MRGA

Make Russia Great Again: Conservative, white, Christian, low levels of immigration, despotic ... what's not to love about Russia?

It would be unbelievable if it weren't true. The Republican party, which conducted the Red Scare of the 50's, and stood up for democracy, political conservatism, apple pie, patriotism, and militarism around the world, now stands for something quite different. A combination of hatreds- for Democrats, for immigrants, and, seemingly, for personal freedom- seems to have sent the Trumpy ecosystem into a very weird place, where Russia is good, autocracy is strength, and American democracy is weakness. What are real patriots to do?

Republicans in congress sure look like they are selling out Ukraine. After linking aid to southern border fixes, they realized that the fixes were going to be politically beneficial to Democrats, as would the Ukraine aid, so both were scuttled. The newest proposal appears to cut Ukraine aid, and not accept the Senate bill, but that is also stalled. We are, at best, in for a long negotiation, all furthering the interests of making Russia great again. And Trump himself was not shy about putting it all in words, declaring Putin's invasion of Ukraine "smart", and inviting invasion of more NATO countries.

This policy is, in essence, throwing away the whole post-war order and rationale for American power, stretching across our innumerable alliances from Europe to Japan. It is unimaginable to any serious student of American power and the last hundred years. But here we are, serving the interests of our enemies in the most blatant ways. Russia, needless to say, is not our friend. Could have been our friend, in the post-Cold War period, but Russia ended up under the thumb of Putin, whose hatred of the West appears foundational to his political success, and even more, to his KGB heart. 

What is the deeper thread behind this craziness? I think it goes back to the culture war. Republicans have decisively lost the overall culture war in America. Gay marriage is here to stay, diversity is mainstream, and even abortion is, after the overturning of Roe, a huge loser for Republicans. They are souring on America in a fundamental way, and looking elsewhere for inspiration. Like Nazi Germany, Hungary, and Russia. At least that is the way it looks and the way they, and especially Trump, talk. And with enough money and propaganda behind them, Republicans can to some extent buck the math and the good will of contemporary American democracy. The question is- how far? The last presidential election was razor-thin, but still, not a great indication that this strategy is going to be broadly popular, and recent elections have shown even worse results. 

In addition to straining to help Russia, this movement is doing anything but making America great again. Our friendships around the world are in tatters, with everyone nervously eyeing the next election. Republicans stand firmly behind making a sociopathic dolt president, for a second time. And their Supreme Court is authoring a new epoch of medieval jurisprudence. This is how empires crumble, when powerful factions decide that their hold on power is more important than the law, more important than petty democracy, more important than peace and stability, more important than truth, and that a little insurrection or civil war might not be such a bad way to force their views down everyone else's throats. When backed by oodles of money, shamelessness, and a relentless propaganda bullhorn, it is, needless to say, highly combustible.

• When people feel powerless.
• Oh, those innocent days.
• Platitude.
• Want to die in the arms of a corporation?
• Hunter Biden Hunter Biden Hunter Biden.
• Plastic is trash.
• Economic effects of the war in Russia.

A New Form of Life is Discovered

An extremely short RNA is infectious and prevalent in the human microbiome.

While the last century might be called the DNA century, at least for molecular biology, the current century might be called that of RNA. A blizzard of new RNA types and potentials have been discovered in the normal eukaryotic milieu, including miRNA, eRNA, lincRNA. An RNA virus caused a pandemic, which was remedied by an RNA vaccine. Nobel prizes have been handed out in these fields, and we are also increasingly aware that RNA lies at the origin of life itself, as the first genetic and catalytic mechanism.

One of these Nobel prize winners recently undertook a hunt for small RNAs that might be lurking in the human microbiome- the soup of bacteria, fungi, and all the combined products that cover our surfaces, inside and out. What they found was astonishing- an RNA of merely 1164 nucleotides, which folds up into a rigid, linear rod, which they call "obelisks". This is not a product of the host genome, nor of any other known organism, but is rather some kind of extremely minimal pathogen that, like a transposon or self-splicing intron, is entirely nucleic-acid based. And the more they hunted, the more they found, ultimately finding thousands of obelisk-like entities hidden in the many databases of the world drawn from various environmental and microbiome samples. There is some precedent for this kind of structure, in the form of hepatitis D. This "viroid" of only 1682 nucleotides is a parasite of hepatitis B virus, depending on that virus for key replication functions. While normal viruses (like hepatitis B) encode many key functions of their own, like envelope proteins, genome packaging proteins, and replication enzymes, viroids tend to not encode anything, though hepatitis D does encode one antigenic protein, which exacerbates hepatitis B infections.

