Wednesday, September 18, 2024

#262 / Societal Disruption And Collapse


  

Jem Bendell, pictured, is an emeritus professor of sustainability leadership with the University of Cumbria in the United Kingdom. He is well known for his extremely pessimistic views about the impacts that global warming will have on human civilization. Here is a quote from an academic paper he published in 2020: 

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to provide readers with an opportunity to reassess their work and life in the face of what I believe to be an inevitable near-term societal collapse due to climate change (emphasis added).

Bendell's views have not changed since then. I subscribe to Bendell's periodic blog postings on Substack. Here is an excerpt from his blog posting on July 3, 2024:

As chronicled in my book Breaking Together, the evidence for the unfolding process of societal disruption and collapse is becoming overwhelming. In recent years we have learned that senior role holders do not want to admit this, preferring tactics of delay. What they are delaying are urgent efforts at adaptation, economic redistribution, justice, and reconciliation. The delayers include some of the most senior climate scientists and environmental executives. Therefore, those of us who are aware of the situation are now focusing on helping each other cope with the difficulties that are unfolding around us.

I will never stipulate to "inevitability," in the way Bendell does. Not in the "Human World," anyway, the world in which we most immediately live. The "World of Nature" is different. We are, ultimately, dependent upon the "World of Nature," which we can think of (and picture) as Planet Earth. Various "laws" determine how the "World of Nature" operates, and we can't change those "laws." We ignore them at our peril. This is, in fact, the point that Bendell is properly making. 

One more time: The laws that govern the "World of Nature" are not susceptible to human change. The "Law of Gravity" is a good example of how that "World of Nature" works. Another example can be found in those laws that determine how much the planet will heat up if greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. 

Human action is different. Human action is not constrained by laws that mandate and determine what must, and will, inevitably, happen. It is not inevitable that human beings will continue to load the atmosphere with heat-trapping greenhouse gases. We are doing that now, but it's not "inevitable" that we continue. Human beings are free to change, and to do something new, something never done before. 

I am publishing this blog posting about Bendell's July 3rd message in order to highlight something that IS true. Bendell says that "societal disruption and collapse" will occur, as what we think of as our "climate" changes in ways that floods cities, and burns them, and that will eliminate our ability to find food on land or sea. In other words, OUR world, the "Human World," the world created by human action, is definitely dependent on the "World of Nature," so that if the "World of Nature" changes, so will the situation within our "Human World." 

Bendell is sounding the alarm. He is certainly right to do that. Let me join him! However, when an "alarm" sounds, the proper reaction is not to sit down and wait for social collapse. The proper reaction is to change what we are doing to avoid what will otherwise happen. 

When the fire alarm goes off in an apartment building, people don't quickly text a goodbye message to their friends and family, and then sit down and wait for the fire to consume them. They call the fire department, and do what they can, individually, to prevent the worst impacts of the fire. They escape the flames and help others to do so, too.

Bendell is right. Our world is "on fire." The alarm has sounded. 

What we do about that is not "inevitable." We are not "doomed" unless we decide there is nothing we can do. 

The "alarm" having sounded, doing nothing, and bemoaning the "inevitable" collapse of human civilization, is one possible response. That is, in fact, what Bendell is doing. 

Let's try something different from that, shall we?

Foundation of Freedom

Tuesday, September 17, 2024

#261 / "Naked Man" Politics



In a follow-up to the Trump-Harris debate held on September 10, 2024, The New York Times published a "Guest Essay" by Michael Hirschorn. Hirschorn is the chief executive of Ish Entertainment and the former head of programming at VH1.

Mr. Hirshorn's essay was titled, "How a Naked Man on a Tropical Island Created Our Current Political Insanity." If you have online reading privileges, I certainly encourage you to read the column yourself. Clicking that title link should bring you to the article. Whether you will then actually be able to read the article will depend on your New York Times' reading privileges, or lack thereof.

