Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

2022 UAP Report – Disclosure Rankings & Analysis

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the congressionally mandated 2022 UAP report on January 12, 2023. This is the second such report. A 2021 Preliminary report was released in June 2021.

There are 13 distinct reporting requirements for this report, and I have applied a Disclosure rubric to measure how transparent the US government is willing to be with each one.

Read more about the requirements and how the rubric was constructed here: What to Expect from the 2022 UAP Report

The rubric has three categories, each assigned with a point value.  

Full Disclosure (3): The report reveals detailed underlying evidence pertaining to the “shall include” elements, as well as specific conclusions drawn from that evidence. This does not mean total disclosure of any and all information the government possesses about UFOs. We assume that the authors will constrain their report to the specific asks listed in the NDAA, as well as classification laws that forbid revealing intelligence gathering sources and methods. That aside, this category suggests an intention toward openness with the public. 

Partial Disclosure (2): The report provides general and generic discussion of the “shall include” elements, without offering any specifics. There may be acknowledgement that a situation is occurring, but no underlying evidence, and little to no analysis–in other words, similar to the 2021 Preliminary Report. This category suggests a muddled middle ground where the authors acknowledge a real phenomenon is occurring, but exhibit a continued extreme reticence to share details with the public.  

Full Secrecy (1): The authors simply decline to provide any information to the public for the “shall include” elements.   

Scoring & Analysis

  • Overall Score for the 2022 UAP Report: 1.5 out of 3 – Full Secrecy
  • 7 reporting requirements earn a score of Partial Disclosure
  • 6 reporting requirements earn a score of Full Secrecy

For all of the report’s lack of detail, it does make a number of significant admissions and future commitments:

  • There are 510 UAP reports, none of which have been formally resolved with a satisfactory explanation
  • UAP restricted airspace incursions remain regular occurrences
  • UAP are still thought to demonstrate unusual flight characteristics and abilities
  • There have been no UAP-related collisions or heath effects for military personnel (as yet)
  • The UAP investigation is now a whole-government coordination effort, and communication with international partners is ongoing.

These account for the Partial Disclosure scores. No reporting requirement earns a score of Full Disclosure due to extreme vagueness of the language, and the fact that, like the 2021 report, all references to underlying evidence has been stripped out of the public version. We are all forced to read the tea leaves of ODNI bureaucratic language, and are given no concrete, real-world facts that allow us to put those statements in proper context.

There are some encouraging bright spots in the report’s tone, all of which suggest that the ODNI and the Pentagon’s UAP office, AARO, are not trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

The report states that some “UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities.” While this is not as fulsome as the 2021 report, it does not endorse Scott Bray’s argument in the May 2021 congressional hearing that these observed characteristics and capabilities are due to sensor error and mere witness “stories.”

The report explains why there has been a recent spike in UAP reporting: “increase in the UAP reporting rate is partially due to a better understanding of the possible threats that UAP may represent… and partially due to reduced stigma surrounding UAP reporting.” The report does not repeat or endorse Scott Bray’s assertion that increased UAP activity is happening because of “an increase in the number of new systems such as quadcopters and unmanned aerial systems that are in our airspace.” No, reports are increasing because people are seeing a lot of UAP and are concerned enough to make a report.

There is an important (almost heartwarming) expression of trust on page 3 under the a section titled Assumptions: “ODNI and AARO operate under the assumption that UAP reports are derived from the observer’s accurate recollection of the event and/or sensors that generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments.” The slogan for this might be Believe Pilots. The authors are sending the message that investigators will accept that men and women in the field actual saw and experienced what they describe in the report. This may be easier said than done, but it is important for destigmatization.

While the report provides no analysis of UAP data, it does promise to do so soon in the quarterly updates to Congress. Time will tell if AARO and ODNI are merely getting their feet under them, or if this is a stalling tactic.

If there is cause for concern, it is this creeping fear of a big stall. The 2021 report of 144 UAP cases was being drafted two years ago. Reading that report in June 2021, it was safe to assume that by now we would have know whether or how some of those cases were resolved. The authors of that report also spoke of the need for future “additional rigorous analysis.” We are still waiting. Will the ultimate explanation for UAP be just a year or two away, forever? Or will the team as currently constituted be the ones to finally put their names to some firm conclusions?

See full scoring and rational for all 13 report requirements below.

Requirement #1: Tally of UAP Events

(A) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during the one-year period.
(B) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during a period other than that one-year period but were not included in an earlier report.

Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure

The report states the following facts for this requirement:

  • 144 UAP reports were created and compiled by the UAPTF covering 17 years from 2004-March 5, 2021. (Note this number is still inclusive of the one UAP “determined with high confidence” to be a deflating balloon.)
  • 247 UAP reports were newly generated by military personnel from March 6, 2021 to August 30, 2022.
  • 119 UAP reports that occurred prior to 3/5/2021 “have been discovered and reported.”
  • Total UAP reports in AARO’s data set: 510.

This is one of the only parts of the report where a straightforward answer is given, though as we will see in the next section AARO uses these numbers in deliberately vague and confusing ways. Also note the emphasis created by the persistent use of the term UAP report. The 2021 UAP report contained clear delineation of terms between UAP event, UAP incident, and UAP report. For example, we know there were some UAP incidents that generated more than one report. The 2022 report refers only to reports, almost to emphasize that AARO is investigating a report someone made and not the event itself. This is contrary to the language of the requirement: “unidentified aerial phenomena-related events.” Beyond the tally, we get no details at all about the events, the reports, or the reporters.

Also of note, in the December press roundtable Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, head of AARO, said the UAP reports currently in AARO’s data set now extend back to 1996. But this date range is not included in the report.

Requirement #2: Analysis, judgements, and explanatory categories

(C) An analysis of data and intelligence received through each reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related event.
(D) An analysis of data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena collected through–(i) geospatial intelligence;(ii) signals intelligence;(iii) human intelligence; and(iv) measurement and signature intelligence.

Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy

The report states the following facts for this requirement [emphasis added]:

  • “Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has formulated and started to leverage a
    robust analytic process against identified UAP reporting. Once completed, AARO’s final
    analytic findings will be available in their quarterly reports to policymakers.”
  • “The broad scope of authority granted to AARO should enable them to leverage a multi-agency, whole-of-government approach to understanding, resolving, and attributing UAP in the future.”
  • “Regardless of the collection or reporting method, many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty.”
  • 26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities;
  • 163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities; and
  • 6 attributed to clutter.

Subsection C and D should have been be the heart of the 2022 UAP report, since this was the core of Congress’s request–an analysis of what UAP are. I was hoping for a good-faith effort to apply the IC’s Analytic Standards, including judgments and assumptions, and maybe some underlying evidence. Instead, all we are told is that AARO has a “robust analytic process” but they are not yet ready to share it or its findings.

There is also evidence of strained and misleading logic in this section. One clause states that “more than half” of the 366 newly reported UAP reports may be drones, balloons (ballon-like entities?), or clutter. But AARO says nothing about which of the initial 144 reports may be similarly “unremarkable.” Why do they place this divide in their data set between the original and new set of reports? If there is a reason, they don’t tell us. Is it that the recent reports are fresher with more timely evidence? Well, no. We know the majority of the original 144 were from 2019-2021, and that some of the new 366 reports were from earlier than 2021 and extend back to 1996. And what about that poor deflating balloon that was the single resolved UAP case form the first round? Has it been un-resolved?

In any case, when you divide 195 resolved UAP out of the full total of 510, you get 38% – decidedly less than half.

Curiouser!–AARO tells us that even those 195 have not been officially, formally resolved. This is only their “initial characterization” and may change pending more analysis. Why produce this half-way judgement? Well, the report explains, this allows AARO to “efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports.” In other words, they think that a UAP might be a balloon (balloon-like entity??) but they can’t prove it, and since those other cases are more interesting they are going to move on. Really? A pilot or aviator saw something so strange that they filed a UAP report. And AARO has just enough data on that case to say it might be a balloon or drone, but not enough data to prove it? Not in a single one of the 510 cases? That in itself is evidence of something weird going on, or incompetence.

Per this report, exactly 0% of the 510 UAP have been resolved as conventional objects, which is decidedly less than half.

Also of note: the report makes no mention of the 5 explanatory categories, no mention of the “other catch-all bin,” and no use of the word anomalous.

Requirement #3: Restricted airspace incursions (tally)

(E) The number of reported incidents of unidentified aerial phenomena over restricted air space of the United States during the one-year period.

Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure

The report states the following facts for this requirement:

  • “UAP events continue to occur in restricted or sensitive airspace, highlighting possible
    concerns for safety of flight or adversary collection activity”

This statement offers only a general reference to some amount of incursions without revealing the total number. No information is provided about the date and location of events, or how many of the 510 reports derive from restricted airspace.  

Requirement #4: Restricted airspace incursions (analysis)

(F) An analysis of such incidents identified under subparagraph (E).

Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy

The report provides no further information or reference to incursions.

Requirement #5: National Security Threat of UAP

(G) Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by unidentified aerial phenomena to the national security of the United States.

Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy

Beyond the obvious flight safety concerns posed by UAP, the only national security threat mentioned is a vague and unelaborated reference to “potential adversary collection platforms.” The words “national security” do not appear in the report.

Requirement #6: Adversarial foreign governments

(H) An assessment of any activity regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that can be attributed to one or more adversarial foreign governments.

Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy

The report declines to provide any statement about “foreign adversary systems.” It does promise that AARO “will continue to investigate any evidence of possible foreign government involvement in UAP events.”

Requirement #7: Breakthrough aerospace capability

(I) Identification of any incidents or patterns regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that indicate a potential adversarial foreign government may have achieved a breakthrough aerospace capability.

Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure

The report states the following facts for this requirement:

  • “Some of these [171] uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.”

This is as flashy as we get this time around. The 2022 report omits anything like the language from the 2021 report that captured so much public (and congressional) attention: breakthrough aerospace technology “without discernable means of propulsion.” But this is still an admission that some highly unusual aircraft have been observed.

Requirement #8: Coordination with allies

(J) An update on the coordination by the United States with allies and partners on efforts to track, understand, and address unidentified aerial phenomena.

Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure

The report states the following for this requirement:

  • “ODNI and AARO have maintained communication with our allied partners regarding
    UAP, keeping them informed of developments and U.S. initiatives.”

This is a general admission of at least communication with allies about the U.S. efforts regarding UAP, without giving specifics. No mention is made on coordination.

Requirement #9: Capture and exploit UAP

(K) An update on any efforts underway on the ability to capture or exploit discovered unidentified aerial phenomena.

Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy

This may be unsurprising, but no mention is made of the scenarios described by this requirement.

Requirement #10: Health-related effects of UAP

(L) An assessment of any health-related effects for individuals that have encountered unidentified aerial phenomena.

Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure

The report states the following for this requirement:

  • “Regarding health concerns, there have also been no encounters with UAP confirmed to contribute directly to adverse health-related effects to the observer(s). Acknowledging that health-related effects may appear at any time after an event occurs, AARO will track any reported health implications related to UAP should they emerge.”

Even though this represents a flat denial, one of the only straight answers in the report, the language indicates there may be more going on than AARO is willing to share. By holding out the possibility that health-related effects may yet emerge, this suggests that at least some military personnel have come in close enough contact with a UAP for this to be the case. Yet they don’t say anything like this or provide any additional context.

