Skip to content

We know he’s guilty, Josh

I have a huge amount of respect for Josh Marshall, but I have a bit of trouble with his post this morning entitled We know Trump is Guilty. We’re Having a Hard Time Admitting it. Josh’s argument on guilt is ironclad, a lot of it summed up in this Doonesbury comic from some time back:

 

But I’d submit that like Mark Slackmeyer (for the Doonesbury illiterate, he’s the character in the cartoon), we non-brain dead, non Fox watching silent majority (well, actually, not so silent, thanks be to…ummm…I know! Our excellent educational system.) have known since the evidence came out early in his presidency that he was guilty, for precisely the reasons Mark and Josh explore. Not only have we known, we’ve had no trouble admitting it.

I think I speak for a large slice of that majority when I say I’ve long since put that question aside, and am struggling with far more existential questions related to the fact that we have a criminal in the White House.

The question is whether our system can expel the poison that is Trump (and, by extension, the Republican Party’s present incarnation), and, in the likely event that it does not, whether our representative democracy can survive as even a shadow of its better self.

The majority of the people in this country are more or less alive to the danger. However, the system was rigged from the start, and has become ever more rigged, to enable the minority to control the public policy of this nation. States with a sliver of the nation’s population control the Senate; the House has been gerrymandered to further empower that sliver; and the courts, which have and will even more in the future enabled voter suppression and gerrymandering, enhancing the power of that sliver still more, have been stacked by recent presidents (Bush and Trump) who came to power against the will of the majority, enabled by the votes of Senators that represent the aforementioned sliver.

We know he’s guilty. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! We just can’t quite believe anything will be done about it, and we fear for the future of our children and their children.

She may have something there

The recent report on sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy has even this ex-Catholic aghast. The utter cruelty is beyond belief. As a former scholar at Our Lady of Sorrows grammar school, where I lost my religion, I was particularly stunned by the story of the priest who abused a seven year old, then told him to confess the sin he had just committed to his abuser. Truly unbelievable.

Of course, the Church is on it, trying desperately to figure out a way to start recruiting priests that aren’t pedophiles or other types of sexual deviants. Unfortunately, they can’t seem to figure out a solution. It’s such a complicated problem, really. They can’t seem to figure out why their line of work seems to attract the worst type of man. (No women allowed, of course) It’s a mystery they can’t seem to solve.

But wait, this mere woman quoted in this morning’s Timesmay have stumbled on a solution:

A few blocks away from the white cross towering above the pastoral center of the Archdiocese of Miami, Mirta Criswell, 77, was loading dollar-store provisions into the back of a sedan. Of the report, she said, “I believe it 100 percent.”

Ms. Criswell said the sex abuse scandal that began in Boston in 2002 had been painful enough, but the latest reports had left her ever more exasperated. While the scandals would not erode her commitment to the faith, she believed they showed that some of the church rules needed to be revisited.

“The Catholic Church has to change,” Ms. Criswell said. “They have to let their priests marry, to have a family. Humans need sex.”

Gosh, could it really be that simple? That’s what I call thinking outside the box, though I’ve heard that the other box she’s thinking inside of is actually pretty crowded. The more I think about it, the more I think she may have something there. Someone should tell the Pope.

Fake Everything

As the world becomes metaphorically smaller, more and more opportunities open up for grifters of all sorts. And I’m not, at least directly, talking about a certain stable genius.

It turns out that many academics are publishing allegedly “peer reviewed” articles in fake academic journals:

The story begins with Chris Sumner, a co-founder of the nonprofit Online Privacy Foundation, who unwittingly attended a conference organized by the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET) last October. At first glance, WASET seems to be a legitimate organization. Its website lists thousands of conferences around the world in pretty much every conceivable academic discipline, with dates scheduled all the way out to 2031. It has also published over ten thousand papers in an “open science, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly and fully referred [sic] international research journal” that covers everything from aerospace engineering to nutrition. To any scientist familiar with the peer review process, however, WASET’s site has a number of red flags, such as spelling errors and the sheer scope of the disciplines it publishes.

