Say Again!?

An interesting exchange with a friend on Facebook.

It started with a meme containing a partial quote from Thomas Paine.

L:  “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead...”

(The complete quote is as follows, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”)

Me:  I know. But I do care about America so I keep trying to talk to conservatives and Republicans anyway. It’s a bad habit but at least I try.

L:   so the turn towards socialism doesn't bother your heart for our grandkids? Common Core, learning the Quran and condom races in the 5th grade here are fine with you?

— Picture of an eagle wrapped in a flag banner—

Me: Common core is not in and of itself a bad idea but I haven’t studied in it in sufficient detail to know how effective or ineffective it is. 

Socialism is extremely effective all across all of Europe. Please note that socialism and capitalism are working together there in a mutually cooperative situation. It’s not an either or forced choice false dichotomy as you present it.  I am opposed to mindless cutthroat capitalism that lets children die for lack of medication because they can’t afford to buy it. And equally opposed to any extreme form of socialism which ignores the powers of capitalism.  

I know of no public school system that is learning from the Koran. That is simply a really bizarre statement. But I do know many school districts down south using A very limited interpretation of the Bible as lesson plans. Jefferson was right, there must be a wall of separation between church and state.

I have never heard of anything so insane as condom races in the fifth grade. Where do you get this information? Please state some sources. If you state the sources I will check them out. But without sources for such weird statements I simply cannot credit them.

More to come? If so I will add them to this post or to the comments below.

A Diatribe With A Side Of Recommendation

 https://quillette.com/2019/12/01/when-disruptive-students-are-coddled-the-whole-class-suffers/

I have two rather different responses to this article.

First, I have a response which, while it is based on my factual knowledge and experience, is profoundly emotional. It provides an excellent example of my attitude that both rationality and emotionality need to work hand-in-hand in order to create a balanced view of the world and, indeed, of reality itself.

Second is my own response to the problem; and it is a very real problem with which every educator has dealt to one degree or another. That is, how to deal with disruptive students.

I will begin with a set of excerpts which I found to be emotionally triggering. (Please forgive me for borrowing a term from those I refer to as the woking brain dead, but it is an effective descriptor in this case.)

> The worst-behaved students effectively are taught that the rules don’t apply to them in the same way they apply to others. <

And > ...where a single agitated student has the power to seize control of any classroom he pleases.<

Finally, > And to the extent that student misbehavior is seen as being a product of trauma, anyone who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating that trauma. <

I tried to find evidence of the author’s source of his presumed expertise. I didn’t find any evidence that he ever taught in the classroom or worked with emotionally disturbed children.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply profoundly ignorant of reality.  Otherwise, I would be forced to conclude that he, like so many who made comments on this article, simply believes in magic punishment. Personal responsibility is of course one essential element of proper emotional development for all human beings.  However, to dismiss the fact that children who are this emotionally disturbed are often victims of horrific abuse including being burned, beaten, and otherwise abused with the statement that one “who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating the trauma” is an appalling attack on the needs of the most damaged and vulnerable members of our nation.

Most disciplinary action normally taken against a healthy, emotionally sound student, if taken against such children, would in fact be exacerbating the trauma. Stating a fact is not making an accusation.

I find the author’s opinion, which appears largely to be let us discipline these individuals as if they were not traumatized children, to be morally repugnant.  I note in the comments a cold, callous and inhuman response on the part of many. The conviction that the way to handle brutalized, traumatized children is to punish them more effectively is inappropriate even in the last century. These children are not being taught to “seize control”.  They are desperately acting out their terror and their fear of being placed in a situation where they feel profoundly threatened. No child wishes to have other children laugh at them, or fear them, or condemn them for being strange. assuming that these so troubled youngsters simply need discipline or isolation indicates something is very very wrong with a person who expresses that opinion.   The spread of civilization and the advance of our culture should have gone beyond this.

So many who have never been in a classroom except as a student, so many who have never worked with the emotionally traumatized, so many who know nothing of the reality of these situations are so ready to make their arrogant, smug judgments. I spent much of my professional career dedicated to working with the poor, the traumatized, the wounded children of our society.  At least when I open my mouth, you know that I have some experience upon which to base my opinions and my judgment.

End diatribe. Begin recommendation.

One of the points which I found irritating is the suggestion that suspension is some sort of magic solution.  Suspension works only when parents respond appropriately to it. One of my students was a particular problem. Although I knew that it would inevitably follow its normal course there were times when I simply had no choice but to suspend him.  The  problem was that once he was suspended,  he went home, took off his shirt, got on his bike, and then would ride around across the street from the school laughing at all the children who were denied his freedom. Then he was off to whatever adventures he wished, since his parents took no action in response to his discipline.

In short, any disciplinary action can be effective if it is appropriate to the child and if the parents are supportive of the school. Any disciplinary action can also be counterproductive and damaging to discipline if it is inappropriate to the child and the parents do not support the school.

As a few commenters pointed out there are very effective programs which can actually help troubled children.  Obviously, they should be utilized. However, I must acknowledge that the author makes one excellent point which must be implemented for the benefit of all, including the troubled children.  

When the policy of placing children in the “least restrictive environment“ was first adopted in California, I was a young teacher. I was asked by our district psychologist to attempt placing such a child in my class.  I thought the idea was an excellent one and gave it a try. To some extent it was successful. Although he did require a great deal of my attention, he was certainly not disruptive or a problem.  I found, however, that the other students tended to take advantage of him. 

So in a sense it was not a success. The least restrictive environment for this youngster was an environment in which he was not in a position where other students would take advantage of his trusting nature. This is the point to be made. Students who are truly emotionally disruptive and may throw a tantrum in which they endanger themselves and other students are not being indulged when they are not suspended. The abuse that is occurring is not abuse by that child. The abuse is being accused by a system which has placed them in an environment in which they are emotionally incapable of functioning.

To repeat for the sake of clarity , a least restrictive environment is an environment in which both the child and those surrounding the child are sufficiently secure that they can function effectively. The mistake the overly liberal are making is thinking that least restrictive is a term which simply means placing the child in a normal classroom. But that is extremely restrictive for a traumatized child. It is in fact in itself a form of abuse.

The problem is complex and difficult. Simplistic solutions will not be effective. There are many ways in which children can be at least partially integrated into the normal school environment. These should be employed. But magic punishments have never worked. They never will.

Restore Factory Settings?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/opioids-pot-criminal-justice-reform-helped-undermine-decade-s-war-ncna1108231

An interesting article, but it doesn’t seem to clearly make the point that the war on drugs was a guaranteed failure from the very moment it was conceived. (With the exception of its suppression of racial minorities elements, which I will not address here.) Quite a number of us knew this at the time and asked, isn’t this just Prohibition all over again? Didn’t that do no good at all but in fact made the mafia great and powerful? Won’t this just do the same? And it did. Obviously.

The biggest question is, why do we do such stupid self-destructive things?

Isn’t it possible that we human beings could actually do things that are rational and sensible instead of things that are hysterical and self-destructive? It’s possible. But we rarely seem to do it...or at least all too often we go for the hysterical and self destructive.

Why?

Because our emotional default setting, our factory setting, is emotionalism. It’s clear why emotions evolved. They allow us to act without thinking. They guarantee behaviors that might rationally be rejected in favor of evolutionary preferments. For example, an individual might logically choose to save himself at the expense of his children. Emotions will direct him to save the children, which saves the passing on of his genes. It might be argued that you can always have more children, but that may not be true. Furthermore, how many children would survive childhood if we didn’t feel an emotional need to protect them and care for them? Ignoring the issue of a life-and-death situation, we all know the horror stories of children who have been killed by their parents either Through neglect or physical abuse and that’s even with emotions working in the child’s favor.

