At the Climate's Mercy

Volcanic eruptions have interrupted our fragile existence.

A recent research article made the news, telling of the worst year to be alive: 536 AD. This was surely the darkest moment of a dark age, and scientists have tracked its source to volcano(s) in Iceland. It darkened skies around the world, led to a ~4ºF drop in temperature, and crop failures throughout Europe and the near east, and crop delays in China. There seem to have been repeated eruptions over the ensuing years, though perhaps volcanos elsewhere contributed. The result was the coldest decade in at least 2,000 years, and a plague in 541-3 that wiped out at least 1/3 of the Byzantine population, among others. It took decades for Europe to recover, notably shown by ice cores with high lead pollution about 640 AD, showing that silver mining in France had recovered, presumably being pursued for minting coins.

Turner's "Chichester Canal", of 1828, thought to reflect some of the atmospheric effects of the  1816 global volcanic pall.

There have been several similar, though less extreme, events, like the "year without a summer" in 1816, due to the eruption of Tambora in Indonesia. This vocano is estimated to have ejected 40 cubic miles of material, but only lowered temperatures in Europe by about 3ºF, yet caused substantial famine, snowfalls in June, frost in August. A much smaller eruption, of Krakatoa in 1883 also caused dramatic sunsets and world-wide cooling, but had far less devastating effects, being smaller, and because it happened in August, and did not affect the following summer as severely.

Are our agricultural systems robust enough to withstand such an event today? I doubt it. We have optimized and stretched in every direction, supporting vast urban populations, without a thought given to adverse events of global scope. The only significant failsafe is that most agricultural production goes to supporting livestock, which under duress could be used directly for human consumption.

Conversely, we are engineering a permanent climate disruption of equal proportion but in a warming direction, by our emissions of CO2. Will temperatures go up by 3ºF? 4ºF? 5ºF? We are already at 2ºF, (vs temperatures at 1900), with much more baked in from our past emissions, and from their relentless continuance and growth. Will we survive if agriculture has to move to Canada and Siberia? If Florida and New York are under water? Sure, but at what cost to ourselves and more importantly, to the natural world?

• Doonsbury's Duke, in real life.
• On the way to modern capitalism: guilds.
• We are not as prepared as we think we are.
• Medical pricing in the US is insane. Weren't insurance companies supposed to solve this problem?
• Asset? Yes. And where is the outrage?

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Stephen Walt's critique of our overextended, idealist, militarized, and not very bright foreign policy: The Hell of Good Intentions.

Americans have gotten rather used to running the world. Whenever news arrives about some horror or injustice, action is expected. No matter how distant the crisis, we now have interests, and assets, close-by. It is a mindset we inherited from the Greatest Generation, who build a post-war order out of constant vigilence and activity- first to reform the perpetrators of the war, and then to forestall the spread of communism. After the Soviet Union imploded, we were left free, with a vast whirring mechanism of diplomatic and military machinery. For those raised on Lone Ranger episodes and Superman comics, which may describe a good portion of the foreign policy community over the last few decades, the answer was obvious- do good.

Stephen Walt takes direct aim at this mindset, which in his telling is borne as much from laziness and stupidity as from good intentions and US interests. We have committed terrible blunders in our rush to save people from predatory states- the prime examples being Vietnam and Iraq, which cost roughly 1.3 million and 0.5 million lives respectively, though the latter remains open-ended, due to our responsibility for creating ISIS. The people responsible for these comprehensive, mind-boggling disasters should have been tried as war criminals. But instead, our system barely batted an eye, and most of the architects of both horrors went on to continued participation in the US foreign policy commmunity, often at high levels.

This is because foreign policy is a strongly political field, at least as practiced in the US. Who would have hired Jared Kushner to run US Middle East policy? No one in their right minds, that's who. But the rot runs much deeper. Foreign policy is not science, and is difficult to evaluate, especially considering our problems with prophecy. So standards are virtually absent, replaced with a go-along-get-along ethic within a tight zone of conventional ideas. A big change since the Reagan era has been the intrusion of neoconservatives into this community, via right-wing administrations and their partisan think tanks like the Cato institute, American Enterprise Insitute, and Heritage Foundation. These were the minions who pushed the Iraq war, and they keep pushing the zone of mainstream thought rightward. Their current project is to demonize Iran. Which is odd, because Iran is a more functional democracy than Saudi Arabia, and intellectually far richer and more dynamic as well. The motivation for all this comes mostly from Israel, which has tacitly allied itself with Saudi Arabia and Egypt in a new cynical status quo ... just so long as no one says anything about the Palestinians.

The checkered career of Elliott Abrams is if anything more disturbing for those who believe that officials should be accountalbe and advancement should be based on merit. Abrams pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress in the 1980's, after giving flase testimony about the infamous Iran-Contra affair. He received a pardon from President George H. W. Bush in December 1992, and his earlier misconduct did not stop George W. Bush from appointing him to a senior position on the National Security Council, focusing on the Middle East. 

