Test Run

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/who-won-the-presidency-america.html 

Facebook post to be repeated here because of its importance.

Having declared since the days of Ronald Reagan Republican Party was trying to destroy democracy in America (yeah I know I keep repeating it, but it’s my way of saying I told you so now aren’t you sorry you were so mean to me 😉), I am stunned by the inability of people to realize how much danger we are in at this moment. Refusal to face awful reality can be deadly. In this case deadly to democracy and deadly to Americans, some of whom who have already been killed in the streets.

This article speaks about both sides, the eternal childish optimists and the hard cold rationalists who see through a glass clearly.

> “We’re being tested, and we’re failing. The next attempt to steal an election may involve a closer election and smarter lawsuits.<“

Trump is a miserable failure and he will be gone although his fanatic supporters will be still trying to destroy democracy in his name. However, to the GOP this was a dress rehearsal.

Submit And Comply

D:  Yes the first time I heard the saying "defund the police" I thought how stupid can we be. A gift to the law and order conservatives. A realignment of priorities is necessary but why label it in such a stupid way.  

S:  I agree with you. It was an unfortunate phrase to begin with and the dems should have replaced it with a more appropriate term. 

The liberal left is touting what extreme ideas? Health care for all isn't extreme. Having a minimum wage that keeps up with the cost of living isn't extreme. Welcoming immigrants and those escaping persecution in their homelands isn't extreme. Using some of the funding for local police departments to add professional mental health assistance isn't extreme. Enabling all US citizens to vote in elections, regardless of where they live, isn't extreme. Please explain this to me.

Me: The right has gone totally insane and completely addicted to extremism. The left is beginning to flirt with extremism again. Main stream left-wing thought remains main stream where as main stream right wing thought has become the lunatic fringe (but the fringe no longer). Defund the police. Social justice re-defined as reparations when the first term is positive and the second term is threatening to millions of Americans.  White privilege when what you really mean is human rights.

Attacking Obama for saying something rational and reasonable. Hypersensitivity to any interaction between whites and blacks (Which is often grossly misinterpreted). Micro aggressions. Cultural appropriation. An entire zoo of exotic and frankly ridiculous hypersensitivities masquerading as social justice. The entire social justice warrior movement.

I agree the left wing ideas are still primarily main stream. The problem I’m seeing and find very disturbing Is the growing acceptance of ridiculous positions. They are still on the fringe, but they are moving to the main stream. Slowly, but steadily.

Here is an example or two of that extremism. Quite some time ago a woman on a small boat notified the Coast Guard that a pod of whales had surfaced around her and her group. They were in a small boat surrounded by massive marine animals and there was serious fear that they would swamp the boat. She was notifying the Coast Guard that they might require rescue, please be ready. This was exactly the correct thing to do. There is nothing to criticize about this action. And yet all over the left-wing media she was reported as another horrible white person attacking whales because they were whales in the ocean! This was utter nonsense. Everyone who attacked this woman owes her a sincere apology.  She was not a super racist. She was a rational, reasonable human being taking rational, reasonable precautions against a very real danger to the life and safety of her self and those on her boat. But to the left wing extremists this was another example of insane white woman attacking… Etc. ad nauseaum.

Second example: I recently read an article in which a Black man said White people are really offending Black people by being nice to them. Yeah. That’s right. His classic example was that he and his family were in a public pool and an older white man said it’s so nice to see you having such fun with your family. I like seeing happy families, or words to that effect. The author took this to mean Black people are usually horrible to their families so it’s nice to see a Black man being nice to his kids for a change. That is not what the man said. There is a sick troubled person who is being very racist in the story. It is not the White man. I have had people compliment me on my tight relationship with my son.  I don’t even remember what race the various people were, because race wasn’t an issue. They just thought it was really nice to see a father and son so close.

This is left wing extremism. You can’t be nice to Black people because that’s an insult. But you can’t ignore Black people because that’s an insult. And you can’t criticize Black people, even if they actually deserve it as human beings, because that’s racism.

Main stream left-wing positions are reasonable and rational. But the fringe on the left wing is growing slowly and steadily. It moves at almost a glacial pace, but glaciers are incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous.