To repeat one of my favorite default phrases, we are facultative rational beings but we are obligate emotional beings. That is to say, we can think rationally, but we must feel emotionally. This is not a condemnation. This is simply an acknowledgment of reality. If you discover that you have a tendency toward alcoholism, this does not mean you may as well give up and become a drunk. It means that you must spend the rest of your life being very careful not to fall into that trap. The same applies for tendencies toward cancer, Alzheimer’s, or any number of other debilitating diseases. It follows that if we humans have a tendency to be emotional to the point of self-destructiveness, we must struggle very hard to develop protections against that fate. We must learn to think rationally. We must learn to think objectively. We must simply learn to think.

It is important to note again that we should not give up on emotions. They are essential to our existence. A non-emotional being is a psychopath, if it can even manage to survive. Rather than eliminating emotions, we must learn to control them and to direct them.

This is easy to say; and very, very difficult to accomplish. Yet, in a world in which we are more and more capable of inflicting mass destruction upon ourselves, we must learn to do this. It is a matter of our survival.

Which is an excellent emotional reason to learn to think effectively and clearly.

Bloodletters Unite!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/12/28/the-end-of-education-reform-or-a-new-beginning/amp/

I don’t agree with every point in this article but I do agree with most. It was obvious the moment the great “reforms” were proposed that they would fail miserably and only make things worse. So why did all the experts think the plan was so great? In fact, why are many of them still praising them? Because so many of the experts have never taught a child anything in a classroom. They display high degrees and endless hours of studying about how to do things which they have never actually done. Imagine if, in World War II, instead of pulling our aces out of combat and taking them back to train new pilots we had those recruits trained by experts had never actually flown a plane but had studied and studied how to do so and knew all the theories of how to do it right.

I’m on record as saying and I will repeat again, these modern educational experts with their endless testing and competition theories are the exact equivalent of you going to a doctor with the flu and he declares, “Thyne humors art in imbalance. I shall bleed thee!”

Whose Song Of The South?

https://www.news10.com/news/the-jim-crow-film-that-just-wont-die-song-of-the-south/

An extremely mixed situation. On one hand the Uncle Tom element of the story is undeniable and repulsive. On the other hand, Brer Rabbit is clearly a descendent of Anansi and the other tricksters African folklore has handed down. I find the movie to be both a celebration and honoring of some powerful elements of African/slave culture AND an ugly affirmation of racism. I do not find it surprising that one can find elements of both. Today we tend to insist that everything must be polarized into rigid absolutes. In reality, the situation is often much more complicated.

The film would make an excellent teaching vehicle. I wouldn’t recommend it below fifth grade at the lowest, middle school is probably a more effective venue. The point being that it serves two significant educational functions.

First, a discussion of Jim Crow and thus of slavery. It is a horror of America’s past which is far too often ignored in our schools. I always made a point of dealing with it honestly at an appropriate level for the children I was teaching, but I was a rarity. We did have teachers who dealt with the issue quite openly, including teachers I worked with. But most teachers are uncomfortable with the subject and simply veer away from it.

Second, it opens up the whole of folklore, including trickster tales from many cultures. How these immigrants, whether willing or unwilling, contributed to American culture is a fascinating topic and one which promotes understanding of other cultures and even of our own, which is an amalgam of these many disparate elements.

It would not be an easy topic to teach, and would require preliminary work with the community and administration, but it is one which I think would be of great importance in helping our youngsters to understand our own history and the culture in which they are embedded.

You With Us Or Agin’ Us?

A Facebook discussion. D’s original post:

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2019/09/26/im-not-the-radical-left-im-the-humane-middle/

D: I think I'm just middle of the road. But somehow I'm an agitator in my postings according to some people. This sums it up for me.

A: Me too Dan. Don't feel all that radical but I am pissed off.

J: Yes!

R: Thanks for sharing. Remember, when we thought the world we were entering promised a brighter future? How did that work out?

“You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one”

RK: This is by far an excellent example of what should be described as a human being.

K: I’m right there with you Dan! I don’t feel far left either! I care for other people!

T: I’m with you, Daniel. You are not alone!

L: I was taught that to far to the right can be as dangerous as to far to the left:

Me: Reminds me of an editorial I read some years ago.
A young man reported that he was basically a political moderate. Because of his religion, he had been attending a Christian college. Obviously, his political attitudes were not in line with those around him. Seemed everybody else at the college was extremely conservative. He got really tired of having to explain that he wasn’t a radical left wing nut, he was just a moderate. So he switched to a public college.
But things didn’t work out for him that well. At the public college, he found he was constantly being accused of being a radical right winger, an ultraconservative. He couldn’t find a solution, so he just put up with it until graduation.
People love to categorize everyone around them. The most radical people think that everyone who isn’t in complete agreement with them must belong to the opposite and equally radical group.
It’s a sad fact about the way the human mind works and the way our culture is pushing us. Compromise and moderation just aren’t very popular, even though the great majority of us are moderates who are willing to compromise. The extremists of both polarized opposites dominate the media, the discussion, and our politics.

Anti Evangelicals

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/millennials-are-leaving-religion-and-not-coming-back/



Again, a brief post, but in the light of the previous comments I have made on the subject it is simply confirmation of what I have been saying for decades.

The more churches become secularized and politicized the more they drive away their future members. Just as happened in Europe in the past two centuries, it is coming to pass in America. In many ways this is sad, but all in all I believe we will be a much healthier nation as a result.

Inevitably as churches lose more and more ground, they will become more and more fanatic and more and more political. They will become more and more determined to create an atmosphere in which their particular sect is the law of the land in a desperate attempt to ensure their survival. This is a positive feedback loop. It inevitably leads to self destruction.

> ...”we came to see all of this negativity from people who were highly religious and increasingly didn’t want a part in it.” This view is common among young people.

...research has suggested that the strong association between religion and the Republican Party may actually be fueling this divide. And if even more Democrats lose their faith, that will only exacerbate the acrimonious rift between secular liberals and religious conservatives. <

Come Nineveh

Very brief post but I’ve covered this topic so many times over the last few decades I don’t really care to add repetitive commentary. I started complaining about it in the days of Ronald Reagan. Still, here is more evidence that what I said would happen is actually happening.

> For the first time, China has taken the Nature Index crown as the biggest producer of high-quality research in chemistry, knocking the United States down to second place. <

Once Chinese science was the greatest in the world. Then the fundamentalists and the China First/China Only groups took over. China was quickly surpassed by much tinier nations who had stayed on the science road. Eventually those tiny nations bullied China any way they wanted to as China descended into Third World status. Now the United States, long the producer of the greatest science in the world, is turning to fundamentalism, America 1st/America Only belief while China turns back to science. We are slipping. They are gaining.

Is anyone really surprised?

https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/these-ten-countries-top-the-ranks-in-chemistry-research?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=bf160736fb-briefing-dy-20191212&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-bf160736fb-44635989

Cry 'Havoc!,' And Let Slip The Dogs Of War!

As conservatives once again freak out about the imaginary war on Christmas in the last few decades that never actually happened, it pays to ask a serious question. Who has actually waged a war on Christmas in America?

The answer is:

The Puritans.

You know. Those evil, liberal, atheist, latte loving, avocado eating, socialists. Wait a minute. Weren’t the Puritans ultra conservative, ultra religious, ultra Christians? They could not have been the ones to ban Christmas…could they?

