Category Archives: Nihilism

Another day, another massacre, and another string of euphemistic eulogies. Arent we all tired of this yet? Even in his recent speech in Riyadh, President Trump felt compelled to define terrorists primarily as nihilists, whose actions insult people of all faiths.

This is disappointing and condescending, and hearkens to the tone-deafness of the Obama era. The basic idea is that as long as you believe in anything, you cant possibly believe in that. The truth, though, seems to be that quite a number of people do in fact believe in that.

Western secularism is derived from Christianity, and is still subconsciously influenced by Christianity in myriad ways. From this perspective, it is difficult to understand that other cultures may think positively of violence and oppression.

Most of us, for example, would affirm that the Westboro Baptist Church is monstrous and has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. This leads us, by analogy, to suggest that ISIS is monstrous and couldnt have anything to do with the real Islamic faith. This is a fallacy born of sentimentality. But lets start by talking about what nihilism is, so that we can see why ISIS and its ilk are not nihilistic at all.

The genesis of nihilism could be traced back to the collapse of both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Enlightenment thinkers suggested there is an objective meaning of life that can be known through reason, whereas the Romantics suggested there is a subjective meaning of life that can be known through passion. Nihilism begins with despair over both of these projects, and confronts the possibility that life just has no meaning at all. The sense is captured by Fyodor Dostoevskys dark question in his novel The Idiot: what if the crucified Christ turned out to be nothing but a rotting corpse?

The foremost philosopher of nihilism is Friedrich Nietzsche. He distinguished between two modes of nihilism: the passive and the active. Passive nihilism is characterized by a sense of emptiness and a lack of faith in any and all values; it is a sort of depression where nothing seems worth doing. Active nihilism, on the other hand, refers to affirmatively trying to destroy existing values that are seen as arbitrary or false, so that new, perhaps truer values will be able to emerge. Nietzsche tended to think of himself as an active nihilist, and the subtitle of one of his books is, How To Philosophize with a Hammer.

We can also speak of a nihilism of means, where the basic problem is that you will do anything to get what you want. In that sense, ISIS surely is nihilistic. But so is the current president, and much of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is a nihilism of means to say awful things just to get a rise out of your fans at a rally, and to shut down free speech with riots, or turn into a sycophant for your own team. Nihilism of this kind always happens when a man sacrifices his truth at the altar of power, and it seems to be more the norm than the exception. The opposite of such nihilism is only ever personal honor.

A true nihilist of ends would be a sort of paradox. The closest example I can think of is Heath Ledgers Joker from The Dark Knight: a man who wants to return all of creation back to primal chaos, for its own sake, with no further ends in mind. You could say that itself is an end, except he doesnt care about that, eitherhence the looping paradox.

Nihilism may also sometimes be a matter of perspective. ISIS looks like nihilism from the perspective of America, because ISIS is positively trying to destroy the values of America. Likewise, from a conservative perspective, progressives seem like nihilists, because they are trying to undermine the constitutional values that sustain America. But such progressives think of themselves as dwelling on the right side of History. It is thus important to avoid slapping the label of nihilism on an ideology just because we disagree with or fail to understand it.

The phrase Islam is peace reeks of Orwellian Newspeak. Every time I hear it, I just want to ask: What makes you say that? Is there any foundation for it beyond wishful thinking? It should be a commonplace among both Muslims and all other sentient people that Muhammed was not a peaceful man. Nor can the Quran be plausibly interpreted as a peaceful text.

Are we just repeating the phrase over and over again, like some demented mantra, due to the political convenience of doing so? In that case, we would be the ones engaged in a nihilism of means, sacrificing principle for sheer efficacy.

Muhammed was a military conqueror, and numerous passages in the Quran call for the literal death of unbelievers. These are objective facts. When Muhammed speaks of the sword, reason suggests that this is not the same as Jesus saying that he came to bring not peace, but a sword. Jesus is speaking of spiritual struggle; in the only passage involving Jesus and a literal sword, he told his disciple to put it away.

Some Muslims like to think this is also what Muhammed really meant. Its an implausible interpretation, however, given that Muhammed spread Islam with a literal sword, and many of the surahs of the Quran are set within this context of literal conquest.

There are 13 countries in the world, all Islamic, in which apostasy (i.e., leaving Islam) is a capital offense. The subjugation of women is an integral, not peripheral, element of sharia law. We are not talking about extremists, here; we are talking about what almost everyone would agree to call mainstream Islamic nations, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Is this what peace looks like, or are these nations not really Islamic either? A more pressing question emerges here: is the difference between mainstream Islam and its jihadist variants really a matter of kind, or does it rather resolve itself into one of mere degree?

It is heartening that many Muslims want to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Good on them, obviously. But in an important sense, this evades the critical problem. Do these countless Muslims the world over also believe that Muhammed, as portrayed in the Quran and Hadith, is an exemplary man?

If Muhammed is reported to have committed violence or even atrocities, then how do peaceful Muslims square this knowledge with their own values, religious or otherwise? Are there points at which they believe it is acceptable to disagree with Muhammed, and for a Muslim to conduct his own life in a different manner, while still remaining a Muslim?

Nihilism and evil are not the same thing, even if they may overlap in the popular imagination.

I imagine many people, including many Muslims, are sick of hearing that ISIS is not really Islamic. This is just plain false. Graeme Wood has put it best, in an in-depth article that should be considered required reading for anyone who wants to talk about radical Islam: The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Please note: it is not nihilism, or an absence of values; it is a positive system of values that most decent people are inclined to call evil. (Nihilism and evil are not the same thing, even if they may overlap in the popular imagination.) When the Quran repeatedly calls for devout Muslims to kill the infidels, how is it un-Islamic when terrorists, well, go and kill the infidels? A reasonable interpretation would be not that the terrorists believe in nothing, but rather that they believe, deeply and radically, in the affirmative commands of the Quran.

At a certain point, it is not charity but rather idiocy to ignore what these people keep affirming about themselves. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali says: When a murderer quotes the Quran in justification of his crimes, we should at least discuss the possibility that he means what he says. This would seem obvious enough, except in a culture and intellectual climate warped by Orwellian euphemism.

It should go without saying, of course, that I have nothing against the countless Muslims around the world who want to practice their faith in peace and follow an ethos of live and let live. My only question: is Islam, as an ideology, compatible with that? This is a critical reckoning in which the global community of Muslims must engage.

