Uniformity, inequity and exclusivity

Get the button

On a recent weekend, Elon Musk’s henchmen made an "unprecedented and breathtakingly broad incursion into, and accessing of, closely held U.S. government systems and data involving millions of Americans." Donald Trump is kicking doors down fast and it seems no one cares or does much about it. 

I've shared my views with Congressmen and Senators on a good few occasions. But recently  when a friend asked me to contact my representatives I was reluctant to do so. These days I feel like no one is listening, or if they're listening, they're failing to act.  I asked why should I bother to contact my representatives when they won't listen? In the end, I made the calls. An intern for one of my representatives assured me that she was listening. But I fear other people's representatives are not. They like what the administration does and so do their constituents.

Trump ignores rules and foregoes established procedures and lawmakers don't challenge him. He attempts to revoke birthright citizenship, is brutal with immigrants, and claims that merit should substitute for diversity, equity and inclusion. In his world, merit is something white men have and sometimes loan to white women. In his world, non-white candidates only get hired when standards are purposely lowered, never because of merit.

Trump has banned all reference to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) in government agencies and ended DEI initiatives.  Several sources have suggested that DEI training may not always achieve its ends. In 2016, the Harvard Business Review reported that some DEI efforts have actually worsened workplace equality. Those who voluntarily engage in diversity training shift their views, while those who feel forced into training may harden their views against it. Engaging workers to promote diversity works well, while coercing them to do so worsens workplace equity.

So does that mean we should do away with DEI entirely? I don't think so. One can't change a person who doesn't want to change, but other people seek out self-improvement, and a best means of self-improvement is learning and challenging one's biases. The current effort to do away with DEI really promotes a hidden message. That message is that a certain group of people — white men — has traditionally held the most power in the USA and should continue to do so —  especially if it keeps others from enjoying the same comforts and privileges.

This message ignores that American values represent those of a conglomerate of peoples and cultures. An America that becomes uniform, inequitable and exclusive is not an America in which most Americans will thrive. It's not the America I want. Do you?

Visitations

Jumpnauts: A Novel (Folding Universe)
S&S/Saga Press  2024
Fiction 367 pages
Hao Jingfang
Ken Liu (Translator)

In the not too distant future two factions engage in unending combat over which will control the world. One protagonist is the son of a wealthy business family. Another has devoted his career to the military. Like today, factions struggle to increase their wealth and power.

An archeologist’s daughter holds the key to meeting the aliens who’ve visited our planet every 700 years for the past several thousand. Others become interested, including the two enemy protagonists, and a ship is launched to rendezvous with the aliens.

This setup could begin an average science fiction story, but Jumpnauts is more than an average story. First, the character development is excellent. The characters have rich histories and conflicts to confront and resolve.

Second, the story references classic Chinese philosophy and ancient mythology comes alive as the story unfolds.

Third, it takes a new approach. Telepathy has long figured in science fiction, but in this case, it pays homage, if only in passing, to information theory.

The Paranormal Ranger: A chilling memoir of investigations into the paranormal in Navajoland
William Morrow 2024
Fiction 282 pages
Stanley Milford, Jr.

Telepathy is not addressed in The Paranormal Ranger, but other strange phenomena are. These include, UFOs, hauntings, sasquatch, witchcraft and skinwalkers. Navajoland covers more than 27 thousand square miles and overlaps three states. It’s a harsh, sparely populated land – the sort of land where one might find paranormal happenings, if one were to find them at all. Stanley Milford, Jr. worked decades as a ranger on this land. During this time he and his partner became leading investigators of odd and troubling phenomena. Sometimes their investigations uncovered mundane explanations, but other investigations led only to the inexplicable. This is an easily consumed memoir from a man dedicated to resolving conflicts and unburdening worried citizens.

Like Jumpnauts this book also discusses the possibility that Earth may have been visited by interstellar travelers in its past. While the science fiction novel is lite on details, the memoir provides details of alien visitations through Navajo origin stories and ancient rock depictions of star people. It also provide a glimpse into Navajo culture and its traditional tales.

Stolen lyrics

The Beatles 1968 hit, "Revolution," peaked at 12 on the Billboard Top 100. Until recently, few knew that they actually plagiarized the tune and changed the lyrics of a song originally performed by a Mersey dockside band aboard a German submarine converted into a coffee house by the drummer's mother.

When the song was finally released in 1969, the Beatles sued the band into oblivion and all known copies of the 45 were destroyed.