May 11, 1659
The General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony issued the following order.
For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals, as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offense to others:
It is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof, that whomsoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing labor, feasting, or any other way upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offended, shall pay five shillings as a fine…”

(FYI: They also banned Easter.)

Why? Because God said only the Sabbath should be kept holy and they thought that it should be honored with solemn, long, grim church services. Anyway, people are notorious for doing fun things at Christmas. I mean they played games! So wicked! Not to mention they drank!

Cotton Mathers’ father declared, “The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that festival after such a manner as is highly dishonorable to the name of Christ. How few are there comparatively that spend these holidays (as they are called) after an holy manner. But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, and playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, In mad Mirth.“

To enforce these restrictions the authorities, “… dispatched town criers on Christmas Eve to shout "No Christmas, No Christmas" through the streets of Boston.” (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/54131/time-boston-banned-christmas)

Great! But it gets better. Although the law was repealed, the attitude that Christmas was a bad thing lasted for a very long time.

All the way up to the year before Ulysses S. Grant declared Christmas a national holiday (1869), school children in Boston who decided not to attend public school on Christmas Day were severely punished. They were punished by up to expulsion from school for such a heinous offense.

I’ve known about the banning of Christmas by the Puritans for decades but I want to give thanks to the Internet channel Today I Found Out for these details.

So if you do insist on making declarations about the war on Christmas please remember that war was waged by ultra conservative, ultra religious, ultra Christians. Not by liberals. In fact it was liberals who overturned the law and declared Christmas a national holiday.

The war on Christmas? Yes there was one. Because the Liberals won, we can all still joyfully say, “Merry Christmas!”

Wanna Bet?

From Rational Wiki:
Pascal's original text is long-winded and written in somewhat convoluted philosophy-speak,[2] but it can be distilled more simply:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hellforever: thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus an insignificant loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus an insignificant gain.

My comments: The wager is a very popular point of discussion. I remember thinking about it when it was introduced to me in high school class. It sounded false and nonsensical. It didn’t seem right to bet on the existence of God in order to make a gain for yourself.
My current responses are a little more complex but can be summed up in the following scenario.

An atheist, a true believer, and a skeptic who has made Pascal’s wager by making an effort to believe in God just in case all die at the same moment when a meteor crashes into the TV studio where they are having a debate. To the surprise of two of them, they find themselves in the presence of Jesus who is about to judge them.

Jesus looks at the true believer and says, “Not only did you believe, You just happened to believe in the right God and not only that, but also in the right sect. Go straight to heaven!”

Then he turns to the atheist. “OK. You didn’t believe in me but your beliefs were honest and you lived a really decent, good, moral life. I have to respect someone who makes an honest effort and really works hard define the nature of reality and seeks the truth as best he can. You go to heaven too.”

Then he looks at the man who made the bet. “I really hate hypocrites. Do you really think I was stupid enough to think you were sincere when you were just trying to hedge your bets? You disgust me! Go to hell!“

Maybe Pascal’s wager isn’t such a good bet after all. You know what they say about race track touts...if they know the winning horse, why don’t they just bet their own money on it?

Memories

From my Facebook post.


Hey, Bobbie! Remember when the war was being planned and I said to anyone willing to listen that the day would come when Americans would all ask, “How did we get into this mess,” and I added, , “Just look into the mirror. That’s how.”?

I forgot to add, and we are being lied to by our leaders.

A war as pointless and unwinnable as Vietnam for many of the same reasons. This is why we “lost” China. I learned that when I was an undergrad, in the 60’s. The world is not full of middle class Americans who want exactly what we want.

L: yes indeed and on and on it goes... smh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

Self Denial To The Max

There is a reason that a proposed scientific conclusion, however firmly based in evidence it may seem to be, is invariably subjected to a long dip in a tank of hungry piranha. Critics of science simply do not understand just how savagely scientists attack each other’s findings. Even Einstein’s theories are subject to constant questioning and are repeatedly tested. The primary reason is that this is the only way to be certain that any data,or conclusion based on any data set, is in fact correct. There are many reasons it might be incorrect, but one of the main ones is that scientists are, after all, only human.

I’m pleased to learn from this article both the flaws of this highly touted experiment which is so loudly declared to conclusively prove something that I absolutely believe to be false, but also the long standing criticism which has always been obvious to me. What is the psychology behind highly intelligent individuals being almost bitterly determined to prove that they have no consciousness and no free will? What drives a person to want to be a conscious-less, mindless robot? I’d really love to see an in depth psychological study of the advocates of this peculiar position.

I would like to ask these individuals the following question.

I recall reading, I believe it was as far back as high school, a story about a boy in a psychiatric institution. He suffered horribly for reasons I cannot recall. In order to avoid the pain and suffering his emotions caused him, he decided he was a robot. He would walk about during the day carefully aligning the imaginary wires which plugged him into the wall, telling people not to step on those wires as they might accidentally disconnect him. I do not recall what caused his condition or if he was ever able to recover. However, it is very interesting that this child wanted to be an unconscious and unfeeling being to avoid the horrors of his suffering.

I recall a Star Trek episode of a similar theme in which a boy wanted to become Data and avoid feelings because he felt guilt over what he thought was a terrible crime he had accidentally committed.

So, what is it which drives you to wish to be an emotionless, non-conscious object? Why do you feel this compelling need to be a bio-chemical robot? What trauma drives you? Why are you so afraid of being responsible for your actions?

> ...why are so many intellectuals so intent on proving that they have no free will? (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out ironically, “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”) <

Scientific American

How a Flawed Experiment "Proved" that Free Will Doesn't Exist

https://apple.news/AhCXobNpkTnaR4KHC1RBTRg

Ignorance Is No Excuse

> Most white Americans are fuzzy on the cause of the Civil War—slavery—and even more are unaware of the decades of racial terror and oppression that followed Reconstruction: lynching, convict leasing, mass incarceration, racist labor practices.
... ‘Why are they so focussed on this, when Americans seem to do their best to forget history?’ In a certain sense, that question, the ways in which the Germans have faced their national crimes and catastrophe, has been on my mind ever since.”<

The only way to not know is to deliberately choose not to. Germany has faced the horrors of her past and can be proud of the fact that they have cleansed themselves of its evil. America, like Japan, remains stained and fouled with the filth we refuse to wash away.

When I put this down to write more about the subject later, I failed to record the article from which I excerpted the quote.

There’s so much more I can say about this, yet when I look at it, I think it actually covers the subject rather well. It is a very brief post but one which should stimulate a great deal of discussion and thought.

Divorce

C: The figure i heard: of the 7,700 counties in the US, 7,000 voted Republican, only 700 voted Democrat. Sounds like a solid majority to me.

O: DIVORCE AGREEMENT

THIS IS INCREDIBLY WELL-PUT, AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S WRITTEN BY A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is our separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets, since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

—We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.

--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

--You can keep Oprah, Whoopi, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all five of them.

--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks.

--We'll keep Bill O’Reilly and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

--When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLaine. You can also have the UN., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

--We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.

--You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors.

--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kum Baya," or "We Are the World."

--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle-up poverty your best shot.

--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name, and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take George Clooney, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Short, Charlie Sheen, Barbra Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.

P.P.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

Forward This Every Time You Get It !

Let's Keep This Going, Maybe Some Of It Will Start Sink in.



Me: So you think you’re a big majority because you keep winning rigged elections? You think denying the vote to millions of Americans makes them somehow not American so your votes are the only real ones? You want to get out of our country?

