The famous Hollywood agent Irving “Swifty” Lazar once gave a protege the following advice: In this life you must acquire either fuck you money or fuck you attitude.

An autocratic plutocracy, which is what America is on the verge of becoming with breathtaking speed, is made up of people with the former. Its opponents need to very quickly develop much larger reserves of the latter.

Bill Kristol continues to be very clear-eyed on every aspect of Trumpism:

The autocratic project extends beyond the government. Autocracy seeks to undermine not just a free government but a free society. Autocracy isn’t just about personal power, or the power of a political movement over the institutions of government. It’s about extending that power to institutions outside of government—to businesses, to the media, to civic associations.

The individual steps towards autocracy can seem petty and personal. But their significance goes beyond that. Retaliation or retribution against one individual or institution is a way to intimidate many others. It’s a way to induce much broader compliance. It’s a way to encourage what Tim Snyder calls “anticipatory obedience.”

So, for example, excluding the Associated Press from the White House press pool wasn’t just about punishing the Associated Press for its editorial choices. It was about sending a chilling message to other news organizations who might choose to defy Trump in some way or other. And indeed last night a Trump aide posted that the New York Times’sPeter Baker would be excluded from the pool too, for the temerity of raising concerns about the White House’s media restrictions.

It’s easy to multiply such examples of attempted autocratic advances.

We saw another yesterday afternoon, when President Trump signed an executive order suspending security clearances for any attorneys at Covington and Burling who were involved in representing Special Counsel Jack Smith. The order also directs federal agencies to limit interactions with lawyers from Covington and Burling, and to assess any government contracts with the firm to align “funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States.”

Covington and Burling has been accused of no illegality or even impropriety. The firm simply has a client the president doesn’t like. In a free society, this should not be a ground for targeting by the federal government. But that’s the point: to collapse the boundaries that limit arbitrary government action or help preserve the overall rule of law.

Kristol points out that we’re now in the early stages of what happened in Orban’s Hungary, quoting David Pressman, who was the most recent US ambassador to that country:

“The first tool was essentially constructing a system where institutions are captured and then creating an architecture of rewarding and punishing,” he said. “It’s a clear message to anyone that the costs of disagreeing, the cost of engaging is so high. And as a result of that, a lot of people choose just not to.”

The intimidation goes hand-in-hand with corruption. Orbán transferred public assets to friendly oligarchs. His closest childhood friend has become the country’s single wealthiest individual. As Pressman says, “It became very lucrative and attractive to be a Fidesz loyalist. And simultaneously it became existentially challenging to exist if you were somehow outside the Fidesz, or the Orbán party system.”

Pressman goes on to describe the cost paid by those who seek to challenge this system. He spotlighted the case of a conservative, but independent newspaper in the country called Magyar Hang. It’s often critical of Orbán. It has to print the paper in neighboring Slovakia, because no firm in Hungary will risk doing so.

This is personalist autocracy, run on explicitly plutocratic principles, which is exactly what is happening right here right now, as Trump and Musk destroy the autonomy of both public and private institutions via bureaucratic banditry and extortion.

This is the negative analysis: now what is to be done?

I believe that opposition to Trumpism, which is now exactly identical to the Republican party, requires, at the social and psychological level, an opposition mentality of total war. Fuck you money must be met, always and everywhere for the duration, with fuck you attitude. A Republican — any Republican anywhere — needs to be treated by any and all defenders of liberal democracy, from Bill Kristol to AOC, as an enemy combatant in a cold (to this point) civil war.

Let me give a small personal example of what I’m talking about.

A former colleague and friendly acquaintance of mine, Allison Eid, is now a 10th circuit appellate court judge. Earlier this month Eid issued a concurrence in a case in which she stated that the question of whether Donald Trump could run for president again was “novel and complex.” She did this, I believe, because she is a corrupt person who is willing to prostitute her intellect in pursuit of a SCOTUS appointment (she was shortlisted by the Leonard Leo Experience for at least one of the openings during the first Trump presidency, so this isn’t as delusional as such ambitions typically are).

The more charitable explanation I suppose is that she’s dim enough to reason herself into a sincere belief that it’s not clear that the 22nd amendment bars Trump from re-election. Corruption and stupidity are often intertwined, so it’s hard to say for sure, but for practical purposes it makes no difference. (Eid was an Articles Editor on the University of Chicago Law Review so how dumb could she be? Denverite you are on the clock). The practical purpose here is that Allison Eid has, since she left the law school faculty to join the Colorado supreme court and then the 10th circuit, taught several classes as a distinguished visiting adjunct professor. And that’s no longer tolerable. I happen to be on the law school’s adjunct committee this year, so I’m going to be introducing a motion, to be, I hope, forwarded to the faculty as a whole, to make the official position of the law school that Eid is no longer eligible to teach at the law school, because she’s either too corrupt or too stupid to perform that role, especially under present circumstances.

