Honestly!

I have written frequently about the importance of trust for society; that in its absence, any economic exchange (social or monetary) incurs transaction costs. Like market failure, those additional costs will lead to some exchanges not taking place. Even without such missed exchange opportunities, the amount of exchange will fall as the cost of each rises. 

The corollary to loss of trust in a decline in honesty; a lack of honesty erodes trust. Being honest was once, nominally at least, widely shared societal value. Even if some (or many) were not honest in their dealing with others, few dared to admit that they did not think being honest was a good and lying was bad.  Increasingly that shared value seems to have eroded. 

The poster child for dishonesty was the country's 45th president. He lied frequently and blatantly but such was (and still is) his appeal to the highly motivated alt-right that now animates the GOP, no one dared correct him, let alone scold him, for his bad (i.e. lying) behavior. (One possibility is that most of those with whom he had much contact shared his disregard for honesty as a value).

Part of the battle around what tech companies allow on their platforms is about honesty. While the discussion is ostensibly about "misinformation" what many may be reacting to is the lack of respect for honesty as a core value. While not all misinformation is a lie, all lies are misinformation. But by lumping them together we no longer reinforce the idea that lying is unacceptable, or at very least something to be ashamed of, in a civilized society.   

It is telling that the more benign-sounding term, "misinformation" is now widely used; its seeming neutrality robs it of the value-laden component that was an important pillar of creating a set of shared values around right and wrong. A similar mealy-mouthed and now ubiquitous term is "claimed, without evidence". Presumably calling something a lie would expose publishers to deformation law suits since the burden on the defendant would be to prove that the misinformation was made with the knowledge that it was untrue and proving what was is someone's head can be tricky.     

The tech companies' defense is that the misstatements are not made by them but their users, thus they are not responsible for the misinformation and have no duty to police such statements.  This ignores the wider damage letting go of honest as a core value does to society.  

Since honest is a public good and trust is often (as it is in this instance) an externality for businesses, there is necessarily a role for government.  In Britain the Advertising Standards Authority regulates misleading and dishonest advertisements; in the US the Federal Trade Commission carries a similar charge. 

This is clearly a very contested question; go too far and government is regulating speech; do nothing and trust erodes and the fabric of society is undermined. At the moment the GOP is a beneficiary of widespread misinformation (the Big Lie being only the most recent and prominent example), but the embracing of exaggerated claims that stray into lies goes back a long way, from McCarthy, to Gingrich to McConnell. And it's not only the GOP; Biden has made some pretty dubious claims too (as has Bill Clinton). 

Increasingly the public is happy to ignore dishonesty it if serves their side's cause. With more dishonest, society's bifurcation accelerates and tribalism dominate dialog and compromise. Tribalism in turn creates a "end justifies the means" mentality that further weakens adherence to shared values like honesty. 

And that, in part, is what has led us to a point in time where the prospect of serious politically motivated civil unrest is no longer unthinkable.

Open letter to Sir Lewis Hamilton

Sir Lewis Hamilton,
c/o Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team
Operations Centre,
Brackley NN13 7BD,
United Kingdom

Dear Sir Lewis,

I am and have been an admirer of yours for well over a decade (in fact after your first season with McLaren).  I was absolutely gutted by Michael Masi’s (in my view) complexly wrong-headed decision in the Abu Dhabi GP. You dominated the race from the get-go only to have it stolen on the last lap. If I’m upset, I can only imagine how hard that was for you. 

I really wanted (and still do hope) to see you win an eighth world championship title. That would be a record that I doubt would ever be broken. I started following Formula 1 when Jackie Stewart, Jochen Rindt and Emerson Fittipaldi were at the top of the profession, so I‘ve seen a good many drivers come and go in 50+ years: and not one, other than Schumacher, has even come close to what you’ve accomplished. But with at least another season ahead of you, that eighth title is within reach. You would go down in history as the greatest driver of all time (an accolade I suspect you have already earned).

My point is this: I really hope you do decide to stay in the sport for at least another season, or until you bag that eighth title. These days, you are really the only reason I watch F1, so for me and all your fans, please don’t quit now.

