HoltesThoughts

Friday, March 20, 2015

Subsidiarity Versus Fascism

I did a search of the Federalist Papers to make sure. But the word Subsidiarity isn't mentioned once. Even so it's an important principle of good Government. I was going to write about that subject. But then I started reading and realized that I need to write two articles. This one is about how the word "subsidiarity" entered modern Conservative Jargon. It turns out that it's from the founding fathers of our conservative movement. Just not our Founding Fathers. Google brings up this definition:

What is Subsidiarity?

"Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority."

Subsidiarity as a component of Federalism

This principle is a principle of Good Government. It is not an absolute principle, despite it being the latest "Conservative" buzzword. It is a legitimate principle. Except that for the Framers of the Constitution the goal was "subordination" not subsidiarity per-se in their definition of "Confederation or Federation". But Subsidiarity is a "constitutional necessity" by definition:

"The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be ``an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state....So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy." [Federalist 9, Hamilton]

Subsidiarity while necessary for "Local purposes" was not seen as an end in itself. So when George Will started talking about the principle years ago. The question rose in my head, "where was he coming from?"

Jonah Goldberg and Rerum Novarum

Indeed while it's not mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, though it is a concept from the middle ages. It turns out the source was the late 19th century by Catholic Activists, specifically:

The principle of subsidiarity was first formally developed in the encyclical Rerum novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, as an attempt to articulate a middle course between laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of communism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other. The principle was further developed in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo anno of 1931, and Economic Justice for All by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29]

I saw extensive references to Rerum Novarum in my authoritative references on Fascism (which are still in a box somewhere not yet unpacked), so I was desperately looking for that book while writing this. But then I realized I had another source. From a man who was trying to obfuscate the role of that encyclical! Our Good Friend Jonah Goldberg in his propaganda "Liberal Fascism" in the context of his discussion of Mussolini's fascism. However, Fascism's cult didn't start out with much definition as an economic system. And indeed the Economics of Fascist states has tended to be Right Wing and has taken a number of forms. But the Fascism of the Mediterranean was that of Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain and Mussolini in Italy, and all three were heavily influenced by Rerum Novarum. Which Jonah Grudgingly acknowledges:

"It’s revealing that corporatism has many of its roots in Catholic doctrine. The 1891 papal encyclical Rerum novarum proposed corporatism or syndicalism in response to the dislocations of the Industrial Revolution. ... The Church’s interest in corporatism stemmed from its belief that this was the best way to revive medieval social arrangements that gave man a greater sense of meaning in his life." [Liberal Fascism page 297]

Jonah Goldberg Mainstreaming Catholic Fascism

But what he calls "progressive Catholic Thought" based on Rerum Novarum, written by Pope Leo XIII (2 March 1810 – 20 July 1903, born Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci) was the basis for authoritarian Catholic policy, not "progressive" policy. Dictators from Franco to Juan Peron cited Rerum Novarum, though he influenced progressives and classic liberals alike. The Catholic Church's interest in Corporatism was to subjugate man to Church Authority, as it has been since Constantine.

There is a reason that Jonah Goldberg tries to obfuscate the relationship between the Church and some forms of Fascism. There is no mention of António de Oliveira Salazar, or his form of explicitly Catholic Fascism, nor of Fascisms origins in Catholic Action. Nor does he talk about how Franco merged the explicitly Catholic Fascist groups with the Fascism of the Falange created by José Antonio Primo de Rivera [http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/falange.htm]. But Goldberg makes a lot of mistakes. For example he confuses Francos failure to enforce the "edict of expulsion during the 30's and 40's with him abrogating the edict. Franco closed the border, he just didn't enforce it by gunning down fleeing Jews the way the French or other Europeans did. The Edict of expulsion wasn't abrogated formally until 1968. [http://jewishwebsight.com/bin/articles.cgi?Area=jw&ID=JW903]

Essentially Jonah and other modern conservatives are rewriting the record to separate the Fascism of Salazar and Pinochet, Mussolini and Franco, of Catholic Action from it's equal partners in the Falange and the Fascist movement. Yes the two movements were parallel. One was focused on Social Issues and power. The other on Power. Together they were indomitable. If they had some divergent goals, most of their goals were convergent.

The Fact is that Fascism grows out of Nostalgia for the Dark Ages. Jonah agrees:

"Fascism is the cult of unity, within all spheres and between all spheres. Fascists are desperate to erode the organic, legal, or cultural boundaries between family and state, public and private, business and the “public good.”

But like all good Cons he tries to project that onto "progressives." This much is true. Fascism was and is explicitly a teaching that reifies Social Dominance and the imposition of Order/hierarchy.