If ISIS is in fact justified by scripture, then what does this say about scripture, and interpretive methods related to scripture? And if ISIS is not justified, then why not? In short, there is need for a genuine reformation within Islam, marked by free critical inquiry and a refusal to turn away from the truth.

Read the original:

Islamic Terrorists Aren't Nihilists, They're Firm Believers In Evil - The Federalist

Vince Staples is the hip-hop equivalent of a great character actor moonlighting as a prestige leading man. This is not a slight on the rapper, but an observation: Despite his current rep as a wisecracking TV personality and celebrated everyman emcee, Staples, the 23-year-old from Long Beach, is hard to pin down. He entered the public sphere via the coattails of Odd Future's early shock-raps; he dabbled in Earl Sweatshirts dim aesthetic around the time of his Shyne Coldchain series of mixtapes, in the first half of this decade; he graduated to high-def gangsta rap with his late-2014 EP Hell Can Wait; and he was then cast as a Kanye-esque visionary with the double-disc creation myth Summertime '06, his universally acclaimed 2015 full-length debut.

His nimble voice allows him to slide in the pocket of most beats, a Trojan horse tactic that sneaks his straightforward and poignant songwriting onto all kinds of songs. (His 2016 EP, Prima Donna, existed mostly as a rapping exercise, rifling through as many styles as Staples could muster). More recently, he floated atop a dramatic Clams Casino beat on the producer's 2016 LP, 32 Levels, and on Gorillaz song earlier this year and was equally impressive on both.

Given how familiar fans are with Staples' versatility by now, it's no small feat that Big Fish Theory, his second full-length album, surprises as much as it does. Here, the Vince Staples experience is condensed and sharpened to startling cohesion 12 tracks that span just over 36 minutes, including a smattering of interludes and set to a new kind of backdrop, one filled with mutating trip-hop and house-inspired beats.

In a recent Reddit AMA, Staples said, "Hip-hop is electronic. Go listen to 'Planet Rock,'" a truth that nonetheless doesn't quite prepare you for the album's jarring, Tricky-esque opener "Crabs in a Bucket." Staples is right hip-hop isn't all break beats and soul samples. But the gulf between the type of music that Staples has made for most of his career thus far and the wide, jittery electronic canvases that make up Big Fish Theory is striking. The new direction almost recalls Danny Brown's Old, the 2013 record that followed the Detroit rapper's career-defining breakout, 2011's XXX. With Old, Brown attempted to unite the two modes that then dominated him as an artist: the psyche-baring lyricist and the hedonistic, festival-crowd-pleasing emcee who wants to dabble in EDM. Big Fish Theory isn't as cynical as that record Vince isn't making pill-popping party music but the wildly divergent sounds on this album can leave fans feeling detached from the guy who wrote tightly woven, comparatively traditional hip-hop songs like "Blue Suede" and "Norf Norf."

Still, Staples remains a confident, engaging rapper. The record's almost-title track, "Big Fish," is a minimal, disembodied banger with a Juicy J hook that feels dropped in from another song, emphasizing an alienation and dread that flows throughout the entire album. "I was going crazy not too long ago/ Women problems every morning like the Maury show/ Swimming upstream while I'm trying to keep the bread from the sharks/ Made me want to put the hammer to my head," he raps, presumably a call-back to the headspace he occupied on 2016's paranoid Prima Donna. On the jumpy, Rick Ross-interpolating "Homage," Staples free-associates to a head-turning degree: "Won't no label have me in limbo/ Too much tempo, in Richard Prince mode/ Robert Longo, black as the Congo/ Pay me pronto or it's no convo."

There are other moments where everything snaps into stunning clarity: "745" is one, the album's most straightforward slice of swagger-rap, in which producer Jimmy Edgar's burping electronic beat emulates G-funk with crayons which is to say it's a worthy imitation, but you can sense something's off. "Yeah Right," the eyebrow-raising collaboration with art-pop auteur Sophie and Kendrick Lamar, mostly sounds how you think it would: Sophie's cartoonishly boisterous beat vaporizes the track, while Kendrick is on autopilot mode, raising goosebumps before getting out of the way.

After growing accustomed to the album's amorphous textures, the impression that lingers most is just how sharp Staples sounds on every track. But lyrically, this effort doesn't feel as memorable as his earlier work. "Samo," a Basquiat reference and another Sophie production, is trap music fit for the uncanny valley age, and it's among my favorite songs because Staples is able to create a compelling argument for the enduring allure of the goofy PC Music aesthetic, which Sophie helped establish. On most of the album, a beat's dynamism overwhelms how nuanced a writer Staples is. R&B crooner and longtime collaborator Kilo Kish takes up a large amount of real estate as the album's co-star, appearing on a number of outros and saving Staples from completely dissolving into Big Fish Theory's gumbo of sounds. Appearances from Bon Iver's Justin Vernon, Damon Albarn and A$AP Rocky are largely unrecognizable.

Vince's current ambitious muse is commendable, yet Big Fish Theory's short runtime suggests that is something like a purge. This sort of feels like it's Vince getting out from underneath the long-gestating hype for a proper follow-up to Summertime '06 like how Kendrick fired off this year's streamlined Damn. a scant two years after 2015's massive To Pimp a Butterfly.

The late Amy Winehouse is quoted in the intro to "Alyssa Interlude," from an interview featured in the 2015 documentary Amy: "Sometimes you have to get all the crap out the way before you hit the good stuff, then you're like, OK, I'm getting good stuff now." Whatever led him to this dizzying, defiant new direction, Big Fish Theory is mostly good stuff that leaves you awaiting better stuff to come.

Mic has ongoing music coverage. Follow our main music hub here.

Read more here:

Vince Staples burns through nihilism and house beats on 'Big Fish ... - Mic

Much analysis of Yuval Harari's brilliant new book "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" focuses on the harrowing dystopia he anticipates. In this vision, a small, geeky elite gains the ability to use biological and cyborg engineering to become something beyond human. It may "upgrade itself step by step, merging with robots and computers in the process, until our descendants will look back and realize that they are no longer the kind of animal that wrote the Bible [or] built the Great Wall of China." This would necessarily involve the concentration of data, wealth and power, creating "unprecedented social inequality."

"In the early 21st century," argues Harari, "the train of progress is again pulling out of the station -- and this will probably be the last train ever to leave the station called Homo sapiens."