Sincerely

Simon Rodan

This year and beyond

With Kyrsten Sinema blocking any changes to the filibuster rules in the Senate and Joe Manchin's refusal to support Build Back Better (BBB), two pillars of the Biden administration's agenda, Welfare reform and climate change, and voting rights protections, are going nowhere. Unless Democrat's change course they are set to loose both chambers this fall. And by 2024, with nothing accomplished, Biden (or whoever heads up the ticket) will loose the White House. That would mean another four years of Trump.   

The only possible solution I can see is to wipe the slate clean and bring two completely different bills forward. On voting rights access is secondary to counting, and that needs to be addressed as a top priority. Democrats can vote in ever larger numbers but if Republicans control whose ballots are counted, the Democrats will never win power again. With some completely new legislation focused on amending the Electoral Count Act and with a bit of luck something on impartiality in election administration and oversight, there may be enough Republicans in the Senate to overcome the filibuster. 

Pushing BBB is pointless now that Manchin has dug in; since he can't appear to back down the only way out to protect some of the provisions is to start from square one. It must be a smaller package so that Manchin can't complain about over-spending. And Democrats will have to decide on their priorities; climate change or social welfare reform. Again, some of the moderate GOP senators may think that climate change is serious enough to do something about.   

Absent this or a miracle, three years from now Trump will shuffle smugly back into the White House.       

Not quite what they expected

The Brighton Festival was a staple of my family's entertainment. So in 1979, when my mother received the festival program and saw John Williams was slated to play a concert, she bought tickets. 

The concert was, I think, in the Dome, an ornate Victorian era decor  theater in the center of Brighton.  

Some context is needed. My parents, or at least my father, were not big fans of popular music. The only contemporary music in the house was a 45 of Edith Piaf, and one of the Modern Jazz Quartet that for some reason was often played before I wend to bed when I was very young, perhaps one or two years old, to put me to sleep. It was affectionately known as "Ding-dong music", my term for the vibraphone at that age.  Otherwise it was Bach to Brahms; baroque to romantic, but nothing 20th century. Mahler, a favorite of my uncle Kurt, was tolerated but very seldom played. Mozart's Marriage of Figaro and the Magic Flute, by contrast, were routinely played alternate Sundays mornings.  But I digress. 

As we found our way to our seats, I was surprised to see a huge mixing desk in the middle of the stalls, not something one sees for a classical solo recital.  The concert began with "Westway" which starts with a driving synth keyboard riff played by Frances Monkman and the electric bass of Herbie Flowers.  It was something of a surprise to my parents, who had been expecting John Williams top be playing classical musics on acoustic guitar. 

I thoroughly enjoyed the show (I think there was a light show) and bought the group's first album, which I played as often as I was allowed at home until a year later when I bought my own record player, amplifier and speakers (the speakers I still have to this day). I don't recall my parents discussing the snafu; my father didn't care for Sky's music and my mother must have been mortified. Horizons weren't easily broadened; although since I'm almost the age my father was then, I wonder whether in five years or so I'll be similarly set in my ways.  

Rerecord, not fade away

Many who consider Trump's unprincipled pursuit power (and money) to be anathema to the office he recently held were hoping that after loosing the a bid to be re-elected in 2020, he would return to Mar-a-Lago to a life of golfing and shady property dealing. He did not.  Instead his thirst for affirmation, vindication and revenge have led him to continue his quest to be returned to the presidency.       

Had he melted from view, his more unsavory supporters, the white nationalists and the gun-wielding crack-pots (Taylor-Green, Boebert) or the simply craven (Gaetz, Hawely, Jordan, Gosar) might have been ousted or at least played a less influential role in GOP politics.  Not giving Trump the attention he so craves might have helped the GOP regain (what passed for) its senses.  That seems to have been the rationale for the Biden administration avoiding blaming Trump or even mentioning him in connection with events of January 6th.

That calculus has clearly changed. In his speech yesterday he pulled no punches. He went after Trump stridently and clearly. He laid bare the former president's flaws and the danger he and those like him represent to democracy. Biden's earlier calculus that Trump would fade away and so it would be counter productive to appear to criticize him (and by extension those who supported him) had changed. He has clearly concluded that Trump is not going away and his base is not, at least for the foreseeable future, likely to simmer down and accept the result of the 2020 election. Their rage and resentment that Trump fed to propel him into office is too deep-rooted to abate on its own; and so the risk of energizing that base by attacking Trump is moot; it remains fully energized.

