Hiding in the Shadow Docket

 

The increasingly pitiful Supreme Court of our nation has, since the installation of the current regime, been busy accepting an extraordinary number of "emergency applications" it's made and duly issuing the orders it's requested.  It's a most compliant court.

Because such applications are, supposedly, to be made and accepted only in emergency situations where briefing, oral argument and written opinions as in normal cases would take too long and so fail to timely address the emergency, orders granting or denying the applications need not be explained.  No written opinion or rationale need be provided.  The Justices, like gods, merely decree.  We're not entitled to know why or how they came to do so.

These Jovian orders comprise what is known as the shadow docket.  While there have in the past been very few matters decided in this abrupt, mysterious manner, the current Justices seem to delight in exercising judicial authority in this fashion. Yay or nay is all they need say.

No doubt it's much easier to decide cases when no reasons for a decision need be given.  And, certainly, it can be convenient in other ways as well.  For example, if a case raising similar issues in similar circumstances should come before the Court, but a majority of the Justices don't want to issue the same order issued during the "emergency", they can simply maintain that the rationale which applied but was not disclosed previously didn't apply in the new matter.  Who could contest such a claim?

Better yet for them, how may the Justices be successfully criticized for a decision they made when the reasons for the decision cannot be known? It may have been made for the worst of reasons, or no reason at all, for all we know.  It simply doesn't matter.

Do the Justices lurking in the shadow docket feel something of a thrill, being able to make unreviewable orders as they please, with no need to account for them?  If so, let's hope they don't find it addictive.

Of course these decisions made in the shadows of the shadow docket do little or worse for litigants, lawyers and judges, trying to ubderstand them. They benefit only the regime and the Justices who cater to it. Lower courts, lawyers and litigants are left in the dark because the Justices cannot be bothered to explain the orders they make.  Merely knowing that an application has been granted or denied provides little guidance.

This deliberate practice of issuing orders for no apparent reason is at the least irresponsible and selfish.  It's also cowardly, I think.  If your going to decide matters of great importance which are unreviewable, you should have the courage to explain and defend those decisions.  It's no wonder the reputation of the Supreme Court is in decline.

Stubbornly Persistent Intrusions

 

One hundred years ago, in July, 1925, the State of Tennessee, these United States, and the entire world within reach of the communication technology and media of the time were treated to the spectacle of what's known as the Scopes Trial.  From July 10th to July 21st a high school teacher was prosecuted for teaching the theory of evolution in violation of the law of the Volunteer State.

Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan and H.L. Mencken participated in the spectacle, among others. Their appearances in that courtroom made it the peculiar landmark of our history it became; seemingly a victory for the separation of church and state assured by the Constitution although Scopes was found guilty.  The victory was due to the spectacle created.  The law was shown to be an absurd consequence of ignorance and religious repression of a well-established scientific theory intruding on public education.

But if there was a victory it was short-lived.  When it comes to public education, those legislators who believe that God is responsible for the creation of the horrible human race still insist that this be taught in public schools. Those who think God gave us Ten Commandments (including one that mandates his worship) demand they be displayed in public schools. So, the intrusion of religious beliefs in public education continues. 

Many Americans seems to want the religion they personally prefer to be taught in public schools.  They're not content to merely practice their religion freely, without hindrance by goverment or others.  They want it, or at least aspects of it, to be required parts of public schooling.  Perhaps they assume all Americans have similar religious beliefs and so wouldn't object to the schools imparting them to their children; perhaps they don't care if they do or don't.  I suspect the latter is the case.

In fact, religious education is required, more or less, in many countries.  So, the urge to impose religious instruction on students isn't unique to America. Our Great Republic, though, is somewhat unique due to the clause in the First Amendment prohibiting government from making laws regarding the establishment of a religion.

There is debate over whether the intrusion of religious beliefs or symbols in schools constitutes the establishment of a religion.  That aside, my interest is in the question: Why does the desire that religion be taught in public schools persist?

You'd think that parents themselves could arrange for their children to learn of their religious beliefs. There are churches and other places of worship everywhere to assist in that task. Is it thought that people will only become or remain adherents of an approved religion if intelligent design and the Ten Commandments are taught in schools?  That's difficult to believe.  Is it thought that students will lose their faith if taught the theory of evolution, or if the Ten Commandments are not prominently displayed somewhere on school premises?

Again, this seems very unlikely.  The religious education I received in Catholic schools didn't serve to convince me of anything where religion was concerned, and served more than anything to result in a loss of faith.

I doubt the intrusion of religion in public schools accomplishes anything.  I know of no study or evidence establing that it does. My guess is that the efforts at religious intrusion into public education persist because true believers don't really expect anything will be accomplished.  They feel the intrusion is inherently good. There need not be any result.  No opportunity to express their beliefs can be missed.  There is a kind of compulsion involved.  A form of religious exhibitionism.

Eclipsing Liberty

 

I have a recollection of Conservatism in American politics and culture.  It may be outdated; it may be inaccurate, but it seems quite clear.  While it was characterized by a respect for tradition and authority, it also respected individual freedom.  Freedom from government interference in the thoughts and lives of individuals, specifically.

While its fetishization of the past and accepted customs made it-over suspicious of change and too willing to tolerate established injustices, it was possible to acknowledge its merits because, at least in theory, it abjured autocracy and totalitarianism.  That's no longer the case with respect to what passes for Conservatism today. 

Nor do those who pass for conservatives now have any concern for the freedom of individuals from the control of government. On the contrary, they apparently favor government control, provided they find the government favorable.  As long as that's the case they seem entirely willing to ignore the restrictions of the powers of government the Founding Fathers built into the foundations of our Great Republic.

This is an extremely selfish and short-sighted position for them to take.  They sanction the unrestricted imposition of control by a regime they disfavor which might replace the current regime.  Thomas More said something to the effect that he would give the devil protection of the law to protect himself from the depredations of government. It's difficult to believe that those who call themselves conservatives now lack this wisdom.

It's unclear whether this willingness to see the power of government used to restrict individual liberty is the result of self-indulgence on their part, or fear, or some other irrational motivation.  It may be, though, that H.L. Mencken was right and they value security far more than they value liberty.

That security likely is, for them, security from the freedom of others to do and think as they believe to be appropriate.  This would explain their toleration of if not support for government intrusion in education and regulation of lifestyles, heath, art and entertainment; even of history, Soviet-style.

It's a strange sort of Conservatism that seeks to radically increase the powers of a central government to regulate and curtail life and liberty in what has, traditionally, considered itself to be "the land of the free."

The Impossible Trolley Problem

 

Most are aware of The Trolley Problem. It's one of those so-called "thought experiments" academics have contrived, presumably to make us, or at least their poor students, think. It was apparently created by an English philosopher named Philippa Foot.

A railroad or trolly track splits into two tracks going in separate directions.  By throwing a switch you may cause the trolley to take either route. Throwing it one way (A) will cause the trolley to follow the track to which five people are tied, killing them.  Throwing it the other way (B) will cause the trolley to follow the other track to which a single person is tied, killing that person.  Which way should you throw the switch?

There are variants of the problem.  What if the person tied to track B is a child? Would your choice be different?  What if a mass murder is tied to B?  What if it is Jeffrey Dahmer, munching on the leg of one of his victims?

Food for thought, no doubt (sorry).  How should you decide?