Requirement #11: U.S. nuclear technology and UAP

(M) The number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena associated with military nuclear assets, including strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships and submarines.
(N) In consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena associated with facilities or assets associated with the production, transportation, or storage of nuclear weapons or components thereof.
(O) In consultation with the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena or drones of unknown origin associated with nuclear power generating stations, nuclear fuel storage sites, or other sites or facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy

Subsections M through O address U.S. nuclear technology, and together they represent one-fifth of the 2022 reporting requirements. Of all of Congress’s requirements, these contain some of the most specific language. Congress wants to know more about the relationship between UAP and nukes. This section could cover a range of cases, from the 2004 encounter with the nuclear powered USS Ronald Regan, to domestic cases similar to the mystery drones observed over the Swedish nuclear plant in 2021.

The report makes no mention of any US nuclear asset.

Requirement #12: Line organizations providing UAP data

(P) The names of the line organizations that have been designated to perform the specific functions under subsections (c) and (d), and the specific functions for which each such line organization has been assigned primary responsibility.

 Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure

The report states the following for this requirement [emphasis added]:

  • “The majority of new UAP reporting originates from U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force aviators and operators who witnessed UAP during the course of their operational duties and reported the events to the UAPTF or AARO through official channels.”
  • “AARO’s authorities ensure that UAP detection and identification efforts will span across DoD and relevant interagency partners, as well as the Intelligence Community (IC), with the support and coordination of the National Intelligence Manager for Aviation (NIM-Aviation). NIM-Aviation’s and AARO’s coordination efforts will improve U.S. Government awareness of objects in the airspace and resolution of UAP events.”
  • “This report was drafted by ODNI’s NIM-Aviation in conjunction with AARO.”
  • “AARO has the authority to coordinate UAP efforts beyond DoD and is authorized to develop processes and procedures to synchronize and standardize collection, reporting, and analysis throughout not just DoD, but the IC as well, with the support and coordination of NIM-Aviation. AARO will coordinate with other non-IC agencies such as the FAA, NASA, NOAA, and the non-IC elements of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Energy (DOE), as appropriate. The broad scope of authority granted to AARO should enable them to leverage a multi-agency, whole-of-government approach…”
  • “NIMAviation will remain the IC’s focal point for UAP issues, while AARO is the DoD focal point for these issues and related activities. AARO will represent DoD to the interagency, Congress, media, and public, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs and the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OSD[PA]).”

On page 3, there is a long list of agencies that provided input into the report, which includes every military branch, as well as NASA, the FBI, and the FAA, among others. One stark difference from the 2021 report is the inclusion of UAP reports from the Air Force. The original 144 cases all came from the Navy. The Air Force adopted the Navy’s UAP reporting protocol in November 2020. Considering the Air Force’s long standing hostility to UFO disclosure, a cynic might wonder if the 366 newly reported cases, “more than half” of which are thought to be balloons and drones, are UAP reports that originated with the Air Force. It would not be the first time the Air Force tried to pad out its tally of “solved” UFO cases. It’s also worth considering that simply because a UAP report is submitted to AARO does not mean that all available data was included in said report. A cynic might think these things.

The role of the National Intelligence Manager for Aviation (NIM-Aviation) is prominent in the report, and seems significant. Both the 2022 report and the 2021 report were drafted by NIM-Aviation, part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I’m not enough of a government insider to know precisely what the word “drafted” implies in this context, but I think it’s safe to say that the ODNI produces the reporting based on data from AARO. What has changed is that NIM-Aviation now has a formal role as the DNI’s lead on UAP issues. Since Congress has charged DNI and DOD with co-leadership roles over the UAP investigation, the two key players going forward will be AARO and NIM-Aviation.

The elevation of NIM-Aviation probably occurred on March 3, 2022. That week, Lue Elizondo made a claim on a podcast that the ODNI committed to “a historic action” and “a significant milestone” that “needs to applauded.” He did not go into detail about what that action was, but did imply it was made by the two-star general who was the National Intelligence Manager to Aviation.

Requirement #13: Unclassified format

(3) Form.–Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure

Half of the required elements are present in the unclassified report, but (I presume) with significantly less specificity and no underlying evidence compared to the classified report.

Posted on

12th Approval Decline-Update

Trump is still in an episode of approval decline, the 12th of his presidency. Here are the stats:

  • Duration of 5 weeks (the average is 4.6 weeks)
  • Drop of 2.10 percentage points to a low of 39.9% as of September 14
  • Rank of 6/10 on the severity scale (6 of the 12 episodes have been more severe–so this one is in the middle of the pack, and there has not been a dip this severe since December 2017)
  • The approval has been below 40% for 4 of the last ten days.
  • After spending much of 2017 in the mid-to-high 30s, Trump has not been below 40% since February 2018.

This dip began in the week of August 19-25 with the Cohen plea deal and the Manafort guilty plea, but each subsequent week had events that probably account for the continued decline: McCain’s death and Trump’s response; the Woodward book and the anonymous op-ed by a Trump official; some particularly unhinged tweets about Sessions, law enforcement, etc. This week also saw Manafort reach a plea deal, so we will see if Trump’s numbers continue to decline next week or begin to stabilize.    

Posted on

Star Trek Discovery Will be a Different Kind of Trek, Part II

Last week it was formally announced that Sonequa Martin-Green will play the lead character of CBS’s new Star Trek series, stepping into the boots previously filled by Shatner, Stewart, Brooks, Mulgrew and Backula. What is unique about the role (other than the fact that she is the second female lead and the first black woman to helm a Trek series) is that her character–First Officer Michael Burnham–is NOT the captain of the starship that serves as the setting of the series. That distinction goes to Jason Isaacs who will play Captain Lorca.

Sonequa Martin-Green

Burnham is the new “Number One” and the writers tell us that Lorca will refer to her by that title. So Martin-Green’s character is actually stepping into the boots previously filled by Spock, Riker, Commander Kira, and Chakotay–yet she is still the series lead. This will have profound implications for how the stories on Discovery unfold.

