Archive for August, 2009

Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?

[Note: This item comes from a reader who doesn't wish attribution. DLH]


Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?
By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America’s Future
Posted on August 7, 2009, Printed on August 30, 2009
<http://www.alternet.org/story/141819/>

All through the dark years of the Bush Administration, progressives watched in horror as Constitutional protections vanished, nativist rhetoric ratcheted up, hate speech turned into intimidation and violence, and the president of the United States seized for himself powers only demanded by history’s worst dictators. With each new outrage, the small handful of us who’d made ourselves experts on right-wing culture and politics would hear once again from worried readers: Is this it? Have we finally become a fascist state? Are we there yet?

And every time this question got asked, people like Chip Berlet and Dave Neiwert and Fred Clarkson and yours truly would look up from our maps like a parent on a long drive, and smile a wan smile of reassurance. “Wellll…we’re on a bad road, and if we don’t change course, we could end up there soon enough. But there’s also still plenty of time and opportunity to turn back. Watch, but don’t worry. As bad as this looks: no — we are not there yet.”

In tracking the mileage on this trip to perdition, many of us relied on the work of historian Robert Paxton, who is probably the world’s pre-eminent scholar on the subject of how countries turn fascist. In a 1998 paper published in The Journal of Modern History, Paxton argued that the best way to recognize emerging fascist movements isn’t by their rhetoric, their politics, or their aesthetics. Rather, he said, mature democracies turn fascist by a recognizable process, a set of five stages that may be the most important family resemblance that links all the whole motley collection of 20th Century fascisms together. According to our reading of Paxton’s stages, we weren’t there yet. There were certain signs — one in particular — we were keeping an eye out for, and we just weren’t seeing it.

And now we are. In fact, if you know what you’re looking for, it’s suddenly everywhere. It’s odd that I haven’t been asked for quite a while; but if you asked me today, I’d tell you that if we’re not there right now, we’ve certainly taken that last turn into the parking lot and are now looking for a space. Either way, our fascist American future now looms very large in the front windshield — and those of us who value American democracy need to understand how we got here, what’s changing now, and what’s at stake in the very near future if these people are allowed to win — or even hold their ground.

What is fascism?
The word has been bandied about by so many people so wrongly for so long that, as Paxton points out, “Everybody is somebody else’s fascist.” Given that, I always like to start these conversations by revisiting Paxton’s essential definition of the term:

“Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline.”

Elsewhere, he refines this further as

“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

.
Jonah Goldberg aside, that’s a basic definition most legitimate scholars in the field can agree on, and the one I’ll be referring to here.

From proto-fascism to the tipping point
According to Paxton, fascism unfolds in five stages. The first two are pretty solidly behind us — and the third should be of particular interest to progressives right now.

[snip]

Re: Design For Corruption–Why US Healthcare is Failing

[Note: This comment comes from a reader of Dave Farber's IP list.   DLH]


From: Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: August 30, 2009 10:40:49 AM PDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Subject: Re: [IP] Design For Corruption–Why US Healthcare is Failing

Design For Corruption–Why US Healthcare is Failing

Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on August 28

<http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2009/08/design_for_corr.html



another Depression, the financial sectors have escape any serious re-

regulation. Why? Lobbying.


When you give government the power to interfere with the operation of
businesses, you give businesses an incentive to interfere with the
operation of government.

Simple physics tells you that in a system at rest, every force is
countered by an equal and opposite force. Every regulation of
business by government is opposed by a lobbying of government by
business. The only way to win is to not regulate by legislation.

There is no such thing as an unregulated marketplace. Businesses can
be regulated by government (who isn’t a customer and who doesn’t care
how much products cost, or their quality, or their environmental
impact) or they can be regulated by customers, who care very much
about the cost, quality, and environmental impact.

Separation of church and state has worked very well for America. We
need to step it up, and separate state and the marketplace. Yes,
government needs to tax, but when it taxes, it needs to do so in a
policy-neutral fashion, in a way that affects as many voters as
possible.

Why is it so hard for people to see that government regulation of
markets inevitably leads to corruption of the regulators??

The World Economic Forum is starting a forum for designing large-scale

social organizations. It should be with a case study of the US.


Perhaps they should get a few Austrian economists signed onto this
effort. But that would be hard, because the Austrian school says that
large-scale social organizations evolve out of existing conditions,
and are not successfully designable to meet their goals, because
people are not chesspieces, to be moved around. Anybody here
disagree with that?