Then, after failing to anticipate Hamas's victory in the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, Abrams helped foment an abortive armed coup in Gaza by Mohammed Dahlan, a member of the rival Palestinian faction Fatah. This harebrained ploy backfired completely: Hamas soon learned of the scheme and struck first, easily routing Dahlan's forces and expelling Fatah from Gaza. INsted of crippling Hamas, Abrams's machinations left it in full control of the area. 

Despite this dubious resume, Abrams subsequently landed a plum job as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where his questional conduct continues. In 2013, he tried to derail the appointment of the decorated Vienam veteran and former senator Chuch Hagel as secretary of defense by declaring that Hagel had "some kind of problem with Jews". This baseless smear led the CFR president Richard Haass to distance the council from Abrams's action, but Haass took no other steps to reprimand him. Yet, apparently, the only thing that stopped the neophyter secretary of state Rex Tillerson from appointing Abrams as deputy secretary of state in 2017 was President Donald Trump's irritation at some critica comments Abrams had voiced during the 2016 campaign.

Naturally, Abrams has recently been appointed as the Trump Administration's envoy for the crisis in Venezuela, which should inspire confidence. The most that the mainstream press can manage as a description is that he is "controversial".

What is worse, not only are egregious blunderers and arguable criminals never held to account, (Bush, Cheney, Kissinger), but truth-tellers and whistle-blowers are routinely side-lined. Remember Eric Shinseki? He was quickly sidelined from the military in the Bush administration, after giving an accurate estimate of the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq. He was later rescued from exile by Barack Obama, but did he re-enter the military? No, he was put in charge of the VA, safely out of the way, and in an impossible job to boot.

In September 2002, for example, thirty-three international security scholars paid for a quarter-page advertisement in the New York Times' op-ed page, declaring 'War with Iraq Is Not in the U.S. National Interest.' Published at a moment when most of the inside-the-Beltway establishment strongly favored warm the ad warned that invading Iraq would divert resources from defeating Al Qaeda and pointed out that the Unites States had no plausible exit strategy and might be stuck in Iraq for years. In the sixteen-pus years since the ad was printed, none of its signatories have been asked to serve in government or advise a presidential campaign. None are members of elite foreign policy groups such as the Aspen Strategy Group, and none have spoken at the annual meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations or the Aspen Security Forum. Many of these individuals hold prominent academic positions and continue to participate in public discourse on international affairs, but their prescience in 2002 went largely unnoticed.

One interesting point that Walt makes along the way is that one capability that has atrophed due to all this dysfunction is true diplomacy. The Iran nuclear deal was one of the few recent episodes where we actually sat down with friends and enemies and hammered out a peaceful deal, agreed to by all sides. It is far more frequent these days to make big pronoucements, whether bland or insulting, then threaten punitive action like sanctions or drone strikes. Granted, the Al Qaedas and ISISs of the world are not likely to come to any Geneva tea parties, but there is a lot of good we could be doing by diplomacy, such as in Latin America and Africa, which is being left on the table. Instead, we have very secretive military activities in about 20 African countries. Militarization has colored our foreign policy to an excessive degree. And how has our "Peace Process" been going in the Middle East? This one was not a casualty of militarization, but of Israelization. Because of our failure to bring sufficient pressure to get to a Palestinian state solution, Israel continues to be an Apartheid state, and our reputation in the region is a shambles, shown to be the lapdog of Israeli interests.

The Lone Ranger brings in the bad guy to close a successful episode.

Walt's solution to these dysfunctions is to reel back our ambitions, from what he describes currently as a policy of "liberal hegemony" to one of "off-shore balancing". Liberal hegemony is the idea, which is sort of a hat-tip to Karl Marx, really, that liberal prosperous democracy is the desirable endpoint for all peoples everywhere, so we should not mind giving history a shove every now and then to get everyone there faster. The benefit for the US is clear as well- the more democracies there are, especially as encouraged by us, the more friends we have and the more stable the world in general.

Off-shore balancing, in contrast, is more hands-off, and regards US interests involved only where some region of the world is being taken over by a large hegemon, (like China), which could create such a global imbalance that we in the Western Hemisphere may be threatened. The Middle East should be left to its devices, especially as long as the Iran and Saudi axes are reasonably closely matched. Likewise, Europe is not a problem, even with Russia glowering from the east, since power is heavily diffused, and Europe even without US help is well able to take care of itself. While seemingly cynical and isolationist, this is really a very traditional approach to foreign policy, steeped in centuries of experience with Metternich-ian balance-of-power practices in Europe.

