The Seldon Crisis Continues

Law, Philosophy, Politics, , ,
Foundation

With all that has happened the past week and a half I thought it was good to point out how the Seldon Crisis I’ve been blogging about is progressing. For you who are still unclear on just what a Seldon Crisis is just follow the link. What I’m seeing now is part of a Seldon Crisis is one of the internal half of the crisis. With the release of the Mueller Report (redacted) and the demand of the House Judiciary Committee for both the complete report and all of the underlying data.

The action taken Pres. Trump to place everything and everyone dealing with the subject of the report under Executive Privilege I agree with Chairman Jerry Nadler that we are interning a Constitutional Crisis.

Time out for a disclaimer

I am not a Constitutiona scholar, nor lawyer. I am merely a long time student (49 years and counting). So anyone who is either a scholar or lawyer of the Constitution please jump in with your views, just be sure and identify your selves as such. I will listien very attentively. Everyone else be ready for possible snark.

Back to the blog

I have been thru two Presidential impeachment investigation, Nixon and Clinton. Neither was fun or the least bit enjoyable. One, Nixon, was successful even though Pres. Nixon was never tried in the Senate. An while the impeachment of Pres. Clinton was successful he was not convicted by the Senate. Also both were very different from each other. Both in how the investigations leading up to Impeachment and how the House voted on the impeachment. Also both Nixon and Clinton Impeachment’s are very different from the situation we are facing now.

I shan’t be going into all the details of the involved with Pres. Trump and the possible impeachment he is facing. Primary because I’m going to wait till actual impeachment hearings, if any, are being held to write several blogs here. I’m not even sure there will be hearings, much less a vote. But equally important to me is that we have a very important legal/political batter shaping up.

The battle is not the one you will see in the News/Media. It is none the less critical. I’m talking about the proper way for the congress to enforce it’s subpoena power. Historically we have two ways of enforcing a congressional subpoena. Once, over a hundred years ago the House, or Senate, would send out it’s Sargent at Arms to ‘arrest’ the person(s) who was defying subpoena. Now we turn everything over to the justice department. In the current situation this would come of nothing an be bothering more that a bit of Political Kabuki. Some think that this is just what the House Democrats are working for. Some people also think that this is just what the Trump White House is expecting. Me, I think some people are quite wrong.

If this whole battle ends up as a bit of political Kabuki I will be very disappointed in the House leadership (both parties) as this will lead to the effect end of congressional investigations and oversight. What I’m hoping for is that the actual people who are served with the subpoena(s) will defy the orders of the White House and will comply with the subpoena(s). I do not expect this. What I do expect is that the House will clean up it’s holding cell (I hear it is quite disreputable) and then send their Sargent at Arms out to arrest those person(s) who are defying them.

I wait with baited breath to see if we will have Kabuki or action.

What has A.G. Barr sold his Soul For

General, Politics, , ,

“[] it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world…..but for Wales?”

Some of you may recognize that the quote above is from “A Man for all Seasons”. I think it is quite appropriate to ask just what AG Barr has sold both is reputation and, possibly his friendship with Mueller, for. After yesterdays performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he lied, obfuscated, and figuratively threw his longtime friend Robert Mueller under the bus I think it is well for us to ask just what is he getting out of this. After all this is the age of transactional politics, or so says Pres. Trump.

Tit for tat, this for that, nobody does anything for nothing. Everything can be monetized, even ethics and morality when dealing with the Trump Whitehouse and, now a am afraid the GOP. It has been over 45 years since an USAG has placed himself in legal jeopardy like this (See John Mitchel and the Watergate Scandal). I want to know just what AG Barr is getting out of it. At least with Richard Rich we know he was getting a title in Wales to sell his principals to support Henry VIII. Or maybe I am doing AG Barr a disservice here. Maybe he is standing up for principal.

Maybe he truly holds that the President is above the law, at least when it comes to obstruction of justice. Maybe he truly believes that because there was no demonstrable collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian agents it is no big deal that the Russian government proactively acted to influence the results of the 2016 election. So someone may or may not have hacked election computers systems of one or more states, so what? No one has shown it effected the results so no harm, no foul. Maybe it is he holds that “Winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing.” An it doesn’t matter what you do if you win, just win.

