China may export the technology learned by building modern reactors

I have some trouble explaining my reluctance to do business with China. Perhaps it is just stubbornness or my inability to move on from my long established Cold War mentality, but I simply do not trust the dictatorial Communist Party government that still runs the place. Sure, they may be more interested in making money now than they were in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, but there really has not been much change in their dominance of the economy or in the personal lives of the Chinese people.

Perhaps my life experience that makes me nervous about a business relationship with China is that I spent some time in the plastics products business and engaged in some head to head competition with some enterprises that had a different view of fair play than I do. The little company that I used to manage had been making some good returns - and employing some hard working Americans at a decent wage - until they were pushed out of the market that they developed by a Chinese company that copied their toy designs. The copies were so close that the mold markings were almost identical - the only real change was the elimination of the "Made in the USA" phrase on the sinking sticks and rings that made up most of the USA Play line of brightly colored pool toys.

Back in those days in the plastics business, I met several prosperous marketing types whose main skill was to take American made products to China to be copied and then produced in mass quantities using laborers who worked 60 hours per week for an average of $20. These marketing people were glad handers and socially well-connected, but I had difficulty spending much time in the same room with them. I was too busy trying to find new markets where our factory's products could continue to compete so that we could stay in business. The strategy worked for a while, but I eventually got tired of the effort/reward ratio and decided to go back to my old job as a naval officer.

My time in plastics (1996-1999) was an effort to learn as much as I could about running a manufacturing enterprise while I continued to develop the Adams Engine(TM) concept and business model. That was a particularly dark time in the nuclear energy business. There were few people interested in actually building atomic power plants in those years - I once attended an American Nuclear Society (ANS) meeting where the exposition floor was dominated by companies in the D&D (decommissioning and decontamination) business. That was my last meeting for about 5 years - it was really depressing.

Whenever I talked about Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. during those years, people asked me why I did not take my ideas overseas, perhaps even to China. They stated that the US had too many regulators and environmentalists who had made up their minds to kill nuclear power, but that other countries had better prospects. Interestingly enough, nearly everyone I spoke to (and I talked to a lot of people during those years) told me that they personally supported nuclear power but were pretty confident that their view was a minority opinion. (Think about that for a while.)

I resisted the idea of going overseas, partially because I had no faith that I would be able to maintain any control of my concept somewhere else and partially because I really did not want to help other countries become more economically powerful than my own home. (I passionately believe that the Adams Engine(TM) represents a disruptively lower cost power production system than is available today and I also strongly believe that low cost power is a huge competitive advantage for many other important industries.)

Anyway - long introduction to an important issue that should be discussed in great length by the nuclear community. According to a June 1, 2007 article on energypublisher.com titled China's nuclear tech exports there is a strong likelihood that "China is likely to export its variants of recently acquired nuclear technology to Pakistan and Iran." As regular readers of Atomic Insights know, both Westinghouse and Areva have recently signed deals for major new projects in China that include agreements for technology transfer and local sourcing of key components.

That idea makes me nervous, not because I am all that concerned about Pakistan and Iran getting nuclear power technology, but because I would prefer for American companies that developed their technology with a lot of assistance from the US taxpayers to obtain the marketing win and pay US income tax on the proceeds of the sale. I am also quite concerned that those will not be the only markets where Chinese companies, taught by American technicians and engineers, make inroads into markets in direct competition with their teachers. (Of course, neither Westinghouse nor Areva are "American" companies, but they both have strong presence in the US and they both have subsidiaries that have been beneficiaries of US DOE grants and US DOD contracts for many decades.)

As many people in a lot of industries (plastics, steel, textiles, electronics, entertainment) know, Chinese businesses do not have much respect for intellectual property laws and they do not feel constrained to provide health care, adequate wages, or even freedom of expression for their people. What most people forget is that most Chinese businesses are still majority owned by the Chinese government and that most joint ventures in the country require that the majority interest is held by a Chinese company.

I know that the audience for this blog is a world audience and that my comments might sound quite jingoistic, but darn it, the USA is a great country full of great, hard working people who like to buy things from all over the world. In order for us to keep doing that, we need to sell quality products outside of the country so that we can earn the money that we like to spend. The alternative is for us to continue borrowing until . . .