Few of us Homo sapiens are anxious to take such a trip, apart from some "dataists" who pant for the apocalypse. But, as Harari repeatedly insists, the prophet's job is really an impossible one. Someone living in the 12th century would know most of what the 13th century might have to offer. Given the pace of change in our time, the 22nd century is almost unimaginable.

Yet the predictions are not the most interesting bits of the book. It is important primarily for what it says about the present. For the last few hundred years, in Harari's telling, there has been a successful alliance between scientific thought and humanism -- a philosophy placing human feelings, happiness and choice at the center of the ethical universe. With the death of God and the denial of transcendent rules, some predicted social chaos and collapse. Instead, science and humanism (with an assist from capitalism) delivered unprecedented health and comfort. And now they promise immortality and bliss.

This progress has involved an implicit agreement, "In exchange for power," says Harari, "the modern deal expects us to give up meaning." Many (at least in the West) have been willing to choose antibiotics and flat-screen TVs over the mysticism and morality behind door No. 2.

It is Harari's thesis, however, that the alliance of science and humanism is breaking down, with the former consuming the latter. The reason is reductionism in various forms. Science, argues Harari, revealed humans as animals on the mental spectrum, then as biochemical processes, and now as outdated organic algorithms. We have "opened up the Sapiens black box" and "discovered there neither soul, nor free will, nor 'self' -- but only genes, hormones and neurons."

This rather depressing argument is well presented, with a few caveats. Harari's breezy style is sometimes in tension with his utter nihilism. Here is a moral rule: You can either be cheery or you can describe the universe as an empty, echoing void where human beings have no inherent value. But you can't do both.

And Harari's treatment of religion is, charitably put, superficial. He seems to think that the absence of an immortal soul can be proved by dissection. Scientists have "looked into every nook in our hearts and every cranny in our brains. But they have so far discovered no magic spark." For future reference, religious believers don't generally view the liver or the pineal gland as the seat of the soul. And when Harari claims that religion is "no longer a source of creativity" and "makes little difference," it is tempting to shout "Martin Luther King Jr." at your Kindle.

But Harari has one great virtue: intellectual honesty. Unlike some of the new atheists, he recognizes that science is incapable of providing values, including the humanistic values of Locke, Rousseau and Jefferson. "Even Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and the other champions of the new scientific worldview refuse to abandon liberalism," Harari observes. "After dedicating hundreds of erudite pages to deconstructing the self and the freedom of will, they perform breathtaking intellectual somersaults that miraculously land them back in the 18th century."

Harari relentlessly follows the logic of reductionism as it sweeps away individualism, equality, justice, democracy and human rights -- even human imagination. "Yes, God is a product of the human imagination, but human imagination in turn is the product of biochemical algorithms."

This is the paradox and trial of modernity. As humans reach for godhood, they are devaluing what is human. "Omnipotence is in front of us, almost within our reach," Harari says, "but below us yawns the abyss of complete nothingness." A humane future will require someone to offer a bridge across the chasm.

Read the original here:

A brave new world none of us can see - Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier

Russian President Vladimir Putin gives a speech during the state awards ceremony at the Grand Kremlin Palace on June 12, 2017 in Moscow, Russia.Mikhail SvetlovGetty Images

Smith, Moulton, Murphy, Gallego and Courtney are, respectively, representatives for Washington, Massachusetts, Florida, Arizona and Connecticut in the United States Congress.

Our country faces a new crisis, one which endangers the underpinnings of representative democracy and freedom worldwide. The threat emanates from Putinism, a philosophy of dictatorship fused with kleptocratic economics. It views popular participation in government, a free and open capitalist economic system, and transparency in governance as ideological challenges that must be extinguished in order to make the world safe for autocracy . Its proponents have been acting aggressively against the United States and others to achieve this objective, and those actions pose a clear and growing threat to our way of life.

We desperately need a forceful and coherent strategy combined with willpower and perseverance to overcome this assault on our system of government and adapt to the changing global security environment. Given how increasingly interconnected the world is, it has never been more important to shore up our countrys existing alliances and attempt to expand them in response. We will not be able to turn back this tide of autocratic ideology on our own. We will need partners and new institutions capable of rising to the task.

This is our attempt to lay the groundwork for an updated U.S. national security and foreign policy strategy that can meet the needs of this dire moment.

Our country was established on the principles of representative democracy, individual freedom and promotion of the common good. In the post-World War II era, we upheld, strengthened and promoted those values throughout the world by establishing a system of alliances, partnerships and international organizations that prevented the recurrence of conditions which led to two catastrophic global wars. Despite shortcomings, this system has rendered a 75-year period of stability and growth, in which more people became more free and more prosperous than at any other time in human history. By providing societies with a framework for a better future and enabling widely shared prosperity, these values continue to be the best hope for the future of the United States and the world. But the system upholding those values must adapt.

Following the postCold War peace , time and transformative events have worn on the international system that we and our allies built to uphold our values. We face new threats and new questions about how to protect global stability in a changing world. A new authoritarian ideology has taken root, akin to fascism and autocracy in its assemblage of plutocrats, kleptocrats, right-wing nationalists, professional opportunists, state police and other clandestine services at the focal point of state power and international influence.

This plutocratic-kleptocratic authoritarian system seeks to bore into, and disassemble, democratic institutions from the inside out. It is powered by corruption and networks of illegitimate influence and clandestine personal enrichment, and it seeks to subvert the integrity of democratic institutions and their ability to perform public functions. Like many authoritarian ideologies, it acts to crush individual rights, weaken and corrode the structures supporting public and private transparency and accountability, and jettison the idea that state officials must, on behalf of the res publica , maintain a distinction between the public good and the private interests of national leaders. This militancy against democracy and individual freedom also makes it easier for similar ideologies to thrive, from the nihilistic cult of subjugation that ISIS propounds, to the totalitarianism of North Korea , to the more circumspect plutocratic governments of China and Iran .