"Unlike communist Jacobinism (or Jacobin Communism, if you prefer), which expropriated property and uprooted institutions in order to remake society from the ground up, Fascism pragmatically sought to preserve what was good and authentic about society while bending it to the common good. Interests or institutions that stood in the way of progress could be nationalized, to be sure. But if they worked with the regime, if they “did their part,” they could keep their little factories, banks, and department stores." [Liberal Fascism page 297]

Which of course is corporatism, Social Dominance, hierarchy and Elitism [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html]. And if those were also features of the mutant bolsheviks and characteristics of socially dominant wannabe "fearless leaders" of all stripes; it decidedly is not a set of progressive attributes. It's not conservative either. Fascism is about Orthodoxy, Nationalism, Authoritarianism and naked oppression.

George Will's (and Jonah's) Fascism

So Where did this concept of Subsidiarity really come from? I first heard it in an article I was reading by George Will back in 1994. My mind retained the term because it just makes sense. But it turns out that the context was George Will's nostalgia for a society with "Moral Fiber". This mention was an article; "Conservatism Will Restore Moral Fiber To Fraying Culture" November 14, 1994 |By George Will, Washington Post Writers Group

He wrote at that time, referring to the Southern Strategy "Contract With America", Gingrich Revolution of that year:

"Conservatives worry in a more contemporary vocabulary, questioning the power and ambitions of the post-New Deal state and finding a causal connection between those ambitions and the fraying of the culture. Conservatives believe government's principal functions are the preservation of freedom and removal of restraints on the individual." [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-11-14/news/9411140338_1_liberalism-conservatives-worry-function-of-government]

Even the language of decline and renaissance reflects the language of Fascism more than conservatism. If Will had been resisting change he'd have been a conservative. But the Gingrich Revolution (ongoing) was about rolling back previous reforms on the premise that the "moral fiber" of the culture was fraying. Compare that to this description of Franco after he achieved power:

"Franco became caudillo, or absolute dictator, and unlike those he had accused of lacking "moral fiber," Franco tolerated little dissent. According to Ellwood, he placed a premium on "uniformity and conformity" rather than "plurality and diversity." He saw himself as the savior of the nation and therefore would suffer no one to stop him. He used military tribunals to try any manner of offense, and observers suspect that hundreds or thousands of political captives and other prisoners were executed between 1939 and 1943. Franco also used bureaucratic tools to harass the general public into loyalty. By requiring written authorizations for work or food purchases, ultimate authority rested in those issuing the cards, who, of course, owed loyalty to Franco." [Francisco Franco Dictionary of Hispanic Biography, November 6, 1996]

I could find better quotes but the point is that the notion that society is falling apart and order must be imposed to restore it to past glory is a feature of Fascism along with Imperialism and other characteristics. And note, Franco talked extensively about Rerum Novarum and pledged his fealty to the Catholic Church and to the Monarchy. Jonah is right about the features of Fascism and this "Restoration of Moral Fiber" is one of them. And if you read carefully his next passage and decode it you see the same "need for order" theme that is symbolized in the Sticks and Axe that are the symbol of Fascism:

"One count in conservatism's indictment of liberalism is that liberalism takes too much for granted, including those habits - thrift, industriousness, deferral of gratification - that make free societies succeed. Conservatives worry that the severest cost of solicitous government is not monetary but moral: the diminution of personal responsibility and private forms of social provision." [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-11-14/news/9411140338_1_liberalism-conservatives-worry-function-of-government]

Contrary to the propaganda of Conservatives, it's not "liberalism" that seeks to impose order; "thrift, industriousness, deferral of gratification" on people. It is authoritarianism. And Will for all his talk about liberty and Freedom is usually a hypocrit on the subject. He condemns eminent domain when the Government uses it for urban renewal but calls for it when the Canadians impose a pipeline on the country.

And his mention of "subsidiarity" was in this context:

"The first business of the next Congress, the balanced-budget constitutional amendment, will promote, even compel, subsidiarity. This is because, as entitlements devour the federal budget, the central government will have a steadily shrinking sphere of discretion, so powers should devolve from Washington to lower governments." [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-11-14/news/9411140338_1_liberalism-conservatives-worry-function-of-government]

Like I said I like the idea of Subsidiarity. But Will isn't really talking about giving more local authority to local decision makers. He claimed that Churches and local authorities will take over the role of charity, but in practice we now know that is a vicious lie. It just doesn't get done. And local government can be every bit as oppressive as Federal Government.

There were other laughing points (from hindsight) such as his claim that the government should attack "unfunded mandates" which was soon followed by off the books Defense spending and other accounting gimmicks.