In sum, Hirschorn's article says that the very first season of "Survivor," the famous "Reality TV" show, was won by Richard Hatch, who was sometimes called "The Naked Man," and that his victory proved that being "unlikable," as opposed to "likable" was a viable way to get ahead in a media-dominated environment: 

For those still struggling to understand how Donald Trump could remain within sight of being our president again despite flattering dictators, inspiring an attempted coup, getting convicted on 34 felony counts, vowing to shred the Constitution and imprison opponents, and decorating his bathroom with state secrets, not to mention blustering semi-coherently in Tuesday’s debate, it’s worth looking back to a certain island in the South Pacific, and a man named Richard Hatch. 
As a contestant on the first season of the CBS reality show “Survivor,” Mr. Hatch did something that, in the year 2000, seemed shocking. Instead of trying to win the show’s competition on its own terms — that is, voting in a straightforward manner on which of his fellow contestants most deserved to advance to the next round of competition — the often rude, sometimes randomly naked Mr. Hatch struck a strategic alliance to force out his strongest adversaries. Then, in full win-by-any-means-necessary mode, he outsmarted the producers by opting out of a key challenge and maneuvered himself to victory. But most shocking of all, he broke the golden rule of network television: You have to be likable. David Letterman even predicted “rioting in the streets” if “the fat naked guy” won. He was the most hated man in America.

Hirschorn may be on to something, as a way to explain how Donald J. Trump could ever be taken seriously, by citizen-voters, as a candidate for the presidency of the United States. I have, though, another and different observation I'd like to make, prompted by Hirshorn's "Guest Essay." 

Those who "love" Trump (or those who "hate" him) are accurately portrayed by Hirschorn as "observers." "Survivor," the television show, is an activity defined by "watching." Hirschorn's commentary is based on the idea that our "politics" is essentially defined by contests in which citizens "observe" the candidates, and then pick the one they'll vote for - and that the voters won't, at least always, vote for the candidate that they "like" the most.

But what we have traditionally had in the United States - the whole "idea" of our politics, as a matter of fact - is a politics that derives its meaning not from "watching" what other people do, but is defined by citizen participation. Remember, "politics" is simply the way - at least in part - we hope to achieve "self-government." That phrase, "self-government," indicates that we don't expect to participate in politics by "observing," but by "acting." The whole idea, in fact, is that we ARE the government, and we won't actually be able to sustain our system of "self-government" unless we get involved in politics and government ourselves.

So, if things are rotten in American politics, let's put the blame where it belongs. Take a look in the mirror! 


Monday, September 16, 2024

#260 / Let Me Keep It Short




The picture above lets you know that this blog posting is about Global Warming, and about the danger that Global Warming poses to human civilization, and even to the continuance of human life on Earth. 

I am going to keep it short. I recommend the article from which the above picture was taken. The title of the article provides good advice. That advice is not any new advice, at least not for anyone who has been reading my various blog postings over the years. 

I think that clicking the title link, below, will get you to the article, and that no paywall will prevent you from reading it. I do recommend that you click the title link, and think about what Richard Heinberg has to say.

Here's the title. And that's it for this blog posting. I'm keeping it short: 




Sunday, September 15, 2024

#259 / The Pirate Pastor




The guy in the picture is Chad Nedohin, described in The New York Times as a "part-time pastor and die-hard supporter of Donald J. Trump." You can click right here to read the article that calls him that. It appeared in the April 26, 2024, edition of the paper. 

The hard copy version of the article I read, with the ink smudging my fingers, bore the following headline: "Pirate Pastor Helps Hype Trump Stock." Online, the headline is even more descriptive: "How a Pirate-Clad Pastor Helped Ignite Trump Media’s Market Frenzy."

The story to which I am citing indicates that the stock of "Trump Media" was, as of this past April, vastly inflated in price. Trump Media is a for-profit spin-off of Trump's "Truth Social," which was created by our former president after Twitter "permanently suspended President Trump's account." Here is a quick quote from the article: 

By traditional metrics, Trump Media is not a successful business. The company reported $4 million in revenue last year and $58 million in losses. Compared with mainstream social sites, Truth Social has a minuscule audience — 1.5 million people visited the site last month, according to data from Similarweb, a small fraction of the 75 million who logged on to X. 
Still, loyal investors like Mr. Nedohin are one reason Trump Media’s stock now trades at a valuation roughly equivalent to that of established companies like Wendy’s and Western Union. This month, Devin Nunes, Trump Media’s chief executive and a former Republican congressman, cited the enthusiasm of retail investors as a sign of the company’s strength.

