Monday, March 25, 2024

Time for Leading Republicans to Endorse Biden/Harris

I just finished Romney: A Reckoning by McKay Copping.  The book is mostly a presentation of Romney as a representative of traditional Republican values and morality.  Romney's case is persuasive.  Of course, there are other Republicans who have distanced themselves from Trump, most recently Mike Pence.  And yet, Trump remains a threat to win back the Presidency.  

Is it time for these Republicans to endorse Biden/Harris?  Surely there are features of Biden/Harris that can be supported by these Republicans.  I suppose a problem is down ballot.  A Romney endorsement of Biden cannot be seen as an endorsement of Democrats running for the House or Senate against Republican opponents.  But if Romney and friends are interested in returning sanity to the Republican, I cogent strategy could be to endorse Biden/Harris and all opponents to extremism where possible.  Reasonable candidates running against Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert should be grouped with Biden/Harris to purge Republicans from extremism.  

Monday, February 19, 2024

America's Trust in Capitalism

 It is clear that Americans love capitalism.  The mythology that is reality in highly visible cases features mostly men founding companies with a vision and then delivering goods and services that reward them proportionally to the value delivered to the economy.  They earned it and they deserve it.  

But America is not a purely capitalistic society.  Taxation is also proportional to income, and the use of the taxes for defense and the public welfare is seen to be in conflict with pure capitalism.  There is a certain strain of libertarianism that believes government interference, including well meaning but inefficiently (and corruptly) used government programs, does little to address societal ills while interfering with the 'invisible hand' of capitalism.  That hand could solve many more problems more efficiently while creating even greater wealth.

Americans refuse to accept the amorality of capitalism that, left unfettered, would consume the planet and impoverish a large segment of the population.  Capitalism also generates aristocracy and plutocracy.  Inheritance of wealth results in the control of capital by those who did not earn it.  If the general thesis about capitalism is that the successful people in capitalist societies deserve veneration because of their vision and energy, it simply does not follow that the inheritors of the wealth deserve the same veneration.  Thus, the concept of pure capitalism is corrupted.  That is, capital naturally flows to meet the needs of society.  Government imagines it can best solve social problems, but in fact, government is inefficient and corrupt, perhaps in much the same way that inherited wealth is.  The government did not earn its power; it is empowered through taxation of those who generated the wealth.  

I do not believe there is a utopia that would eliminate all ills, but I also believe in a mix of capitalism and socialism that can achieve a more just and productive society that is better than either pure capitalism or pure socialism.  A society that invests in research can provide guidance for capital to achieve investments that address problems, thus anticipating needs in a longer and broader scope than is inherent in pure capitalism.  That is, the virtue of capitalism is how quickly and forcefully it can pivot to solutions relative to a governmental bureaucracy.  Both inherited wealth and government institutions will naturally seek to preserve the source of their wealth, thus thwarting the flow of capital towards solving social ills.  But agencies existing to identify problems that may need long term efforts or are at scales beyond the scope of individuals can identify problems, promote innovation to solve the problems, and provide capital seed to enable a capitalistic industry that solves the problems.

Monday, January 15, 2024

Trump vs Biden

 The Iowa Caucuses are held today, with results to be published tomorrow or so.  Expectations are that Trump will win handily and that DeSantis and Haley will be distant seconds & thirds.  Most polls expect the November election will be Trump vs Biden, and most polls indicate that most voters would prefer that candidates other than Trump and Biden.  

But there is a case to be made that this matchup is needed.  I can't imagine Trump winning.  He lost by millions of votes and a significant margin in the electoral college.  There is a growing vanguard of conservatives who are dead set against Trump.  He will be convicted in one or more cases against him.  His behavior is increasingly erratic, and only the MAGA base believes Biden is directing his prosecution.  His financial empire in New York is being dismantled, and there is little he can do about it.  Coupled with his history of failed ventures, it will be difficult for anyone other than the MAGA faithful to deny his long streak of losing.  

Strategists will say negative ads work, and Democrats have much more material to use.  Much negative advertising will come out of the mouths of committed Republicans, including candidates running against him in the primaries.  If the documents case results in conviction, there will be some Republicans who will consider Trump unacceptable as a security risk. There will be a major faction of voters for whom the abortion issue is the main factor for voting against Trump.  Negative ads should help persuade Latinos and Blacks to either support Biden or at least not support Trump.  The same should hold, even for Muslims, despite Biden's strong support for Israel.

Voters convinced that Democrats are evil no matter what are not to be persuaded.  But if Biden wins reelection and Democrats win the House, the Senate, or both, there will be a reckoning about Trump's leadership.  


Meditation of Immigration

 A NY Times article today Europe May Be Headed for Something Unthinkable stimulated thoughts about the immigration problem.  I present as a given that human instinct for survival is perhaps the strongest of psychological motivations.  Unless your culture requires you to accept the fate as dictated by your surrounding conditions, people will seek first to survive and then to thrive.  As basic resources diminish and threaten existence, people will move or seek to move.

In the U.S., border policy changes have forced dangerous and often fatal treks across the southern border.  One can only shudder about the immigration challenges as climate change shrinks livable locations on the planet.  

In my utopia, immigration challenges would be actively monitored, something like the monitoring that occurred in the Covid pandemic.  Changes in the 'supply' of immigrants and in the 'capacity to host immigrants' would be tracked.  Ministries of immigration in all countries would meet regularly to discuss actions to address the dynamics.  The reality of immigration and emigration pressures would be acknowledged and addressed in the context of the rest of the political and sociological considerations.  Rather like the climate change crisis, immigration would be recognized as a global issue needing analysis and action everywhere.  