Putinism is especially threatening because of its expansionist nature. The Russian state has overtly annexed Crimea and parts of the Republic of Georgia , the first such events since the end of World War II. Whats more, the ideology of Putinism is being systematically exported, most notably by the Russian state security services, which constantly probe and exploit discontented facets of democratic polities worldwide in order to diminish their standing and thereby render the world safe for autocracy. Although many of these efforts date back further, the financial crash of 2008 strained representative governments, creating widespread opportunities for Putinism to seep into the cracks in the democratic consensus opened by the Great Recession. As the head of the Russian militarys General Staff, a major theorist of this approach, put it , Indirect and asymmetric actions allow you to deprive the opposing side of de facto sovereignty without seizing any territory. With Moscows influential intervention in the 2016 U.S. election and in other elections worldwide, it has become clear that if allowed to continue unchecked, this effort has the power to degrade representative democracy and fracture institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the community that has become the European Union (E.U.), which have kept us free and secure for more than half a century.

Because this Putinist onslaught has demonstrated a capacity to erode our institutions and those of other democratic countries, it deserves a prominent place in our thinking about global security. We are sleepwalking if we do not recognize this danger, or if we purposely avoid it and turn to other matters. We must recognize that we find ourselves in a serious contest between our values of representative democracy, individual freedom, transparency, accountability and promotion of the common good, and the Putinist values of oppression, nihilism and kleptocracy. We must not ignore the Putinist challenge, lest we lose the game entirely.

The good news is that this will happen only if we let it happen. There is still time for us to adapt so that we can fight back, and, in the process, renew our commitment to our values and reshape the global order so that it can squarely address the needs of the 21st century.

We must respond by developing methods that strengthen support for the values of our countries and by updating our institutions so that the spread of Putinism is contained. Our societies and institutions must be strong, united and vital enough to present a superior and enduring alternative to autocratic movements. We must continue to prove the value of our system of government and economic organization, and encourage it to flourish wherever people see its appeal. We must be able and willing to defend our values with overpowering military force. And we must accomplish these tasks at the same time as we continue to act resolutely and unrelentingly to ensure the security of the United States and our allies from terrorists, ballistic missiles and many other dangers that threaten us.

Happily, while the threat we have described poses a fundamental danger to our values, it is not insurmountable. The strengths of Putinism, when confronted appropriately, can be countered. Battered as it may seem from recent shocks and trials, our system of government and economic organization will endure. It will endure because it is both morally superior to the dark vision offered by Putinism and more effective than any other system in providing individual freedom, widely shared prosperity and hope for a better future. So, while we must proactively confront Putinism, renew our societies commitment to our values and refresh our institutions, in the long run as it was in the Cold War it will be confidence and patience that allow us to succeed.

So how do we combat this challenge?

First, we must be clear that our values are the bedrock of our policy. Our actions must always be guided by our belief in representative democracy, individual freedom, transparency, accountability and promotion of the common good.

That does not mean we cannot be pragmatic and work with partners and allies who do not share all of our values, nor does it mean that we should try to impose our values by force. The world is a complicated place, and compromises are essential to any effort to engage effectively with global politics. We must clearly express our principles, but we must also openly acknowledge when we decide to make pragmatic compromises to achieve essential national security objectives.

Second, it is absolutely crucial that we accomplish our goals by relying on alliances and partnerships and ensuring that our institutions will help sustain freedom and democracy in the 21st century. These institutions have, for the most part, served us very well. But as the world continues to change with the rise of new global powers, and shocks such as the Great Recession create new sources of discontent and contestation, we must recognize that the global order has fundamentally changed and no longer resembles the postWorld War II power structure of the 1950s and 60s.

While the United States is far stronger today in absolute terms, it no longer possesses the overwhelming preponderance of relative economic and military power that allowed us to impose our foreign policy aims effectively on the world. We are, in many ways, a victim of our own success. The rest of the world is catching up, thanks to the order we put in place in the past century. We must recognize that we now contend with an array of powerful actors, possessing new interests and forming new alignments. It is unrealistic, and unnecessary, for us to continue to act as if we can accomplish our goals alone. Rather than deny a multi-polar world exists, we must embrace it and use it to our advantage.

For that reason, it must be a priority to build, strengthen and act via partnerships and alliances. We have an enormous new opportunity to build international solidarity regarding the maintenance of global stability and to strengthen international support for democratic values. We will have to be steadfast in our commitment to our existing albeit updated alliances and partnerships, using them as an essential tool through which we must work to achieve our security goals. We must also look for opportunities to rapidly adapt existing global institutions to this global shift and seek to construct new arrangements designed to help us strengthen democracy and withstand the challenge of Putinism.

While reinforcing NATO and the E.U., for example, we must now take stock of the threats that Putinist influence campaigns pose to those communities and integrate methods of resistance into their collective toolbox. The NATO alliance can be renovated to help its members track and expose Russian influence networks. Strengthening institutions, elevating transparency and prioritizing anti-corruption could become priority measures for the E.U. New agreements between NATO and the E.U. on issues such as cyber warfare could be established to combat Russian influence.

Meanwhile, we should build new partnerships and alliances that can help us meet our objectives in this new era. Crucially, many of these institutions will not look precisely like the institutions that got us through the Cold War because, as analysts of Putinism emphasize, corruption is the lubricant on which this [Putinist] system operates and [u]ltimately it is because of the lack of rigorous oversight and transparency of democratic institutions that they are readily available for exploitation. Our efforts must be designed to cope with that reality.

As we survey the conditions worldwide, it may be time to consider establishing new alliances regional and global to promote the vibrancy of representative democracy, resist cyber and propaganda methods of undermining democratic values, fight corruption, elevate the need for transparency, strengthen free economies, and share knowledge about ways to combat the new dangers afflicting our societies.

Third, as we stare down the ideological threat of Putinism, we must ensure the safety and security of the American people and those of our allies and partners. That is an enormous challenge in itself, encompassing our continued fight against terrorist groups and their ideologies, our efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and our deterrence of North Korea and other actors who may wish to do us harm. We must be relentless and strategic in our efforts with partners to destroy terrorist groups, eliminate their leaders, dismantle their networks and drain them of their popular appeal. And we must make it absolutely clear that those who dare attack us or our allies do so at great peril.

As we confront the spread of Putinism, we need to invest in global security, ensuring that our NATO allies and other partners are able and ready to defend against conventional Russian military aggression. That will require a comprehensive strategy to deter Russia militarily, including more forward positioning of conventional military assets, deeper strategic relationships and more training side-by-side with our European partners, as well as systematic planning to counter Russias military cyber, propaganda and hybrid warfare advances. We must be smart about this response, so that our investments strengthen our national security position to deter Russia while continuing to uphold our interest in nuclear stability and bolstering the institutions that undergird global security. For example, it would only weaken our position if we were to withdraw from our global commitments and engage in a fruitless nuclear arms race as a response to Russian provocation.