I don't know why I am so "triggered," to use that term, by stories that tell us about people who are paying exhorbitant prices for speculative commodities that have little, or no, intrinsic value, and that are valued at a high price only because people expect the price to increase. For whatever reason, it's true that I am "triggered" by such news stories. I have written many blog postings, for instance, warning people to stay away from investments in cryptocurrency, and I think the stock frenzy around Trump Media, as documented in the article I have linked, is another example of the same phenomenon. 

In this case, the stock frenzy comes in the garb of a pirate-clad pastor. It's Sunday. Pray for deliverance. Or, as I say in one of my blog postings about cryptocurrency: "Don't bite!"

Don't bite on any proposal to invest in Trump Media! It's not a solid bet. 

In fact, going beyond that comment, I would also urge anyone reading this blog post not to invest in the former president's political campaign, either. Becoming "dictator for a day" is just not going to work out in the long run!



Saturday, September 14, 2024

#258 / The Golden Buzzzer

 

AGT stands for "America's Got Talent." You may well have heard of this show, which airs on NBC, apparently twice a week. I watch hardly any television, and while I had heard of AGT, I knew virtually nothing about the show - just that it was some kind of "talent show." Then, I got an unsolicited message sent to me by way of my Facebook profile page. What I got in that message was just a quick snippet of.... something. I wasn't quite sure what. 

I tracked it down, though, and it turns out that one of my Facebook Friends was moved by an AGT episode featuring Richard Goodall. My friend had sent me that snippet. I am sending off to you, by way of this blog posting, what I found when I tracked down that snippet sent to me by my Facebook Friend. He was moved. And I was moved. And I think you might be moved, too. 

The following video invitation is for a ten-minute trip to the AGT stage, and unless you already know about Richard Goodall and his "Golden Buzzer" (and if you're an AGT fan you probably do), I am betting that you, like me, might be brought to tears - or pretty close - by the following video excerpt, which certainly demonstrates that "America's got talent," and which can also be seen - and I think very importantly seen - as an intimation of how truly glorious and full of promise all of our lives really are.

Here's a piece of advice, to go along with the video, and to follow up on my statement that we should realize how truly glorious and full of promise all of our lives really are. When you have that thought...

Don't stop believing*


________________________________________

Friday, September 13, 2024

#257 / A Line Of Gallows




Pictured is Joe Oltmann, who has suggested that President Joe Biden be executed. For "treason," of course. Oltmann is not (at least directly) suggesting that those concerned about treason should engage in some kind of "self-help" solution to remove President Biden from the land of the living. There should be a trial! Oltman's suggestion was made prior to President Biden's decision not to run for reelection. I'm pretty sure Oltman would transfer his recommendations to focus on Vice President Harris, however!

More generally, moving beyond the President (or Vice President), Oltmann is also, apparently, calling for a "line of gallows" to be built across the United States, "to hang those he identifies as traitors, including U.S. Senators." Oltmann defends his rhetoric by saying that "each person killed would first be tried for treason, including Biden."

I heard about Oltmann, and his suggestion about the need to build a "line of gallows" to execute "traitors," from a posting on the AlterNet website. Here's a link to the news story I read. Here is a link to another one

Oltmann claims that support for a ban on automatic weapons is treasonous. According to CNN, a "59% majority of Americans favor a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of rifles capable of semi-automatic fire, such as the AR-15." If supporting legislation like that is "treason," you can see why a "line" of gallows would be needed to deal with the "treasonous" instincts of so many Americans. 

Our Constitution strongly protects the right of anyone and everyone to advocate anything. It is, in fact, our idea that there is a positive benefit in permitting people to advocate extreme and obnoxious propositions, because that can help the rest of us make up our own minds, and decide if that's where we actually want to go. Debate about what we should do is our methodology for making decisions. It has stood us in good stead over the years, at least in my estimation.

