Review: A.D. 381 by Charles Freeman

It's unfortunate, but perhaps not unexpected, that for the first time in the history of Greco-Roman civilization, a ruler issued an edict that destroyed free thought and free exercise of religion.  That it was in support of Christianity was perhaps also not unexpected.  The edict` of Theodosius in 381 A.D (some historians say 380) forbade belief and practice of any religious practice that did not recognize the singularity of the "godhead," i.e. the idea of the Trinity as solidified at the Council of Nicea in 325 under Constantine -- they were equal in majesty (whatever the Hell that means.) This edict and the removal of the Bishop of Constantinople, an adherent of Arianism, a belief Jesus was created at a point in time, divine, but subject to the Father. (I get shivers of ridiculousness and have to restrain my natural tendency to overheat my crap detector as I recount some of this. Nevertheless it's quite interesting.)  Freeman argues that Theodosius' edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to the diversity of religious and philosophical beliefs throughout the empire but created numerous theological problems for the Church, which have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, Freeman concludes, marked 'a turning point which time forgot'.

 

The biggest issue was whether Jesus was God. It took a substantial amount of twisting to

figure out how the Trinity was supposed to work, the Aryans arguing that if Jesus was God then there was no sacrifice on the cross, the Athanasians supporting Trinitarianism.  One of the hurdles for Trinitarians was Mark 13:32 when Jesus was to have said ""“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."   This was interpreted to mean that Jesus was not God.

 

This book was theologically much more detailed than When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein [https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/37674110] which deals with the same topic. Freeman continued his discussion more extensively in his book The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, an examination of the effects of events covered in AD 381.

 

 

 

 

  

Review: Crime in Progress: Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion GPS Investigation of Donald Trump by Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch

 It's no wonder that conspiratorialists and Trump supporters (a redundancy?) have set out to trash this book. It provides a thorough examination of the process and results of investigations over several years by Fusion GPS.

Malcolm Nance, author of The Plot to Betray America, is an intelligence and foreign policy analyst.  In a recent interview he described how Putin made millions after the fall of the Soviet Union by aligning himself with those who were selling off state property.  He had been a ranking official in the KGB that became the FSB, the new Russian spy service and from there moved into the dictatorship role. Spies are good at getting the goods on people and using that information to their own ends. They look for those who love money and have large egos because they will do anything for money and flatter themselves it's for the best.  Guess who fit that bill to a Tee. They soon had all sorts of goods on him.

The Steele Dossier had the details. Fusion GPS was a small research company that specialized in getting the goods on intricate financial transactions. It was founded by Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, two former Wall Street Journal reporters. They had done no political work, but mainstream GOP, worried about the Trump candidacy in 2016, hired them to research into Trump's background. Fusion had begun its own research into Trump  at the behest of a Republican client. It found damning  open-source evidence: court documents, corporate bankruptcies and ties  to organized crime. It turned to Christopher Steele to get intelligence from inside  Russia. Many strands pointed there. What Steele might find was  uncertain. “We threw a line in the water and Moby-Dick came back,”  Simpson writes dryly. Steele, who had worked for MI6, soon to become a household word for the "Dossier" with its salacious details.

Among those they hired was Warren Barrett who had written a detailed book about Trump's early financial dealings.* Their funding originally came from a conservative billionaire. As Trump became more and more acceptable to the GOP, Simpson and Fritsch peddled their research to the Democrats. Almost all of their research was done by examining public documents, especially court cases, depositions, and filings. As Trump gained momentum, the billionaire's support waned and even though Simpson and Fritsch rather despised the Clintons for their ostensible soliciting of funds from countries where Hillary was in a position to make a difference, they agreed to turn over what they had on Trump to the Democrats and continue to do more research, when asked.

The contents of the famous dossier have been related elsewhere and far be it from me to go into the prostitute urinating scene.  What is much more interesting is the revelation that the Russians had prevented Trump from appointing Mitt Romney as Secretary of State.  That implies a shocking level of foreign influence over Trump, or, that someone is not acting on the level.  Steele argued that the Russians never would have revealed the urinating incident because they wanted Clinton to be defeated and therefore would try to suppress negative information about Trump. All they needed was the threat of revelation.