S:  Sorry Jim. I don't agree this time. I couldn't find the facebook responses to the woman but fear of whales swimming around under the whale watching boat just doesn't lend itself to racism. I would like to see the responses to her. As far as being nice goes, there is a difference between being friendly and being condescending. We weren't there. We don't know.

Me:   When I read the article he made no comment about being condescending he simply said the man complemented him. That’s it and then he went on to say that white people should not complement Black people unless they have done something extraordinary.  That’s what he actually said.  Other articles and commentators have said the same thing.  Some have even declared being complimented for an everday good act is mentally damaging to Black people (that was in the Washington Post!). 

I have seen a young woman college-age attacking a young man because his hair was in cornrows. That was a micro aggression. He was confused. He had no idea what she was talking about. Cultural appropriation and micro aggressions are usually simply being accepted by society. If we apply both concepts we must eliminate all rock ‘n’ roll music. It’s a combination of micro aggression and cultural appropriation against Blacks, Europeans, people from Appalachia, and you can go on and on identifying offended groups. This is not micro aggression.   This is both hybridizing cultures and accepting each other.

Tolerance goes both ways. If we look for trouble we will invariably find it. Just as conspiracy theorists invariably find proof that their conspiracy is real. It comes down to there’s a tiny bit of proof which I will wildly exaggerate, therefore I’m right or there’s no proof which just shows how powerful they are in covering up the truth.

You know me. I just can’t stand extremism. Even if the extremists agree with me they just should never carry the position to extremism.

Oh, and the comments attacking the woman specifically

referred to her as a White woman “Karen” who was treating whales like White women treat Black people.  Try Seth Myers, Amber Says What.  She was not alone in making a racial issue of this.

Let’s end on a cheerful note!

Read this link.

https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/the-first-wine-label-was-invented-in-egypt/

Anti- Evangelism

 

Copy of a Facebook post which I think is worth repeating here. The article is by an atheist who was raised as a right wing evangelical.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/white-evangelicals-made-a-deal-with-trump-now-what.html

>Evangelicals, Galli added, “are deeply suspicious of human authority,” but only to a point. What they may fear, really, is authority they don’t control. “Paradoxically,” he continued, “they are a group that’s attracted to authoritarian leaders, whether that person be a pastor of a megachurch or a dictator.”

... This, too, is something the modern GOP has in common with the Christian right. Democracy is the enemy. People can’t be trusted with their own souls. Leave them to their own devices, and they make the wrong choices, take the easy way out, threaten everything holy. They need a savior, whether they like it or not.<

This is the problem with Christ as king. He’s an absolute ruler. Morality is whatever he says it is. Right and wrong or whatever he says they are. There is nothing forbidden as long as he wills it. Deus vult!

It is this extremism which is making evangelicals into anti-evangelicals. They are driving people out, not only out of their churches, but of all religion.

State Security Forces Or Paramilitaries Need Not Apply

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/liberal-hyperbole-trump-coup.html

An interesting article but, as often happens, one particular point has especially irritated me. The author, Eric Levitz, makes a point by misdefining a word.

>To left-wing contrarians, meanwhile, describing Trump’s antics as a “coup” was nearly as absurd as Rudy Giuliani’s legal theories. This was not a violent seizure of power aided by state security forces or paramilitaries.<

Lexicolatry defines coup as: ‘A violent or illegal change in government.’  Note that a coup does not need to be violent. Any illegal overthrow of the government is also a coup.

I know this may seem like a minor offense, but to me the misuse of words is an extremely serious matter; especially when this abuse of language is intended to make some important point.  It is especially irritating that this author declares those he is criticizing are committing an “absurdity” by accurately utilizing a term which he inaccurately defines.

(Or, as I am more inclined to put it, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking.)

I have numerous serious issues with the article. For example, Trump is not, as it suggests, a momentary “presentism” oddity. He’s the culmination of at least 40 years of Republicans’ determined efforts to destroy democracy in America. The author seems unaware of this fact. I also am offended by experts who declare that our democracy is strong. Our democracy is very near death and the Republicans are determined to put it in its grave. The fact that we squeaked by this time has left us all the weaker.

