Supersonic Man

November 6, 2018

ads

Filed under: Hobbyism and Nerdry,life,Rantation and Politicizing — Supersonic Man @ 9:38 pm

Dang it, when writing this blog, I rarely see how bad the ads are when someone else is reading it.  I just got a reminder.  I’ve never liked this platform much, and now I’m thinking I should move this content elsewhere.  Which would be a pain.

Advertisements

November 1, 2018

the most charitable interpretation of fascism

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 10:22 am

Although in any right-wing nationalist movement you will find plenty of people who are virulent racists, sexists, xenophobes, and other deplorable types, I don’t think this kind of hate and evil explains the broad popularity that such movements often develop among ordinary people.  I don’t think they’re driven by hate as an end in itself.  Instead, they develop toward supporting hate because of more practical motives.

From what I see, the average working-class Joe who signs onto a nationalistic agenda does not hate immigrants and/or minorities, though he does resent immigrants or minorities.  The difference is that he’s not being hostile to them simply because of their ethnicity or origin, but because of what he perceives them to be doing once they come into his neighborhood or his nation — namely, acquiring wealth and resources, getting jobs, consuming goods, occupying space.  He resents them not for existing, but for getting something that he wants for himself.

The predominant scare stories told about immigrants and minorities are not about how they look different, speak oddly, or worship wrongly, but about how they get good jobs or receive benefits at taxpayer expense.  This is what upsets most anti-immigrant nationalists: not that newcomers to the country are odd and foreign, but that they are either getting governmental handouts or “taking our jobs”.  The resentment is based on a belief that if they have more, he will have less.

This is why fascism flourishes in tough times, when workers are doing poorly.  The fear that he will have less if someone else gets more seems to have already come true — he does have less, which means someone else must have gotten more.  If a faraway ruling class gets more, he feels there’s probably very little he can do about that, or that it’s only natural or inevitable… but if someone who is competing at his own level is getting more, well then, that’s a fight which he has a good chance to win.  It looks like an opportunity, whereas taking on the boss does not.

The aforementioned ruling class is very aware of this.  Like the old story says, a big boss, a blue collar worker, and a poor immigrant walk up to a plate of cookies.  There are one hundred cookies there.  The boss immediately takes ninety-eight of them, then he turns to the worker and says “Keep an eye on that immigrant — he wants to take your cookie.”

When workers had unions, they were a lot more confident that they could take on the real competition — the guys who actually were getting all the money they were not.  Without unions, there’s a much deeper sense of helplessness, so it’s only natural that many people will look downward rather than upward when seeking someone to take on in a fight for a better share.  And without unions, of course, semiskilled workers are a lot worse off financially than they used to be.  As a group, they are being systematically ground down toward poverty.  The worse things get, the less they are ready to act as a team and the more desperately some of them will turn on each other to try to grab a piece of what’s left.

The crooked narratives of fascism are never just about how those scapegoated people, whoever they happen to be in any given instance, are different or inferior.  They are about how those people, by living in your neighborhood, are taking something away from you — a job, a handout, a government service, or even just the seat you wanted to get when you go out for some entertainment.  The unstated presumption of fascist ideology is that the social and economic benefits of living in a society are a limited resource, and that getting the social support you deserve as a member of that society is a zero-sum game, in which gains for them are losses for you.  Therefore you should try to preserve as big a share as possible for your own friends and family and neighbors — the people who constitute your true community — rather than for people who are part of the same larger society but don’t quite feel like friends or neighbors yet.

Fascism is founded on convincing people that the benefits of being a member of society are scarce, to the point where there is not enough for everyone.  They can’t be shared freely, because there’s only enough for those with a strong social claim — the native majority — and the rest will have to do without, or everyone will be poor.  This claim of scarcity is believable during hard times when everyone is suffering, or during times when working people are impoverished by greed.  When scarcity is a concrete fact of life, it’s easy to believe that there isn’t enough to go around.

