Krista Tippett, on C-SPAN 2, talked about her book, Einstein’s God. Her points were complex and interesting, very non simplistic. Still, she made interesting viewing as she explored the vast ground between the fundamentalist extremists on both poles in the self declared war between the ultra religious and the ultra secular.

I recall a contest in which high school students were asked to make speeches responding to and defending their positions when answering the question, “Which is most dangerous, religion or science?” I was long out of high school and so could not participate, but I wished that I could, because my answer would have boiled down to, “Extremism in either is the danger. Neither is dangerous in and of itself.”

In our currently so polarized and emotional nation, it pays to take some time to think and reflect on what we share rather than to obsessively focus on what divides us. Even between Democrat and Republican, Progressive and Tea Partier, there is much more in common than in contrast. Unfortunately, it is easy to deny this. Especially from the right at this time we hear cries about conspiracies to destroy America and etc. Do these individuals really believe that Obama wants his daughters to grow up in an America which he has destroyed? What parent would want such a thing? We may fiercely disagree with how to attain security in this dangerous world, or how to promote American prosperity. but can anyone actually think about the situation and sincerely believe that either of the opponents actually wants to hurt this country?

No one despises Bush more than I do, but I know that he thought he was doing the right thing and was sincerely trying to make America wealthier and safer. The left wing nuts who still insist that he lead a conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center are simply not thinking clearly.

The problem is, of course, that we are emotional creatures who can, but often do not, use our ability to think. It is so much easier to emote and react than it is to think and plan. Hard work is not always pleasant, though it can be, and thinking is very hard work. The brain accounts for a huge amount of our body’s energy usage--even when we are being emotional. Thinking burns up even more power; and free will can only exist as a result of thought.

I remember, when I was a freshman in high school, becoming angry At Barry Goldwater’s declaration that “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” I knew he was wrong, though I had not so thoroughly developed my sense of balance and my opposition to extremism. Today I say, he’s right. It is no vice. It is a mortal sin.

And now, to an earlier exchange between Bobby and me regarding the current state of politics in the U.S. The first two entries are from Facebook, the third is new.

Bobby--what's your take on the political fury raging in our country these days? Brookings and another think tank concluded things are more polarized now than at any time since the 1890's. Sounds right.


Ah, good question with so many factors... There's definitely a political fury simmering. I respect Brookings but to assert that civil-political discord today is higher than, say the desegregation court rulings or 'Nam has a pretty hard case to make.
This acrimony, I believe, is from a broadly displaced fear and frustration originating from those ... See Moresectors whose lives are most disrupted by the severe recession, and taken up by associative communities who empathize with the precariousness. The demographic whose unemployment rate was most hit were working class whites (in terms of rate change) - social constituents (ie working class conservatives) seemed to have joined to direct their anger and what they see as irresponsible domestic policy. Unfortunately, that manifested protest appears to be channeling through those fears and anger exacerbated by our economic climate and outlook.
Peripherally, what has changed for the worse is the sophistication of media outlets in understanding how to maximize profit. Most striking case-in-point is Fox. About 8 years ago, decision-makers recognized that, interestingly, the more segmented an audience, the more valuable airtime was to relevant advertisers. Following the advertising dollars, they took a decidedly conservative spin. Their audience segmented and their revenue has climbed ever since. This is why shows like Glenn Beck seem preposterous to non-Foxxers, but sound like gospel to those who are looking for information to bolster their current worldview (sought my most, conservative or otherwise) and provide an enemy. Also, I think we are extra-sensitized to the political controversies du jour. Since the end of public service announcements in the 70's and recently the rise of the 24-hour news cycle, media outlets make issues seem 'snowpocalyptic'...
I expect the socialist-fascist-communist fever will continue to simmer as long as these affected groups are distraught by the recession and unemployment (ie a long time) wrought from factors exogenous to target - the current administration. I could rant forever!
March 23 at 10:46pm

Having lived through the 70’s antiwar movement as a college student, I understand your questioning of the current state of discord being at a higher level. Certainly what went on in the streets was more extreme, actually degrading into violence from time to time. And most certainly we have not had a Kent State in which the government actually killed unarmed students for daring to assemble peacefully. Still, I feel the current rancor is the greater when looked at as a political phenomenon. That is, from the perspective of the media and of elected officials.

True, “Love it or leave it” directly implied that to question the government’s policies was to be so unAmerican you should be forced out of the country, but no one attempted to claim that the president was an enemy of America plotting to destroy us from within. This has become dogma to the Tea Party and the Fox Propaganda Channel, and even of some elected officials [Michelle Bachman comes to mind].