The obelisk RNA viroid-like species appear to encode one or two proteins, and possibly a ribozyme as well. The functions of all these are as yet unknown, but necessarily the RNAs rely entirely some host cell (currently unknown) functions to do their thing, such as the RNA polymerase to create copies of itself. Unknown also is whether they are dependent on other viruses, or only on cells for their propagation. Being just discovered, the researchers can do a great deal of bioinformatics, such as predicting the structure of the encoded protein, and the structure of the RNA genome. But key biology, like how they interact with host cells, what functions the host provides, and how they replicate, not to mention possible pathogenic consequences, remain unknown.

The highly self-complementary structure of one obelisk RNA sequence, leading to its identification and naming. In green is one reading frame, which codes for the main protein, of unknown function.

The curious thing about these new obelisk viroid-like RNAs is that, while common in human microbiomes, both oral and gut-derived, they are found only in 5-10% of them, not in all samples. This sort of suggests that they may account for some of the variability traceable to microbiomes, such as autoimmune issues, chronic ailments, nutritional variations, even effects on mood, etc.

Once a lot of databases were searched, obelisk RNAs turn up everywhere, even in some bacteria.

This work was done entirely in silico. Not a single wet-lab experiment was performed. It is a testament to the power of having alot of genomes at our disposal, and of modern computational firepower. This lab just had the idea that novel small viroid-like RNAs might exhibit certain types of (circular, self-complementary) structure, which led to this discovery of a novel form of "life". Are these RNAs alive? Certainly not. They are mere molecules and parasites that feed off, and transport themselves between, more fully functional cells. But they are part of the tapestry of life, which itself is wholly molecular, with many amazing emergent properties. Whether these obelisks turn out to have any medical or ecological significance, they are one more example of the lengths (and shorts) to which Darwinian selection has gone in the struggle for existence. 

• Want to become a rabbi?
• Hey, what happened to reading?
• Is hell other people?

How the Supreme Court Should Rule in the Colorado Ballot Case

There is one path forward that can salvage the court's standing.

The US Supreme Court is sinking to unusual depths of corruption and illegitimacy. Bush v. Gore was a step down in its ability to manage the rules of our political and legal system, where it made a hasty and, it claimed, one-time-only carve-out for its favored candidate, leading to almost a decade of tragically bad policy and poor government. Then came Citizens United, another step downward, opening firehoses of secret money from the wealthy, using the fig leaf of "free speech" to cover the corruption of politics with money. Then came the overturning of Roe, deeming women unworthy of rights that are far more basic and intimate than those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And most recently have come the drumbeat of reports of corruption among the right-wing justices, who appear to regard themselves as too dignified to abide by the laws and norms they hold others to.

Now it is faced with a case that tests the very core of the court's abitlity to do its job. What does the constitution mean? Does the fourteenth amendment mean what it says, and if so, should it be enforced? A great deal of commentary suggests, probably correctly, that this court is desperately looking for a way out of this legal conundrum that allows it to do nothing and avoid overturning any apple carts. That would not, however, be a wise course. 

To recap, the Colorado case was brought by voters who sought to bar Donald Trump from the Colorado primary and general election ballots, due to his participation in the insurrection of January 6, 2021. The fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution bars such participants from federal and state offices. The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately agreed, sending the case to the US Supreme Court. The congressional report on the January 6 events makes the record of those events quite clear. It uses the word "insurrection" several times, as do many of its sources, and it is crystal clear about the participation by and culpability of Donald Trump in those events. 

The question is really about how the Constitutional provision should be brought into execution, being worded without a lot of explicit legal structure. One thing it does say is that congress can relieve its prohibition in individual cases by two-thirds votes of each house. But it leaves unsaid who should adjudicate the question of fitness for office, as is also the case for the more basic qualifications such as age and citizenship. Trump had previously, and ironically, dabbled in these same legal waters by casting doubt on the citizenship of Barack Obama. But since no one with half a brain took him seriously, the issue never entered the legal sphere.