Well, like all of philosophers' problems, there is no definite answer.  Therein I think lies The Trolley Problem's problem.  It's the same problem other philosophical problems possess.

It's not an actual problem.  That is to say, it's not a problem which would arise, in life.  Why are we being asked to solve a problem which will never arise?  Why should we contemplate choices to be made in circumstances we won't encounter?

One might argue it compels us to think.  John Dewey said we only really think when we encounter problems.  But I doubt he was referring to imaginary problems.  Rather, he was referring to problems in life which could be resolved through intelligent thought and consideration.

C. S. Peirce observed that Descartes, when he purported to doubt everything in attempting to determine whether he could be certain of anything, clearly didn't really doubt. Rather, he pretended to doubt that which he clearly didn't doubt judging from his own behavior each moment of his life.  There's no real problem to resolve, no real question to answer, when we have no reason to resolve, or doubt.

Wouldn't it be more useful to address problems we face here and now?  Why doesn't philosophy, and why don't philosophers, address the actual problems of humanity?

Ecrasez l'infame!

 

Voltaire used this maxim or motto in his correspondence.  It may be translated as: "Crush the infamous (thing)!"  That thing was the Catholic Curch of the time, busy banning and sometimes burning books, including some by Voltaire, and it's oppression of thought and freedom in combination with the government of Louis XV.  It became a sort of war cry of the Enlightement, and was directed not merely against the Church and the autocratic King but also superstition, bigotry, stupidity, ignorance and what the superstitious, bigoted, stupid and ignorant people in power were prone to do then and remain prone to do now.

Though centuries have passed since the time of Votaire, it seems human nature hasn't changed in any significant sense.  But we have, through the application of science and technology, become vastly more capable of communicating and imposing the most contemptible aspects of our nature. In this fashion our capacity for reasoning and problem solving is placed at the service of our cruelty and cowardice--reason serves the irrational.  We're only capable of reason, not reasonable.  We are reasonable only when we must be, or it pleases us to be.

Those who want to impose their religious beliefs on others are still trying to do so.  Efforts are being made to display the Ten Commandments in public schools in Texas and other states.  While lower courts have enjoined these exhibitions, as our Supreme Court has allowed group prayer in the middle of high school football fields, the First Amendment be damned, it's likely it would bless even the recitation of the Commandments at the start of each class.  

Our peculiar Secretary of Defense proselytizes on behalf of a very peculiar church which asserts that Jesus doesn't want women to vote and are subordinate by the will of God.  The subjugation of women seems to be common to all Abrahamic religions from their inception. 

Subjugation is characteristic of the times, perhaps of all times, for us. As freedom is being eroded one comes to appreciate the allure of a solitary life. Oh, to be a hermit!  Or at least to be otherwise apart from the scene of our current crimes. One wonders if this was the attraction of a monastery, or still could be.

Perhaps the infamous things surrounding us can't be crushed, and escape is the only reasonable option. But it seems ignoble not to oppose infamy. And perhaps what Pierre Hadot called the inner citadel available to Marcus Aurelius and other Stoics can protect us from being subjugated, while we oppose it subjugation.

Sanctuary! Sanctuary!

 

Here we see Quasimodo, splendidly played by Charles Laughton, crying "Sanctuary!" and claiming the protection of the sacred space of Notre Dame Cathedral for Esmeralda, having first dramatically snatched her away from the noose.  She was to be hung for witchcraft.  I couldn't bring myself to use images from Disney's weird version of Victor Hugo's novel.

"Sanctuary" was originally used to refer to a place sacred to a divinity and so apart from the profane world of men and women.  Gradually, it came to signify a place where human law did not apply.  So, at least in theory, a fugitive from temporal law or power having entered the sacred space could claim sanctuary and be beyond the reach of the temporal authorities; in effect, immune while in that space.  In practice, it seems that this rule was disregarded in some cases.  Sometimes, this immunity became a subject of negotiation.  For example, those having authority over the sanctuary might allow the person claiming protection to be taken into custody if it was promised that person would not be killed.

These sad days, we hear of "sanctuary cities" or jurisdictions.  Those in them aren't immune from the application of all law, however.  Instead, those municipalities refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities, much to the chagrin of conservatives, who now, unlike their predecessors, delight in the relentless enforcement and imposition of federal law, everywhere, local government be damned.

It's unfortunate that sanctuaries don't exist which can be fled to avoid the ever-expanding power of the federal government generally.  If churches, or at least that part of them surrounding the altar, were such sanctuaries how crowded they would be! It's a remarkable thing to see federal troops which were once used to enforce the rights of citizens to education and travel, to vote and assemble, now used largely to intimidate and to quash alleged "emergencies."  Emergencies in our Glorious Union now seem ubiquitous, judging from the peculiar logic of El Presidente and his lackeys.  Anything which can be used as a pretense for the exercise of Executive Authority will do.

O tempora, O mores!  One can almost hear Cicero crying out about the decadence of our times and customs, and the morals or lack of them of our representatives in all branches of government.  He was saddened by the decline of integrity in Republican Rome, soon to become autocratic and imperial.  It seems today that integrity has not merely declined, but has disappeared.  When did our legislators and judges of the high court become so meek, so obliging, so obsequious, so craven, so venal?  Have they (and have we) become willing victims of despotism?

Many of us seem to have Daddy Issues.  I don't refer to those issues which it's claimed by some involve the sexual activities or imagination of certain females.  Instead I refer to what seems to be a kind of creepy insecurity and desire to be led, if not dominated, by a father figure who will tell us what to do.  Presumably, he'll protect us as well.  Various figures in or on the outskirts of politics have voiced their fascination with and desire for a Daddy,  They may want to be spanked, poor creatures, or even better see someone else spanked.  Perhaps most characteristic of this childish desire for a Daddy is the relief that's felt at the fact that responsibility and authority is transferred to someone else.  Daddy will fix it, whatever it is.

Daddy will certainly fix us, in any case, they hope.  But some of us hope to find sanctuary even from Daddy.

Another Awakening?

 

Our Great Republic has, from time to time, been subject to what have been called "Awakenings."  These are episodes of typically Protestant Christian revivals during which people enthusiastically proclaim their faith and strive mightily to live by it, and to cause others to do so as well.  America has been more prone to showy evangelism than Europe, which has been relatively free from fundamentalist frenzy since the Renaissance.

There have been three of these "Great Awakenings."  They took place from the late 18th to the early 20th century.  It's claimed there was a fourth that took place in the 1960s and 1970s during the days of the Jesus Freaks, but there's no consensus on this claim.

It seems that some believe another Great Awakening is taking place.  This one, though, may not be wholly Protestant. The so-called "Catholic Woodstock" in which hundreds of thousands of young people celebrated in Rome in Jubilee style with the Pontifex Maximus is cited in support of this belief.

It's interesting to speculate regarding the causes of these events.  It strikes me that Christianity isn't a religion that celebrates humanity or the way we live our lives.  In fact, it denigrates us.  This may the result of Augustine's charming doctrine of Original Sin, according to which we're sinful and indeed on the highway to hell from birth, if not conception, all due to Adam and Eve, who made the mistake of seeking knowledge.  According to Augustinian Christianity (Pauline as well, I think) we're to burn in hellfire unless we're saved, and saving is a matter of God's grace which is, like all other things, in his discretion, regardless of our merits and good works.  It was on this basis that the Bishop of Hippo maintained that even the great pagan philosophers and moral figures were condemned, because they did not know Christ.  They were long dead before Jesus is said to have lived, but apparently they should have been aware of Jesus and his mission nonetheless.