I have no idea — OK I have some idea — whether enough of my colleagues are going to join me in this tiny but real act of protest and resistance. There are, after all, an infinite number of excuses, always and everywhere, not to do so — we can just not assign her any classes in the future without saying why, this will infuriate the central administration, at a time when the new chancellor and provost are already squinting hard at our profligate spending, etc etc etc.

Fuck you money or fuck you attitude.

The post Money and attitude appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Call the Senate and tell them what you think about Medicaid expansion. Ask for their health policy aide:

When you call a Senate office, ask to speak to the relevant Health Legislative Assistant. Hey look, a list of staffer names! 18/ pic.twitter.com/UQ0yZNaSxc

— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) June 8, 2017

Also, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wants comments on their latest rule making changes. Let them know what you think about the Exchanges and Medicaid.

Call for comment: Help us make progress on #healthcare reform efforts to reduce burden& improve choice for Americans https://t.co/CfW3jlfj8x

— CMS Administrator (@SeemaCMS) June 9, 2017

Via Kyle Hill:

@afrakt

1. They have been reported to exist in Australia, India, Mauritania, Burma, and the Mediterranean, but the best known are in Brazil.

2. In parts of southern Brazil, human fisherman have been cooperating with dolphins for many generations (of each species).

3. If fishermen clap just the right way, dolphins will herd fish into the desired areas of fishermen, in muddy lagoon areas.

4. The dolphins perform a distinctive kind of dive to signal to the humans it is time to cast the net for the fish.

5. Only some individual dolphins are able (willing?) to do this well, perhaps the others belong to the forty-seven percent.

5b. The dolphins which cooperate with the fisherman are also more social, more socially connected, and more cooperative with other dolphins.

6. The Brazilian fishermen name the star cooperating dolphins after ex-presidents, soccer players, and Hollywood stars.

7. The names aside, it is not clear whether dolphins benefit from offering this assistance; some commentators suggest the dolphins end up with isolated or injured fish from these exercises.

Here is one blog post report on these practices.  Here is one piece of the original research.  I stumbled upon this while reading the new and excellent Hal Whitehead and Luke Rendell The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins, a new book from University of Chicago Press.

Science is under attack, and not just from anti-vaccine celebrities and parents with degrees from Google University. Scientific illiteracy is being woven into the very fabric of our society through legislative assault. If you dismiss this as alarmist hyperbole, you haven’t been paying close enough attention.

Every day thousands of pediatric health care providers throughout the country provide safety advice to patients and their parents during routine health maintenance visits. As part of this important routine we ask a series of standard questions to assess the safety of our patients’ environment. Some of these questions are easy and straightforward, and some are more personal and potentially awkward for patients and their parents, including questions pertaining to sexual practices and preferences and psychosocial history. An important series of questions focuses on potential hazards in the home, such as how toxins and medicines are stored, how pools are secured against curious toddlers, and whether there are guns in the home and how they are stored and secured. Parents are usually appreciative of the advice we provide, and thankful for our concern and attention to these issues. Occasionally patients or parents are taken aback by some of these questions, and very rarely they prefer not to answer them (in my 20 years in practice, I can recall only one time this has occurred). occurred.) We ask these questions because accidental injuries and deaths are common occurrences in the pediatric population, and there is good evidence that patients tend to follow the advice we provide our patients.

Subverting science Science and endangering health

In 2010, as part of a routine health maintenance visit, a pediatrician in Ocala, Florida asked the mother of one of his patients whether there were guns in the home. The mother was angered by this question and refused to answer. By the end of the visit, she had been asked to find another pediatrician. This argument eventually led to the creation of the Florida Privacy of Firearm Owners Act, which, with support from the NRA, was signed into law in June of 2011. This law made it illegal for healthcare providers to ask about the presence of guns in the home. In 2012 the law was blocked by an injunction as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American College of Physicians (ACP), and individual plaintiff physicians. In July the law was upheld on appeal, though the injunction remains in effect until the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals makes a final ruling. The judge who upheld the law weighed in stating: stating,

the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.

Despite this law, if I were practicing in Florida, I would not change the way I inquire about guns in the home. The law specifically states that a health care practitioner: practitioner,

may not intentionally enter any disclosed information concerning firearm ownership into the patient’s medical record if the practitioner knows that such information is not relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.