Sumner attended the WASET conference to get feedback on his research, but after attending it became obvious that the conference was a scam. After digging into WASET’s background, Sumner partnered with [German journalist Svea] Eckert and her colleague Till Krause, who adopted fictitious academic personas and began submitting papers to WASET’s journal. The first paper to get accepted was titled “Highly-Available, Collaborative, Trainable Communication-a policy neutral approach,” which claims to be about a type of cryptoanalysis based on “unified scalable theory.” The paper was accepted by the WASET journal with minimal notes and praise for the authors’ contribution to this field of research.

There was just one problem: The paper was pure nonsense that had been written by a joke software program designed by some MIT students to algorithmically generate computer science papers. It was, in a word, total bullshit.

I particularly got a kick out of the undercover names they adopted when they attended a WASET conference:

The two journalists went in disguise as the fictitious academics Dr. Cindy Poppins and Dr. Edgar Munchhausen.

WASET is by no means alone and there is a real world cost to this. The article references First Immune, a drugmaker from England, that marketed an ineffective cancer treatment:

The problem is that these predatory journals gave First Immune an air of legitimacy for desperate patients with cancer. This predicament is illustrated in the autobiography of a famous German media personality Miriam Pielhau, who died of breast cancer in 2016. In Dr. Hope, Pielhau describes her battle with cancer and how she settled on GcMAF as a last resort and cited medical studies published in predatory journals as the basis of her decision.

The ease with which people can be duped into taking false medical advice was driven home by Eckert and co, who submitted a research paper to the WASET Journal of Integrative Oncology that claimed that bees wax was a more effective cancer treatment than chemotherapy. The paper was accepted and published in the journal with minimal revisions.

As detailed by Eckert and her colleagues, similar tactics are used to publish studies and host conferences funded by major corporations as well, including the tobacco company Philip Morris, the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, and the nuclear safety company Framatone. When the predatory journals publish these companies’ research, they can claim it is “peer reviewed” and thereby grant it an air of legitimacy.

Academics from prestigious universities, including a number of Ivy League schools, have published in these journals. The article is not clear whether the academics were in on the con or not.

This type of thing is hardly restricted to academia. Years ago I used to naively wonder why the best lawyers in Connecticut, chosen by a magazine with the word Connecticutin its name, were, to my own personal knowledge, not really all that good. That was before the days of email, so I now know the answer. In the last several years my inbox at work got, on average, a solication a day from someone offering me an award, providing I was ready to pay up. I even had the chance to be named best financial advisor in the world, which I inexplicably passed up. Well, it’s not really that inexplicable; I wouldn’t take my own financial advice and I certainly never gave any. Even Martindale-Hubbell, whose reason for being was destroyed by the internet, offers awards for a price. In the case of the legal profession, the award recipients are clearly in on the con. So, a bit of free advice: don’t go to a lawyer whose face is on a bus or who touts an award in an ad.

There’s a lesson to be learned here by the average Joe. Now, what was I saying about that genius?

Racist to the core

Senator Tim Scott, of South Carolina, is a black Republican. In my humble opinion, that’s a little like being a Jewish Nazi, a sign either of overweening cynicism or overwhelming stupidity. That being said, it appears Scott, unlike a certain Supreme Court justice whose name shall go unmentioned, retains a shred, as miniscule as it may be, of integrity. He’s proposed to make lynching a federal hate crime, which has put him in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why not a single other Republicanwill co-sponsor the bill. Not even “moderates” like Susan Collins, who comes from Maine, which, so far as I’m aware, has no tradition of lynching, unlike the Southern States, where it’s fairly obvious that making lynching a federal crime would trample on the right of the state governments to look the other way when the right sort of people are lynched.

It says a lot about the modern Republican Party that, so far, not a single Republican, other than Scott, has signed on to support this bill. After all, it’s mostly symbolic, as the Southern states have pretty largely moved on from the lynching phase, and are exploring new, more creative, more modern, and more superficially justifiable ways to keep black people in their place. You would think this would be a perfect opportunity for them to make a meaningless gesture to prove they are not, in fact, the racists they are, (or that they are not totally beholden to their racist base) but they can’t even bring themselves to do that. 

