Thursday, October 14, 2021

Is America Becoming Rome Versus Byzantium?

 

In A.D. 286 the Roman emperor Diocletian split in half the huge Roman Empire administratively — and peacefully — under the control of two emperors.

A Western empire included much of modern-day Western Europe and northwest Africa. The Eastern half controlled Eastern Europe and parts of Asia and northeastern Africa.

By 330 the Emperor Constantine institutionalized that split by moving the empire’s capital from Rome to his new imperial city of Constantinople, founded on the site of the old Greek polis of Byzantium.

The two administrative halves of the once huge empire continued to drift apart. Soon there arose two increasingly different, though still kindred versions, of a once unified Romanity.

The Western empire eventually collapsed into chaos by the latter fifth century A.D.

Yet the Roman eastern half survived for nearly 1,000 years. It was soon known as the Byzantine Empire, until overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 A.D.

Historians still disagree over why the East endured while the West crumbled. And they cite the various roles of differing geography, border challenges, tribal enemies and internal challenges.

We moderns certainly have developed unfair stereotypes of a supposedly decadent late imperial Rome of Hollywood sensationalism that deserved its end. And we likewise mistakenly typecast a rigid, ultra-orthodox bureaucratic “Byzantine” alternative that supposedly grew more reactionary to survive in a rough neighborhood.

Yet in both cases, separate geography multiplied the growing differences between a Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian and older civilization in the east, versus a more or less polyglot and often fractious Christianity in the Latin West.

Byzantium held firm against ancient neighboring Persian, Middle Eastern and Egyptian rivals. But the West disintegrated into a tribal amalgam of its own former peoples.

Unlike the West, the glue that held the East together against centuries of foreign enemies, was the revered idea of an ancient and uncompromising Hellenism — the preservation of a common, holistic Greek language, religion, culture and history.

By A.D. 600, at a time when the West had long ago fragmented into tribes and proto-European kingdoms, the jewel at Constantinople was the nerve center of the most impressive civilization in the world, stretching from the Eastern Asia Minor to southern Italy.

There is now much talk of a new American red state/blue state split–and even wild threats of another Civil War. Certainly, millions of Americans yearly self-select, disengage from their political opposites and make moves based on diverging ideology, culture, politics, religiosity or lack of it, and differing views of the American past.

More conservative traditionalists head for the interior between the coasts, where there is usually smaller government, fewer taxes, more religiosity and unapologetic traditionalists.

These modern Byzantines are more apt to define their patriotism by honoring ancient customs and rituals — standing for the national anthem, attending church services on Sundays, demonstrating reverence for American history and its heroes, and emphasizing the nuclear family.

Immigration in fly-over country is still defined as melting pot assimilation and integration of new arrivals into the body politic of a hallowed and enduring America.

While red states welcome change, they believe America never had to be perfect to be good. It will always survive, but only if it sticks to its 234-year-old Constitution, stays united by the English language, and assimilates newcomers into an enduring and exceptional American culture.

In contrast, the more liberal blue state antithesis is richer from globalist wealth. The west coast from Seattle to San Diego profits from trade with a thriving Asia. It is bookended by the east coast window on the European Union from Boston to Miami.


The great research universities of the Ivy League, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and the University of California system are bicoastal. Just as Rome was once the iconic center of the entire Roman project, so blue Washington, D.C., is the nerve center for big-government America.

The salad bowl is the bicoastal model for immigration. Newcomers can retain and reboot their former cultural identities.

Religion is less orthodox; atheism and agnosticism are almost the norm. And most of the recent social movements of American feminism, transgenderism and critical race theory grew out of coastal urbanity and academia.

Foreigners see blue coastal Americans as the more vibrant, sophisticated, cosmopolitan — and reckless — culture, its vast wealth predicated on technology, information, communications, finance, media, education and entertainment.

In turn, they concede that the vast red interior — with about the same population as blue America but with vastly greater area — is the more pragmatic, predictable and home to the food, fuels, ores and material production of America.