Sadly the con notion that "relimiting government" would "strengthen society" proved to be a vicious lie too.

I'll have to write about subsidiarity again. I find it sad when reading Conservative sources takes me to Fascist ideology. I'd like to believe Jonah Goldberg wasn't lying because Fascism is a set of attributes about movements and government and there are "red fascists" as Bernard Levi teaches. It's just that folks like Goldberg are rewriting history so they can obscure efforts to repeat the worst of it.

The Trouble with the definitions

The trouble with the Right Wing's definition of "liberty", "individual Freedom" and subsidiarity, is that for the Right Wing everything is qualified with the word right. "Liberty" is for the "Right People". "Individual Freedom" means that property owners and corporate Tyrants rule their employees. And Subsidiarity depends on your definition of "competent authority", since authoritarianism usually creates some kind of aristocracy and puts power in the hands of Authorities, who usually are your Socially Dominant types. It's not "all the people" but "the right people."

References:: Jeffrey T. Schnapp, ed., A Primer of Italian Fascism (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), pp. 3–6;
My Hard copy is of this book:: Charles F. Delzell, Mediterranean Fascism, 1919–1945 (New York: Harper and Row, 1970); Liberal Fascism [https://t.co/uWCgnyG6q3]
I have a copy of this one too:: http://www.amazon.com/Left-Dark-Times-Against-Barbarism/dp/0812974727; Hannah Arendt: "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
Related Pages: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html
Are you a Social Dominator?: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/are-you-social-dominator.html; First wrote this on 3/20/2015, updated title to "Subsidiarity Versus Fascism" as I understand the concept better.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Bibi Comes Out of the Closet

Bibi came out of the closet as an extreme chauvinist nationalist the other day. In a way it settles things. The pretense is gone that Israel is committed to a "Two State Solution." This means that Israel as it is known now is fated to be gone, one way or another. But in the short time it's great for Bibi's political career. He no longer needs to pretend to be dealing with Arab leaders in the West Bank. And now they can join forces with Hamas and launch even more rockets! Win/win for the arms manufacturers who fund both sides!

I admit I was rooting for Herzog. I've never been a Bibi Fan. I spotted him as a hypocritical, two faced Poseur years ago, back when he was still one of Ariel Sharon's deputies and Ariel Sharon was doing the same two faced provocative tricky things.

My wife, however, was a Bibi fan, though we had some nice discussions on the subject and we were able to disagree nicely. But I think even she would be angered by what he did this past week, were she still around, because what dominated her life was a sense of fairness and a concomitant commitment to multiculturalism and fairness. She worked with the USA Kulanu groups which sought justice for ancient and excluded minority groups around the world like the Ethiopian Jews, the Lemba, and crypto Jews scattered and oppressed by the Inquisition and both Christian and Muslim repression for centuries. She could see parallels between the Jewish Diaspora, the Irish, Black and yes the Palestinian diaspora. She was even more able to understand the people in the Palestinian diaspora than I was. My wife was for people working together to understand one another. I know she understood what is happening. But I also know she wouldn't have approved.

Injustice and Diaspora

When injustice is done, grudges can last for centuries. There are still people whose ancestors lived in Spain whose descendents have a grudge against Ferdinand and Isabella. It's not that they didn't move on. It's that what occurred was a massive injustice. And injustice is like a psychic wound that never heals until it is either rectified, or time buries it under other injustices. Yesterday's post involved a song that expressed the longing of people who'd lost their homes 500 years ago. To expect people to just "forget" and move on is callous. Adio Kerida [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/adio-kerida-goodbye-dear-love.html]

This is true whether one is talking about Slavery, Jewish Diaspora, Armenian Diaspora, or yes, the Palestinian Diaspora. Yes, with opportunity and access to resources people will move on. But that doesn't mitigate the injustice of neighbors and former friends who tried to kill them or said "just go." Israel has a right to exist because Jews have a right to live somewhere where authorities can't tell them to "just pack up and go." Sadly, Bibi has just made that future harder to attain.

Many Jews like my wife understand this because their relatives experienced it in Europe. My late friend Malvina Burstein experienced this twice. Once when the Nazis came. A second time when she tried to return to her home in Slovakia and the family that had occupied it refused her a return to the neighborhood her family had lived in for centuries. My other holocaust survivor friends all experienced the anti-semitism of local people who, even if they didn't approve of Hitler's "final solution" only wished it had been more final.