While Walt offers some very accurate and telling critiques of the state of the US foreign policy establishment, I think the prescription does not quite fit the problem and he tends to soft-pedal its implications. While the Middle East would obviously be better off with a little less US meddling, would it be better off with more Russian meddling? I have previously advocated for prompt, decisive involvement in Syria, which might have led to a better outcome than what is happening now, for both the people of Syria, and our own strategic position. But it may have been just another costly fiasco- that is what makes this field so treacherous. (Incidentally, Walt mentions the US Holocaust Museum's extensive research on Syria, especially on the prospects of US involvement. It casts a rather dubious light overall, but does suggest that early intervention can be far more effective than late intervention.) Turning to China, Walt does not mention the fate of Taiwan, of the South China sea, of the Philippines, or Japan. Would keeping Australia out of Chinese domination be a vital interest of the US? How many interests would he be willing to give up before things get truly serious?

But the deeper issue is one of stupidity. Doing less will not make us smarter. Walt gives some very positive reviews to the various anti-establishment views of Donald Trump and the demographic that he connected with in winning the presidency. Trump was all about throwing the bums out, and retrenching US foreign policy with fewer entanglements and a more modest approach. How has that turned out? Walt decries what is quite evident- our policy, which seemingly couldn't get any worse, now has gotten much worse, with a dotard and his various short-lived protectors and yes-men running things. US interests and influence throughout the world are shriveling by the hour.

A second observation is that the Iraq was not brought to us by idealism. It originated in the psychology of unfinished business on the part of Bush, Cheney, and their extended right-wing establishment. Their idealism was, as anyone could see, paper-thin pablum, matched by their total disinterest in the actual country, its people, and what was to become of them in the aftermath. Stupidity reigned supreme, and hundreds of thousands were killed, and countless more lives destroyed and ravaged for that stupidity.

The case of Vietnam was different. We had recently half-won the Korean war, and saved its Southern half from bondage- a fate that becomes more shocking every year as we view what goes on in Chinese-backed North Korea. Due to our loss of the Vietnam war, all of Vietnam remains a totalitarian state- the South would have been much better off had we/they won the war. Our involvement there was heavily idealistic. But it was stupid. The smart people knew the lay of the land, knew the experience of the French, and knew that it was a civil war that the North had a huge head start on, in comparison with the corrupt, illigitimate Southern government. It was a triumph of hope over experience.

So what we need is more experience and smarts. The US needs a better foreign policy system, not different ideals. We need to rigorously insulate our intelligence and analysis system, of which the State Department is a prominent part, from politics. That means stopping the revolving doors of personnel coming from think tanks, lobbying organizations, corporations, and political appointments. Country and region experts need to have long-term relations with their areas, not short posts. Analyses need to be given something like five-year reviews, with promotion dependent on success. Those let go should never be let back in. Accountability needs to replace hackery, corruption, and amateurism. This community needs to be de-militarized as well, which has been a rising problem for decades. These analyses should have public and secret components, with as much as possible made public so that the country can see the work that is being done, and learn what the basis of our foreign policy is. Like militarization, excessive secrecy has also degraded discourse and accountability.

Lastly, we need a more mature media discourse about foreign policy, less reactive to the news of the day, (let lone the twitter-minute), and more analytic and historically aware. Off-shore balancing is a very credible view in this discussion, but so are more idealistic approaches. Helping abused populations in foreign lands is a good thing, if it succeeds. The point is to succeeed rather than fail in our foreign policy projects, which requires deep experience, accountability, good information, and mature discussion. Perhaps we will find out that we should be doing less, once we filter out the bad ideas. Or perhaps we will find out that to do the things we might want to do (think of the second Iraq war) would be, if done properly, unrealistically expensive and unfeasible for that reason.

• Faux-ocracies are a rising challenge.
• The Taliban is weary of gaining ground in Afghanistan.
• New Taliban, same as the old Taliban.
• Yes, we are dealing with a fascist.
• Medical insurance should be left to the private sector?
• We need a wealth tax.
• And a bigger inheritance tax.

Psychodrama of the Reformation

Luther's personal demons drove the split of European Christendom. A second post from "Fatal Discord", a double biography of Luther and Erasmus, by Michael Massing.

It is hard to believe, but Martin Luther was ridden with self-doubt. That is what drove him to become a monk, to confess his sins for hours a day, and to search for a way out through the scriptures and other theological writings. When he came across Augustine, he underwent a sort of conversion experience which seems to have led to a decade-long burst of energy, rebelling against the Catholic church and pouring out a prodigious flow of theses, tracts, and books on his new evangelical theology, including a full German translation of the Bible. (It is worth noting parenthetically that in these early days of printing, the pamphlets and books brought out by Luther and his adversaries were easily as intransigent, abusive, and uncivil as our current twitterverse, an atmosphere that may have had something to do with the brutal wars that ensued.)

"Now, in reading Augustine himself, Luther found nothing about free will, good works, or doing one's best. Instead, he found stern pronouncements about human wickedness, divine majesty, and undeserved grace. If Augustine was correct, the selfish urges and prideful thoughts that were continually welling up in him represented not simply his own personal failings, but ingrained features of human nature. As forbidding as Augustine's theology might seem to others, Luther took great comfort in the idea that his fate was not in his own hands."