I put it to you, it really doesn’t mater from a practical since, both are equally horrendous and AG Barr has to go. It is time for the House of Representatives to start looking into forcing William Barr to leave the United States Attorney Generals office. If he did for the first reason, he is corrupt. If he did it for the second, he is immoral and unethical. An while it does matter in the long run, in the short run we, the people, need to do the same thing. So write your Congress people, House and Senate, Democrat or Republican and tell them that AG Barr has to go. If you don’t then don’t complain about how justice is done in this country in the future. Remember “We get the country we work for.”

Hypocrisy and Perspective: Part One

Philosophy, Politics, ,

Let us be perfectly clear from the start. I am a child of the 60’s. I turned 10 in 1961 and was 18 in 1969. An while I was anything but a hippie/flower child I was deeply influenced by the time. One of the most lasting was my total disdain of Hypocrisy and of lying. I was already predisposed to rejecting Hypocrisy because of my natural, if not instinctual, logic. Also i had close experience with someone who lied about everything and anything.

My first real exposure to the political Hypocrisy of the 50’s and early 60’s was in the 1964 election when I got a copy of “None Dare Call it Treason”. When my mother saw i was reading it she immediate directed me to other sources, news papers, encyclopedias, etc to fact check what the book said. I had already been shocked by the crushingly poor logic and reasoning of the book. It was not till years later when I was introduced to classic Greek logic was I to true comprehend the truly horrible work this book is. This is where I mark my life long crusade against Hypocrisy.

So why this post? Two reasons actually. According to the New York Post Pres. Trump has now told over 10,000 lies and we’re not talking about your run of the mill political lies, we’re talking about bald faced lies. Like the one he just told this week. You know the one (I shan’t repeat it here, it is too vial) about late term abortions. But this is not about Pres. Trump, he is just a symptom of what is wrong with what is known as the ‘conservative movement’. I’m not talking about your run of the mill Jack and Jill conservative, no. I’m talking about the true ‘movement conservatives’.

It is as hard to define a ‘movement conservative’ as it is easy to identify them when you see them. I’m also not going to get into the debate about “there are hypocrites on the left”. Anyone who studies the subject knows that hypocrisy and lying happen on both sides. No, what I’m going to be talking about is systemic hypocrisy of conservative thought and speech. This problem has existed in this country since it’s founding (I like to use the 3/5ths comprise as a starting point) and we have it with us still. There are several things we can use to detect hypocrisy in the ‘conservative movement’. I like to start with the use of euphemisms, most famous in our history is ‘particular institution’ for slavery. Euphemisms are still in vogue today, just consider “alternative facts” for lies (or to be more exact incorrect facts). Another diagnostic is the use of ill defined terms. Like Humpty Dumpty said “a word means exactly what I mean it to mean”. There is a simple experiment I like to perform with people who talk a lot about ‘Capitalism’, I tell them I have never really understood the term and you they kindly tell me what it actually means. 9 times out of 10 I find they have no clear idea either.

This brings me to my last diagnostic, perspective. By this I me just this. That which I like and approve of is “conservative” and good, right, and proper. An everything else is bad, evil, and improper. This has a very interesting effect on talking about ‘conservative movement’, anything less than full support becomes a personal attack. It is fundamentally impossible to have a rational talk with a ‘movement conservative’ because any questioning of the ideas expressed become a personal attack. An there is nothing you can do to change this.

Think on it. Next installment of this post I’ll go into how this works so well with classical logical fallacies, Hypocrisy, and what can de done about it.

A Study in History

Politics, , , , ,

I have a question for you….Do you remember the political party called The Federalists? Drawing a blank? Then let’s try something closer in time, how about The Wigs? Still nothing?

To start with The Federalists Political Party is not the POC or Think Tank known as the Federalist Society, it was “faction” (there were no political parties yet) that supported both Pres. Washington and Adams. (Follow the link provided if you want more details.) What is important about the Federalists is that after the 1800 election they knew they were going to be out of power so the both created a slew of judgeships and then appointed loyal Federalists to the judgeships. It was said by the Democratic-Republicans that John Adams stayed up all night of the last day of his presidency signing the papers for the judges.