Good. Once you’re gone we can start to make America decent again. We would never kick you out because we respect things you don’t, things like human rights. However, if you want to go, not only will we not stop you we will do all we can to help you. Maybe a GoFundMe? I really want to help you leave America.

I do have a few conditions though. When you leave, be sure to pack up and take along with you your not very well veiled racism, your weird mix of arrogance and self pity, your bigotry, your puerile terror of anything new and different, your determination to destroy democracy, your religious fanaticism, and don’t forget your hatred of reality.

Thank you so much for offering to leave. We will do everything we can to help you along because we don’t want your kind in our country, but as I said before, we’re just too decent to deny you your human right to be the nasty, spiritually ugly people you are. However, it will make us very happy to see you be those things somewhere else.

Bye-bye!

Friendship In The Time Of Trump

A very short post, but I think worth moving from Facebook to my blog. It may not be long and verbiage, but it is very profound in it’s implications.

A Facebook friend posted:

C: This message is also for anyone who want to send me a Friends request. As for those friends I currently have, if I see any post in support of Trump, I will Unfriend you, my Page will not be used for a propaganda platform to promote the dismantling of our democracy.
To be fore warned, is to be fore told.

I responded:
While I understand your position, I’ve never unfriended anyone, certainly not over politics. Those friends who have turned to Trump and been radicalized give me a window into the strange world they now inhabit. I find it useful in helping me to understand.

One friend in particular has completely drowned herself in the world of Q anon. Reading about this bizarre delusional world simply does not give the same insight as actually watching someone you have known for decades “function” in that insanity.

C: Initially I was all right with some of my friends supporting trump. But, yesterday Impeachment Hearing where they attacked a decorated U.S. Army solider at the request of Donald Trump, was a bridge to far. I knew I could no longer tolerate those who believe trump is fit for the office of President of the United States. They behave as if they are a part of a cult and their leader is Jim Jones. Why would I want to communicate with someone who is so brain washed.

Me: Can’t argue. Your reaction is reasonable. Not criticizing your stance, just saying I have a different one. As crazy as these people are, as repugnant as their behavior becomes,I find it both necessary and disturbingly compelling to try to understand them. Lately I’ve been dipping into the whole “sovereign citizen” movement. I’m not exactly sure why I find it so fascinating, but I do. The self delusion of true believers is remarkable.
I remember reading Eric Hoffers’s book The True Believer decades ago. Very insightful. The capacity of the human mind to utterly delude itself and divorce itself from reality still bears a certain fascination for me. I suppose I am intellectually a gwaker, staring at the horrible accident out the car window and backing up traffic for miles as I slowly drive by.
Call it a character flaw.😏


A: Jim Naranjo I will give you fascinating. But ultimately maddening, depressing and just a waste of our precious time.

M: Jim Naranjo you’re curious and intelligent, just don’t get carried away😊

Me: Don’t worry. Just because I like to study dinosaurs doesn’t mean I intend to turn into one.

MG: Jim Naranjo, you mention the "sovereign citizen" movement...I had one of the weirdest (funniest?) experiences with one of them when I was working fora local city. Among my duties was answering people's questions about City planning permits etc at the public counter. One day, a guy came in with a citation notice that he'd received for a serious electrical code violation. He demanded to know what gave the City the authority to cite him, and we went round and round about that for about 15 -20 minutes. Every time I gave him and an answer, he'd take it one step further...who gave the city that authority? Answer" the state of CA. Who gave the state the authority to tell him what he had to do? etc etc. Finally, he declared himself to be a "sovereign citizen" who no government had authority over. At first, I thought he was joking, but he wasn't. I offered to call the City Attorney for him if he wanted to take the question up with them, but he declined. Still he persisted that he did not have to make his electrical service meet Code if he didn't want to and he wanted all fines cancelled. So, I suggested he speak with the Code Enforcement Officer who wrote the citation. Where are they located, he asked? Answer: In the Police Department . He left then. Guess he didn't want make his pitch to law enforcement. It was really lunatic!! And a chuckle at the same time...

Me: I’m fond of saying they are really funny, until they turn deadly. Thanks for sharing!

Mirror, Mirror

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/jojo-rabbit-mocks-maga-extremism

Worth reading, and don’t miss the embedded “public service announcement”. > “Trumpism has broken taboos of civility, of respect, and of decency, and therefore bigots feel they are empowered, legitimized,” he said. “The 200 neo-Nazis in Charlottesville were not created by Trump. They were there before. All he did was make it possible for them to have the arrogance or the chutzpah to surface. They feel this is a time when it’s okay...” <

During the days of the Bush administration (Junior, that is) we legitimized torture and other crimes against humanity. We made them quasi legal official actions taken by our government. No one seems to remember this these days, but at the time this was an extremely controversial issue. I was making the same point as this movie back then.
I referred to those Bush supporters as the good Germans of the US. Those decent ordinary folks who nevertheless supported Hitler and his atrocities. This despicable action by otherwise moral people has always been regarded as a great mysterious puzzle, but it really isn’t and never has been. It’s just people accepting that their government is their country and they must be loyal to it. Accepting that their society is their home and they must go along with its norms.

The question really isn’t why so many Germans passively went along, the question is why so many were able to resist the urge is to conform, to fit in, to meet the expectations of daily life.

Back in the Bush days I was saying if you ever ask yourself how good good Germans went along with Nazi horrors, then first ask yourself if you supported torture when Bush was legitimizing it. If the answer is yes then the answer to your question about how did good Germans go along with these monstrosities is: Look in the mirror. The face you see is the face of a good German.

This is so true today as well. The crimes and the betrayals of Trump and his administration have been open and clear. He really has made no attempt to hide them. All he does is say well yeah but what about those other guys? Yeah I am a crook but so are other people like (fill in the blank with whatever political personality you don’t like).

Do you believe Q anon? Do you think everyone’s picking on poor, pitiful, glorious, holy Trump? Do you justify his crimes and his betrayals? Do you think he’s the victim of a great conspiracy? Then look in the mirror. The face staring back at you is that of a good German.

I want to end by emphasizing once again that Trump is no Hitler. He’s not even a Mussolini. Instead, he is the bad apple in the barrel who is spreading his rot throughout our entire governmental and social system. He’s no Hitler, but he’s laying the groundwork for one.

Kids!

Posted on Facebook but worth re-posting. There is a serious lesson to be learned in this mess, and I hope no one overstates or misinterprets the seriousness of the situation. As serious as it is, this is nontheless simply a situation of a foolish, impulsive child doing a foolish thing which had serious consequences in the real world. Now it’s time to correct the error and for everyone to heal. That’s really all there is here.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/30/us/virginia-girl-fake-story-about-cut-dreadlocks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fapple.news%2FAE-eIecOlQeiVG9LKMTi4Lw

Facebook post:
I feel sorry for everyone who was hurt by this, including her family. Which leaves the question, is there any deep lesson contained in this? If there is one, it would be that you should always remember when listening to stories by kids is that kids are notorious for making up stories and for doing really foolish things without any consideration of the consequences. As I said so many times, kids are idiots. The good news is, they tend to grow out of it.

I will repeat the story that was told to a group of us intern teachers by our superintendent as we started our first job. He recalled when he was a young teacher he was told the story as well. There was, once upon a time, a long long time ago, a teacher who started every year by sending a note home for parents which said, “I won’t believe everything your children tell me about you if you won’t believe everything your children tell you about me.“ Good advice.
😏

Facts Need Not Apply

The question has been asked on a number of platforms by a number of people, “How can anyone still support Trump?”