First, let us dispense with the notion that this is a gimmick, that Lorca will be killed off early and Burnham will assume command. Part of the show’s concept and approach seems to be predicated on the lead not being in command. The entire point is to create a pathway for a different kind of storytelling in the Trek universe. Martin-Green herself recently said, “it’s going to open up so much potential for new storylines because not being the captain automatically gives you a different perspective.” At least for the first season, and possibly for more or all of the series run, Burnham will not be captain. (Only Voyager writers would introduce a character one way only to reverse themselves by the end of the first episode–see Maquis, Chakotay.)

So how different will Discovery be?

The Captain’s Speech

In most previous Trek series, the way you knew the episode was coming to a close was because the captain gave a dramatic speech summing up the moral of the story. I exaggerate, but only a little. At the climax of the first episode of The Original Series, Kirk gave the very first Kirk Speech about Gary Mitchell becoming a god: “And what will Mitchell learn in getting there? Will he know what to do with his power? Will he acquire the wisdom? … Did you hear him joke about compassion? Of all else, a God needs compassion.” This pattern continued in many future episodes. In future series the pattern was replicated with the Picard speech, the Janeway speech, and (shudder, shudder) the Archer speech. Deep Space Nine was more democratic in who got to moralize: Sisko had some important speeches, but more often than not the honor went to Kira, Odo, and even Quark–and frequently the moral was so ambiguous that the episode ended in silence because no one knew quite what to say.

How will Discovery handle this Trekian tradition?

The traditional route would be for Burnham to be given the speechifying role, making her the moral center of the show. This begs the question: who will she be speechifying to? Will it be Lorca, in his ready room, and then he goes onto the bridge and gives the orders she has talked him into giving? 

Another option is to have Lorca give the dramatic speeches, but unlike all the other series, position him to be in the wrong, or at least voicing opinions that Burnham disagrees with.

A third option is to dispense with the speeches altogether. Unless the writers are aiming for DS9-level ambiguity, this could mean that Discovery will emphasize plot and action over theme. I’m not sure how you maintain Trekian theme-based storytelling without a character to give voice to those themes. Though they might surprise us with a creative solution.

In any case, the question of who gets to make the speeches will be something to look for in the first episodes.          

The Center Seat

In every Trek series, power is situated in the captain. He or she is the one who makes the decisions and gives the orders. All the other characters, no matter how skilled or interesting or well-loved they are by fans, revolve around the captain. The viewer will eventually always look to the captain for the solution to the story because he or she always makes the final call by nature of their position at the top of the chain of command. This will be no different on Discovery, which is what makes the Burnham’s lead status so intriguing: what kind of stories can be told when someone other than the lead gets to make all the decisions?

Keep in mind this is not a ‘lower decks’ situation where the lead is toiling away down in the astro-metrics lab, taking part in stories where the command crew is not central to the plot. Burnham is the first officer, positioned right beside the captain on the bridge. She will be in the middle of the action, integral to the main mission of the ship along side the captain. And yet–somehow–we are supposed to pay more attention to her than to him. I am not suggesting it is impossible. But this is the challenge the writers have set out for themselves, and it promises to make for a refreshing new take on a 50-year-old formula.

There is the ‘bad captain’ theory, wherein Lorca is designed to be the type of captain that we do not look to for the solution or the right answer–either because he is morally corrupt, or merely incompetent. In this case, the narrative tension rests on how Burnham handles situations where she has the right solution but is unable to act on it, or has to convince Lorca to act on it.

There is the ‘good captain’ theory, wherein Burnham idolizes Lorca. Here the narrative tension would rest on her struggles to live up to his standards, to make him proud of her.

In both of those scenarios, Burnham will still be stuck in Lorca’s orbit (and Martin-Green in Isaacs’s). Perhaps the series will slyly challenge the audience’s Trek (and other more engrained) biases by forcing us to turn our gaze from the white man in power to the black woman at his side. Yes, he is in the center seat and he gets to make the decisions, but the true drama and the real story is in her. That would be a radical change, and it would be a welcome updating of Trek’s long tradition of inclusivity and social commentary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Week 11: March 31-April 6

Despite the fact that Trump told reporters he has had the best first 13 weeks of any president, Week 11 was …

Russia

The week began with Sean Spicer doubling down–quadrupling down?–on Trump’s wiretapping claim: “But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day.”

The Devin Nunes chapter of this saga may have reached its climax and conclusion this week. We learned that the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting a review of ‘unmasking’ identities in intelligence reports that happened during the final months of the Obama Administration. He found out that Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice requested some names unmasked. APPARENTLY, this was the bombshell that Coehn-Watnick passed on to Nunes, the evidence that made Nunes jump out of his Uber and go to the White House, and then the following day pretend to brief the President on evidence already in his possession, which then allowed Trump to say his wiretapping claim was “partially vindicated.” While unmaking names in intelligence is routine, Rice denied compiling and leaking the names of Trump officials.

Then on Thursday, the House Ethics Committee said that Nunes’s stunt “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.” He promptly recused himself from the Russia investigation.

We also learned this week that the CIA had evidence of Russia aiding Trump earlier than previously understood. This in an important piece of the tic-tock that is being assembled to paint the full picture of what happened during the 2016 election.

Palace Intrigue

The Washington Post paints an interesting picture of an increasingly lonely, isolated Trump who lacks true allies in Washington.

Trump donated some of his annual salary to the US Park Service, although not by enough to make up for the millions his budget cuts out from the same organization. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump has revised the terms of his blind trust that allows him to withdraw money whenever he lives and without telling the public, which ethics experts say may pose conflicts of interest going forward.

Trump, at the request of National Security Advisor McMaster, removed Stephen Bannon from the National Security Council. Apparently he will still be allowed to attend meetings, which is still unprecedented for a political aide.

WaPo has a report on Bannon’s internecine office warfare with other White House staff, namely Kushner and Gary Cohn, whom he calls “Democrats.” While the first half of these 11 weeks have been marked by Bannon’s ascendence, by the end of Week 11 rumors were thick that he was about the be fired.