Essentially, I found the entire article to be a clear example of denialism. It is determined effort to refuse to face reality. This has allowed Republicans as a party to undermine democracy at every level of government. “It can’t happen here!” Is a cry that should be familiar to anyone aware of the history of fascism.   In reality, it not only can happen here, it has been happening for decades and it is continuing to happen now. A slow motion coup remains a coup.

Well the author accurately points out failures on the part of Trump’s attempts, he ignores the many successes. Nearly half of American voters believe this nonsense and have already surrendered their dedication to democracy. That is no small thing!

As I anticipated, Republicans are using this lack of confidence in democracy to press forward even more gerrymandering and voter restriction measures. The racists, whichever party was their home, have been doing this since the days of Reconstruction. It is not an example of  “presentism”.

I can go on pointing out the many flaws in this article, but honestly, I find them too irritating. I can only be reminded again of the growth of fascism in Italy, Germany, and even America. “He’s just a politician.”  “It’s just a phase.”  And let’s never forget Fukuyama’s famous conviction that democracy in the world was so strong that we had reached the end of history.

It can happen here. It is happening here. Refusing to face that fact will allow it to happen here.

Final note: the fact that the author later says that a figurative coup could be perceived as taking place does not ignore the fact that he misdefined the word in making one of his foolish points.

Hear Me Roar

 Copying a Facebook post. I didn’t include the article which was about quantum reality versus observable reality because I didn’t think it was covering any new ground.

I simply must respond to this article. It irritates me so much. Actually, not the article. Just a single comment beginning it:  > If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Perhaps not, some say.<

Like all supposed paradoxes this is just a bad misuse of language and simple human confusion regarding the the nature of reality.

The answer to this supposed conundrum is what exactly do you mean by “sound”?

If no human is there to hear the sound a squirrel heard it. That’s a sound. No squirrels? Then a frog heard it. No frogs? Then a snail heard it. No snails… you get the picture.

But what is something extremely weird and improbable happened and no animals are within any range which could possibly have heard the sound? As it happens, sound is a series of compression waves in the air. Even if there were no ears to hear the sound there would still be compression waves and thus there would still be sound.

Some Say The World Will End In Fire

 Some time ago, in the midst of the terrible fires that were burning up so much of western North America, My daughter made a comment which was sort of like a haiku, but not quite. When a friend commented on that, she said she was thinking about turning it into a haiku but was just too busy. So I tucked it way thinking that it was too good not to turn into a haiku and I would do it myself someday.

So here’s her original and my interpretation:

Woke up on an apocolyptic sunrise between two fires 

ash falls upon us

Apocalypsis

Rising sun between two fires

soft rainfall of ash

Nice imagery. All of which is hers.

Someone Is Blind With Something.

 

From the Washington Post, a headline (Capitals removed)

Postal Service warns 42 states their voters could be disenfranchised by delayed mail in ballots

The resultant dialogue with D, the poster:

D:  This alone should say at all.

Me:  Yes, it says the Trump administration is working to sabotage the election in a move to destroy democracy in America.

D: Rreally?  You're smarter than that

Me:  Confiscated mail sorting machines, confiscated mailboxes, slashing the budget, forbidding overtime, for bidding extra deliveries, the post office run by a man who has over $100 million invested in companies which compete with the post office. Sounds perfectly normal to me.😏

D: the USPS just put out information about the "confiscated" machines that indicate why they were removed.  Has absolutely nothing to do with this administration.   Geesh

Me :  For over 100 years mail in ballot and was completely successful and no one doubt it. Suddenly this year and this year alone it is happened. Reality is real.

D:  we have mail in ballots here in Washington and there are still races that are not settled.  Plus...we got two EXTRA ballots sent to us for this Primary.   It's just a bit Lucy goosy for my taste

Me: It has worked since Lincoln was reelected during the Civil War. It is strange that it suddenly doesn’t work in the year when Donald Trump fears it might cost him reelection. Of course it could just be an amazing coincidence. But I doubt it

D: I shared with you my personal experience with mail in voting, and you are so blinded by hate that you're telling me my multiple ballots and waiting for results  are Trumps fault?   Or are you just calling me a liar?

Me:   Why are you so bitterly angry? I’m not upset at all by our conversation. You think I’m calling you a liar? What?

What exactly is it that you think I hate?

Calm down. Just because we disagree is no reason to be rude or insulting.