For believers, then, as they are induced if not compelled to think that eternal torment awaits them unless they "awaken," it's hardly surprising that they'll be eager to "awaken" when the opportunity arises.  They'll be especially eager if they have in fact been sinful not merely by association, as it were, being the spawn of Adam and Eve, but sinful by their own word, thought and deed.  Most of them have sinned as that conduct is described by Christianity, and the desperate hope they will be saved is likely to have motivated Great Awakenings in the past.

I think that the sins of others or the perception that others have sinned also contribute to these awakenings.  The sinful conduct of others has always fascinated and ideed delighted faithful Christians, who look forward to watching their neighbors roast while they sit in heaven, cherished by God.  But more than that, it seems a maxim of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity that God in his wisdom will punish humanity at large for sinful behavior.  God has famously done so by flood, but will also hurl hurricanes and tornados, incite wars, spread deadly disease, cause famine, and inflict other horrors on us all should people engage in homosexuality, for example, or legalize abortion.

It happens that there is every reason to think our society is corrupt and immoral if the conduct of our leaders, and the wealthy and the powerful of our time is any indication of our state of sinfulness.  It wouldn't surprise me if people, and particularly young people, look at the world and perceive it to be depraved, cruel and where politicians are concerned incredibly venal.  As a consequence they search for something or someone moral and admirable, which will save the world from the selfish and hateful people which dominate it.

It's unfortunate, however, that the awakening that's sought and takes place is to a system of belief which is exclusive and intolerant.  It admits of only one faith, one way of living, one way of thinking.  That's what it is believed will save those who awaken, and nothing else.  The Great Awakenings which have taken place are narrow and limited; moral conduct is not sought, nor is wisdom, or happiness.  Adherence to doctrine is what is demanded.  Nothing more.

Myth and Manipulation

 

The Siege of Masada was, and perhaps still is, a myth treasured and propagated in Israel since it's founding.  Not that the siege itself is a myth. It took place.  But the actual siege differs from the myth.

The myth states that a relatively small (about 1,000 people) group of Jews defended the fortress/palace of Masada against the mighty Roman Empire after the fall of Jerusalem during the great first Jewish revolt for about three years. Finally, when the Romans managed to breach the fortress, the Jews chose to commit suicide rather than surrender.

The myth served to inspire a new nation made up largely of people who escaped the Holocaust, many of whom believed they were entitled to rule land long lived in by others hostile to them.  They, like the ancient Jewish defenders of Masada, would fight long and courageously against great odds and, if necessary, die by their own hands rather than surrender.

If you've seen pictures of Herod's great fortress or better yet visited it, it's not difficult to believe it would take years for it to be conquered.  But modern analysis and investigation of the site using drones and advanced technology now available establish the Roman legion and auxiliary troops consisting of 6,000 to 8,000 men took the fortress in a matter of weeks.  In the time, they built camps surrounding it, a wall around it, constructed a massive ramp to its gates high above the desert and siege engines allowing for the successful assault.  Even the mass suicide is now being questioned.

So, the siege now seems more a testament to the ferocity and efficiency of the Roman army than anything else.  The myth, on the other hand, is shown to be incredible, even absurd. One who believed in it must feel silly or naive, I would think. Perhaps even feel a fool.  I would, in any case.

One who feels he's been a fool may feel he's been made a fool of; may resent those who propagated the myth.  This is a danger when a myth is used to gain an end through or advantage over others.

Modern cults are generally based on myths in the modern sense of beliefs that are untrue.  Modern cult leaders are thus dependent on untruths.  It's been proposed that the person I'll refer to here as "El Presidente" (like the leader of a banana republic) is the leader of a cult. And it does seem that he and his minions delight in the propagation of myths.  Inconvenient truths are not merely questioned.  They're not merely denied. Myths are substituted for them. 

This is the case even where numbers are concerned.,  It isn't far from firing someone whose department advises of statistics El Presidente would rather not acknowledge to claiming, as in Orwell's 1984, that 2 + 2=5, and as we've seen insisting that what's clearly true is untrue.

I hope someday those being manipulated by myths will understand they've been made fools of and react accordingly. Or they may take their place in the cult as many have already, hoping to profit from those fooled.

Uninteresting Times

 

There's nothing particularly interesting about the times we live in.  The supposed Chinese curse ("may you live in interesting times") is apparently apocryphal but also inaccurate.  It's intended to be ironic, of course. "Interesting" is to function as a condemnation. Interesting times are supposed to be bad times.

The times are bad, and in many ways.  But there's nothing interesting about them.  It would be mild to describe them as "banal" though of course they are--remarkably so, in fact, as odd as that sounds.  The people who dominate the nation and our society are common, boring, dull, greedy, ignorant, crude characters.  They're extraordinary only because they're despicable and in their brutish way capable of doing great harm.  There's nothing interesting about them.

Hannah Ahrendt wrote of the banality of evil in connection with the trial of Adolph Eichmann and the Holocaust. To simplify and summarize, her point was that Eichmann and the other perpetrators of the various atrocities committed by Nazi Germany were "normal" people; not evil geniuses or psychopaths.  Our rulers believe themselves to be entirely normal, and those who have exposed us to their rule delight in their supposed normalcy.

Perhaps normality is itself a curse. Where nothing is different or interesting and all people have the same thoughts, interests and desires, what is there to hope for or to do which hasn't been done or achieved already?  What enlivens our lives?  There is no interest in discovering or experiencing anything new.  We drown in a culture of sameness.  We fester. We rot.

It's easy enough to infer how those who are abnormal or considered different will be treated in such circumstances.  We haven't (yet) even begun to approach the level of evil achieved in the past but the normals of our time have made it clear that there will be no concern or mercy for the others who appear in their midst.  They'll be isolated or sent away, or worse.

Perhaps the curse should be:  "May you live in uninteresting times."  Beware the normal. Especially the zealously normal.

Hoisting the Black Flag

 

The "black flag" referred to by the Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, in the quote at the head of this post likely is the flag associated with piracy.  It would sometimes be adorned with a skull and bones, crossed, and be called the "Jolly Roger."  The black flag may be contrasted with the white flag which signals surrender.  Black symbolizes defiance and anger; fury and rage, in fact.  No quarter given or expected.  Violence.  Thus the reference to slitting throats.

We can take comfort in the use of the word "tempted" here.  No claim is made by Mencken that a normal person must or would or should actually slit throats.  Nor do I make any such claim.  That's something no aspiring Stoic could do.  But the times are such that a person may be tempted to hoist the Black Flag, metaphorically speaking at least.

I don't recall a time during my sadly rather lengthy lifetime (relatively speaking) when our politics and society have been so clearly corrupt.  The corruption of our politics is exacerbated by the incompetence and venality of our politicians.  Worse is the abject, cringing manner in which they carry out the commands of their paymasters and the morally if not yet physically scabrous figure lurking in White House.