Of course, there is also the issue that continuing to enrich the leaders of the Communist Party in China is not exactly the best path to peace and stability around the world.

Nothing is decided here

I’ve done a lot of thinking over the last couple of days. I’m trying to get my head around the events and make some kind of sense out of them before I make any decisions on my own future association with neurodiversity and in particular the Hub.

I’ve read and re-read a lot of the threads and comments that preceded and also followed mine and I have come to a few conclusions that have not made me happy in any way but I intend to speak my mind.

The first conclusion that I have come to is that Larry is a pseudo intellectual poseur. I’ve looked carefully at what he has written both now and in the past and applied his own criteria to his words and actions. I find him duplicitous – dishonest and narcissistic.

This does matter. Larry makes some strong allegations. It is these allegations and his subsequent behaviour that led me to my conclusions about him.

A prime example of Larry’s purposeful misinterpretation lies in this comment in which Larry berates me thusly:

...the battle is not being fought or won on the scientific front it is a political battle, and economic one, about education, welfare, employment rights, housing, you name it. Scientists are a small cog in a much larger machine and the media is where the battlefield lies. NT’s are not the heroes in this battle either.

I was very puzzled by these words as the post Larry was referencing made no claim that the science of autism was ‘the battle’. I also found his comment that ‘NT’s are not the heroes in this battle either’ bizarre as I don’t think I’d even brought neurology into the post. Larry had built himself a couple of strawmen which he could make himself look clever with by taking down. This was just needless narcissism.

Next, Larry made a post on his own blog in which he states:

...I am becoming critical of a lot of posting in the autism hub itself, because I believe in the reasoning behind the slogan “nothing about us without us”

I have to say it, but the problem is that important though it is to disabuse the public of the notions that mercury poisoning = autism (which nobody much believes in the UK as we are still too busy blaming MMR) , important though that is, that is not where the main fight is, and that is to realise that autism is for life, and because most of us spend more of our lives as adults than children, that there we must have proper recognition and a place in society.

Furthermore, that although there are ‘good parents’ who agree with that and want it as an aim for there as yet young children, the message has to come primarily from us not them. If the parents continue to evoke that old line “but you can speak for yourself my child cannot” they run the risk of effectively taking our voice away, because we are the ones with the condition?

I tried to engage Larry on his blog about why I believed he was right and wrong (something I still believe). He is right that there should be ‘nothing about them without them’. He then infers that there is a problem associated with this statement originating from some parent blogs in the Hub. He then goes on to expand on his comment on my blog about how vaccines/mercury/science is not the main fight. He closes by saying that ‘the message’ should come from ‘us’ not ‘them’ (parents).

All of this was couched in Larry’s usual pontificating prose style. At no point did Larry ever mention any specific examples of these parent blogs he was so concerned about. He makes no explanation or examples of blogs in the Hub that abuse the notion of ‘nothing about us without us’.

I was concerned about this enough to want to write my own blog entry about it and try and get as many views as possible, particularly from autistic people.

During the course of the comments I read some of the statements Larry had made on Steve’s blog – a harmless enough post Steve had made promoting a few of the things going on. This was Larry’s first comment:

I happen to believe in the promotion of the case of autism from an autistic viewpoint contra mundum and in spite of everybody. This is Cosa Nostra, our thing, autism advocacy will only ever be advanced by ourselves speaking for ourselves and so I don’t go a bundle on NT’s even if they are on our side, being promoted to hero status.

Again, Larry seems to be building strawmen for himself to knock down. No where in Steve’s post did he advance an opinion that promoting the case of autism should not be made primarily by autistic people. Nowhere did Steve refer to anyone as a hero.

I left that whole post taken aback by the use of the phrase ‘cosa nostra, our thing’. It seemed to me that Larry was claiming that Neurodiversity was solely the province of autistic people. This opinion was reinforced when Larry followed up his first comment on Steve’s blog with this:

Your blog which I have commented on talks about parents, it seems to me that neurodiversity has been hijacked.