The conflict between the principles of civitas and tribal identity can only be resolved with a strong legal and social sense of fair play. Our world is suffering with the consequences of many injustices, and if we want this world to be a better place we have to set them right -- and also stop rewarding the unjust authoritarian predators among us. Until we wake up to the injustices of the past and set them right, the wheel of injustice will just keep turning. The aggrieved feel justified in committing their own crimes. As we've seen with Al Qaeda and ISIL, they will do their best to get revenge. We don't need revenge, we need justice.

Ending the Palestinian Diaspora

The Chauvinistic, prejudiced extreme nationalism that is emerging right now is bad for Israel and threatens Israel's future. With the deliberate help of the Arab nations, Israel and the Arabs decided to create a diaspora of the (more or less) indigenous people of Palestine, and to oppress others of them as prisoners in their own enclaves. To expect them to "just move on" without help is callous and barbarous. And the world is moving on to where a country can't get away, long term, with the sorts of things that my Holocaust survivor friends experienced in Europe before migrating to the USA or Israel.

Israel is going to have to change. When they claimed they supported a "two state solution" that reflected their knowledge that eventually they'd have to admit that most of them were the immigrants and that the people already there had a right to be there too.

Bibi disavowing a two state solution means that Israel as a Jewish State is going to have to end. One way or another. It can't keep fencing out families that used to live there while begging Jews from around the world to move in. Israel can't keep doing that forever. Bibi's decision means open Apartheid. It also means that the "West Bank" can no longer be labeled as "occupied territory" and it's people treated as prisoners there under that fiction. They are going to have to be admitted as Citizens of an actual State. Same with Gaza. Fences only last so long. One can never kill everybody. And Apartheid is a waste of time. Sooner or later Israelis are going to have to mend fences with Arab speaking Palestinians, or the country will collapse and all those weapons be scattered among fighting warlords, and maybe even used against Jews. Worse, one mistake and huge swaths of Israel will be unlive-able. Netanyahu may think that Iran with the bomb is bad. But events at Chernobyl and Fukushima have demonstrated that reactor complexes are possible bombs too. Dimona is more dangerous to Israel than her neighbors. Heaven Forbid anything happens there!

Guaranteeing the Collapse of Israel as a Jewish State

A two state solution wasn't going to work anyway, so maybe Bibi is just doing the world a favor. An Israel with it's capital in Jerusalem is Israel. Calling the capital after the Roman name is a continuing affront to historical justice. But now that capital is going to have to admit that the people of the West Bank and Gaza have rights too. Conflict is expensive. Those walls cost money. Wealth going to guns, gunships, helicopters and drones is wealth not spent on food and water. People see what is being done to fellow human beings and they stop trading with, buying from, selling to people. It looks bad. It smells bad. It hurts. Apartheid will collapse the Israeli State before they could ever be defeated by Palestinians or bombed by Iranians. If they started engaging in actual genocide that would just lead to their own genocide. So one way or another Palestinians will have to be accorded the same rights as Jews. And one way or another rule of law will have to replace rule of Jihadi nutcases and angry young men. And for that to happen justice will have to be dispensed. Some Folks will have to be helped "move on" and folks will have to apologize and let other folks move in. But it has to be through a Just practice or the death toll will be unconscionable.

One Voice versus Apartheid

I think the movement "One Voice" and Obama will have the last word. I'm not optimistic anymore, but I am certain that one way or another there will be peace. If It were me, I'd redivide Israel into Cantons subdivided into departments and municipalities and give each considerable self government, but that's just me with my principles of subsidiarity and bottom up legislation and independent courts. Israel needs enforceable constitutional protections for both Jews, Christians and Muslims. And Israel owes people it's hurt some restitution for taking their property and some kind of earned amnesty for the two sides atrocities. The Palestinians haven't been exactly saints either. All that is going to take a younger generation and folks a little more immune to false propaganda. But my Wife's spirit would make the difference. She was proud of her uncle who fought against the Egyptian Army and died defending a Kibbutz in the Negev in '48. But she also was someone who wanted justice for everyone.

The last time we visited Israel we visited the Cemetery next to the Israeli Holocaust Museum. There was a marker for her Uncle. We can have two kinds of peace. One is the Cemetery.