Well, the worst course would be to let the clear language of the constitution lay inert and find some technicality by which to do nothing. What I would suggest instead is that the court recognize that there needs to be a national adjudicating power to decide this question in the case of candidates for national office (and indeed for any office whose qualifications are mentioned in the constitution). And that power should be itself, the US Supreme Court. The court might invite the legislative branch to provide more regular methods of fact-finding, (or even a clarifying amendment to the constitution), but given the constitutional clear intent, history, and logic, (not to mention the general Article III clauses putting all questions arising from the constitution in its hands), the court should take upon itself the power to say that the buck stops at its door. And naturally, in consequence, that Trump merits disqualification, on the facts of the January 6 events as found by the lower courts, and on his position as an officer, indeed the paramount officer, of the United States.

This solution would neatly take over from the states the responsibility of saying that any national candidate meets or does not meet the various qualifications set forth in the constitution. Such cases could begin in state courts, as this one did, but would need to go to the US Supreme Court for final decision. This solution would hold Trump to account for his actions, a principle that Republicans have, at least  traditionally, cherished. This solution would also go some way to removing the stain of the Bush v Gore decision, and establish a new and clear element of constitutional jurisprudence, in setting forth who adjudicates the qualifications of national political candidates. In fact, this function can be tied to the practice of having the chief justice of the United States administer the oath of office to the incoming president. It would be proper for the court to be the institution that decides on the basic fitness tests, and thus who in general may take the oath, while the people decide the political outcome of the election, among fit candidates.

I am no legal scholar, but the merits of this solution seem pretty clear. On an earlier occasion, the court summarily took on the task of determining the constitutionality of laws. This role was not explicitly set out in the text, but was a logical consequence of the structure that the constitution set up. Here likewise, the logic of the constitution indicates strongly that the final word on the fitness of candidates for national office must rest with, not the voters, not the states, and not the legislative or, heaven forbid, the executive branch, but with the federal judicial branch, of which the US Supreme Court is the head.

An alternative, and perhaps more likely, solution, is for this court to state all the principles above, but then hold that in its judgement, Donald Trump is fit for office after all. Maybe it will deem the insurrection just a little insurrection, and not the kind of big insurrection that would turn a jurist's head (despite the over thousand charges filed, and hundreds of federal convictions so far). Or maybe it will deem Trump insufficiently involved in the insurrection to merit disqualification. What it can not do is deem him not an officer of the federal government- that would be beyond belief. The pusilanimous, partisan sophistry of this alternative would not go over well, needless to say. Many would ask whether Clarence Thomas, himself virtually a participant in the insurrection at one remove, should have recused himself. Minds would be blown, but few would be surprised, since for this court, expectations could hardly be lower. Going against its partisan grain would, on the other hand, be a signal and heartening achievement.

This second approach would at least resolve the legal questions, but at the cost of further erosion of the court's legitimacy, given that the events of January 6 are so well documented, and the constitutional peril that Trump poses so obvious. For the whole point of having a Supreme Court which takes on tough issues and plugs logical holes in our constitution is that it also takes some care to plug them well, and preserve our democracy in the process.

• What happens when the Supreme Court gives in to politics?
• One state, one system.
• A solar energy insurrection in Puerto Rico.
• Democratic inequality is related to wealth inequality.
• More on the court case- ballots vs office holding.

Spiritual Resources for the Religiously Abstemious

Nones are now a plurality in the US. What are we supposed to do?

The Pew research institute recently came out with polling that shows a significantly changed religious landscape in the US. Over the last couple of decades, while the religious right has been climbing the greasy pole of political power, gaining seats on the Supreme Court, and agitating for a return to patriarchy, their pews have been emptying. The religiously unaffiliated, or "nones", comprise 28% of the US population now, almost double the level two decades ago.