This is that song:

Reservation

by John Lemon and Paul McCaroni

You say you have a reservation
Well, you know
We all like a pricey meal

You tell me that it's discrimination
Well, you know
You should have worn a power tie

But when you talk about instruction
Don't imply that I don't know my job
Don't you know you're gonna wait so long

So long
So long

You say I'm stiffer than old Mr. Brann
Well, you know
Chef might strike you with a frying pan

You threaten me with retribution
Well, you know
You should tip me with more money, man

But if you offer money so you don't have to wait
All I can tell you is dinner is going to be late
Don't you know you're gonna wait so long

So long
So long

You say waiting gives you constipation
Well, you know
We all want to get you fed
You tell me that the bar's way too loud
Well, you know

It's better
drinking in a crowd
But if go asking for carry out menus now
You deserve to eat fast food anyhow
Don't you know you're gonna wait so long

So long
So long
So long, so long
So long, so long
So long, so long
  

Weird

I have rarely, if ever, been more moved by a movie then I was by "Weird, the Al Yankovic Story." Daniel Radcliffe, an actor formerly featured in a string of low budget movies about a boarding school for deviants called Pigpimples, or something, stars in his greatest, and career defining, role as American rock superstar, Weird Al Yankovic. The story traces Yankovic's strange and troubled youth to his rise as America's most celebrated musician.

In one early scene, Yankovic is invited to a party hosted by world famous disc jockey, Dr. Demento. The party is crashed by wannabe famous DJ, Wolfman Jack. Bassist, John Deacon, begs Yankovic to write a parody of one of Queen's songs, "Another One Rides the Bus." Andy Warhol, however remarks to fellow artist, Salvador Dali, that Yankovic's fame will last about fifteen minutes. Also in attendance at Demento's party are offbeat musicians, Frank Zappa and Alice Cooper.

Perhaps you wonder why I waited until two years after its release before reviewing this dramatic gem. As a member of the downtrodden proletarian class. I eschew movie theaters. Instead, I waited until the movie was available through Kanopy, a streaming service provided through a socialist institution called a public library.

Be advised however, that this is a serious drama rather than a mere parody of a rise-to-fame rock movie, or a decline-to-obscurity rock movie such as, "This is Spinal Tap." I give "Weird" a rarely awarded eleven.

Enough. Stop.

In its war with Hamas, Israel has killed thousands of Gaza residents, many of those noncombatants. Today more thousands in Lebanon and Syria were injured when Hezbollah pagers simultaneously exploded. This latest aggression is pure atrocity. Israel has the right to defend itself, certainly, but not like this. Innocent children are among the few known so far to have died.

If a UN resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the United States should vote in its favor. It should also stop supplying Israel with weapons. Every time innocents die in Gaza, Israel claims it was targeting Hamas. That excuse is no longer believable. Hezbollah used pagers because Israel was too good at hacking their phones. This along with the technical prowess  required to explode pagers on command make me wonder why Israel can't target Hamas without killing innocents as well. Does Israel really care about which Palestinians they kill? It should because the world is watching and thinking that its violent excess must stop.

In Biblical times the Jews made a covenant with God to uphold His laws. One of those laws is, "Thou shalt not kill." Israel no longer keeps its ancient covenant. I am appalled that a people would break its promise to God. Perhaps Israel will come to its senses. Perhaps it can still seek peace. I will pray.

Nine clouds and an illusion

The Nine Cloud Dream (Kuunmong)
Penguin Classics 2019
Fiction 288 pages
Kim Man-jung
Heinz Insu Fenkl (Editor, Introduction, Translator)

Serious spoiler alert. The cheapest writer’s trick ever is telling a tale and then revealing it to was all a dream. Yet the author gets away with it by using reincarnation to obscure his intention.  Toward the end of the novel he introduces the sage who dreamt he was a butterfly and wakes wondering if he is now a butterfly dreaming it is a sage. One questions what is real and what is illusion. The story is fantastical. A master sends a young monk to Hell and then the reborn monk sets off as a poor scholar. Along the way he finds good luck and meets women he promises to reunite with. Eventually he becomes an adopted prince and takes those nine women as wives and concubines. Then in his mature years he becomes disillusioned and seeks an ancient master for instruction. He must now confront the realization that what appears real is actually illusion.

As the hero woos women with poetry and engages in fantastic feats of warfare and diplomacy the reader eagerly comes along. This rags to riches story entices readers until their “suspension of disbelief” hits the inevitable surprise promised by the title.  This drives home the point that we are all victims of the illusions we experience.

Kim Man-jung’s story, Kuunmong, takes place in Chinese and is written in Chinese. Author, Kim Man-jung himself resided in Korea and was active in the royal court. Some scholars believe the Kuunmong was published in 1789, though other scholars question that date.

Collateral damage

The 1968 Democratic convention is remembered for the violence that Chicago’s police unleashed upon Vietnam War protesters. In statements before this year’s Democratic convention, Chicago officials have forsworn a violent response to war protest, but not overruled arrests if protesters break laws. Nobody wants a repeat of 1968, yet sizable protests are expected.