There does seem to be plenty of "evidence" leading one to speculate just how much influence the Trump campaign was seeking from the Russians.  Carter Page's Trump that put him on the FBI's radar has never been explained. Surprisingly, Simpson and Fritsch never trusted Steele and never wanted his allegations to be revealed, but they did feel they were important enough to turn over to the authorities. The authors insist they were not the ones who went to the FBI with the dossier; it was Steele himself.

Paul Manafort and his lobbying firm, of which Roger Stone was a partner, had been the subject of attention for several years before Trump sought high office. They specialized in polishing the reputations of dictators, mobsters (particularly Russians who had piles of cash) and strong men.

The research began with a survey of all the legal databases for lawsuits that to which Trump was a party. It was a rich vein, indeed.  Most businessmen get sued or sue at one time or another, but Trump brought them to a new level.  Rather than a one-page list, his went on for dozens of pages and a pattern soon emerged that showed him involved in hundreds of schemes to bilk investors, suppliers, and customers. Fusion's research process was simplicity itself.  They hired researchers to scour public databases for information.  What they uncovered about Trump was rampant hypocrisy (he hired hundreds of undocumented workers), numerous bankruptcies and illegal actions, not to mention several mob connections. All of this was made available to anyway interested (and willing to pay).

Paul Manafort and General Flynn had been involved with the Russians and Turks.  The Russians had been seeking to annex Ukraine, a worrisome prospect for western European countries who got much of their natural gas from a pipeline traveling through Ukraine. Manafort was indicted under 12 counts of violating FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a 1938 law intended to prevent Nazi disinformation campaigns in the United States. (Flynn had retroactively registered when it became obvious that he was lobbying for Turkey. Late registrations are common. He resigned following revelations that he and the administration had lied about the conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador. The fact that he was a registered foreign agent also made him subject to FISA investigations. See the Lawfare article cited below for a more detailed explanation.*)  Flynn had had conversations and made promises to the Russians before he was appointed as National Security Advisor (that has to be one of the worst nominations ever) and then lied about those conversations not to the FBI but also his boss. The FBI had tapes of Russians discussing how they could best manipulate Manafort and Flynn who seem to have been motivated mostly by money.

The book has many critics who cherry pick assorted charges and speculations.  Representative Nunes, of the House Intelligence Committee, flew to Britain to discuss Steele with MI6 and MI5.  They refused to meet with him. It was amateur hour at its worst.  But the book is not about Steele or the dossier. It's an examination of Fusion  GPS, how it worked, and the process it used to collect information for its clients and the failure of the American media to followup on a story that was handed to them.

The book is also a story without an end. A really important book for anyone who wants to know the real story behind the headlines.

*Trump: The Deals and the Downfall by Warren Barrett, 1992.

Interview with the author at Politics and Prose:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hgw0ZrzsvI&t=14s


Other references

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/07/trump-files-donald-tried-hide-his-legal-troubles-get-his-casino-approved/

*FISA v FARA https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-fisa-and-fara-foreign-principals-and-agents-foreign-powers

Logan Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The now-declassified FBI annex says, referring to Steele: “The most politically sensitive claims by the FBI source alleged a close relationship between the President-elect and the Kremlin. The source claimed that the President-elect and his top campaign advisers knowingly worked with Russian officials to bolster his chances of beating Secretary Clinton; were fully knowledgeable of Russia’s direction of leaked Democratic emails; and were offered financial compensation from Moscow.”

Later, the annex elaborates: “The FBI source claimed that secret meetings between the Kremlin and the President-elect’s team were handled by some of the President-elect’s advisers, at least one of whom was allegedly offered financial remuneration for a policy change lifting sanctions on Russia.”

The Democrats' Predicament

 I don't like to make predictions, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest the Democrats will suffer severe reversals in the Senate and House in 2022 and lose the presidential election in 2024.  I'll try to explain why, but hope I'm very wrong.

The problem is one of language.  Liberals seem unable to develop pithy slogans that don't need an explanation. "Defund the Police" is a perfect example. It means many different things to many people, but risks alienating a large portion of the population, especially those who have to rely on the police in bad neighborhoods.  Much better would be "Help the Police" and use that to rebuild police departments and eliminate systemic racism. They also label issues in such a way so as to irritate a potential constituency, not to mention their existing dwindling base.  Couple that with no longer having a doofus in the White House and the losses become inevitable. Here are the major problematic areas.