Our Byzantine interior and Roman coasts are quite differently interpreting their shared American heritage as they increasingly plot radically divergent courses to survive in scary times.

But as in the past, it is far more likely that one state model will prove unsustainable and collapse than it is that either region would ever start a civil war.

Friday, October 08, 2021

More Diverse Firearms Community Could Derail Biden’s Gun Control Agenda

 

Nearly 14 million gun-sale background checks have been conducted in 2021. 

As more Americans purchase firearms, it’s natural to see participants from more diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds. For gun control interests, this is unsettling. Why? They arrogantly assume it’s sexist and racist to support gun rights. And they couldn’t be more wrong.

That’s why organizations like the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) hope to capitalize on this positive trend through their Reality Check campaign. 

I recently spoke to two USCCA ambassadors, firearms instructor Beth Alcazar and Top Shot Season 4 Champion Chris Cheng, on why a strengthened firearms community can derail gun control policies going forward. 

What ‘Reality Check’ Entails

As of this writing, USCCA boasts over 500,000 members. The group desires to give “responsible gun owners the knowledge and training they need to stay safe before, during and after a threat.”

Its Reality Check campaign aims to train 1.3 million Americans about safe and responsible firearms use by 2025. 

“The face of firearms is kind of maybe different from what that stereotype is,” said Alcazar. “Luckily, in the gun industry, we have seen this changing over the last couple of decades.”

“You’ve got advocates or you’ve got business owners. Entrepreneurs. The whole spectrum,” added Concealed Carry Magazine’s Associate Editor. “Reality Check, I think, is just a way to kind of mimic that or mirror that and show that it’s people— everyday folks, all backgrounds, all walks of life.” 

“For me, I was invited by USCCA to participate in the Reality Check campaign as a way to reach out to LGBT and Asian shooters and potential gun owners and current gun owners,” said Cheng. 

“I think the idea of the Reality Check campaign is to talk about change isn't scary, and it shouldn't be scary—especially when we're talking about all of the new gun owners that we've seen over the past year and a half,” added the Top Shot Season 4 champion. “With all of these new faces— and new gun owners—our rights are being more protected with more gun owners that we bring into the fold.”

Of the 1.3 million goal, Cheng said, “I think it's a very audacious goal, but also very attainable.”  

“And [the] Reality Check campaign is about reaching out not just to new gun owners but even existing gun owners, right, who maybe they bought a firearm during the pandemic but they didn't have a chance to go to the range.”

Diversity in the Gun Community is Good for America, Bad for Gun Control

Chris Cheng, an advisor to the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association (APAGOA), said his outreach efforts were questioned by gun control outfits like the Violence Policy Center.

“I was a little shocked at this recent report that came out about two weeks ago by the Violence Policy Center, which was basically criticizing the National Shooting Sports Foundation and criticizing me and other advocates for talking about Asian outreach in the firearms community,” said Cheng. “What was shocking is, you know, they’re criticizing the gun industry for reaching out to the Asian American population, and they’re accusing me and others of leveraging fear, right, that the pandemic has brought and scaring Asian Americans into buying guns—which is the furthest thing from the truth. And quite frankly, it’s insulting and borderline racist.” 

Outreach to women, Alcazar added, was initially met with resistance but is paying off today. Why? Women accounted for almost 50 percent of new gun owners last year.

“It's very interesting that so many folks seem to be against diversity,” noted Alcazar. “I know that as more and more women got involved with the firearms industry and with just taking ownership of their lives and responsibility for their own personal safety, I think that's where the media or the anti-gun folks started to get really nervous because it's so much easier to kind of be against a stereotype and against a group.”

“I think they're really frightened by the fact that the gun community now looks like America,” she added. “I mean, we are literally every kind of person you can imagine. And that's what's so cool...we're not hiding that fact anymore.”

A Political Force Going Forward

Both Alcazar and Cheng believe as the gun community grows, support for gun control will continue to wane

“I'm encouraged that maybe we can start making a stronger difference or a stronger voice in our own communities, and hopefully that will later affect what's happening maybe on a federal level or what's happening in D.C.,” Alcazar stressed.

