A Modest Proposal

But my assessment and my team's assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that on net, it was worth us doing. 

Some other folks may have a different assessment of that, but I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy, and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society.
President Barack Obama
As you can see the President thinks his Administration's actions are modest and worth doing. How soothing. He just forgot to inform us about his actions. I'm sure that was a minor mistake. In the manner of Jonathan Swift, Dear Readers, I also would like to submit a modest proposal to solve the vexing problem of danger and evil in the world. We must have safety as many folks from across the political spectrum have demanded. I can offer you complete safety. There will just have to be a few minor, yes modest changes to make in our political system but if they keep you safe, then surely it's worth it yes?

This constitutional republic thing just isn't working out. Besides our nation is more diverse now. Why should this country be ruled under systems that came out of Anglo-Saxon and Western European 18th century political thought?  No we must update our political process to reflect today's needs. Elections are wasteful and give too many opportunities to our enemies or those sympathetic to them to gain power. In fact there's too much decentralization of power in our system. I commend the President for recognizing that, at least. But now, we must have autocracy. All legislative, executive and judicial authority will be handled by yours truly. Since I will be a permanent ruler the rest of you will save oodles of money on silly little things like elections or political campaigns. Political corruption will decline because there will only be one person in charge. Me. And I assure you I am not corruptible. Congress will be disbanded. Only my leadership will keep us safe. Don't you want to be safe?

Many people have said they have nothing to hide and really have no use for the outdated Fourth Amendment. I have heard you my subjects. I am humbled by your great wisdom and intelligence. Under my reign I also won't have any use for that rule created by dead white men. It fails to keep us safe. And we must be kept safe. That is the most important thing for government to do. So to make sure that we are kept safe I will be ordering random searches and checks of every single American's primary home, apartment and vehicle and any other domiciles. From time to time the police may just live with you for a few days to ensure you're not doing anything wrong. They'll stay in your house while you go to work, follow you to your doctor or dentist appointments or drop by while you're out. It goes without saying that they will stop any domestic violence before it starts, read your mail, and take every conceivable method to ensure that no one in your home is committing any crimes.  I'm also considering installing video screens in every home. This will stop domestic violence. I know you will thank me for this later when crime drops. After all I am keeping you safe.

Speaking of crime the Supreme Court just ruled, over the objections of that dammed left wing hack Antonin Scalia, to permit police to collect DNA from people accused of serious crimes. I say good for the court but why stop there? No my friends, what we need are total and complete DNA profiles. The only way to do this is to require everyone in America to visit their local police station and give a DNA sample along with their fingerprints and hair. That way we can have everyone in the database. Crime solving will be a breeze. And since so many of you intelligent folk have responded to NSA snooping reveals with witty aphorisms such as "I'm not afraid of the government knowing where I am or what I'm reading because I have nothing to hide" I am happy to report that I will be taking you all of you up on that offer. While you're down at the local constabulary giving DNA samples to Officer Friendly, the police will also be giving you something.
Microchips. 
This will allow the NSA to know where every single citizen, green card resident, visitor or illegal alien is  (within a 3-5 meter variation) at all times. Babies will of course have these chips implanted and DNA taken at birth, free of charge. Isn't that a wonderful benefit? I think so. Besides, it will keep you safe.

Since we don't need elections, I'm not too sure about the wisdom of such things as trials either. You will need to free your pretty little heads from ideas like "having your day in court"  or "innocent until proven guilty" or "the right to remain silent." Frankly I don't think you will miss them that much. Still to show that I'm a nice guy I will allow judges and trials to continue. We'll I'll just make a few, how did President Obama put it, "modest encroachments" on the trial process. First of all, all judges at all levels will be appointed by me to serve at my pleasure. Next we need to get rid of this silly "innocent until proven guilty" meme that has infected so many otherwise intelligent people. If you hadn't been doing something wrong you wouldn't have been arrested and charged. Everyone knows that. And in the RARE case that is otherwise, well any cook will tell you you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. 

Henceforth, accused criminals will be considered guilty and have to prove their innocence. And as far as remaining silent, heck if you were falsely accused wouldn't you want to speak up? Remaining silent just confirms guilt in my book. And all this nonsense about a right to an attorney or a jury trial prevents efficiency in our system. So we'll be getting rid of that. If you can't afford an attorney well you should have thought about that before you committed a crime, you silly goose. And judges, being educated legal professionals, are much better at determining guilt than the yahoos who can wind up on juries. Society will save more money by not having to waste time by selecting juries. Besides my judges will keep you safe. And isn't that the most important thing to you? I thought so.

