Supreme Court Agitprop

Supreme Court Viewed as Hostile to Religion,” by Mark Noonan, Blogs for Bush, 11 June 2005,

This except nicely complements my article on Academic Agitprop. The major difference is that the Academia agitation-propaganda is lagging by about a decade. Judicial agit-prop is much more advanced.

This new Rasmussen survey shows that 46% of those polled view the Supreme Court as hostile to religion; 23% view it as too friendly towards religion (I’d really like to talk to some of that 23% and find out what constitutes “too friendly”; apparently, it is allowing for the continued existence of religion). Given that a large majority of Americans are Christian (and among Christians, 52% view the Court as hostile), this is a worrisome development.

While our liberal friends are trying to sell the line that the judicial nominees of President Bush are extremists outside the mainstream, what the President is actually trying to do is restore a bit of balance to the judiciary. For too long now, judges have run roughshod over the beliefs of the people – and when that happens in a government by consent, such consent is eventually withdrawn. Right now, we see the consent in the process of being withdrawn – but the danger is if people don’t think they’ll get a fair hearing in the courts that they will seek redress by other means.

4th Generation Politics, an extension of war by other means.

Delusional Iraqi Arab Sunnis (Slouching Toward Lakotization)

5 Marines Killed, 4 Wounded, 21 Bodies Found, Sunnis Reject offer on Constitutional Committee ,” by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, 11 June 2005,

Juan Cole makes a startling comment in response to Sunni Arab demands that they (who boycotted) should get more seats at the Constitutional Convention than the Kurds (who participated in the election):

The Sunni Arabs want 25 additional seats, more than the 15 that the Kurds have. In part this demand reflects their unrealistic estimation of the size of their ethnic group. They often assert that Iraq has a Sunni Arab majority.

This may be one reason for the Sunni Arab boycott in election. If Sunni Arabs believe that they are an electoral majority, having a “Sunni Arab” list come in third would be evidence of massive fraud. So the Sunni Arabs could not have accepted the outcome of a free-and-fair election. Therefore, their leadership made them boycott, to prevent them from either perceiving a failed election or realizing the truth (and so isolating the Sunni Arab masses from the Sunni Arab leadership).

Of course, this would imply that the latest Sunni Arab gestures are just feints, and that a lakota option might be the only answer to the insurgency…

One last point from Dr. Cole:

In fact, Shiites probably form 62 percent and Kurds may be 18 percent. Given that Christians, Turkmen and some other small minorities make up 5 percent, Sunni Arabs could be as little as 15 percent of the population.

Which means that an ethnic chart of Iraq looks like:


For the sake of the 85% of Iraqis who are not Sunni Arab, how long do we let the daily murders go on? How long do we jeopardize the future of that 85% in an attempt to appease the fifteen-percenter rejectionists? We have lakotaed the Lakotas. We can lakota the Sunnis.

Chris Bowers on Political Demography

The Future of the Electorate, Part Two,” by Chris Bowers, MyDD, 11 June 2005,

Chris Bowers of MyDD runs the most intelligent, honest, self-critical partisan blog I know about. Earlier I mistook his frankness for strategic despair. It is not. It is a straight attempt to diagnose problems with the unsuccessful Democrat Coalition in order to fix them.

The latest bad news for Democrats..

Reading this piece led me to wondering about he age breakdown of the Latino vote. While we all know that Republicans gained among Latinos from 2000 to 2004, we also know that Democrats gained among younger voters from 2000 to 2004. Considering this, I thought that if Democrats had gained among young Latinos, which seemed reasonable considering their gains among other young voters, that they might actually be gaining among Latinos where it counts. It has become something of a truism around these parts that an individual’s voting patterns are fairly well locked after participation in three election cycles, so if Democrats were gaining ground among young Latinos and the Latino population itself was incredibly young, then it really wouldn’t matter if much that Republicans were gaining among Latinos overall. However, NAES quickly burst my bubble:

Latino Swing By Age
Dem Margin 2004 Dem Margin 2000
18-29 +22 +40
30-44 +6 +20
45-64 +28 +34
65+ +22 +38

While Democrats still won Latinos by a healthy margin in 2004, the greatest Latino shift toward Republicans actually came within the 18-29 age group. This is horrifying news, and must be rectified immediately.

Another interesting observation from our partisan demographer…

As a side note to this piece, I would also like to point out that over the past fifteen years, the population of the Unites States has increased by roughly 48 million people. I have previously documented the rise of non-Christians in the US, which have accounted for roughly 75% of our population growth since 1990. If Latinos have also accounted for more than 40% of the population growth in the Unites States since 1990, as the census bureau claims, that means demographic groups that are both Christian and non-Latino are actually experiencing a combined negative growth rate. This must especially be true for white Christians.