The issue was free will. If god creates everything, rules all, and sees all time, then how much power do humans have? None, obviously. It was John Calvin who took Luther's position to its full extent, arguing for full pre-destination of everyone's fate, with a decided minority pre-destined (elected) to enter heaven, and all others going to hell. The Catholic church, despite Augustine's influence, took the more practical route of claiming some free will, such that prayer, putting money in the collection plate, feeding the poor, and even buying indulgences, would all be put on the sinner's tab when they got to the pearly gates.

Opening page of Matthew from the Luther Bible, 1534.

It is difficult to run a society without rewards for good behavior, so while the Catholic church did not go the whole way to Pelagianism, it did run a middle course, rewarding (in the next world, at least!) good works, while also holding god to be super-powerful, just not all-powerful. Luther's epiphany that faith alone saves, and that good works count for nothing, solved his personal dilemma, and fueled his world-shaking rebellion. But it also left his parishoners with little incentive to do good works, or even to attend church. Luther was faced with continuing apathy through his later years in Wittenberg, reduced to berating his dwindling flock for its moral and religious laxity.

It was in the peasant's rebellion, starting about seven years after his electrifying theses, that the problems of Luther's theology really became apparent, causing self-doubt and confusion to creep back in, gradually sapping Luther's confidence, productivity, and influence. The peasant's revolt was driven by a new crop of preachers more extreme than Luther. If rebellion against the Catholic church for its worldly excesses and oppression was permissible, why not rebellion against the landowners and lords whose oppression was even worse, and whose theological support far weaker? And if all believers are priests, and all can read and interpret the bible, then why listen to the doctors of theology from Wittenberg? Luther was aghast at what he had unleashed, and turned completely around to support the nobility in this bitter and ugly fight, full of unspeakable tortures and massacres.

Luther continued to collaborate closely with the temporal authorities for the rest of his career, and the Lutheran church became a state-affiliated chuch, ridden with many of the same compromises and theological perplexities that characterize the Catholic church, and which Luther had originally thought he had escaped. The energy of the reformation would re-emerge in the Calvinists, Puritans, Methodists, Quakers, and countless other sects of which there are now many thousands. Purity is always energizing, but neither practical nor defensible in what is, in reality, a godless and complicated world. In the end, the attentive tolerance of humanism regularly turns out to be the better solution.

• Machines are winning.
• Think of the bees.
• Paul Ryan- a fraud, just not a very good one.
• The story of abortion.
• More on Russia and our sleazebag in chief.
• Apparently lying isn't so easy.
• Coding is not for everyone, and is not the same as literacy.

The Peregrinations of Humanism

What happened to the project of Erasmus? What used to be solidly Catholic turned into atheism, aka "secular humanism".

Have there ever been non-secular humanists? Yes, virtually all were Catholic back when humanism was truly in flower, in the 1400's and 1500's. There have even been humanist popes! Humanism was a big theme of the Renaissance when Western intellectuals turned their attention to the languages and authors of antiquity with new vigor. The preceeding movement of scholasticism had built on an earlier encounter with Aristotle and Neoplatonism, which led to the founding of many universities and reached its peak in the output of Thomas Aquinas. But scholasticism was more concerned with conforming Aristotle to Catholicism and making a show of reasoned logic / dialog, (dialectic), rather than truly plumbing the depths of Aristotle's profound corpus and methods. They knew he was the intellectual giant of antiquity and far beyond their own achievements. Only with humanism was Europe ready to deal more deeply with the ancients.

This was a time when scholars started hunting in earnest for manuscripts hidden in cloister libraries, and encountered both manuscripts and scholars fleeing the now-defunct Byzantine empire. These scholars improved their Latin based on a wider familiarity with these sources, and started learning Greek and even Hebrew. Erasmus of Rotterdam was one of the greatest of these hunters and scholars, and turned his learning into (among many, many other projects) a newly corrected edition of the Bible, with Greek facing the Latin, the first time the Latin Bible had been (intentionally) revised in over a millennium. This story is told in the outstanding book, Fatal Discord- a parallel biography of Erasmus and Martin Luther.

Luther obviously runs away with the show, and the book, by fomenting a fundmental revolution in Western culture. Author Michael Massing suggests that Europe faced divergent paths, Erasmus representing the more liberal, reformist, and moderate course, which could have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Luther read Erasmus's new bible and other writings, was also inspired to learn Hebrew, and based much of his revolution on Erasmus's ideas. But Erasmus never renounced the Catholic church, and hated warfare above all other forms of waste and injustice. He was in this a humanist to the core. Luther was more of a fundamentalist, standing on Sola Scriptura- of his interpretation, naturally- come hell, high water, or martyrdom.