Since not riling up Trump supporters is no longer an issue, the speech was aimed not at the die-hards, but the quasi independents who were members of the pre-Trump GOP. They may be persuaded if not to vote for a Democrat, at least not to vote for a GOP candidate which to all intents and purposes has become the National Front^[1] of America. Never Trumpers and Democrate can't win over all Trump's supported; but they might be able to get enough at the margin to make a difference.  Trump's base is what it is, and the only way of saving democracy from further erosion by Trump and his allies is to ensure that he doesn't get a second bite at the cherry. Because if he does, he wont by quite so inept in is efforts to subvert and exploit the highest office in the land next time around .  

^[1] The Nataionl Front (like it French equivalent the Front Nationale) is a party of white xenophobic anti-immigrant racists.

Appeal To Ignorance (Ad Ignorantium)

Jo Biden, in his speech commemorating the tragic events of January 6th attack on the Capitol, repeated  the assertion that that was no evidence of voter fraud. That's entirely true but unconvincing for many; the Appeal to Ignorance reasoning fallacy allows those who want to believe that was fraud to say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  

It was this kind of reasoning that allowed people to say that there was no evidence that smoking was injurious to health so smoking must not be unhealthy; or that there was insufficient evidence that climate change was occurring or that if it was it was attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. Ultimately, however such reasoning falls away as sufficient evidence is gathered to dispel any doubt. 

While it might have been argued in November of 2020 that there was no evidence of voter fraud, that is no longer the case; there is now ample evidence that there was none. Those who wish to preserve democracy in America need to take a more definitive line, namely that the numerous court cases and investigation mean not simply that there is no proof of fraud, but that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was no election fraud.   

Courage

Courage is doing what is right when is likely comes with significant personal cost. Cowardice is failing to act generally out of fear of personal loss when the moment demands.  The alt-right has been allowed to over the GOP because too many Republican members of Congress wither thought they could deal with and manager the extremists they were letting into their ranks or they underestimated the hold Trump and his alt-right followers had over voters. When it  became clear that both were misconceptions, Republican members of Congress were faced with a choice, go along or stand up for democracy and the established order they once avowed to defend. Collectively they could have done some, but it required sufficient number of courageous individuals to prevent them from being targeted and overwhelmed by the alt-right insurgents. Only a handful met that challenge. The result has been the annexation of the GOP by Trump (who has no principles but loves the power and the attention) and his alt-right helpers.  All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. 

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”  John Stuart Mill, 1867

Peace for our time

In 1938, Prime-minister Neville Chamberlain proudly declared that he'd had a good conversation with  the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler and that they had a signed agreement guaranteeing "peace for our time". He and much of Britain then, were guilty of magical thinking. 

It appears that at least among some at The Economist, a similar self-delusion is prevalent. In reviewing Barbara Walter's book "How Civil Wars Start", it praises the book's theoretical analysis which sets out  a series of conditions that have lead to civil wars around the world: when they are somewhere between dictatorship and liberal democracy; when politics revolves around identity; grievance-mongers who are are creative creative liars; complacent cosmopolitans; when a large group fears it is losing status; when disgruntled members of an aggrieved group take up arms and social media accelerates the descent into bloodshed. This, the Economist says, is well argued. 

Then it concludes that "This far-fetched conclusion [that America is at risk of civil war] spoils an otherwise interesting book". That's pretty odd given that not just some but each and every one of Walter's six conditions are met.   

1. When they are somewhere between dictatorship and liberal democracy

Efforts to put the oversight of elections in the hands of partisans in Republican battleground stats moves the country away from liberal democracy; and fealty to an individual rather than a party or a set of principles is characteristic of dictatorships. The GOP is no longer a party of principles but a party in the thrall of one man.  

2. When politics revolves around identity 

Over the last 20 years, politics has evolved into struggles over identity, wither it be any number of white supremacists groups on the right, from the KKK to the Oath Keeps and the Proud Boys, or on the left, Black Lives Matter. Almost all loud political rhetoric in the US is rooted in a struggle for identity.  