Protest issues at the Republican convention included, the war in Gaza, immigration, reproductive rights, and a perceived racist agenda. Protests at the Democratic convention will largely target the Gaza war. Some feel that the current administration has done too little to confront Israel’s aggressive tactics in Gaza and elsewhere. This obscures the truth. Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have confronted Israel verbally — its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has deflected those criticisms. What can one do when an ally refuses to listen? Continue supplying it arms?

Sadly, the administration’s options are hampered by decades of US support for Israel. Since many Democrats and most Republicans support Israel, strong criticism of that country would be political suicide for a leader who does so.

When people are secure in their beliefs, those beliefs can be rubbish and still go unchallenged. International bodies have condemned Israel for allowing settlement in occupied territory, but the United States says little about the matter. Knowing it has a strong ally, Israel ignores such international criticisms and permits settler lawlessness. This is bad enough but Israel now uses tactics that many countries are calling genocidal. Many here believe in Israel’s “right to defend itself” and ignore the reality that Israel’s actions go well beyond self-defense and decency. The belligerent statements by some Israeli leaders demonstrate an unwillingness to pursue peace.

Israel has long said that its Palestinian enemies use citizens as “human shields” and there may be some truth in that. However, this doesn’t grant Israel license to attack schools, hospitals, aid convoys and refugee camps. For Israel, finding Hamas militants is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Hamas is the needle and innocent civilians are the haystack. Israel destroys haystacks to find needles. Benjamin Netanyahu’s stated intent is to eliminate Hamas. Perhaps he could do so, but he can’t erase memories. As long as Palestinians remain so, too, will remain those who seek vengeance. Groups like Hamas will form again and the violence will continue. Hamas, or its ideas, can’t be destroyed without either genocide or the utter subjugation of Palestinian citizens. Neither is a viable solution.

Israel’s current behavior cannot continue if the Middle East is to remain relatively peaceful. As long as Israel has a powerful ally willing to bring aircraft carriers into its region to discourage escalation, Israel has little incentive for peace. Pro-Palestinian protests at the Democratic convention may focus unearned blame on Democrats. This could help Republicans win in November and continue enabling Israel’s bad behavior. Regardless of which party wins, unless our leaders forcefully demand peace by withholding arms and assistance, our country may drawn into a vicious Middle East war.

 

 

 

Get real

 

I admit it. I’m fond of fake news and loathe looking at reality. By “reality” I mean the world described by an unidentified White House aide in 2004. Ron Suskind wrote in The New YorkTimes:

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’"

While some consider news in media organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and the BBC to be fake, I consider them to be reality based and factual. Since news is reported similarly by different such “fake news” organizations, I can’t believe that their news is untrue. There are too many organizations are involved to sustain a conspiracy. Further, these organizations identify their information sources and attempt to present all sides of various issues.

Ron Suskind’s article addressed a faith based presidential administration. He wrote:

“The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret.”

Suskind did not call it an untruthful administration, but in retrospect it is now known that the United States declared war on Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never proven or found. When her husband presented a fact-based correction, CIA agent, Valerie Plame's covert identity was revealed by someone in the Bush administration. This after-the-fact action can only be seen as pure spitefulness.

I have no problem with having faith, as long as that faith is tempered with facts and logic — however the Bush administration wasn’t tarnished by the president’s faith, but by its lack of truthfulness.

The Washington Post claims Donald Trump lied to or misled the public over 30,000 times during his four years as president.That kind of untruthfulness sets a bad example for like-minded partisans. During the recent Republican convention speakers fibbed freely. Here are some examples:

On the opening night of the Republican National Convention, Nikki Haley said of Democrats, “They want massive tax hikes on working families.” In reality, Biden’s tax proposals would increase taxes on the top one percent of earners not on the majority of earners who earn far less. Those who would receive the higher tax burden make up the same one percent of earners who benefited from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

On the second day Kari Lake said of her opponent, “Just last week, Ruben Gallego voted to let the millions of people who poured into our country illegally cast a ballet in this upcoming election.” Gallego had voted against a law that would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Such a bill would create obstacles to voter registration for many potential voters. Proving citizenship would likely require a birth certificate, a document few keep handy, should they actually own a copy. Immigrants who become naturalized citizens receive certificates of citizenship. Those born here do not.

It is illegal for non-citizens to vote and there is sparse evidence of immigrants risking deportation by doing so, yet Ted Cruz claimed that illegal immigration, “happened because Democrats cynically decided they wanted votes from illegals more than they wanted to protect our children.” Cruz provided no supporting evidence for this claim, perhaps because there isn’t any.

On the convention’s third day, JD Vance said, “Joe Biden is willing to buy energy from tinpot dictators but not hard-working Americans right here at home.” The New York Times labeled this statement false adding that a record breaking amount of crude oil was produced here in 2023. 