If we look to humanity's long history we'll find instances in which governments have been as wretched and even more wretched than that which now abides.  But I doubt we'll be able to identify one which held the history and ideals of the nation and people it governed in contempt.  Yet that's characteristic of this government.  It flaunts it's contempt for freedom of thought and expression.  It demands that private institutions act as it deems fit; it actively hinders efforts to assist the poor and needy; it's intolerant of views which differ from those it relentlessly promotes.  In these respects and its hatred for the rule of law it's decidedly against the idea of American exceptionalism.

It's this determined effort to subvert constitutional rights and the Constitution itself that renders our so-called leaders despicable. Their smugness and self-righteousness while going about this subversion adds to the temptation referred to by Mencken.  It's difficult to believe our Great Republic has devolved so entirely, so quickly.

The Unenlightenment

 

The Enlightenment refers to the time in the intellectual history of the West from about 1700 forward which featured an emphasis on the use of reason and the methods of science in gaining knowledge.  Enlightenment thinkers are said to have believed that progress was possible in human affairs, and that certain values were universal.  The Founding Fathers of our Great Republic are generally considered men of the Enightenment.

It became the fashion starting in the 19th century to criticize the Enlightenment and the reliance on reason and science to explore the world and solve humanity's problems.  This critique became prevalent in the 20th century, the heyday of existentialism and postmodernism. It's unclear, to me at least, whether any alternative method of discovery or problem solving was ever seriously proposed by the critics.  But the First World War was thought to have demonstrated that reason was an inadequate guide, and humanity fundamentally irrational.

Attempts were made to harness scientific discoveries in the quantum world to establish the universe is disordered and makes no sense.  These discoveries were made by scientists, however, employing the methods of science. Just why these discoveries are thought to establish anything besides the fact we have much yet to learn is unclear.

Assume it's true that we're fundamentally irrational, and that the notion of continual progress through reason and science is baseless.  Assume intuition, the various forms of the so-called "Will", the Elan Vital or whatever other mysterious, unanalyzable forces you care to name play a part in our wretched lives.  It doesn't follow that reason and the scientific method have no part to play.  They may not have brought about universal peace but have been spectacularly successful in improving the quality of life and explaining how things work and what they are.  They may be misused, but remain most useful.

The Enlightment replaced a world view which relied on dogma, appeals to unquestionable authority and revelation.  Before it and setting the stage for it, the Renaissance revealed what had been achieved before the world was throttled by a narrow, intolerant and exclusive theocracy.

By abandoning the ideals of the Enlightment we're regressing. The New Dark Age dawns. The current regime appoints the equivalent of witch doctors to secure the health of the nation through fads and unfounded theories.  We embrace autocracy, being less and less inclined to think for ourselves. We're willing to accept untruths despite evidence to the contrary because they're consistent with dogma.

In a way, it's a lazy, comfortable path through life provided we're willing to accept our place and content to let our lords govern us and reap the benefits of our toil.

Homo Homini Lupus Est

 

It's interesting how appropriate Latin phrases can be.  They're succinct, and sharp.  In this case, the phrase that's the title to this post may be translated as:  "Man is a wolf to his fellow man."  It's appropriate as a description of what takes place whenever one of us has an advantage over others and seeks to exploit it, but is particularly descriptive of the current state of our Glorious Union.

Today is the Fabulous Fourth and consistent with the wish of their master his thralls in Congress have managed to adopt an enormous tax-and-spend bill bearing the silly name he wished it to bear.  As may be expected, it lavishly benefits the haves at the expense of the have-nots, and reflects the curious belief so dear to the wealthy and their minions that the nation is infested with malingerers taking advantage of social services.  It's a conceit which may serve to assuage any concern with the less fortunate a wolf may have.

The bill appropriates millions to the development of a sculpture garden to be filled with sculptures of great Americans, no doubt to be carefully selected.  It seems Disney will be our guide when it comes to expressions of patriotism.  Extravagance is characteristic of oligarchs and has been typical of very wealthy Americans, as was evident during the Gilded Age.  The New Gilded Age has begun, clearly, and it seems the gap between rich and poor now is even greater than it was in the time of the Robber Barons.

Perhaps "Alligator Alcatraz" is the best example of the lengths to which we'll go in our capacity as wolves to our fellow men.  Requiring immigrants to comply with the law is one thing on which all may agree, but the means used to accomplish this may be reasonable.  But it's not allowed to be, wolves being wolves.  

Evidence that those we're in such a frenzy to deport have engaged in criminal conduct is sadly lacking, but the urge to treat them as criminals is apparently overwhelming.  To do so in such a showy, gloating fashion is particularly unworthy.

But there's no such thing as a worthy wolf.

The Subordinate Court

Once judicial giants roamed our Great Republic.  John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand (such a fine name for a judge) and Benjamin Cardozo, to name a few.

No more, alas.  Now, their unworthy successors, especially those sitting or perhaps I should say reclining on what's still called the Supreme Court, creep abjectly among us, meek minions of the plutocrats and their chosen agent.

Their opinions reflect their submission.  When they can without appearing entirely foolish they avoid deciding the important issues which come before them addressing the powers of the presidency, taking refuge in hypertechnicalities.  In that fashion they assure that excesses are unchecked as matters proceed through the lower courts.

God knows how they'll decide when they cannot avoid making a decision.  It seems some of them, at least, believe God will guide them when that time comes.  The majority have been exuberant advocates of the demands of the religious when interpreting Constitutional rights, finding even that group prayer on the 50 yard line of the football field of a public school is private prayer.

Sanctimony characterizes certain of the Justices as well as their decisions.  One sees it in their disdain for the ethical restraints which apply to other judges. One sees it as well in their acceptance of and advocacy for the peculiar repression of sex that is used to disguise the equally peculiar fascination with it in our society.  First Amendment rights thus are disregarded in order to protect the young from exposure to the naughty conduct their parents delight in but don't want them to see.

But it's money, of course, that's paramount in the Court as it is in all our institutions. So we have one Justice, at least, complaining that he's not being paid enough for the 9 months a year he must work, and more than one of them mooching off the wealthy who seek to influence them and are the primary beneficiaries of most of their decisions.

Lifetime appointments are supposed to render the judiciary independent.  But appointments now are entirely political.  Competence is no more a concern for judges than it is for cabinet members.  Lifetime appointments of dwarves instead of giants is no benefit to the nation.

Will We Become Dumber As AI Becomes Smarter?

 

The answer to the question posed in the title to this post may already be clear.  If being gullible, incoherent, irrational, shallow, emotive, narrow-minded, bigoted and ignorant is characteristic of low intelligence, we've been growing dumber for years, even during the infancy of AI.  But we will grow less and less able or willing to think because AI will make thinking less and less attractive or necessary.

It seems clear that AI serves as a substitute for thinking already in our schools, even in institutions of so called "higher learning."  Recourse is had to it for the purpose of writing essays or reports and answering questions posed. Presumably, teachers will learn to recognize work performed by AI; or at least works written by AI.  I assume the research required for students to complete their assignments is already being done by it. Why read anything beyond the summaries of novels and historical events provided by Wikipedia?

I think it's inevitable that, because of the availabilty of AI, we will stop learning as that term is currently defined.  There's no need to learn or remember facts or dates or events which may be determined quickly by access to a computer. Nor is there any need to interpret or analyze events or facts.  AI can do that for us as well. 