Hardcore racists and similar deplorables are only, as far as I can tell, somewhere between a tenth and a twentieth of the populace.  But willingness to believe in these narratives of scarcity can easily spread to a far larger portion of the citizenry.  If the deplorables want to indoctrinate people with racist hatred, they will piggyback their assertions that certain people are evil or inferior on top of these scare stories about scarcity.

In the end, the reason we are seeing a rise of enthusiasm for fascism is because we have allowed so much concentration of wealth.  It’s the reason a wannabe fascist like Trump is able to get votes, and it’s also the reason he was able to steal the party from the establishment Republicans, as their habit of transferring huge amounts of wealth from workers to owners had gone on for so long that the cover of lies they kept over it was wearing too thin to maintain.  Fresh new lies were needed, for the party to fool anyone.  Of course, by signing yet another tax cut for the rich, Trump ended up settling right back into the old lies, which means that his appeal to the working class is now tarnished.  We can only hope that this obvious sell-out helps diminish the appeal of fascism in general.

August 3, 2018

ethnicity of presidential names

Filed under: Hobbyism and Nerdry,Rantation and Politicizing — Supersonic Man @ 3:24 pm

For a country which is built on immigration and (usually) welcomes exceptional ethnic diversity, the United States of America has tended to be very narrow about what sort of ethnicity it looks for when electing a President, even beyond the fact that all but one of our presidents are white males.  For most of its history, America chose people whose last names originated either in the British Isles or in Holland, or failing that, had been well assimilated into a British-sounding form.  The first president to break that pattern was Dwight Eisenhower, and Barack Obama was only the second.  Even within that group, names from England were heavily favored over those from neighboring countries.

There have been 44 presidents, with 39 distinct last names.  (If you think there were 45, you counted Grover Cleveland twice.)  The high number of repeats counts as a statistical anomaly in itself.  Let’s tote up their ethnicities:

ENGLISH:  Washington, Adams (2), Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Harrison (2), Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Lincoln, Johnson (2), Grant (could be Scottish), Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush (2), Clinton.  That’s 26 names — two thirds of the total.

SCOTTISH:  Monroe, Polk, Buchanan (Scots-Irish), McKinley (Scots-Irish).

IRISH:  Hayes (anglicized), Kennedy, Reagan.

DUTCH:  Van Buren, Roosevelt (2).

GERMAN:  Hoover (anglicized), Eisenhower, Trump (anglicized).

KENYAN:  Obama.

Some other statistical biases we notice by looking at the list of presidents: most are taller than average, and very few regularly wore eyeglasses (just Bush the elder, Truman, and Teddy Roosevelt when he wasn’t avoiding them purely for vanity).  And as has been noted elsewhere, nowadays it seems like about half of presidents are southpaws.  In fact, we recently had three in a row: Reagan, Bush the elder, and Clinton were all left-handed.  So were Hoover, Truman, Ford, and Obama; that brings the total since 1929 up to 7 out of 15.  But before then, only a single leftie is known: James Garfield.

But the most important statistical anomaly may be the frequency and clustering of cases where the electoral college managed to reverse the outcome of the popular vote.  It has now happened four times (not counting the four-way election of 1824, which was decided by the House of Representatives): 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.  In all four cases a Democrat convinced more voters but a Republican won the electoral vote.

In the first case the result was the end of Reconstruction and the start of the Jim Crow era in the south (a price demanded by southern Democrats in exchange for conceding).  In the third case it was the invasion of Iraq, and arguably the September 11th attack preceding it.  In the fourth case it’s been a nationwide revival of nativism and fascism, with additional horrors no doubt to come.  The second case, though, turned out well: Benjamin Harrison admitted new western states, created national forests, modernized the Navy, passed the Sherman antitrust act, fought for education and voting rights for minorities, and raised a budget surplus.  Oddly, it was the latter point which led his party to defeat in the following elections: raising and spending a lot of money was unpopular, even though the means by which the new revenue was raised, namely protectionist tariffs which were denounced by his opponent, was exactly what had convinced people to vote for Harrison in the first place.

