>other countries don't trust us with their data. To riff on this, the reason is a cultural issue regarding the value of self-restraint. Self-restraint is no lo

>other countries don't trust us with their data. To riff on this, the reason is a cultural issue regarding the value of self-restraint. Self-restraint is no longer valued. In fact, self-restraint is considered a critical weakness. To not take any action you can get away with, that advances your interests, is weak. It's lack of value is written in stories of police brutality, it's written in the manner in which popular elections are conducted, it's written in the policies of our executive agencies, and it's written in the way business is conducted. Confronted with clear evidence of wrong-doing, leaders are no longer expected to apologize and resign; we expect them to deny, to resist, to fight to the bitter end, no matter what. They wait out the public, they wait out the courts, and they win. The question that I am having a hard time answering is simply: how did it get this way? Bush had a profound impact on this culture; there was a man who knew the anti-value of self-restraint! The anti-value of self-reflection, of taking responsibility for mistakes. Wall Street learned the anti-value of self-restraint, because they gambled, lost big, and got bailed out anyway. Police are taught the anti-value of self-restraint, because there is risk to the officer when using too little force, but virtually no risk to the officer when using too much. Power delegitimizes itself when it shows a systematic lack of self-restraint.