If we lack the need to think, we won't think.  If we don't think, we won't question nor will we criticize.  This seems to me to be what's most to be feared from our continuing reliance on AI.  That, and the fact that our growing tendency to cease thinking will surely result in our unquestioning acceptance of what AI does.

An episode of John Oliver's The Late Show addressing "AI slop" provided several examples of fabricated events and "news stories" which, through use of AI, gave the impression that actual information was being communicated.  In the examples given, the misinformation provided touted achievements of the current regime and right-wing fantasies which haven't taken place.  Nonetheless, comments made by those viewing the fabrications established they believed them to be true.  Fabrication, even extreme fabrication, being characteristic of the current regime in any case, I suppose this is in a way unsurprising.

Of course, AI may be used to provide, convincingly,  left-wing fabrications as well.

It would take an effort to determine whether such fabrications are true or not.  But more and more we seem uninterested in making such an effort.  That would require that we question appearances...in other words, that we think.

Gradually, or perhaps not so gradually, through our use of and reliance on AI we may forget how to do so.

Regarding the Obviously Untrue

 

Lying is something at which politicians have always excelled.  But the falsehoods now generated by the political class of the nation (especially those of the current regime, its lackeys and its facilitators) have a special quality. They're so obviously untrue that it's unclear whether they should be considered lies, properly speaking.

Typically, a lie is intended to deceive.  But when a statement is clearly false, and no thinking person--including the person making the statement--could think otherwise, how could deceit even be expected?

There's something else involved in the making of such statements.  Otherwise they would not be made by any self-respecting individual.

It may be that the person making the obviously untrue statement simply doesn't think; not really.  No thinking person would maintain, for example, that a tornado devastated a town when no such thing took place--there was no tornado, nor did the town exist.  Such a person may be unable to think for one reason or another (insanity, developmental disability, etc.).  Or, such a person, conceivably, may refuse to think.

Alternatively, a person making an obviously untrue statement may make it assuming that those learning of the statement themselves don't think, as they are unable or unwilling to do so.  Thus, no shame or blame would accrue to the claimant.  In that case the obvious untruth may even be believed. 

Possibly, the clearly false claim may be made with no expectation that it will be believed.  As a kind of joke, perhaps. 

Another possibility is that the falsehood in that case would be an article or expression of faith.  In that event it wouldn't be expected that there would be any factual basis for the statement.  Instead, the expectation would be that the claim is completely unfounded.  If one's faith or religion provides that a tornado devastated a town, the absence of any evidence of the tornado or the town isn't a consideration or concern.  The fervent believer would make the untrue claims and repeat them gladly no matter how baseless they are in fact.

I doubt that the obviously untrue claims being made (e.g. those regarding such things as crowd size, assassination of Democrats by Marxists, the need for use of the military in U.S. cities) are intended as jokes, if only because those making them are so evidently devoid of wit.  I'm willing to believe that they've not certifiably insane.  

I don't doubt they feel that those they hope learn of their misstatements are unable or unwilling to think, as their contempt for most of humanity is apparent as is their juvenile cruelty.  But I'm inclined to think that their assertions that what is obviously untrue is true nonetheless are expressions of something similar to religious beliefs which they believe need not have any basis in fact. That's always been a source of comfort to those who find thinking difficult or inconvenient.

What is Truth?

 

This is supposedly the question of the man we call Pontius Pilate:  Quid est Veritas?  According to Francis Bacon "jesting Pilate" asked this question but "did not stay for an answer."  According to the Gospel of John, Pilate was responding to Jesus' claim that he (Jesus) was a witness to the truth.  

If Pilate asked this question, I doubt he was jesting.  I think it's more likely that that he was noting that Jesus was brought before him because there clearly was a disagreement regarding what the truth was, and whether he was witness to it.  Truth is disputed all the time, particularly when it's believed that what is true neither has been nor should be determined through intelligent investigation and inquiry, but is instead revealed or is as claimed by an authority figure.

Those with such a narrow, limited conception of "truth" are inclined to be irrationally sensitive to criticism and can even be enraged if contradicted.  They can't tolerate being challenged or worse yet expected to explain or justify what they believe.  Resentment or outrage is characteristic of the true believer when questioned. The more preposterous the "truth" believed, the greater the resentment and outrage.

As a result, they can react violently to dissent.  Their response is excessive. They're blind to the consequences of their outrage.  In fact, consequences aren't significant according to their peculiar logic.  Those who disagree deserve to suffer because they disagree.

If Pilate asked what it's claimed he asked and did so in the circumstances it's claimed took place, then perhaps the question wasn't a quip or an expression of futile relativism in the face of what is absolutely true.  It may instead have been an acknowledgement of the fact that when there is a dispute judgment is required.  We must ask what is true, and make a determination.

We make no judgment, certainly not an informed or intelligent one, when we fail to ask what is true in attempting to define let alone resolve a dispute.

The High and Mighty and Moralism

 

We live, if we continue living, in a time when all those we encounter in politics, in the arts, in the media (including social media) are arrogant, excessively and vigorously proud of themselves, and relentlessly self-important. Those we must listen to, if we choose to listen, or see if we choose to see, or whose words we read if we wish to read, are spectacularly full of themselves.  I say "if" in the hope that we may ignore these creatures if we try very hard to do so, with some success.

Regrettably the high and mighty who torment us generally lack any knowledge or wit or intelligence which would justify their vast self-regard, nor do they think any justification is needed for it. It's even more regrettable, though, that such remarkable and even delusional belief in their own significance is combined with a tendency to moralize.

With respect to politicians and their minions, their corruption and cupidity is such that it's absurd for them to make any moral judgments or claims.  But given the extent of their self-love it may be inevitable that they do just that.  Still, their moralizing is insufferable.

Generally, they moralize in an effort to retain their place and position and to facilitate their quest for infinite money.  They also do so to render those they rule over docile and willing to accept their exploitation.

The high and mighty in the media and the arts, on the other hand, seem to moralize primarily to instruct those of us they think are unelightened but nonetheless able to be educated, or if unable or unwilling to be educated may be compelled to be enlightened.  

As I've remarked before regarding what I've called the "Missionary Media" its moralizing often takes the form of insertions into narratives of plot and expositive devices.   These devices exemplify relationships and characters which are contrary to traditional norms but are considered by the inserters to be appropriate and even desirable.

Unfortunately, this kind of moralizing has in many cases taken place by in effect rewriting existing works to suit the purposes of the enlightened.  New characters may be introduced; known characters may be strangely changed. Some part of an existing portion of a story may be altered ; some events may be added.  In this fashion claims are made contrary to the various "isms" the enlightened maintain plague humanity and they are displayed to be condemned, all for the good of the unenlighted.

This procedure is often clumsy and heavy-handed, and can anger those who are fans of the original works despite their flaws, which too often are the result of the fact that they were made in the past by people insufficiently enlightened and ignorant.  Moralizing by refurbishing past works is annoying and condescending.

Media and art have always been used as propaganda, but moralizing is especially disturbing and offensive when it involves the deliberate alteration of beloved stories, or of history, or by defying common sense and through contrivance which lacks all credibility.  The movie Conclave, which I've seen, and the book on which it's based, which I haven't read, are examples of moralizing which fails and is unsatisfactory because the narrative and plot devices employed to make the desired moral points lack credibility.