Further Reading:: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-is-one-voice-who-is-tom-cotton-and.html; One Voice: http://www.onevoicemovement.org/
Miko Peleg:: http://www.gtigazette.com/?p=23604
J Street:: "J Street said that the manner in which the Prime Minister secured his victory – shredding the broad bipartisanship that underpins American political support for Israel and preying on fear and racism at home – demonstrated that he willingly put his own political interests before his concern for Israel’s relationship with the United States and his commitment to Israel’s democratic character. Moving forward, J Street will be unwavering in making the case that Israel’s security and survival as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people require a change in course." http://jstreet.org/blog/post/yesterdays-election-israels-future_1
Marwan Bishara, Moderate Arab reaction:: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/israel-chose-palestinians-150318081743116.html
Centrist and Palestinian reaction:: “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also took aim at Netanyahu’s pre-election rhetoric, saying the prime minister’s reversal of his previous support for the creation of a Palestinian state was 'very worrisome.'” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/centrist-runner-up-says-he-wont-join-new-israeli-coalition/2015/03/19/47cddd8c-ce0d-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html]

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Adio Kerida -- Goodbye Dear Love

My wife loved Ruth Behar. We saw her documentary. But we also had her songs. My wife loved to play our copies of her records, and truth is I love the music too. A trilling, lamentation about home, and lost loves. My wife sponsored and we saw "Adio Kerida" when it came to the Washington Area. But for years, we lived to the lamentation of the Sephardi, who after 5 centuries still lamented the lost of their homes in "Sepharad" -- Golden Age Spain.

http://www.ruthbehar.com/AdioKerida.htm

The song:

Adio,; Adio Querida,; No quero la vida,; Me l'amagrates tu
Refrain Translation:: Goodbye,; goodbye beloved,; I don't want to live; You made my life miserable.; Tu madre cuando te pario; Y te quito al mundo; Coracon ella no te dio; Para amar segundo
Translation:: When your mother delivered you; and brought you to the world; she did not give you a heart; to love with....; Adio,; Adio Querida,; No quero la vida,; Me l'amagrates tu
Refrain: Va, busacate otro amor,; Aharva otras puertas,; Aspera otro ardor,; Que para mi sos muert
Translation:: I'll go look for another love,; knock on other ports; in hope there is a true hope,; because for me you are dead.

The song has layers, like all good songs from the heart. On the surface level the person is singing about a spurned love, maybe a child who is ungrateful, maybe a lover. On a deeper level the song refers to Spain, which drove Jews out of their country and brought to a close their golden age when they did. Spain discovered Gold, and many "Nuevo Christianos", some of whom were genuine converts, some trying to be both Jewish and Christian, but many of them converting only because the alternative was murder, wound up being the energy behind discoveries such as the great silver mountain of Potosi. Jews would look for far away outposts of the Spanish empire where they could speak Ladino freely and practice freely as long as they were quiet. And the Inquisition would pursue them to the ends of the earth. This song laments the ungratefulness of Christians, who received a lovely set of myths and principles from the Jewish Teachers Jesus and Paul, and turned it into a horror for Jews.

Taken from http://lyricstranslate.com/en/adio-kerida-goodbye-my-beloved.html

Documentary:

About:http://www.ruthbehar.com/AKAboutEnglish.htm

Poetry: http://www.ruthbehar.com/Poetry.htm

Lyrics: http://lyricstranslate.com/en/adio-kerida-goodbye-my-beloved.html

Essays: http://www.ruthbehar.com/Essays.htm

Reactions

The Song blares in my mind right now. And I don't even need the translation or to put the CD on play. For some reason even though it's not my wife's voice in the CD, I hear my wife's voice.

Joy and Sadness!

Joy and sadness,

Reason and Madness,

Are conjoined in this world of travail

Where we journey from hilltop to hilltop,

through vale after vale.

When we think we have arrived,

The host says Goodbye!

When we think we've reached a new height

We find ourselves falling down.

We are walking, we hope towards the light

Yet sometimes the light is too bright

It blinds us like the night.

and when we think we are finally arrived

We are done.

Christopher H. Holte

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

What is One Voice, Who is Tom Cotton? And what game are they playing?

Tom Cotton, Best Congressmen Money can buy?

When I was writing my post on the Logan Amendment and the 47 Traitors Post last week I came on a number of interesting facts which seemed irrelevant when I wrote the post, so I put the info at the bottom of the post. Later I found out that they were incredibly related to Cottons vote, because:

Updating 3/16/2015. It turns out that Tom Cotton got $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month of his Senate Campaign (November 2014) (See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/israel-fingerprints-republican)

Why these negotiations are important:: http://journal.georgetown.edu/irans-nuclear-negotiations-assessing-the-anomaly-of-success/
Senate Authority: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/11/tom-cotton/letter-iran-47-republican-senators-correct-about-c/
Tom Cotton:: Eli Clifton: http://www.lobelog.com/exclusive-emergency-committee-for-israel-spends-big-on-rep-tom-cotton/; Open Secrets Article on him [https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033363]; http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/israel-fingerprints-republican
Iraqis intercept supplies headed to ISIL: http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/iraqis-find-saudi-supplies-weapons-destined-for-isis/; http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/logan-amendment-and-47-traitors.html

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and Joining the Nuclear Club

Watching the playground bullies in the Republican party attack our Presidents efforts to negotiate with Iran, just ups the stakes for our world's survival. The war-mongers deliberately distort the issues and the stakes. I think that is because they take the "Mad" part of Nukes more seriously than they understand the insanity of "mutually assured destruction".