Thinking somewhat locally on the immigration crisis at the U.S. southern border, we observe millions of refugees and other displaced people seeking asylum in the U.S.  Most who are fleeing for their safety or for wont of a means of support are willing to abandon the home of their birthplace, relatives, and their culture to have even a chance to survive.  If given the choice, many would be happy to join others of their kind wherever they are in the U.S., but many others would be happy to assimilate into a culture that asks nothing of them except a willingness to work and to respect the rights of others.  

Like many other crises, immigration is an issue of distribution of limited resources.  The pressure on global resources will be high no matter how immigration is handled in any particular area, but the risks of war will depend on whether immigration is treated as a shared problem or a problem for others to solve.

Wednesday, December 13, 2023

No Labels?

 A comment made by comedian Steven Colbert made an impression on me today.  

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

I made an immediate connection with the use of the American flag by the MAGA crowd.  I believe people are hungry for identity, and so they crave for readily recognized labels.  Christian and American are used as labels to define a certain tribe, irrespective of the tenets and meaning that others would use to define the group.  For Colbert, a devout Catholic, Christianity is a faith for people who follow Christ's teachings.  The quote is not quite direct enough.  Many Christians do not even admit the basic teachings usually associated with Jesus.  In my experience growing up in the Southern Baptist community, the main definition of Christianity is that a person believes Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins and through this declaration, the believer will not perish but have everlasting life.  

The tears of the converted are not about understanding Jesus's teachings.  They are the emotions of someone who believes they have escaped the fate of the unbeliever, eternal damnation in hell after death.  Some may cry because they believe they have found a constant companion and guide, no less than the Son of God.  They cry because they believe whatever befalls them in the future, whatever sins they have committed in the past, their lives have been changed.  The past sins are forgiven, and whatever happens in the future, they are saved.  

The act of baptism is supposed to be representative of burying the person pre-confession and the rising of a new person, imbued with Christ's love and righteousness.  Personal responsibility is secondary.  Studying the Bible is encouraged but not required.  Most Christians I know act comfortable and confident in their claim to be Christians.  

 God's Word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus and not by our own efforts or works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Grace Alone. Faith Alone. Grace alone means that God loves, forgives, and saves us not because of who we are or what we do, but because of the work of Christ.

Many Christians treat their "conversion" as a task done once and for all time.  There is no need for thought about behavior or for any other consequence.  Now, the Catholic might think attending to the sacraments regularly is important.  And to be fair, many Catholics I know are like Colbert: they at least believe that their Christianity demands something of them and their behavior.  Yes, they will fall short of the standard, for that is the state of being human.  But the standard is nonetheless there.  Colbert is actually telling us that he, like most Christians, understand much about Christ's teachings, like attending to the needy without condition, but we don't make it the center of our lives.  Only saintly people do that.

In analogy, being American only means being born in the country or achieving citizenship.  Here the bar is perhaps even lower than faith,  Being American does not obligate recognition of any set of values.  The Constitution even seems to give safe harbor to the most abhorrent ideologies, and it even protects free speech to advocate without limits.  Here, then, is the eternal challenge in American culture: the definition of America and what it means to be an American.  It seems 'freedom of religion,' while being protected by the First Amendment, is no longer accepted as a feature of being American in many circles.  

Unapologetic bigotry is now the central plank of the Republican Party, and the 2024 election's main choice is between this bigotry and liberalism.  The MAGA Republican is ready to trade in the Constitution, including civil rights protections, for Trump autocracy, because MAGA Republicans believe white Christian nationalism will best preserve their values and culture.  They believe accommodations to non-believers have marginalized them and even threaten their survival.  Their movement has freed them from the burdens of inclusion and accommodation.  The only people who should fear the MAGA movement are infidels, damned to hell anyway.  

It is ironic that the Colbert quote aptly defines logic that has taken the American experiment in democracy, pluralism, and multiculturalism to the brink of extinction.  Let's look at Colbert's quote and substitute appropriately. 

If this is going to be a nation under the Constitution, either we have to pretend that the laws are meant to be followed only as is convenient for the powerful, or we've got to acknowledge that that the Constitution requires the law to apply for all citizens without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

The Right's Definition of "Religious Liberty"

 Civil discord often involves terms taken for granted by all sides of an argument.  Liberty is apparently such a term.  An abstract of an article "The Liberty of the Church: Source, Scope and Scandal" is below.

Comments

Forthcoming in Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues (2013)

Abstract

This article was presented at a conference, and is part of a symposium, on "The Freedom of the Church in the Modern Era." The article argues that the liberty of the Church, libertas Ecclesiae, is not a mere metaphor, pace the views of some other contributions to the conference and symposium and of the mentality mostly prevailing over the last five hundred years. The argument is that the Church and her directly God-given rights are ontologically irreducible in a way that the rights of, say, the state of California or even of the United States are not. Based on a careful reading of, among other sources, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), the article articulates and defends the Church's self-understanding as a divine institution possessed of supernatural authority that has rightful consequences for the ordering of society and polity. Catholic doctrine upholds a rich concept of individual freedom of conscience and defends a regime of broad toleration, but it does so respectful of the demands of the common goods, natural and supernatural, both of which the Church serves in the exercise of her liberty. The Church anticipates that her claims on her own behalf will be a scandal to the world.

It is shocking to learn that 'liberty' could mean the domination of the Church over civil authority.  But this appears to be the case.  When the phrase "Liberty of the Church" is used in an internet search, there are many links to organizations defending the rights of the individual in religious belief.  I would guess that most people understand the separation of church and state and especially the First Amendment:


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is cowardice of the religious right to obfuscate their meaning of Religious Liberty, but it clearly mirrors their violent attempts to defeat democracy, corrupt the courts and dictate behavior.  Religious liberty means the right to obligate society to its supernatural authority.  When one learns of this perversion, it is easy to understand how Catholics have aligned with evangelicals.  In their view, allowing gay marriage, indeed even non-binary sexuality, is against their religion and therefore subject to their supernatural authority to obligate society against such behavior.  Likewise, abortion, birth control, and other related topics are to be adjudicated according to church doctrine, with society and democracy to be subservient.  