The film was interesting and well made but ended with election to the papacy of an unknown man suddenly made Cardinal just before the death of the pontiff to be replaced, who it is discovered has both male and female sexual organs.  That discovery was made after his election, and is known only to a few.  As far as I can see, the election of this unknown takes place only because he makes what is in the movie an unremarkable and rather trite speech about the horrors of war and conflict (he was archbishop of Kabul--I don't know whether such a diocese actually exists). He had the opportunity, apparently, to have surgery to become entirely male (biologically) but decided not to go under the knife. 

I don't know if more of the Cardinals become aware of this, but he duly becomes Pope and all is well.  Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter what sexual organs one has ...etc. 

Thus the moral point is made, but through a rather bewildering and incredible plot twist.  I have no real problem with this point, but think that the election of an unknown person to the papacy in such circumstances just wouldn't occur, no matter what sexual organs he/she/they had. Moralizing by use of an absurd contrivance has no effect. It just seems silly. Indeed, I think it insults the intelligence of the viewers

The moralists in this case tried much too hard.

Quo Vadimus?

To a certain extent, where we as a nation are going can be determined by the goals of our putative leaders.

Watching accounts of the Mideast trip was like watching a child accompanied by a host of attendants on his first trip to Disney World.  Exclamations of wonder at the (opulent) sights and expectation of gifts from those displaying them to his admiring eyes.  The expectation was satisfied.

Each day brings something unexpected.  We're fated to live in interesting times.  A person who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution says he doesn't know if he must uphold it.   The Director of Homeland Security doesn't know what habeas corpus means; indeed, she thinks it means something quite different--deportation without due process.

Such an absurdity would be amusing in other circumstances, but in these circumstances can only be indicative of a stunning level of ignorance.  The carefully planned humiliation of a head of state by the increasingly haggard-looking head of our own through use of contrived props does nothing more than induce distrust of us, already at a high level given the contempt being shown for former friends and allies. Who will be willing to accept an invitation to the White House, knowing that they may be ambushed as part of a self-serving stunt?

The nation's air traffic control system is failing.  It has been all but admitted that the tariffs being imposed will cost Americans and American businesses as businesses are being told to eat the resulting costs, reducing their profits rather than increasing prices. The efforts being made to return our economy to what it was 70 years ago continue.  Threats and litigation aimed at chilling First Amendment rights across the board proliferate. The Secretary of Defense has commenced holding monthly Christian prayer services at the Pentagon--what better place is there for those calling themselves Christian to pray?

Sometimes I wonder if this cavalcade of grotesqueries is brought not according to a plan but due to a tendency to react on mere whimsy, without thought but in eager pursuit of vaguely defined goals disregarding all consequences. That would explain the errors made in culling agencies of staff and cutting benefits, and the ad hoc grants of exceptions to tariffs and economic policies. Those in thrall to those setting the goals vie with each other in pursuit of them, seeking the favor of their master. Who is best at chest- pounding displays and sychophancy? The fact that most of those appointed to positions of power in the regime are unqualified may also explain errors made in implementing draconian measures.

But it seems that the ends in view are fairly clear.  The ultimate goal seems to be to benefit the very wealthy at the expense of others, and that has been at least one of the goals of our government for many years.  Now, though, the benefit sought isn't merely monetary.  The desires of the very wealthy for a docile, largely ignorant, unambitious, predictable, easily-led populace are to be satisfied as well.

Regarding "Practical Atheism"

 

The new Pontifex Maximus mentioned something called "practical atheism" in the first homily he delivered in that capacity.  Practical atheism is usually defined as an acceptance of God's existence but disregard of it in daily life.

Leo XIV, however, perhaps unsurprisingly, put a peculiarly Christian spin on the concept.  According to the pontiff a practical atheist believes Jesus to be a charismatic leader or superman, not God.

I don't think that makes much sense.  A theist need not be a Christian for one thing, and so need not even believe Jesus existed.  The pontiff displays the haughty exclusivity of Christianity, i.e. the belief that there is no other God but Christ or rather the triune deity of Nicean orthodoxy.  That makes anyone who isn't Christian an atheist.

Also, a practical atheist as usually defined need not substitute technology or science or pleasure or anything else for God in daily life as it seems Leo thinks must be the case.  In fact, a highly moral life is the goal of adherents of ancient pagan philosophy in the West and others in the East such as Buddhists and Taoists. 

Simply put, belief in the personal God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam isn't a necessary condition of a virtuous life.  So, what are called "Judeo-Christian values" for example, while they may be characteristic of Judaism and Christianity, aren't exclusive to them.  They arose in other philosophical traditions and some were even borrowed from them.

The Pope is an Augustinian, and Augustine the Bishop of Hippo was adamant that those who weren't Christian weren't entitled to salvation even though they couldn't know of Jesus, having lived and died before he appeared on Earth.  So, for example, Plato, Aristotle and others who extolled virtue centuries before the birth of Jesus is said to have taken place are condemned in the harsh judgment of the man to whom we owe the harsh concept of Original Sin.

So, the new Pope may be said to be a follower of the man for whom his order is named based on this homily. But his apparent devotion to social justice and relief of the poor may serve to make him an admirable pontiff nonetheless.

Worker Drones of America Unite!

 

We hear from members of the bizarre coterie appointed to implement the schemes of our plutocracy that they have a vision of our future. Our Glorious Union is to be transformed into what it's believed to have been like during the Eisenhower administration, in the sense that the great majority of adults will be employed in factories. Eventually, their children and grandchildren will take their jobs in the same factories. Thus our future will be our past, ideally. And it's believed that the worker drones we'll become will relish our narrow, unvarying lives.

I think only those who never worked in factories could believe that we all should do so--that living our lives as factory workers is what's appropriate for us and what we should desire.  I've worked in factories, if only during summers while a student, and while there's nothing degrading about such work, which is good and honest, it can be dull and predictable, physically demanding and sometimes dirty; sometimes even dangerous.  

What kind of person would think that most of us should be employed in relatively menial jobs and expect that our children and grandchildren will do the same?  Who would maintain that we should hope for nothing more for ourselves and our descendants?

It's a kind of romantic fantasy of the rich.  It's at once condescending and self-serving on their part. Nothing would better serve their interests than to have a nation of drones working on assembly lines manufacturing products for their enjoyment and use.  It must be comforting to imagine that the drones will be better off for their exploitation.

Does the fantasy include more than this, though? I suspect it includes the belief that the drones would be docile, socially and politically.  They would be as characters in the sitcoms popular in the 1950s and early to mid 1960s.  Adults would work hard at their unchanging jobs and live their unchanging lives, without ambition or hope for more. They would have no unsettling expectations.  Kids would be concerned with harmless (and orthodox) sex and sports and food and consumer goods.

This is the American dream of the plutocrats; it's what they dream for us.

Wishing for Wish Fulfillment

 

When I was a wee lad, a youngster, I was tremendously fond of comic books. I'm not sure they still exist, except perhaps as collectors' items.  They were in paper form, you see. I suspect that if they do still exist as something not treasured by collectors, they're referred to by the more dignified name "graphic novels."

Superheroes abounded in comic books. They were good for the most part, and did good works, unless they were induced to be evil by some ingenious villian or cosmic event. Most of the comic book heroes are with us still, but now appear on movie or television screens or computer monitors, etc. However, they're revealed sometimes to be, or are joined by, anti-heroes who are just as super but less good, or are tormented or sad or depressed, times being what they are.