Understanding the Insanity of Imperialist efforts at Arms control

In the 30's, the Germans pioneered Nuclear Science. Fortunately for the rest of the world (and unfortunately for the scientists) the leading German Physicists were mostly Jewish or socially liberal enough to be best buddies and friends with Jewish Scientists. This led the Germans to ignore or fail to appreciate the potential power of Nuclear Energy as a weapon. Even so the Germans pioneered refining Uranium, discovered Plutonium, and might have produced a bomb in time to use it against the Brits, French and Russians had it not been for the fact that:

a; the Nazis arrested or exiled most of their leading Physics geniuses. And; b; the remaining German Scientists seem to have either deliberately stalled the program, or took it down a wrong path.; (quoting from this source for convenience): http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p11.htm
Further reading:: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/holocaust/Research/Proseminar/johnamacher.htm; (quoting from this source for convenience): http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p11.htm
Patton on the Russians: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-orlando/the-foresight-of-patton/

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Inductive, Deductive Processes Democracy and Good government

Using Process to restore integrity to the system.

There are two main forms of reasoning. Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. To use them well they need to be incorporated into processes, formalized into institutions and then employed.

What is a Deductive Reasoning

At the risk of oversimplifying, deductive processes use deductive reasoning:

"Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true."

What are the risks of Deductive Reasoning?

Deductive reasoning frequently results in formal fallacies (due to misapplication of logic) and in fallacies due to faulty premises. Thus for deductive reasoning to be refined and validated the premises of the deduction have to be tested.

Deductive Process

Thus a Deductive Process needs to things, one is that it's formal logic be defined (and modeled) to identify "formal fallacies" and avoid conclusions that don't follow their premises and faulty premises. Then even if the logic seems to be unassailable the premises still have to be examined. Deductive process works through an iterative process of detailing from abstract theory.

[http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php]

Inductive reasoning and Inductive process

Inductive reasoning:

" Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations."

This article explains it better than most:

"Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach (please note that it's "bottom up" and not "bottoms up" which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories." [http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php]

Induction and Deduction must be used together

Some people like to pit inductive reasoning against deductive reasoning as if one method were superior to the other. But both are necessary to process success. And both kinds of reasonings have risks. Abstract theories are generalized from observations, experimentation and sometimes inspiration based on those. There is no deduction without induction. One can come up with faulty theories even if the theory seems to explain the observations. There is no science without verification, validation and refinement processes

Scientists of the Euro-American Gold age got around the dangers of logical trap fallacies by using extensive experimentation and testing to verify, refine and validate hypothesii. As we've moved into a more gilded age, even some of the process improvement people have forgotten about the role of "refining" models. There is a rush to get them to the market as fast as possible, that just doesn't work. Even as hucksters continue to talk about Verification and Validation, while the feedback loop is still drawn, it's not in their minds. In the rush to move science to production the role of experimentation in refining efforts gets forgotten. Experimentation isn't just for verification and validation. It is also for refining the requirements for functionality, and refining one's understanding of what one is looking at. A lot has been dumped in the privateering rush to privatize science and try to make riches. Good process has been one of them. The reason that practical engineers did extensive testing is that science is built on failure. And it's not right to test concepts with train wrecks using live Guinea Pigs. That was a lesson learned through many train wrecks in the early days of train building.

Deductive reasoning has to be tested through inductive processes. And inductive processes are the source for general principles and lessons needed to make progress. The moment a new idea comes along, if the idea contradicts some established theory it tends to get rejected unless there is testing and validation and some "bottom up" means to bring the idea to the attention of the theoreticians.

Governing as the use of Inductive and Deductive processes in Concert.

In requirements we talk about "Bottom up" and "top down." Good requirements has both bottom up inductive processes and top down deductive processes. Requirements have to be fleshed out using engineering principles and iterative experimentation. I want a vehicle for getting from one continent to another. How do I do it? I can do it over the ocean in a boat. But there are constraints on the speed of a boat. The concept may be top down, but now we have a process of discovery. It took 400+ years of failure and experimentation to get boats that could travel at top speeds greater than 10 knots. At 10 knots Europe ruled the world, But ships have never been good at mastering more than 30 knots safely.