3. Grievance-mongers who are are creative creative liars 

Here Donald Trump and his acolytes excel. Trump spent his four years in office lying incessantly and he taught us that almost nothing is to absurd to be believed, at least by some. When those lies are believed by a critical mass, you have a powerful movement. What was once the "alt-right" but is now the GOP generates lies, testes them on small social media platforms for their virulence, and those that work are launched into the right-wing mainstream through Fox and other right wing media platforms. .    

4. Complacent cosmopolitans

Like The Economist, the metropolitan, relatively cosmopolitans parts of the country are in denial; "that kind of thing happens in third-world countries but couldn't happen here". Yet that's precisely the kind of denial circulating on January 5th last year, until Trump and his supporters put that comforting myth to rest.  

5. When a large group fears it is losing status 

Whites in America, particularity those with little education, are seeing their prospects deteriorate. Having enjoyed positions of relative privilege for so long, the conflate their declining prospects with immigration. Understandably, they want to preserve not just their economic well-being but their way of life more broadly. They see their decline not only economically but also a decline in status. And since they see themselves not though the lens of class (which would give them common cause with many of groups on the left) but through the lens of race, they are drawn into increasingly radical white supremacist groups.  Indeed the wealthy are probably quite happy to encourage the use of identity as a conceptual frame since it divides the economically underprivileged into groups and sets them against each other, reducing their bargaining power to the befit of the wealthy.    

6. When disgruntled members of an aggrieved group take up arms and social media accelerates the descent into bloodshed 

This is exactly what we have seen; when heavily armed protesters turned up at the Michigan State House in January last year, there could be no clearer threat of the potential for armed conflict. While some argue this was just "cos-play", that complacency is dangerous. All it takes is one small miscalculation, for someone to pull their trigger (literally) and things escalate dangerously quickly. The Waco Siege and the Bundy standoff in 2014 both show how confrontation develops from a legal dispute into an armed conflict. It is also concerning that in many places, extremist groups are tacitly supported by local law enforcement who will often to turn a blind to the increasing threat of the use of arms to resolve disputes with state or federal authorities.

All of the conditions Water argues lead to civil conflict are present in the US, and The Economist agrees with her analysis; so it is remarkable that it falls in the trap of "that could never happen in America".  At least one writer for the newspaper it seems is a "complacent cosmopolitan".  

Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos

Elizabeth Holmes was convicted on four counts of wire fraud in a court in San Jose yesterday. The case should have been about the appropriateness of business models widely used in Silicon Valley for software development to healthcare.  

Writing buggy code and fixing it after it breaks, a model arguably pioneered by Bill Gates with Windows, is, if not acceptable, reluctantly accepted by most of us since the consequences of an application behave in unexpected ways are usually not too terrible. 

But in healthcare (and self-driving cars) the consequences of mistakes from rushing a product to market are far more serious, raising the question "is a business model that emerged at the inception of the PC industry appropriate in setting where the consequences of mistakes may be deadly"?

The focus of Holmes' trial on the hurt to shareholders is unfortunate; perhaps that's what the prosecution could most easily prove. But in missing the distinction between cases where the harm is potentially lethal rather than simply annoying (or expensive), the case fails in building a precedent that might protect people from physical harm from poorly designed products that their producers know to be faulty.  At the same time it creates a needless damper on innovation in sectors where the consequences of bad design are irritating but not life-threatening.

The Capitol Insurrection: one year on

Today, a year on from the Capitol Insurrection it is worth reminding ourselves of the horror of a violent mob trying to change the outcomes of a free and fair election. 

The image of the Senate chamber being defended from rioters by plain clothed Capitol police with drawn weapons remains the most jarring image I can remember, not just from among those of the events of Jan 6th but ranking along side the images of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Both events signify the exposing of grave misconceptions; that the American homeland is invulnerable and that American democracy is safe, sacrosanct and a model for other countries.    

Looking back at my post on January 6th last year, the only thing that I think I got wrong was suggesting "we should be immensely thankful that it was just an episode". While the next election result the Republicans don't like may not lead to the storming of the Capitols (state or federal), the ground is being steadily prepared to make that unnecessary by the politicization of the institutions that oversee elections and gerrymandering. But while it may not be needed, the threat of highly organized right wing violence it still there and by all accounts is growing.