Now I was genuinely alarmed. Firstly by the thought that autistic people might think that parents on the Hub was hijacking the issue of neurodiversity but even more so by Larry’s obvious and growing inference that neurodiversity was strictly something to do with autistic people and no one else.

That bothered me a lot. It is most certainly not what I thought neurodiversity was and most certainly not how I had had neurodiversity explained to me.

It was at this point that I first began to suspect that there was considerably less to Larry than I had ever thought. However, I asked in my next comment if autistic people would tell me their thoughts. They were pretty much in line with my thinking. Four commenters who are autistic essentially said that autistic people should lead but they were very happy with how the Hub worked.

So now I was perplexed. What was really going on here?

Larry’s next few comments were about his personal history with the disability movement and how it evolved. They seemed to be an exercise in meaningless verbiage.

I still had no idea why Larry felt that neurodiversity was solely something that belonged to autistic people or what specific thing(s) had happened to make him think parents were taking over the agenda. The opinions of the other autistic people who had posted seemed to reflect my bewilderment. In short, everybody agreed – as they always had – that the agenda of autism advocacy should be set by autistic people.

Larry’s next comment simply added to the strawmen.

What is worrying is when the outside world, the press will seek out non autistic representatives of this blog world to represent what neurodiversity is about.

The autism hub is not the be all and the end all of neurodiversity anymore than the aut-advo list is the sum total of autistic self advocacy.

Again, it is clear from the first quote that Larry firmly believes that neurodiversity is the sole province of autistic people. His second quote is a total strawman – who ever claimed that the Hub was the be all and end all of neurodiversity?

By this point I was getting frustrated and increasingly annoyed at Larry’s evasion. His further comments only served to increase that annoyance:

As far as neurodiversity not being an autistic only thing, that is a comment I have been making for sometime with my dyslexic hat on.

This is at direct odds with Larry’s previous statements such as : “What is worrying is when the outside world, the press will seek out non autistic representatives of this blog world to represent what neurodiversity is about.”

It was becoming increasingly clear to me that Larry was being evasive and dishonest when representing his own opinions. I had made the point numerous times by this time that Larry was failing to take into account the fact that neurodiversity was not solely about autism, that there were lots of other ways of not being NT and also that there were plenty of bloggers on the Hub that were both autistic and parents.

All in all, I asked Larry about eight times to provide examples of what he was talking about e.g. where bloggers on the Hub that he knew were definitely NT were trying to wrest the agenda away from autistic people. He never did.

There was plenty more bloviating passages of prose about the history of the disability movement but that was about it. There was – after I pinned him down – an admission that:

neurodiversity does not belong exclusively to autistics it is an evolving culture

Which was a great relief to hear.

However, I’d reached a pretty firm conclusion by this time on what Larry’s motivations were based on his words and deeds. He is an attention seeker who is annoyed that he isn’t the story. Throughout this entire episode he has made accusations that he is unable to backup, he has switched positions when exposed in his illogic and has demonstrated a nasty tendency to turn neurodiversity into The Larry Arnold Show.

The final straw for me was when he told me that the work that some of us had done with mercury/vaccines was actually misrepresenting autistic people and/or neurodiversity.

Since than I have been inundated with email, primarily from autistic people, telling me that my suspicions are correct. Larry like to ensure that Larry is the show. These are people who have known Larry online I’ve also heard from one person that Larry comes from a philosophical perspective that likes to blow things up and then see whats still standing to work with. That isn’t a philosophical perspective, thats just stupid.

Lets boil down Larry’s actions and words into a nutshell. He invented a problem and then couldn’t back up his claims. The guiding principles of the Hub are laid out on its homepage. If Larry or anyone else can show me where there is a growing cadre of parents abusing those ideals then we can act. Until then, the only issue is how Larry deals with his tendency to overblow nothings into somethings in order to bask in the attention.

Think I’m being too harsh? Well, I’m just emulating Larry and trying his trick of pretending everything is a pseudo-intellectual exercise in destructive philosophy.

Larry once said:

As for what people consider people to be, the evidence is in the actions not the protestations of innocence.