April 11, 2018

What do Nazis have in common with pickup artists?

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 12:11 am

When the Nazis came to Charlottesville, one thing I noticed in the news coverage was that some of them were using the jargon of the “red pill” movement — a jargon which originated in the world of pickup artists.  How did that happen?  I decided to look into the connections, and learn a bit more about the hidden history of these new reactionary movements.  I ended up learning more than I wanted to know about today’s young racists.  Here’s what I’ve managed to put together. Surprisingly, a key figure linking the two groups is professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos — not someone I ever thought would do anything consequential.

(more…)

August 20, 2017

“Everyone is a little bit racist.”

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 3:19 pm

You may have heard that quote. I am quoting it because I believe it’s true.  There is no dividing people into two groups, one racist and one not.  It’s a spectrum, and what matters is not what feelings or assumptions you start with, but what behavior you end with.  Let’s look at some sample points on this spectrum — some levels of racism:

Level 0: innocent.  This is where small children start out — unaware that race is a problem.  Maybe it’s possible to maintain this into adulthood in circumstances of major social isolation, but I don’t think I’ve ever personally seen an example of that.

Level 1: responsible.  We are all liable to sometimes forming snap judgments based on first impressions, and race is often a factor that plays into this.  But we can compensate for this by taking a moment for a second thought, to double-check our initial thoughtless reaction and make sure we’re being fair-minded.  This may not sound very impressive, but for most adults, this is about the best you can expect.  People in this category may be “allies” of minorities, or not.  Some may have come a long way in overcoming bad ideas from their upbringing, while others have had no need to.

Level 2: in denial.  This is probably where the majority of people fit, on most days.  This is where you land if you react to prejudicial snap judgments by rationalizing them instead of reconsidering.  Frequently accompanied by the idea that racism is largely historical, or confined to a few extremists — that it’s a distant external problem.  Racism at this level isn’t going to burn crosses, but it can produce frequent calls to the police about “suspicious” characters, or some extra strictness from the police themselves.  This mild racism can be enough to make a big difference in how difficult it is for some people to land a job or rent a place to live.  So even though the acts committed by any one individual seem minor and excusable, they can add up to a large negative impact on the lives of minority citizens.

Level 3: asshole.  This level is for people who sometimes show active racist behaviors, such as taunts and trolling and harrassment with racial epithets.  Generally these are people who are habitually unpleasant or obnoxious in other ways as well, or who have long lists of people whose lives they disapprove of.  Most often, such people are still in vigorous denial about racism, despite having numerous examples readily visible in the mirror.

Level 4: deplorable.  Finally, we come to those who have adopted racism as a guiding philosophy, and who actively evangelize it as an ideology: the Nazis, Klansmen, Neo-Confederates, and other racial separatists.  Many are fanatical True Believers, and as such, are capable of horrific violence for their cause.

Again, the point is not that people are divided into groups, who fit one label or another.  Any one person can and does slide up and down this scale, plus or minus a space over the course of a day, or larger shifts over months or years as they are exposed to different ideas.

And note that one’s position on this scale may have very little to do with the intensity or severity of their prejudices, particularly in the middle part of the scale.  Some can have major race-based fears and handle them well, and others might have minor ones but handle them badly.

The most important factor for affecting how a person moves forward or backward in their behavior is probably the social expectations of the people around them.

But don’t take this to mean that the way to make someone act better is by lecturing them.  If you really want to bring someone to see another point of view, it’s important to listen to them more than you talk to them, and let them express the feelings or anxieties or bad experiences they may be carrying on the subject.  And when you do speak, you want to be offering them an option, rather than making a demand.

Because when social pressure comes in a hostile form, it’ll probably have the opposite of the desired effect.  If you do listen to people at level 2 or 3 talk about race, one thing that often comes up is how much they dislike and resent hearing the word “racism” brought up as a belligerent finger-pointing accusation.

I don’t personally know who’s doing this kind of accusing, but some of my friends see it happen, and they affirm that yeah, it ain’t helping.  Maybe that behavior arises from having one foot in the responsible level and the other in the denial level, so you want to project and externalize the problem.  That’s just my guess, I can’t say.