Now we have three rabid Catholics on the Supreme Court, disingenuously swearing an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It is apparently within their religious liberty rights to allocate church authority over their sworn oath.  They see no inconsistency in this subterfuge.  As an example, Justice Alito claimed he could not even pronounce the name of the chemical in the FDA-approved abortion drug, mifepristone.  He does not need to understand anything about it.  His faith tells him what medicines should not be available, and an abortion pill is one of them.  Likewise, Justice Thomas, not a Catholic perhaps, but aligned with those who would subjugate the Constitution to religious authority, believes past decisions on the Constitutionality of Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges should be reconsidered.  These cases respectively settled the right of couples to have contraception, the right of gay couples to sexual activity, and the right for gay couples to marry.  Clearly, these threats to individual liberty are aggressive acts to elevate religious law over civil law.

The more widely recognized meaning of the term 'liberty' is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.  Americans who agree with this definition need to ask of their political candidates how they see such liberty in light of their faith.  Any equivocation from the state of the individual being free of oppressive restrictions, including decisions as to sexuality, healthcare decisions, including abortion, is a statement of their allegiance not to the United States and civil law, but to their religious dogma.


Thursday, March 30, 2023

More School Shooting Gun Deaths

 This week's news has been dominated by the Nashville Convent School shooting deaths of three nine year old children and three adults.  The 28-year-old shooter was killed by police at the site fourteen minutes after receiving the 911 call about the active shooter.

There are no signs today that the incident will spur changes in laws or enforcement to address mass shootings.  There have been over 100 such mass shootings in 2023 to date.  There were reported to be 648 shootings in 2022.  More than 44,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2022.

President Biden claimed he could not do anything more than what he has done about gun violence.

Is it a cop-out to say that the problem cannot be solved without cooperation from gun owners?  This is what I believe.  There are millions of gun owners in the country.  It seems they are in such numbers that members are from all walks of life and political persuasions, even if the majority are of some category.  For the sake of argument, assume the vast majority of gun owners are white, male, and conservative.  Does this assumption help in making progress on this issue.  No.  

Implicit in asking about the gun owning community is my belief that meaningful progress on gun violence can only come with a drastic change in the availability of guns.  Statistics on gun violence around the world clearly show the correlation of gun deaths with gun ownership.  Americans want to believe that our country can change to address challenges because most people accept the rule of law, and laws are created through majority rule legislative action.  But in this case, gun ownership has taken on the status of being sacrosanct and inviolate.  Court interpretations of the Constitution have reinforced the notion that the state cannot restrict gun ownership.  

Groups dedicated to reducing gun violence have taken various approaches to enact meaningful change.  Perhaps each step brings a change closer.  The country has made big changes in other areas of injustice, so I suppose there is always hope.  I believe that change can come only with a drastic change in the electorate that delivers the following:

1. A judicial system that rejects the assertion that gun ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

2. An electorate that holds in strong contempt the idea of wide-spread gun ownership.

3. A cultural realization that gun violence is among the most evil and anti-American activity imaginable.

4. A cultural understanding that gun ownership puts the gun owner at higher risk of gun violence rather than lower risk.

5. Shaming and ostracizing of gun advocates on the level of other strong taboos (i.e., incest, child pornography).

If my sense about the above is close to accurate, I will not expect to see change in my life time.









Wednesday, March 29, 2023

Irrationality on the Rise?

 Today's NY Times column Global Transformation of Christianity there are depressing facts about a world trend that should not have surprised me: there is a significant part of the non-western "majority world" turning to Evangelical Christianity.  "Statistics vary but even conservative estimates guess there were around 98 million evangelical Christians globally in 1970. Now, there are over 342 million."  World population in 1970 was 3.7 billion, and it is about 7.8 billion today.  So while total population doubled, Christianity increased 3.5 fold.  True, the percentage of Christians can be computed to have been 2.6% in 1970 and now is 4.4%, only a small minority.  

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

Initially, the numbers made me feel anxious about the future.  I see the growth of people searching for an answer to their 'spiritual longing', and I can hear the pastors of my childhood filling that need with the nonsense of Christianity.  Even more horrifying in a way are the legions of people deciding the Quran is the true path.  To my way of thinking, the religious person prefers simple, empty mantras to both their own direction and the world's direction.  Those of us who believe in rational thought as a guiding principle rather than a mystical superhuman deity fear we will need to placate fanatics and suppress our disdain for directives that originate in thousands year old ignorance.  For the religious, trust is placed among those who have professed the same faith.  

Will we have a world turning more and more to prayer as the answer to problems?  Will the grifters of the evangelical movement rule?  Allowing for both Evangelicals and Muslims to be 90% sincere (that is, the vast majority of the members are sincere believers), why should the trend of growth concern me?

Truly, what do I care if anyone prays five times a day or believes angels help them?  Why should I judge anyone for any reason?  If I object to proselytization, am I not a tad hypocritical because I want people to conclude, like me, that prayers are futile, the afterlife is a falsehood, and religious beliefs are stupid?  

I need to think hard on this topic.  It does not take much imagination to project the futility of my present attitude.  It seems certain that much of my misery or dissatisfaction is self-inflicted.  If true, there are no changes in the world that would relieve my frustrations.  It could be a thought akin to the philosophy of Buddhism.  Suffering is an internal rather than an external force.  Nothing in the external can address the internal cause.  Self awareness is key to limiting suffering, and insofar as suffering diminishes happiness, effort should be directed towards the internal suffering.  