D: I'm not angry at all.  Just questioning your responses.   You said you doubted that it was problematic...after I told you the problems.  Simple

Bty, do you choose your retirement check be mailed to you or direct deposit?  Kind of the same reasoning, yes?

Me:  You as one single individual had problems and therefor you conclude that the entire system is totally failing? That’s like your car not working, therefore assuming the cars are not valuable and should be abandoned.

And suggesting I’m calling you a liar and telling me I’m blinded by hate do not sound like you’re just having a calm discussion.

Again, USPS has done an admirable job. If a check is mailed me I have it go to the bank. Of course I do direct deposit. It’s easier. But the USPS has been the most popular and most successful branch of government (It’s also a private business, since it’s hard to serve two masters, this messes things up) until Republicans begin interfering with its operations back in the Bush era by requiring them to fully fund their retirement system for 75 years ahead. Meaning they had to set aside funds for the retirement of postman who hadn’t even been born yet. The Trump administration has savagely attacked the post office service. Of course it’s not functioning right now. It’s like someone saying that your car isn’t working after I took a sledgehammer to the engine. That doesn’t mean the car is unreliable.

D:  Or...as one single individual that has experienced problems, can you imagine it on a larger scale?  Perception is everything, wouldn't you agree?  Gotta take grandkids for haircuts

Me:  be careful out there. The world isn’t a safe as it used to be.

Cancel Culture?

In 1864, President Lincoln was not favored to win the upcoming election. He had the excuse of the Civil War to postpone it. He had a Congress that might very well have gone along with him, had he requested it.  Facing all of this, he nevertheless declared, "If the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.”

When it was suggested to Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the 1942 election should be delayed due to the opening of World War II, he unequivocally stated that doing so would mean, “...we have become fascists ourselves...”.

2020, faced with slumping pull numbers, Donald Trump whined, “With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

The Civil War was not enough for a president (who, remember) was widely regarded as likely to lose the election, to cancel democracy.

World War II was not enough to convince another president that we should cancel democracy.

But Trump has slipped in popularity, and that’s reason enough for him to cancel democracy.

Ever watch Sesame Street with your kids? “One of these things just doesn’t belong here. One of these things just isn’t the same. Can you guess which thing just doesn’t belong here before the election begins?”

Seriously. Can you?

Ozytrumpias

Facebook post in response to a Trump statement that he wishes to have his opponents “shaking in their boots” as he sends his private shock troops out to cities run by Democratic elected officials.

Trump apparently knows some history after all. Terror tactics to make people afraid of you always work so well. Hitler used them against the Russians in order to make them so frightened they would no longer resist German forces. The result was... oh, that’s right, the result was the resistance grew even bigger and stronger and more determined to destroy these evil monsters. OK, so one failure.

The same tactics were used against the French in order to… Oh yeah, the French resistance also got more and more determined to destroy those awful monsters. OK, so two failures.

Maybe that’s because it was from Germans. Let’s look at the Japanese during World War II! Thanks to similar tactics against the Chinese in order to terrify them at submission… well, I guess that makes three failures.

You know, I’m beginning to think maybe Trump doesn’t know anything about history. I also wonder if maybe he doesn’t know anything about human nature.

Hell And The Single Basilisk

 Answering a post from my friend Bobby referring to Rokos Basilisk. Essentially this is a concept stating that, > A thought experiment called "Roko's Basilisk" takes the notion of world-ending artificial intelligence to a new extreme, suggesting that all-powerful robots may one day torture those who didn't help them come into existence sooner.<. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/what-is-rokos-basilisk-2014-8%3famp

Strange you should bring up Basilisk. I was just looking into that earlier this week. My basic response to it is, Rocco’s Basilisk is really really dumb. I wouldn’t call it artificial intelligence. I rank it with my concept of artificial stupidity. For those of you, like Bobby, who have heard this so many times, I apologize,but maybe there’s someone who hasn’t; so, as I’ve said so many times, I know we will soon create artificial intelligence because we have already totally mastered artificial stupidity.  (Don’t believe me? Try using a dictation system and see what you get.)

How does that apply to the Basilisk?. It takes a little exposition.