Chris Mattie for AG

This columnby old friend Bill Curry is well worth reading, but I especially want to endorse his take on the AG race:

It’s partly our aged, inbred party machines. In the three-way Democratic primary for Attorney General, Chris Mattei, a clear progressive, faces State Senator Paul Doyle and State Rep. William Tong, two rare Democrats so corporate friendly they’ve been endorsed by the powerful business lobby CBIA.

Math favors the progressive. But Mattei, a former prosecutor, brought a corruption case against staff of former House Speaker Chris Donovan that produced seven guilty pleas. It was one of the two biggest corruption cases of the last decade. The other involved John Rowland. Mattei brought and won both.

Donovan, liked by all, loved by labor, was never charged but the case ended his career. The capitol crowd wants pay-back, not from the felons who sold out our democracy but from the prosecutor who brought them to justice. The result: Labor and its close ally, the reputedly populist Working Families Party, are all in for Tong, fresh off his 2016 CBIA endorsement. Shame.

I’m all in for unions. I helped organized our union when I was at legal services, and I represented it before the NLRB when management contested its formation. Still, the sad fact is that while the Democrats still have a habit of bowing to union demands, union members have a habit of voting Republican. Not all of them, but a lot of them. It would be interesting to know the percent of Connecticut union members who voted for the genius.

I first met Mattei about a year and a half ago, when he was exploring a gubernatorial run. He impressed me then, and he continues to impress. The man put Rowland in jail, for goodness sake – – what’s not to like? Moreover, he’s a nice guy, or does a damn good impression of one. I’ve met a lot of politicians, and the sad fact is that a lot of them, even many I am willing to vote for, are total assholes. Joe Courtney is a true exception to that rule, and so is Mattei.

Friday Night Music

This is the last night of our annual Vermont vacation. For the entire time we’ve been here, Vermont has been taunting us. The sun comes out for a while, and then it rains, and before you know it, the sun is back out. I was driving up the mountain on Route 100A up by Calvin Coolidge’s house, in the drenching rain. Once I passed Cal’s house, the rain stopped, and, 30 seconds later, when I got to the center of Plymouth, I noticed that the road was bone dry; it hadn’t rained there at all.

But today (as if Vermont was rubbing it in) was a perfect day, all day long. It put me in mind of this performance, which I first saw years ago, and may even have posted many years ago. Personally, I think Lou Reed and Pavarotti, together at last, is an interesting combination, and I really enjoy this performance. The reviews on you tube are all over the map. Anyway, it’s a great song.

Book report, continued

A few posts ago I wrote about my reaction to Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now, which I was in the process of reading. I’m still reading it, since it’s fairly thick, and I’m on vacation. Anyway, I have another bone to pick, and I think it illustrates anew Pinker’s both siderism and the fact that he falls into some of the intellectual traps he criticizes in the course of his book.

He makes the well founded point that people on each side of the intellectual spectrum often make predictions about future events based on their ideological beliefs rather than sound data, and notes, correctly, that there is an abundance of pundits that are constantly wrong in their predictions who suffer no consequences for that fact. He more than implies that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, between the two “extremes”. I’ve made the point before that there are not two extremes in this country. I’ve often stated in other contexts that our “extremist”, Bernie Sanders, would, if transplanted to 1968, be simply a typical liberal Democrat.

What set me off was Pinker’s claim that we have become increasingly (and implicitly irrationally) polarized, with irrationality abounding on “both sides”, using as an example the fact that 25% of Democrats consider the Republican Party “a threat to the nation’s well being” while noting that even a greater percentage of Republicans say the same thing about Democrats. Pinker insists in the course of the book that we must use reason to assess the truth value of any proposition, yet he makes no attempt to assess the truth value of either “side”, of this question, but invites, nay demands, that we assume that “both sides” are being irrational and that it is obvious without the need for argument that the Republican Party does not constitute a threat to the nation’s well being. After all, if it does pose such a threat, he can’t possibly have a beef with those 25% of Democrats. I should add that at this point that number has probably swelled among Democrats, Independents, and former Republicans.