Fourth, diplomacy and development are a crucial part of this equation. Just as we cannot function without partners, we cannot rely on military force while neglecting diplomacy and development. It is essential to recognize that Putinism will not be overcome by military force alone, and we must design our response accordingly to involve the whole of government. Economic development and the strengthening of civil society will be crucial in this fight, and we will also need to consider ways that our diplomatic and developmental efforts can be designed to counter Putinist tactics.

Through the work of the State Department and other federal agencies, we need to develop new mechanisms to strengthen freedom of the press, disseminate accurate information quickly and support effective ways to combat Putinist propaganda. We must educate the global public about the danger of Russian influence campaigns and how to respond to them, as well as support institution-building and anti-corruption efforts now that they are urgent security issues. Efforts to get money out of politics, secure electoral systems and police opaque financial flows will be important. In addition to supporting robust State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budgets for governance and democracy, initiatives such as potentially expanding the number of countries in the Millennium Challenge Corporations candidate country pool which by its mandate invests in poverty reduction for those countries that score sufficiently high enough on indicators like rule of law and anti-corruption may assist these efforts.

Fifth, if we wish to prevent Putinism from succeeding in its efforts to portray representative democracy as a failed governmental system and to prey upon social discontents, one of the first orders of business is to ensure our countries have healthy economies that support broad-based opportunities. Statist crony capitalism is an inherently weak economic model, but if we do not keep the social compact strong and deliver equitable growth in our own countries, as analysts of Putinism note, it offers an opening for Putinism to achieve its goal of strengthening the perception of the dysfunction of the Western democratic and economic system and weaken[ing] the European Union and the Wests desirability, credibility, and moral authority.

Indeed, the imperative to prove that American society had to deliver on its promises played a major role in our Cold Warera strategy to contain and outlast the Soviet Union. As George Kennan, the architect of that containment strategy, explained, the competition with the Soviets was a question of the degree to which the United States can create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants , which is coping successfully with the problem of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a World Power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among major ideological currents of the time. The ultimate lesson, he wrote, was that [t]o avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions. Making government and society work for the people is always critical, but in this contest it is even more imperative.

Finally, in addition to economics, we must also recognize that a program to counter Putinism will require new modes of domestic resistance. We must strengthen our societies against Putinist tactics that use the openness of our systems and our commitment to rules and procedural norms against us. Gray zone Putinist tactics, by operating below the threshold of open conflict and concrete response, strain our conceptual capacity to recognize and mitigate them before it is too late. Because most representative democracies are not habituated to these methods, and because many of these threats are deliberately ambiguous, we have not yet developed robust norms, concepts and institutions that would help us meet this challenge.

In hindsight, it is clear that the threat of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election merited a more robust response than U.S. officials adopted at the time. We must strive to ensure that the new insights we develop about such threats are translated into new ideas and new policies that provide effective responsive capabilities. As we do this, we must welcome the wealth of experience that our allies and partners are also developing as they confront similar threats worldwide.

For example, even though Russian actors funded multiple candidates vying for the 2017 French presidential election and apparently launched a massive hacking effort to hurt President Emmanuel Macron on the eve of the voting period, French voters understood the threat and they were not caught off-guard by the intervention. There is much to be learned by these and similar experiences in highlighting, naming, shaming and inculcating the populace and the press to the gravity of the threat. Potential approaches run the gamut of activity from sanctions to cyber efforts to public education to coordination with private organizations such as Facebook, Twitter and traditional news organizations. Developing and spreading these antibodies will be one of our most pressing tasks as we seek to combat this new danger.

Over the long run, if we can formulate these policy approaches, we stand a good chance of countering the advantages of our Putinist opponents and winning the ideological competition. As we did in the previous century, we can best this new challenge while renewing our values, and build a better world in the process.

Read more:

5 Democratic Reps: The US Can Turn Putinism Into An Opportunity - TIME

By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- Much analysis of Yuval Harari's brilliant new book "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" focuses on the harrowing dystopia he anticipates. In this vision, a small, geeky elite gains the ability to use biological and cyborg engineering to become something beyond human. It may "upgrade itself step by step, merging with robots and computers in the process, until our descendants will look back and realize that they are no longer the kind of animal that wrote the Bible [or] built the Great Wall of China." This would necessarily involve the concentration of data, wealth and power, creating "unprecedented social inequality.

"In the early 21st century," argues Harari, "the train of progress is again pulling out of the station -- and this will probably be the last train ever to leave the station called Homo sapiens.

Few of us Homo sapiens are anxious to take such a trip, apart from some "dataists" who pant for the apocalypse. But, as Harari repeatedly insists, the prophet's job is really an impossible one. Someone living in the 12th century would know most of what the 13th century might have to offer. Given the pace of change in our time, the 22nd century is almost unimaginable.

Yet the predictions are not the most interesting bits of the book. It is important primarily for what it says about the present. For the last few hundred years, in Harari's telling, there has been a successful alliance between scientific thought and humanism -- a philosophy placing human feelings, happiness and choice at the center of the ethical universe. With the death of God and the denial of transcendent rules, some predicted social chaos and collapse. Instead, science and humanism (with an assist from capitalism) delivered unprecedented health and comfort. And now they promise immortality and bliss.

This progress has involved an implicit agreement, "In exchange for power," says Harari, "the modern deal expects us to give up meaning." Many (at least in the West) have been willing to choose antibiotics and flat-screen TVs over the mysticism and morality behind door No. 2.

It is Harari's thesis, however, that the alliance of science and humanism is breaking down, with the former consuming the latter. The reason is reductionism in various forms. Science, argues Harari, revealed humans as animals on the mental spectrum, then as biochemical processes, and now as outdated organic algorithms. We have "opened up the Sapiens black box" and "discovered there neither soul, nor free will, nor 'self' -- but only genes, hormones and neurons."

This rather depressing argument is well presented, with a few caveats. Harari's breezy style is sometimes in tension with his utter nihilism. Here is a moral rule: You can either be cheery or you can describe the universe as an empty, echoing void where human beings have no inherent value. But you can't do both.