As for the level 4 deplorables, I don’t think there’s much point in listening to them or engaging with them.  They’ve created a fantasy world where they believe each other’s made-up stories, so that’s all you’re likely to hear from them.  They’ve embraced evil, and there aren’t really very many of them, so socially, we can just write them off.  If you’re trying to bring back someone important to you, I wish you the best, but for the rest of them, I think the best form of communication would probably be for them to be hit in the face by Captain America’s shield.

August 15, 2017

Nazi free speech

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing — Supersonic Man @ 1:17 pm

The nazis among us like to complain that we’re stifling their right of free speech. Here’s a reminder about some forms of speech which, by court precedent, are not and never have been protected by the First Amendment — types of speech which nobody has a right to make:

1. Fraud, false advertising, con artistry, and other forms of deceitful promise for personal gain.

2. Libel, slander, and defamation. This includes not only attempts to damage reputations, but also taunts intended to provoke a violent response — “fighting words”.

3. Threats, intimidation, attempts to create panic (e.g. “fire!” in a crowded theater), or other means of trying to coerce people through fear.

4. Incitement of others to carry out violent or criminal acts.

5. Sedition — advocacy of overthrowing the government by force.

The courts may, for many of these categories, require strict or narrow conditions before ruling them to be unprotected and criminal forms of speech, but the point is that you do not have a right to deceive, a right to slander, a right to threaten, or a right to advocate violence.

If nazis and other racial supremacists think they have a right to advocate their point of view like the rest of us, well, let’s see if they can actually do so without committing any slander, making any threats, inciting any violence or insurrection, or making any fraudulent promises. Since their actual program for society involves defaming large groups of people, using lots of violence and threats of violence, and overthrowing at least some parts of the Constitution, the only way they could advocate it without mentioning these would be by lying.

Nazi speech is sometimes suppressed, but if they think their rights of free speech are being violated, they’re wrong. They never had any right to this form of speech.

May 18, 2017

is bribery addictive?

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 7:06 pm

When I see politicians getting caught taking bribes, I have often been struck by how much they were willing to sell out for how little cash, and by how determined they seemed to stick by their bribers even when it was hopeless to defend them. And I’m beginning to think that for some politicians, taking bribes is about more than just the value of the money.

Consider the Keating Five scandal. Thirty years ago last month, Charles H. Keating, Jr. of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was insolvent and under investigation as part of the savings and loan crisis then occurring, bribed a bunch of senators from western states. He gave a total of $1.3 million in campaign contributions to Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ — yep, the maverick himself), and Donald Riegle (D-MI). In return, they called off regulators for a while, which allowed his S&L to crash far more severely than it would have with earlier intervention, costing taxpayers $3 billion.

We could make some interesting speculations about the psychology of someone like Keating himself, whose attempts to pretend his bank was OK bought him nothing but a five year prison sentence, but I want to concentrate on the other end — the bribees. They reacted in some quite different ways.

It’s important to note that the bribes were not an immediate offer, like “Promise to do what I want and I’ll sign this check.” None of them were overtly selling their vote to the highest bidder like a Rod Blagojevich. Rather, they were spread out over several years. Keating had been making large campaign contributions to these and other politicians for some time, and also cultivating some of them as personal friends, particularly DeConcini and McCain, since he lived in Arizona. He would offer them his jet to fly their families to the Caribbean with, and things like that. And after a while, some of them started to think of Charlie Keating as a really great guy.

The key moment was when the five senators arranged a meeting with four bank regulators. Keating apparently intended the meeting as a show of force, to let the regulators know they were outgunned. But those boys were made of the right stuff, and did not back down when faced with five senators asking them to leave Charlie alone. The case the senators were making was about deregulation: they decried what a shame it was that a prosperous business could be ruined by overly strict rules and oversight. In response, the regulators told them that they were not going after Keating to manage his business for him, but to stick him with criminal charges as a predatory scumbag crook.

