the wild and can never be truly called back. But in the Trump era, journalists and media outlets are going to have to figure this out. Because the rules have changed, and they can no longer do their jobs if they don't find a way to adapt.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Motivated Skepticism and the Sanders Legacy

Part of the Problem
I find I spend an inordinate amount of time cautioning people to be skeptical. Be skeptical of journalism, be skeptical of charts and graphs, be skeptical of 'scientific breakthroughs', be skeptical of politician's pronouncements - just verify everything before you accept it as fact. But beyond all that, the most important thing to be skeptical of in our post-factual internet driven siloed echo-chamber world is anything that reinforces something you WANT to believe, or that reinforces your core ideological world-view. Because no matter how careful we are, this is where we are vulnerable to sloppy logic and blind spots. If you read something and it makes you angry, be skeptical. But if you read something that makes you happy? Raise the threshold on it even higher.

This, of course, brings us to the Russian offensive cyber attacks interfering with the US presidential election. It's not at all surprising that Trump wants to disregard these intelligence reports. He's deeply invested in having won a HUGE victory, and any narrative that has him eking out a close split decision with help from the Russian GRU and the US FBI is not going to sit well with him. It's a little less expected to see so much of the US far right embracing the Kremlin as an innocent party and the Obama administration as evil, but considering the recent Russian far right positions on LGBT people and Islam, along with their support for white nationalist movements in Europe it's not that far-fetched a consideration.

But there is a third constituency gleefully wrapping their arms around the Russian government attackers and their stooge Julian Assange. BernieBros. I continue to use this term because it is useful. It describes a fairly small but significant portion of the American left wing who, over the years of the Bush and Obama presidencies have come to loathe everything that America is, and respond with a knee-jerk glee at anything that they see as weakening it. These people infuriate me. They don't attack the American Political Right anymore, and they certainly aren't interested in defending their nation. They attack their natural coalition as evil neo-liberal sellouts and take the position that it is the American Political LEFT that is the problem with America.

So, in the case of the Russian cyber-attacks, these American liberals happily march in lockstep with Donald Trump's far right authoritarian supporters. "Where is the evidence", they demand. Actually, there's a lot of evidence, and it's easy to find. Professional network security firms were reporting on Russian attacks on the DNC and Clinton campaigns as early as April. But if you show them the evidence, they declare it as worthless and go back to demanding to see 'the evidence'. This is a tactic they learned from Fox News and the Tea Party.

Next they demand 'proof'. Setting aside for a moment that there is no possible proof that they would accept as dispositive, these are intelligence agencies we're talking about. To provide 'proof' would require them to give up sources and networks in place, and there's simply no way they're going to do that. So demands for proof are safe - they can never be met.

Most of all, as someone with a long history in technology including working for a very advanced cyber security software vendor, it's amazing to me how so many of these people have somehow become experts in the field of enterprise network security, malware analysis and mitigation and computer forensics - all in a matter of weeks. They are perfect happy to stroke their chin and explain to me that it's impossible to trace a cyber attack back to its source. When I ask them about SIEM data, log analysis, malware signatures and exploit histories they have nothing to say, but nonetheless they KNOW that it's easy for hackers to hide their location (as if that was saying anything close to the same thing).

I'm deeply troubled by this faction of the American Liberal community that has become so utterly nihilistic as to be more closely aligned with Trump than they are with me. They worry me because they can easily offset the Democratic party's demographic advantage and hand continued power to the extreme ideologues that have taken over the Republican party. And they seem to be becoming nothing so much as a mirror-image of the tea party. They want different things, but they are immune to facts and reality and utterly refuse to compromise. They are a natural part of what should be forming up as a solid anti-Trump coalition, and instead they can't bring themselves to challenge him on something as basic and simple as this.