Health Care & Congress

There was a last minute shuffle on the American Health Care act this week (apparently requested by Preibus, who wanted even a symbolic win on health care before the Congress goes home for a two week recess). Politico reported that the push by Mike Pence failed because it was perceived by the GOP moderates and the Freedom Caucus that the White House was making different, even oppositional promises to the different groups.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is taking the lead on tax reform legislation, not wanting to repeat the congressional bungling of health care. However, they do not have a consensus yet on how to proceed.

On Thursday, Mitch McConnel broke the Democrats filibuster of Gorsuch by abolishing the filibuster rule for Supreme Court judges. Here is a good op-ed by E.J. Dionne that explains why Democrats chose to filibuster Gorsuch.

Syria

The Trump administration’s views on Syria went on a roller coaster ride this week. Warning: Reading these three articles in order may cause whiplash.

Saturday (4/1): White House Accepts ‘Political Reality’ of Assad’s Grip on Power

Tuesday (4/4): For Trump, A Focus on US Interests and a Disdain for Moralizing

Wednesday (4/5): Trump’s View of Syria and Assad Altered after ‘Unacceptable’ Chemical Attack 

Thursday (4/6): Trump ordered one of Assad’s airfield hit with tomahawk missiles.

 

Posted on

6 Reasons to Filibuster Gorsuch

  1. Gorsuch is a partisan. He will rule in ways that go against Democratic interests and voters. That by itself is not a reason to filibuster, which leads us to…
  2. Gorsuch was dishonest about his partisan judicial philosophy during his confirmation. By refusing to answer even basic questions, he comes off as a judge with something to hide. If he was centered by a judicial philosophy that leans to the right, why not just say so (as Scalia did) while also trying to convince the public that he will give everyone a fair hearing. By repeatedly refusing to explain his perspective on settled cases and how he might apply them, it indicates he knows exactly how he will apply them (or discard them) but is afraid to tell us. That is very concerning, but would not be enough to filibuster.
  3. In this partisan era, we cannot expect the Supreme Court not to be drawn into the fray. Unlike the left, the right has been grooming a generation of conservative judges to make it through the nomination process without detection. Democrats can choose this moment to drop the charade that this can be a bipartisan process. There is little indication the public cares that much about senate voting rules regarding court nominations. And yet, that would still not be reason enough to blow up Senate tradition and usher in an era of pure partisan Supreme Court nominations. Which leads us to…
  4. It would not be Democrats who blew up Senate tradition, but Mitch McConnell. He’s the one who will have to lower the 60 vote threshold to 51. This will make the body he loves less powerful vis-a-vis the executive. It will harm its ability to form coalitions and build consensus. This will be the price (political, historical and moral) that McConnell will have to pay for gambling Merrick Garland’s seat on an election year bet. He won that bet and will get Gorsuch, but Democrats are obligated make him face the cost. The GOP cannot just get away with it, and the only way to check them, however weakly, is to return partisan fire with partisan fire. See Reason #3: Democrats cannot be expected to be the only political party that plays fair on the judiciary. The GOP offered up Garland to Obama as a ‘consensus candidate‘ back when they did not have enough senators to block a Kagan or Sotomayor. It will be a generation before a president nominates someone from the non-partisan mainstream. History will record that Obama was the last president to nominate a centrist, and McConnell will be the reason why. After the resulting mess, that history lesson might convince a new class of politicians to cool the partisan fever. Yet there is an even more strategic reason to filibuster…
  5. If Democrats wait, McConnell will not hesitate to change the rules next time he gets the chance (if Kennedy retires this summer). If Democrats filibuster now, and McConnell changes to majority rules, Kennedy may be less likely to retire. He may want to avoid putting his seat into the middle of the political firestorm where Trump will have more unfettered power to select his replacement. And if that were not enough…
  6. At all costs, screw Trump.
Posted on

Week 10: March 24-30

Healthcare

On the first day of Trump’s 10th week in office, his promise to repeal Obamacare collapsed. One of the dramatic elements of Friday, which some of us followed by the minute on Twitter, was Trump’s demand that Paul Ryan force a vote that they will surely lose just so Trump can force members of Congress to go on record against him; at the last hour he backed off from a showdown.

Here is New York Time’s UpShot Blog on how Trump might proceed helping or hurting Obamacare going forward. And here is the Wall Street Journal’s take on potential next steps.

Here is Washington Post’s account of the legislative defeat: The Closer.

Here is a transcript of Trump’s call to WaPo journalist Bob Costa immediately after Ryan pulled the bill. He launches the talking points that this bill failed because no Democrats supported it.

Politico has a great piece that explains how and why Trump and Ryan’s American Health Care Act was so deeply flawed that it had no chance of passage. And Nate Silver makes the case that Trump does not have a mandate from his voters to enact Paul Ryan’s legislative agenda.

Six days after defeat, Trump finally unloads a Twitter screed against the conservative Freedom Caucus, threatening to support primary challenges of them if they do not get on board with his agenda.

Finally, David Frum in The Atlantic reminiscing this week over how he was fired from a conservative think tank back in 2010 for predicting that Obamacare would never be repealed: The Republican Waterloo.

Russia Stuff

Devin Nunes had a rough week. Here is a good WaPa profile of his history in politics, and of his previous connections to Trump. These were published over the weekend, a few days after his bizarre White House press conference last Wednesday where he revealed he had seen intelligence that some people in the Trump campaign had been “unmasked” in surveillance reports. By Monday, House Democrats where asking him to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Then on Thursday NYTimes named the two White House officials who called Nunes to the White House last Tuesday evening and gave him the intelligence reports. Then WaPo reported that it was actually three White House officials.

We learned that Trump Administration sought to block Obama era DOJ official Sally Yates from testifying before the House investigative committee. It looks like they got Nunes to cancel her hearing so that they did not have to publicly invoke executive privilege to block her.