So what is humanism, after all? In a theological sense, it is attention to and learning from diverse aspects of the current and past world, in contrast to assuming that one's scripture contains all knowledge. If the world, humans, and human reason are all made by god, then this wider field of inquiry is not only permissible, but essential, to fully appreciate her work. On a pedagogical level, humanism became the program that Erasmus set up based on his thrilling scholarship- the learning of Latin foremost, from the great classical authors, and then Greek as well, along with rhetoric, grammar, and some logic- the Latin trivium, in short. While revolutionary in the fields of biblical studies, higher criticism, and philology generally, this program eventually fossilized into the "liberal" education in the classics that was standard through the 19th century, plaguing young minds with dead languages, long after Latin had lost its role as the universal intellectual language of Europe.

And on an ethical level, humanism is the sense that truth and scholarship must be beneficial, over their opposites, and that, in line with the rest of renaissance sensibility, human achievements and flourishing are the measure of social and theological systems. While the neoplatonists where quite consonant with the abstract, ethereal concerns of the Catholic church, other authors and ideas from antiquity were much less so, and the humanists, Erasmus as a prime example, turned into a somewhat skeptical if not critical community within the church, urging reform from the bloated, corrupt, militaristic, and intellectually lazy institution it had become.

This breakdown became evident in the confrontation with Luther. In response to his copious tracts, books, and theses detailing the problems of the church, its response was simply to assert that he was wrong, and that any opposition to the pope and tradition was inadmissible. The Catholic church failed to make a serious intellectual case, and it would take decades, if not centuries for it to do so. Book burnings were the first response, followed by the Index of banned books, which featured not only those of Luther, but those of Erasmus as well. This spelled the inevitable end of humanism in the Catholic church, since skepticism and intellectualism are incompatible with hierarchy and fealty.

Humanism had a much longer career in Protestant lands, with their greater freedom and diversity. Charles Darwin came within a hair's breadth of becoming an Anglican minister, and mostly viewed his naturalist interests in the positive light of god's work on earth. But they inevitably parted ways even here, as the mechanisms of nature gradually revealed themselves to be anything but divine. Now one hardly hears about religious humanism, as humanism has become synonymous with thorough theological skepticism and this-world ethics. What would Erasmus say? The EU has named its internal student exchange program after him, in honor of his pioneering role in promoting pan-European projects and intellectual community. He would have been appalled at the way the Protestant reformation bled Europe and led to ceaseless division. But I am sure he would still be in the intellectual, cosmopolitan vanguard, which remains humanist today.

• The Panama Papers is still a story.
• Who wins in Sears bankruptcy? A microcosm of American inequality.
• Making America corrupt again.
• US keeps throwing the Afghan government under the bus.
• Putin's poodle on Ukraine.
• Aging is being reversed.

Inequality Spelled the End of Rome

Historian Michael Grant pins the blame for the decline and fall of Rome on economic and social inequality.

We have never had a government by the rich, and for the rich, quite like today. How this could come to pass as a response to one of the most severe financial panics in our history, to financial mass malpractice, and to the Occupy movement, is quite curious. It is perhaps a testament to the innate temperamental conservatism, coupled with the extraordinary power of money in our media and political system. Where are we headed? One way to think about it is to look to history.

Fabulous relief from a late Empire sarcophagus. Rome was about power.

Rome ruled the Mediterranean for roughly five hundred years, from its scrappy beginnings assimilating neighboring city states on the Italian peninsula to its wimpering end at the hands of successive Germanic armies. Some of its greatest gifts were for politics- running a durable, elitist political system with extremely complicated rules, operating a likewise complex legal system, and treating foreign and allied powers with harshness, but also substantial generosity. Throughout its time, inequality was the rule, including slavery at the very bottom. The system was run by and for those at the top- the senators, landowners, and slaveholders. But at the beginning, there was a great deal of civic virtue- it was a republic, and ambition for the public good / growth of the empire often coincided with personal ambition. But defending a static or contracting multi-continent empire is not as much fun. Increasingly, the rich relieved themselves of taxes and public responsibilities, and the burden of supporting the enormous empire fell on the lower classes, in the form of tax-farming.

This is briefly outlined by Michael Grant in his book "A Social History of Greece and Rome". He stresses at some length that the lower classes- the slaves, the ex-slave freedmen, the poor and middling classes- lived quite miserably, and were treated miserably by the system. But they had no political organization or power, and no consciousness of themselves as a class. They were inert, apart from a few riots and revolts which were always local affairs, driven by desperation rather than principle or organization. This has been true through history. Democracy and other revolutions from below are generally not led from below, but by a faction of the rich, engaged in their customary occupation of competing for power at the top. Our founding fathers were not Scots-Irish hillbillies, but colonial aristocrats disaffected from their fellow lords and peers back in Britain.

So Rome was always nervous about its poor and its slaves, but never faced an organized revolution, let alone a Marxist intellectual critique. This allowed progressively worse treatment as time went on, to the point that free Romans chose to become virtual serfs under large landowners rather than face the tax collectors and military recruiters on their own, leading right into the conditions of the medieval period. A state rests on the allegiance and service of its members. If the rich couldn't be bothered to fund its needs, and the poor were hounded to the point of desperation, of what is such a state made?