Which I’m guessing is his way of saying ‘actions speak louder than words’.

This parent blogged about the Judge Rotenberg Center.
This parent blogged every time an autistic child was murdered.
This parent blogged when quacks abused autistic people.
This parent blogged when autism was misrepresented in the media.

Those were this parents actions. I’m not sure what Larry’s were.

NT Parents cannot be leaders when it comes to autism advocacy. Did they ever want to be? Were they trying to be? No. I’ve seen nothing that would indicate they were.

The events of the last few days will have an impact. This was played out – and will continue to be so played out – against the backdrop of the web. The web was the enabler that brought autistic people and the parents of autistic people together. As this plays out, the web will record everything. Parents who ‘found’ neurodiversity via the web will find this too.

Right now we stand at a crossroads of opportunity. Right. Now.

Autistic people have had a horrendous time in the past. I know as much from reading the emails and blogs of those who survived it. They have been let down by parent organisations time and again.

But that was the past. At some point autistic people who do not trust parents are going to have to start. We are not those same people who let you down. We came to autism advocacy via the words of autistic people. We did not come via parent led organisations. You call the shots. We get it. Continually harping on what parents have done to you in the past is pointless in this respect. A non-autistic parent being interviewed about a website he created is not a threat to you or your autonomy. Please stop living in the past and try to see the opportunity of right now. Again, we do not want to lead you, we want to support you.

What do you want? An opportunity to wield the power of both autistic and non-autistic people? Or do you want to carry on putting your hands over your eyes, ears and mouths and reminiscing about ‘the bad old days’? Has it really got so bad that now you actually have the opportunity to use this power that you have to invent factions where none exist in order to escape the responsibility of using it? Now that you are very close to getting what you say you’ve always wanted from parents are you worried about accepting the mantle?

Parents are not perfect. We are much newer to this than you. Even those of us who, like me, are not NT but are not autistic either, and who have fought our own battles through the decades are not spat out of an allies-factory somewhere, ready made with all the right answers and actions. We will screw up. We will get it wrong. We need you to guide us in these times. If you want to lead, then act like leaders.

And the last thing we need is vainglorious challenges to our non-existent actions when you are unable to point out exactly what it is we’ve apparently done. This world we cohabit in is difficult enough without having phantoms to fight.

I would also urge some of you autistic people to be very careful of your own neurobigotry. One person has said that my actions are a total overreaction. Maybe. However, my own neurology makes this impossible for me to avoid sometimes. Would this person be happy with me if I said that their actions were totally antisocial? Or if I said that their inability to perceive a differing neurology indicates their lack of theory of mind? Or would I be accused of ableism? This person also said I should make every effort to separate the message from the personalities involved. I have. My neurological make up makes that very, very difficult to do but if I want to try and pass as normal I can sometimes do it. However, I was surprised to hear such encouragement to assume normalcy from someone I always considered a strong advocate for being who you are at all times.

This entry will solve nothing. Its not intended to. Its merely me letting off steam. I still have no idea about what neurodiversity is anymore or my role (if any) in that movement. I still have no idea what to do with the Hub. However people can rest assured Larry will have no role in deciding its future.

Hullabaloo

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Fact Checking?

by digby

The other day I wrote a post about Karl Rove's long term "plans" and mentioned this New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg in which Rove babbled about how the future of the party rests with ebay entrepreneurs and the the Christian Right, both of which are allegedly growing in huge numbers. I didn't excerpt the passage in that post, but rather characterized it as "he mumbles some crap about ebay and Jesus to back up his claim."

Unlike Goldberg (writing for the New Yorker, fergawdsake), Jonathan at A Tiny Revolution actually checked out the crap Rove mumbled about ebay, and lo and behold Rove is wrong:

At one point Goldberg goes to the White House to interview Karl Rove, who appears surprisingly optimistic:

“There are two or three societal trends that are driving us in an increasingly deep center-right posture,” [Rove] said. “One of them is the power of the computer chip. Do you know how many people’s principal source of income is eBay? Seven hundred thousand.” He went on, “So the power of the computer has made it possible for people to gain greater control over their lives. It’s given people a greater chance to run their own business, become a sole proprietor or an entrepreneur. As a result, it has made us more market-oriented, and that equals making you more center-right in your politics.”