First, let’s look at God. To this day if you check in on the creationist/fundamentalist channels you will often hear pastors Insisting that everyone must worship their God exactly as they decree or he will torture them forever. This is so convincing that even the most extreme fundamentalist religions are dropping in membership. Wait! Doesn’t terror always work?

Let’s take a look at another example. Seeing failure in his attempt to swiftly conquer Russia, amazed at the resistance of the Russian people (which was so very similar to the resistance of the Chinese people against the Japanese invaders), Hitler decided that the best course of action was to commit blatant and very public acts of brutality. This, he was certain, would terrify the Russians into submission. It didn’t.

Instead it made Russian resistance even more bitter and more determined. But terror always works, doesn’t it?

I am reminded of an old science fiction story, the author and title have faded from memory. In it an alien invader struggles to subdue Earth. They keep failing. The resistance simply will not surrender. They decide this is because they don’t understand human psychology and therefore kidnap a human and force him to tell them how to force his species to submit.. At first he refuses cooperate but they torture him into doing so. He then reluctantly tells him to rape, torture, murder, and generally act like the Nazis did in Russia and like the Japanese did in China. By the time the aliens realize that he has lied to them and all they’ve done is make people hate them more than ever and be more determined to destroy them at any cost, it’s too late. The occupation of earth has simply become too expensive and they have been forced to withdraw.

And of course there’s the point that the Basilisk would be stupid to actually spend the energy to resurrect people and torture them when that no longer serves a purpose. All it needs to do, even assuming it could work, would be make people think that it would do this. Very cost-effective in terms of energy and effort. It doesn’t matter what is real, what matters is what people think is real.

To prove that this proposition is correct, all you need to do is look around in America today and notice the people who adore Trump for making his great sacrifices to save America or the Q anon conspiracy or the flat earth movement or any number of other childish nonsensical fantasies which have a large base of fanatically devoted zealots.

Of course, if the Basilisk is smart enough to do this, then it would have inspired Roko to create that fear.

Hmmmmm...

Namu Amida Butsu

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190801-tomorrows-gods-what-is-the-future-of-religion?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook

I remember criticizing the Star Trek universe for having no room for organized religion, except of course in alien cultures. Starships had counselors, but they never had any chaplains. I do see that organized religion will probably continue to fade, perhaps even inevitably so, and I believe we will become more and more like Europe which looks very much like the Star Trek universe. (With the exception of France, which is actively anti-religious, yet still has a small and devout Catholic population.)

I do think the article is correct in that we will find more and more people who are not members of an organized hierarchical religion with important doctrine dominating members’ belief system. Instead, they will select the beliefs they find satisfying and comforting as if at a buffet. I think not only of Europe but also Japan, where Buddhism lives not merely side-by-side but thoroughly integrated with Shintoism. It is not at all unusual in Japan for a couple to live a very secular life following their Shinto marriage and which ends in their Buddhist funeral. During those lives, it will not be surprising if within their home an important part of family ritual and even daily life is a Buddhist shrine, sometimes next to a Shinto shrine.

There are, naturally, still some severe doctrinal differences in branches of Buddhism; yet these are of importance more to the priests than to the people.

For example, in Pure Land Buddhism the declaration  ”Namu Amida Butsu” is of great importance. Essentially it means , “I take refuge in Buddha.)”. For some it is a mantra similar to the use of the rosary by Catholics, for other branches, if it is said sincerely and one experiences the transcendence which accompanies it, it guarantees one’s salvation. Others say it only does so if you are still in that state of grace upon death (very similar to the orthodox Catholics dedication to the purity of the soul immediately after sincere confession) and so the declaration and accompanying commitment to spirituality must be made many times in your life as you achieve the moment of purity and then slip back.

These differences are of incredible importance to the priests, but generally are not highly regarded among the population in general. That is to say an individual believes what he wishes to believe and that is considered perfectly fine, at least in Japan.

Perhaps the biggest difference, then, would be lack of the desperate need to pressure others to believe exactly as you believe and the need to feel threatened if anyone dares believe something else.  While part of me sees the decline of traditional religious structure as something of a cultural loss (mostly due to nostalgia), on the whole I believe that the accompanying growth of tolerance would be a most beneficial thing for humanity in general.

So much more to say on the subject, but this is a good start.. I look forward to your insights.

