Skip to content

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.

It’s a funny old world

According to Mark Zuckerberg, a logo with the word “sex” in it is too too offensive, and must be taken down, with the perpetrator banned for 30 days. On the other hand, holocaust denial is regrettable, but won’t be removed, because, after all, they’re not “ intentionally getting it wrong”.

Friday Night Music

Now for something completely different. This is going around, but I thought I’d pass it along for anyone who hasn’t already seen it. This guy is brilliant.

Quotes of the day

I just finished reading a new translation of the Bhagavad-Gita, which I last read, in a different translation, back in my ultra-hippie days. For those unfamiliar with the story line, it takes place on a battlefield. The two main characters are Arjuna, a warrior, and Krishna, his charioteer, who, it turns out, is actually an avatar of Vishnu. Arjuna gets cold feet about fighting, primarily because it appears the war is of the civil variety, and he is likely to be killing his close relatives. Krishna gives him a religion lesson, reveals himself in all his glory, and explains, basically, why it is okay, even mandatory, for Arjuna to fight, so long as his heart is pure. That last sentence is a gross simplification and distortion, but it’s not my intent to expound on a religious text.

Krishna calls Arjuna various names at various times, including Partha, which I’m telling you only because that name appears in the quotes below. 

In one chapter, Krishna explains the difference between those born with a divine inheritance(meaning they may surmount the endless cycle of rebirth and reach the Hindu heaven) and those born with the demonic inheritance(meaning they’re nasty people doomed to endless rebirths). By their attributes may you know them, and I thought I’d pass along a few verses describing the demonic type, because they brought to someone to mind. Whoever can guess who I’m referring to gets a lifetime subscription to CTBlue.

Fraudulence, arrogance, narcissism,
Anger, coarseness, ignorance,
Belong to someone, Partha,
Born with a demonic inheritance


Demonic people don’t know
What to do, what not to do,
Or purity, or proper conduct
No finding any truth in them!

Trapped and roped by a hundred hopes,
Devout in lust and rage,
Intending to enjoy their lusts, they strive
To stockpile wealth illegally

”This is how much I profited today,
And this, the chariot I have in mind,
And this, and this as well, is mine,
And more wealth in the future!

”How rich I am, how well-born!
Who else is like me?
I’ll sacrifice, I’ll donate, I’ll rejoice!”
So they say, by ignorance deluded.

Self absorbed and stubborn,
Full of wealth and pride and drunkenness,
Their sacrifice, though called a sacrifice
Is mere hypocrisy without the rite rules

They cling to egotism, force,
Insolence, lust and anger.

The stuff I’ve skipped is equally applicable to the person I’m thinking of, but would require some exegesis I’m not prepared to supply.

So, this particular person, a genius maybe, has, according to Vishnu, undergone an endless cycle of rebirths, each time emerging from a demonic womb, each time as an extremely horrible person. I prefer to stick to my devout atheism, because if Krishna is right, we’ll never get rid of the guy.

Treason this week, forgotten next week

The reaction to Trump’s press conference with Putin was so negative that even the folks at Fox joined in the initial wave of disgust, though over the course of the next few days they’ll surely come around. Still, it is not every day that a former director of the CIA accuses a sitting President of treason. In fact, there has never been such a day until now.

I won’t point out what would have happened had Obama declared that he trusted Putin more than his own intelligence agencies, except to say that the Republicans would have run hard on it, would have made liberal use of the word “traitor”, and would have tarred every Democrat as a fellow traveler. I will, however, point out that the Democrats will do no such thing, as it would be oh so impolite. It has been pointed out ( on Twitter, if nowhere else) that Kavanaugh could be derailed if but two Republicans refused to vote on his nomination until the Russian questions were cleared up. Those two would also provide a safe harbor for the chicken shit red state Democratic Senators operating under the delusion that voting for Kavanaugh will somehow endear them to the Foxaholics in their states. A little pressure toward that end, and a drumbeat about Trump and his puppet master would be a perfect ingredient to add into the mix of issues the Democrats should be pushing in the fall. Repetition works, especially when it’s based on facts. It works, even when it isn’t. That’s why the genius is where he is today. But this shameful event will be down the memory hole in, by my estimate, a week. That’s a long time by modern day standards, but it needn’t disappear at all if only the Democrats would keep that memory alive.

Little Trumpie on his best behavior

We were away for the weekend, so it was not until a few hours ago that I say this article in the New London Day about Trump’s visit to England. On line, the story is titled, appropriately, Protests, diplomatic backflips mark Trump’s visit to England. But I saw it first in the printed newspaper, where the title reads, weirdly, Trump on his best behavior in visit to England.

I think I’ve remarked before that the person who composes the headlines at The Dayoften gives things a right wing slant, but it looks a little like he or she has a colleague on the web side that doesn’t see things the same way.

Anyway, I was struck by the printed headline for a couple of reasons. First of all, I had kept up with the news enough to know that Trump managed to piss off about 99% of the people of Great Britain. In that, perhaps, he did something somewhat constructive, in that the English, the Scots, and the Welsh found common cause. I mean the man even found a way to be rude to the queen of England, and not in her capacity as the queen, but simply as a human being. So, in other words, I knew the headline was false from start to finish.

I was also a bit mystified. Was the headline writer being serious, or was he or she being artfully sarcastic?

The only reason one would point out that someone was on their “best behavior” would be because one has reason to expect bad behavior, something we really shouldn’t expect from the person holding the office the genius now holds. The article actually does use the phrase, but it appears to be a satiric use and, as a title, it hardly accurately summarizes the contents, the web version being far more accurate. So, there was the possibility that the intent was satiric.

On the other hand, the intent might have been to actually put a favorable spin on the story. After all, lots of people only read headlines and initial paragraphs, and you have to get to the second paragraph and beyond in this story to realize the magnitude of the disaster that was the genius’s visit to England. But if it was intended to be favorable to Trump, why use verbiage that would reflect well on a four year old, but not on a grown man?

This mystery may never be solved. It is a mystery we would never have needed to solve when Obama was president. I’ll even go so far as to say that there has never been a president whose “behavior” needed to be rated in this fashion.