Monday, March 6, 2023

Terrorism from Within

 Ex-President Trump absconded with 'Top Secret' and other 'Classified' documents in clear violation of law and his oath of office.  The only authority to be able to call out the crimes are Federal institutions.  Thus, Trump ends up in the cross-hairs of multiple investigations about the scope and nature of his crimes.  As the FBI, the NSA, and Congress pursue him, Trump is raising money and regaining strength by tapping into anti-authoritarian sentiment held by conservative anti-government sects.

In an NY Times op-ed, Michelle Cottle links Trump's tactics with the anti-federal government politics of recent American history. Ruby Ridge is the short-hand reference to a 1992 confrontation between U.S. Marshall Services and a family in Idaho who defied Federal authorities, resulting in a shoot-out and killing of a U.S. Marshall and several members of the family. The incident was cited as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of a Federal building in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Cottle's piece links other incidents of defying Federal authority,

    
    Going back still farther, federal troops played a prominent role in dismantling the segregated South. In his 1963 inaugural address, Gov. George Wallace of Alabama delivered his infamous pro-segregation rallying cry and whined that after the Civil War, the South was “set upon by the vulturous carpetbagger and federal troops, all loyal Southerners were denied the vote at the point of bayonet, so that the infamous illegal 14th Amendment might be passed.” Even now, plenty of white Southerners — the aggrieved heart of today’s Republican Party — cling to their sense of being oppressed by highhanded federal meddlers.

I share a distaste for government over-reach, intrusion, and interference.  And it should be natural for people to feel most comfortable and least fearful of authority closest to home, and thus, most untrusting and fearful of authority at the level of a federal government.  My general belief is that corruption is most enabled at the local level.  An important role of the Federal government and the Constitution is protection of an individual's 'inalienable rights' , including protection against infringement by state and local government.  In my life, this is the general role of the Federal authorities.  Their reach stops local industry from fouling the water I drink and the air I breathe.  It has failed to act against the abuse of power by local police.  


Tuesday, January 31, 2023

Mortality

 Visiting us this week is a friend of over forty years.  She is from Michigan and is recently retired.  We met her and her husband in 1980 when we moved to Idaho.  I had accepted a position at Washington State University in nearby Pullman, and Scott was pursuing a master's degree in the same lab.  Scott and I were soon carpooling from Moscow.  Shannon was pursuing a master's degree in anthropology at University of Idaho.  Diana was in her third trimester pregnancy.  We became friendly and even 'besties', exchanging as hosts for dinners and even some excursions out of Moscow.  Elizabeth was born in December, so our socializing shrank somewhat after that.  But we attended Scott and Shannon's informal outdoor wedding in June of 1981.  

We moved to Durham in August, as the post-doctoral funding ended, but we stayed in touch with letters.  As fate would have it, Scott and Shannon finished their studies and found work at Cornell, in Ithaca, New York.  Shortly after that, I found a job in Princeton, New Jersey.  We planned to reunite whenever possible, Princeton being only a four hour drive from Ithaca.  

I have buried the lede here.  Scott died suddenly and unexpectedly about two years ago.  Our communication with them had been spotty in the intervening years, but we had kept in touch, even trying to visit them in Michigan in 2016.  They had come to San Diego once for a visit, so we had retained contact.  Due to the pandemic, we were unable to attend a Celebration of Life for Scott after his death.  Shannon reached out and scheduled a video chat, and we invited her to come to see us.  She has been here this week.

She is open about dealing with her grief.  She says she wears her heart on her sleeve, and this is likely a reason we are friends.  We do not like playing mind games, and she is completely without guile.  But we also like to laugh at life and at ourselves, and she is much the same.  She is to return to Michigan tomorrow.  The grief topic has been explored, but it came to a point last night as Shannon asked if Diana and I have discussed 'the end.'  

We have not done much beyond preparing wills and an estate plan.  The suddenness of Scott's death should give us reason to discuss.  But the question is raised.  There are at least two questions here.  How do we think about our own mortality and how do we think we would handle losing our mate?  Shannon has more questions about existence after life.  

Diana's cancer thirty years ago certainly made me consider life after her death.  The contemplation was not deep because there never was a time when her cancer was presented as a death sentence.  In addition, we had a lot on our plate with three children, work, etc.  In the years since then, Diana has had anxiety every year when her mammogram appointment comes up.  It isn't death that is feared, but illness.  

Shannon has spoken of stoicism as the philosophy of indifference towards death.  It seems she believes stoicism also rejects the idea of an afterlife.  The indifference about death is the logic of being disinterested in events outside of our control.  Accepting mortality is logical.  I quote here from Modern Stoicism

            Writing about the gift character of existence, Moses Hadas describes Seneca’s views on death and death-acceptance.  "He suggest that once a fully Stoic view is adopted, a person, reckons not only his chattels and property and position but even his body and eyes and hand, all that a man cherishes in life, even his own personality, as temporary holdings, and he lives as if he were on loan to himself, and is ready to return the whole sum cheerfully on demand…When the order to return the deposits comes he will not quarrel with Fortune but will say, “I am thankful for what I have held and enjoyed.”

So, we confessed to Shannon we have not discussed the end.  For myself, I'm not sure what to say.  If Diana suddenly dies, what would I do?  How would I feel?  These may be an imponderable for either of us.  We have often spoken about our atheism and the rejection of the idea of an afterlife.  So, this dimension of the inevitable end is a non-starter.  This leaves the discussion of the death of the other, the handling of the grief, and the aftermath.  