The Senate Intelligence Committee started it’s hearings this week. Senators Burr and Warner are clearly trying to present themselves as the adults in Washington. The first hearing on Thursday was dedicated to experts describing Russia’s “Active Measures” tactics both today and throughout the 20th Century. Also, the Senate committee announced that they will be questioning Jared Kushner soon.

Wall Street Journal had another bizarre story about Michael Flynn. He participated in forming a plot to return a Turkish national back to Turkey (where he is wanted by Erdogan) in an illegal manner that circumvented around extradition laws. The plot was not carried out. On Thursday Flynn’s lawyers said that Flynn would testify before the House and Senate committees in exchange for immunity.

In other news, Trump signed executive orders designed to start rolling back Obama’s climate change program.

 

Posted on

Week 9: March 17-23

So ends the 9th Week of the Trump presidency. A LOT has happened since last Friday. Here is the rundown.

His 9th week began last Friday with the release of Trump’s budget and the visit from Germany’s Chancellor Merkel.

There were a few minor international incidents that the White House caused during the Merkel visit. Michael Gerson summarizes them here: “…the diplomatic bloopers reel of the past few days has been played — the casual association of British intelligence with alleged surveillance at Trump Tower; the presidential tweets undermining Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during his Asia trip; and the rude and childish treatment given the German chancellor. When President Trump and Angela Merkel sat together in the Oval Office, we were seeing the leader of the free world — and that guy pouting in public.”

Trump also released his budget this week: an increase in military and homeland security (the wall) spending, no changes to entitlements, and massive cuts to other discretionary spending. There was a lot of reporting about how those cuts would hit rural and poor swaths of the country very hard. Republicans in Congress said they would not include all of Trump’s program cuts in the final budget.

After the weekend passed, two recurring Trump themes became prominent:

Russia

On Monday, FBI Director Comey finally spoke publicly. Takeaways: he is investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia ties, and there is not evidence of the Obama Administration surveilling the Trump campaign.

The New York Times wrote a piece about how Trump’s defenders are finding it more difficult to justify his tweets and more outlandish statements. The article contained this stunning line: “People close to the president say Mr. Trump’s Twitter torrent had less to do with fact, strategy or tactic than a sense of persecution bordering on faith.”

Then on Wednesday, Chairmen of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunnes made the bizarre move of going to the press and then to Trump with new evidence all without telling the rest of his committee what he had found. It spurred Trump to declare that he was partially vindicated in his wiretapping claim. The Democratic co-chair Adam Schiff said that the Committee may no longer be able to do its work. And John McCain said that Congress can no longer handle the responsibility of an investigation and there needs to be an independnet select committee to do the job.

Also on Wednesday night CNN released a story claiming evidence of Trump associates colluding with Russia during the campaign. It’s a very smoky story–no actual, specific fire–but I am posting it in case it turns out to have been significant.

Healthcare

The week began (and ended) with the waffling sense that the GOP just might pass the American Health Care Act but that they probably would not. This sensation was alive and well on Thursday (the 7th anniversary of the passage of Obamacare) when Paul Ryan was going to put the bill up for a vote, but because he did not have the votes it was postponed until Friday. Several last-minute modifications and deal-sweetners were added. Amid the wheeling and dealing, the New York Times ran this profile of a self-doubting Trump on the eve of the vote. Even on Friday, there was a palpable possibility that it might pass. But by the afternoon Ryan went to the White House–almost at the start of his 10th week on the job to the hour –and told him they had to pull the bill. This was 22 days after Rand Paul and others roamed the basement of the Capital Building looking for the secret reading room where Paul Ryan was showcasing his new health care bill to some of his members.

Here is Ezra Klein this Thursday with a piece that hedged bets the ACHA might pass: it argues that passing this bill into law would be Trump’s Iraq War. Turns out it won’t be.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Week 8: March 10-16

Week 8 began with more fallout from Trump’s wire-tapping cliams: McCain called on Trump to retract the claim.

Sean Spicer tried to convince everyone that Trump did not actually mean wiretapping literally. And the Justice Department requested more time from the congressional investigations to prove that wiretapping actually occurred.

This resulted in: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) threatened to subpoena the Trump administration to produce evidence of Trump’s claim, and congressional Republicans lined up to deny Trump’s claims.

Also, Democrats on the investigative committees said that they would abandon the bipartisan committees if they believed the Republicans were not holding an open and unbiased pursuit of the truth of what happened in the 2016 election.

In health care news, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that Paul Ryan and Trump’s American Health Care Act would result in 24 million people losing their health insurance. This Politico story is essential to understanding the reasons GOP are rushing the passage of the bill. And here is conservative David Frum arguing–for the uptenth time–how Republicans can win by making their peace with Obamacare.

Trump released his budget this week. Here is a good summary by the Wall Street Journal, and how the GOP Congress will probably rewrite most of it.

The week ended with yet another nation injunction of Trump’s travel ban, and how the legal argument is resting on Trump’s campaign pledge to ban Muslims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Bernie Sanders in West Virginia

It is becoming an article of faith among the progressive left that the struggling working class, the poor, and people from declining rural communities would vote for progressive left politicians if only they were told (or permitted to hear) about all the ways progressive policies would benefit their lives.

This is why MSNBC host Chris Hayes and Bernie Sanders came to McDowel County last week. The town hall covered issues from joblessness, to the opioid epidemic, to health care–or, as the coal miner on the panel continuously called it, “hospitalization.” As a West Virginian I was glad to see Appalachian people speaking in their own voices instead of being used as a backdrop. Yes, Hayes and Sanders were using them as a bit of a backdrop for their message directed at Democratic power brokers and those viewers in their urban/costal bubbles, but even as a backdrop those people looked pretty normal and reasonably diverse: not the poor, dumb, violent, racist rubes of the stereotype.

bernie-sanders-wv

But if Sanders and other Democrats want to earn the votes of those people–not the people in this picture who chose to go to a Bernie Sanders town hall, but most everyone else in a state where 68% of the population voted for Trump–they will need to say something more than Sanders said here. To win here again left-leaning politicians will need a more clearcut jobs plan, which is something that neither the progressive left nor the establishment Democrats have figured out.