As for the segregation attempts, even in the face of this perceived atrocity, I don’t recall any southern governor actually threatening to secede from the Union as the Governor of Texas has. Again, violence occurred, but no one called the president a traitor.

Lest it be imagined that I have forgotten the Weathermen and other left wing terrorists, I recall the murders of some officials and other acts which certainly were more extreme than current street actions, but again, these were the acts of small extremist groups, not major movements or supported by public officials.

In other words, on one hand, I recognize the case you are making as valid. I insist not that some are now more extreme than any time since the 1890‘s, but that the movements, as expressed in the media and in elected officials, has reached a point of extreme partisanship not seen since Reconstruction. I even concede that, from a street point of view, things are almost calm compared to the days of the Posse Comatutus [sp?], Waco, and the Simbionese Liberation Army. But at that time, the government, while acrimonious, showed a sense of mutual respect which has vanished. I recall no occasion in which congressmen stood on a balcony and whipped an antigovernment crowd into a frenzy as happed a few weeks ago.

In other words, much of the problem here is my being vague and not specifying that the Brookings report referred to partisanship in Congress, rather than in the nation in general. My fault. Apologies to the Brookings Institute for so misstating their findings.

As for the problem with Fox, the issue is as you have noted. I have long believed that the current leaders of the Republican party [in so far as anyone can be said to be such a leader of that fragmented and confused group], that is Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh will say anything that they believe will increase their income. I don’t believe that either really cares about the issues, although I will give Palin credit for at least trying to care. Indeed, I think that she began as a sincere, if confused, advocate. I am convinced that the glitz and glamour of the presidential campaign spoiled her purity and lead her into political statements as a business.

This brings me to an old hobby horse of mine [ever read Sterne’s Tristram Shandy? One of the funniest books ever written, nearing Gulliver’s Travels in its superb irony]...back to the hobby horse...When I was young, television stations were regarded as using the public airways. In return for this privilege, they were required to act in the public interest to a certain degree. Once year they had to make their case to the FCC that they had so served the public. One of the ways they regularly did so was to show that they presented news to inform the public. At this time, networks’ news divisions were expected to lose money! Ratings and profits were secondary to the concept of public service. It ain’t so no more.


I entirely agree with you regarding the economic dissatisfaction and social turmoil fueling the extremism. While I consider Fox to be exploiting these fears for profit, I sincerely wonder if Beck is actually a borderline psychotic. Have you ever watched his program? It is chaotic, irrational, and makes no sense at all except in so far as it expresses an inchoate fear. Of course, it is entirely possible this is just a good act. I can remember believing that Captain Kangaroo was a nice, grandfatherly fellow. Years later I laughed when he reported that he used to wear a white wig to convince me and his other fans that he was not young, but now could use his own hair!

About the Tea Party -- I heard a comment on one of the programs I regularly watch [CSPAN?] which I heard only there but which struck me as brilliant and possibly even correct. We all know that the Tea Party movement if almost entirely white [1 percent of members are Black according to a recent poll]. Most are southern males...sounding familiar? This is the group which once dominated American politics and which now sees that power being eroded. This is a simple fact. No wonder they are frightened Even if the economy were to recover, they would still see themselves, correctly, as losing their position of power and leadership. Who wouldn't be at least nervous, even frightened, by that?

I do not say that this justifies their cries of treason and betrayal. They need to realize that even when they were in their ascendancy they were not the American people, only the portion of the American people who held power. Of course, then whites were the majority of Americans. Again, simple fact.

These realities lead the guest to say that the Tea Party might be the beginning of the first White Minority Political Party. The demographics have suggested for decades that Whites were becoming less and less the majority and would one day [now soon] be not the majority of Americans, but the largest minority in a United States that no longer had a single race majority.

Since this group has run this country at least since the French and Indian War, the adjustment is difficult.

This was fun! I love discussing things with an intelligent individual with whom I can argue or agree and whose disagreements illuminate and expand my understanding. You are only surpassed in my affections by my family, there being no woman in life at this time.

CSPAN--during a conversation about nuclear disarmament, a caller asked the guest how the founding father would react to toady's bitter partisan politics. He specifically mentioned Washington and Jefferson. A great choice. The guest didn't answer that specific question, referring instead to Reagan's attitude, which is indistinguishable from Obama's. But the answer is clear and delightful.

Usually it is a matter of speculation how any of the founders would have reacted to today's wildly different state of affairs. Almost always, those referring to the founding fathers make two errors:

1. They assume the founding fathers were all in agreement. In fact, they were a contentious bunch who actually agreed on little. The constitution is a patchwork of compromise and not a uniformly agreeable document to any of the founders.