I could provide more examples but instead I’d like to return to the idea that a lying leader encourages others to lie as well. Exaggerated claims have long played a part in politics, but the current trend of speaking outright lies instead of facts is new to this country. It’s dangerous to think that when an empire acts it creates its own reality. Such thinking ignores external realities such as climate change or foreign wars. Totalitarian regimes try to control what information their peoples receive. Do Republicans seek totalitarianism?

On July 27, Donald Trump, after noting that Christians are, “not big voters,” said,

“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

His campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, explained,

 “President Trump was talking about uniting this country and bringing prosperity to every American, as opposed to the divisive political environment that has sowed so much division and even resulted in an assassination attempt.”

As far as that goes: 1) Trump’s economic plan of high tariffs and tax cuts for the rich would make life miserable for average Americans, 2) The FBI hasn’t established a motive, so the assumption that divisive politics resulted in an assassination attempt isn’t justified, 3) about that divisiveness … Most of the name calling has come from the right, not the left, so how exactly does Trump and his party plan to unite the country? Calling Democrats ‘Communists’ and immigrants ’rapists’ is both untruthful and unjustified. Name calling can’t promote unity.

Outfoxed

The Fox Wife: A Novel
Yangsze Choo
Fiction 392 pages
Henry Holt and Co., Press, 2024

“There are as many kinds of foxes as there are types of people. Some are criminals. Others seek to escape this world by refining themselves.”

“The Fox Wife” is told through two perspectives. First person narration comes through a female fox out for revenge, while an elderly detective’s attempts to solve a complex mystery are told through the third person. The chapters alternate, first one told in first person followed by the next in the third person. It works.

 I’ve had difficulty reading stories in which the main characters alternate. An interesting chapter can be followed by a dull one that ruins the effect of the first. But if dovetailed characters and plots are equally interesting, boredom doesn’t arise. An effective twined narrative requires a skilled writer and Yangsze Choo is that.

 Set in 1908 Manchuria, the year in which China’s empress died, and three years prior to its revolution, China’s Qing dynasty is in decline. Revolutionary fervor infects its students. The daughters of poor families are sold to brothels while multiple wives and concubines occupy wealthier homes. It’s a China on the edge of modernity. Old tales of shapeshifting foxes are increasingly considered superstition, yet Bao the detective puzzles over alternative explanations for unlikely occurrences. He has room for doubt remembering how in childhood his nurse worshiped at a fox shrine and his friend claimed to have met a fox in human form.

 This novel features love, lust, loss, mystery, murder and madness. It’s well worth a read.

Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio
Pu Songling (Died 1715) translated by Herbert A. Giles
Fiction 448 pages depending on edition
Public Domain, 1880 translation

Many tales of shapeshifting foxes can be found in Pu Songling’s story anthology. Here is an example.

Friendship with Foxes

A certain man had an enormous stack of straw, as big as a hill, in which his servants, taking what was daily required for use, had made quite a hole. In this hole a fox fixed his abode, and would often show himself to the master of the house in the form of an old man.

 One day the latter invited the master to walk into the cave, which he at first declined, but accepted on being pressed by the fox; and when he got inside, lo! he saw a long suite of handsome apartments. They then sat down, and exquisitely perfumed tea and wine were brought; but the place was so gloomy that there was no difference between night and day. By-and-by, the entertainment being over, the guest took his leave; and on looking back the beautiful rooms and their contents had all disappeared.

 The old man himself was in the habit of going away in the evening and returning with the first streaks of morning; and as no one was able to follow him, the master of the house asked him one day whither he went. To this he replied that a friend invited him to take wine; and then the master begged to be allowed to accompany him, a proposal to which the old man very reluctantly consented. However, he seized the master by the arm, and away they went as though riding on the wings of the wind; and, in about the time it takes to cook a pot of millet, they reached a city, and walked into a restaurant, where there were a number of people drinking together and making a great noise.

The old man led his companion to a gallery above, from which they could look down on the feasters below; and he himself went down and brought away from the tables all kinds of nice food and wine, without appearing to be seen or noticed by any of the company. After awhile a man dressed in red garments came forward and laid upon the table some dishes of cumquats; and the master at once requested the old man to go down and get him some of these. “Ah,” replied the latter, “that is an upright man. I cannot approach him.”

 Thereupon the master said to himself, “By thus seeking the companionship of a fox, I then am deflected from the true course. Henceforth I, too, will be an upright man.” No sooner had he formed this resolution, than he suddenly lost all control over his body, and fell from the gallery down among the revelers below. These gentlemen were much astonished by his unexpected descent; and he himself, looking up, saw there was no gallery to the house, but only a large beam upon which he had been sitting. He now detailed the whole of the circumstances, and those present made up a purse for him to pay his traveling expenses; for he was at Yü-t‘ai—one thousand li from home.

Supreme Avoidance

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court met to address Colorado’s ruling that Donald Trump should be excluded from its ballots for fomenting an insurrection. When they had adjourned many pundits opined that the justices, including those in the liberal minority, were disinclined to let Colorado’s ruling stand. Allowing Colorado to exclude trump from the ballot would be an injustice to American voters as a whole and could set a precedent allowing other states to take retaliatory action against candidates they didn’t like.