Some political history: West Virginia was a Democratic state for decades because most of the households were headed by people who worked blue color jobs in industries like mining or manufacturing. Over time institutional systems evolved to protect the wealth and the rights of those workers over the heretofore unbridled interests of their employers. These institutions, of which unions were a major player, channeled political power into the Democratic Party. From the Depression until 2000, the state voted for a Republican presidential candidate only three times. But by 2000 most of those blue-collar jobs had gone away, and the Democrats’ political power has been crumbling ever since. (When I was growing up all our Congressional reps were Democrats; now only one is–Joe Manchin–and he only got there by blowing holes in copies of Barack Obama’s legislation with a shotgun).

An important part of this story–one that progressives like Sanders should heed–is that the conservative message taps deep chords here: self-reliance; self-determination; the dignity of building something with your own hands; faith; kin. Not least of these is freedom. I do not mean the bumper sticker/flag-label platitude, but the kind of freedom you learn young while walking through the tall trees to the top of the ridge and you see all the other ridge lines rippling around you to the maroon horizon and not a soul in sight.

There can be no successful political message in Appalachia that does not hit these notes.

The Racism Explanation & Comparison to the Left in Europe

Some assume that racism and xenophobia are primary drivers pushing non-urban voters to the right. Even charitable versions of this view push the idea that the right is able to win with a message of fear. Fear of loss. Fear of the other.

Zack Beauchamp of Vox explores why the progressive left in Europe has been unable to win over populist, nativist voters with pure economic policies: “a party’s stance on economics isn’t very important to right-wing populist voters. People choose to back those parties because they want someone to shut down immigration and restrict the rights of Muslims, not because of those parties’ stances on trade or welfare spending.”

He points out that in Britain, the Labor party–under Jeremy Corbyn, who is compared more to Jill Stein than Bernie Sanders–has gone back to its socialist roots and is more unpopular than ever: “During Corbyn’s leadership, the far right has gained influence on UK politics, not lost it. Corbyn’s policy platform hasn’t stemmed the spread of anti-immigrant populism, and the Tories have made restricting immigration a central part of their agenda. Corbyn himself is now pandering to the right wing; he ordered Labour MPs to vote to begin the Brexit process in Parliament. And his numbers keep falling and falling. Left-wing politicians and writers insist that populist policies would win back disenchanted voters. In Britain, the exact opposite has happened.”

The argument goes that populist, nativist voters care most about protecting their cultural heritage, which they view as under threat. They do not really care about excessive government spending or overreach, unless that government spending and overreach is perceived to benefit people that do not belong to their cultural heritage.

Bringing it back to America, Beauchamp says this explains some of Trump’s appeal. Not only that, but the populist, nativist elements of Trumpism are built on decades of conservative opposition to government spending on the grounds that the money may benefit minorities, particularly black folks. While that may be hard to accept for some (and a big fat “duh” for others) he has a graph that charts how much each state has spent on welfare: the whitest states spend the most, and the states with large black populations spend the least.

Artboard_11_2x

The implication is that if Democrats think they can go into “Trump Country” and promise health care and free college and redistribution from the top 1%, it might not win the nativist voters because 1) those voters might suspect minorities will benefit from that redistribution; and 2) populist right-wing politicians might begin promising the same redistribution for the sole benefit of white people (the emerging populist wing of the GOP is already pushing Trump to scrap Paul Ryan’s health care bill and replace it with a Medicare-for-all type program).

It is simply wrong that rural voters and the disaffected working class are driven to the GOP by racism and fear. Some of them are, but it is far from the main driver for most voters. In Appalachia specifically there are many myths about Appalachian whiteness that cast white residents in both heroic and villainous racial roles. Read a great analysis of these in Elizabeth Catte’s essay for 100 Days in Appalachia, a news page dedicated to covering Appalachian issues in the Trump era. 17% of Appalachian residents consider themselves an ethnic or racial minority (9% are black, 4% are hispanic). In the 1990s, 48% of the people who moved into Appalachia from somewhere else were non-white. Undoubtedly, some of these non-white Appalachians voted for Trump.

Job, Jobs, Jobs

For any in the progressive left who think West Virginia is ripe for the picking, consider two bills working their way through the state legislature right now. One would allow people to opt out of vaccinating their children based on religious conviction. Another would reduce the number of mine safety inspections from 4 a year to practically zero. This is a deeply conservative state. But Democrats can get a hearing here if they have a clearer jobs message.

Progressives tend to think that they can win with the message of “sticking it to the man,” of a rigged economic game, and promises to tax the wealthy for the benefit of the non-wealthy. Sanders’s main campaign plank was to break up the big banks. This can be a rousing message in West Virginia where most people know the history of our vast natural wealth taken out from under us and hauled out of the state. The tyranny of the Company Store is within living memory for most of us, passed down from our parents and grandparents who lived in coal camps.

So this progressive message at a stump speech might solicit cheers from a crowd of struggling working class people, but it soon begins to ring hollow. When it comes to their main concerns, this message passes like a sugar high and leaves them feeling empty. It is low-calorie politics.

I imagine one of these voters leaving such a rally thinking the following thoughts: “Ok, break up the big banks and spread the money around. Great. But after I drop off my kid at free childcare, what do I do with myself for the rest of the day? What job do I go to? I’ll get regular checkups with health insurance, but what is the great purpose in my life that my health is supposed to be in the service of? I can send my kid to tuition-free college, or even myself, but what’s the point of reading all those textbooks if I don’t know what career we’re supposed to enter when we graduate?”

These questions need to be answered. To do so, progressives need to become less allergic to supporting business interests and job creation. (The fact that left-wing parties in Europe are going in the other direction and becoming more socialist is an indication that the allergy is strong). Conservatives don’t have a clear 21st Century jobs plan either. Slashing regulations and taxes requires too much faith on the part of the voter that Help Wanted signs will magically appear as a result.