Ebay is the primary source of income for seven hundred thousand people? That sounds implausible. And it is:

Entrepreneurs in record numbers are setting up shop on eBay, according to a new survey conducted for eBay by ACNielsen International Research, a leading research firm. More than 724,000 Americans report that eBay is their primary or secondary source of income.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess far more of these 724,000 Americans use eBay as a secondary source of income rather than a primary one. If the ratio's 75/25, that makes 175,000 people whose primary source of income is eBay. Hard to spin that into a tale of impending Republican ascendancy.

But it's Rove's specialty. He knows nobody will check it out. It sounds so gooood. The alleged atheist Rove also said that "spirituality" and "anti-materialism" (the new codeword) is growing in leaps and bounds which is another reason why the Republican party is actually in great shape:

As for spirituality, Rove said, “As baby boomers age and as they’re succeeded by the post-baby-boom generation, within both of those generations there’s something going on spiritually—people saying it’s not all about materialism, it’s not all about the pursuit of material things. If you look at the traditional mainstream denominations, they’re flat, but what’s growing inside those denominations, and what’s growing outside those denominations, is churches that are filling this spiritual need, that are replacing sterility with something vibrant, something that speaks to the heart of the individual, that gives a sense of purpose.”

Goldberg could have looked into this claim as well. Rove is much more circumspect than usual about the strength of the Mighty Christian Right, but he's basically making the same claim that he's always made: the country is getting more religious and the religious vote Republican in greater numbers. Therefore, Republicans will always win.

The problem is that the Barna Group, which tracks religious beliefs and attitudes, says that Rove's thesis is crap. From their latest report of May 21, 2007:

It is not unusual to spot minor ebbs and flows in what adults believe. However, the 2007 study of the nation’s core beliefs found that five out of six theological perspectives have shifted in recent years away from traditional biblical views. This includes perspectives about three spiritual figures: God, Jesus, and Satan.

Most Americans still embrace a traditional view of God, but they are less likely than ever to do so. Currently two-thirds of Americans believe that God is best described as the all-powerful, all-knowing perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today (66%). However, this proportion is lower than it was a year ago (71%) and represents the lowest percentage in more than twenty years of similar surveys.

Few adults possess orthodox views about Jesus and the Devil. Currently, just one-third of Americans strongly disagree that Jesus sinned (37%) and just one-quarter strongly reject the idea that Satan is not a real spiritual being (24%). Each of these beliefs is lower than last year and among the lowest points in nearly two decades of tracking these views.

The other changes in beliefs include greater reluctance to explain their faith to other people (just 29% strongly endorse this view, compared with 39% in 2006) and the willingness to reject good works as a means to personal salvation (down to 27% from 31%).

Given these shifts, it is ironic that the only religious belief that was unchanged from previous years was the belief that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches. Not quite half of Americans (45%) strongly assert this perspective.

American Spiritual Activity - More of the Same

The Barna study also examined 10 areas of religious engagement. Involvement levels for eight of those activities were statistically no different than 2006. The two activities that had changed included the following: Americans were less likely to volunteer at church and less likely to read the Bible. Although these had declined from the participation norms measured in 2006, they were not statistically distinct from the engagement levels of a decade ago. In other words, even in those areas where there has been recent fluctuation in religious behavior, the net effect of those changes has done very little to alter the overall religious engagement of Americans.

The 2007 study showed that among the ten activities studied, Americans are most likely to pray. More than four out of every five Americans (83%) said they had prayed in the last week. This was followed by attending a church service (43%) and reading the Bible outside of church worship services (41%). Notably, just one-quarter of adults possess an active faith, meaning they engage in all three of these activities (pray, attend church, and read the Bible in a typical week).

Slightly less than one-quarter of adults had volunteered free time to help a church (22%) or some other type of non-profit (23%) in the last week. About one-fifth of all adults had attended Sunday school (20%), while a similar proportion had participated in a small group for Bible study, prayer and Christian fellowship (19%). The survey showed that half of all adults (50%) said they had donated money to a congregation in the past year.