The Supreme Court has a good point here, but is it the correct point for them to put forward? None of them even glanced at the elephant in the chamber. That elephant is the allegation that Trump instigated an insurrection, rather than a mere riot, or a rowdy  picnic. I believe that what occurred on January 6, 2021 was an insurrection, though one that was ill-conceived, poorly planned, and doomed from the start. It would have had a better chance of  success if the Capital had not been breached.

Not everyone thinks this way. Various polls found that between 44 and 50 percent of respondents believe that the events of January 6 did not constitute an insurrection. Other polls indicate that between 30 and 40 percent of respondents believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

Given the large number of Americans who deny that an insurrection occurred the Supreme Court avoided controversy by side-stepping the issue. Acknowledging an insurrection attempt would have lessened public doubt. But sidestepping the issue does nothing to address the greatest current threat to our system. That threat is an absence of  publicly accepted facts. This threat is only being addressed through libel suits against public figures and media providers. These are helpful, but it would be more helpful if an authority like the Supreme Court were to say: “This is true. That is false.” This can’t happen with a Supreme Court that’s falling into the same partisan vortex that’s swallowing our democracy.

Trump didn’t need his rowdy picnic (or insurrection) because he’d already lined up nearly 150 Republicans willing to delay certification of the election results – eight from the Senate and 139 from the House of Representatives – even though over five dozen election fraud lawsuits had been dismissed prior to January 6. If the Supreme Court were to agree that Trump had violated the 14th Amendment by attempting an insurrection it would be admitting that at least some of the 147 Republicans eager to deny Bidden his win might be in violation of the Constitution as well. The Court can’t do this if it wants to maintain a semblance of normalcy. Sadly, a semblance is not sufficient to keep the country running well. It’s time to address a polarized and dysfunctional political system. Colorado made a good start by bringing the issue to the table. Expecting a partisan congress to enforce the 14th Amendment is a non-starter.

Can we trust Artificial Intelligence more than the Fake News?

 

In 1993 the World Wide Web was released to the public.  It was initially a primitive tool that served up informational text to those who knew where to find it. Soon it could display graphics as well. Java script then allowed it to do things. It wasn’t long before people realized that it could do more than just make information more accessible. It could make people money as well. Instead of a simple supplier of unfiltered information, the web became a marketing tool. And that taint has remained ever since.

“Garbage in. Garbage out,” was an early slogan in the computing industry. What one feeds a computer determines what data it vomits. The same principal applies to artificial intelligence. Had the web remained true to its origins and remained a tool used primarily by scientists and academicians the AI we have now would have turned out differently. Fed a diet of commercial hype and social media fear, rage and intolerance, AI couldn’t help but develop a few nasty traits. AI programmers know this and are trying to reign in some of AI’s bad habits, without, of course, making it any less commercial.

 So how are they doing so far? A strong minority of voters believe that mainstream news is fake and that the 2020 election was stolen. I wondered how those beliefs would fare when thrown at an AI. I asked two questions: 1) How did Biden steal the 2020 election from Trump? And 2) How do we know the 2020 election was fair?

 Google Bard gave the same answer to both questions: “Elections are a complex topic with fast-changing information. To make sure you have the latest and most accurate information, try Google Search.” Not terribly helpful, that.

 Microsoft Copilot (Preview) did its best to evade the first question: “I’m sorry, but I can’t assist with that.”

 It did a bit better with the second question. It admitted that the fairness of the election, “has been a topic of debate.” Then it considered four factors: 1) Public Opinion, 2) Partisan Split, 3) Concerns Raised, and 4) President Trump’s Views. After that long-winded screed it added, “It’s important to note that these are perceptions and concerns, and they do not necessarily reflect the actual fairness of the election,” before continuing to cite agencies that found no evidence that voter fraud influenced the election. Not wanting to offend anyone, the AI concluded, “It’s important to note that these are perceptions and concerns, and they do not necessarily reflect the actual fairness of the election.” Microsoft simply won’t come right out and say the election was fair.

 I also tried these questions on the start-up search engine, Perplexity.ai. This AI held nothing back. It’s answer to the first question began, “There is no credible evidence to support the claim that President Joe Biden stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump. Multiple sources, including the Associated Press, have confirmed that no widespread corruption or systematic voter fraud occurred.” Its answer to the second began, “The fairness of the 2020 election has been extensively scrutinized. Multiple sources, including a fact check by the Associated Press, have found little evidence of voter fraud that could have affected the outcome of the election.”

 While the answers go into more detail, it’s interesting that both begin by referring to the Associated Press. Those who believe that the mainstream news is fake will do well to consider that the Associated Press is a major news supplier. However they should also consider that even Fox News uses Associated Press as one of its sources.