But now I want my trip to be fast. For faster speeds you need something that can move over oceans through the air. That is called flying. How do you make something fly? Observation suggested we could do it with wings like birds. It took 1400 years before anyone could figure out how to do that successfully and demonstrate it. It took 50 years before flying was safe. Years of failure and experimentation. My Grandfather perished in 1938 while flying a PB-Y. He was a Pilot, so between the inherent dangers of flying an immature technology and the looming Great War, his odds were 50/50 of making it 5 years after he graduated the Academy. For space shuttle pilots the odds were a little better. That they only had two catastrophic failures showed that they took risk seriously. Risk is part of life. The purpose of science is to use tools that can keep one eye open when humans/sentient beings are walking the cliffs and valleys that make it up.

Process models understand this. They build Deductive process models and Inductive process models, and they use both. These models are useful for trying to understand and predict behaviors. Scientists are trying to use create artificial intelligence using deductive and inductive models. I'd like to see them used for improving the natural intelligence of our governing processes and society. Seeking artificial intelligence is kind of useless unless it is part of improving our own intelligence. Some people are so frustrated with the messy, poor processes they live with they concentrate on building AIs in ivory towers. We fear "Skynet" because we know there is something wrong with our use of intelligence.

We need to use Deductive Processes and Inductive Processes to systematically govern ourselves as societies and a world.

Good Government as acknowledging the value of and employing both Inductive and Deductive Processes.

It hit me a long time ago (before 2010) that the value of Enlightened ideas is is in enlightened processes and enlightened requirements and constraints. If the AI and process people could design an ideal government Democracy probably wouldn't come to mind first, but if they were tasked to apply the principles of Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning to a business process model for governing a society using these principles -- they'd come up with a Democratic system. This is because top down processes are faulty without verification, validation and refining processes -- Inductive process. And Bottom up processes are faulty without generalization, standardization and requirements. Which are deductive processes.

Democratic representation is (or should be) an inductive process. Local Direct Democracy is in your general assemblies, in accepting feedback from workers. In letting them choose representatives. Workers are your best testers and validators for concept. Oppressive and tyrannical process is also bad and dysfunctional process. Good representation hears all voices because the best way to avoid conflict is to find out what issues are and solve them, rather than exploiting them for pyramid games. The point is that a functional Representative Republic is also good governing process that employs inductive and deductive products to feedback for success.

Boss types want to believe their general theories are valid "a priori" but in real life most governing theory rests on shifting sand. What works strategically at one moment may fail as conditions react to that strategy. Thus good government requires continual feedback, and sometimes a changing of the guard. But for now:

More to come

Notes

Process improvement people have been looking at the processes of management for some time. And it hit me during a very boring (because I was being lectured on a subject I'd already studied ad nauseum) training session on process improvement that I hadn't seen much of that applied to governing. So I started looking at the subject, all the while hoping that I'd find some thinker who'd already covered parts of it so I wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. By looking at the process of government as a system with a series of processes that need to be systematized. One can apply the process improvement ideas of the Golden Age of Euro-American Science to Government. For example, when looking at the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, and other philosophical writings of the 18th century and early 19th century the philosophers and "social-scientists" were grasping at engineering models that would use tools not that different from the process diagrams used to describe requirements, or airplane acquisition, etc... Consequently I've been consciously and subconsciously at work on this since 2010. But the first step was to re-read the writings with that in mind. I found some of the concepts I was looking for in Artificial Intelligence thinking, which is mostly the product of engineers trying to architect the ideas of some brilliant science fiction writers and scientists, so it shouldn't be surprising.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Private Tyranny, Property Rights and Workman's compensation

Before Workman's compensation

[100 yrs article]

The Story

The story I heard a long time ago, is one I'm still in the process of verifying. The story I was told is that my Great Grandfather was an Iron worker. One of the jobs he had, I heard was building an Iron Dome in the Minnesota State Capital. I thought I heard the Iron dome was on the capital, but I looked it but the Minnesota State capital building is made of Marble, so that part of the story I must have heard wrong. Maybe it was a bank or some other building. I need to dig. Or he was doing other work than just Iron work. Or perhaps Iron helped support the Marble. I don't know. But the story I heard, I think from my Grandfather is that after a number of years as a pretty good Iron worker he hurt his back while working. At that point he was fired. His pay was docked for lost time and the cost of the Medical Doctor and he was sent home. He spent the rest of his life barely making a living with a small farm.

The story of Workman's Compensation in brief

He raised my Grandmother under incredibly difficult circumstances. According to the story she would skate to work in the winter and walk three miles to school around a lake the rest of the year. I know this is true. His daughter, my Grandmother, was a tiny, delicate, fearful, yet tough and determined woman, though obviously she'd suffered privation and it had marked her. She became a School teacher and helped my Grandfather get his degree so he could teach high school and coach sports. My Late wife always made me think of her.