Another element of spiritual engagement is evangelism. While most Americans are more skittish than usual about explaining their faith to others who hold different religious views, among born again Christians a majority (61%) said they had personally explained their faith to someone else in the past year with the hope that the person would accept Jesus Christ as their savior. This was on par with previous tracking data from the California-based firm.

Identity and Commitment

The study also examined people’s spiritual identity. For instance, 83% of Americans identified as Christians, yet only 49% of these individuals described themselves as absolutely committed to Christianity. The remaining portion of the adult population (about 17% of Americans) was split almost equally between those who aligned with another faith and those who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic. These indicators of faith identity are also on par with earlier Barna research.

In terms of denominational affiliation, one-quarter of adults identify as attenders of Catholic churches (23%), which is about half the size of the Protestant-attending segment (49%).

The Barna survey categorizes people based upon their convictions about life after death and creates two additional faith segments: born again and evangelical Christians. These are not based upon self-identification or denominational attendance, but based upon their personal commitment to Christ as well as their theological perspectives. The percent of Americans whose beliefs are categorized as "born again" has tapered off somewhat: currently, 40% are born again Christians compared with 45% in last year’s study and 43% in 1997. Despite the slight decline in numbers, this still represents 90 million born again believers nationwide.

Within the born again group, there are an estimated 16 million evangelical Christians, who also embrace an additional set of beliefs in addition to their profession of faith in Christ and confession of personal sinfulness. The 2007 study found that 7% of adults qualify as evangelical Christians, which is statistically consistent with prior levels.

And here's a startling trend you don't hear about:

Definition

The following is how we define an unchurched adult for our research: an adult (18 or older) who has not attended a Christian church service within the past six months, not including a holiday service (such as Easter or Christmas) or a special event at a church (such as a wedding or funeral).

How Many?

* There has been a 92% increase in the number of unchurched Americans in the last thirteen years. In 1991 there were 39 million unchurched Americans compared with 75 million currently. (2004)

So Rove is spinning like crazy. The Christian Right is not growing and the "spiritual" non-evangelical or non-born again Christians tend to be Democrats:

Definition

* We categorize Notional Christian as those who describe themselves as Christians, but do not believe that they will have eternal life because of their reliance upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the grace extended to people through a relationship with Christ. (A large majority of these individuals believe they will have eternal life, but not because of a grace-based relationship with Jesus Christ.)

Voting Trends

* They have a below-average likelihood of being registered to vote (77%) when compared with evangelicals (84%) and born agains (86%) (2004)
* 42% are aligned with the Democratic party and 27% with the Republican party. (2004)
* Only one out of every five describes themselves as "mostly conservative." (2004)

How Many?

* Notional Christians represent 39% of the population.

It would be very nice if reporters like Goldberg challenged assertions like this so that such nonsense doesn't find its way into the conventional wisdom as so much of GOP marketing and PR does. This is exactly the kind of thing that distorts our politics if it goes unrefuted. It's just not true that the Democrats were rejected because of their perceived hostility to religion, but it's become so entrenched in the CW that it might as well be. (And once again the Democrats look like they have no principles --- a nice side effect of the whole culture war madness.)

As Jonathan at ATR wrote in his ebay post:

This is what drives me nigh unto madness about this country's media. Journalists theoretically should be skeptical of what anyone says. They certainly should be skeptical of things that sound implausible. They certainly absolutely should be skeptical of implausible things political operatives say. They certainly absolutely definitely should be skeptical of implausible things political operatives use as a basis for an entire narrative that's flattering to the operative. They certainly absolutely definitely always always always should be skeptical of implausible things political operatives say when those political operatives have a history of STARTING GIGANTIC WARS BASED ON LIES.