“Each one of us can have a huge effect in our own communities, with our own legislators— whether that's a local community, whether that's a school, whether that's for our own states,” she added. “I like to say we can be pebbles in puddles. And if you throw a pebble in a puddle, it's going to make that ripple effect.”

Cheng’s group, which filed an amicus brief in support of the forthcoming Supreme Court gun case, also plans to make waves. 

“'I’m excited that APAGOA submitted this amicus brief in support of concealed carry rights,” he added. “We're really excited to have been involved in one of these key democratic processes in participating in the United States Supreme Court case sitting before them.”

Biden Administration Is Trying to Intimidate Parents

Under a patina of impartiality, fact-checkers have long engaged in a uniquely dishonest genre of journalism, claiming mastery over truth and facts when, most often, they are merely editorializing on highly debatable contentions

Here, the Associated Press, once the most reliable straight-news source in the nation, claims that a viral tweet from critical-race-theory opponent Christopher Rufo, which criticized the National School Boards Association (NSBA) for requesting the FBI investigate school-board protests as "domestic terrorism," was false. "Contrary to false claims circulating online," wrote the AP, "the National School Boards Association didn't ask President Joe Biden to label protesting parents 'domestic terrorists,' and there's no indication Biden or the Justice Department called them terrorists, either."

Perhaps there is some unstated semantic reason AP author Terrence Fraser uses to rationalize his position, or maybe he failed to read the letter. Even The Washington Post reported that NSBA "likened the harassment and abuse over face coverings in schools to domestic terrorism." The letter literally compared parents to "domestic terrorists" on two separate occasions; the phrase is the only real justification for White House intervention using the PATRIOT Act "in regards to domestic terrorism." As the NSBA surely knows, "These parents are really annoying us" wouldn't have triggered federal intervention. The call for the administration's help is predicated on the existence of potential widespread violent "domestic terror" -- a phrase that continues to lose meaning as it is weaponized for political purposes.

Here, for example, is wording from the letter: "As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The NSBA offers 20 recent instances of intimidation and harassment in the entire nation. We'll have to take the organization's word for it. In any event, it's inexcusable to break the law. But even if there is a spike in criminal behavior, even violence (which has not happened), it is the job of the local police to investigate, not the FBI. Yet, Attorney General Merrick Garland quickly acquiesced to the NSBA with a memorandum to the FBI and U.S. attorneys' offices directing them to investigate parents who are protesting school boards over issues the administration supports, such as critical race theory and mask mandates.

The Department of Justice's directive doesn't even specify what it classifies as a crime in these cases, because the entire effort seems to be meant to chill speech. This form of state intimidation plays out in two ways.

First, parents, who have every right to confront board members at meetings, write them angry emails and call their offices, shouldn't be treated like the Weather Underground simply because a small fraction of them act like buffoons. If we used the Biden administration standard, presidents would summon the FBI to investigate domestic terrorism for virtually any political protest.

Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican administration had written directives on how to investigate women who were participating in "resist" meetings or the Black Lives Matter movement? When the Trump administration sent federal agents to Portland, Oregon, after professional antifa rioters -- a group widely celebrated by left-wing commentators -- tried to firebomb a federal courthouse, there was hysteria. "Trump's Occupation of American Cities Has Begun," wrote Michelle Goldberg in The New York Times. "Can we call it fascism yet?"


Second, Garland's memorandum creates the impression that parents who are legally confronting school boards that enact (unscientific) masking policies for elementary-school children are in league with political extremists. It treats those who oppose curriculums that instruct kids to view fellow citizens solely through the prism of race or teach them that the United States is a fundamentally racist enterprise as would-be violent radicals -- rather than patriots.

Domestic terrorism entails the use of violent, criminal acts to further specific ideological goals. There is no evidence such a movement exists. But contra the Associated Press, and many others, the same president who says the harassment of a senator in a bathroom by illegal-immigrant activists is just part of "the process" is using an NSBA claim of "domestic terrorism" as an excuse to deputize the nation's top domestic police force to halt lawful speech.