–my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software

Re: FCC Hires Industry Shill to Develop US National Broadband Plan

[Note: This comment comes from a reader of Dave Farber's IP list. DLH]


From: “Bruce Kushnick” <bruce@newnetworks.com>
Date: August 30, 2009 3:21:00 AM EDT
To: <dave@farber.net>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: FCC Hires Industry Shill to Develop US National Broadband Plan

Richard Bennett

Research Fellow

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC

Excuse me, but who funds ITIF? The position of ITIF has been
corporate-friendly and ITIF doesn’t disclose its funding sources — though
most believe it is the telcos.

Please post a list of your funding sources.

“Broadband is a natural duopoly,” counters Robert D. Atkinson, president of
the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think
tank. Proposals to create a third competitor to take on the telecom and
cable companies in most markets, he says, are “misguided.”

Excuse me, but the ‘natural duopoly’ was created through the misguided
decisions of the Powell-Martin FCC. It has nothing to do with the building
out the networks.

In fact, there is now ample proof that it was the independent ISPs and CLECs
who brought the Internet boom and the largest growth in telecom history.
Neither Verizon nor now-AT&T were even in the top 10 of ISPs in 2000. DSL
was first brought out by the competitors, like Covad and Northpoint. Telecom
has the largest growth in its history because independent ISPS and CLECs
sold lines, especially second lines.

Then in the ‘intermodal era’, there was an attack on competitors, from
offering them predatory pricing, sub-standard customers services, and
finally eliminating their ability to use the networks for internet or even
voice competition — a telecom crash ensued.

Or “ITIF comments discussing the economic and technological benefits that
would result from the BellSouth-AT&T merger.” === guess that didn’t work out
as planned. <http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=96>

I like what Free Press wrote:
“It’s hard to tell from ITIF’s Web site or the group’s financial disclosures
exactly who’s funding this operation. Whether Atkinson, Ph.D., is already on
the industry payroll — or just auditioning for the gig — the beneficiaries
of his efforts will undoubtedly be the biggest phone and cable companies.”

Who Funds ITIF?

Who funds Teletruth? Teletruth is a for-profit advocacy group that loses
money. The main income is from New Networks research and consulting — there
has been a grant from the California Consumer Protection Board to study
phone bills, we perform phone bill auditing of small businesses where we get
back monies because of telco mistakes, and class action suit settlements
where we helped to create the cases and act as experts. —Did you know that
10% of the special access lines customers are paying for are missing or that
Verizon forgot to give discounts to 40% of small businesses in New Jersey?
We take no money from corporations unless disclosed, and we are politically
neutral as Tom Allibone, the main auditor, is a conservative republican.

Who funds ITIF?

Bruce Kushnick.

A universe without dark energy

[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]


From: Randall <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: August 29, 2009 7:36:20 PM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>

<http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14181>

A universe without dark energy

Astronomers have observed that galaxies within our universe have a redshift that is unaccounted for by the Standard Model of Cosmology—galaxies continue to accelerate as they move away from each other. Cosmologists have rectified this anomalous acceleration by introducing the concept of dark energy, which is proposed to permeate space, propel matter, and account for nearly 75% of the mass-energy in our universe. This explanation, however, requires use of the speculative “cosmological constant” to Einstein’s equations of general relativity; dark energy is the physical interpretation of the cosmological constant in the Standard Model. Blake Temple and Joel Smoller derived a model of expanding wave solutions of the Einstein equations that could account for the observed acceleration of the galaxies without relying on dark energy or the cosmological constant. The equations give rise to an explicit, one-parameter family of expanding spacetime-waves that speed up or slow down the universe’s expansion rate relative to the Standard Model, according to the value of the free parameter. The authors suggest that these expanding waves could emerge in time from the initial disturbance of the Big Bang and propel matter in a manner similar to dark energy. — F.A.

“Expanding wave solutions of the Einstein equations that induce an anomalous acceleration into the Standard Model of Cosmology” by Blake Temple and Joel Smoller (see pages 14213–14218) <http://www.pnas.org/lookup/volpage/106/14213>

So you thought your SSN was private, eh?

[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]


From: Randall <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: August 29, 2009 7:52:12 PM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>, David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Cc: johnmacsgroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: So you thought your SSN was private, eh?