Let us pause to set forth what we might consider to be the minimal requirements for the nation’s well being, considering the principles from which it was conceived and to which it is dedicated. Our nation is a liberal representative democracy, now (we like to think) dedicated to the proposition that all peopleare created equal, and that they are endowed by nature with certain inalienable rights. Among those rights are the right to participate in the electoral process and the right to a representative system in which the will of the majority can be expressed through the legislative body, and that the laws promulgated by that legislative body will be faithfully executed, in good faith, by the executive and others charged with their execution. Our system demands that the various branches of government serve as checks upon one another, so that no one branch can dominate and put itself in the position of assuming dictatorial powers. A number of conclusions flow from this, including the conclusion that no group of persons should be able to combine among themselves to accrue the ability to oppress their fellow citizens through, for example, monopoly power or abusive business practices, for such power mimics governmental power yet is not subject to check by the people in any form other than legislation. One could write a book about the nature of a representative democracy, so the above is merely a brief summary of the ends of representative government. I content, (though I think someone else said something similar before) that whenever any political party becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to declare it a threat to the nation’s well being, and, to the extent it lies within their power, to destroy it.

I would humbly submit that Republicans do constitute such a threat. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • The Republican Party, aided by partisan Republican judges, has engaged in, and continues to engage in, wholesale voter suppression, thereby depriving the citizens of a purported democracy of the fundamental right of citizens of a democracy: the right to vote.

  • The Republican Party has engaged in gerrymandering on a scale never seen before, thus insuring that the minority of those allowed to vote select the majority of those elected as representatives.

  • The Republican Party has made common cause with a foreign country to spread disinformation in this country in order to further distort election results.

  • The Republican Party has, at least since 1968, and ever more blatantly, exploited racism in order to prevail at the polls. The Justice Department is now in the hands of an acknowledged racist. Racist judges are being nominated and approved by a Republican Senate. The purpose and effect is to render people of color second class citizens, thus undermining the fundamental principle that all humans are equal and entitled to equal rights under the law.

  • The Republican Party is in the process of attempting to roll back advances with respect to the rights of women, racial minorities, and gay and transgender people.

  • The Republican Party is promoting legal theories that are “weaponizing” the First Amendment in order to exempt its adherents from civil rights laws, thus legalizing discrimination against women, blacks, gays, and immigrants based on specious free speech and free exercise claims.

  • The Republican Party has turned a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the person who currently occupies the office of President of the United States.

  • The Republican Party, through it’s captive television network, has propagandized a large segment of the American population into believing demonstrable untruths.

  • The Republican Party has handed regulatory agencies over to the regulated, and appointed agency heads hostile to the purpose and intent of the legislation they are appointed to enforce, thereby failing to assure that the laws are faithfully executed, and endangering our environment, our educational system, our healthcare system, our access to the internet, and our judicial system, to name just a few.

  • The Republican Party has, with malice aforethought, appointed partisan judges who have ignored decades of precedent in order to allow corporations to purchase politicians through campaign donations while, in effect, legalizing bribery of those politicians once they are elected. The Republican Party has frustrated all efforts to reverse these lawless decisions through curative legislation.

  • The Republican Party has denied proven scientific facts, further endangering our environment and our world.

For the most part, this by no means exhaustive list, is confined to examples of the ways in which Republicans are undermining the structure of our democracy. Further examples of threats to the lower 99.9% of the citizenry abound in other areas, such as the Republican’s determination to transfer wealth to the extremely rich from the rest of us and its determination to accede to the most outrageous demands of the NRA despite the havoc this has wrought. I have not supplied links to the evidence I’ve cited above, because I’m on vacation and I’m lazy. However, most if not all of what I’ve stated above is such common knowledge that, as the judges sometimes say, “it needs no citation”.

