Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[James Blackwell]

Tom Lord wrote all of these:
> Large organizations can "go wrong" when, among the decision makers all
> share some set of beliefs and values and each acts consistently with
> that belief.   A set of commonly accepted ideas, if those ideas have
> undesirable implications when acted upon, is enough to set the stage
> for system failure.
>
> In this case, the commonly accepted ideas are things like:
>
>   ~ The population can not be trusted to behave rationally
>     during an emergency.   For their own good, they must be
>     relieved of power during such times.

Absolutely, positively true. If you think otherwise, its because you
don't shop at Walmart enough.

>   ~ Federal law enforcement agencies, on the other hand,
>     can be trusted to behave rationally and in everybody's
>     best interests in an emergency.   In fact, they can be
>     trusted to such a large degree that it is not only
>     acceptable but _desirable_ to suspend or weaken traditional
>     constitutional guarantees in order to liberate these 
>     agencies to act with impunity.    For example, we must
>     suspend habeas corpus for certain classes of people during
>     a war on terror;  we must rethink the rules about when torture is
>     permissible and of what sort;  we must relax the prohibitions
>     against government surveillance of its citizens;  we must
>     limit free speech so that public criticism of these rules
>     and even public discussion of their application is itself
>     a criminal act.    We do these things to protect the people
>     because we believe that these agencies are far more trustworthy
>     than the people.

Law enforcement, emergency management, et. al. can be trusted to behave
rationally in predicted situations because the responses to a wide
variety of actions are preplanned. 

I don't think anybody can rationally sit down and think through a
response to something like the WTC at the time it's actually occurring.
Instead, the idea of shooting down planes during a terrorist attack
needs to be considered by think tanks months or years before they
actually occur.

I'm willing to bet that you didn't consider how many people won't even
go out during a terrorist attack. If elections happened while Boston was
burning, the timid (and not-so-timid in large cities) voters would be
disenfranchised.

I'm personally willing to follow the government during a sky-is-falling
event because my chances are *better* during that event. I don't have
dozens of hours to devote to figuring out exactly what is going on when
the WTC is hit (twice), the pentagon is hit, and there are rumors going
around that there were plans to cropdust San Diego (where I lived) with
biological agents. 

Sure, during normal times, a healthy distrust of government is
_healthy_. But we're not talking about normal times in this
circumstance. We're talking about "what do we do about these elections
while people airplanes are crashing into buildings"

> If a group of individuals each takes such beliefs as axiomatic then 
> individuals within that group can independently reach seemingly 
> absurd conclusions such as:  massive civil unrest in response to 
> an election whose results are tainted by voting system failures
> is one good reason to suspend the electoral process;  quashing (and
> even preparing to quash) such unrest is more important than, for
> example, fixing the voting systems and ensuring a legitimate election.

Surely you jest. You want to hold elections during massive civil unrest?
How on earth would you manage to hold trustworthy elections while police
cars lay upside down, bonfires are being lit on the streets, and massive
looting is going on?

> That the idea of empowering homeland security to suspend elections is
> not driven off the table with immediate scorn and ridicule is telling:
> it tells us something about the shared belief systems of our friends
> in gov't, their advisors, and the USian mainstream press.

Oh, come on. Just because *you* think that way doesn't mean the majority
of people think that way. I think a lot of people would rather put off
voting for a month while we're dealing with burning skyscrapers.

> The proposal to empower homeland security that way will, I think,
> fail.   It has already drawn strong pushback from the minority party
> and, in this election year, I think that's about as far as it will
> get.   (If the election proceeds normally, Bush wins, and the
> republicans retain control of congress, the proposal will have a much
> better chance of succeeding in the four years that follow.)

I think it has a good chance (60%) of passing. Even if it doesn't, I
could imagine that during a terrorist event within a week of the
elections, congressmen from their secure bunkers will pass a 
measure suspending elections anyways.

Better to do it now, ahead of time, while we can do so openly, rather
than to do it rashly while Washington DC burns.

> Less important than the specific proposal and its short-term fate is
> what it tells us about what these folks think is, in general,
> reasonable.  It tells us how they are likely to react to plausible,
> even probable scenarios that loom on the horizon:

This *is* a reasonable solution to an unreasonable event.