The answer is very complicated but to illustrate just how fanatic a true believer can become, Let’s take a look at the most extreme of extreme focuses. By looking at the most extreme situation which you can imagine, you can carry back the lesson which is clearly demonstrated there and apply it to the not so extreme situation in which you find yourself.
Let’s go to April 20, 1945. The German army is shattered. The war is largely being fought by sick old men and little boys. In less than two weeks Hitler will kill himself in despair. Yet, on his birthday it was possible for true believers to be excited and inspired by Goebbels speech. Here are some excerpts. As you read them, ask yourself again the question, how can anyone look at reality and still believe in…name your corrupt leader.

> ...Our enemies claim that the Führer’s soldiers marched as conquerors through the lands of Europe — but wherever they came, they brought prosperity and happiness, peace, order, reliable conditions, a plenitude of work, and therefore a decent life.

...The perverse coalition between plutocracy and Bolshevism is collapsing!

...the German people bore him. It chose him, it by free election made him Führer. It knows his works of peace and now wants to bear and fight the war that was forced upon him until its successful end.

...But if we achieve our goals, the project of social construction begun in Germany in 1933 and was rudely interrupted in 1939 will be taken up again with renewed strength.

...(Hitler) will go his way to the end, and there awaits not the end of his people, but rather a new and happy beginning to an era in which Germandom will flourish as never before.

...Germany is still the land of loyalty. It will celebrate its greatest triumphs in the midst of danger. <

Reality is meaningless to true believers. That’s how.

Humpty Trumpty

My friend Susan posted a photo of a group of individuals climbing and sitting on the top of Trump’s unclimbable wall. I reposted it. The following conversation ensued:

Me: This is not a tourist stunt. These are professional chefs who are frying eggs on the top of the wall. It’s a new reality TV show to see who can fry the best eggs in the shortest time.

S: I hope Trump sees the reference to fried eggs. It would make him so proud.

Me: By Trump I assume you mean our president, Humpty Trumpty.

S: Yeah. Wasn't he bragging about how you could fry an egg on his fabulous, unbreachable wall?

Me: Humpty Trumpty fried eggs on a wall
Humpty Trumpty had a great fall
All these king’s horses and all the king’s men
Tossed Humpty into a jailer’s pen

S: Can't wait.

Me: Change that last “Humpty” into a “Trumpty”. Sounds better. Also the jailers’ pen. Scans better.

Not in the original Facebook exchange but I add this additional comment:

As Trump is so fond of saying, “Walls work!“
As proof, look at this Wikipedia expert regarding the most famous wall in human history:

>Although a useful deterrent against raids, at several points throughout its history the Great Wall failed to stop enemies, including in 1644 when the Manchu Qing marched through the gates of Shanhai Pass and replaced the most ardent of the wall-building dynasties, the Ming, as rulers of China.<

Yes. It’s a matter of historical fact. The most determined wall builders of all time were invaded and conquered by the Manchus, who crossed the incredible working wall.

Bicycles And The Junior Anti-sex League

From a Facebook post. Short, but important enough to re-post here.

https://quillette.com/2019/09/10/in-praise-of-renoirs-male-gaze/

Me: It has come to this? A female scholar must defend Renoir against the anti-sex, anti-male attacks of radical feminism. How sad.

B: Quillette is a magazine I've come to really appreciate right now. They've become the center of cultural controversy: they are routinely castigated as a fascist mag. It's bizarre. The CEO is Claire Lehmann; she's a smart thinker who seems to love jumping into the vitriolic fray of social commentary.

Me: They do tend to have too much of a conservative slant for me to enthusiastically support them, but they often make excellent points. I do notice that if you disagree with them on even minor matters it’s common for you to be instantly labeled a Marxist. Not all the contributors practice this unusual ritual, but too many of them do.

For any of you out there asking, the Junior Anti-sex League??? I include The following link and quote.

> The Junior Anti-Sex League in 1984 is a group that advocates "complete celibacy for both sexes." They are pushing the agenda of the Party, the group that rules the country. According to the Junior Anti-Sex League, children should not be conceived through sexual intercourse. <

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-junior-anti-sex-league-1089836

Or, put another way, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Oh sorry, that’s not an accurate quote. Let me correct that, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a mate.”

Artificial Stupidity Rules!

https://www.fastcompany.com/90399280/aristo-ai-passes-science-test-for-8th-graders?partner=rss&utm_campaign=rss+fastcompany&utm_content=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss

Smarter than an eighth grader? Well… In terms of taking standardized tests yes. But standardized tests are absolute garbage measurements of anything of any serious real educational value except the ability to regurgitate mindless facts. And yes, computers are really good at regurgitating mindless facts. Other reports on the same topic of noted that the computer is a total dolt in other areas. In fact it’s not even as smart as a human preschooler in areas such as creative problem solving, social skills, and other abilities important to functioning in human society.

However, when taking standardized tests it’s a genius. Which just goes to show that giving standardized tests to our students is the act of an incompetent.

Fake...News? No, Meat

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/19/20869271/impossible-burger-foods-gelsons-markets-southern-california-meat-free-plant-based

Me: Susan, the times they are achanging.

S: Are you going to try it? Just because it's plant based doesn't mean it's healthy. Check the ingredients. Personally, I hope it is good stuff.

Me: I usually buy already prepared meats. Even simple cooking like making a good spaghetti sauce and browning my own meat etc. is just beyond me right now. I’m willing to try it though. And honestly I’m not concerned so much about it being healthy as I am concerned about the effect on the environment and reducing cruelty to animals.

S: I started on this journey back in the 70's when I was horrified to read how veal calves are treated. So I agree with you on both points, especially reducing cruelty to animals, only wish it could be eliminating instead of reducing.

Me: I won’t argue. I am not a hypocrite but I do admit I make something of a bargain with the devil when I continue to eat meat. But I’ve also always advocated for laws insisting on the most humane treatment possible for animals even if it meant greatly raising the cost of meat at my own economic expense.

And if you need to smile today:
https://www.eater.com/2019/9/19/20873805/stephen-colbert-impossible-burger-commercial

B: I haven't tried one yet but *everyone I've asked about it who's had it, like it. The ingredients don't seem particularly weird. "Impossible" is mostly soy and "Beyond" is mostly pea protein. Let me know if you try it!

Me: Will do.

Rational Is As Rational Does

Once again Dawkins presents himself as a rational moderate individual on the subject of religion. Of course, he is nothing of the kind.

Dawkins is not offering people the choice and letting them choose for themselves. When being interviewed by Lawrence Krauss, he bullied Krauss into agreeing with him that anyone who believes in anything spiritual should be banned from being a member of any profession. That means that a person who believed in anything other than absolute materialism would not be allowed to be a teacher, Doctor, Professor, lawyer, or any other profession. He wants to make this the law of the land.

I refer to this as the Atheist Inquisition.

I have no problem with atheists. I have no problem with theists. I have a problem with extremists. Dawkins loves present himself in moderate dress, but beneath the stage make up, he is an intolerant fanatic bigot.

https://apple.news/AYyaW_zMFTUGIOWJmoc-rOQ

Permit me to also note that under Dawkins’ inquisitorial rule, Albert Einstein would have been banned from being a physicist. After all, Einstein believed in something spiritual, if he wasn’t exactly sure what it was himself. He said much on the topic, the following three quotes making my point clearly.

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.” (Albert Einstein)

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (Albert Einstein, 1954)

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” (Albert Einstein)

Remember, Dawkins was insistent that any belief in anything other than absolute materialism is cause for banning membership in any profession. Einstein’s conviction that mere materialism was not an adequate explanation for the entirety of reality, while not religious in the ordinary sense, was certainly not absolutely and rigidly materialistic.