It goes on to state that: that ,

a health care practitioner or health care facility that in good faith believes that this information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others, may make such a verbal or written inquiry.

While this leaves it wide open as to what constitutes information relevant to a patient’s safety, most pediatricians, and all rational people, would have no problem assuming knowledge about the presence and safe storage of firearms in the home it to be always relevant. The NRA and certain members of Congress would disagree, and that is where the chilling effect of this law comes into play. The intent of the law is clearly to prevent health care providers from pursuing this line of questioning, and places the second amendment squarely above the first.

My patients’ medical records can and do contain information about a wide range of environmental, health, and social information. Information that I have obtained because I, as a trained clinician, think it may be important to the health and safety of my patients. This includes information about a wide range of issues from what kinds of pets are in the home and whether carbon monoxide detectors are installed, to family medical histories, patient’s sexual activities, and often-complex social and family dynamics. But for some segments of society, those who cling to the second amendment with end-times religious zealotry, questions about guns in the home cross the line. This line of inquiry is just too personal and threatening for them to bear. And now, thanks to this Orwellian legislation, health care providers in Florida can’t do their job of advising and protecting their patients without fear of prosecution. Somehow, by asking a routine question about home safety, pediatricians are violating the second amendment rights of their patients. As if simply by asking about the presence of guns in the home denies a parent the right to own a gun. This has to be one of the most preposterous pieces of legislation passed in modern times, and it speaks to just how dangerously gun-centric our country has become.

Anti-science legislation Anti-Science Legislation prohibits research into gun safety

So just how is this an example of anti-science legislation? The tragic irony is that another piece of anti-science legislation, specifically developed to block research on gun safety, prevents us from gathering and analyzing the data to adequately answer this question. In the 1990s, NRA-backed lawmakers inserted into The Consolidated Appropriations Act, (P.L. 112-74, Section 503, Division F, Title V) language prohibiting the CDC from using funds to promote: promote,

any activity to advocate or promote … any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

Additional Requirement 13 adds the following language,

None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control. control.”

In 2011, Congress extended this restriction to include not just the CDC, but also the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services.

While at first glance this language may not seem to explicitly prohibit these agencies from funding studies on gun related injuries, deaths, and gun safety, the fact that such research could be used to lobby Congress has blocked them from doing so. No such restrictions apply to the study of obesity, heart disease, or overall accident and injury prevention even though these areas of research could also be used to lobby for changes to policy. Yet because of the political reach of the gun lobby, an entire line of scientific inquiry has been effectively halted, with far-reaching and profound consequences for public health and safety. It is the main reason we do not have answers to some very important and basic gun safety questions such as:

• What is the overall number of accidental gun deaths?
• How many children are behind the trigger in gun-related injuries and fatalities?
• How many children are the victims of accidental shootings?

Despite these limitations, the data we do have regarding children and guns clearly indicates that the presence of guns in the home increases the risk of accidental injury and death, homicides, and suicides. The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association recommend that firearms in the home be kept locked and unloaded, and stored separately from ammunition. A study demonstrating that a large percentage of unintentional firearm deaths occur in states where guns tend to be stored loaded supports these recommendations. The greatest risk occurs in states where loaded guns are also more likely to be kept unlocked. This association held true after controlling for rates of firearm prevalence, poverty and urbanization. In another study looking at the impact of safe gun storage, four 4 safety practices (keeping a gun locked, unloaded, storing ammunition locked, and storing guns and ammunition in separate locations) were found to independently protect children from unintentional and self-inflicted injury and death.

Despite this, 2.6 million children in the US are exposed in their homes to firearms stored either unlocked and loaded, or unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition. According to the CDC, there were 269,871 gun-related fatalities in the 8 years between 1999 and 2007. This included nearly 20,000 child fatalities. Because of the limitations on data collection and analysis, we do not know how many of these were a result of children getting their hands on dangerously stored and accessible guns.

Now, back to the Florida physician’s gag law. We know we can’t answer precisely how anti-science this legislation is because of the anti-science restrictions placed on gathering the data to begin with. We certainly have good evidence about the positive impact of physicians asking general questions about safety and providing guidance on accident and injury prevention. Several studies (Bass, et. al., Miller, et. al.) have demonstrated that providing office-based, standardized injury prevention advice can significantly decrease the incidence of childhood injuries. Other studies have shown that parents prefer and are most likely to follow safety information provided by their pediatrician (Stylianos, et. al., Laraque, et. al.).