"Christian writers, too, support the poor, sometimes with passion, but the effect was one again, in practice, non-existent. The destitute had to be content with the assurance that their plight would stand them in good stead in the next life. Christianity, like to many other institutions, has been blamed for its contribution to the fall of the western Roman empire- because it perpetuated the internal social rifts. And there may be something in this, although the main contribution of faith was to establish a focus of loyalty which was not the imperial court, and was not, in fact, of this world. But the fall of the empire was complex. External pressures played a major part. Internally, the main cause was not Christianity, but the gulf between the rich and the poor whom the rich exploited." - Michael Grant, in A Social History of Greece and Rome

What Americans think inequality of wealth should be like, compared with what they think it is, compared (top) with what it actually is. In fact, the top 1% owns over 40% of the wealth and gets one fifth of all income.

While we in the US have only had such antique social extremes in the slave-holding South, the current level of inequality is, in quantitative terms, astonishing and alarming. The trend of our current administration of giving gargantuan tax breaks to the rich, along with countless other gifts of relief from public good regulations, worker rights, and criminal enforcement, means that we are headed not just back through the New Deal into another gilded age, but possibly well beyond. It is hardly the land of the free if so many are economic slaves to others, with homeless beggars on every corner. As Rome evolved from an aristocratic Republic into a more frankly royal Empire, we seem headed in a similar direction, under a new Octavian who has no patience for the weak, the losers, civil society, democracy, or civility. The state exists for winners. Why anyone (who is not rich) follows him is beyond me, but then the lessons of history are usually learned only by those who don't need them.

• Other theories about Rome.
• Making America great would mean... being more like Europe.
• One consequence of inequality? Murder.
• The euro is dying.
• Wildlife is dying.
• Climate change is causing hunger, and not just for other animals.
• Unfinished business in healthcare- the public option, real negotiation, fair pricing.
• Trump and the "sheriff's star". Even Bill Kristol makes a comment.
• Sleazy fraud.
• Free speech? Not for workers.
• How the Fed thinks.

Science is not the Answer

Bryan Appleyard has some complaints about the new priesthood and its corrosive effects on the old verities, in "Understanding the Present: Science and the soul of modern man".

This is a genuinely exciting book (dating from 1993) about modernity- our age where science in all its facets has not only transformed practical existence, but also our spiritual lives, de-mystifying nature and tossing religions, one after the next, onto the scrap heap. Appleyard is not happy about it, however- far from. He is tortured by it, and while he can not stomach going back to religious orthodoxy, whether of fundamentalist or mildly liberal varieties, nor can he accept the new regime, which he views, somewhat mistakenly, as scientism. That is the belief, fostered (in Appleyard's view) by the gushing popularizers like Carl Sagan, Jacob Bronowski, and Richard Dawkins, that science can not only solve all our questions of knowledge, but forms a new technocratic morality of reasonable-ness and tolerance which, if properly worshipped, could resolve our social, political, and spiritual problems as well.

The first half of the book is far better than the second. Setting up the problems of modern spirituality is far easier than solving them. In broad strokes, humanity used to be at home in heavily archetypal religious realities. While actual reality did intrude from time to time, the fables of Christianity, to take the main example in the West, were (and for some, still are) magical tales which gave us hope of a benevolent meta-reality and a pleasant afterlife. But intellectuals kept trying to make sense of them, until they "sensed" them completely out of existence. Appleyard cites Thomas Aquinas as perhaps the finest of these intellectuals in the theological tradition. His main work was to reconcile Aristotle, the pre-eminent scientist of antiquity, with Christian orthodoxy. This was taken as the height of theology, not to mention truth in general. But it planted the seed of modernization and logic- if something is logically or empirically true, it must necessarily be consonant with the Catholic religion, which is by definition true. Thence downwards through the enlightenment, Newton, the  industrial revolution, existentialism, liberal theology, to the plague of atheists we see today. The Catholic church tried to draw the line with Galileo and the heliocentric model, but that did not go well, and a few hundred years down the road, they gave up and said they were sorry.

"Science was the lethally dispassionate search for truth in the world whatever its meaning might be; religion was the passionate search for meaning whatever the truth might be."

All religious pretensions to scientific truth have been exploded, and the only choices left, as Appleyard sees it, are regression into fundamentalism, continuation to the endpoint of modernist anomie where humans are morally worthless or even negative destroyers of pristine nature, an acceptance of science itself as humanity's triumphalist project, which through its powers and gifts can give us all meaning, ... or something else. Appleyard spends much of the second half of the book on the fourth option, discussing quantum weirdness, chaos theory, computational incompleteness theories, and related fields which put the lie to the determinist dreams of nineteenth century science. Science does not know everything, and can not know everything, thus there is some gap for us as humans to be free of its insidious, deadening influence- a humanist space.