So what does this have to do with today? Well…..for most of the last administration (Pres. Obama) the GOP has done to keep open as many federal judgeships as it can open (What was done to Merrick Garland was the most famous of these acts.) in hope that they would win in 2016. Well they did, and they got someone, Donald Trump, who could careless about getting good jurists. So now they have been filling all of these open judgeships as fast as they can. More often than not along straight party line votes. So what does this mean to us? Well the Federalists never won a major election again and by 1824 was no more. Strangely enough, that was just about the same time as all the Federalists judges had left office.

Hypothesis

Is a political party appointing large numbers of judgeships symptomatic of it eminent dissolution?

Now lets look at the Wigs. As shown in the link this is one of the political parties listed as succeeding The Federalists party. You may remember hearing about them when you studied the American Civil War and the rise of the Republican Party. So what does the Wigs have to do with todays Republicans? Simply that before they finally collapsed in 1860 their membership was shrinking for many many years in the decade of the 1850’s. Also they had a great deal trouble with extreme organizations like the “Nativist, or American Party, or Know Nothings. (To get a Hollywood view of Native party members see the Gangs of New York. Pay particular attention to Bill “The Butcher”.) The GOP seems to be having the same problem with things like the Libertarian party or the Freedom Caucus. So we have a political party with a shrinking and fracturing membership. How long can it stay a major player.

Hypothesis

Is the election of Donald Trump symptomatic of a moribund political party?

So we have two interesting hypothesis’ that are actually the same. Is the GOP moribund? How can we tell? What are symptomatic what are diagnostic? Any ideas for set or two of good tests or do we just need to sit and watch what happens.

It depends on what the word “Shall” means

General, Philosophy, Politics, , ,

Let me quite clear at the start; I am NOT a Legal scholar, nor a Jurist or Justice, nor even an attorney or  lawyer.  I am just a dedicated student of the both the Law, the Constitution and it’s history.  I do take no little pride in having been this for almost 50 years now.  Because of this I feel I can, with some trepidation put my two cents in.  I also look forward to anyone who is any of those things I said I wasn’t above to jump in an correct any error or misstatements I make here.  That said……

Given what the ‘new’ Attorney General Barr has said this week along with other persons in the Administration have said about turning over Pres. Trumps federal tax returns I am going to do something I haven’t done since November 2016. I’m going to make a prediction about what is going to happen politically. But first a little back story: 48 years ago when I started my study of the law (Business Law 101) on of the things Professor McNutt drilled into our heads was that words in the law often had very firm definition and usage. He started with two of the most, according to him, miss read words in the law. They are “will” and “shall”. I will not bother with all he told us about “will” as it is the word “Shall” that is going to be making all the news.

My prediction is this, that the IRS and/or the Treasury Dept. will refuse to supply the requested Tax returns of President Trump on one or mer grounds. The first, and I think most obvious, is that the Congress has no ‘ legitimate’ legislative purpose for see the documents. The second is that do to the separation of powers the law in question( 26 US Code 6103) can not be applied to the President. There maybe more but my knowledge of the subject is not great enough for me to venture deeper. Also just these two are more than enough to give SCOTUS a very severe case of heart burn.

I’m not going to even attempt to guess how the Court will rule, I’ll only say that both are set with many pitfalls and the Court is facing the real possibility of writing a decision to rival ‘Dread Scot’. As for myself I would like to see how things would evolve if the Court Rules that there are some laws that can not be applied to the President just because s/he is the President. Just what an author of apocalyptic SF needs to fill in the back story. I can just see it now, none of the executive branch needs to follow any of the laws passed by Congress because of the doctrine of the. Unitary Executive and no law can be applied to the President because of separations of powers.

I’m now going to make my prediction: it will take anywhere from 9 to 12 months for all of the challenges to the demand of the Congress to work it’s way up to the SCOTUS and the court will not issue anything till the last minute. I expect and hope the court will say Pres. Trump must comply and I expect Pres. Trump to stonewall it just like Pres. Andrew Jackson did. This would then give the House an actual impeachable act but not enough time before the election to actually impeach the President before the election.

Thought Experiment Time:

It is Wednesday 4 Nov 2020 and one of the following things has happened:

  1. Donald Trump has lost the election
  2. Donald Trump has won. The GOP has retaken the House and kept the Senate.
  3. Donald Trump has won. The Dems have kept the house and the GOP has kept the Senate
  4. Donald Trump has won and the Dems have taken both houses of Congress.