It was at this point that John McCain realized he’d made a mistake. He’d already felt dubious about the meeting, and when he heard this, he was chastened. He apparently decided then and there that he and Charlie Keating were through, and mostly kept his mouth shut for the rest of the meeting. The incident eventually inspired him to push the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. In short, he responded rationally, choosing a more correct course of action on the basis of new information.

But Alan Cranston reacted quite differently. He ended up getting the strongest censure of any of the senators because he kept right on trying to defend Lincoln S&L until it went bust in ’89. He continued to make public displays of personal friendship toward Keating. Regulators continued to attest that members of Congress such as him were obstructing and hampering their work. Then, when finally being grilled about it by the senate, Cranston accused them all of being just as guilty of such practices as he was, which didn’t win him any popularity points. The mess would certainly have cost him re-election if he hadn’t already announced his retirement.

Why was Cranston so persistent in defending Keating, after he was informed that the man was crooked? It was not a rational action. One cannot logically expect a slipshod and corrupt bank to keep making further bribe payments year after year. Such a business model is not sustainable, at least not once criminal investigation is seriously under way, so if he’d given it one minute’s thought, he can’t have reasonably expected that the big payments would keep coming.

Sometimes people go into denial about their past habits of behavior being no longer viable. They refuse to admit that they could have made a mistake, and therefore insist that what they did before must still be correct. And sometimes people get caught up into a sunk cost fallacy, and believe that if they’ve put a bunch of effort into something which is not working, they need to see it through until it’s resolved, rather than write off the effort as wasted. Some people tell themselves that everyone is doing exactly what they are doing, and perhaps can’t imagine trying to choose another path, because then they would (they suppose) be alone and isolated. All of these psychological factors may play a part in why someone who’s taken bribes will sometimes keep trying to continue their corrupt behavior even after it can no longer do them any good. But I think for some people, there may be a much simpler explanation.

Charlie Keating knew that the way to get influence was not just to pay money, but to make powerful friends. He patted their backs, blew smoke up their asses, did them favors, and gifted them with luxuries. And of course, he helped them get re-elected. That was the purpose of the bribe money: it was paid to their campaign organizations, to help them stay in office after the next vote. He made them feel like he really cared about them and really wanted to help them. He validated their beliefs that America needed their leadership.

I think for some politicians, receiving a bribe has more meaning than just getting free money. It feels like friendship, even when not accompanied by back-slapping and smoke-blowing. It’s like getting ten “likes” on your social media post — it makes you feel appreciated and listened to. It lets you know that in a world full of criticism for everything you do, somebody’s on your side and supporting your beliefs.

When a politician starts out, he has regular friends. But if they ever ask anything of him legislatively, he often has to disappoint them. Things may grow more distant. I think it must be pretty easy for a politician, on a semi-conscious level, to start feeling like his true friends are the new crowd rather than the old — the people who support him, rather than asking him to support them. It must be easy to start feeling like “Now I know who my real friends are.”

I think it may be quite often that politicians end up standing by those who bribed them because they are misapplying the virtue of remaining loyal to their friends. They fail to separate the quid-pro-quo relationship from true friendship, and may even become genuinely willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of another, because of that sense of loyalty.

Put all this together, and those who take bribes can, I suspect, become addicted to the experience of being paid for their influence, even when they don’t need the money. It feeds the parts of their brains that crave true friendship, even while cutting them off from the genuine experience.

Even when bribery is not exposed as such, I think this helps explain why many politicians will, when confronted with an ugly public controversy, double down on supporting the wealthy and powerful interests who are being protested. Sure, there may be gross abuses occurring, such as violent attacks on peacefully assembled environmental protesters, but the people who are building the oil pipeline or paper plant or nuclear reactor are their friends, dang it, and those smelly hippies are not. So even when the controversy reaches the point where the way to win the next election is to change sides, and the lies supporting the project have been thoroughly exposed (the Keystone XL would supposedly create 28,000 jobs, for instance), they would rather go down fighting for a crooked policy than betray those friendships.