While the left is not blameless in terms of political violence, it lacks the discipline and organization of the heavily ex-military-infused far right. Compounding that asymmetry is that distinct possibility that  some in law enforcement may be more willing to make the law as they see fit rather than enforcing the laws that politicians with whom they disagree have enacted. But that is the subject of a separate post. 

For now we need simply to remember the horror of January 6th.   

     

    

Political irony, and no steal

Today is the anniversary of the Capitol Insurrection. As shocking as January 6th was to many Americans, what has happened since should be—but seemingly isn't—more so. The insurrection wasn't the cause of America's problem but the unexpected result of the confluence of a series of currents that produced what most had considered unthinkable; the possibility of a failure of democracy in a country that holds itself up to the world as its very model. Just as Great Britain took over half a century to come to terms with its decline, so it will be many years before Americans come to understand what they have allowed to happen. 

The prospects for democracy in America look bleak. The majority of Republicans, still in the thrall of Trump and the anger he and his enablers at Fox have stoked in his base, ultimately decided that their pact with the orange devil was their only route to power. So while many Republicans may have admitted privately that Trump had lost them both houses and the presidency, publicly buying into the Big Lie was their best strategy for regaining them. Their lack of steel in claiming a steal had take place marks a turning point in the decline in public trust in the institutions of democracy and order. It signals that we can pick and choose when to accept institutionally produced mandates and requirements.

That willingness to in essence 'take the laws into ones own hands' exposes a particular irony on the political right; ostensibly the party of law and order, the Republicans seem far more willing that Democrats to ignore the institutions of law and order when it suites them. There is an inherent tension between a party of law and order that also promotes rugged individualism. But that tension provides the basis for enormous fluidity; Republican run states can protest "states' rights" in opposing federal requirements yet use the power of the state to quash counties and districts in their state making similar claims of local autonomy.  Perhaps this was always the way; law and order suited Republican when it helped imposing their political agenda but are willing to ignore the law and promote disorder when those are the means to their ends.  

From individuals ignoring mask mandates, with local sheriffs announcing in public that state mandates won't be enforced, to the refusal to accept the outcomes of an election, America's democratic foundations are rotting away. Where this ends is far from clear. Many, including me, had hoped that after two impeachments and the loss of his reelection bid, Trump, and more importantly what he stood for, would subside back into the murky conspiratorial backwaters from which he emerged. But that didn't happen and the prospects that the country will be treated to a second bout of the MAGA infection look increasingly likely. So pervasive and effective has Trump's Big Lie been in undermining faith in American democracy, the chances of it  making a full recovery, were it to suffer a second Trump term, look perilously thin. Like covid, Trumpism looks set to become endemic.     

Two shillings a foot

When George Harrison finally decided he'd had enough and walked out, John Lennon and Paul McCartney were left wondering how to complete the project without him. Two things surprised me; first that despite Harrison's leaving Lennon and McCartney seem not to consider the possibility of simply cancelling the project. More surprising still was Lennon's suggestion that they simply ask Eric Clapton to fill in for Harrison.  It reinforced the idea of a status hierarchy in the group with Lennon and McCartney  at the top and Harrison and Star as second tier, almost session players. The dynamic isn't that dissimilar to the way Roger Waters thought that by the time they'd recorded "The Wall" he was Pink Floyd. 

Another was when Star comes onto the set one morning; McCartney is sitting at the piano and greets him with "Hi Rich".  Lennon also calls Ringo "Richie" later on during the filming.  Although he'd been "Ringo Star" in public, it suggested that in private he was still Richard Starky to the rest of the band.  

McCartney was clearly an accomplished self-taught pianist. What was surprising was his influences; clearly influenced by jazz and rag time, he also noted the importance of good structure and mentioned Bach as one of his inspirations. 

And of course, the cost of studio time. Despite the fact they the Beatles were the most famous band around in 1969 and probably the most lucrative for EMI, there still seemed the odd moment when "whatever they want" didn't sit happily with EMI. Instead of providing the audio recording equipment the band wanted when there were working at Sheperton, Harrison had to bring the enormous 8-track from his home studio. And when they were in the Apple studio in Savile Row, Glyn Jones remarks that the taping is costing "two shillings a foot" (in one inch magnetic recording tape).