Now lets build our Apocalyptic future history.

Confirmation Bias and Politics

General, Philosophy, Politics, ,

“Please, in the name of God, consider the possibility of you being wrong”

With apologies to Oliver Cromwell.

For those who do not know, Comfirmation Bias is a psychological phenomenon that everyone who is in science in some way is trained to be on the lookout for. We are tought that it came happen to the best of of us. Not only to the sloppy, but to the most detailed and self-honest. It is not something bad, it is just a part of being human. We just have to except that it happens, except it, correct for it, and move on.

So what exactly is Confirmation Bias (CB)? Simple put it is the tendency to except as correct information, data, that supports a currently held option or belief (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias for more details). Because CB is always with us as we work and is so insidious and subtle the scientific method has come up with several procedures to counter it, the most well know is the Peer Review. The next is insisting that other researchers confirm our data/observations etc. The funny thing is CB is not something discovered by science. We have know about it for many thousands of years.

Ever since philosophers have started thinking about how we think and reason we have known about CB. One of the things early philosophers pondered is how we know what we know and how we know if it is true or not. Over the Millinnias we have developed many ways of deciding what is true, what to believe. In the since that all of these methods work in that we can decide what to believe and what not to believe most fail in that they don’t tell us what is true or not. The most fundamental problem in selecting a method of deciding what to believe is we have to have a method to make decision. Most, if not all humans start out the same way, we believe what our parents tell us and work out from there. (Unless you are like me and were born logical) Or parents tell us to believe what our teachers tell us, be they secular or religious. An this is where the problems start, we are told to believe what those authority figures tell us. To accept on ‘faith’.

While this works for religion and life philosophy it doesn’t do so well in the realm of politics. (See I did get around to it finally). Selecting an authority figure(s) in politics can be very hard. Why, because people will look for someone who will tell them what they like/want to hear. We all do. Who likes hearing uncomfortable things? It is much easier to listen to comfortable things, even when they are not true. This is where having a method for testing the validity of a statement comes in. Most folks don’t do this correctly.

Wait! I can hear you now saying “But I always look for support of what my political leaders are telling me.” An if you are like most folks who follow politics you do a fair job of finding that data/information. But this is where CB rears it’s seductive head. If you believe, or want to believe, something the CB becomes an issue. We need to look at any data/information that supports our position with a jondus eye, with supision. We must ask the question “Is this true or do I just wan’t It to be true?”

In this age of Facebook/Tweet and all the other social media we must be even more careful. Gone are the days (a hundred years ago) when you had a good idea what news you’d be reading in the “Daily Democrat, or the Workers News. How do you know just what is being told to you by the a blog like “Don’t Drink The KoolAid” or “Five Thirty Eight” or “Info Wars”? Well, one way is by recommendations from people you know and trust. Weak, but a place to start. You can do google searches on reviews, if you can find any and how do you know if they are real reviews. Remember this is the time of Trolls. Reviews can be faked as easily as anything else, even videos can’t be trusted anymore.

My recommendation is look for citations in everything. Look for independent confirmation of the posting. Once you find a news site, blog, what ever, you trust keep checking them when they report. The truely honest ones won’t mind (the dishonest one will say that but really don’t care) and if you find something you disagree with challenge them on it. Most won’t mind and many will love it. Just remember, you could be wrong.


A Greater Danger To Pres. Trump

Philosophy, Politics, , , ,

Since Friday I’ve been hearing a great deal about how the Mueller Report and/or the Barr Letter have eased, if not out right eliminated, any threat the Russian interference with the 2016 elections has for Trump or the GOP. I would beg to differ.

First let’s assume that the Mueller Report does clear the Trump Presidential campaign of any knowing cooperation with the Russians. Next lets also assume it show that no one in the campaign did anything that can be said to be obstruction of justice (this is a big assumption as some of the people involved in the campaign actually did do things publicly). This still doe not mean that the Report does not contain anything damaging to Pres. Trump, his family, his associates, or the GOP in general. What I’d like to suggest is that the Mueller Report contains evidence proving that some, if not all, of the GOP or the Trump group were and are “useful idiots”. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot )

Being seen as a Useful Idiot is a bigger danger to both the Trump Presidency and to the GOP than showing a few people in the Trump Campaign and/or Presidency knowingly cooperated with the Russian effort for a. Very simple reason. If they had, they could be ostracized as “bad” people who are not like everyone else in the party or administration. But being show to be Useful Idiots can and will taint both the Administration and the GOP as a whole.