1. Mitch McConnell

      McConnell is a brilliant tactician who loves power and control of the Senate. He also knows that by hindering Democratic plans he can make it appear Biden can't get anything done. We can already see him in action by short-circuiting the Biden stimulus proposal. A substantial number of people want and need some kind of relief. We can quibble about the form it takes, but the Democrats need to write a plan to fits the needs of Senate Republicans. By layering in all sorts of other wishes, they give McConnell ammunition to attack the plan. Biden will look inept. Sure, the Democrats might be able to change the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster, but that would surely come back to haunt them, just as the cloture rules change got them Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.  There are alternatives; unfortunately, Biden is simply following the old rules and throwing money at the problem rather than addressing the very real systemic problems faced by the working class.  Yang's guaranteed annual income, a proposal first developed by Friedrich Hayek darling of the libertarians, and then supported by Nixon and McGovern, might be one approach.

2. Climate Change

      The GOP has been successful at linking climate change to job loss. It's baloney, of course, but there is no question that to truly address the very real problem of climate change there will have to be a change in the standard of living.  It's that standard that causes the problem. It's truly ironic that the most effective reduction in CO2 has been the pandemic. There's a lesson there. Not to mention that any successful reduction in this country would be offset by economic improvements in other countries who will bridle at any suggestion from us that they give up the prospect of goodies that we enjoy.  

      Far better would be to focus on issues like clean water, clean energy, and clean air.  Everyone wants those things and how does one argue against a program to have clean water? Yet approaching each of these issues separately is more effective and the result, if done creatively, would reduce carbon emissions. "Climate Change" and "Carbon Tax" are non-starters because they immediately raise the specter of taxes and change. Anathema to the voters. A complete lack of creativity in language.

3. Gun Control

      I have no love of firearms, but at least 30% of the Democratic base own guns and love them. "Gun Control" raises their ire instantly without any benefit from the slogan. Much better would be to create a coalition of people to build an alternative to the NRA.  Perhaps, the American Rifle Association that would focus on training, instruction in safe handling, etc. and use that organization to lobbying for gun safety, perhaps trigger locks, background checks (phrased as keeping weapons out of the hands of mentally ill and terrorists,) etc.  It's about language.  "Gun Safety" works a lot better than "Gun Control" and doesn't risk the whole 2nd Amendment silliness.

4. Immigration

      We need immigrants. They provide stimulus to the economy, are hard-working, and just like their Irish, Italien, and other national predecessors will bring enthusiasm and eagerness (not to mention tax paying) to the country. Perception is all and the GOP have capitalized on a very real fear of change that many have. Those fears must be addressed and calmed. Failure to do so will doom the Democrats.

I'm sure there are many other examples of the Democrat's failure to use language to their advantage. Without a complete overhaul of how they talk about problems and use language to attract rather than nettle voters, future elections will not go their way. 

Plato, Democracy, and Republics, and Free Speech: Random Thoughts

 The rise and fall(?) of Trump and his control of the media has given us a lot to think about.

I've been putting together a presentation on the Supreme Court and doing some reading on the role of the majority as it relates to majoritarianism and judicial restraint and judicial review. Always curious to see what my Goodreads friends are discussing I did some poking around there.

Goodreads has an excellent feature that creates a perfect platform for intellectual discussion groups.  Of particular interest is one entitled Political Philosophy and Ethics moderated by Alan Johnson, author of The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience. I was intrigued by a discussion of Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher, whom, in my ignorance, I knew nothing about. The discussion revolved around Plato's view, based on the Athenian experience,  that majoritarian democracy in inherently flawed as it contains the seeds of its own destruction. What if the majority wants to be governed by tyranny?  I have been mulling over the suppression of Trump's horrid tweets by tech platform managers, and now the Democratic Party's installation of those who would have the government take a more proactive role in controlling content on the Internet. It would seem a Hobbsian choice. Should uncontrolled large for-profit entities be permitted to control what is permitted to be said; or, do we want the government, elected by a majority (most of the time - sometimes prevented by the Electoral College, designed to prevent just that?) to control content.  This is the old McCarthy argument: how can we permit Communists to be allowed free speech when their goal is to suppress that speech.

One of the participants quoted Popper who wrote:

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. [my emphasis] If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

― Karl R. Popper, 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'

It's an appealing argument, especially if you are in the majority.  One could argue that was the purpose of Parler, to create a completely unregulated platform.  But we can all see how well that worked out. Alan suggested that the creators of the Constitution were well aware of the problem and tried to build in defenses against tyranny by the majority. The Electoral College and Separation of Church and State (the tension between the establishment and free exercise clauses) for example could be so interpreted.