I am someone who is part of the 59% of the public that favors a ban on automatic weapons. I wrote about the topic just a few days ago. I realize that lots of people don't share my views, and the Congress has not seen fit to enact an automatic weapons ban since the passage of legislation sponsored by former Senator Dianne Feinstein in 1994 (I am referring to the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act," a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law expired in 2004). If you would like to know more about that law, click right here.  For an analysis of the impact of the 2004 law, you should click on this link.

No one was executed after the 2004 law was enacted, and I would like to submit that the passage of that law was not "treasonous." Letting Joe Oltmann make his outrageous statements, however, as ill-considered and as ill-informed as they are, is absolutely consistent with what the First Amendment contemplates. 

I do want to suggest, however, that while Oltmann's suggestion for a "line of gallows" is well within the ambit of "protected speech," we all ought to think about whether calls to "kill people" to achieve a public policy result should be boosted and celebrated. Not everyone really understands how our Constitution is structured. Not everyone understands what is, and is not, "treason." Click here for a definition. Supporting, or voting for, a ban on automatic weapons just doesn't qualify.

Human solidarity, not internal warfare, is what can help us confront the challenges ahead, so let's not be afraid to disagree.

And let's not fool ourselves by thinking that killing other people, with whom we disagree, is a path to a better world. All that gets us is a "Line of Gallows."


Thursday, September 12, 2024

#256 / At Levels That Nobody's Ever Seen Before!

 

I liked an article in The Atlantic, published online on September 5, 2024. The article was titled, "An Article the Likes of Which Nobody Has Ever Seen Before." It was authored by David A. Graham, a staff writer at the magazine. 

What I most liked about the article is that Graham has taken seriously the actual words being used by a political actor, operating in the public realm, and has subjected them to a more or less rigorous analysis. Specifically, Graham points out in his article that presidential candidate Donald J. Trump frequently (almost compulsively) inserts the following phrase into whatever he is saying: "...nobody has ever seen before." For instance (from Graham's article):

“Groceries, food has gone up at levels that nobody’s ever seen before. We’ve never seen anything like it—50, 60, 70 percent,” Trump said recently. (This is not true, though if it were, it would be unlike anything seen in American history.) ...
He used the same phrase to speak about law and order last month: “We’re here today to talk about how we are going to stop the Kamala crime wave that is going on at levels that nobody has ever seen before.” (The country is not even at its most violent point in Trump’s life, much less ever.)

Political observers have frequently noted that Trump lies. But don't all politicians lie? Maybe, but Graham's article convinced me that Trump is in a class of his own. Wikipedia would seem to concur

During and after his term as President of the United States, Donald Trump made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims. The Washington Post's fact-checkers documented 30,573 false or misleading claims during his presidential term, an average of about 21 per day. The Toronto Star tallied 5,276 false claims from January 2017 to June 2019, an average of 6 per day. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of Trump's mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of his business and political identities. Scholarly analysis of Trump's tweets found "significant evidence" of an intent to deceive.

Lies, mendacity, false statements? Don't all politicians lie? With Trump, it's at levels that nobody's ever seen before!


Wednesday, September 11, 2024

#255 / Considering Our Constitution



Jennifer Szalai, whose image is above, writes for The New York Times. On Saturday, September 7, 2024, a column by Szalai appeared in the "Arts" section of the hard copy edition of the newspaper that was delivered to my front lawn. The "Arts" section, I thought, was a somewhat incongruous location for Szalai's commentary, since her column is focused on our "politics." Here is a link to Szalai's column, as it appears online: "The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?" Click the following link if you'd like to read what the Constitution actually says. 

I have written a lot of blog postings about our Constitution. In all of my commentaries, I have generally tried to celebrate (and elevate) the Constitution. I certainly agree that the Constitution is not a perfect document. But is it dangerous? I am going to disagree with that proposition!