So if the Republican Party is gaining among Latinos, the religious right PMP/4GP hybrid network is threatened by a shrinking white Christian population. To oversimplify, this means that the Religious Right needs to grow in absolute terms among non-whites at least as fast as its white component is shrinking?

Can they pull it off?

My money is on the 4th Generation Crusaders.

Barnett and Berman Network Security (CompSci And PoliSci Makes NetSci)

Life After DoDth or: How the Evernet Changes Everything,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Proceedings of US Naval Institute, May 2000,

The Death of a Firewall,” by Stuart Berman, Network Magazine, 1 June 2005, (from My Kids’ Dad).

In an article discussing how to “maintain and protect our economic networks with the outside world,” geostrategist proposes a “Department of Network Security” (DNS) that will tackle international organized crime, insurgencies, and terrorism. DNS will partially replace the Department of Defense, with the other end being in the Department of Global Deterrence (DGD) . In his words,

First the unpleasant truth: the Department of Defense’s raison d’être died with the Cold War. No one likes to talk about it, but that’s what happened. Created in the National Security Act of 1947, the DoD is wholly a creature of what eventually became the United States’ hair-trigger during the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union. Prior to that, we basically stuck to the Constitution’s mandate to “provide and maintain a Navy” on a constant basis and to “raise and support Armies” as the situation demanded.

But that strategy died with the start of the globalization era. Now, security rationales are subordinate to economic imperatives. So why haven’t we seen, as Joseph Nye might say, the “return of history” in the U.S. national security establishment?[2] Why haven’t we repealed the 1947 National Security Act and thrown away this outmoded unification of two defense concepts [meaning, "Why haven't be eliminated the Department of Defenset?" - tdaxp] that constantly compete against one another—to the detriment of both?

DNS will discard the traditional notion of military service separate from civilian life. For most personnel, it will adopt a consultancy model, whereby the agency rents career time versus buying entire lifetimes (essentially the National Guard model). DNS’s officer corps will remain career managers, but with frequent real-world tours of duty in technology, industrial, and business fields. This organization will be networked in the extreme, because networks will be what it is all about. This means no separate legal system and the end to posse comitatus restrictions.

Posse Comitatus is the federal law that ended Reconstruction by preventing the military from protecting democracy in the Southern States. The Posse Comitatus Act was the first capitulation of the United States in a War on Terrorism. Barnett, foreseeing a new Global War on Terrorism, realized that it must end if we are to have network security

Stuart Berman of MKD has his own thoughts on network security:

Three years ago, I proposed to our technology architects that we eliminate our network firewalls. Today, we’re close to achieving that goal. Back then, I thought that network-based firewalls were losing their effectiveness, enabling a mind-set that was flawed. Today, I’m certain.

Perimeter security was originally intended to allow us to operate with the confidence that our information and content wouldn’t be stolen or otherwise abused. Instead, the firewall has slowed down application deployment, limiting our choice of applications and increasing our stress.

To make matters worse, we constantly heard that something was safe because it was inside our network. Who thinks that the bad guys are outside the firewall and the good guys are in? A myriad of applications, from Web-based mail to IM to VoIP, can now tunnel through or bypass the firewall. At the same time, new organizational models embrace a variety of visitors, including contractors and partners, into our networks. Nevertheless, the perimeter is still seen as a defense that keeps out bad behavior. Taking that crutch away has forced us to rethink our security model.

Our new security posture gives our users access to more applications regardless of their location and without sacrificing security. The new security architecture isn’t focused on our network firewall. Instead, we embed security within our internal network. This begins with separating our servers from our clients. We can do that now, thanks to layer-3 data center switches that allow for the low-cost creation of subnets. By defining simple ACLs, we further isolate our backend servers.

While Barnett is talking about geopolitical network defense, and Berman is talking about I.T. network defense,both thinkers are analyzing network defenses and both come to the same conclusion: we can no longer trust a border to protect us. In a world where we need to increase “connectivity with the outside world” (in Barnett’s words), trusting a “perimeter” to “keeps out bad behavior” is a “crutch” (Berman’s terms).

Stuart Berman talks about putting “security within our internal network” (emphasis mine). Barnett talks about ending the “traditional notion of military service separate from civilian life.” Same thing.

Turns out my two programs of graduate study, Computer Science and Politican Science, aren’t so different after all.

Computer Science + Political Science = Network Science.