<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/07/02/0904891106.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc>

Predicting Social Security numbers from public data
Alessandro Acquisti, and Ralph Gross
Author Affiliations

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Communicated by Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May 5, 2009 (received for review January 18, 2009)

Abstract

Information about an individual’s place and date of birth can be exploited to predict his or her Social Security number (SSN). Using only publicly available information, we observed a correlation between individuals’ SSNs and their birth data and found that for younger cohorts the correlation allows statistical inference of private SSNs. The inferences are made possible by the public availability of the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and the widespread accessibility of personal information from multiple sources, such as data brokers or profiles on social networking sites. Our results highlight the unexpected privacy consequences of the complex interactions among multiple data sources in modern information economies and quantify privacy risks associated with information revelation in public forums.

[snip]

The Evolution of the Appendix

[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]


From: Randall <rvh40@insightbb.com>
Date: August 29, 2009 7:30:34 PM PDT
To: johnmacsgroup@yahoogroups.com, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: The Evolution of the Appendix

By Duke Medicine News and Communications

The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function.

The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example.

Now, some of those same researchers are back, reporting on the first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant.

Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.

“Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks,” says William Parker, PhD, assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”

Using a modern approach to evolutionary biology called cladistics, which utilizes genetic information in combination with a variety of other data to evaluate biological relationships that emerge over the ages, Parker and colleagues found that the appendix has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials and another time among rats, lemmings and other rodents, selected primates and humans.

“We also figure that the appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin’s ideas about the appendix were correct.”

Darwin theorized that the appendix in humans and other primates was the evolutionary remains of a larger structure, called a cecum, which was used by now-extinct ancestors for digesting food.

The latest study demonstrates two major problems with that idea. First, several living species, including certain lemurs, several rodents, and a type of flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum which is used in digestion. Second, Parker says the appendix is actually quite widespread in nature.

“For example, when species are divided into groups called ‘families’, we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups contain species with an appendix.” Darwin had thought that appendices appeared in only a small handful of animals.

“Darwin simply didn’t have access to the information we have,” explains Parker. “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”

[snip]

<http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/News/evolution_of_the_appendix_a_biological_remnant_no_more>

Re: Why TiVo Is Struggling While Netflix Is Thriving

[Note: This comment comes from friend Bob Frankston. DLH]

From: “Bob Frankston” <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: August 29, 2009 7:30:47 PM PDT
To: “‘Dewayne Hendricks’” <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: RE: [Dewayne-Net] Why TiVo Is Struggling While Netflix Is Thriving

I’ve been following TiVo and Replay from the early days. Replay chose honor over staying in business and was killed by the broadcast/cable industry. TiVo chose to let itself be totally co-opted and they extended “cable’s” control to the contents. It might be on your local drive but you were a tenant not an owner.

TiVo is an improved UI for television. If you can get content directly why do you need to futz around with trying to catch content that happens to be floating by in the stream?

Netflix too faces challenges — it’s competition is not TiVo and no longer Blockbuster. It is Hulu (which is still broadcaster owned) and independents. It’s trying to rise to the occasion by being providing streaming access.

What is TiVo offering for those who aren’t just trying to work around the constrictions of the cable distribution model? Can TiVo represent the users against its owners?

RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>

Best Town/City Web Sites

[Note: This item comes from friend Dave Hughes. Please direct your feedback directly to Dave. DLH]


Subject: Best Town/City Web Sites
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:05:34 -0600
To: <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
From: “Dave Hughes” <dave@oldcolo.com>

Ok, so I don’t get around the Internet like I used to, who can point me to
the best ‘Town/Community’ Web sites in the US? I’m looking for one which
makes businesses including small, internet-based businesses want to move
there.

Seems to me there have to be some successful ones operating by now.

Dave Hughes

Re: Snow Leopard Is a Pale Imitation of Windows 7 – PC World

[Note: This comment comes from friend Erik Cecil. DLH]


From: Erik Cecil <erik.cecil@gmail.com>
Date: August 29, 2009 8:17:14 PM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Snow Leopard Is a Pale Imitation of Windows 7 – PC World

Better to be a pale imitation of Windows 7 than to succeed completely.

Re: The virtues of biochar: A new growth industry?

[Note: This comment comes from friend Erik Cecil. DLH]


From: Erik Cecil <erik.cecil@gmail.com>
Date: August 29, 2009 8:58:08 PM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] The virtues of biochar: A new growth industry?

Another irony: coal was nature’s solution to carbon sequestration.