One has only to see the rabid support evangelicals give their orange-haired messiah to understand what has been turning people off. Or glance over the appalling chronicle of sexual abuse unearthed in the Catholic church. Maybe the horsemen of the Atheist apocalypse have had something to do with it. Russia under Putin is strenuously demonstrating that the same system can be just as cruel with or without religion. But these patterns of gross institutional, moral, and intellectual failure, and their ensuing critiques, are hardly new. Luther made a bit of hay out of the abuses of the Catholic church, Voltaire, among many other thinkers, ridiculed the whole religious enterprise, and Hitler was a forerunner of Trump in leaning on religion, at least early in his career, despite being a rather token Christian himself (other than in the antisemitism, of course). What is new now?

A dramatic rise in numbers of people with no religious affiliation and little interest, from Pew polling.

I am not sure, frankly. Europe has certainly been leading the way, showing that declining religion is quite compatible with prosperous and humane culture. But perhaps this phenomenon is part of the general isolation and atomization of US culture, and thus not such a good thing. It used to be that a community was unthinkable without a church (or several) to serve as the central hub. Churches served to validate the good and preach to the bad. They sponsored scout troops, weddings, charitable events and dinners, and committees and therapeutic encounters of all sorts. They were socially essential, whether one believed or not. That leaders of society also led the churches knit the whole circle together, making it easy to believe that something there was indeed worth believing, whether it made sense or not.

Now, the leadership of society has moved on. We are mesmerized by technology, by entertainment, and sports, perhaps to a degree that is new. The capitalist system has found ways to provide many of the services we used to go to churches for, to network, to get psychotherapy, to gossip, and most of all, to be entertained. Community itself is less significant in the modern, suburban, cocooned world. Successful churches meet this new world by emphasizing their social offerings in a mega-church community, with a dash of charismatic, but not overly intellectually taxing, preaching. Unfortunately, megachurches regularly go through their own crises of hypocrisy and leadership, showing that the caliber of religious leaders, whatever their marketing skills, has been declining steadily.

The "nones" are more apathetic than atheistic, but either way, they are not great material for making churches or tightly knit communities. Skeptical, critical, or uninterested, they are some of the least likely social "glues". Because, frankly, it takes some gullibility and attraction to the core human archetypes and drama to make a church, and it takes a lot of positive thinking to foster a community. I would promote libraries, arts institutions, non-profits, and universities as core cultural hubs that can do some of this work, fostering a learning and empathetic culture. But we need more.

As AI takes over work of every sort, and more people have more time on their hands, we are facing a fundamental reshaping of society. One future is that a few rich people rake off all the money, and the bulk of the population descends into poverty and joblessness, unneeded in a society where capitalism has become terminally capital-intensive, with little labor required. Another future is where new forms of redistribution are developed, either by bringing true competition to bear on AI-intensive industries so that they can not take excess profits, or by thorough regulation for the public good, including basic income schemes, public goods, and other ways to spread wealth broadly. 

Such a latter system would free resources for wider use, so that a continuing middle class economy could thrive, based on exchanges that are now only luxuries, like music, personal services, teaching, sports, counseling. The destruction of the music recording industry by collusion of music labels and Spotify stands as a stark lesson in how new technology and short-sighted capitalism can damage our collective culture, and the livelihood of a profession that is perhaps the avatar of what an ideal future would look like, culturally and economically.

All this is to say that we face a future where we should, hopefully, have more resources and time, which would in principle be conducive to community formation and a life-long culture of learning, arts, and personal enrichment, without the incessant driver of work. The new AI-driven world will have opportunities for very high level work and management, but the regular hamburger flippers, baristas, cabbies, and truck drivers will be a thing of the past. This is going to put a premium on community hubs and new forms of social interaction. The "nones" are likely to favor (if not build) a wide range of such institutions, while leaving the church behind. It is a mixed prospect, really, since we will still be lacking a core institution that engages with the whole person in an archetypal, dream-like fantasy of hope and affirmation. Can opera do that work? I doubt it. Can Hollywood? I doubt that as well, at least as it applies to a local community level that weaves such attractions together with service and personal connection.

• Those very highly moral religious people.
• Molecular medicine is here.
• Why do women have far more autoimmune syndromes?
• What to do about Iran.
• "As we’ll see, good old-fashioned immortality has advantages that digital immorality cannot hope to rival." ... I am not making this up!