There are many things wrong with Appleyard's take on all this, some of which are contained in his own arguments and writing. Science has long held to the fact/value distinction, as he discusses at length. Even such a solidly scientistic enterprise as Star Trek recognizes regularly that Spock can neither supply all our values, nor even on his own terms operates without idiosyncratic values and meaning. The world of Star Trek is morally progressive and rational, but its motivations and meaning come from our human impulses, not from an algorithm. Exploration, skimpy uniforms, and great fight scenes are who we are.

"The key to the struggle, it cannot be said too often, is the way in which science forces us to separate out values from our knowledge of the world. Thanks to Newton we can not discover goodness in the mechanics of the heavens, thanks to Darwin we cannot find it in the phenomenon of life and thanks to Freud we cannot find it in ourselves. The struggle is to find a new basis for goodness, purpose, and meaning."

But then Appleyard frequently decries the new scientistic regime as having destroyed morals in general.

"... all moral issues in a liberal society are intrinsically unresolvable and all such issues will progressively  tend to be decided on the basis of a scientific version of the world and of values. In other words they will cease to be moral issues, they will become problems to be solved. The very idea of morality will be marginalized and, finally, destroyed."

This makes no sense, as he himself concludes by the end of the book. It seems to be a matter of looking for morals and meaning in all the wrong places. After a long excursion through the death of scientific determinism, he consoles us that science doesn't, and can't know everything. Thus we can go about our lives with our own values, desires, and dreams without paying much mind to any moral teachings from the scientific priesthood, which didn't exist anyhow. Whew! Determinism is a complete red herring here. Science studies all of reality, whether complicated or simple. If broad swathes can be subsumed into the master equation of gravity, that is wonderful- empowering on practical and psychological levels. But sometimes the result of all this study is a large database of genes and their properties, whose complicated interactions preclude easy prediction or codification (harkening back to the cataloguing of Aristotle and Linnaeus). Or sometimes it is a prediction system for weather which, despite our best efforts, can only see a limited distance into the future, due to inherent limitations to any model of a chaotic reality. That is OK too. Such pursuits are not "not science", and nor does such ignorance furnish us with free will- that comes from adaptability. The results of our studies of reality do not imply much about our meaning and values in any case, even as they defang the oddly materialistic superstitions and totems of yore. Our powers of understanding may be amazing, and fetishized by the educational system and science popularizers, but are not the foundation of our moral humanity.

Scientific studies of ourselves have, however, been enlightening, uncovering the unconscious, Darwinian designs, ancient urges, and a great diversity of ways of being. They have also clarified the damage we are doing to our environment via the wonders of modern life. This has informed our self-image and hopefully our values, but hardly determined them. Humility is the overall lesson, as it has been from all the better religious traditions. Appleyard decries relativism, the liberal tendency towards excessive humility- suspicion of one's own culture, and excessive regard for those of others. But isn't that merely a slight overshoot / correction from the madness of colonialism, slavery, genocide, rampant technology, greed, and war that has been the Western history over the last couple of centuries? Isn't it a spiritually healthy step back? In any case, it is an example of human values at work, perhaps more influenced by our prosperous condition than by any dictates from science.

Appleyard's fundamental complaint is against the new priesthood that has taken over management of the wonders of creation, but has at the same time failed to address our human needs for solace and meaning. Indeed, some of its high theologians delight in telling us that the universe, and ourselves, are utterly meaningless. Appleyard constantly weaves god into the discussion, while taking no exlicit pro-god position. He can not bring himself to bite that bullet, but rather is content to complain about being thrown out of Eden for the sin of too much knowledge. Well, it was always a cheap trick to read our fate in the stars or in goat entrails, and to read our meaning in ancient wonder-tales. These methods were merely externalizing values that came from within. The patriarchial systems of theology express most clearly the interests and desires of the men who run them. So we are, in the modern dispensation, merely reduced to a state of honesty about stating what we want, without the false veils of magic, authority, and supposed moral objectivity. And that change seems, at least to me, beneficial for our moral situation, overall.

• Can morality be reasonable? Which animals are worth helping?
• Typical enviro screed about saving space for nature...
• Forest loss continues apace.
• Roubini forcasts disaster, as usual. With details.
• We saved the wrong people in the last financial crisis.
• Financial sleaze.
• Who cares about truth anymore?
• Our common economic statistics are not cutting it.
• Japan is doing very well, thank you.

Hitler and Donald Trump

With apologies to "God and Donald Trump". An authoritarian comparison.