Just consider this little ‘though Experiment ‘:

Cabinet member puts forth a ‘new’ and radical idea, say like defunding the Special Olympics. If the Mueller Report has show that a fair number of the Trump administration were co-opted as “Useful Idiots” by the Russians how can said Cabinet member defend themselves from the charge that they are still being used as “Useful Idiots” now?

Also, both administrations and political parties can survive and recover from corruption and/or criminal charges, even ones that have been proven true. What they can not survive is being shown to be both stupid and a laughingstock. If you don’t think the GOP isn’t worried about this just look at some of the hysteria going on in the Houes of Repressives right now. Look at what the Administration is doing now, like the No-plan plan to replace the ACA once the courts remove it. Or look at just what the Administration is doing about the massive flooding in the mid-west.

It is like one of my professors said “politicians can weather almost anything but being shown to being stupid”. I have said for many years that “In politics, stupidity is the only capital crime.”

Why the Barr Letter is not Sufficient

Politics, ,

Or why I want to see the Mueller Report

I think it has been sufficient amount of time since both the Mueller Report and the Barr Letter to put forth my views. I feel that the American people need to see as much of the Mueller report as possible. I think that the part of the report on just what the Russians did during the 2016 election is the most important part. The part about obstruction of justice, much less so. Why you ask?

Simple, AG Barr holds the view that the President of the United States, by definition, can not ‘Obstruct Jutice’. Given this view, Pres. Trump could come out today and say “yes, I wanted to prevent X from investigating/charging/etc. There for I’m directing all government agencies involved to ignore all activities of X”. An this would not be obstruction of justice. Period, Stop, Close Quotes. Therefor until the files of the Mueller investigation are made available, including any classified or Grand Jury documents are turned over to the appropriate House Committee(s) we, the American people need to just wait till 2020 when we can take action.

I am much more concerned with the activities of both the Russian Government and it nongovernmental interments in our 2016 election. We need to know not only exactly what they did but also how they did it. This needs a complete and through investigation, which, right now, I do not think we have. The Mueller investigation was tightly limited in its scope and until I see just what they did and how they did it I will not accept that the investigation is complete. If we, and by we I mean at least the House of Representatives, do not see all of the Russian interference with the 2016 election we will not know if a special commission is needed. Nor will we know if the Trump administration is taking the appropriate actions to counter any further actions by the Russians. Shoot – we won’t even know if any of the several states are taking the correct actions.

So, now we wait and see who does what when. As for me I’m going to do what ever I can to motivate the A.G. And the Congress to turn over to the Congress the complete, un redacted Mueller report. What about You?

Ending the Electoral College

Philosophy, Politics,
Constitution of the United States of America

For the past several weeks we have been hearing about getting ride of the Electoral College. This is not going to happen. Why do I say that so emphatically? With such certainty? Easily I know both why we have the Electoral College and just how hard it is to amend the Constitution. Let’s start with the hard and go to the why.

First, to amend the Constitution (see Article V) you need to get 2/3 of both houses of congress (292 in the House and 67 in the Senate) to agree to the amendment. Not easy to do. Don’t believe me just look into the history of the effort to repeal Prohibition, something much easier for people to understand. Next you need to get 2/3 (34) of the States to agree to the amendment. Just think about it for a moment, you are asking the 17 of the to give up that which makes their votes significant. You are asking them to accept the tyranny of the populous (read big) states.

So that is the hard, now the why. Why did we create the Electoral College in the first place? We did it because the low population states, states as different as South Carolina and New Hampshire. States who have only their small size in common. They were concerned that Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia could elect the president with just a little help from states like Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Additionally the writers of the Constitution were quite concerned about rule of the mob. They wanted some way to check the popular vote when it might select a demagogue. Except for state law Electors are free to vote for who ever they want. Even someone who was not even on the ballot. This have never been done but it is possible.