2. TheY assume that the founders were gifted with infallibility, like the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. Better than the pope, in fact, they were always right, even when speaking in private letters.

Whenever I refer to the founders, it pays to recall that i speak with an inherent recognition of the two fallacies above.

Back to Washington and Jefferson. The question referred to the virulent state of partisan politics today. This is a state of affairs on which both men took a clear and simple positions in their own day, so we can actually answer the question with confidence.

Washington--the Father of our Country hated politics and was contemptuous of political parties. He thought they constituted a danger to democracy. Obviously he would sharply condemn the current state of affairs.

Jefferson, while giving hypocritical lip service to the dangers of party politics, disgraced himself with scurrilous personal attacks of his opponents, including his once dear friend Adams. While Adams, after the two men had retired from politics, accepted Jefferson’s overtures for reconciliation, Mrs. Adams never forgave her husband’s once friend, then foe then friend again. Jefferson would look at the lies and deceits regularly spread by the Fox Propaganda Channel and be amazed at how gentle and impersonal they are.

Note: The most popular of the mainstream media is the Fox Propaganda Channel. The problem with said is that they make up their own facts and simply ignore news they don't like. That’s why they are not a news channel and do not practice journalism. They practice party propaganda

The almost universal declarations of the pundits indicate the Republicans are rejoicing at their amazing success in the November elections. After all, they endlessly repeat that the American people are totally on their side and utterly reject everything Obama stands for. I think the Republicans may well wake up after the November elections are actually held and find that the American people are divided on these issues and that the Democrats are still in power and may even have made some modest gains. Gains are not likely but I simply don’t see the Republicans succeeding with their hysterical attacks and exaggerations.

I used to despise both parties equally, but in the past three decades the Republican Party has steadily become more and more extreme, more convinced that the demagogue is the true voice of the American people. This has become so fundamental to the Republicans that they have begun to purge their party of those not regarded as sufficiently extreme. It has been pointed out out that Ronald Regan would be purged under the draconian standards considered acceptable to party loyalists today.

I said it during the first term of Bush Jr. and I will repeat it now. The Republican Party, if it is not to become a forlorn memory replaced by a less fanatic new political group, must put its extremists back on the extreme wing and return its base to those voters who are center right. When Members of Congress shout out epithets and make wild accusations as a regular part of their interactions with the public, it is time for a serous change.

The Founding Fathers, as a whole, hated the idea of parties and partisan politics, but however undesirable, they proved to be inevitable. Only George Washington himself could stand above such nastiness. As soon as he retired the demagogues took over. Adams and Jefferson split over the vulgarity of campaign politics and remained alienated for years. Adams’ wife never forgave Jefferson, even after her beloved husband had done so. It is true that things were even more nasty in those early years than they are now, but the Bookings Institute and another think tank, whose name escapes me, researched the matter and concluded that Congress is more antagonistic and acrimonious today than it has been since the 1890’s. Sounds right.

I am not saying that the Dems have gotten any better than they were when I damned both parties. I am saying that the Republicans have begun to sound more like the John Birch Society than one of the two parties who represent the voters. My enemy is extremism. When any party becomes extremist, it becomes my enemy. Add to this the incredible hubris of the Republicans and I believe that the gods will not tolerate or reward such behavior. The American people are divided on the issues today. Many are going to extremes and are terrified of the future. Yes, that is true. but for the Republicans to declare that therefore all Americans hate the Democrats and love the Republican efforts to neuter governnment is to ignore the rest of us. Note to the Right: I am an American too. You can declare members of your party who dare to disagree with you to be Republicans in Name Only, but you can’t take our citizenship away because we aren’t right wing extremists.

It is hubris, overweening arrogance which offends heaven. Believing your own propaganda is not an effective long term strategy. It sometimes works for the short term, but eventually it brings you down. Nixon fell because of this error and Bush and Cheney destroyed their hope of a positive legacy in history in the same manner. It is possible that the panic and fear mongering will work in November, but it is also possible that enough of the American people will tire of being told to panic and despair that it will backfire.

Health care may yet be Obamas’s Waterloo, but it is entirely possible that he will turn out to be the Duke of Wellington. .

Since I stopped to eat and rest a bit, I feel better and just can’t resist the following.

Flash from the last Glen Beck show: Some unknown, unnamed blogger said that his cousin’s wife’s third child's spouse saw President Obama washing his hands in the men’s room at some place he didn’t mention the name of. Oh! My! God! This is clear proof that Obama is a Natzicommie fascist who is plotting to conspire to create a Gestapo Bathroom Police State to take away our God given rights to choose whether to wash our hands or not after we pee in the privacy of our own bathrooms! Oh! My! God! It's proof. It’s absolute undeniable fact. Did you know that Hitler was obsessed with clean hands? Hitler! It’s true! Look it up!