Also according to the story my Grandfather was a bit of a socialist/progressive after that, though much of my family tends to be hyper-patriotic and even Right Wing. I do know he was in pain for the rest of his life and eeking out a living running a small farm he bought with his savings. I never met my Great Grandfather La Ducre, and my time with my Grandfather and Grandmother was brief, so my memory could be faulty on this. But the essential story is pretty typical of the days before Workman's compensation, which we only got because of labor agitation for fairness. It was typical for employers to treat workers as a cost and for employers to treat their common employees like dirt. If the story is not true, it is still typical of the days before Workmen's compensation.

Fairness in the United States has two different definitions. For those who have land and capital property it involves an absolute right to use their property as they see fit. That attitude is alive and well, as demonstrated by the recent demonstrations at the Mall of America. The Mall of America corporation regards their malls as private property. Even if they seem like public places, the notion of a "commons" is something they resist. They hired police, FBI and Homeland Security to enforce that notion. It is the same notion that informed the Aristocrats of old. Prior to the passage of workmans compensation laws, employers were the same way. Employees were an expense only. The land they worked on was private property. If they were unfortunate enough to live on the Corporation private property, they had no rights. That is why we developed a Union movement. The notion of "commons" went out the window when we created corporations. The reality that the commons has always applied to property claimed as "private" doesn't occur to modern "economic royalists" (FDR's term) anymore than it applied to the Nobles and Kings who declared they had a divine right of kings to rule arbitrarily and discard the detritus; (old, sick, infirm, hurt). For that reason it took years of agitating to get our Workman's compensation laws.

....And now they are under attack again!

This article explains the Workers Compensation System:

"Today's workers compensation system can trace its original heritage back to a German system put in place in 1881; however, 1911 is recognized as when Wisconsin adopted the first statewide constitutional workers compensation law. It was a simple program that removed worker injuries from the court system, offering both employers and employees more certainty about compensation for lost wages, disabilities and medical care." [https://www.ncci.com/documents/100_yrs_comp.pdf]

The article softpedals the harsh reality of the previous system. Unless the Employer did something egregious and the courts were not corrupt (courts were notoriously biased against workers and for employers), workers not only were unlikely to get any help for being injured at work, they were likely to be sued for the financial damage their injury did to their employer and successfully!

"When it was first introduced a century ago, workers compensation insurance was a relatively radical idea for American workplaces." [100 yrs article]

Radical is code for "No effing way I'm going to compensate my employees for being lazy shiftless morons who get themselves hurt" was a typical (still is) attitude of employers! It took the Union movement and labor agitating to get this done! It was fiendishly difficult to sue an employer. And even if one won the case it was rare that a worker was well compensated!

"As the American economy moved increasingly from agriculture-based to industry-based, it became increasingly necessary to find a comprehensive method for dealing with the costs of on-the-job injuries. States realized that employees could not be expected to have to sue their employers for compensation. And employers needed to have a means for protecting themselves from the unknown costs of such lawsuits." [100 yrs article]

Pirate Model

More importantly workers realized that employers were not going to compensate workers unless a system was demanded that the employers could live with. The system they came up with was modeled on the system worked out by pirates back in the days when privateers and pirates hunted for prizes and fought wars on the open ocean. In those days a no-fault system was setup for compensating injured crew on pirate ships. This no-fault system was eventually adopted by the elitist Navies, but only after labor agitation by sailors. The threat of mutiny eventually worked, but only after generations of sailors were hung.

And it took til 1948 to get Workman's Compensation laws passed in every state!

[http://www.piratesinfo.com/cpi_Injury_Compensation_537.asp]

Sources and Further Reading

https://www.ncci.com/documents/100_yrs_comp.pdf

http://www.piratesinfo.com/cpi_Injury_Compensation_537.asp

Open Secrets Top 5 Donors 2013-2014 + last Minute
Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
Club for Growth	$507,174	$507,174	$0
Elliott Management	$143,100	$143,100	$0
Stephens Group	$105,550	$95,550	$10,000
Senate Conservatives Fund	$97,427	$92,427	$5,000
Goldman Sachs	$50,549	$40,549	$10,000
Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI)	$960,250
When we talk about Elliott Management we are really talking about Paul Singer.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033363
Mondoweiss: [http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/israel-fingerprints-republican]

Name	Amount per Gift	Total
4 members of the vastly wealthy Falic family	$11,500	$46,000
Book family of New Jersey	$11,000	$44,000
Schottenstein family	$10,000	$40,000