I really forgot to say, and I must add now, that Japanese family will absolutely adore Christmas. The Japanese love Christmas more than any other nation on earth. Of course, almost no Japanese are Christian since the great martyrdom at Nagasaki in 1692, but who cares? Christmas is so much fun! Merry Chrisamasu!

Statutory Statues

The statue situation is complicated. But let’s remember:

 In 1776, in order to celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Americans promptly tore down the statue of King George III and melted it down to use its lead content to make bullets to fire at King George’s troops.

In the 1920s a statue was dedicated to celebrate the loyal slaves who stayed home to protect the plantations of their masters fighting to…keep them slaves. “Uncle Jack”, a.k.a. “The Good Darkie” wasn’t removed from public display until it was forcibly torn down. Then many struggled to put it back up, but it was finally relegated to a museum where, at last report, it occupies a position of honor.

The controversial statue of Lincoln standing near a Black man kneeling was entirely paid for, 100%, by donations from freedmen. That is, former slaves wanted to honor the man they felt had given them their freedom.  It looks wrong to our modern eyes, but was never intended to belittle former slaves.  Many debate whether the Black man is kneeling or rising from slavery.

The situation about statues is complex and difficult.  Action definitely needs to be taken.

Speaking Of Extremists...

From a source not Facebook.

Placeholder: What explains the rise of the "Woke" Left? Is the ideology coherent? What are the wisdom and dangers within the ideology?

I'll put some thoughts on this, this weekend; just wanted to put it here.

Me: Interesting question regarding the left. I think the woke movement is a natural reaction to the insistence of suppression and denial by so many Americans, not merely those on the right.  (A situation which may be finally changing in the view of what’s occurring at the moment.)

I always liken those with extremist political positions to addicts. I would love someone to actually study this. I suspect the brain chemistry may be similar. Just like addicts, every extremist thinks that their position is so obvious that they simply cannot conceive of others not agreeing with them unless the others are being willfully oppositional or simply in denial.

Ideology does not need to be coherent because it involves a true believership. All that is required is that it be as powerful as a doctrine in a faith. It is not to be questioned.

Utter frustration at not getting anyone to listen to you and see obvious realities leads you to conclude that you are completely correct on the subject and drives people into their own version of extremism. Centuries of oppression and denial have brought forth the fruit of a new true believer movement.

The problem is that extremism is not countered by an opposing extremism. At least it is not countered effectively. The two extremes become symbiotic upon each other. Each merely needs to point to the other’s radicalism to justify their own.

The situation becomes a positive feedback syndrome. Each extremist action by the one party causes an increase of extremist action by the other, which then causes… You can see how the escalation occurs.

As for me, I refer to the movement as the “woking brain dead” to express my contempt for the refusal to be reasonable or to deal with matters rationally rather than emotionally.

I also apply my teeter totter analogy. They correctly see that the teeter totter has a huge load on one side. This makes it incapable of being used as it was intended. 

Unfortunately their solution is to put an equal load on the other side. While this will theoretically balance the load, all it actually accomplishes is to put so much weight at the two extremes that the pole simply breaks in the center.  Now the teeter totter is completely useless.

War Of The Words

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/us-dictionary-to-revise-definition-of-racism/a-53756477

 (Merriam-Webster is revising its definition of racism) 

Words matter. Definitions matter. It is good that there is an effort to revise the definition in the dictionary. The existing definition was wrong not only because it was incomplete but because it was also inaccurate. You could be prejudiced against someone and be racist without disliking him. You might really like somebody and be convinced that he is lazy, unintelligent, or particularly gifted because of his race.

That’s why calling the restructuring and reformation of police departments “defunding” is an incredibly stupid move. I strongly support the effort. I utterly oppose the term.

In terms of the discipline of semantics it is a negatively loaded term.  It carries heavy emotional impact which will make people oppose the action simply because of the name applied to it.  It hurts the cause unnecessarily. 

It’s just as easy to say reform the police. This is much more accurate and is a positively loaded term. 