Flash from tonight’s Glen Beck show: Some other unknown, unnamed blogger said that his wife’s brother's buddy from some war’s aunt’s daughter’s best guy friend saw President Obama leave a men's room without washing his hands! Oh! My! God! This is the best evidence ever that proves that Obama is a Commienatzi Muslim terrorist! He’s spreading disease among the American people The word, people is BIOTERRORISM! Yes, that’s right, BIOTERRORISM! Our president is a traitor, a terrorist! A natzicommiethugee! Stalin was into bioterrorism. Stalin! It’s true. It’s a fact! Look it up, people. It’s the truth!

Bekka-chan's comment on how hard she was hit by the movie "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" made me think of my beliefs of human free will. Most go to one polar extreme or the other [surprise, surprise!], either declaring that we have no free will and are simply biochemical robots or that we can choose whatever we like and are fully accountable for everything we do. This tendency to think in extremes has caused much grief in human history and, I think, helped to lead Hegel into his thesis, antithesis, synthesis view of history.

The fact remains that people do horrible, even unthinkable things, if they feel peer and superior pressure to do so. Yesterday, the L A Times reported that a French “reality show” was actually a psychology experiment repeated on national television. Participants were told to more and more severely electrically shock a man [actually an actor] until he died. Sounds impossible? Sadly, in both the original American experiment and in the television program, most participants did what they were told to do and willingly committed murder. In fairness, in the experiment, and I assume in the program, the participants were not told to actually kill the individual they were shocking, but they did hear him pleading for mercy and showing signs of major damage from their actions. Clearly, they should have seen that the man was near death and stopped--but they didn’t.

Much of the basis for Original Sin lies in the assumption that Adam and Eve had free will and abused it to decide to defy God’s will. The Greeks certainly believed in moira, or fate. The website, http://www.log-of-the-moira.com/MOIRAE.HTM, refers to the Fates in this entry:

The ancient Greeks believed in Fate. They said there were three sisters of fate, the Moirae, tripple [sic.] Moon-goddesses robed in white, whom Erebus begat on Night. They were not the children of Zeus, but parthenogenous [sic.] daughters of the Great Goddess of Necessity, against whom not even the gods contend.


Yet the Greeks, for all their fear of Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, believed in free will. It was not that you could decide your course and control your fate entirely, but you could control how you faced your fate. The hero, the great man so important to Greek thinking, earned respect by struggling nobly against the impositions of the gods. He might not be able to change his fate, but he could refuse to meekly submit.


This places the belief in free will at the very foundations of our culture, both Greek and Judeo-Christian.

My own beliefs have developed over my life. when young I insisted on a more Judeo-Christian interpretation than Greek. Now I find myself much more in agreement with the latter. the evidence had=s compelled me [fate?] to acknowledge that we are biochemical robots, that we are another form of ape. Yet, I insist that we are apes plus, biochemical robots plus. Plus what? Plus free will. Call it intelligence, call it options, call it defiance of the gods.

Much of literature takes time to condemn man as a herd animal, as a member of the flock. But man is not a sheep, not cattle. We are apes. We are members of a troop. As social animals we feel not merely pressure, but biological and psychological needs to fit in. This is not limited to our experiences in high school [I was a loner--that’s a sort of group which, then again, isn’t a group..trust me to take the odd path. Must be my fate].

Still, how is it that some members of our troop gain authority to be the deciders for the rest of us? The answer is complicated, but well known to us all. We know who the leaders are, we help to publicly decide them in elections. But even the chosen have followers and deriders. This means that we also decide personally and privately who to trust and who to deride. There are those who choose to trust Fox News as their provider of facts and even as their leader in thought. As for me, I don't fully trust any source, but I refer to Fox as the Fox Propaganda Channel. And I’m not joking.

The problem with choosing someone or some group to lead us is that this means we have surrendered a portion of our free will, and remember that I find free will very restricted to begin with. That is not to say that doing so is a mistake. We operate on auto pilot for most of our lives because this is necessary. Imaging using free will for every single decision. The alarm goes off, do we choose to turn it off or to let it ring? Having decided to turn it off, we much decide which are to use to reach over to hit the sleep button...uh oh, should we turn it off or hit the sleep button? By the time we decide all of our choices, we will probably be too weak from starvation to get out of bed, which, of course, nearly eliminates free will.