Because of the wise reforms described above there will be much less doubt about the innocence or guilt of an accused criminal. Yet I know that some of you may have atavistic attachments to such concepts as the Bill of Rights but believe me it's more important to keep you safe. I mean that's what you're telling me every day.

Finally it has come to my attention that many of you claim to have the right to dissent and point to such things as the First Amendment to guarantee your free speech, right to petition, assemble, disagree and so on. Well obviously you weren't paying attention. When I said I would be an autocrat, were you unclear on the concept? Anyway the First Amendment has been abused by those who would harm us Dear Readers. So until we can be sure the terrorist threat has been completely eradicated I'm afraid that I will be shutting down all publishing houses, newspapers, broadcast media, cable networks and Internet service providers. Don't worry I will reopen a select few, who agree to provide continuously vetted material that gives you accurate information about the world. This will stop cancerous ideas like free speech and dissent from spreading  prevent terrorists from communicating with each other. Now some of you may squawk and complain but (1) I really wouldn't do that in front of my security force if I were you and (2) it will keep you safe , which should be the most important thing to you. Right?

There are a few other minor changes to still be worked out but these modest proposals should be sufficient for now. You can thank me later. Remember, I've got my Eye on you.
Sincerely,
Sauron, First of His Name, Ruler of the World and King of Men. 

HBO Game of Thrones Season Finale Recap: Mhysa

In the same fashion that GRRM goes out of his way, perhaps too much so, to break artistic convention perhaps the HBO showrunners could start to do the same. For three seasons now the most gripping and shocking moment has been in episode nine while the finale mostly deals with the repercussions. Things really don't have to be this way. It worked for season one because it was almost demanded by the source material. This trope was okay in season two but didn't quite work in season three. The book that season three was mostly drawn from was widely considered to be among the most compelling in the series. I'm not necessarily sure that always came across this season. There may be more on that later. But since this season was the most successful so far does anyone really care besides purist book readers? I don't know.

Anyway the season finale, as expected, starts in the Red Wedding aftermath. Roose Bolton looks approvingly on the final mop up of Stark and Tully forces. Men are hanged, burned alive, and hacked apart. In a horrific scene drawn straight from the books Bolton and Frey men surround the mutilated corpse of Robb Stark. He's been decapitated. Grey Wind's head has been attached to his body. The men mock the King in the North. Arya and The Hound see it and ride off. The Hound thoughtfully grabs a Frey banner as to blend in. You've really got to feel for Arya. In a very weird way she's grown up though. Yoren once held her and prevented her from seeing her father's execution and corpse. The Hound makes no such concession to her sensibilities. It is what it is.

In King's Landing Sansa and Tyrion discover a brief common interest in discussing ways to get back at people who mock them. This is interrupted when Podrick summons Tyrion to a Small Council meeting. Joffrey is besides himself with glee at having heard about the Red Wedding. Maester Pycelle makes Tyrion pick up a coded message from Walder Frey to Tywin that Robb and Catelyn Stark and all their forces are dead. So now you know why Twyin was writing all those letters all throughout the season. Being the sadistic little s*** that he is Joffrey is boasting of how he will have Robb's head served to Sansa, a suggestion which apparently horrifies Tyrion who forbids it. This sets off a little intra-Lannister rumble. Joffrey apparently still believes that Robert was his father and compares Tywin to him in a very negative manner. With that Tywin effectively sends Joffrey to bed with no supper. The chamber is emptied except for Tywin and Tyrion.

Tyrion is shocked that his father was behind the Red Wedding but the ever pragmatic Tywin sees little point in arguing in how a war is won, just that it is won. Besides most of the direct blame will fall on the Freys. Tyrion points out that such treachery will never be forgotten by the North but Tywin shrugs. Now that Robb and his heirs are gone it's critical for Tyrion to impregnate Sansa. When Tyrion protests and challenges his father to name a time that he ever sacrificed for the good of the group, his father icily reminds Tyrion that Tyrion is only alive because he's a Lannister. If Tywin had acted in accordance with personal desires he would have murdered Tyrion in the cradle. Tyrion goes to break the news to Sansa but sees that she's already heard.