Szalai's column notes, right off the bat, that "The United States Constitution is in trouble." Why is the Constitution in trouble? Well, because it is being attacked from all sides. Szalai notes that Donald J. Trump has called for the "termination of all rules, regulations and articles [that constrain the powers of the president] even those found in the Constitution." Liberals, however, according to Szalai, are also not happy with the Constitution. They claim that "Trump owes his politrical ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and... increasingly dsyfunctional." Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the Berkeley Law School, is cited as the person who asserts that the Constitution is "dangerous." Here is a summary of what Szalai has to say:

The eminent legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, worried about opinion polls showing “a dramatic loss of faith in democracy,” writes in his new book, “No Democracy Lasts Forever”: “It is important for Americans to see that these failures stem from the Constitution itself.” 
Back in 2018, Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley’s law school, still seemed to place considerable faith in the Constitution, pleading with fellow progressives in his book “We the People” “not to turn their back on the Constitution and the courts.” By contrast, “No Democracy Lasts Forever” is markedly pessimistic. Asserting that the Constitution, which is famously difficult to amend, has put the country “in grave danger,” Chemerinsky lays out what would need to happen for a new constitutional convention — and, in the book’s more somber moments, he entertains the possibility of secession. West Coast states might form a nation called “Pacifica.” Red states might form their own country. He hopes that any divorce, if it comes, will be peaceful. 
The prospect of secession sounds extreme, but in suggesting that the Constitution could hasten the end of American democracy, Chemerinsky is far from alone. The argument that what ails the country’s politics isn’t simply the president, or Congress, or the Supreme Court, but the founding document that presides over all three, has been gaining traction, especially among liberals. Books and op-eds critiquing the Constitution have proliferated. Scholars are arguing that the Constitution has incentivized what Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt call a “Tyranny of the Minority.” 
The anguish is, in some sense, a flip side of veneration. Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.

The major concern outlined above, and expressed by Chemerinsky, seems to be that the Constitution does not ensure "democracy." There may well be some truth to that charge, but let's be clear. Democracy should be seen as a "tool," not as an objective in and of itself. In fact, as outlined in one of my earlier blog postings, pursuing "democracy" as our main and overriding goal can lead us directly into dictatorship. 

The "objective" of what is sometimes called our "American experiment" is to establish an effective system of "self-government." That is what we are aiming for. That is what we need to be aiming for. 

And if we're not happy with how things are going, the responsibility is on us to make the changes we need to make. Giving up on our Constitution is not going to help!

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

#254 / Time To Talk Policy?

 

One  day after the fatal shooting at Apalachee High School, in Winder, Georgia, CBS News reported that authorities had released some important information about the gun used in that incidenta type of weapon that has been commonly used in mass shootings, including the deadly school shootings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, as well as in mass shootings at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket and on the Las Vegas Strip.

The weapon the suspect used was an AR-style platform rifle. These weapons, based on the AR-15 design, are lightweight, semiautomatic rifles popular with consumers. AR-15 guns are often called "assault rifles" — a term that gun advocates say is misleading, since the "AR" stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed the original AR-15, not "assault rifle."

A picture of the gun, in operation, is shown at the top! See if you can picture yourself in an elementary school or high-school classroom (just one way in, and one way out) with that gun blazing away at the door. 

With that gun pointed at you!

I am reacting, in this blog posting, to a commentary by Eugene Robinson, which appeared in my hometown newspaper, the Santa Cruz Sentinel, on Saturday, September 7, 2024. Clicking this link will take you to the original, which appeared on September 5th in The Washington Post. Good luck with The Post's paywall!

Robinson's commentary began this way:

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp stood before television cameras Wednesday night and said the cowardly words we always hear from Republican officials in such moments. Hours after two students and two teachers had been killed in a school shooting, allegedly committed by a 14-year-old boy with an AR-15-style semiautomatic weapon, Kemp declared: "Today is not the day for politics or policy" (emphasis added).

In fact, in The United States of America, every day is a day for politics and policy. "Politics" is the process by which we govern ourselves, and we govern ourselves, precisely, by debating and then adopting the "policy" prescriptions that we believe make the most sense for us - that we think are needed; that we think will "work"; that we think are "right." 