It is perhaps true that one can find isolated examples of current Democratic politicians (yes, there were racist Democrats in the past, but the ones who are still alive have all become Republicans, as did those who have since died) who have committed one or more of the above sins against the nation, but such examples are isolated in the extreme, and the Democratic Party does not promote or dog whistle any position that threatens the governmental structure of our nation. The list above does not represent the fringe of the Republican Party, it is a list of the mainstream positions of the Republican Party, with only Susan Collins left to play Hamlet before going along with everything they propose and the always ineffectual John McCain to bleat a protest before doing essentially nothing. There is absolutely nothing similar going on in any significant portion of the Democratic Party. Pinker may know some academics that espouse extreme and wacky “left wing” positions, but those positions never become part of the national discourse. The most radical position taken by any Democratic politician is that we should have a health care system similar to those in every other advanced Western nation. Perhaps slightly to the left is the call from some quarters for a guaranteed income, but I challenge Pinker to explain how that proposal can be characterized as a threat to the nation.

It is simply not true that when there are two sides at loggerheads, they must both be wrong and those in “the middle” (which often simply can’t exist as a matter of logic) are right. The abolitionists were right. The slaveholders were wrong, and by extension, those who sought to preserve the system by a middle road compromise were also wrong. 1932 Germans who perceived the Nazis as a threat (yes, I’m going there) were right; the dog of both sides would not have hunted then either. If a person comes to the well founded conclusion that the Republican Party is a threat to the nation, based on an abundance of evidence, then he or she is using the very faculty of reason Pinker insists they have abandoned. The fact that lots of Republicans say the same thing about the Democratic Party, in the absence of any evidence to support such an assertion, does not by itself invalidate the opinion of the Democrats that Pinker discounts, just as the fact that there are plenty of people that deny climate change does not invalidate the opinion of those who accept climate change as fact. It is, in brief, a matter of fact that the Republican Party is a threat to the nation. I count myself among the 25% (again, probably more by now) that consider the current Republican Party a threat to the nation, and I’m not wrong.

UPDATE: So, I left off reading Pinker’s book after reading the offending statement I’ve cited. A few pages later, after deploring political correctness in academia, he turns to the sins of the right:

…Politicians, unlike professors, pull the levers of power. In 21st-century America, the control of Congress by a Republican Party that became synonymous with the extreme right has been pernicious, because it is so convinced of the righteousness of its cause and the evil of its rivals that it has undermined the instutitions of democracy to get what it wants. The corruptions include gerrymandering, imposing voting restrictions desinged to disenfranchise Democratic voters, encouraging unregulated donations from moneyed interests, blocking Supreme Court nomintions until their party controls the presidency, shutting down the government when their maximal demands are not met, and unconditionally supporting Donald Trump over their own objections to his flagrantly antidemocratic impulses. Whatever differences in policy or philosophy divide the parties, the mechanisms of democratic deliberation shoudl be sacrosanct.

 

In light of that, how can Pinker state or imply that people who think the Republican Party poses a threat to the nation are irrational?

Friday Night Music

So, posting will be even more infrequent, as we just began our annual Vermont vacation.

I don’t know if I ever posted anything by Rhiannon Giddens before, but she is well worth a return trip. I think she’s great, and I’m going to get the new album, from which this song is taken, as soon as I return to Connecticut.

This song reminds us that we have a long and shameful tradition of breaking up families, and it is perfectly understandable that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions wanted in on the action.

Book Report

As I write this, I’m reading Stephen Pinker’s Enlightenment Now. I’ve read at least five of his previous books. I’ve always found his work thought provoking, and this one is too. I recommend it, with a major caveat.

The basic theme of the book is that we need to return to Enlightenment values; that the Enlightenment thinkers had it right, that we have, in fact, progressed remarkably even in the past few years, and that our general discourse is far too pessimistic. He maintains that in spite of that sort of general pessimism, we can solve our problems, and, in fact, some of them are being solved right in front of our faces, but we’re just not aware of it.

In fact, if we assume his basic facts are correct (and they seem well documented), the world as a whole has, indeed, progressed. Extreme poverty is down, as is famine, infant mortality, child abuse, war, violence etc. Diseases that have killed millions in the past have been eradicated. He’s quite right that these developments don’t get headlines, primarily because they don’t happen all at once, but gradually evolve in the background.