The problem arises when we use auto pilot so much that our free will becomes atrophied from lack of use, like muscles that are never exercised. This is even easier to allow because we are not only biochemical apes, who can think and make choices but often don’t bother; we are also animals who are deeply emotional. When we do make choices, most of them are made not from thought, but from emotional response. Consider one of the most compelling and dominating choice we make, our religion. Ask individuals about this choice and most will assure you that they carefully decided this. Press for details and you will quickly realize that the “thought” that went into this decision was almost entirely emotional. Actual thought came in after the decision was made, as rationale for a choice already confirmed. This is why I insist, as I have since high school, that the only honest intellectual position in religion is a sincere agnosticism. Religion, even atheism, is about faith and emotion, not about rationality. Even the fundamental evangelical atheists who hate religion so bitterly are clearly being emotional apes, not thoughtful human beings in their hatred. Yes, I mean Hitchens and Dawkins--they sound more like Falwell and Robertson than like intellectuals when they rant against the evils of religion. The bitter sweet irony is that they have deluded themselves into thinking they are coolly rational on the subject!

For anyone who doesn’t know me, I suppose I must add that referring to these men as emotional apes is not an insult. We humans are all emotional apes -- You, me and the guy next door. It is what we are. We are also, to a very small degree, thoughtful human beings who can think and can utilize their limited free will. Also note that the very term “human being” incorporates the emotional ape base and the tiny, but potentially significant bit of intellect and free will at the top of the pyramid that is humanity. Finally let me add that any time anyone says ‘All humans...” you know they are talking about themselves. When Freud said everyone wanted to murder his father and marry his mother, he said a lot about Sigmund Feud, and almost nothing about the rest of us.

I’m getting disoriented so I’ll wrap this up. Most of human evil is done from blind obedience and a desire to fit in and do what is expected. From the experiment above to the infamous prison experiment in which college student played out the roles of brutality and resistance expected of them in a role play situation [see: www.prisonexp.org/], we humans surrender our free will to fit in, to be a part of the troop. This is not all bad, we are social animals and must fit in or become sociopaths, but it can quickly become a horror of Nazi extremism and murder. What is needed is what I always say is needed, balance. Homeostasis, the Vital Balance [Thank you, Karl Menninger]. We must fit in or become sociopaths, yet we must not fit in so well that we lose our thin and precious overlay of humanity.

Fate, moira, kismet, destiny, karma--they sharply restrict, but do not negate our free will. Unless we let them.

From Science news March 13,2010:

Lisa Grossman reports that when participants are asked to either make the American Sign Language gesture for a word [say "drink"] or to pantomime taking that action [in this case, a drinking from a cup], different parts of the brain are active for the gesture and for the word. In other words, there is a difference between word and pantomime, even though the actions are identical. Specifically, brain scans of deaf participants who are fluent in American Sign Language show the different areas of the brain are active depending upon whether they were told to “say” the word or to make the pantomime.

This makes me think of the case of the supposed thinking ape, Koko. Koko, a gorilla, is often presented as having mastered American Sign Language and as speaking at an almost human level. Steven Pinker, however, points out that when humans who spoke ASL watched videos of Koko “speaking” they saw far fewer words and a lot more random gestures than the usual observers, who had been trained to recognize ASL gestures, but were not actually considered to be fluent.

It seems to me that the usual observers of the gorilla were poorly trained and not competent to judge when actual words were being used and were subject to the Clever Hans syndrome in which observers eager to see animal intelligence interpret every action by the animal in the best possible interpretation--best possible for their prejudice.

We humans have a strong tendency to see what we want to see, negative or positive. It is hard to be objective about any area in which we have a strong emotional interest. Consider Blondot [sp.?], in the early 20th century this famous and competent scientist became convinced that he had discovered a new ray [similar to the recently discovered x-rays]. His evidence was thin, mostly observational, mostly observed by him. As I recall, at one point he declared that the change in the color of a flame caused by the presence of the rays was so faint that only those who believed in the rays would be able to see it. Not totally out of line, after all, that statement is just a variation of my point that we see what we want to see and don't see what we dislike. But if not totally out of line, it was unscientific and came down to special pleading.

Another case made famous by Stephen Jay Gould is that of Thayer. A brilliant career in biology, which included insight into biological and military uses of camouflage ended with tortured arguments about how every single color scheme in nature was camouflage, and only camouflage. No sex displays, no species recognition, just camouflage.

Thus, we have those who see everything Obama does as socialism, even though nothing he has done matches the definition of socialism, and the contrasting views of the Tea Party Patriots/Tea Bagger Dolts. Life with humans is a mess. I can't help but think that every Utopia would work perfectly, if only we could keep all people out. Sort of a riff on Groucho Marx--I wouldn't join any Utopia that would allow me as a member.