This show is big on hints and here's one that was extremely and very deliberately obvious. At the Nightfort Bran is telling the story of the Rat Cook, a man who invited the king to dinner, murdered the king's sons and fed them to him. By the way a similar story is also told in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus so it's not as if GRRM is alone in an appreciation for Grand Guignol. The Rat Cook was then punished by the gods by being turned into a carnivorous rat who ate his own children. The moral of the story as Bran pointed out is that the gods never forgive the violation of the sacred guest right. It is the gravest sin. People who do that come to extremely bad ends. In the very next scene we see Walder Frey eating and gloating as the blood and carnage are cleaned from his halls. Roose warns that the Blackfish escaped but Frey, who is revealing a MASSIVE inferiority complex, considers that of small import. And if you hadn't noticed that the Bolton sigil is a flayed man hanging on an X shaped rack you really should have been paying attention. In response to Frey's curiosity Roose reveals that the Ironborn occupying Winterfell handed over Theon to his bastard son but that his bastard son Ramsay had other ideas about both the Ironborn and Winterfell. This is an important confirmation that it was Ramsay Snow who sacked and burned Winterfell. So the Bolton treachery goes back further than one might have realized.

At presumably the Bolton Dreadfort stronghold, Theon hangs on the rack, while his previously unknown tormentor, Ramsay Snow, Bolton's illegitimate son, makes fun of Theon's new eunuch status. Ramsay says he got his cruelty from dear old dad. In what seems like a reference to a similar Roots scene featuring Kunta Kinte, Ramsay beats Theon senseless until Theon accepts his new name of Reek. Ramsay also sends Theon's genitals to Pyke, demanding that the Ironborn leave the North or Balon will get other flayed parts of Theon. Balon doesn't care but Yara does. She decides to lead an attack to rescue Theon. Bran and company run into Sam and Gilly. Sam recognizes Bran from stories he's heard about him and after some initial suspicions the two groups share notes. Nonetheless neither can convince the other to change directions and ultimately they continue on their separate paths.

At Dragonstone news of Robb's death has reached Stannis. Davos helps Gendry to escape after he's learned that Stannis still wishes to burn Gendry for more power. Greatly angered, Stannis intends to have Davos executed but declines when Davos reveals a letter from Maester Aemon of the Night's Watch asking for help to combat the White Walker threat. Melisandre (cleavage alert!!) goes along with this and claims to have seen something in the fires. As far as escapes go, Varys tries to pay off Shae to leave but Shae thinks this request comes from Tyrion and won't go. Cersei tells Tyrion to give Sansa a baby if he wants to make her somewhat happy. She says that even Joffrey's current status as a psychopath can't erase her fond memories of him as a baby and her love for him. Jaime and Brienne make it back to King's Landing where Jaime is reunited with Cersei. 

Arya and The Hound run across some Frey soldiers gloating about the murders of Robb and Catelyn. When Arya learns that one of these soldiers was among those who mutilated her brother's corpse, she murders him. The Hound makes quick work of the remaining ones and is a bit surprised at Arya's ferocity and skill with a knife. Arya is completely unrepentant and repeats to herself the mantra she learned from Jaqen H'ghar, Valar morghulis, or all men must die.

Ygritte has tracked down Jon Snow. Jon says that he still loves Ygritte and that he knows she feels the same but that he took an oath. Well if she still loves him she has a funny way of showing it as she peppers him with arrows. Then again, she didn't shoot him in the head. It's unclear as to whether this was for lack of trying. Either way I think that particular romantic interlude is over. Sometimes things just don't work out. Again I think we ought to at least consider the chain of events from Ygritte's point of view. The wounded Snow escapes back to the Wall.
At Yunkai the previous slaves embrace their freedom and Daenerys stage dives into what looks like the entire cast of extras from the Matrix Reloaded dance scene. The freed people call her Mhysa or mother. 

What I liked

• Charles Dance continues to seemingly effortlessly dominate any scene he's in. His Twyin Lannister is a Magnificent Bastard indeed.
• Arya's murderous frustration and revenge has been a long time coming but we finally get to see hints of it. 
• Ygritte's almost wordless rage. This was very well played indeed. I look forward to seeing her next season. She can use the same phrase "You know nothing, Jon Snow" to run the gamut of meanings and emotions. There's a thin line between love and hate.
• Davos' insistence on remaining the moral center for the man he calls king. It's a welcome respite from GRRM's otherwise constant mantra that nice guys finish last. Because of where he was born Davos is a bit more realistic than Ned Stark, as is Brienne but all three characters possess an insistence on doing the right thing and playing by the rules regardless of the personal cost. Two of them are still alive.
• The show forces viewers to accept that the Stark quest for justice and possibly revenge may not necessarily be the central theme. This really messes with normal storytelling convention. I wonder if it does so so much that some people will give up on the show. I wouldn't blame them if they did. Different strokes, different folks.
• Sam reminding Maester Aemon that the Wall wasn't built to keep out men. Sam finally comes across as competent in this episode. He may never be a bada$$ but there are some things he knows about and history is one of them.