The comic books of my younger days were read by kids; children and perhaps teenagers. Few if any adults could be found perusing them.  Normally, one "grew out of them."  Now, though, adults flock to movies featuring a variety of superheroes or watch them on streaming services or otherwise.

There's something peculiar about adults indulging in juvenile fantasies of possessing super strength or other super powers, performing heroic acts while demolishing buildings or cities, vanquishing evildoers or enemies. Something disturbing, in fact. Imagine adults eagerly reading comic books about the exploits of Superman, Batman, Flash, Thor, Ironman, etc.  Then imagine they're your friends, coworkers, neighbors, police officers, doctors, soldiers...anyone.

It doesn't inspire confidence in them.  It's understandable to seek entertainment and escapism is a form of it.  But I think it's a cause for concern when our entertainment drastically departs from reality. The more it does so, the more it reflects a dissatisfaction with the world and frustration at being unable to change it.

It's also a cause for concern that the entertainment we cherish is essentially childish.  We won't become superheroes and they won't come to save us. We know this, but it pleases us to pretend.  We even have regular gatherings where we dress up as our heroes, and those who pretend to be them professionally appear to be admired. It's a kind of moveable Halloween party.

Harmless fun, perhaps.  But dreaming of them is a kind of admission of our inability to cope without the benefit of dreams.  It's an implied acceptance of our place.  We seem to, and probably wish to, prolong our childhood.

In past years of war and economic depression we enjoyed fantasies of being rich or heroic played out in movie theaters or on TV, but we didn't dress up as the characters in those fantasies and attend conventions at which they're celebrated. 

Perhaps we've always been inclined to fantasy and masquerade, and now merely have more opportunity to indulge that inclination.  But there may be something dangerously inherent in our society or nation that causes us to be particularly eager to live in an imagined world and ignore the all-too-real one that we encounter on a daily basis.

Intimations of Mortality

 

I'm not a great fan of Wordsworth or any of the Romantic poets. His work strikes me as sappy. Whenever I think of him, I think of Bullwinkle reciting his poem about daffodils, wandering lonely as a cloud. Nevertheless I base the title of this post on the title of his poem Intimations of Immortality, substituting "mortality" for "immortality" as the former, not the latter, is on my mind.

You'd think it wouldn't be a difficult thing for us to understand that we're mortal, i.e. that we will die.  It should be obvious, and intimations therefore inappropriate or unnecessary. But we contrive to avoid thinking of it, at least, most of the time and sometimes for years. The intimations arise with age, though.  Your body gives you little reminders; sometimes big ones. Arthritis, for example; problems with eyesight, weight,  balance. Innumerable weaknesses as the organism gradually dissipates.

But we should think of it and not only when we're reminded of it's approach or are suddenly confronted with it one way or another, through the death of someone we know, for example.  So we're told by the ancient philosophers, especially the Stoics, and by their subsequent imitators.

Memento mori: remember you are mortal, and will die.  Supposedly these words or others like them were spoken in the ear of a Roman general granted a triumph by a slave riding with him in a chariot as the spoils of his victory were paraded before him.  Glory is fleeting, fame and prosperity ephemeral. In short, live as if you'll die tomorrow. Understand that those you love or value will die, leaving you alone. This is a form of Stoic practice as we see in the Roman Stoics in particular.

Such thoughts necessarily quash our self-regard and self-importance. They do the same with other "selfs" as well, like self-righteousness and self-love and selfishness in general. As Horace told us, we are but dust and shadows, no matter how much we believe we're important, significant, powerful and worthy.  It's absurd for us to expect or demand loyalty or love or obedience from others.

Sadly, past and present meglomaniacs disregard their insignificance and fail or fear to recognize their mortality.  They don't think they will die. Perhaps we may take comfort in knowing that they will, eventually.

The Misery Of The Sycophant

 

If we are to believe Suetonius, Gaius Caesar, better known as Caligua, was responsible for various atrocities and absurdities but was lavishly praised by those who served him and were under his dominion, including Senators, though they were fully aware of his malice, cruelty, and even madness.  They knew he was ruining the Roman state but extravagantly praised him and facilitated his sometimes deadly caprices for self- serving reasons--sometimes to curry favor, sometimes to remain alive and unmolested.

They were sycophants, in other words.  Eventually, certain Praetoreans assassinated Caligula, saving the wealthy nobility of Rome from further humiliation (which they accepted and even celebrated) at his hands.

Sycophants flourish whenever and wherever there are persons of great wealth or who have great power.  History is full of them.  More recently, sycophants abounded during the reigns of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and abound now in North Korea where Kim Jon Un has his worshipers, willing or unwilling.

We have our sycophants today, of course. They fall over each other in their eagerness to acclaim the person they serve.

As a rule, sycophants know those they praise and flatter so assiduously are unworthy of adulation. They may even hold them in contempt.  They may be aware that those they call a genius, or claim to be a savior, or contend are the finest (insert title) ever, are in fact fools or maniacs or the worst (insert title) in history. This doesn't matter, however.  Whether due to fear or in pursuit of personal wealth or power, they will laugh at jokes made, compete in efforts at adoration, though all the time loathing those they hail as gifts God has granted the human race.

Sycophants therefore are contemptible themselves.  But do they deserve pity as well? Imagine the shame today's sychophants must feel for debasing themselves, what little self-esteem they must have. Their excessive accolades are embarrassing. Will they eventually acknowledge their degradation? Or will they, in an unconscious effort to to avoid self-loathing, come to convince themselves that their ridiculous, shameless pandering was right and proper?  We must wait and see.

No Sense of Decency

 

"Decency" is a word which seems to have a fairly broad definition.  It seems associated for the most part with propriety; conduct which conforms to what is considered proper, generally in a moral sense.  Those without decency act in such a manner as to call into question their worth or quality as acceptable members of society.  Someone with no sense of decency acts dishonorably, and fails to conform to standards people are expected to meet in their dealings with others.

A famous example of the use of the word is what took place in the course of hearings involving the infamous Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin, known as the Army-McCarthy hearings.  These addressed McCarthy's claims that the army was filled with Communists.

Joseph Welch was the lawyer for the army.  During one of the hearings McCarthy revealed that a young member of Welch's staff once signed a petition supportive of the Communist Party.  There was apparently no claim he joined the party at any time, but McCarthy made the statement in an effort to assert that the staffer and others defending the army, including Welch himself, had Communist sympathies.

Being associated with the Communist Party in those times could ruin a career or even life. Welch famously chastised McCarthy in response, accusing him of character assassination of the staffer for no good reason and asking "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" It was a dramatic moment, and it's considered that this response triggered the decline in McCarthy's popularity and influence.

As a result of this moment, which was made during a televised hearing and was widely replayed, McCarthy was thought by many to have acted improperly, in a dishonorable manner; to have been unjust and cruel in an effort to score a trivial point. He acted indecently. 

I'm uncertain whether something similar could take place now. Certainly if it did now all would know of it and would see it almost instantly, but I don't think it would have the same impact.  That's because I feel many of us, and most and perhaps all of those who currently dominate and influence our plutocracy, have no sense of decency.  As a consequence, they can't be shamed as others were in the past.