>   ~ nobody disagrees that it won't be surprising if there
>     is a serious terrorist attack on the U.S. in the period
>     leading up to the election

I do. I would be surprised if there wasn't an attack (either successful,
failed or foiled) before the election. To tell the truth, I'm surprised
that it hasn't happened _yet_.

>   ~ many agree that wide-spread voting system failures are 
>     probable in the upcoming election

You mean e-voting? Yes. That's another serious problem, but unrelated.

>
>   ~ feelings among "the people" are very polarized and strong;
>     many are increasingly outraged towards the current administration,
>     many are increasingly protective of it

What percentage of Americans feel this way? I think that you're
suffering from error of locality due to the polarized region in which
you live.

>   ~ everyone agrees that we are a nation at war;  many agree that
>     during wartime, some suspension of normal rights is a necessity

Apparently MOST people think that some suspension of normal rights is a
reasonable tradeoff. I'm not in that group.

> We can make a plausible prediction, from those things, that:
>
>   1. There will be widespread voting system failures.

I think there are some, but I'm not as concerned as I used to be because
at least some states (namely California) have suspended E-voting.

>   2. Protests and demonstrations will follow on a scale not 
>      seen since the height of the Viet Nam war.  These can
>      easily turn violent either through spontaneous attacks
>      on property or through confrontations with police.

Not if the elections are postponed for a week (or even a month). Perhaps
in three months extreemly liberal areas like Berkely will protest, while
less liberal areas will join in the protest as the *months* go by without
elections.

I don't think there would be diverse national protests until at least a
*year* after postponement. And no, I don't think that anyone respectable
is proposing that elections would be postponed anywhere near that long.

>      Widespread economic displacement just pours fuel on this
>      fire (as per New York City riots after a blackout or
>      Watts riots after a controversial trial outcome -- only
>      now we're talking about this effect simultaneously in
>      many cities at once in a context that relates it to the
>      legitimacy of the federal gov't).

Widespread economic displacement is the rule, not the exception. Today,
it's Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch. Before it was J.D. Rockefeller and
Carnegie. Go back far enough and it was the likes of John Hancock and
Ben Franklin.

There's always been both aristocrats impovershed folk. The only real
difference between now and then is that not even our poor starve in
America. 

>   3. This may very well be concurrent with a terrorist attack
>      or significant development in the war.  If so, many 
>      people will be frightened and accepting of any development
>      that appears like the way to safety.

Temporarily, yes. Already there is works in progress to curtail the
patriot act.

> What will happen next?   Remember the belief system of the current
> administration and its supporters:
>
>   a. The government knows best.
>   b. Prosecution of the war must not be jepordized.
>   c. A breakdown of law and order undermines the war effort.
>   d. During war time, habeas corpus is a luxury, not a necessity.

You're completely off in the wild blue yonder.

What people expect of government, and what government is desperately
trying to provide, is safety.

You're really acting as if there is some group of people with pointy
mustaches sitting around in a group hatching evil plans to Take Over The
World. This is paranoia.

> Also remember that, in our electoral system, provisions already exist
> for both parties of the legislature to come together and override the
> outcome of the vote.

As written by the founding fathers, yes. Its called the Electoral
system.

> The plausability of this outcome has some practical implications for 
> concerned U.S. citizens:
>
>   If this scenario unfolds:
>
>   ~ Work very hard to help keep the resulting protests from turning
>     violent. 

Ok. Let me get this right. Terrorists are floating around the country
blowing shit up, the election will get postponed, and everybody will arm
themselves and start rioting? 

>   ~ Work very hard to build bridges between protestors and the state
>     law enforcement agencies and national guard.  If mass arrests
>     _are_ eventually ordered, the goal to ensure that those orders are
>     not followed.  The message here is that the protests will be
>     justified, if messy, and that neighbors imprisoning neighbors is
>     not the right reply.

I'm not even touching this one.

>   Meanwhile:
>
>   ~ Voting system reform has been badly managed and must become
>     a higher priority.   National elections whose legitimacy is
>     in doubt are natural triggers for massive protests which
>     in turn are natural triggers for further suspensions of the
>     Constitution.

Yes. But still a *seperate* issue. 


>   ~ Emergency recovery procedures for a failed federal gov't
>     or an illegitimate election must be from the bottom up,
>     not the top down.  It is up to the several states, not 
>     the crippled or illegitimate federal government, to 
>     make the correction.

Government won't fail because elections are postponed for a short
period.


-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400