What I didn't like

• I don't remember if Yunkai was mostly black and brown in the books. I don't think it was. I certainly don't think the ruling slaver Yunkai class was mostly Caucasian. In any event I think it's somewhat lazy writing to immediately have black + brown = slave in a televised adaptation. Of course this could wind up being a critique of Orientalism and paternalistic imperialism but still. Even ignoring any unfortunate racial implications the Daenerys ending scene was meant to be epic -complete with overhead crane shot and swelling ponderous music- but it mostly just left me cold.
• The pacing was a little off in this episode and this season. The show runners had said that the Red Wedding was initially the scene which made them know they had to adapt the book. They did an excellent job of that but other storylines either dragged on too much (Theon) or were greatly shortchanged (Arya)
• It would have been nice to get some reaction from Robb's other bannermen up North about the turn of events. After all, several of their relatives died at the Red Wedding as well.
• Please read the books. 

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes.  If you have book based knowledge of future events please be kind enough not to discuss that here.  NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS. Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea..of course as the series biggest spoiler is no longer a spoiler perhaps instead of decapitation you would just get sent to the Wall...

Music Reviews-Aretha Franklin: Amazing Grace, Led Zeppelin: How the West Was Won, Alligator Stomp

Aretha Franklin- Amazing Grace

Many classic soul, R&B and funk singers came out of the black (generally Baptist and Pentecostal) church. Once they hit it big some left the gospel genre and never looked back as they predominantly performed secular music for ever more. Others eventually grew disillusioned with secular music and returned to the church. Some kept a foot in both worlds, releasing a back to roots gospel album every few years to prove to themselves and their audiences across the musical spectrum that they loved gospel and hadn't forgotten their roots. Perhaps some of this was just cynical marketing practice but given the very real venom with which some gospel partisans and critics viewed the practice of gospel stars crossing over, it's really no surprise that some gospel singers who made it big in the secular world would occasionally feel the artistic, personal (and religious?) need to produce a "purist" gospel album.

There are many such gospel/soul stars who have done this. Ray Charles, Mahalia Jackson, and Sam Cooke all come to mind but today I just want to quickly pull your coat to Aretha Franklin's Amazing Grace album. This 1972 masterpiece was recorded live with Aretha Franklin's touring band (which included heavyweight musicians like bassist Chuck Rainey, guitarist Cornell Dupree and drummer Bernard Purdie) and with gospel superstar James Cleveland (an influence on both Aretha Franklin and her father Rev. C.L Franklin), Cleveland's crack choir and Aretha's father himself. Mrs. Franklin herself obviously is the featured vocal soloist but also holds her own on piano. I'm not sure if she was featured on organ. In any event it was a glorious and seamless combination of traditional gospel music mixed with some more popular forms. 
As I've written before I love Franklin's voice and she was in rare form here. I think she's been so good for so long that we almost take her talent for granted. I really enjoyed the mashup of Thomas Dorsey's Precious Lord with Carole King's You've got a friend.

If you haven't heard this you owe it to yourself to give it a listen. I don't quite understand how anyone doesn't like gospel music but that's just because I grew up with so much of it. Then again I always gave a side eye to grown men with processed hair shaking and screaming "Can't nobody do me like Jesus!" but there's not much of that here. You don't have to be religious to love this music. Tastes differ of course but if you like gospel or soul this is a must have album. If you don't like gospel music well then this definitely isn't the release for you. More's the pity. My parents had this performance in various different formats over the years. I'm very familiar with all of the different classic gospel tunes featured within. Amazing Grace is today still Franklin's best selling release. Mary Don't You Weep is a wonderful update of the Inez Andrews classic. Chuck Rainey's bassline wouldn't be out of place on a Band of Gypsys release. The band and choir swing hard on How I got Over. Of course the title song Amazing Grace makes an appearance.  Precious Memories is slowed down to a crawl. Franklin and Cleveland duet. I also like James Cleveland's voice as it had a roughness similar to Howling Wolf's. Voices like that always remind me of my maternal grandfather. I wish I had a voice like that but I think you need to grow up drinking TNT, smoking dynamite and working from can't see until can't see. The album closes out with Never Grow Old.

The sound recordings are just about perfect. The bass is where it's supposed to be, deep and full in the mix, almost like a reggae recording while the guitar and drums do not dominate but instead support the vocals, pianos and organs, which generally are where the melody is to be found. Throw in some tambourines, handclaps and syncopation and you too will be transported back to the New Temple Missionary Baptist Church. Good stuff. This is the real deal. The audience and choir give a lot of feedback. I think the human voice is the most versatile and beautiful instrument. Franklin was and is one of the world's greatest singers.