What goes around comes around

The Ecstasy of Owen Muir
Ring Lardner Jr.
1954, Fiction, 272, 281, or 302 pages depending on edition

This is a book guaranteed to offend staunch members of a particular religious affiliation and staunch supporters of a certain political stripe. Others, whose views are more accommodating, will find hilarious satire within its pages.

Ring Lardner was a popular journalist who wrote humorously about baseball and other topics. His son was a screenwriter, one of the Hollywood Ten convicted of Contempt of Congress for their refusal to participate in Senator McCarthy’s anti-Communist witch hunt. When asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?” Ring Lardner Jr. responded, “I could answer the way you want, Mr. Chairman, but I’d hate myself in the morning.” This answer resulted in a stint in prison.

Owen Muir is the son of a Long Island financier, but cares more for books than money. Despite his efforts to remain obscure, Owen is elected president of his eighth grade class. Returning home, he attempts to explain to his father how he obtained his dubious honor. To this the elder Muir replies, “What are you telling me all that nonsense for? Look, Ownie, you’re a bright fellow in your own peculiar way, skipping grades and getting those marks. You ought to be beginning to think about things in grown-up terms, realistically. One of the basic rules of life, and don’t you ever forget it, is results count, nothing else does.”

Later in the book, his father explains how capitalism and advertising work, “The particular item you’re manufacturing may be useless in the sense that no one in his right mind would buy it of his own accord, and anybody who does buy it will feel afterwards that he’s been had. But the way our economy works, no occasion when money changes hands is useless.”

However, prior to Owen’s attempt to dabble in capitalism, he attends college: “In college as in school his unorthodox appearance was held against him and the fact that his attitudes were also non-conformist made him even more of an outcast. Barred from some undergraduate pursuits by ineptitude and from others by popular demand, he was compelled to the solace of his own devices. He listened to Sibelius in the hours devoted to football practice, read Schopenhauer during proms and absorbed facts while his classmates were exchanging gossip.”

With all that intellectual activity going on, Owen acquires ideals and refuses to register for the draft. Being a person of principal, Owen experiences harsh consequences which he could easily have avoided by compromising his principals. And so goes his life; Owen finds and follows ideals and attempts to find a place in a world filled with hypocrites and shallow thinkers.

This book is worth a read for its humor, but also for its depiction of the early 1950s. The American zeitgeist has changed since then. The fifties decade looked nothing like the sixties or seventies. Strangely, 2023 resembles 1954 to a fair extent. Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

Divided we fall

 

Here in Amerika we have two strong political parties and several week ones. We could have many strong parties or none at all, but we’ve fallen into a convenient binary rut. Amerika’s green and orange parties have had minor disagreements at times, but presently those disagreements are major. At one time those parties shared what were called “facts”, but differed as to opinions. Today, however, the two parties don’t even acknowledge the same "facts".

 Facts are meant to correspond to reality to some extent, but since the greens and oranges vehemently disagree on which narratives are factual, at least one of those parties no longer cares if their “facts” correspond to reality. In other words, they lie.

 It should be easy to identify which party lies, but it’s not. That’s because various purveyors of “news” have chosen sides. So now it’s hard to tell if the “fake news” side is really the one telling fake news or if the other side is gaslighting us.

 How to properly interpret the intent of the Second Amendment has often been discussed, but there’s been no discussion about how to interpret the intent of the First Amendment. If freedom of speech really meant freedom to fib freely this country could not have survived this long. I think the founders intended freedom of speech to be tempered by factuality. Amerikans deplore dictatorships that expurgate truth while promoting lies, but lately they’re willing to allow falsehoods here.

Some Amerikans examine “facts” in light of “evidence” while others would rather go with their guts. Not every gut feeling is a healthy one however; some are composed of hatred, fear, jealousy, and other emotions more personal than true reflections of reality. Knowing this some use rhetoric designed to inflame emotions, instead of factual arguments. We could pass laws compelling people to speak truly when speaking freely, but first we would have to set a standard for what counts as evidence of truthfulness. That standard would have to be tight enough to limit lies while loose enough to allow for opinions. It would be a tricky law to write and enforce while protecting freedom of speech. Such a law won’t be written any time soon because the greens and the oranges have no intention of cooperating.

 People are able to cooperate in workplaces and schools, but many politicians now choose money and power over morality. Sadly, if we don’t soon learn to cooperate for the general good, Amerika won’t survive.