And Harari's treatment of religion is, charitably put, superficial. He seems to think that the absence of an immortal soul can be proved by dissection. Scientists have "looked into every nook in our hearts and every cranny in our brains. But they have so far discovered no magic spark." For future reference, religious believers don't generally view the liver or the pineal gland as the seat of the soul. And when Harari claims that religion is "no longer a source of creativity" and "makes little difference," it is tempting to shout "Martin Luther King Jr." at your Kindle.

But Harari has one great virtue: intellectual honesty. Unlike some of the new atheists, he recognizes that science is incapable of providing values, including the humanistic values of Locke, Rousseau and Jefferson. "Even Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and the other champions of the new scientific worldview refuse to abandon liberalism," Harari observes. "After dedicating hundreds of erudite pages to deconstructing the self and the freedom of will, they perform breathtaking intellectual somersaults that miraculously land them back in the 18th century."

Harari relentlessly follows the logic of reductionism as it sweeps away individualism, equality, justice, democracy and human rights -- even human imagination. "Yes, God is a product of the human imagination, but human imagination in turn is the product of biochemical algorithms."

This is the paradox and trial of modernity. As humans reach for godhood, they are devaluing what is human. "Omnipotence is in front of us, almost within our reach," Harari says, "but below us yawns the abyss of complete nothingness." A humane future will require someone to offer a bridge across the chasm.

Michael Gerson's email address is michaelgerson@washpost.com.

Read the original here:

A brave new world none of us can see - The Hutchinson News

WASHINGTON Much analysis of Yuval Hararis brilliant new book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow focuses on the harrowing dystopia he anticipates. In this vision, a small, geeky elite gains the ability to use biological and cyborg engineering to become something beyond human. It may upgrade itself step by step, merging with robots and computers in the process, until our descendants will look back and realize that they are no longer the kind of animal that wrote the Bible [or] built the Great Wall of China. This would necessarily involve the concentration of data, wealth and power, creating unprecedented social inequality.

In the early 21st century, argues Harari, the train of progress is again pulling out of the station and this will probably be the last train ever to leave the station called Homo sapiens.

Few of us Homo sapiens are anxious to take such a trip, apart from some dataists who pant for the apocalypse. But, as Harari repeatedly insists, the prophets job is really an impossible one. Someone living in the 12th century would know most of what the 13th century might have to offer. Given the pace of change in our time, the 22nd century is almost unimaginable.

Yet the predictions are not the most interesting bits of the book. It is important primarily for what it says about the present. For the last few hundred years, in Hararis telling, there has been a successful alliance between scientific thought and humanism a philosophy placing human feelings, happiness and choice at the center of the ethical universe. With the death of God and the denial of transcendent rules, some predicted social chaos and collapse. Instead, science and humanism (with an assist from capitalism) delivered unprecedented health and comfort. And now they promise immortality and bliss.

This progress has involved an implicit agreement, In exchange for power, says Harari, the modern deal expects us to give up meaning. Many (at least in the West) have been willing to choose antibiotics and flat-screen TVs over the mysticism and morality behind door No. 2.

It is Hararis thesis, however, that the alliance of science and humanism is breaking down, with the former consuming the latter. The reason is reductionism in various forms. Science, argues Harari, revealed humans as animals on the mental spectrum, then as biochemical processes, and now as outdated organic algorithms. We have opened up the Sapiens black box and discovered there neither soul, nor free will, nor self but only genes, hormones and neurons.

This rather depressing argument is well presented, with a few caveats. Hararis breezy style is sometimes in tension with his utter nihilism. Here is a moral rule: You can either be cheery or you can describe the universe as an empty, echoing void where human beings have no inherent value. But you cant do both.

And Hararis treatment of religion is, charitably put, superficial. He seems to think that the absence of an immortal soul can be proved by dissection. Scientists have looked into every nook in our hearts and every cranny in our brains. But they have so far discovered no magic spark. For future reference, religious believers dont generally view the liver or the pineal gland as the seat of the soul. And when Harari claims that religion is no longer a source of creativity and makes little difference, it is tempting to shout Martin Luther King Jr. at your Kindle.

But Harari has one great virtue: intellectual honesty. Unlike some of the new atheists, he recognizes that science is incapable of providing values, including the humanistic values of Locke, Rousseau and Jefferson. Even Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and the other champions of the new scientific worldview refuse to abandon liberalism, Harari observes. After dedicating hundreds of erudite pages to deconstructing the self and the freedom of will, they perform breathtaking intellectual somersaults that miraculously land them back in the 18th century.

Harari relentlessly follows the logic of reductionism as it sweeps away individualism, equality, justice, democracy and human rights even human imagination. Yes, God is a product of the human imagination, but human imagination in turn is the product of biochemical algorithms.

This is the paradox and trial of modernity. As humans reach for godhood, they are devaluing what is human. Omnipotence is in front of us, almost within our reach, Harari says, but below us yawns the abyss of complete nothingness. A humane future will require someone to offer a bridge across the chasm.

More here:

Michael Gerson: A brave new world none of us can see - Chippewa Herald

Writing at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher raises some concerns with evangelical use of the concept of Christian worldview. Working as I do ata Christian worldview ministry, and having recently met Rod at the Colson Centers Wilberforce Weekend conference, I found the piece especially relevant. He makes a number of suggestions and statements with which I disagree, but two in particular stood out.

First, Rod suspectsthat teaching students to break down the world in terms of worldviews creates a kind of intellectual arrogance and dismissiveness:

The problem with worldview education[]is that it closes off the possibility of wonder by providing a rigid ideological measuring stick for texts. Gibbs said it gives students unearned authority over a book. Hand them The Communist Manifesto, they open it up, say, Marxist!, then cast it aside. Hand them Thus Spake Zarathustra, they open it up, see Nietzsches name, say, Nihilist! and cast it aside.

Better, suggests Rod, to encounter a work on its own terms, without any preconceived notions about the validity or consequences of the philosophy it teaches. Oddly, though, he seems to see the problem with this approach.