Led Zeppelin-How the West Was Won

Led Zeppelin was one of my favorite bands despite their lack of attention to little things like properly crediting songwriters they covered. They were hardly alone in that sin of course. When this album was released years after the group had disbanded just about all of those issues had either been settled out of court or thrown out of court. The song credits had all been updated. Anyway that doesn't have much to do with the quality of their music. Either you like it or you don't. Their previous live album/concert movie The Song Remains The Same evidently caught them on a relatively bad series of nights, as the band sounded tired and apparently had tuning problems.
That was just not an issue in the 1972 Los Angeles concerts that make up How The West Was Won. The group is incredibly energetic, inventive and is collectively playing its a$$ off. I think Led Zeppelin was generally better in the studio than heard live but here they are a very very good live group. You may miss some of Jimmy Page's overdubs and studio wizardry but I suppose that's the case any time you listen to a live group where there's only one guitarist. 

Page does his best to make up for it and I think he does. But even as Page is challenged by the live format, Bonham is liberated by it. Drum solos and an even fuller heavier sound than you normally associate with Bonham are both on display. I've written before of how much I enjoy hearing the bass and tom-tom drums as separate audio events and that is true throughout this release. Bomham has a very thick but also quite clear sound that was probably unique among hard rock drummers. You may occasionally feel bludgeoned by his relentless attack here but I personally think that's a good thing. Plant is in full tenor glory. He warbles, sings and cries in ways that aren't necessarily soulful as I might use the word but definitely gets his point across. And bassist John Paul Jones not only holds the bottom end down in a manner which might make Bootsy smile but stretches out to play mandolin, electric piano and organ to add in all the little parts that made Led Zeppelin special.

For a live album the production quality is really good. Songs are extended and mashed up in medleys in which everyone gets a chance to shine. Most of the time this works very well. Sometimes it doesn't but the band just plays through it. If you are a hardcore Zeppelin fan you already have this. If you're just curious about Zeppelin this could be a good place to start as the three CD set, though it leans towards the heavier end of their discography, still has quite a few acoustic numbers. If you hate Zeppelin then obviously this is not the album for you.

Whole Lotta Love (extended w/medley)  Bron-Y-Aur Stomp   Going to California
LA Drone/Immigrant Song  Bring it On Home   Moby Dick  That's The Way  Heartbreaker
Stairway to Heaven  Since I've Been Loving You Dazed and Confused (part 1)





Alligator Stomp

Louisiana, or at least the New Orleans area of it, can be arguably said to be the birthplace of both jazz and rock-n-roll. Most people are familiar with Dixieland jazz and the traditional African-American second line drum and brass bands found in New Orleans and echoed in regions of West Africa and Brazil. But Louisiana is also home to different forms of music, stuff which is both related to and separate from the more familiar New Orleans music. I'm talking of course about Cajun music and Zydeco. Originally Cajun music tended to be more closely associated with European-Americans and featured violin or dobro soloists who played in a distinctly French or Celtic style while Zydeco was more closely associated with African Americans or mixed Creoles who often used used a more percussive style. But as early as the fifties, even despite the musical and social segregation the distinctions had become  increasingly meaningless. It's all just good music as far as I am concerned. Many of the singers, regardless of race, sang in French as much as they sang in English. Both Cajun music and zydeco are, like many of the other musics native to that part of the world, made for dancing.  Some are slow waltzes while others are outright get down and boogies. But usually this is not something that you sit and listen to quietly. 

Alligator Stomp is a sampler of various music by Cajun and Zydeco recording artists from across the color line. Some are black, some are white, some are other. They all have something to say. If you aren't familiar with these styles of music or worse, think they all sound the same, you might want to pick up this album. You may be surprised at some of the things you hear. There's the early rock-n-roll of Cleveland Crochet's Sugar Bee and Johnnie Allan's cover of Chuck Berry's Promised Land. You get the pleading white soul waltz of Jo-El Sonnier's Jolie Blonde. That's a favorite. There's Rocking Sidney with old school rock-n-roll You Ain't Nothing But Fine. That song combines a clean appreciation of the feminine form with just a hint of the wolf on the prowl. I love it. Queen Ida mixes straight ahead zydeco with humor in The Back Door. And zydeco king Clifton Chenier shows that rock-n-roll and zydeco are the same thing in Eh Petite Fille.