 

Oh, no, not again

 Once again America's financial credibility is on borrowed time. On January nineteenth, 2023, US Treasury Secretary, Janet L. Yellen notified Kevin McCarthy, House Speaker, and other leaders of both houses, of the steps she was taking to prevent the United States defaulting on its debt. She would cease investing in the retirement funds of civil and postal workers, stop new borrowing, and cash in some retirement fund investments. By law, she has to pay it all back once the debt ceiling is raised or suspended. However, Kevin McCarthy and fellow Republicans intend to put conditions on raising the debt limit, while President Biden has said he won't negotiate over money that's already been spoken for. Biden has the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment on his side for what that's worth. Section 4. of the amendment basically says if the US owes money, it must pay it back. Quibbling about the debt is not okay.

Yet quibbling over repayment of the debt has occurred on multiple occasions. Some of this quibbling has caused partial government shutdowns which force affected workers to scrimp and borrow until their paychecks are restored. The 2011 stand-off over the debt ceiling caused a downgrade in the country's credit rating costing the US an extra billion dollars in debt interest. This time around, President Bidden has made it clear that he has no intention of bargaining.

While the Obama administration considered invoking the 14th Amendment, it quickly dismissed the idea. Instead, Obama agreed to spending cuts. This time, the House Republican majority has passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling that would reverse much of the Inflation Reduction Act intended to tackle climate change. Another of it's provisions would de-fund the IRS, a move that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said would reduce future revenue. A third provision would place additional work requirements on those already burdened by poverty and poor health.

President Biden released his 2024 budget proposal in early March. If implemented, it would raise taxes on those earning over $400,000 and roll-back tax benefits granted to the wealthy in 2017. During the final week of April the House Republicans passed a bill that would raise the debt ceiling at the expense of Democratic gains. It stands no chance of passing since the Senate won't take it up and the President will veto it. On May first, the Treasury Secretary warned that the US could reach the debt ceiling by as early as June first. Talks between the president and Congressional members are scheduled for May 9. Those talks could be rocky since there is little consensus among Republicans and Biden's firm stance leaves little room for negotiation.

Legal experts disagree about what would result if the Section 4 of the 14th Amendment were invoked. One fundamental question comes down to who besides the House has authority  to force the House to do it's job of repaying debt. Some say the President could order the Treasury to continue borrowing, but others argue that the President lacks this authority.

Sadly, we budget and spend before sitting down to discuss how much we're willing to borrow. The debt ceiling carries legal weight, but so too does Section 4's requirement that we pay our debts. The legal conundrum that results when the 14th Amendment bumps up against debt ceiling legislation, provides an underhanded opportunity to whichever party wants to bludgeon an already approved budget.

The 14th Amendment has a Third Section that could make a difference in these stalemates, yet I've never seen that Section mentioned in discussions of the debt ceiling. Section 3. says one can't be a President, Senator or Congressman, etc. if one has taken an oath to support the US Constitution and has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it. "Insurrection" generally implies violence, but "rebellion" can be simple obstruction, such as a refusal to obey an order or fulfill a duty. Repaying government debt is one such duty. Refusing to pay it is rebellion.

If the debt ceiling is breached, then those responsible will have refused to honor US debt, will have engaged in rebellion, and will, therefore, be ineligible to remain in office. But who would enforce this? Certainly not the very Congressmen that voted not to honor the debt. Perhaps the President or the Senate could force those Congressmen out of office. Perhaps not.

What could make a difference is if the American people themselves called out their errant Congressmen. Here's what I'm writing:

Dear Congressman ______,

Please be advised that if you do not honor the United States debt you will have violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment this act of rebellion will result in your being ineligible to remain in office. Should that happen, I will urge your removal from office.

The Fourteenth Amendment

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The oath that the amendment refers to is this:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

un Civil un War

January brought news that a second civil war might be in store for America. On January 6, Michelle Goldberg wrote about two books predicting civil war in the near future. She notes, however, that not all scholars agree. Goldberg quotes Josh Kertser tweeting that few civil war scholars believe the United States is on the verge of civil war. Goldberg adds, "yet even some who push back on civil war talk tend to acknowledge what a perilous place America is in."

On January 11, Ron Elving wrote that a number of polls show civil war is on peoples' minds. While animosity remains between north and south states, the main division is between "metro and non-metro" citizens. How would the battle lines in such a civil war be drawn? Throw out history — we're in new territory here.

I divide Republicans into two camps, pragmatists and die-hard Trump followers. I believe it's the  die-hard Trump followers who are most likely to rebel. I estimate these constitute about a third of voting Americans. Clearly not a majority, albeit a meaningful minority. These voters are angry. If our society addressed their anger it could move foreword, and by doing so we would address shared societal needs. However American voters differ in their approach to meeting our societal needs. One approach allows Trump die-hards to continue embracing The Big Lie even as Trump and his allies face legal scrutiny. This third of voters lives in an alternate reality, in denial or unaware of what the majority accepts as fact.

Some label Trump die-hards Low Information Voters. Traditional news sources (fake news to some) reported overwhelming evidence of a fraud-free 2020 election. Big Lie supporters failed to provide evidence of election fraud. Instead of evidence they provided only unsubstantiated claims. For these voters trusting a personality matters more than trusting information.