Worldview instruction involves giving students spoilers as it were about communism or nihilism or Islam or atheism. Christian parents and teachers explain the gist of a worldview, and why it ultimately cant account for reality or meet the needs of the human soul like Christianity can. But if, in place of worldview instruction, we allowed students to encounter these worldviews more organically (one might say experience them as their original adherents did), we run into a big problem. Far from gaining intellectual humility, young readers are notoriously prone to an even worse sort of intellectual arrogancethe kind that so often attends undergraduate apostasies. Rod writes:

I remember encountering Nietzsche in a college philosophy course, one in which I had first been introduced to Kierkegaard. Meeting Kierkegaard was an important step on the road to my own religious conversion, but one of my classmates caught afire with the gospel of Nietzsche. He found God is dead to be liberating. Once that semester, he stood on a bench at Free Speech Alley, the weekly campus forum, held high his marked-up copy ofThe Portable Nietzschefrom our class, and proclaimed to the crowd: God is dead!

Rods description is dead-on. I have met these kids. Oh, have I met them. And there is something palpably ridiculous about the freshman philosophy student who reads the seminal texts of nihilism or Marxism or transcendentalism or utilitarianism, and thinks he has received a revelation from Mount Olympus that no Christian has ever encountered, and which will upend the simple worldviews of everyone back home. Voddie Bauchams describes this problem well:

There ought to be a rule: You should not be able to talk aboutphilosophy unless youve had more than a semester ofphilosophy. If you havent had any, thats fine. Talk away! But if youve had a semester, you are messed up. Youd be better off just not taking it at all.

Contra Rod, what I find most often gives students a sense of unearned authority isnt instruction about other worldviews (at least not if its done right), but the unshakable and nave belief that they are the first Christian young person to ever read Nietzsche (or more often Peter Enns or Bart Ehrman) and that there are no good answers to these mens attacks on their parents and neighbors faith. Indeed, very often, these students are precisely those who havenot received worldview instruction, have not seriously interacted with the claims of non-Christian thinkers, and have come to believe as a result thatnoChristian has seriously interacted with such claims.

One thing worldview instruction at its best does is create in middle and high school students an awareness that theyre not the first Christians to encounter alternative worldviews and challenges to their own, and that there are good answers to these claims. In other words, it fosters a kind of intellectual humility, and keeps freshmen from coming home for Christmas to beat their grandparents over the heads with class warfare or intersectionality or JEDP theory.

Yes, we should be willing to read the seminal texts of alternative worldviews deeply and carefully, understanding what makes them tick, and not fall prey to caricatures of those faiths and philosophies (which is what worldview instruction at its worst looks like). But to learn about a worldview is necessarily to form some kind of preconception about it, and specifically (when it comes to the worldviews behind some of the worst mass-murdering regimes of the last century) a kind of prejudice against them. Theres nothing at all wrong with that.

Continued here:

A Reply to Rod Dreher on Worldview - Patheos (blog)

Long Beach native Vince Staples released his new album, Big Fish Theory, on June 23. The album follows his critically acclaimed Summertime 06 project, released in 2015.

By Gage Miskimen

gage-miskimen@uiowa.edu

There are plenty of fish in the sea that is hip-hop, but none have quite the fins of Vince Staples.

Staples released his sophomore album, Big Fish Theory, last weekend, and the project has the potential to move him into the mainstream.

Big Fish Theory takes a look at rappers and hip-hop in general from outside the fishbowl; Staples has always been an observer and critic of all aspects of society. The project analyzes how rappers act and how hip-hops looming influence on todays culture while continuing the theme from his 2016 EP, Prima Donna. That opened with a star rapper (presumably Staples) killing himself, and the rest of the project talked about how the fame and fans pushed him to that point.

Suffering from fame seems to be a constant theme in Staples music nowadays. On track three of Big Fish Theory, Alyssas Interlude, Amy Winehouses voice can be heard, taken from a snippet of an interview: Im quite a self-destructing person, so I guess I keep giving myself material, she says. Staples has been vocal about Winehouses death and unhappy with how the public has treated her.

Big Fish Theorys sound is innovative in terms of hip-hop. Electronic house beats are mixed with Staples introspective and confident verses in a way thats never been done successfully before.

The album is sprinkled with guests who add something extra. Artists credited throughout the album include Bon Ivers Justin Vernon, Kendrick Lamar, Ray-J, ASAP Rocky, Ty Dolla Sign, Kilo Kish, and Juicy J.

Though the album is great as a whole, there are particular tracks that stand out. The Vernon-produced Crabs in a Bucket is the opening track, and it kicks off in high gear, only giving the listener a few seconds to get comfortable before the bass hits. Crabs in a Bucket refers to the if I cant have it, you cant either train of thought. Crabs in a bucket will fight and climb over each other to reach the top, but their behavior inevitably does more harm than good to themselves and those around them, and Staples is comparing the crabs to rappers and society in general.

745 is another highlight of Big Fish Theory. The lyrics have Staples, driving around the city in a BMW 745, venting about his relationships with women. Staples typical nihilism shines on this track. This thing called love real hard for me/This thing called love is a God to me/and we all just Gods property/So feel free to fulfill the prophecy.

He has always felt like an outsider to hip-hop until recently. He has a Sprite endorsement deal, and radio shows in bigger cities such as The Breakfast Club on 105.1 are eager to interview him because of his dry humor and straightforward opinions. In Pitchforks Over/Under series on YouTube, Staples rated random things the hosts said from KFC to Tom Cruise, who he thought was underrated because the mission was impossible, and he pulled it off three times.

All this exposure, on top of his talent as a rapper, has brought him to the forefront of hip-hop. Staples lyricism, flow, and consistency in putting out high-caliber projects from mixtapes to full-length albums land him in the running for greatest rapper alive among Kendrick Lamar and thats about it. But honestly, listen to Staples, and see what hes accomplishing in his music, and one might consider him the heir to the throne.

Gage Miskimen is the creative director of The Daily Iowan this summer. He will examine and critique new music released every week. Have any recommendations of your own? Email him at gagemiskimen@gmail.com.

Original post:

Misky's Music Recommendations: Vince Staples, *Big Fish Theory* - The Daily Iowan

By Aaron Blake The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump is supposed to reveal this week, six weeks after making the initial suggestion, whether he actually has tapes of his White House conversations. Trump last month wielded those potential tapes as a very thinly veiled threat against former FBI director James Comey. And ever since then, he and the White House have decided to withhold the truth from the American people, refusing to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

But Newt Gingrich just gave away the game, for all intents and purposes. In an interview with The Associated Press, the Trump-backing former House speaker basically admits that Trump was just bluffing to try to get inside Comey's head.