I am content with my state of mind regarding death.  When visiting friends, I often think about when I next might see them, acknowledging the potential that it is the last time I might see them.  It might not be death that decides the issue but opportunity and circumstance.  With many friends, this has been the case.  We had a good friendship with two couples in New Jersey, and the wives of both have died.  We have not seen them in many, many years.  Diana's cousin Larry lost his wife Vickie some years ago, and nearer to home we have lost all but one parent and many aunts and uncles.  I may be underestimating the grief, but I feel that I have an appreciative attitude about the present.  Not too obsessive about wondering 'Is this the last time?', I have the sense of experiencing the friend or relative in the most positive way.  I want to understand their motivations, their ambitions, their likes and dislikes.  I want to find ways in which to share their spirit.  

I think the topic does not belong by itself.  It belongs in the general subject of how we conduct life on a daily basis.  There are cultural imperatives that are thrust upon us.  There are bucket lists, calls for living life to the fullest and without regrets.  We are encouraged to seize the day and to make the most out of life.  We are urged to be curious, to explore, and to express ourselves.

I have often thought I am less content than many.  I look forward to learning, to practicing, to express, and to experience.  I do not fully understand what compels me, and because it is a mystery (my inspirations), I am slightly fearful about losing that which stimulates me.  I can still recall in my youth the strong sexual energy I had and the bewilderment about how to handle it.  That energy has dissipated over time, and now is less important or intrusive.  In a different way, the challenge of funding the family, in terms of both resources and direction, was a constant companion.  But it was more of an intellectual one, demanding of attention by circumstance.  The circumstance has passed, and we understand it to have passed.  Managing the accumulated wealth is of some interest, but it is not that interesting to Diana.  With our age and inevitable mortality, the relevance of the management seems to decrease.

The topic of mortality is not very interesting.  I consider my pursuit of fitness, my creative pursuits of music, reading, and writing, keeping in touch with friends and relatives all a part of my personality and health.  I do not expect to drop dead tomorrow.  Mortality is a certainty but is generally out of mindful control.  We may experience an illness, but we take action to return to health, a healthy state being preferable to an unhealthy state.  Death may be the ultimate unhealthy state, but it is not on my mind during the healing process.  

Returning to the topic of contentedness, I reject the idea of having no regrets.  Of course, there are and will be decisions that I would change.  A trivial example of the meandering manner of my mind is seen in assembling products.  It seems I often assemble things incorrectly before seeing the error, retracing the steps, and reassembling in the correct way.  Recently I bought a tool organizer rack for the pantry.  I expected hardware for attaching the rack (drywall screw anchors and screws), but none were apparent.  So, I improvised with what I had on hand.  I mis-measured on the third hole and had to re-drill, but got the job done.  When I went to throw away the package, I discovered the intended hardware was taped to the inside of the packaging.  The point of this illustration is that I often leap before I look, or act before I think.  It is true that I often learn from mistakes, and as a lover of learning (!), I must think every endeavor is a learning opportunity!  Clearly, some missteps are best left unmade.  Thus, regrets.

I am rarely satisfied that my effort is the best it could have been.  It is in my nature to doubt my instincts while having strong instincts.  This conflict creates a state of discontent.  Also in my nature is a desire to do more than is possible.  So, while I celebrate an accomplishment, I despair at failing to do another thing on the list.  Discontent.

Bringing back the topic of mortality, perhaps it is the acceptance of inevitable death that makes me certain I will run out of time, energy, and opportunity to fulfill my ambitions.  The sorrow in the loss of a loved one is the close of opportunity to grow the relationship, reflect on experience, or to help one another.  It is the ultimate in discontent.  Accepting mortality does not equate to being sanguine about it.

Tuesday, January 10, 2023

Morals and Economic Systems

 I am reading Ben Macintyre's The Spy and the Traitor, a 2018 book about Oleg Gordievsky of the KGB.  He offered himself as a spy for British Intelligence in the early 70's and became perhaps the most important Western spy on the Soviet Union.  The book recounts Margaret Thatcher's speech at the 1983 Winston Churchill Foundation Award dinner.  Thatcher opines:

        Is there conscience in the Kremlin? do they ever ask themselves what is the purpose of life? What is         it all for? Does the way they handled the Korean airliner atrocity suggest that they ever considered             such questions?

        No. Their creed is barren of conscience, immune to the promptings of good and evil. To them it is the         system that counts, and all men must conform.

I find Thatcher's comment ironic, especially in consideration of her economic policies.  Perhaps she excused the near term suffering caused by her policies of slashing government spending and privatizing services as necessary pains to a longer term good.  An invigorated capitalistic society could provide more relief, less suffering, and greater opportunity than the socialist state she inherited.  But capitalism itself can only be described as amoral.  There is no collective conscience.  Only the 'invisible hand' that miraculously and blindly attends to all social ills.

I don't think so.  To paraphrase Thatcher, there is no creed of conscience in capitalism, as it responds only to the profit motive.  To the free market capitalist, it is the system that counts, and all men must conform.  If monopolies arise and wealth is concentrated, it is to the credit of those who best exploit capitalism.  And if the resulting creates powerful monopolies that rival democracies, there is no safeguard. 

I am no communist, and I am unsure of the definition of socialism.  But it is clear to me that unregulated capitalism has no conscience.  So, like Thatcher, I would opine that capitalism does not ask what is the purpose of life, or what is it all for.  Like it or not, our government must represent our collective conscience, and that conscience might just be defined as socialism.


Wednesday, December 28, 2022

Myths That Rule Us

 This morning's epiphany involves the concept of self.  Our culture holds that I am a being identified as Mark Stidham.  I am unique, and I was the same person yesterday as I am today and will be tomorrow.

Few would quibble about the definition.  And yet, it is clearly a myth that anyone remains unchanged from day to day.  Moment to moment, there is change.  Recognizing such a fact is difficult, but the myth is so deep in our culture that I think it will be some time before I work out all of the repercussions.  For example, if one is fully invested in the myth of stasis, it is easier to see why one would be mystified about nearly all of experience.  Without the myth, a being would intuitively understand that we are always 'becoming' and are never 'arrived'.  

