Where is the outrage?

The coverage of the FBI's abuse of FISA to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page is a sham and a shame. The Horowitz report "identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and many errors in the Woods Procedures" and "at least 19 references to the status quo’s threat to 'constitutionally protected activity,' notably the 'First Amendment.'” The FISA court found the report so troubling that it issued a rare public order for the FBI to report soon what it is doing to prevent making mistakes in the future. The Horowitz report also notes that it failed to find "documentary or testimonial evidence” of anti-Trump bias. Both the finding so many mistakes and the lack of finding bias deserve more attention. Here are questions I would try to answer if I were a reporter.

1. Is four mistakes per application typical? The 17 mistakes for Carter Page occurred over four applications.
2. Can the public rely on the FISA court to preserve our liberties?
3. Has the time come to eliminate FISA and stop the FBI and CIA from spying on US citizens without "normal" warrants?
4.  How many of the mistakes in the applications for Carter Page favored getting the warrants and how many worked against getting it? I presume that the answer is 17 to 0 in the next question.
5. What is the probability that all 17 mistakes favored getting the application if the probability of one mistake favoring the application is 50%. Answer = 1/131072 = 0.000007629394531 = 0.0007629394531%.
6. Is such a low probability of making so many of the mistakes in favor of getting the warrants more consistent with systematic political bias or lack of anti-Trump bias?

The lack of attention in the news media to the  abuse of FISA by FBI is shocking. If we cannot rely on the FBI to play carefully and straight then FISA cannot protect our Constitutional rights. I fear that loss of those rights is too great a price to pay for whatever benefits we are getting.

I am surprised at the lack of attention to the preponderance of mistakes that favored getting the warrant. Any possibility that political bias leads the FBI to spy on a citizen, much less a politician, strikes at the very heart of a free and fair democracy.

What really matters

Much of the debate over what is or is not one of the isms, capitalism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism, etc., is a sham and a shame. Many realities fall between classical definitions and the debate over where a particular reality falls does little to improve our understanding. The key distinction in an economic system is the extent to which it relies on liberty and voluntary cooperation  relative to coercion. My understanding of classical capitalism is that it envisions relying predominately on liberty and voluntary cooperation. My understanding of classical communism is that it relies predominately on coercion - a person works where instructed and consumes what government allocates to her. 

I want my economic system to rely predominately on liberty and voluntary cooperation. and want my government to do things that create liberty and foster voluntary cooperation. For example, a government police force enhances my liberty because it reduces that chance that a thief coerces me through theft or at gun point to give up something I own. 

I recommend this commentary.

Rs and Ds flip flop over having witnesses

The flip flops of leading Senators over whether or not to have witnesses when the Senate tries Trump is a sham and a shame. In 1999, when talking about Clinton't trial, Senator Schumer called witnesses “political theater” and Senator Graham said, "In every trial that there has ever been in the Senate regarding impeachment, witnesses were called. When you have a witness telling you about what they were doing and why, it's the difference between the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Now Schumer wants to have witnesses and Graham does not. The difference is that Clinton and Schumer are Ds and and Trump and Graham are Rs.

Facts not in evidence

The argument put forward by Democrats (Ds) that they cannot wait for Courts to decide whether Congress can compel testimony from members of the Executive Branch is a sham and a shame.  “The argument ‘why don’t you just wait?’ amounts to this: Why don’t you just let [Mr. Trump] cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time?,” Mr. Schiff told the press as the articles were unveiled. But "cheat just one more time" presumes a fact not in evidence. Mueller found no evidence that Mr. Trump cheated in 2016. Therefore, he cannot cheat AGAIN. 

Contestable v. Sacred Beliefs

Making a contestable belief sacred is a shame and a shame. In this excellent post, Arnold Kling distinguishes between contestable and sacred beliefs. A belief is contestable when debate over it is allowed. A belief is sacred when debate violates social norms so much that any dissenting opinion marks the speaker as a pariah. An example of a contestable belief is the belief that increasing the government's role in the provision of health care would improve the standard of living in the US. A current sacred belief in the US is that slavery is bad. By treating a contestable belief as though it is sacred, proponents are able to stifle dissent and discussion and thereby limit useful public discourse.

One example is the belief that wages for women are lower than for men only because of discrimination. Treating the belief as contestable opens the door for discussion, debate, and analysis of the possible reasons that some groups earn more on average than other groups and the role that each of these reasons plays in creating the disparity between men and women. Treating the belief as sacred, on the other hand, forecloses the discussion, debate, and analysis. People who hold the belief respond to people who express an opposing view as sexists or speaking from their privileged position. Foreclosing this discussion, debate, and analysis is, in my opinion, prevents both establishing that women suffer from discrimination and identifying public policies that are most likely to reduce effectively the discrimination they face. 

Of course, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Some people hold the sacred belief that wage differentials are only the result of market forces, education and employment choices, and productivity. They respond to people who oppose the view by calling them socialist or ignorant. Once again, the result is a cessation of useful public discourse.