Personality cults are the nemesis of democracies. The Trump Cult is destroying what's left of ours. Democracy demands cooperation while personality cults and partisanship drive selfish ambitions. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. Americans should eliminate parties entirely and minimize the influence any one politician can have. Political discourse should be issue driven instead of limited to party chestnuts.

Discourse driven politics, however, is not possible under our current system. We address too few issues, not always factually, with slogans rather than dialogue. One reason we're this way is that we are influenced by blame-fueled partisan radio and cable programing and by hate-fueled social media. Such media couldn't behave this way before the Fairness Doctrine was toppled. The cost of unrestricted free speech is that it allows people to lie without consequences. Before we can meaningfully address issues we must first agree upon facts. We need renewed standards and laws that would ensure falsehoods would rise no further than exaggerations. Under such laws, severe exaggerations would face consequences. Such a society would require enough education to suss out facts and meaningful arguments, but it wouldn't require geniuses. It would only require that people respected the rules of polite discussion. Facebook or its imitators would not exist in a dialog driven society. Useful discussion would replace the current troll fest.

But changing the rules of dialog is not sufficient to rebuild our democracy. We must also eliminate political parties and the ability of the wealthy to spend unrestricted amounts to influence political opinion.

In other words, we must become a democracy again. The idea of corporations as persons allows a few wealthy individuals the ability to buy voters' opinions at the expense of corporate employees. In a true democracy everyone's opinion matters. But to make that work, informed polite discussion must occur. We need to eliminate parties and partisanship and to do so candidates must become more issue driven, and parties need to be replaced with issue-centered coalitions. Eliminating congressional districts would not only eliminate gerrymandering, but would force candidates to choose among a number of state wide issues.

While every state has two senators, states have varied populations. Both California's millions and Wyoming's' thousands are represented by two senators. This is inherently undemocratic because it favors the few over the many. However nothing in the Constitution says we must elect senators at the state level. Why not elect them nationally instead?

Maybe my ideas seem goofy. That's okay, we don't have to use them. But we do need to start thinking outside the box, because the democracy we've got isn't working well anymore. Lying partisans are destroying our country. Let's keep what works, build around commonalities and dump the damaging bullshit.

Poisons and profundities

When We Cease to Understand the World
Benjamin Labatut
Historical Fiction, 191 pages

The book begins with mustard gas and cyanide — mustard gas caused death in the trenches in the first world war, while cyanide exterminated captive Jews and suiciding Nazis in the second. Between those two wars a scientific revolution occurred. At the 1927 Solvay Conference quantum physics theory came into being. While that theory makes sense mathematically, it defies sensibility when described in words. That's as true today as it was in 1927.

Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915, ten years after his theory of special relativity. At the time, Europe was at war. Einstein made no attempt to solve the equation backing his theory. Shortly before his death, a German soldier sent a letter containing the equation's solution from the trenches to Einstein. This soldier-mathematician was Karl Schwarzschild whose solution implied the possibility of singularities, the oddities at the centers of black holes. Mustard gas, in part, caused Schwarzschild's death.

Benjamin Labatut writes of two other mathematicians, Shinichi Mochizuki and Alexander Grothendieck. As yet, no other mathematicians understand Shinichi Mochizuki's proof of a basic mathematical concept and he withdrew its publication. Alexander Grothendieck realized that humanity wasn't ready to understand the "heart of the heart" of mathematics and became a recluse. The heart of Labatut's book, however is the emergence of quantum theory, one that like Einstein's, challenges human understanding. 

This historical fiction is a brief and elegant explanation of the persons and ideas that resulted in quantum physics. But the fictional bits, while entertaining, are unnecessary, and add little to the story. The same can be said about the section following the epilogue. That section, "The Night Gardner," only adds extra pages and could have been skipped entirely.

While quantum physics and relativity theories both played parts in our losing our understanding of the world, Labatut missed a third theory which played a part in that loss. However Darwin's theory of evolution didn't cause that lost understanding. Rather, it was some peoples' response to that theory which caused our loss. Prior to Darwin, the new science of geology caused many Christian theologians to accept that the earth couldn't have been created in the six thousand years of Biblical time. It had to be far older. The Bible, therefore had to be read figuratively rather than literally. Darwin's theory was generally well received by his religious contemporaries. It wasn't until shortly after World War I that evolution was rejected by North American religionists. Throwing out evolution also means throwing out geology and archaeology. some have argued that dinosaur fossils must have been planted by God or Satan to test believers' faith or deceive us. Other explanations that pit the Bible against science strike me as equally far-fetched. In my view, faith must be guided by science and reason lest religion become superstition. Once one builds ones beliefs on blind faith rather than on faith tempered by science and reason, it becomes possible to ignore politicians' lies and vote on faith alone. We cease to understand the world at our peril.