There are so many aspects of our culture that suffer from persistent myths.  One of the most toxic myths is racism.  Science tells us that all humans are 99.9% similar in genetic code.  And yet this social construct is a 'reality' that cannot be denied.  Can we ever achieve racial equality if the designation of race is based in a myth (i.e., a social construct)?  

There are other myths even more important in creating unsolvable chasms for understanding.  Christians believe in the myth of sin, that is, transgression of the 'laws' of a divine god.  Further, this state of immorality separates a human soul from the divine and only the confession of this state and of a belief in the son of god can save our soul from eternal damnation after the body occupied by the soul is no longer living,  How can we expect to communicate with each other when operating in such a completely nonsensical framework?  Or more to the point, how can we expect to communicate when one group of people believe that a fundamental truth is 'all of sin and fall short' and another group doesn't believe there is a divinity to which to answer?  In my philosophy, there is no god, while others hold there is nothing but god.  It is a seemingly unbridgeable chasm.

Myths can be construed as fictions useful in explaining something or in thinking about something.  The epiphany in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' concerns the awareness of reality being the interface between the past and the next moment.  Reality is not that which has been measured or analyzed or otherwise rendered into memory.  Words and language can be mistaken as reality instead of representations of reality.  In the same way, it is convenient to conceive of the self as something eternal, internal, and separated from context, but to believe too deeply in this convenience is to deceive and therefore to misunderstand.

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

The Weird Reality of Trump and His Accolytes

 The House investigation of the January 6 insurrection has Capitol police and other law enforcement personnel testifying about the horrors of the Trump-inspired mob.  These members of our justice system join other facets of the establishment, including the CIA, the FBI, and the Department of Defense in denunciation of Trump's actions.  Others alienated from Trump include former members of his inner circle, including John Bolton from national security, Defense Secretary James Mattis, a host of former Trump associates, and many staunch Republicans.  The weirdness is that Trump's base refuses to abandon him.  They are somehow able to assert support for police and national defense but dismiss the testimonies of leaders of police and national defense.  

As time passes, the Trump and supporters have rebranded the riot as a peaceful demonstration of patriots.  Ashlii Babbitt, who was shot and killed by police protecting the inner barriers to Congress, sent a Happy Birthday message to her family at what would have been her 36th birthday.  He contends that her death was unnecessary and that her family deserves justice.  The facts, of course, are that she was attempting to break into the chamber with a violent mob that battered police, called for the deaths of Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and were trying to interfere with the certification of the votes validating the election of Joe Biden as President. 

Many Republicans

A Purpose for Searching

 I read today a book review of Benjamin Labatut's When We Cease to Understand the World, a finalist in this year's National Book Award for Translated Works.  The 'work of fiction based on real events'  concerns physicists reckoning with various periods of science history, including the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity.  There is the chemist Fritz Haber, who invents the reaction that produces nitrogen fertilizer from atmospheric nitrogen, a process used to enable modern agriculture and is estimated to have enabled over 3 billion human lives (and billions more chickens, pigs, and cattle).  His nightmare is that his talent was perverted to also invent the process for producing chlorine gas that was used in gas warfare in WWI and in the Nazi concentration camps.  Karl Schwarszchild solved the field equations from Einstein's General Relativity theory and realized the horror of Black Holes.  

This concept of nightmares from understanding made me think about humanity's drive for understanding as a fundamental feature of cognition (Duh!).  Is there any difference for my brother's search for truth in the Bible and my interest in understanding from logic and science?  I recall with great fondness the feeling I had in graduate school when we used statistical mechanics to derive Boltzmann's gas constant.  I had a sense that perhaps all of existence was comprehensible, was discernible.  The fear of meaninglessness was quenched temporarily.  A part of my psyche says, 'Don't worry!  The answers are out there, and though things seem chaotic and meaningless, it is only your ignorance and lack of data that gives you the impression that all is a mystery.'  A feeling of bliss ensues.

The alternative part of my psyche says, 'Whatever sensation you have of understanding, life leads to death and the abyss.  There is no purpose or meaning.'  Depression ensues.  

Despite the evidence, there must be more, there must be some meaning, even if it is meaning of my own invention.  All is not lost, even in nihilism.  I have the capacity to know love and joy, whether the universe is ordered or unintelligible.  Awareness or ignorance of self delusion does not alter the sensation.  

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

The Winter of Discontent

 There is an increasing emotional gap developing between myself and my children.  It is disturbing, but it may not be permanent, significant, or even malleable.  That is, I am in general feeling alienated and irritated.  It seems I am always looking at interactions critically and with irritation.  I perceive disrespect when there is likely nothing personal.  

I began this post because I wanted to explore a potential explanation for my discontent.  In my working years, there were many hours of the day devoted to activities of seemingly clear purpose.  My mind was occupied with attending to obligations, planning, analysis, and interaction.  The days seemed filled with endless possibilities involving my thought, decision, and action.  

There were rhythms to this life that allowed the focus to monitor a range of time frames.  For example, there was a long term goal of saving for retirement.  In early years, the goal was abstract and perhaps even beyond comprehension.  My approach to such problems is to assume the goal is essentially unattainable, but like much of life, a suitable outcome would be achieved through continual effort and some realistic near-term action.  

Home ownership was a conventional activity that felt applicable to the retirement goal.  We needed a place to live anyway, and home ownership engaged a time frame in the range of retirement planning.  A thirty-year mortgage brought the abstract into the actual.  It was a commitment and something I could envisage of happening.  With modest assumptions about land value, the ownership would translate into an asset in the value range of income replacement.  As well, I had seen this method of wealth accumulation work for my parents.