The caveat has to do with the fact that the book is infested with a depressing both siderismthat I would maintain is not something that truly exists in the world out there. He spends a lot of time debunking both the “extreme left” and the “extreme right”, never acknowledging that when it comes to the left, there’s not much bunking going on. The discussion of climate change is a good example. According to Pinker, the extreme left is dominated by a movement dedicated to solving the climate crisis by, basically, pushing us back to the Middle Ages. According to him, progressives, who once championed rural electrification and economic development are now advocating for impoverishing rich nations by, for example, switching back to “labor intensive agriculture”. I would challenge him to name a single self identified progressive politician who would take that position. He also cites the fact that whackjob Naomi Klein, who we are to take as an exemplar of the left, teamed up with the (um..right wing) Koch Brothers to defeat a ballot initiative in Washington State that would have imposed a carbon tax in that state. He fails to mention that the proposal itself was a creature of the political left, for this hyper-sane idea is anethema to the right, as the Koch involvement shows.

There are some movements that are simply not situated anywhere on the political spectrum, and back to nature, rejection of technology type thinking is one of them, just like the vaccination causes autismdelusion. The actual political left is really quite comfortable with trying to use technology to deal with climate change, though it (along with others all over the spectrum) may be a bit uncomfortable with some of the technological solutions advanced by Pinker. He makes a strong case for nuclear power as a key ingredient in fighting climate change, and he may well be right. But at the moment, there isn’t much support in this country for nuclear power anywhere on the political spectrum, since the Koch Brothers sell oil, so that’s not a left-right issue at the moment either. In any event, it’s those of us on the left that are pumping for technologies such as solar, while those in the right are trying to quash them.

False equivalency rears its head when a tiny cadre of environmental extremists are contrasted with the huge numbers of the political right. I could easily compile a list of a hundred members of Congress who are climate deniers, and all of them would be Republicans. The head of NASA, also a Republican, is a climate denier. The person who occupies the position of President of the United States is a climate denier. Climate deniers have their own television network. It is simply a distraction to compare some fringe people hardly anyone has heard of to the right wing political machine.

I’ve focused on the climate change argument, but the book as a whole suffers from this defect. It’s the same “both siderism” to which our media is still wedded, despite the massive evidence that there is only one side that is truly wreaking havoc.

Nonetheless, the book is well worth reading. It is important that we be aware of the broader currents of progress that are indeed out there, and remember that the core Enlightenment values of, as Pinker puts them, “Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress” are as pertinent today as they were in the days of Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton, et. al. It helps to be reminded that progress is not only possible, but happening. We on the left, who never abandoned the Enlightenment, welcome Pinker to the ranks of those who think continued progress is both possible and desirable.

I got mail

Today I got a piece of mail with no return address, but I knew it was important because it had strict instructions on the envelope that it should be delivered only to me and that it should not be destroyed. So, of course, I hastened to open it, and found it was a letter personally addressed to me, from David Bossie, of the Citizens United Foundation, which began:

Dear John:

Enough is enough. Today, I need your help to stop the radicals who are erasing God from American life

Specifically, I’m asking you to represent Connecticut in an extraordinary nationwide survey. (Emphasis and lack of period in original)

I felt incredibly honored to be asked to represent Connecticut, and answer such questions as: “Do you agree that the phrase ‘One Nation, Under God’ belongs in our Pledge of Allegiance”, to which of course I would have answered “No!”. Lest you think my answers would have been entirely negative, I would have answered “Yes!”, to “Should Christian businesses such as bakers and florists be forced by the government to violate their religious beliefs?”

But as I read the letter, I began to think that maybe the whole point was to get my money. I also really began to wonder what list they bought that had my name on it, because, I confess, I am truly ashamed to be on that list.

I would have filled out their survey, just to be polite, but I would have had to pay for the stamp to send it back. Something tells me they must have found it was a mistake in the past to pre-pay postage.