The Supreme Court's handling of so-called seditious speech has been mixed to say the least. Adams's enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts during a time when fear of war with France was opposed by the Jeffersonians. Fear of external (or even internal threats) has been a strong promoter of speech suppression. Alan cited  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), in which the "U.S. Supreme Court, held that the distribution of leaflets to cause insubordination and obstruct recruiting and enlistment in the military and naval forces of the United States during the First World War, in violation of the 1917 Espionage Act, was not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."  The decision contains the famous phrase, "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . ." Whether that protection should be accorded to Cruz and Hawley who shouted the falsity that the election was stolen, is another matter. Texas v Johnson ruled that legislation banning flag burning, the symbol of our country, was unconstitutional.  Just what should the balance be?

Some references:

"Property V. Liberty: The Supreme Court’s Radical Break with Its Historical Treatment of Corporations | Perspectives on History | AHA." AHA. Accessed January 22, 2021. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/summer-2014/property-v-liberty."  Not completely germane, but quite interesting. 

ACKERMAN, Bruce. The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.  Ackerman writes that Jefferson created a plebiscitarian government that relied on the will of the people and the countervailing role of the Supreme Court.

 

Bickel, Alexander M. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.  Bickel argues judicial review is counter-majoritarian.

Review: Everthing Trump Touches Dies by Rick Wilson

No question that Wilson has a way with words, especially of the derogatory kind. But in between the quips, is a serious examination of how Trump has moved the traditional GOP completely off its conservative philosophy roots. He has little respect for the new GOP, a sycophantic oleaginous breed (to quote George Will) that thinks of nothing but collecting as much money for themselves and getting reelected.

 

They have apparently bought into the Trump way of doing business: borrow as much money as possible then stiff the contractors and workers, default on the loans, skim as much as possible, repeat infinitely. He thought he could do that in office.  We have now learned from Rex Tillerson that the legality of a policy was irrelevant. Trump would just fire and replace with someone with fewer scruples. And then call the former names. Tillerson remarked about Trump, "It was challenging for me, coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil Corporation, to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot things."  Trump bragged about being a non-reader and being undisciplined.

 

Some of the more juicy quotes:

 

“Everything about Trump’s opening speech was moral poison to anyone who believed in any part of the American dream. Everything about his nationalist hucksterism smelled like … a knock on the door of authoritarian statism.”

The right is “merrily on board with a lunatic with delusions of godhood”.

“There’s an odds-on chance that our grandchildren will hear this tale while hunched over guttering fires in the ruins of a radioactive Mad Max-style hellscape.”   

 

One can only hope Wilson is not prescient.

 

“All the things evangelicals had said for generations that made a candidate anathema were suddenly just fine … Being a goddamned degenerate pussy-grabber with a lifetime of adultery, venality, and dishonesty is not, to my knowledge, one of the core tenets of the Christian faith … Trump has opened entirely new theological avenues … There is literally not one aspect of Trump’s behavior as a citizen, a husband, and as a man that shows the slightest scintilla of repentance for anything, ever.”

 

The tax bill was a masterwork of “gigantic government giveaways, unfunded spending, massive debt and deficits, and a catalogue of crony capitalist freebies”.

Trump's far-flung empire of bullshit makes the Teapot Dome scandal look like a warm-up act in the Corruption Olympics. Trump has surrounded himself with Wall Street alumni “who have behaved with weapons-grade venality … and Master of the Dick affects. They were there … only for the tax bill. Nothing else ever mattered to any of them.”

 

The Trump administration has been “a hotbed of remarkably obvious pay-to-play and crony capitalist game-playing. How obvious? Think 1970s Times Square hooker on the corner obvious … The degree to which this president has monetized the presidency for the direct benefit of himself, his soft-jawed offspring, and his far-flung empire of bullshit makes the Teapot Dome scandal look like a warm-up act in the Corruption Olympics.”

The presidency “hasn’t been an endless exercise in self-fellation, until now”.

 

Wilson is sure the reason why Trump is so reluctant to release his taxes is that it will reveal numerous instances of "loans" that were really income received from Russian oligarchs through shell companies with no expectation they would ever be paid back. Paul Manafort got in serious trouble for the same shenanigans. It has a name:  tax fraud.

 

The question now (read just after the Capitol insurrection) is whether the thing that dies will be the GOP.