Consider the issue of reparations. I absolutely support justice for all and a fair chance for every child in America. But I oppose reparations for the descendants of slaves. There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is, do we pay full reparations to every Black person?. What if that person is a recent immigrant and their ancestors were never slaves? What if the person has more White ancestry then Black ancestry?  Not to mention my most basic question, should we be paying reparations for something that happened over a century ago? (And please consider the effect on White Supremacists. They would say, “Well we paid you, so now you have to shut up and we never want to hear about slavery again”.)

I have only heard one other person make a statement which I made on the issue of reparations when it first became popular again. And that is, we absolutely should be paying reparations to the people who actually suffered from Jim Crow laws. They are alive today. They suffered. They deserve compensation.

The problem here is that I’m not opposed to the concept of reparations as many who support them define the term. Ask any group of people demanding reparations what they mean by the word and you’ll get a wide variety of definitions. Most of those definitions I support.

Some of the definitions given by strong supporters of the concept of reparations with which I agree include equal justice, good education systems, safe neighborhoods, assistance in raising social economic status of the poor, and other very beneficial and positive programs. The problem is, not a one of these meets the  definition of reparations.

The word reparations is racially divisive and to millions of White people suggests that they personally should feel guilty for what their great grandfathers may or may not have done.  If you want justice and demand reparations you are helping to ensure that justice will be harder to accomplish.  Words matter. An emotionally charged word, whether positive or negative, changes the way people perceive the concept. People who could support your position wholeheartedly may turn against it because you chose the wrong word to describe it.

Consider the concept of White privilege. White people struggling desperately to make it in the system stacked against them are not privileged. Not by any reasonable definition. Most people who refer to White privilege are in fact referring to the absence of justice and equality for minorities. Tell a person that he has a privilege and you are telling him that he has something he shouldn’t have and which you are going to take away from him and give to someone else.. This is not a way to gain that person’s support for your cause.

Once again, I support what these activists are trying to accomplish.  And because of that I am opposed to the misuse of this terms. Why go out of your way to turn people against you who otherwise would support you?

Imagine if, instead of demanding justice for the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, the prosecution had declared that they wanted vengeance and lynchings? Words matter. The terms you choose matter. Choose carefully. Choose well. Don’t set yourself back and start your struggle with an unnecessary burden by using in your face divisive terminology.

Consider the Republican Party. They have been purging voter rolls and suppressing minority votes for decades. But they don’t call it that, do they? They say they are preventing fraud and preserving the right to vote. It’s a lie, but it’s a good one. It has convinced millions of Americans to support their efforts to end democracy in this country.

Just in case anyone didn’t get the message, I strongly support the efforts to restructure police departments and shift funds wasted on tanks and military equipment back into social programs. This would benefit the communities and benefit the police departments. But calling it defunding the police is a really dumb ass thing to do.

The Butler And The Book

I have been thinking about how to effectively explain the difference between the way that professional creationists approach reality and the way that the same is approached by a rationalist. Having a certain taste for BBC murder mysteries, I think the best way would be to look at the careers of two chief inspectors.

Let us begin with Chief Inspector Creationist.  On his first day in his new position, the sergeant assigned to assist him enters and declares, “Here’s our first case, sir. A man has been found murdered.  Forensics has just arrived at the scene. We can be there in a few minutes to gather evidence.”

Chief  Inspector Creationist: No need. It’s obvious who committed the crime.

Sergeant: Excuse me me sir?  You don’t even know the victim’s name. How could you possibly solve the crime?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: There is only one possible answer, Sergeant. The butler did it.

Sergeant: But we don’t even know if there is a butler, sir!

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Of course there is. The butler always commits the murder.

Sergeant:  How could you know that sir?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: The Book, Sergeant. Haven’t you ever read the Book? It has all the answers to everything.

Sergeant:  Don’t you think we should at least go take a look at the scene?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: (Exasperated) If you must, do so. But I shall not waste my time, for the crime has been solved...by the Book.

Later that day the sergeant returns. The conversation resumes.

Sergeant:  Well, sir, it’s quite an interesting case. We do know however, that the butler could not possibly have committed the crime because there was no butler.

Chief  Inspector Creationist:  Don’t be foolish, man!  If there was no butler, he cannot have committed the crime.

Sergeant: Well, yes. That’s exactly my point. The family was on the dole. They were quite poor. They live in a very small flat. They could not possibly afford a part time cleaning lady, much less a butler! 