The day that another outrageous school shooting occurs is, precisely, a day that we should be discussing and debating what we should do about this phenomenon, recurrent not only in school classrooms but in churches, synagogues, grocery stores, convenience stores, and at music festivals in towns dedicated to adult entertainment. 

Do our laws provide adequate protections? Do they help avoid further instances of the kind of gun violence visited upon Apalachee High School?

If our laws don't do that (and I'd argue that they clearly don't) then there is no better day than each and every day - including today - to start debating what we need to change, what policies we need to put in place. 

We can, of course, seek to establish better ways to find out, ahead of time, about people who might turn to this kind of gun violence. The alleged shooter, a troubled young person from Winder, Georgia, had given signs that should have led to some kind of effective intervention, prior to the attack. 

But, shouldn't we also decide that the kind of weapons often used in such attacks (as noted in the first paragraph of this blog posting) should be made illegal, and their sale and use forbidden? We used to have a federal law, authored by California's Dianne Feinstein, that outlawed such "assault weapons." That law expired. The Supreme Court seems to have indicated, subsequently, that the Constitution, itself, says that our right to arms ourselves with such assault weapons is an actual Constitutional right. 

But the Constitution can be amended! Remember that! If that's really what the Constitution says, then amend it we should!

In any nation that takes "self-government" seriously, we can and should be thinking about how we want to govern ourselves. Every day!

Today is a good day to go beyond merely "thinking" about the politics and policies related to effective mechanisms that will prevent further incidents of such gun violence. As you consider the topic, look at a picture of Christina Irimie, the high school math teacher who lost her life at Apalachee High School. What would Christina Irimie want us to do?



Monday, September 9, 2024

#253 / Pascal's Wager Goes MAGA




Pictured in the MAGA cap is Blaise Pascal, whom Wikipedia tells us was "a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and Catholic writer." Pascal's "dates" are as follows: June 19, 1623 to August 19, 1662. Among other things, Pascal is remembered for "Pascal's Wager," which is explained this way: 

Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument advanced by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, and theologian. This argument posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God. 
Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven ... while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.

Axios Markets suggests that some business-oriented people seem to be supporting the presidential aspirations of Donald J. Trump using a similar logic (emphasis added below; the article was published before President Biden decided not to run for reelection this year): 

Business leaders who support Donald Trump for president might be doing so because they think he'd be better for business — or they might be supporting him because they want favorable treatment from any future Trump administration. 
Why it matters: A key question in any presidential election is which candidate would be better for the economy. One problem with asking CEOs is that they have an incentive to support Trump even if they think Biden is the better candidate. 
Between the lines: Trump, more than any other U.S. politician, is open about the way he favors individuals who publicly demonstrate personal loyalty to him, through statements, donations, fundraisers, and the like. Business leaders who support Trump do not need to fear being punished should Biden win in November. Biden's team of economic technocrats don't play favorites. 
Conversely, however, any leader who endorses Biden for president can reasonably assume that Trump might carry a grudge against them into the White House. 
How it works: Trump has not laid out detailed economic policies, but tariffs in general, and much higher tariffs on China in particular, are emerging as a central part of his vision. Because tariffs can differ markedly between industries and even between products within an industry, CEOs with the ear of the president would be well placed to garner a competitive advantage by lobbying to minimize the adverse effects on their own companies.
Flashback: Pascal's Wager, developed by 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal, is an argument for believing in God because (oversimplifying massively) believing in God is a good thing if God exists, and makes no difference if God doesn't exist. A similar argument exists for supporting Trump: that it will prove helpful if he's elected, and it won't be harmful if he isn't...
The bottom line: When a business leader says that they're supporting Trump because he'd be good for business, it's not easy to tell whether they're saying that because they believe it — or whether they're saying that because they want to be able to cozy up to Trump in the event he's elected.

There is a fallacy in the logic just outlined by Axios Markets. I thought I should draw it to the attention of any business leaders who might be reading this blog posting - though I know that it is pretty unlikely that any business leaders are actual subscribers to or followers of "We Live In A Political World." 