And now to apply the theory. I think this may be why Donald John Trump so adamantly refuses to back away from Vladimir Putin. Clearly, if a rational person were in Trump’s position right now, or eight months ago for that matter, the logical course of action would be to distance himself from Putin and pretend to be very independent and skeptical of him. But Trump won’t do that, no matter how bad it looks to be seen publicly kissing Russian ass after what a stink has been raised over it.

Donald Trump probably has no true friends, and may never have had one. His personal philosophy, which he received from his dad, allows no room for genuine trust, and if he has never showed a sign of genuine caring for other human beings, it hasn’t been in public. I don’t know if you could call him a sociopath, but he is certainly a major narcissist, who views other people in terms of what he can get out of them for himself. So his definition of friendship is based on a simple criterion: if you help him and give him things and support his ego, you’re a friend, and if you thwart him or insult him, you’re an enemy. And based on this separation, he follows one simple rule: friends are to be buttered up and catered to and indulged, but enemies are to be viciously attacked, to make them regret crossing your path.

Though not a man known for any capacity to form intimate connections, many have spoken of how solicitous Trump is when relating one on one to someone he wants to be friendly toward. He’s attentive, he’s generous, he makes himself pleasant, he makes sure you get to enjoy the best of whatever is available where you are. In conversation, he may drift into bragging about himself, but he at least makes an effort at pretending to be interested in what you’re saying.

(This may help explain Trump’s success as a ladies’ man. In his youth he had quite a reputation for dating women who seemed to be out of his league. Part of it was that he didn’t care if he was shot down twenty times before finding one who’d say yes, but another part must be this habit of scrupulous attention to the other person’s wants. If he doesn’t know what it is to care about another person, he has worked out a pretty good system for faking it.)

Such an attitude is tailor-made for someone who both gives and accepts bribes, of course. He has even boasted of it, at least in cases where he’s the payer and not the recipient.

Trump, as far as I can tell, sees everything in terms of friends vs. enemies. Despite, or perhaps because of, the hollowness of his experience of what friendship should be, he allows the judgment of friend vs enemy to dominate all his decisions. If a friend does something awful or unpopular, he stands by that friend, and if an enemy does something admirable, he cuts them down for it. According to anonymous rumors, Trump was taken completely by surprise at the outrage which followed his firing of James Comey from the FBI. His logic was simple: Comey is not my friend because he refuses to tamp down the Russia investigation for me, and therefore he is also not the friend of my fellow Republicans. But he is also not the friend of Democrats, because of the way he undercut Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Therefore, since he is nobody’s friend, nobody will miss him or stand up for him. It apparently never occurred to him that people would be aghast at the firing for reasons having nothing to do with whose ass Comey did or did not kiss.

So, are the Russians his friends? Yes. In 2014 Eric Trump was talking to a golf reporter, and said “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” (He now denies saying it.) And Don Jr. said in 2008 Russian money was “pouring in” and constituting “a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets”. The Wall Street Journal recently revealed one such deal: a Trump Tower in Toronto which was financially bailed out by the Russian bank VEB, which has been described as “essentially controlled by Putin”. When a lawsuit embroiled the Trump Soho project, it came out in court that much of the funding was from Russia by way of an intermediary in Iceland. American banks haven’t been willing to lend to Trump for a long time, and Deutsche Bank, the last European holdout to treat him as an acceptable loan risk, wasn’t doing enough, so it makes sense that he would turn sharply toward Russia once the opportunity arose. (And even Deutsche Bank is now being implicated as a go-between for Putin, and accused of laundering money for Russian gangsters.) Trump and his family have now been traveling regularly to Russia for decades.

So the Russians have not just been friendly to the Trumps, they have been great friends indeed. The Trump financial empire might well have collapsed years ago if it weren’t for Putin’s cronies propping it up.