China-The New Frenemy

There is a long ugly history of Yellow Peril in American and Western literature and thought. This phenomenon generally looks at the much more numerous Chinese and/or East Asian peoples and sees in them not only unfathomable cultural and racial differences but also finds an insidious threat to the American way of life. This fear and hatred was once so great and well respected that authors like Jack London  (Call of The Wild) could write fiction calling for the complete and utter annihilation of Chinese-total genocide. Obviously no one is calling for such steps today but people from across the socio-political spectrum are starting to realize that while China may not quite be a threat but it's very much not a friend to the United States. China may be something a bit more dangerous than a competitor. Some have pointed out steps that the US must take to aggressively pursue its own desires vis-a-vis China.

These calls to action are not necessarily based in racist thought but in the very real fact that China's rise to economic prominence, its relentless demand for natural resources and its increasingly muscular foreign policy is not necessarily in the United States' or even the world's best interest. And when I say United States' best interest I am referring to the military-security state, the corporate superstructure, and the generally muted concerns of labor and environmentalists.

All of these groups' concerns are somewhat endangered by China's growth and behavior over the past few decades. Labor's concerns are obvious. Cheap Chinese labor reduces job and wage growth within the United States. The corporate sector was generally in favor of this of course but some corporations have belatedly realized that China simply does not believe in intellectual property protection in the same way that the US does, at least not for foreigners. And the military-security state may finally be reaching a point where it's not only concerned by China's rather pugnacious statements about several Pacific regions, including but not limited to Taiwan but also worried about the allegedly successful and ongoing penetration of corporate and government databases by Chinese hackers. When Vietnam, Japan, S. Korea and The Philippines are all trying to get closer to the US to get backup against Chinese bullying and over the top territorial claims, it may be that China is overplaying its hand. With rising inequality in China, the state may be deliberately fanning nationalist furies to take people's eyes away from internal problems. Imagine that.

Because President Obama is meeting with Xi Jinping this weekend, there have been a remarkable series of analysis pieces and op-ends detailing what's going on and what the nature of the US-China relationship will and should be going forward. I'm only going to link to two. If you can find it there is a great piece on China in the latest ISR (International Socialist Review). The ISR piece is longer than the two I've linked here but takes the view that China is now acting as a classic imperialist power just as the United States has. It details more of the history and interactions between the two countries.

Economics professor and gadfly Peter Morici's piece  has a list of steps that the US can and must take in a variety of places to, if you will, stop the Chinese batter from hogging the plate. There's nothing like a brushback pitch high and inside to get someone's attention.

Again, the Obama Administration turns to diplomacy, and China responds with denials. If not to change China then at least insulate the U.S. economy and national security from reckless and cynical behavior, the Obama Administration needs to act more aggressively. Moderate and progressive economists, such as Fred Bergsten and Paul Krugman, as well as this conservative voice, have advocated direct action on the currency issue: U.S. market intervention to raise the value of the yuan, slash the bilateral trade deficit, boost manufacturing and accelerate growth.

Limit Chinese investments to those sectors posing no security threats and to only minority stakes—no wholesale purchases of U.S. assets without reciprocity for U.S. businesses seeking to participate in the Chinese economy. If China wishes to engage in cyber warfare, after fair warning and without not much delay the United States should do more than harden defenses, but rather go after China's commercial secrets and security defenses as well. 

Be plain, demand transparency and engage in talks from a position of strength. Through fruitless diplomacy U.S. presidents have permitted China to become stronger and bolder—the lessons of history regarding appeasement are clear. Only stronger recognizable actions that impose costs on China may bring real change in its conduct and cultivate Beijing to act more responsibly and constructively.

The NYT piece points out that China's state financed economic model is in the short run defeating the US' market driven one. This is not a good thing as it will lead to misallocation of resources and an even more unpleasant changes in US worker expectations.

It is important to remember what is really behind China’s global economic expansion: the state. China may be moving in the right direction on a number of issues, but when Chinese state-owned companies go abroad and seek to play by rules that emanate from an authoritarian regime, there is grave danger that Western countries will, out of economic need, end up playing by Beijing’s rules. 

As China becomes a global player and a fierce competitor in American and European markets, its political system and state capitalist ideology pose a threat. It is therefore essential that Western governments stick to what has been the core of Western prosperity: the rule of law, political freedom and fair competition.

They must not think shortsightedly. Giving up on our commitment to human rights, or being compliant in the face of rapacious state capitalism, will hurt Western countries in the long term. It is China that needs to adapt to the world, not the other way around.