Oligarchic Kleptocracy Forever?

On C-SPAN today (Thursday, September 19), Lee Drutman regarding his book, Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop. Where he was interesting and his book would be worth reading. He makes a point that while the founding fathers were intensely suspicious of political parties the negative effects were mitigated by our having, in effect, a four party system until recent decades. The point being that there were liberal Republicans, conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats, and conservative Democrats. Now the parties are rigid and bitter bipolar opposites. We are now a truly two party system, and it’s failing the nation.

His presentation is much more complex than this simplistic summary, so I think it will be well worth anyone interested to purchase his book.

But I found most interesting was a quote from the Authoritarian Warning Survey (a group which self describes it self as “Authoritarian Warning Survey polls democracy experts on threats to democracy from American political leaders in 2017-18. Respondents are academic scholars who study democratic decline, political institutions, American politics, or countries that have recently experienced democratic erosion.”).

The quote reads, “In the August/September 2018 Authoritarian Warning Survey, 747 democracy experts collectively gave the United States a one six chance of a democratic breakdown in the next four years, and were nearly unanimous (97.1%) in their assessment American democracy had declined the last decade.“

I am unfamiliar with this organization although it certainly makes itself sound reliable. I do know that I completely agree with this assessment. I have been arguing that America had been turned in Into an oligarchic kleptocracy for at least a decade — more like two or three decades.

So should we despair? Considering that a great many Americans agree that the government no longer represents them, I think there is real basis for hope. As the author pointed out during the interview, there are many ways that without any change to our constitution we can make room for multiple parties. The author presented a number of alternative and entirely constitutional systems which can be adopted by individual states to promote diversity among our political parties and the choices a voter can make.


I was raised to revere the Constitution as an nearly perfect document. As I’ve matured I have realized it is profoundly flawed. And yet, we can work within it to correct the profound flaw of “winner take all”.

https://qz.com/1711965/most-americans-think-the-powerful-act-unethically-with-impunity/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/25/voters_rate_political_corruption_as_americas_biggest_crisis_140156.html

Same Difference

Thought for the day, regarding differences in religious doctrine.

...a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. — Benjamin Franklin

😉

By The Power Of Numbskull!

So I’m not the only one who feels the need to explain that yes, I am Christian, but I’m not one of those Christians.

I really blew this one! I’m trying to put the link to the article into this post, but I wrote the post yesterday and I wasn’t feeling all that great so I failed to put it in. Now I’m having trouble relocating the article. I will include the link below, if I can find it. If not my apologies to the authors and to readers who would really like to read the original.

I’ve quoted excerpts from the article more extensively than I normally do, this is not to say that I have summed it up in it’s entirety. It is well worth reading in its original form. However, the points were so cogent I felt that these expansive excepts were appropriate.

> For years they exchanged pleasantries with the pastor, before stumbling into a political discussion in which they discovered he was not, to their surprise, a right-winger. “Oh, I get it: You’re not those Christians,” the husband exclaimed. The couple soon became regulars at our church.
I mention this anecdote in connection with new research showing that the political views of conservative Christians — notably the militant Christian right composed mostly of white Evangelicals though with some Catholic “traditionalists” in harness with them — are pushing people who strongly disagree with them away from Christianity (or any other religious faith).

...Researchers haven’t found a comprehensive explanation for why the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans has increased over the past few years...But a recent swell of social science research suggests that even if politics wasn’t the sole culprit, it was an important contributor.

... In a paper published in 2002, they offered a new theory: Distaste for the Christian right’s involvement with politics was prompting some left-leaning Americans to walk away from religion.

...The more non-religiously-affiliated Americans think Robert Jeffress or Mike Pence or (shudder) Donald Trump speak for God in this country, the less likely they will ever darken the door of a church, where it is assumed those Christians are stewing in their cultural pathologies. < As I have commented in a previous post, these ultra conservative, ultra religious groups are violating the teachings of their own Gospels (one of which directs them to be in the world, not of the world) and the principles of the foundation of the United States (which was designed according to the majority of the Founding Fathers, to be a secular religious-neutral system of government). By their fruits you shall know them, declares the Bible, and the fruits of these fanatic individuals who are so fiercely evangelical is that what they are actually evangelizing is that people should turn away from religion. As an article in Salon noted, >"Rising none rates are more common in Republican states" in the years between 2000-2010, researchers write. "Moreover, when the Christian Right comes into more public conflict, such as over same-sex marriage bans, the rate of religious nones climbs." ...The more the religious right engages in politics, the more people get fed up and abandon Christianity. And the more they do that, the easier it is for them to embrace socially liberal policies. ...Robert P. Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute told Salon that it's "young, white people leaving Christian churches that is driving up the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans."

Now there's more evidence that Jones is right: By organizing politically, the Christian right may be winning elections in the short term, but it's also driving people out of the pews, which is likely to lead to long-term defeat. <

Talk about self-destructive behavior! As the Republican Party purified and rarefied its membership through it’s “RINO” purge, so this worldly politicized group of Christians are shrinking their membership in their desperate search for purity and power.

Please remember that “none” does not mean atheist or agnostic. It means not associated with any organized religion. Most of the “nones” are in fact theists who believe in God, but not in organized religion; much to the dismay of those who insist otherwise, like Mr. Trump, the Republican Party, extremist atheists, and others of that type.


The Salon article: https://www.salon.com/2018/05/14/how-the-religious-right-is-shrinking-itself-overzealous-christianity-is-driving-people-away/

Posted

Through A Glass Darkly

I find myself making posts on my blog out of very brief Facebook posts. I prefer to go with the brief posts on Facebook and the longer posts on my blog, but some issues are simply so important I feel the need to put them on the blog even if I lack the strength or endurance to make more lengthy presentations. If nothing else, it allows my close friends a clear view of those issues I think are of great importance and which I hope we will be able to discuss in the future.

Case in point:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/09/hurt-people-hurt-people-quote-origin-hustlers-phrase.html

The statement is not entirely accurate, rather it’s terribly simplistic. My own family histories show a deep reflection of the reality of this concept. Several intergenerational examples of individuals being hurt as children who then grew up to inflict similar or related hurt upon their children are well known to me. In one particular case I can track the hurt back to the current “hurter’s” great grandparents. There the trail grows cold. In another case within my family, I can also trace the harm back to the “hurter’s’” great grandparents. In that case, however, the chain was broken and has ceased being passed on down to future generations.

A more accurate statement would be that those who have been hurt find it difficult not to pass that hurt onto next generation, but they can and do accomplish this in many cases. Their are also cases in which the harm originates with a particular individual who was not hurt.

Please note that I am aware my the constant use of the word “hurt” is clumsy but I think it is appropriate in this particular post.

Old Poems Unposted (?)

Poetry

Good Saturday

Good Saturday

Long day hard day
Not so very good day

Strained and tired
Anxious and wounded

Heart skipping beats day
Want to run away day

Bulgy bear
Don't know why

Still alive day
Struggle on day

Grubbing hope
Seeking peace

Colored chalk and grandkids day
Easter eggs and glitter day

Small delights
Vast rewards

Swirling colors in the sink day
Dear memories remembered day

Retreating from battle
Seeking home

Please God make it stop day
Dear God thank you for this day

Joyful heart
Family strong

Good Saturday



Choices

At the center of the orchard
The old tree stands
Rejected beloved

Walls have grown
Deep down and tall
Cutting off both root and branch

Some still stand united, whole
Sharing soil and water
Separately together

The bitter selfish
Neither give nor take
But know they are the best of all



Peachtree

Peachtree
old tree
Why'd you up and go tree?