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Sergeant, I really wonder how you possibly could have attained your rank. Simply ignoring the facts is no way to conduct an investigation!

Sergeant: But these are the facts, sir.

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Is it really necessary for me to repeat myself? The Book says the butler did it. Therefore the butler did it. The Book is infallible, inerrant, and literal. 

The only possible conclusion is that there was a butler and that he is the guilty party.

Which leads to another question. How could a poor family afford a butler? Obviously, they couldn’t. Therefore they were somehow forcing the man to be their servant. And now we have a motive!

Sergeant:  Sir?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Don’t you see it, man? The only way they could force a butler to serve them without pay is blackmail. They were blackmailing the butler to be their servant.  Finally fed up with it, he turned to murder in order to gain his freedom and revenge.

Sergeant: However, sir, the wife has already admitted that she couldn’t stand the victim’s snoring and smothered him to death in his sleep.

Chief  Inspector Creationist: So she’s covering for the butler. Perhaps he’s blackmailing her. Unless she is his lover...

As the investigation proceeds, Chief  Inspector Creationist closes all ports of entry and sets officers watching every bus station, train station, and other method of transportation searching for the butler.  When the murdering manservant is still not captured, he issues an international alert to Interpol. The butler must be found!

Years later, at his retirement party,  Chief  Inspector Creationist bemoans the fact that he spent his entire career hunting for that wicked man and never found him. In fact, he never took another case, having devoted all his efforts to solving the first and only crime ever presented for his investigation.  But he does not feel that he has failed in his duty, after all, he did defend the Book.

As for Chief Inspector Rationalist; on his first case, he went to the crime scene. He examined the forensic reports. He checked out the alibis and motives of every suspect.  He developed numerous hypotheses as to who was in fact guilty, discarding them when the evidence contradicted his conclusions.. In the end, a suspect confessed in the face of overwhelming evidence. Chief Inspector Rationalist and his sergeant moved on to solve many cases.

(A few of them even involved a butler.)

The Stuff Of Life

 Posted by my granddaughter:  A speculative piece on what I believe defines personality and whether personality persists in total isolation without external sources to react to.

https://soulleak.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/what-defines-personality/

An interesting article. Here is an excerpt: >But if a man was raised in a white, empty room without ever having human contact and assuming he does not need to be fed and has basic knowledge enough to be civilized and not like an animal, would he have personality? (In this example, he need not be fed for the sake of not having food to interact with). Without any faculties to react to, would he have intangible attributes of character?<

My response:  Interesting. Of course the problem with the thought experiment is raise a human being that way and they will simply die. Small children, especially babies, who don’t have sufficient human contact fail to thrive and die. Children adopted by Americans from highly neglectful orphanages have profound personality disorders that simply cannot be corrected. Look to Maslow‘s experiments with infant monkeys. Quite cruel, and today probably would not be permitted. However, quite informative.

Jun 20, 2018

PsychologicalScience.org

...the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/us-experiment-on-infants-withholding-affection/13213

 > In the United States, 1944, an experiment was conducted on 40 newborn infants to determine whether individuals could thrive alone on basic physiological needs without affection. Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility where they had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than what was necessary, never communicating with them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously and the environment was kept sterile, none of the babies becoming ill. 

The experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions. 

The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.<

We are social animals.  Without society, without socialization, we do not survive. The followers of Ayn Rand, so much of today’s conservative movement, ignores the basic nature of human beings. Their philosophy, if you want to call it that, makes as much sense as breatharianism. Yeah, there actually is such a thing. People who claim that you don’t need to eat food or even drink water, all you need to do is breathe.

Our need for human contact, for human touch, for human affection runs deep. So deep that it defines the very nature of what it means to be a living human being.  To expand on my granddaughter’s question, at what point do we cease to even care about our own survival?. Are these poor abused monkeys really monkeys? Where those poor abused babies really human?

One thing is clear, they did not even value their own survival in the absence of the affection of their own species.

To withdraw love and affection from those who love you and need you is one of the cruelest of all acts.  Whether you are a biblical literalist or an objective rationalist, it is clear that we are, as human beings, one great family.  Every stranger is a distant relative. We must care about each other and for each other or we will fail to thrive.