However it turns out I think from self-interest more and more people are thinking twice about the Chinese-US relationship. But the barn door is already open. We can't go back to the 1970's vis-a-vis China. And Chinese cheap labor will continue to be quite attractive to US and European corporations. The question is how do people outside of China deal with what has been described, fairly or not, as a devouring dragon. We have to find a way to ensure that continued interaction with China is beneficial to both countries and the entire planet, not just for one nation or for a small number of elites within each country. I like the idea of raising the value of the yuan and taking steps to make China pay for any hacking.

Thoughts?

US Government Seizing Verizon Phone Records????

I don't have very much to add about the below story. It grows out of the Patriot Act, which was initially passed under President Bush and extended/expanded under President Obama. All I can say is IF this is true then it once again proves my point that when you give government expanded power to investigate you, violate your privacy and keep a watch over what you're doing, government will use it. This is not just about President Obama and/or his advisers and appointees having a disregard for privacy or limited actions to discover leaks or criminal wrong doing. Although in my opinion they certainly do have that disregard. No the problem here is that under the Patriot Act and associated legislation this is probably all completely legal. The only limitation to executive branch snooping is not the law or divided government but the caprices or morality of various people in the executive branch. This is not how our society is supposed to work but you know what I'm starting not to care any more. The Patriot Act was passed and passed again. People just don't care about civil liberties.

IF this report is true and that's a big IF it would just be another nail in the coffin of limited government and privacy. Again, this isn't just about "bad people". If I had powers to do things like this I couldn't be trusted either. No one could which is why historically the power of the state to invade your privacy had to be done under warrant, had to be specific to an action that you allegedly took and had to have some sort of probable cause.  I honestly think that eventually we ought to just get rid of the Bill of Rights, or at least the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Because IF this story is true, it's not as if anyone in power cares much about them...with the exception of whoever leaked this story.

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. 

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. 

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered. The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.

Welcome to surveillance society. But don't worry. I'm sure the Republicans would have been worse on this issue. Or something like that. Big government is your friend. And we know that the Administration will get to the bottom of this. No expense will be spared...to find out who told the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald about all of this...IF it's true. I keep saying IF it's true because after all we know the government would NEVER grab up millions of phone records just because it could...right? Can you hear me now??

Thoughts?

Kaitlyn Hunt is NOT Rosa Parks...

..though she MIGHT be Genarlow Wilson...if Wilson had been a legal adult when he did what he did. 
Formal equality under the law is a funny thing. There are still some remaining exceptions to it. Women do not have to register for selective service, though I think that will change soon. Women still pay less for life insurance and auto insurance. Ladies' Nights in bars or nightclubs are generally still legal. Men are arguably shortchanged in divorce and child custody claims. Private organizations have greater latitude to include or exclude people as they see fit. Men and women are both free to take maternity/paternity leave though men often do not, which adds to inequality. And so on. 
Most Americans would probably agree that equality under the law is a good thing. If I am accused of a crime the judge, jury or prosecutor should treat, judge and sentence me based on the evidence. I shouldn't be treated differently because I am of a particular age, gender or race. There shouldn't be any laws that dictate that person A of group A receives this sentence while person B of group B gets that sentence for the exact same crime. Obviously this is the theory and not the practice as there are still several instances where people don't get equal treatment. We've discussed "marriage equality" or what was more commonly known as "gay marriage".  This means that two people of the same gender should be able to marry just as two people of the opposite gender can. Some think this to be the greatest civil rights issue of our time. Well maybe. I don't much care one way or the other. But I do think that if a community wants equality under the law for the good things in life then it must be willing to accept equality under the law for the bad things.

To wit the Kaitlyn Hunt case. You may remember the Genarlow Wilson case in which a seventeen year old young man had sexual relations with two girls (young women) who were seventeen and fifteen. This was evidently part of a group sex incident. The case facts were recently rehashed here. Some people still view Wilson as a rapist. Kaitlyn Hunt is an 18 year old woman who had sexual relations with a 14 year old girl. They met in a Florida high school. Hunt has refused a plea deal and appears ready to proceed to trial. Her parents and attorney accuse the minor's parents and prosecutors of homophobia. Contrary to what's been reported Hunt admits to being eighteen before starting a sexual relationship with the minor. Hunt doesn't view herself as a child abuser. Neither do some people in the gay community or the media.

Problem is though the law is pretty clear on the fact that eighteen year olds aren't supposed to be having sex with fourteen year olds. The law doesn't make any exception for sexual orientation or gender. 