 

Tuesday, October 05, 2021

Zuckerberg Slams Whistleblower’s Accusations as a ‘Mischaracterization’ of Facebook

 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday broke his silence about a whistleblower’s testimony, in which the company was accused of prioritizing profits over the wellbeing of its users, by alleging that a “false picture” of the social media giant was being painted.

“Now that today’s testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we’re in,” Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post that was also sent to company employees. “I’m sure many of you have found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn’t reflect the company we know. We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It’s difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don’t recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted.”

Zuckerberg’s comments come after Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager who leaked thousands of internal documents about the company, testified Tuesday at a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing, where she alleged that the tech giant’s products “harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy.”

Haugen also accused Facebook of relying too heavily on artificial intelligence in its effort to combat hate speech, misinformation and inappropriate ads for minors, and that the company’s AI systems would only catch, at best,10 to 20 percent of banned content.

Zuckerberg further responded to Haugen’s testimony by lauding Facebook’s “industry-leading” research that helps the company to understand important issues while also holding itself accountable. He also rejects the notion that his company should be attributed for society’s polarization.

“If social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?” he asks.

The billionaire CEO took particular issue with the claims that Facebook is detrimental to children, emphasizing that “it’s very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids.”

He praised the company’s work in creating a safe environment for children through its launch of Messenger Kids.


Zuckerberg also expressed his support for updated internet regulations regarding elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition.

He went on to say that it is “disheartening” to see Facebook’s work “taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative.”

“I know it’s frustrating to see the good work we do get mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making important contributions across safety, integrity, research and product,” Zuckerberg said. “But I believe that over the long term if we keep trying to do what’s right and delivering experiences that improve people’s lives, it will be better for our community and our business.”

But in her testimony Tuesday, Haugen said that Facebook’s counterespionage team could only tackle about a third of cases regarding harmful content at any given time.

“We know that if we built even a basic detector, we would likely have many more cases,” she said.

Is Beijing on Borrowed Time? Is the U.S.?

Will China Invade Taiwan? Despite the recent saber-rattling, probably not any time soon. It lacks the amphibious capacity to land the 30-plus brigades it will need to overcome the island’s defense. “China does not appear to be currently investing in the equipment likely required for a direct assault on Taiwan, such as large amphibious assault ships and medium landing craft necessary for a large beach assault.”

Beijing’s current naval build implies that the prerequisite for taking Taipei is neutralizing the U.S. navy. “China’s recent spate of military exercises and the PLA Navy’s focus on building large aircraft carriers, escort cruisers and amphibious transport dock (LPD) ships suggest the military, for now, is geared toward blue water naval operations and smaller expeditionary missions.”

In other words, the CCP thinks Washington must “fall” before Taipei can be stormed. That strategy could change, but not overnight. Since an invasion of Taiwan would have to be on the scale of Operation Overlord or Iceberg (the invasion of Okinawa) to overcome 22 defending brigades, the buildup could not easily be concealed, and there should be no surprises. Given this, conventional wisdom holds that China, rather than attempting a quick pounce, is executing a siege strategy, and will use so-called “gray zone” warfare to gradually encircle Taiwan.

It’s not the final, titanic clash that Taiwan has long feared, with Chinese troops storming the beaches. Instead, the People’s Liberation Army, China’s two-million-strong military, has launched a form of “gray zone” warfare. In this irregular type of conflict, which stops short of an actual shooting war, the aim is to subdue the foe through exhaustion.

Beijing is conducting waves of threatening forays from the air while ratcheting up existing pressure tactics to erode Taiwan’s will to resist, say current and former senior Taiwanese and U.S. military officers. The flights, they say, complement amphibious landing exercises, naval patrols, cyber attacks and diplomatic isolation.

Again the key to encirclement’s success is Washington’s reaction. So, while 77 Chinese combat aircraft have provocatively intruded into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, their real purpose is to beat like rain on the windows of the Oval Office to attract the attention of the man within. The response of the State Department so far has been to tersely repeat the U.S. policy to defend Taiwan.