Still... Here is what is wrong with the Axios logic, suggesting that it makes sense for business people to state their support for Trump, even if they don't actually think he'd be the better president. 

Whether someone believes that God exists, or doesn't - and makes that belief or non-belief public -  doesn't actually change what happens in the world. As Pascal makes clear, your belief, or not, may make a difference in the "next world," if there is one, but your statement that you believe in God, if there isn't one, doesn't have any immediate impact in the world of here and now. That is the reason that "Pascal's Wager" is such a good bet. If you bet that there is a God (and you're wrong), nothing in this world, or the next, is made worse for you. 

The same thing is not true if you, as a business person, tell people that you prefer Trump (even though you may not actually believe that). Why? Well, your statement of support for Trump might actually help elect him. That then does affect the world of here and now. In fact, since stating support for the election of Donald J. Trump as president will likely help to elect him, that statement by any "gambling" business leaders, who don't actually think Trump is better, could turn our very "mixed bag" existence in this world into a real Hell. 

If you are a "business leader," and don't think that this is a real possibility, you're not thinking clearly. If you don't think that stating your opinion in support of Donald Trump will have real impacts in this "real world," where we face challenges to everything from "democracy" and "self-government" to the survival of human civilization, as we confront the dangers of Global Warming and thermonuclear war, think again. 

In political terms, in the context of the 2024 presidential election, saying you support Trump, thinking you can have it both ways, is a really bad bet.
 
Image Credit:

Sunday, September 8, 2024

#252 / Same Old Tired Playbook - No More



I thought that Jessica Bennett made a very good point in her August 31, 2024, column in The New York Times. Bennett's column was titled as follows: "Harris Is Breaking Barriers, but Isn't Talking About It."

If elected as our president in November, Harris will be the first woman to hold that office. She will be the first South Asian to hold that office. She will be the first Black woman to hold that office. In essence, Bennett (and Harris) are suggesting that these are not, actually, good reasons to decide either to vote for her or against her. 

We should elect our presidents - and all of our political representatives - not because of their "identity," but because of their abilities, their personal character, their effectiveness, their past record, and because of what they say they will try to accomplish if elected. 

We should not, in other words, be practicing "Identity Politics." Click this link for a Wikipedia definition.

In her CNN interview in August, when asked about criticisms and complaints from Donald Trump, that spotlighted Harris' ethnicity and gender, Harris responded by her now famous statement: "Same Old Tired Playbook - next question."

Bennett (and Harris) are making a very good point. "Identity" is out. "Character" and "Competence" are in!

By those tests (my view) Harris is clearly the better choice!


Saturday, September 7, 2024

#251 / Keeping Our Seatbelts Fastened

 

An online news story, published on August 29, 2024, was titled as follows: "‘Severe Turbulence’ on United Airlines Boeing 737 Leaves Seven Injured." The affected flight, originating in Cancun, Mexico, was headed to Chicago, and the turbulence occurred over Louisiana. The flight was diverted to Memphis, Tennessee.

Similar incidents of "severe turbulence" have been noted before. For instance, as the August 29th article reports: "On Aug. 4, 10 passengers and four flight attendants were injured on a Korean Air flight from South Korea to Mongolia, after turbulence flung passengers from their seats and showered the cabin with food debris." 

In one of my earlier blog postings, published on June 1st of this year, I talked about a couple of other incidents, one of which resulted in a passenger death. Consult "Prepare For Turbulence Ahead" if you'd like to start inventorying the stories.




If we are serious, we will realize that these incidents are examples of how global warming is rapidly changing our world. Continuing and growing "severe turbulence" could make commercial air service nearly impossible. 

It's kind of a crisis, really! "Keeping our seatbelts fastened" is not going to be enough!



Friday, September 6, 2024

#250 / A.I. Nation States

 


The two portraits, above, come from a New York Times article published on April 30, 2024. Online, the article is titled, "Friends From the Old Neighborhood Turn Rivals in Big Tech’s A.I. Race." It's an interesting story. I certainly encourage you to test The Times' paywall, and to see if you can read it.