Exactly. But good luck. You see, they know Karl. He's a good Dad who hands out ice cream bars to everybody in his office and invites reporters to his cabin in Texas. He's also a genius. There's no need to double check him. Waste of time

The Anti-Impeachment People

The Bush-Cheney Administration is the most secretive, blatantly corrupt, lawless administration the U.S. has ever created, tolerated and perpetuated. The damage it has done to The Republic and the world is incalculable, and every single person reading this - and many who aren't, like, say, your kids and grandkids and their progeny - will live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

Agitating against impeachment, we have "conservatives" contending The Unitary Executive has done nothing wrong, or, if he did, certainly nothing which rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Other conservatives - many of whom occupy powerful positions in government and media - are fully cognizant of the extent to which they are supporting a rogue administration which operates as it desires with impunity, free from the problematic confines of the rule of law. They personally benefit from a culture in which there is no law, only the politics of power and perception. No accountability. Their world has no yesterday and no tomorrow.

Together, this group runs the country however it pleases. It controls the terms of debate. Decides who is on the receiving end our bombs. Decides who goes without healthcare. Decides who gets on television and how they are characterized. Decides who goes to jail. Decides who gets a profession and who gets a job. Decides who gets rich, who stays rich and who stays poor. Decides who lives and dies. They are the creators of Consensus Reality - the reality their idealogical enemies, liberals, claim doesn't really exist because it isn't Reality at all.

Everybody else agitating against impeachment falls into the second category. Liberals. The odd "centrist" or "independent" or Green known to throw a bone to Democrats occasionally. And people who never give politics a thought, but can always be counted upon to hold an opinion. They all blow around from issue to issue like tumbleweeds in the wind, always reacting to the former group's cues. This group is a World Wrestling Federation audience booing the bad guy they're paying to see.

The intellectuals in this group, the vast majority of whom can always be counted on to pull the lever or push the button for Democrats, believe that not having the votes is, in and of itself, ample reason to not to impeach. Principle is for suckers.

For them - these knowledgeable, educated, and often charming pragmatists who pride themselves on their critical thinking, facility with language, reverence for history and, yes, ideals (checked by a Real World View, of course) - there can be no risks. No Big Ideas. They talk loudly and walk softly. Always. Their biggest fear is not terrorism or their fellow citizens dying from lack of healthcare. Certainly not homelessness. Not the unfathomable violence in some distant, foreign part of the world they'll never see where their tax dollars make orphans, widows, beggars, prostitutes, criminals, cripples, and irradiated soil & water.

No, the biggest fear of The American Intellectual - and those who want so desperately to belong to that group - is the fear of being perceived as granola-eating, drug-addled Chomskyites by peers, opponents and an indifferent public. Dirty hippies spitting on Veterans. Naive idealists. Symbionese Liberation Army. Some loser who shares an opinion - any opinion - with a kid holding a sign that says "Free Mumia."

Humiliation is their biggest fear. They will do anything - pay any price - to avoid it.

They convince themselves Fascism is a threat, not a reality. Convince themselves The Republic is endangered, not extinct. Convince themselves there is a magical pendulum that - any day now - will begin to swing back in their direction, thereby relieving them of any responsibility to stick their necks out like the coal miners and factory workers and suffragists and civil rights marchers and the regular people - nameless and faceless and forgotten - who risked their lives, and often lost them, in the pursuit of a scrap of human dignity for themselves, their families, their neighbors.

The intellectual's greatest possession is his or her own head. As long as their heads survive, the world is okay. Flawed, but okay. Things will get better.

Justice is a concept. The Constitution is a history lesson. The Republic is a rhetorical device to employ in lofty arguments. Oppression is the suspicion that someone is looking at their email. Struggle is the long wait for Democrats to "grow a spine" or "frame their arguments" or "stand up to the media." Leadership is a word they applaud at the convention. They expect the Democrats they elect to uphold their oaths to protect and defend The Constitution - but only when victory is a certainty; when they can be assured the media they routinely and justifiably condemn, and the power structure it represents, acquiesces.

Contrary to what passes for conventional wisdom in liberal circles, The Democratic Party is the mirror image of its base - conflicted, uncertain, unprincipled and terrified of looking foolish to each other and the very people whose boots rest on their gelatinous spines.

Power does not acquiesce.

Power does not surrender.

Power is not threatened by righteousness or morality or indignation.

Power doesn't care how its subjects feel.

Who, then, will challenge it?