What we see enacted now is being done not merely without thought but as if considerations of justice and honesty are no longer of any importance.  There are no standards which apply, or at least no standards which those in power believe people think should be met.  Moral conduct, and in particular honorable conduct, is neither expected nor thought to be admirable in these sad times.  It is only important that a policy or agenda is advanced, or what is desired is acquired, without incurring a loss.

We may have become an indecent society, or nation, or civilization.

Some Unexpected Uses Of AI

 

There's much concern over the potential of Artificial Intelligence. To a certain extent this is understandable. But one possible benefit which hasn't been recognized, to my knowledge, would result from the use of AI in our news media to replace the humans who relate and interpret the news of the day, endlessly.

I think that ideally, news would consist merely of statements describing events that take place, with explanation as needed, but without comment or interpretation. For example, we would be informed that certain legislation is pending, was voted on and the result of the voting.  Instead of being shown the tiresome entirety of a speech or press conference, the bulk of which would consist of self-serving and predictable rhetoric, we would be advised that they took place and the subjects addressed.  Our technology is such that those few who want to hear and see the speech or press conference itself would have the option to do so.

As it is, comment and interpretation are virtually all that is provided. People appear who are asked questions about what takes place and opine on them. What they opine may be anticipated with considerable accuracy based on what network is being watched. 

Each network has its own stable of experts who expound talking points and opinions which mirror those of the owners and watchers of the networks and those politicians they support. The display of experts and pundits to recite predictable opinions or speculate along particular lines seems to be a universal practice.

As an option for those who wouldn't be satisfied by a simple description of events, generated figures could be used which would, by generated audio, pontificate or speculate regarding events as would be expected given the idealogy accepted by the network and its typical viewers. I suspect it would be a relatively simple matter to provide AI with information regarding most politicians and their interests and activities and the types of actions and occurrences taking or to take place which would result in the kind of opinions, interpretations and speculations viewers would expect  and accept which would be at least as enlightening as those now being provided by the people used for this purpose.

It's true that jobs may be lost, but I doubt anything else will be.  Since these news networks seem to thrive in their current form, it appears people won't stop watching them as I've tried to do.  As we must bear with them let's at least acknowledge their inanity in this manner

"The Horror! The Horror!"

 

These are the words of Kurtz, the hugely successful, mysterious and and seemingly evil ivory trader that is the central figure in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, spoken on his deathbed. They're overheard by Marlowe, the narrator, who has spent much time and effort on behalf of a Belgian company traversing part of Africa to find Kurtz, who is said to have "gone native."

The story was not very subtly transplanted to Southeast Asia at the time of the Vietnam War in the movie Apocalypse Now.  In the movie, the character of  Kurtz becomes a very large American Colonel, played by Marlon Brando, who has gone rogue.

Just what the words "the horror" refers to is a matter of some dispute. In the novella, the reference to a Belgian company indicates that Kurtz has set up his kingdom of sorts in the Belgian Congo. The Belgians were notoriously brutal in their treatment of the people inhabiting their colony. "The horror" may refer to that brutality and the death and destruction it caused; it may refer to Africa and Africans, and their allegedly evil  effect on Europeans; it may refer to the lives and conduct of Europeans in their colonies as they raped and plundered Africans and the land of Africa.

Generally, though, it's thought to refer to imperialism's corruption of both imperialists and their subjects/victims.

It's a corruption to be expected in those who desire things not in their control, as the Stoics would put it.  In this case the desire is for other places and people.  More specifically the desire is to exploit other places and people, and do whatever is necessary to do so.  Those with those desires who pursue them are incapable of virtue.  They're instead cruel and brutal, and have no concern for or interest in those they harm.

This has a familiar ring.  The 21st century is not that different from the 19th century; at least, people who have such desires and act on them are much the same in any period.

One of the things I find admirable about Stoicism is that its prescription for happiness and standard for ethical conduct is simple and persuasive.  Most all our problems result from the pursuit of or aversion to things beyond our control.  This causes anger, envy, hatred, lust, conflict, fear-- essentially every cause of misconduct.

Non Mea Culpa

 

Catholics of a certain age (like me) said aloud, each Sunday, the Latin words "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" while reciting the Confiteor.  That was a confession of our many sins we were all required to make not only to God, but to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Michael the Archangel, John the Baptist, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, all the saints and, if memory serves, most everybody else.  Each of us repeated that those sins were committed through our fault.  So, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" which translates as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault."

While saying these words, we would beat or rap on our chests with our fists. The Confiteor was intended to be a humble acknowledgement of our failings and errors and admission that we were responsible for them.

It is yet another example of Catholicism's odd celebration of our sinful nature. But it's also, more positively, an example of moral courage and integrity.  The devil and his angels aren't blamed for our wrongs and mistakes, nor are other people.  To use a modern phrase I think is suspect, we "own" our sins.  We don't seek to describe them as trivial; we don't argue that they're sins everyone commits, and therefore are insignificant and we shouldn't be singled out for criticism; we don't misrepresent them for self-serving reasons; we don't claim that we're unfairly treated when asked to account for them.

In other words, we're not miserable, cowardly, hypocritical, weak, shifty weasels. Instead, we're honorable people, who have the courage to admit fault and the character to do better.

In what's being called "Signalgate" weasels abound. Perhaps they follow the example of their chief, who is never willing to acknowledge fault. But it's particularly difficult to avoid blame when a mistake has been admitted and the mistake is evidently one no knowledgeable person would have made and could have had serious consequences.  Seeking to avoid blame in those circumstances and becoming increasingly shrill in doing so merely make one appear cowardly, contemptible and untrustworthy.

Those who lack moral courage are likely to be cruel. They're also likely to be crass and juvenile.  We see these traits in the Group Chat in question but also in the conduct of this regime and the content of its self-righteous communications.

Money Makes the Words Go Away

 

We know from the movie Cabaret that money makes the world go around. Randy Newman has told us that it's money that matters (in the U.S.A.).  Recent events make it clear that money, also, makes words go away.

In particular, it does so with respect to words which the First Felon finds offensive.  By withholding federal funds, or threatening to do so, he compels institutions of higher learning to make certain that certain words won't be used by their students or faculty or on their campuses.  By "soliciting" huge donations from large law firms by use of threats to diminish or eliminate their access to government contracts and information, he in effect pardons them for conduct and expression contrary to his pursuits and induces them to agree not to express positions he dislikes in the future. Through the efforts of his plutocrat ally or perhaps crush, money is to be paid to those who agree to sign a petition which discourages voting for a particular candidate for a position on a state supreme court.

As a result, the government of a nation supposedly devoted to freedom of speech devolves into a racket for spending and being paid money in order to limit speech.  It's appropriate that our nation's government acts to limit our freedom in such a crude fashion, through racketeering, as crudity is characteristic of this regime and its facilitators and lackeys.

Our Great Republic's increasingly suspect Supreme Court facilitated, if it didn't cause, this kind of corruption when it equated the use of money to influence voting and government policy to speech protected by the First Amenment in the Citizens United case.  That decision virtually assured that our government would be corrupted by money. Our plutoctacy may owe its existence to the Justices of the Supreme Court, some of whom have revealed themselves to be unusually venal.

What hope is there that such a court will prohibit the use of money to limit free speech when it already has decided the use of money is itself a form of protected speech?