So, what can we do? Right now there is a movement to get the several States to pass a law that directs their Electors to vote for who ever wins the majority of popular vote nation wide. I do not agree with this just on principle. I do not like, fundamentally, ‘winner take all’ elections. I recommend a law that would proportion a state’s elector votes. This would still keep some protection for the small states while eliminating most of the problem we have now.

A Less than Rosy view of a Confederate Victory

General, Philosophy, Socioeconomic, , ,

Confederate Flag On Fire

For many years I have loved reading a form of Historical/Science fiction known as Alt-history. One of the more common themes is the “What if the South had won the American Civil War?” So far I have yet to read any that don’t show a Confederacy that is both economically and politically viable. My thought here is why?

I know that the authors of the story start out with the story idea and then work backwards to change history, but why always a Rosy or at least successful Confederacy? Why not a failed Confederacy? I ask this especially with the rash of post-apocalyptic story now being written. It is not as if it wouldn’t make for a great background.

Let’s just take a look at the problem a Confederacy winning would face. First is their own construction which give tacit, if not dejur, approval of a State leaving the Confederacy. Once the issue of abolition has been removed the issues separating the border slave states from the Plantation slave states. This problem has been touch one at least one ‘what-if’ (see “If the South had won the Civil war” by MacKinlay Kantor) where Texas leave the Confederacy. Assuming the maximum size of the Confederacy, giving them Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, I can see situations where one or more stares would leave the Confederacy.

Let’s move on to some of the problems that would face the CSA in the years following the end of the war to 1899. First and most recognized problem, even by the Planters of the time, is that both Cotton and Tobacco, the two cash crops that supported the southern economy, are very had on the land. Something the city Dwellers of the 21st century may not no is that there were no chemical fertilizers in the late 19th century. Once the land was worn out growing Cotten or tobacco all it might be good for is follow grazing land. An not very good grazing land at that. Don’t take my word for it, read up on the economic history of the old south in the latter half of the 19th century.

Now lets add in something else, the blights. The old south in our timeline suffered both the Cotton blight and the tobacco blight. These are just singleton bights either both cotton and tobacco suffered from both disease and insect bights. So now we get to the biggest problem economics for the south. When your agriculturally based economy falters what do you do with all those slave mouths you need to feed?

Let’s back here for just a moment and talk about the effect on slavery wining the civil war will have the ‘peculiar’ institution. Most just see the end to threat of abolition but lots more could happen. Like the end of the Underground Railroad. Most would say this is a good thing for slavery in the south. But stop and think about this; with the end of the Underground Railroad those slave who are most likely to lead slave revolts are no longer being removed from the south by running away. They are stuck in the south with no hope of freedom except revolting. This also means that both the National government of the Confederacy and the State governments are going to need to keep enough men under arms to suppress slave revolts befor they start. That will not be cheap.

Now add in an economic crash with very bad farming condition, little food, and you have the makings for a wonderful apocalypse. What do you do when you have a total glut on the market for slaves. Take a look at just how much of the wealth the Confederate States had tied up in slaves. Some estimates show a ‘prime’ field hand would go for $900+ gold. Now just think, what happens when you can’t give away a slave, that they are worth nothing, or just $100 (paper)?

Unlike live stock in this situation you just can’t kill them. You could try, but it would have to be done right or the slaves facing certain death or possible death revolting. Maybe the Confederacy might set up ‘colonization’ camp for “freed” slaves like the Nazi resettlement camps in Poland? Wouldn’t that make a dark world.

I would like to leave you with one more dark idea before I go. Imagine, if you will, a post 1900 America where all of the sites have either been killed or driven out of the Confederacy. That it is now a country based on agricultural economy, but working hard to industrialize, that like Israel today, welcomes any black but treats all whites as the deadliest of enemies. Say it is 1914. Which side of the Great War will both the USA and the CSA come in on? Both have good reason to hate and despise both Britain and France for their support of the ‘old’ white Confederacy.

Now, just why don’t we see stories like this? I don’t know. And before you say “Well if it is such a good idea, why don’t you write it?” I will just say this, when it comes to writing fiction “I suck big time”. My only thought on why we don’t have dark south winning is the massive influence on our thinking of the “Myth of the Lost Cause”. This myth has totally kept anyone from think about all of the flaws the antebellum south. It has papered over all of the fault lines in its culture so we find it hard to think about them. But they were there.

So, consider if you will……..