First fruit
Sweet fruit
Sorry to have lost you tree

Privatization By Any Other Name Still Stinks As Foul

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-experts-congress-193001992.html

I have been criticizing the privatization movement since George Bush Junior was sitting in the White House. We have gone long way down that antisocial road — and look where we are today. This article shows even more successes for the privatization-cutthroat capitalism model. Very few people who love the ultra conservative economist Hayek remember that he predicted that most societies would destroy themselves. He considered that to be a very good thing. He was, after all, an economic Social Darwinist. Survival of the fittest. The strong survive. The weak die.

America is well along on the road to dying.

> “...debt is tearing our country apart,” Seth Frotman, former student loan ombudsman and the executive director of theStudent Borrower Protection Center stated. <

Mainlining Creationism

https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/david-gelernter-is-wrong-about-ditching-darwin/

If you are unfamiliar with the efforts of religious extremists to force their views upon the American public, this is an article well worth reading. The arguments being debunked here are yet another attack on reality. Yet another attack on science. Yet another refusal to acknowledge facts.

Creation “Scientists” are a strange and distasteful mishmash of true believer, outright liar, and astoundingly gullible fool. As with all addicts, one can only hope that eventually they will reach such a wretched level that they finally become disgusted with their acts of self degradation and turn away from their addiction.

It is a sad and forlorn hope.

Nevertheless, I must greatly respect and admire those open minded clear thinkers who continually expose themselves to these diseased minds in the effort to at least prevent the spread of the plague, even if curing those already afflicted is unlikely.

> ...every one of those arguments has been soundly rebutted over the past few decades...I suspect he, like all ID advocates, is susceptible to religious blandishments, immunizing him against the scientific truths that rebut faith. And so he asks us, “How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?” The answer, I suggest, is “We don’t need to.” < And the most apropos excerpt of all, > Rebutting such arguments is a perpetual and tiresome battle, useful only for those sporting open minds rather than religious blinkers. <

Well said, Professor Coyne. Well done.

Absolutism In Science

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

So what has been touted as absolute proof that free will can’t possibly exist appears very likely to simply be an artifact of the way the data was analyzed. In other words, evidence of nothing at all, except the foolishness of jumping to conclusions and of predetermining the outcomes of scientific data.

> ...neuroscientists barged in like an elephant into a china shop and claimed to have solved it in one fell swoop... <

It should be noted that even if it had been confirmed, it could only show that under extremely limited circumstance requiring virtually no rational thought, or decision-making, or exercise of free will, the brain predecides a response without conscious input. Had this been correct (and now appears to be incorrect) it still would not have warranted the conclusion that therefore every single decision ever made by every human being can only be made in this particular non-conscious manner. Such an overreach is simply unwarranted. It reminds me of BF Skinner’s conclusion that since some learning takes place as a conditioned response, all learning must take place in that manner. This is the equivalent of saying that since some people get from place to place on a skateboard, the only way human beings can ever transport themselves from place to place is on a skateboard. Thus, there are no such things as automobiles, cars, trains, rollerskates, or human feet.

This inevitably reminds me of a supposed absolute truth that free will can’t exist which is based in classical physics. For decades it was declared as an absolute that since every single cause has a single effect and every single particle must react to the previously existing conditions in an exactly predictable manner, there was no room for free will or choice. Every thought was ultimately produced by the motions and interactions of atoms and molecules and since these were moved in an exactly predictable manner from one existing state into the next existing state, there was no such thing as original thought or free will. Everything, including our thoughts and our choices were always predetermined.

Then came quantum physics. Suddenly the very same individuals who were loudly (very, very loudly) declaring free will is impossible because of this absolutely perfect proof were insisting that the destruction of their beloved proof was totally meaningless and had no effect on the debate whatsoever. Ultimately, it seems, the perfect and irrefutable argument was composed entirely of sour grapes.

In fairness, we must be remember that scientists are, inevitably, human beings. The public image of scientists as cold calculating individuals who lack emotion or are at least are uniquely objective is nonsense. More than anything else, at the most basic level, a scientist is a human being; and as with all human beings this class of individuals is subject to the same emotional prejudices, confusions, and errors that are inherent to our entire species.

The classical physics argument that all particles follow a rigid and invariable pattern and therefore there can be no such thing as free will since we are completely, including our brains, composed of those particles so that everything is already predetermined was as deeply offensive to me in high school as it is today. Like it’s theological cousin, the Calvinist theory of predestination, the belief that human beings have no control of their own fate was anathema to me. I didn’t know where the fault lay in this particular theory, it seemed to be a perfect proof. Yet I had a deep conviction (one could argue a faith) that it was wrong.

Now that its flaws have become manifest, I feel deeply vindicated, even while those who once swore that classical physics theory was the absolute proof of their correctness now discard it as never having been relevant to the discussion. It should be noted that in the area of quantum physics there are still those who advocate for a theory referred to as the “hidden variables” interpretation. This suggests that there are variables which adhere to the classical physics model which are unknown to us at this time and which will eventually prove (when they are discovered) that classical physics was correct all along. The number of scientists believing this shrinks every year. As an old adage by Max Plank indicates, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

FYI: it was Max Planck’s work on the blackbody problem that caused him to introduce a new concept, that of the quanta. When he first introduced it to resolve that problem, he regarded it as a mathematical fiction, but it grew into a new reality, indeed, into an entirely new physics.

This leaves the questions of, what is conscious, what is free will, unanswered. While we continue to seek the truth, we must wonder if it will ever be found. A very interesting article suggests that a single ultimate answer may not be possible. It presents a very interesting concept. One, I think, especially in the context of this post, is well worth consideration. See the link below.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pluralism-beyond-the-one-and-only-truth/

When Is A Human Human?

A pair of posts which, put together, are worthy of being moved from Facebook to this blog. The point of both being that as medical science advances we more and more find ourselves in need of careful ethical considerations before performing many types of experimental research.


https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/brain-waves-detected-in-mini-brains-grown-in-a-dish

> The EEG recording of a 28-week-old mini-brain mimicked the recordings of a pre-term infant at 35 weeks’ gestation. < Does anyone else find this deeply disturbing? I was worried about something along this line occurring when they first created these “mini brains”. At what point does this become a form of an actual human brain? At what point does this experiment require informed consent? Remember, that’s the consent of the mini brain. https://nextshark.com/chinese-scientists-human-genes-monkey-brains/ As if mini brains that artificial intelligence identifies as having brainwave patterns indiscernible from those of a premature baby, now we’re implanting human brain cells in monkey brains. Science-fiction horrors are looking more and more like nonfiction horrors. > “To humanize them is to cause harm. Where would they live and what would they do? Do not create a being that can’t have a meaningful life in any context.”<

The Church Of The Numinous

Saturday

What fine visit I had with my friend Bobby. As always, he brightened my day and made me feel so much better. We lunched at one of our favorite spots, the Ono Hawaiian Barbecue.

On the way back home, Bobby and I were talking. He pointed out that it seemed as if something, a sense of community, a sense of belonging to something greater, was difficult to find in the skeptical world. I noted that the Church of Satan presents itself as a church for atheists but it’s really more about being an in-your-face answer to Christian fanatics. That’s not a bad reason to have a church, but it’s not what I would consider the best reason.