We need clear, straightforward, step-by-step plans for building new industries and new jobs within old industries. This will require new thinking, heavy doses of local knowledge, and probably a new class of politicians. Whoever figures this out first will do well in “Trump Country.” As Sanders knows–and as Trump has proven–if you can win in McDowel County, you are going to walk away with vast swaths of the rest of the country behind you. Maybe the future leader who will solve this riddle of jobs is living there right now.

 

 

 

Posted on

Star Trek Discovery will be a Different Kind of Trek than we are used to, Part I

With CBS’s new Trek series, Star Trek is about to be updated to suit modern TV tastes and expectations. This bodes will for its success, but long-time fans need to prepare ourselves for just how different it will be.

To be sure, a lot will feel familiar: the costumes, the sets, the props, the dialogue. There are many early clues that even the classic Trekian themes will be on full display, despite our fears that CBS would try to go dark and nihilistic with a Game-of-Thrones-in-space knock off.

No, what will be different is much deeper than the color of the paint on the deck plates and the Klingon make up. It is the narrative structure undergirding the story that will be unlike anything we have seen on Trek in its 50 year history.

Two main reasons, the first of which I will discuss in this essay.

Like most streaming shows, DISCOVERY will have serialized seasons of 13 episodes. Each season will tell a primary, contained story. All of the episodes will be connected. There will be numerous story lines all woven together.

This is how most shows are written these days, but Trek was never like this. With all five previous Trek series, each episode told a contained story built around a theme or sci-fi concept or character exploration. The episode ended with the ship sailing off into space, and when we saw it again in the next episode it was as if that previous episode never happened. The idea that characters seldom changed for good–despite whatever bizarre or traumatic thing happened in any given episode–is widely mocked as the Reset Button. But it was how the writers and the studios wanted it, so that the episodes could be rerun in no particular order for syndication. (There is one striking example of serialization on TNG. The episode after Picard was assimilated by the Borg had him returning to his childhood home so his family could help him cope with the trauma, and I’ve heard that Roddenberry hated the idea.)

Today I think everyone is aware of the benefits of season-long serialization: richer and more complex character arcs; more dramatic stories with higher stakes. But there is one drawback that might sting Trek fans in particular. The concept of The Episode may lose its meaning in fandom. Most serialized shows, especially genre shows, do not really have episodes: they are 13-hour movies with credit sequences arbitrarily dropped in every 50 minutes or so. If Star Trek fandom is based on any common bond it is this phrase: “Remember that episode when…?” It is easy to remember that one where Kirk fought the Gorn; when Spock mind melded with the pizza-rug alien; when the crew got space drunk; when Picard was assimilated; when the crew got caught in a time loop and kept reliving the same day; when Beverly made love with a space ghost, and on and on… (I remember having these conversations when there were precious fewer aired Trek episodes than there are now!).

With DISCOVERY, this may no longer be possible. If it is one gigantic story that rolls into itself through each episode, it will be impossible to recall later where one episode ended and the other began. Not impossible–fans are known for their fastidious memory–but it will be pointless. And we DS9 fans know this. DS9 was worlds and away more serialized than any other Trek show, or any other genre show of its era. Most episodes were stand alone, but each season had a contained story arc. There were two instances where a string of episodes were fully serialized: the first six of Season 6, and the final nine episodes of the final season. These were wild rides to be sure, and exciting at the time and upon re-watch, but none of the actual episodes stand out in my memory. You recall the grand sweep–retaking the station from Dukat; defeating the Dominion and ending the war–but the particulars are all a muddle.

For a moment, just indulge a comparison of the DS9 finale and the TNG finale. TNG ended with a powerful but quiet moment: Picard sitting down with his crew at the poker table, having fully absorbed a lesson that was a theme of this one episode. DS9 ended with Sisko casting an ancient Bajoran holy book into an ancient Bajoran fire cave, the significance of which required many of the previous 8 episodes to understand. DS9’s finale did not quite work. It’s not that I am against complex stories. But when the writers know they have 9 or 13 hours of story to tell, they tend to focus on plot above all else. How else are you going to fill the time? When you know you have only 45-50 minutes, good writers first think of theme and character, and make sure the plot serves those ends. This is the danger of serialized seasons.

Star Trek has always been its best in those small moments of revelation brought about by a tightly focused 45-minute story. I’m not suggesting DISCOVERY will not pull off similar moments of revelation, but it may be delivered in a different way than we are used to.

It is said that TV series today are like novels. You do not think back on a novel and say, “I loved that chapter.” Instead, you loved the whole book and you recall certain scenes or moments fondly. Star Trek used to be like an anthology of short stories, and you could savor (or hate) particular outings. This is no more.

By the way: Mad Men is the only show I know of that successfully bridged this divide. Show runner Matthew Weiner’s directive was the each episode must be a self-contained story, and yet each episode was seamlessly serialized with the one before and after it, constructing a season-long story arc. DISCOVERY should follow this model.

One last point: There is also the impact on characterization. A series made of stand-alone episodes sacrifices having evolving characters and complex arcs in exchange for character-centric episodes. The writers say: “We’re not going to do anything shocking or radical with Scotty or Chekov or Data or Beverly or Geordie, or even Kirk, Spock, Riker or Picard, but we will devote entire episodes to them.” This will not happen with any of DISCOVERY’s 13 episodes. By my count there are now over 10 announced important characters. This will be a true ensemble, with some getting more screen time than others. The 3rd or 4th or 5th-tier cast member might get their own big part in a story line, but they will not get their own episode all to themselves. With only 13 episodes (compared to 24) there simply isn’t time.

Next up, I will explore more about one fascinating aspect of DISCOVERY’s characters, and one that will also be a radical break form all previous Trek: The captain is not the lead character, or rather the lead character will not be the one sitting in the center seat making all the decisions. How can this work?