Retirement savings seemed impossible at the start of my working career.  Besides the difficulty in rationalizing savings versus meeting every day needs, I had a pension plan with the large company that would be adequate for retirement.  But the large company presented an opportunity I could not ignore.  They agreed to add 50% to my savings up to 6% of my pre-tax wages.  The government agreed to allow the savings to be deducted from my wages so that my income tax decreased.  I could not ignore these incentives, and so we learned to live with 94% of whatever salary I made.  These two actions helped me feel satisfied I was attending to this long-range important issue.

With three children, another actual problem that seemed unmanageable was paying for college.  The estimates for cost ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and these estimates were actually experienced.  In this task, we did not develop a savings plan.  Instead, we decided to manage the situation as it came.  We forced the children away from expensive private colleges to help manage the costs,  Somehow, we covered thirteen years of costs.  Two of the children worked while at school, but their earnings never contributed to basic living expenses or the tuition and fees. 

Beyond these two abstractions, we felt the responsibility of raising the children, caring for parents, helping children enter adulthood, marriage, and parenthood.  We were enthusiastic in these activities as they seemed to be the point of living.  We felt confident about a satisfactory outcome and cognizant of the attention and effort required.  The planning and execution formed the basis of daily activity (outside of work).  I know in retrospect, I cannot recall fully the discomforts and the anxieties of those former times.  Today, they seem so full of purpose and meaning, whatever the difficulties.  Life was as we chose.

The 'struggles' of daily life were not without respites and recreation.  Indeed, vacationing and communing with family and friends was another satisfying and happy focus of living.  We enjoyed our family activities on a daily basis.  Meals together, school work, television, phone calls, and vacations were perhaps the most sacred of existence.  For me, these dimensions of life were the reason for everything, even if they were at times subservient to the work and requirements.  At any time, they became top priority.  Such hierarchy contributed to a feeling of agency and balance.  Life had clarity.  Strangely, government and politics were of low concern.  Our preoccupation of caring for ourselves, our broader family, and our friends consumed attention leaving little energy for the intractable problems of society.

Contrast this past life with the present.  With respect to the long-term projects of retirement and family rearing, all is solved.   Work has ceased.  Social Security and Medicare are providing some basic needs.  The children are more or less caring for themselves, albeit without the same perspective about attending to the long-range issues of saving, retirement, etc.  Three of four parents are gone, and the remaining parent asks little from us.  Incomprehensibly, we have amassed a small fortune that leaves us mortgage-free, and with savings such that income from investments grow faster than the rate we can spend.  It was not a goal, but it appears we made it to this point.

The abstractions and uncertainties of 'the future' are now concrete and certain.  There is no longer effort towards any of the former goals.  We participate as we can with our children.  However, our former position as major shapers in their lives and development are long past, as we anticipated and is only proper.  The grandkids are influenced only slightly, again, as we intended.  It is not our place or role to parent them.  

Is it a paradox that I find myself in agitation and discontent?  What is wrong with me?

Saturday, February 27, 2021

The Elephant in the Capitol

 The January 6, 2021 insurrection by Trump supporters has had a surprisingly short tenure in the national news.  Occasional reports surface as law enforcement agencies file charges.  One recent report on NPR stated that more than 250 have been arrested.  The report included a graphic of categories for the people and the indictments.  


Thus far, the Republican Party has reacted in a disturbing way.  Republican members who condemned the violence and Trump's role in inciting the violence have been rebuked by the Party.  Member who have supported Trump and who echo his claim that the election was 'stolen' have been lauded by the Party.  Some of the latter group will claim that they also condemn the violence (others are at least honest and do not address the issue), but their rhetoric includes efforts to ascribe the violence to 'a few rowdies' or even to left-wing factions that are against Trump.   A majority of polled Republicans believe the election was invalid.  

The general absence of Republican leadership condemnation of the January 6 insurrection and Trump's role in it represents an acknowledgment by Republicans that they represent a group who fundamentally rejects the democratic process bedrock of our government.  They are unpersuaded by judges, state officials, and the obvious fact that more people wanted Joe Biden to be elected rather than Trump.  The alternative reality for this cohort is that they believe their ownership of the country has been taken from them, and that any and all action necessary to reverse the status is justified.

It is largely a coalition of white supremacists, white nationalists, and Christian activists who feel aggrieved about their minority status.  It is frustrating to hear their irrational rhetoric, but I believe I could get most of them to admit that they know they are in the minority.  Surely most Christians understand that the world at large is not majority Christian.  In my former status as a member of a church, it was my firm understanding that most of the world did not know Jesus as savior.  Perhaps even most Christians did not understand the need to confess their sinfulness and be 'born again'.  Surely this means that the majority, perhaps the vast majority, of their fellow Americans do not share their conviction.

If this analysis is correct, there is an inescapable conclusion about the current Republican Party and its attitude towards the insurrectionists.  This elephant-in-the-Capitol is a sizable minority that would establish authority over the nation by any means necessary.  They have abandoned trust in democracy and in the Constitution.  The group is militarized by members who have been preparing for this occasion over the past few decades.  They are heavily armed and imagine themselves as revolutionaries.  They do not have much in the way of ideals.  Rather, they have an unshakable certainty that those not with them are against them, and that task #1 is to establish authority over these 'others'.  

The January 6 insurrection was no aberration.  The flags other than the Stars and Stripes suggest to me that most of the rioters believe the U.S.A. flag no longer belongs to them (it was stolen by the majority).  Their identity is with each other, and their righteous cause is to take back their country through any means necessary.  They are not listening or negotiating.  They are dictating.





Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Know thyself and other adages

I have written many times about the practical and moral basis for telling the truth.  The basis is full of, well, practical features of being truthful compared to lying.  But there is an element of lying that seems important to survival, and this element concerns one of the most basic reasons for truthfulness, namely self knowledge.  From Hamlet comes the quote

“This above all: to thine own self be true
And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man/Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!”
The reasoning provides a virtuous pattern, provided one accepts that lying and deceit are morally abhorrent behavior.  Being false could come purposefully to ones benefit, but it could also lead to misguided actions such that ultimately, undesired outcomes are produced simply because of self deceit.

The problem with all of this is that change often requires, well, a change of heart.  What is true today about oneself may not be true tomorrow.  With the change of heart, is there admission of being false in the past?  Or perhaps the better sentiment to the Hamlet quote is

This above all: to strive to be true to thine own self.
Here we acknowledge the challenge of knowing oneself.  Socrates preceded Shakespeare with 'Know thyself.'  But there is more.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
"To find yourself, think for yourself."
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."




Saturday, November 24, 2018

Midterm Election 2018

I feel like Charlie Brown in his quest to kick the football teed by Lucy.  Forever she will snatch the ball away as I run to kick it.

The elections that I felt should be an emphatic repudiation of Trump instead are a mild rebuke.  It should have been no surprise.  Our nation's heinous and racist past is a better predictor of the future than is our idealistically worded Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Behavior always dominates words, so it should have been a foregone conclusion that country's path would continue to disappoint.

Being as I am in the privileged 1%, I personally 'benefit' from the result.  Why complain, then?  It is because I believe in the myth of the country about liberty and justice for all.  I need to detach and allow that just as I vote against my self interest, so do the majority of the population.  Insofar as this trend will not affect me personally, why should I care?

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Science for Improving Society

Science is a term connoting the study of the physical and natural world.  Scientists use experiment and observation to test hypotheses and to advance understanding.  Engineering and technology use science to build and invent.

I have long believed that the present ills of the world are not based in a deficiency in the application of science.  To be sure, many ills are being addressed by science.  Insofar as one of our current global crises, climate change, has been accelerated by man-made innovation (harvesting and burning fossil fuel), it is argued that science causes many ills.  The list may include all of the innovations of war that kill more efficiently or even have potential to wipe out civilization (think nuclear war).

Other than unintended consequences of science and technology, we think of ethics, religion, and other realms not associated with science as domains for governing interpersonal relationships.  These arenas seem important in determining all domains of human activity, including the choices for applying science and technology.  It is in this sense that I have agreed with others on the need for attention to domains outside of science.

But now I want to advocate for the importance of science in these areas as well.  This is not about applying scientific methods to social ills, as in the fields of psychology, political science, and sociology.  This is about the importance of science as a way of thinking.

When we separate science and confine it to the study of the physical and natural world, we demean the fundamental thought that precedes the science.  That is, science demands a disinterested and unfailingly logical approach to observation.  If more of our activities were more rooted in this disciplined approach, we would become accustomed to questioning causes of ills.  We could become more inventive in our politics and become more aware of beneficial and harmful policies.

Perhaps this idea harkens to one of my favorite quotes from Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 15.
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.
The implication is that government is the dispassionate opposition to unreasonable and unjust passion.  When collective action is needed, policy agreed on all sides is a mandate.  When action is in dispute, a compromise can result.  Or else, no action is taken.  This is the logic of limited government.

Returning to this idea about science and government, our collective state can be seen as a living organism, in a continual state of adaptation.  Insofar as dynamics entail social interactions among its members, including unpredictable human passions, scientific method will not produce the kind of truths or knowledge that are obtained in the physical world.  Still, the method is useful in keeping collective action attentive to reason and justice.

In a related essay, I will posit that the primary political consideration before all debates in government is defining the sphere of government.  We collectively perceive injustices, disparities, and inefficiencies, and the fundamental everlasting debate must always be, which of these are the domain of collective (government) action?  When all agree there is a problem, there is a bias in our society that the most efficient path to an answer is private enterprise.  That is, a recognized problem can be assigned a certain value, and that value can be addressed with a commercial answer without the need of government, or in some cases, with a modest government subsidy.  If the problem is not thus solved, it qualifies as one in need of a government solution.  These are to be minimized for many reasons.  First, it is a slow mechanism, and the problem will fester and grow while awaiting the government response.  Second, it is expensive to establish a government agency to address problems. Third, government agencies are susceptible to perpetuation.  Once the problem is addressed, the purpose of the agency should disappear.  If we are attentive to the primary political consideration, government agencies could be dismantled as well as created.

 

Giving Up on Trump Supporters

Having endured the 500+ days of the Trump administration, I am part of a large proportion of voters who wish to see the Midterm elections repudiate him and his agenda.  I would be less invested in this wish if the majority party in Congress was less passive.  But the Republican leadership has shown nothing but deference to Trump.  I assume there are some among them who value the rule of law and who are alarmed at Trump's abuse of power.  But as a group, they have enabled him with their silence.  They are quite in league with him on some fundamental issues that I believe are detrimental to the nation's welfare, but my largest concern is with the way Republicans seem to have abandoned their duty to check the power of the Executive branch and a duty to govern in consultation with the minority party.

I want elected officials to address Trump's use of our government to enrich himself.  I want elected officials to reverse a slate of regressive actions resulting from Trump's election, including reversals of healthcare reform, exits from the Iran-nuclear weapons agreement and the Paris climate accord, and welfare for corporations in the tax reform.  I want elected officials to grant a path to citizenship for the "Dreamers" who are US citizens already in all ways except name and had no role in their status in the U.S. in the first place.  I want a government that values and respects all of its citizens, irrespective of race, religion, or political affiliation, and a Congress that will vocally oppose opposition to this ideal, especially when coming from the Executive branch.  I must wait until 2020 to vote on leadership in the Executive branch, but the Congress needs to assert its function as a check on the excesses and deficiencies of Donald Trump.