Dennis Hassabis, on the left, is the chief executive of Google Deep Mind

Mustafa Suleyman (he's the guy on the right) is the chief executive of Microsoft A.I.

Let me draw your attention to the guy on the right (and to a statement he made before he assumed his present position with big-tech behemoth, Microsoft):

For a time, Mr. Suleyman remained an independent voice warning against the tech giant and calling for government regulation of A.I. An opinion piece that he wrote with Ian Bremmer, a noted political scientist, argued that big tech companies were becoming as powerful as nation states (emphasis added).

Anyone who has been reading my blog postings on any regular basis will probably remember that I think that the "digital world," which plays such a prominent role in our contemporary lives, is actually quite "different" from the "real world" that we inhabit with our flesh-based bodies. When we get on our phones, or start employing virtual reality headsets, or play computer-based games, or utilize A.I. chatbots to tell us about the world, we separate ourselves from the physical realities that, until recently, defined a "common world" inhabited by all of us. 

That "common world" is no longer the world in which we are, inevitably, alive. The way I see it, many of us are now "living" in a reality that we access by "technology" - and only by technology - and the technology-based world, in which we are increasingly living, separates us, even as it claims to bring us together. 

What if the highlighted statement, from Suleyman and Bremmer, is true? If it is, then we are being told that more and more of the lives we live are being lived in a (digital) world that is as powerful as any nation state, and that is wholly under the control of powerfully and outrageously rich corporations. 

Maintaining and utlizing the techniques of "self-government," within the "real," old-school, physical world, is difficult enough. But the digital "nation states" that now define the realities we find most important are not created by, or operated by, "the people." Nor are these digital worlds under the people's control. 

If Suleyman and Bremmer are right in the statement quoted in the article (and I think they are), it is urgently important for "the people," all of us, to claim and exercise control over the digital realms in which we increasingly reside. If we don't do that, it's really "game over" for self-government and for "democracy." In fact, that is what an earlier version of Suleyman was calling for, prior to his elevation to the upper reaches of Microsoft management.

Suleyman and Bremmer have claimed that the Googles, and the Metas, and the Microsofts of the world are the new "nation states" of our social, political, and economic existence. 

And who is in charge of these "nation states"? It had better be us, "we, the people," or we, the "ordinary people" who are, at least theoretically, "in charge" of the United States of America, will find that we have been transformed into modern "serfs," and the billionaire owners of the corporate "nation states" that increasingly comprise the world in which we actually live, will reign over us, and will do so unmercifully.

Thursday, September 5, 2024

#249 / War: What Is It Good For?

  
  

In order to get the most from Bob Dylan's book, The Philosophy Of Modern Song, you really need to listen to each one of the sixty-six songs he profiles. Actually, you really ought to listen to each one of those songs before, during, and after you read what Dylan has to say about the song. 

Here, for instance, is part of what Dylan has to say about "War," by Edwin Starr. The song was a protest against the Vietnam War, and is listed as "Chapter 43" in Dylan's compendium (underline added):

As a people, we tend to feel very proud of ourselves because of democracy. We walk into that booth and cast our votes and wear that adhesive "I Voted" sticker as if it is a badge of honor. But the truth is more complex. We have as much responsibility coming out of the booth as we do going in. If the people we elect are sending people to their deaths or worse, sending other people half a world away - whom we never even consider because they don't look like us or sound like us - to their deaths and we do nothing to stop it, aren't we just as guilty? 

And if we want to see a war criminal all we have to do is look in the mirror. 

 
Hannah Arendt: Power, Action and the

Lyrics - "War"

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh (good God)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh

War, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears to thousands of mother's eyes
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh (good God, y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, just say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker
Oh, war it's an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die? Oh

War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War (uh-huh), huh (yeah, huh)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) It's got one friend that's The Undertaker
Oh, war, has shattered many a young man's dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars each day
War can't give life
It can only take it away, oh

War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again

War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

It ain't nothing but a heart breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker, woo
Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh

War, huh (God y'all)
What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War (good God), huh (now, huh)
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it (nothing)

War: What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothing!

Foundation of Freedom