There's an old joke that "15 will get you 20". In other words it doesn't really matter how old an adult thought a child was. It doesn't matter if the child was mature for his or her age. It doesn't matter if the child consented. It doesn't matter if the child was "experienced". There is a certain age below which a child can not consent. Period. In the arrest affidavit when asked if she knew it was wrong to have sex with a fourteen year old Hunt replies that "she did not think about it because the girl acted older". Right. Just imagine a man saying that. Would we not start measuring the rope for the lynching party?

Now it may be the case that age of consent laws were primarily written out of concern for male predators and female victims and to a lesser extent for male predators and male victims. (Attractive) female predators with male victims may cause some older men to snicker that "I wish my teachers had looked like that!!" while female predators with female victims may slip under the radar entirely. For both biological and cultural reasons people tend to be a little more perturbed about an older man with a younger girl than the opposite. But the law is the law.

I am certainly not under the misconception that Hunt was the only eighteen year old in the universe who ever had sex with a fourteen year old. She just got caught.
But if the female victim's parents and/or the police and prosecutors discover a female predator what do you think they should do? Turn a blind eye to it because it's a same sex interaction? How would that work? There are many cases where an older man or boy runs afoul of statutory rape laws and finds himself in a world of pain. In some cases you can make a legitimate argument that the law is out of touch with current realities. In other cases it's pretty obvious that the older person is indeed a predator and/or pedophile. The jury can decide the facts if the older person wants to go to trial.

But I don't automatically think we can say that the prosecutors or the parents are acting out of malicious or "homophobic" reasons in proceeding with the case. The parents may well have acted even sooner if the alleged predator were male. Listen to what the parents say here. And ask yourself what you would have done. AFAIK we lack evidence either that the parents made anti-gay statements or that the prosecutor disproportionately goes after same sex statutory rape cases. Absent that or some proof that Kaitlyn Hunt has been singled out/overcharged I don't accept charges of bias. But biased prosecution or not, no one made Hunt take those actions. And comparing Kaitlyn Hunt to Rosa Parks or the civil rights movement is ridiculous. Rosa Parks was not agitating for the right to have sex with fourteen year old girls.

Kaitlyn Hunt should be treated like any other eighteen year old who had sex with a fourteen year old. Her sexual preference and gender should not matter. And I have known too many women, who at fourteen identified one way but upon maturity identify in completely a different way to accept the argument of Hunt's supporters that this is about homophobia. No. From what I can see this is about parents who don't want their fourteen year old daughter having sex with an adult woman. And I find no fault with that... 

What's your take? Is Hunt being unfairly singled out?

Do consent laws need to be changed?

Should there be different standards for age of consent for heterosexual vs. homosexual relationships?

Shakeup on Obama Foreign Policy Team: Susan Rice to be named National Security Adviser

Samantha Power, Susan Rice, President Obama

Susan Rice will depart as US Ambassador to the United Nations and head over to the White House where she will have direct access to the President, as National Security Adviser. Rice will replace Tom Donilon who is leaving the post, after serving on the Obama Foreign Policy team for more than four-years. Replacing Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations will be Samantha Power. Though I'm still a little bitter with Rice for her withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of State, I think that this may prove to be a good move for her. Rice gets to bypass Senate confirmation for this position. 




From The Washington Post:

National security adviser Thomas E. Donilon will resign his post, White House officials said Wednesday, and will be replaced by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, a close confidant of President Obama with deep foreign policy experience who is disliked by Republicans buthad been widely expected to move into the job.

White House officials said Donilon’s resignation will take effect early next month. Aseasoned Washington insider, Donilon has held senior national security posts in the administration since Obama took office, rising from the principal deputy national security adviser to his current job.

But his reputation for protecting Obama politically has caused friction with other agencies over the years, beginning in the fall of 2009, when he advocated for a far smaller deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan than the Pentagon had requested.

Executing the administration’s shift to a stronger focus on Asia in its foreign policyhas been one of Donilon’s primary policy initiatives; his resignation is timed to follow the summit meeting he helped organize between Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping this weekend.

Rice has long been among Obama’s most trusted foreign policy advisers, and her move from the United Nations has been expected since she withdrew her name from consideration as secretary of state late last year.

Rice withdrew amid criticism of her role in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Republicans on Capitol Hill accused Rice of misleading the public over the nature of the attack in an attempt to protect Obama from criticism during a difficult re-election campaign.

The Senate does not need to confirm her as national security adviser.

The news of Donilon’s resignation was first reported by the New York Times.

White House officials said Obama will nominate Samantha Power to replace Rice at the United Nations. Power, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her book “A Problem from Hell” on the U.S. response to genocide, served as a senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights on the National Security Council during Obama’s first term.

Her much-anticipated nomination to become ambassador to the United Nations will require Senate confirmation.