The United States is very concerned by the People’s Republic of China’s provocative military activity near Taiwan, which is destabilizing, risks miscalculations, and undermines regional peace and stability. We urge Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic, and economic pressure and coercion against Taiwan.

We have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We will continue to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability, and we will maintain our commitments as outlined in the Three Communiqués, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Six Assurances. The U.S. commitment to Taiwan is rock solid and contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and within the region. We will continue to stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity, security, and values and deepen our ties with democratic Taiwan.

But there is more than a tactical “miscalculation” at play here. There is a strategic shift. Looming large over the scene is the perception that China is becoming more dangerous because it is a declining power. As the American Enterprise Institute put it, based on a recent piece in Foreign Policy, “The United States needs to prepare for a major war, not because its rival is rising but because of the opposite.”

Why do great powers fight great wars? The conventional answer is a story of rising challengers and declining hegemons. An ascendant power, which chafes at the rules of the existing order, gains ground on an established power—the country that made those rules. Tensions multiply; tests of strength ensue. The outcome is a spiral of fear and hostility leading, almost inevitably, to conflict. “The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta, made war inevitable,” the ancient historian Thucydides wrote—a truism now invoked, ad nauseum, in explaining the U.S.-China rivalry.

The idea of a Thucydides Trap, popularized by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, holds that the danger of war will skyrocket as a surging China overtakes a sagging America. Even Chinese President Xi Jinping has endorsed the concept arguing Washington must make room for Beijing. As tensions between the United States and China escalate, the belief that the fundamental cause of friction is a looming “power transition”—the replacement of one hegemon by another—has become canonical.

The only problem with this familiar formula is that it’s wrong.

If China is actually declining, not only economically but demographically, then it doesn’t have the time to strangle Taiwan before itself collapsing. Taiwan becomes a problem of Now or Never for Beijing, with all the disastrous risks desperation elicits. But it’s not game over if Joe Biden can match Chinese decline with a collapse of his own.  Alex Lo of the South China Morning Post poses the question: “Suppose both China and the US are in decline …?”

“I was led to this bitter train of thought after someone emailed me a new article, “China Is a Declining Power – and That’s the Problem”, in Foreign Policy. Please note I am not upset because my inner Chinese patriot is offended by the claim. Frankly, it may well be the case with China today, or not. I just don’t know. What really frustrates me is that the authors, both American political science profs, of course, are arguing against other political scientists, who argue “China is the rising power – and that’s the problem”. (Sorry, I summarized the last bit, but I think that’s the gist.)” …

American democracy? It looks more and more like an oligarchy by the day, the rule by/for/of the rich and special interests. The Chinese economy? Is it capitalist, communist, hybrid or mixed? Who knows what it is these days? Certainly, both systems are showing serious cracks, with their foundational flaws exposed.

But let me venture another possibility, combination or permutation, say, both superpowers are in decline. Whatever we mean by “decline”, relative or absolute, hegemonic or not, it’s not an unreasonable presupposition about the state of the two countries. I am sure there is plenty of data out there that would paint a pretty grim picture of both countries.

So, I ask our wise political scientists: if both superpowers are in decline or have peaked, are they more or less likely to go at each other’s throats? Well, judging by the aforementioned discussions, if both sides are in decline, wouldn’t both be the problem? And that’s the real problem for the rest of the world.

Barack Obama reportedly said: “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to (expletive) things up.” Speaking of Joe’s $3.5T “Build Back Better” bill, House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth told CNN’s Erin Burnett, “It’s not a question of what we can afford. The federal government can afford anything that it feels it needs to do and right now that’s what we ought to be focused on.”

If you can’t beat China, join them.

A scenario where entropy wins means that, rather than achieving an End of History similar to what followed the fall of the Soviet Union, the struggle between the U.S. and China will result in a collapse of the old Global World,  succeeded by an unsettled period like that after World War 1. Joe Biden won’t be the next Ronald Reagan, at best only the new Woodrow Wilson.