I said atheists should have a church, and he and I should found one. We talked about it for a while, partly joking and partly serious. I observed that Einstein loved the numinous, though he certainly didn’t believe in any kind of God to whom you could pray or who was an actual person with a personality. Wouldn’t it be possible, I asked, for humanists and skeptics to identify and revere such concepts as morality, a sense of purpose, the numinous, and our mutual humanity?

Bobby noted that Nietzsche was identifying our loss of God as a symptom he was describing, not as a desirable thing. In fact, the philosopher felt that this loss had seriously harmed humanity. I noted that was something that Christian extremists simply do not understand about Nietzsche. They think he wanted to kill God when he was actually mourning His loss. Bobby went on to note that we humans endow things with sacredness. I liked that, and asked him why we couldn’t endow things with sacredness without God necessarily being part of the process? Isn’t that what humanism is about? Can’t we control that as we control so much of our spiritual, emotional, and personal lives?

In the end we decided we just had to found a genuine, actual church for atheists. It would be up to members of the church to endow it and its principles (no room for infallibility or doctrine, sorry) with sacredness. Then the question became, what should we name it? I proposed that he and I should both become the Prophets of Probability, since the universe is probablistic from the humanist-athheist view point. He liked that idea and then added that we should be the Non-prophets of Probability. I think Bobby and I make a great team.

In all seriousness, I think atheists and humanists should do exactly this. We humans can and should endow certain principles with sacredness. Traditionally that term is utilized for that which is created by or dedicated to a god or gods, but the humanist in me doesn’t see why we humans can’t take Bobby’s advice and endow sacredness by ourselves.

During the conversation I did say to Bobby that such a church should be able to include theists like me; one who was always a born skeptic and a dyed in the wool believer, one who dislikes the rigidity of doctrine and the tendency toward fanaticism and mindless faith inherent in organized religion, yet who finds himself divided between rationality and mysticism

That’s a church I could believe in completely. Among the principles which I would endow with sacredness are tolerance, the unity of all mankind, the sense of the numinous as we gaze upon the world and universe about us, and a deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world.

Everyone would welcome to join If they adhere to these principles, but because of the sacredness of those principles; the intolerant, the irrational, the angry, and the arrogant would be excluded, not because we think of ourselves as superior, but because we see our principles as genuinely sacred and they do not.

Also: Our church symbol could be the lazy eight or symbol for infinity, but made with a Mobius strip.
Without the Mobius element, the symbol has been used since ancient times. It symbolizes infinity, of course. It also means something everlasting, the worm Ouroboros with its head biting its own tail, enduring love, and more. The Internet adds that, >Arabic artists used it to represent eternity, wholeness, and completion.<
The United States Department of Veterans Affairs authorizes the symbol as one which is acceptable on veterans headstones, but does not identify it as associated with any particular religion, merely stating that it represents “infinity”.

A few suggestions as to the “structure“ of the church:

The Framework

Doctrine: None
Hierarchy: None
Sacred Items: Our Principles
Diety: Optional
Authority: The Self
Philosophy: Skeptical Rationalism
Inspiration: The Numinous
Beliefs: Personal and subjective

The Sacred Principles

* Tolerance
* The unity of all mankind
* The sense of the numinous as we contemplate the world and universe about us
* A deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world
* Non evangelicalism
* We are part of the universe, seeking to know itself
* Sentient beings should not be made or allowed to suffer
* Each sapient being’s experience is personal and subjective within the framework of the objective universe

Another principle of the church (though unofficial and perhaps even a personal addendum of my own) which I suggest we should endow with sacredness is one of my top five most favorite quotes of all time. The original quote referred to what happens when humans attempt to understand the nature of God, but one could easily extend it to what happens when one tries to understand this vast universe of which we are a part. “A dog might as well contemplate the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.” —Charles Darwin

Finally, I decree (with approximate infallibility) that I shall be the non-Pope in the West and Bobby the non-Patriarch of the Eastern Church.
Sounds good to me. Is that O.K., Your All non-Holiness?
(Remember, I only get to be His non-Holiness. You also get the All.)

More coming?

A Fire Bell In The Night

https://time.com/5672506/hitler-art-activism/

Sorry Mary Lane and Time magazine, but you should check your facts a little more carefully before reporting them. It’s a way to avoid embarrassment. I really that recommend you should try it.

In the magazine she reported that  > When Adolf Hitler took charge of Germany 85 years ago this summer, he did not, contrary to popular belief, “seize power.” Rather, Germans elected him their Führer, or leader, in a referendum on Aug. 19, 1934...<

But as I already was aware, Hitler seized power. No doubt about it. I didn’t know all the details, but they are easily found online, as in Wikipedia, for example.

> The referendum was associated with widespread intimidation of voters, and Hitler used the resultant large “yes” vote to claim public support for his activities as the de factohead of stateof Germany. In fact, he had assumed these offices and powers immediately upon von Hindenburg's death and used the referendum to legitimize this move, taking the title Führer und Reichskanzler.<

We all should check our facts before we post.  It’s excusable that those of us simply posting for the interest of ourselves and friends can occasionally make an error. Professional journalists and Time magazine have no such excuse.

This is not to say she doesn’t make an excellent series of points. The United States should take a very close look at what’s happening in America today as religious groups more and more surrender their moral and theological positions to political expediency and power.

>In his 1926 painting “Pillars of Society,” the then-33-year-old artist warned his fellow Germans that, if petty government sniping and extremist Christianity were not nipped in the bud, Hitler’s rise would be the likely consequence. Grosz further warned against radical far-right religious views in 1927’s “Shut Up and Do Your Duty,” a work that shows Jesus Christ nailed to the cross wearing combat boots and a gas mask—a criticism of politicizing Christianity that drew praise from pacifist Quakers in the United States.<

“...petty government sniping and extremist Christianity...” that seems to sound very familiar for some inexplicable reason.

STEM And Sex

https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/girls-are-just-as-good-at-stem-study-finds?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Master+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=76e3a61790-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3f5c04479a-76e3a61790-180555153

Social justice warriors and radical feminists have a habit of becoming frantic (dare I say hysterical?) when it is suggested that anything other than cultural differences and patriarchal prejudices can explain the differences between the performance of males and females in STEM performance,  this type of irrationality is wrong for several reasons. 

The two most important are that answering one mindless prejudice with another mindless prejudice is a malfunctional way of thinking and does not do anything to solve the problem, it only makes the problem more complex and difficult to resolve.

The second is that denying that reality is real because of your ideological or religious prejudices completely shuts out the possibility of finding out what is actually happening in the real world.  To deny even the possibility that one should study why males and females perform differently as a sort of patriarchal suppression is madness. A properly constructed study would uncover patriarchal suppression while refusing to conduct that study leaves the true nature of the problem obscured and probably unimaginable.

If the results of this particular study are born out, it shows that there is in fact a difference in the structure of male and female brains which does not mean females are inferior at STEM activities, but rather that they process their thinking in a slightly different manner.  A very small adjustment in the strategy of administering tests could be all that is required to eliminate the imbalance. No outrage needed. No protest needed.  Only careful studies, and an open mind.

Being offended, being oppressed, being the victim, and so many other maladaptations to life in a society with our fellow human beings are becoming the norm on both sides of the political landscape. (I must add that it is the absolute default position of conservatives and Republicans while Democrats are beginning to experiment with this tool.)  This is a very serious mistake.It inevitably leads us to a fatal flaw, replacing our facultative capacity to reason and actually solve problems with our obligate capacity to become irrational and emotional.

We each are empowered to make the choice for ourselves — use the capacity our brains have to think clearly and actually solve problems or simply allow our emotions to drown our rationality.

That’s the kind of empowerment I prefer.