There are those who believe that the Russians have “kompromat” on Trump, and can blackmail him or threaten him with ruin, and this is why Trump is so steadfast toward them. I am not persuaded by this theory… I don’t see Trump being afraid of such a thing, or see him getting where he is now from a position of being intimidated or cowed. I don’t think he’s even scared of the idea of their banks cutting him off: he is now forging new business “friendships” every day all over the world, using the Presidency as an incentive for all sorts of wealthy interests to do him financial favors.

I think it really is just as simple as Trump viewing the Russians has his friends. He has lived by a code of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” all his life, and he can hardly change his habits now. After all, he’s seventy years old, and his brain may not be as sharp as it used to be. I doubt he can imagine any other way to go through life. What he’s done so far has brought him everything he ever wanted, so it would be impossible to believe it’s the wrong approach. I think he would view turning his back on the Russians as being untrue to himself. There’s a good chance he won’t ever be willing to do it, even if it costs him the Presidency.

After all, he doesn’t enjoy the job anyway.

March 1, 2017

faith

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 10:56 am

If what God actually wanted from us was to be worshipped, believed in, and obeyed in one particular way, think how easy it would be for Him to inform everyone on Earth of what He wanted.

Even if He only spoke to a few prophets, why not just have a bunch of them say the same thing at the same time in different languages?

Instead, what we’ve got now is a God who apparently expects to be believed in on a basis of occasional hearsay and conflicting testimony… which means that to arrive at correct faith depends on the exact same faculties that other people use to arrive at a wrong belief in a false deity.

January 22, 2017

Trump’s inauguration crowd is yuge

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing — Supersonic Man @ 5:50 am

​From one perspective, it’s hilarious: Trump has taken time off of his twitter feuds to engage in a ridiculously juvenile dick-measuring contest over who had the bigger crowd in DC, his supporters or the protestors.  And he sends out this Sean Spicer character to make absurdly transparent lies about it, in order to back this up.  As (presumably) a professional media guy, Spicer has got to be pretty deeply embarrassed about hitching his national reputation to such a transparent fib, but Trump has him doing it anyway (albeit fleeing the podium as soon as possible afterward).  This is not only some good late-night-comic fodder, it’s also an open invitation for the straight news media to directly call out your administration as liars, despite their normally great reluctance to depart from “neutrality” whenever there is disagreement about facts.

But there’s another way to look at this, which isn’t so funny.  In a nation with a free press, this kind of attempt to transparently invent your own fake facts is laughable… but in countries where the press is not free, it’s routine.  This is exactly how news reporting is treated in totalitarian countries where the media are captive to the state.  In those circumstances, the big lie is the only story the public gets to hear, and if the truth gets to them, it’s only in the form of rumor and anecdote, which might be just as untrustworthy when it comes to pinning down solid facts.

What makes this sobering is Trump’s continual attacking and denigration of the news media.  He very much wants his supporters to distrust them, but even more, he wants them to stop reporting facts which contradict his stories.  Why all the attacks?  Because he wants his supporters to demand change, to shout down stories they don’t like — to pressure the media into compliance with his will.  Consciously or not, what he is pushing for is an end to the free press.  To him, a free press is the enemy.  He will never stop attacking them, so long as they report news that they discover through their own lying eyes and ears, rather than the official truth of Trump.

Trump is not just making this attack out of ego or spite — he is betting his presidency on it. As long as the press remains free, Trump is a clown. As soon as it’s not, everything he’s doing starts to work exactly as he intends it to, and he can rule as strongly as he wishes.

Trump is governing in a style which can only work when the press is not free.

December 19, 2016

red country vs blue city

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 10:11 am

Anyone who’s studied election maps has seen that when you look at which areas voted conservative and which voted liberal, it isn’t a matter of “red states” vs “blue states”, it’s a matter of urban areas vs rural areas.  The cities in red states are blue, and the countryside in blue states is red.  The balance of the state as a whole largely comes down to how urbanized it is (though the racial composition of rural areas can also be a factor).

countymappurple512

So what is it about city and country that correlates with liberal and conservative views?  I think there is one factor which explains most of the difference.  It comes down to investment.

(more…)

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.