But even with the current restrictions imposed on the study of gun safety, we do have some compelling evidence for the positive impact of provider-instituted provider instituted gun safety counseling as well. A variety of simple, office-based intervention strategies have been shown to have a positive impact on the safe storage of guns in the home (Albright, et. al., McGee, et. al.), and the use of trigger locks (Grossman, et. al.). It has also been shown that parents are likely to follow their pediatrician’s advice about safe gun storage (Webster DW, et. al.).

So from what we do know about the positive impact of gun safety counseling, it appears safe to conclude that the Florida “physician’s gag law” is solidly anti-science. And because anti-science seems to be spreading like a vaccine-preventable plague, similar legislation has now been introduced in 12 other states. Most have been overturned, but laws are still pending in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota. And now, thanks to the NRA’s influence on Harry Reid, even the Affordable Care Act contains stealth language further restricting health care providers, insurance companies, and the Department of Health and Human Services from collecting information about gun use or the presence of guns in the home (See page 19 here).

The intrusion and detrimental effects of politics on the advancement of science and public health is not new, though it has become more and more flagrant and potentially dangerous. Lawmakers with political agendas, constituents to please, and a poor grasp of science have been able to enact legislation and influence policies with the potential to produce extremely dangerous and long-lasting consequences. From climate change deniers such as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and anti-vaccine fear-mongers like former Congressman Dan Burton and now Darrell Issa, to presidential candidates mocking important scientific research, anti-science politicians have been weighing in and eroding science policy in this country with alarming frequency. The frequency with which antievolution legislation is introduced in this country should make us all shudder with fear. Perhaps the most flagrant and troubling anti-science legislative effort at the moment is that of Representative Lamar Smith of Texas (ironically, chair of the House of Representatives Science Committee), who is pushing a bill that would replace the peer-review system at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a system based on a set of Congressional funding criteria. This “High Quality Research Act” is intended to eliminate what a select group of politicians deem to be areas of inquiry undeserving of federal support. Such politically and ideologically motivated restrictions on scientific inquiry are truly horrifying, and could have devastating consequences.

The unhindered progress of science is central to the advancement of public health and societal good, yet political forces and personal belief continue to impede imped and influence the path to progress. Perhaps what we need is a Committee on Scientific Integrity to vet legislation that could impact public health and safety. Whatever steps we take, clearing a path for science and giving it the place it deserves in our society is long overdue.

I've been meaning to make note of something about Iraq for a while, and a story today in the LA Times provides the perfect hook:

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group "just to touch us and thank us," recalled Susan Rice, President Obama's national security advisor....But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

....Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict....Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn't want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

The view of the critics in this piece is pretty predictable: no matter what happens in the world, their answer is "more." And whenever military intervention fails, it's always because we didn't do enough.

But I don't think Obama believes this anymore. He mounted a surge in Afghanistan, and it's pretty plain that it's accomplished very little in the way of prompting reconciliation with the Taliban or setting the stage for genuine peace. Even lasting stability seems unlikely at this point. That experience made him reluctant to intervene in Libya, but he eventually got talked into it and within a couple of years that turned to shit too. Next up was Syria, and this time his reluctance was much more acute. There would be some minor steps to arm the anti-Assad rebels, but that was it. There was a brief moment when he considered upping our involvement over Syria's use of chemical weapons, but then he backed off via the expedient of asking for congressional approval. Congress, as Obama probably suspected from the start, was unwilling to do more than whine. When it came time to actually voting for the kind of action they kept demanding, they refused.

By now, I suspect that Obama's reluctance to support military intervention overseas is bone deep. The saber rattlers and jingoists will never change, but he never really cared about them. More recently, though, I think he's had the same epiphany that JFK had at one time: the mainstream national security establishment—in the Pentagon, in Congress, in the CIA, and in the think tanks—simply can't be trusted. Their words are more measured, but in the end they aren't much different from the perma-hawks. They always want more, and deep in their hearts the only thing they really respect is military force. In the end, they'll always push for it, and they'll always insist that this time it will work.

But I don't think Obama believes that anymore, and I think he's far more willing to stand up to establishment pressure these days. This is why I'm not too worried about the 300 advisors he's sent to Iraq. A few years ago, this might very well have been the start of a Vietnam-like slippery slope into a serious recommitment of forces. Today, I doubt it. Obama will provide some limited support, but he simply won't be badgered into doing more. Deep in his heart, he now understands that Iraq's problem is fundamentally political. Until there's some chance of forging a genuine political consensus, American troops just can't accomplish much.