"I think he was in his way instinctively trying to rattle Comey," Gingrich said. "He's not a professional politician. He doesn't come back and think about Nixon and Watergate. His instinct is: 'I'll outbluff you.'"

Apparently not being a "professional politician" is a license for dishonesty.

This is hardly surprising, of course. Assuming Gingrich is being honest about this, it's just the latest in a long line of Trump bluffs. There was the time he was going to force the House to vote on its health-care bill, pass or fail, until he urged that it be delayed in the face of defeat. There was the time during the spending debate when the White House signaled Trump would allow a shutdown if the bill didn't fund his border wall, only to back down just a couple days later. More examples abound.

But - again, assuming Gingrich is right here - this has been a particularly brazen brand of bluffing from the president of the United States. Gingrich is essentially confirming that Trump threatened a former top government official using a falsehood to try to get him to soften his testimony. It's not difficult to attach this to the lengthening list of things suggesting Trump has tampered in the Russia investigation, or even obstructed justice in doing so.

And for a president who has huge trouble with facts, it displays a rather striking disregard for the truth. No, Trump never said clearly that he had the tapes, but he has left that possibility out there for weeks, refusing to go on the record. Politics tends to be a pretty rough-and-tumble business, but this is unapologetic political nihilism, plain and simple.

It also has shelf life. I argued after one of Trump's previous bluffs that this kind of strategy may pay dividends in the business world and in the near term as president, but that as a politician it can and will catch up to you:

"This kind of bluffing and having it called is undoubtedly something Trump is used to in the business and real estate worlds. But in the political world, you are negotiating with the same people over and over again. And the lesson of the first two big congressional debates is that when Trump says a bill must contain XYZ, he doesn't really mean it; it's just posturing. And that doesn't bode well for future Trump demands.

"During the last government shutdown in 2013, when Republicans demanded defunding Obamacare, they were at least willing to follow through on that demand. The government was closed for more than two weeks before the GOP relented. That served notice to Democrats that Republicans were at the very least willing to go all-in on their strategy and follow through - that they weren't bluffing when they made such demands in order for a bill to pass. And that made their threats on other things seem more legitimate.

"Trump has shown no such inclination to make it so people take his demands at face value. And given what's happened in the first two legislative debates, the next time he draws a line in the sand, you can bet lawmakers know how easily it can be raked over."

And the final point here is that Comey essentially called Trump's bluff. In rather blistering testimony that pointed to Trump's potential obstruction of justice, Comey didn't really hold back at all. And at one point, he addressed the threat of tapes directly and suggested they would vindicate him if they did exist.

"I've seen the tweet about tapes," Comey said. "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."

So basically Trump appears to have not only done something dishonest that undermines his credibility going forward, but it didn't even work. It'll be nice when this charade is over.

Aaron Blake is senior political reporter for The Fix.

Here is the original post:

Opinion: Gingrich admitted Trump was being dishonest - Port St. Joe Star

The last few decades have not been good ones for those of us who believe in the rule of law, who subscribe to our countrys proudest boast, that ours is a government of laws, and not men (or persons).

What this means is that we are governed not by arbitrary political power, but that our republic is committed to the values that endure from the founding generation. These core values include an appreciation that there can be no order without law, no law without morality, and, indeed, that there can be no morality without religion. These traditional views have been largely abandoned by our legal and political elites on the left, a trend that Dukes Dean Paul Carrington characterized as legal nihilism, the belief that law doesnt matter and thats its simply all about politics.

Weve seen enough of this in practice to persuade some supporters of President Trump that a nihilistic and lawless legal system, in the person of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, might overturn of the will of the people expressed in President Trumps election. Mueller is a good friend of the dismissed FBI Director, James Comey, and has staffed his team with a group of donors to Democratic candidates.

Traditional views of the rule of law have been largely abandoned by our legal and political elites on the left, a trend that has been characterized as legal nihilism, the belief that law doesnt matter and thats its simply all about politics.

I am actually encouraged by Muellers appointment, however. I think hes going to get to the bottom of things quickly, and I think hell find that theres nothing there. And thats the best and cleanest way to dispose of a false issue.

First, Mueller is a person of the highest integrity, and I can speak to that because I know something about the law firm from which he and many of those he hired came. This is the firm now known as Wilmer, Hale once known as Wilmer, Cutler, & Pickering. I worked for two years at that firm, and I have never been surrounded by more brilliant and principled individuals. There were more Democrats than Republicans at the firm, but unlike the academy, there was a diversity of political views, and there was a commitment to the law itself that was, I think, the real thing.

One of the most zealous former Special Prosecutors, Ken Starr (scourge of Bill Clinton) has expressed his trust in Mueller and the team he has assembled, and that means a lot to me (I have long known and respected Judge Starr, and have had the pleasure of working with him).

Second, I think Mueller will find that, as President Trump claims, he never attempted to obstruct justice, and, indeed, never attempted to stop such an investigation. There is no denying that Trump expressed his hope to Comey that Trumps fired aide, General Michael Flynn, would not be hurt by such an investigation, but Trump apparently gave no direct orders to cease investigating Flynn, and, to the contrary, even Comey admitted that Trump expressed his wish that if any of his satellites apparently referring to those persons who were connected to his campaign had colluded with the Russians, he, Trump, wanted to have that revealed.

To obstruct justice in this context would require two things, as the lawyers call them, actus reus and mens rea. The first means evidence of a criminal act and the second refers to the intention to commit it. If Trump is telling the truth, neither occurred here the investigation was never stopped, and Trump never sought to stop it. Last year the Supreme Court unanimously held that former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was not corrupt because he never ordered his subordinates to aid a donor. What Trump did was so much more benign that that. From what evidence weve seen, Flynn had not done anything out of line with the Russians, and if thats so there was neither an actus reus (wrongful act) nor a mens res (intentional wrong) from which one might infer an obstruction of justice.

If Mueller is an honest man, this is the conclusion he will have to reach, and he will, when he makes his report, have to exonerate the president. And since itll be easy to examine the evidence, we should expect the issue to disappear before very long. In that case, the president will emerge stronger, not weaker, from the investigation. That would be a defeat for the legal nihilists, and a pleasant surprise and a reassurance that the rule of law is returning to this country.

Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger Professor Emeritus at Northwesterns Pritzker School of Law and the author of Law Professors: Three Centuries of Shaping American Law.

Follow this link:

Can Robert Mueller be trusted? - Fox News