Hitler did not pounce on Germany suddenly and unannounced. His rise was a lengthy story of norms broken, lies told, prejudices nurtured, institutions destroyed, brilliant propaganda, judicious bullying, and the age-old scapegoating alchemy of victimization and hate. We are in the midst of a similar process, with the worser angels of our natures being seduced and exemplified by the current president. Trump loves authoritarian leaders, pines for authoritarian methods, (reads authoritarian speeches), and, overall, seems to use a playbook from one of the greatest authoritarians of all time. Maybe it is worth counting up the similarities. One of the best books on this remains William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Propaganda
Trump had a few difficulties with FOX at first, as they had a few components still beholden to the old GOP, or with principles otherwise. But nothing succeeds like success, and FOX could not deny the beast they themselves had created through years of alternative reality and hate-filled programming. It is now a fully consumated marriage, with daily hate, direct policy integration, and personnel going back and forth. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud, though he would have criticized us for still allowing free media to exist. Trump has been doing his best to discredit all responsible media, and is getting a sympathetic hearing from those in his camp. Whether this infection of corrupt media values spreads into the rest of the culture is one of the biggest questions of our time.

Novel modes of communication
The Nazis used film, radio, graphics, and other media in very innovative ways, still admired today in some instances. Mass communication was still young, and they made great use of it for their propaganda. Now we have the first twitter president, marrying his lack of self-control and need to bully and  lash out at every source of anxiety with the new media of our time which narrow-casts and broadcasts simultaneously and instantly. These new media themselves are not the problem, rather it is the content, obviously. The issue is whether we neglect to take a longer view and are able to maintain our intellects and moral values while marinating involuntarily in this cesspool of Newspeak.

Scapegoats and concentration camps
Immigrants are the current administration's scapegoats and objects of hatred. No insult is too vile, no policy too harsh. Walls are to be built, detention centers filled, children ruined. Germany never had organized and nation-wide resistance to the antisemitism of the Nazis, so we are slightly ahead there. But in Germany too, the concentration camp system started slowly, first only holding communists and political opponents, and only gradually developing into the slaughterhouses found by the allies in the end. Immigrants are right now an easy target, not being citizens, with nebulous rights, if any.

Bullying
Trump's bullying is instinctive, relentless, and always personal. (Just ask Stormy Daniels!) If there is policy involved, it is decades out of date, and uninformed. The Nazis were obviously bullies as well, with far more lattitude, given their paramilitary organizations and eventual totalitarian control. Hitler's temper tantrums were evidently very Trumpian. But in foreign policy, they directed their bullying more sensibly- against their enemies rather than their friends. First Austria, then Czechoslovakia, were crushed by propaganda and threats. England was cowed from interfering, Russia was subborned and bribed, before being turned on later. There was method to the madness, where with Trump, we have daily lashing out without much sense let alone long term strategy. China is our friend, then our enemy. Russia is complemented on one hand, and sanctioned with the other. Canada is turned from our best friend to a bitter spouse. The authoritarian instinct is obviously the same, but with Trump, the point gets lost in personal narcissim, short attention span, and poor judgement.

Narcissism
Was Hitler a narcissist? Perhaps not as flagrantly as Trump, but anyone who starts a world war and ends up incinerating his own country in the pyre of his ambition probably gets the nod. There was also the personality cult, Führer, etc. So yes, he and Trump are cut from the same cloth there. Trump has tried mightily to identify himself with the nation and its wounds and salvation- just listen to his clunky inauguration speech. He is the only one who can fix what is wrong with the nation! The instincts are there, and the charismatic connection to at least some of his base. But he is far, far, from closing the deal with the country at large, and also has such appalling lack of judgement, intellect, and self-control that the whole project simply falls flat on purely operational grounds.

Economic policy
Here we get to a big constrast between the two. Trump has talked alot about infrastructure spending and beautiful airports and roads. But he has not lifted a finger to get there. His version of deficit spending is to give a lot more money to the rich- he's no national socialist! Hitler, on the other hand, really built the autobahn, the Beetle and other infrastructure. His Keynesian policies put everyone to work, as well as re-arming the nation. Of course all this led to tears, but it illustrates the difference between someone who really wants to rebuild the nation, and someone who only wants to get a feeling from a crowd of believers, while selling them down the river to his rich friends.

Crony capitalism
Yes, Hitler's economics put the big companies in control. But the program was obviously derigiste- under the state, and secondly, with the ultimate goals, successfully achieved, of rebuilding both the economy and the armed forces. Trump, in contrast, is spending all his efforts in strightforward Republican projects of favoring the corporate class generally over the wroking class. The tarriffs, the death of consumer protection, the death of the EPA, the corporate tax cuts- none of that is making America as a whole better let alone great. The nationalist rhetoric expresses Trump's authoritarian instincts, but his heart and whatever else passes for his head is with his corporate cronies, not with workers, or the nation at large.

Tastelessness
Here, Trump is almost in a class of his own. Hitler was a notoriously bad painter, but not entirely talent-less, and led a party that innovated in media, graphics, public displays, and architecture (if of an oppressively bombastic and brutalist style). Trump's style is more classic mobster and nouveau-riche. Both cases betray a lack of empathy and human feeling. As the Greeks and many after them maintained, aethetics are moral. We express ourselves and our vision of humanity through the art we make, support, and appreciate. It is a window into the soul or lack thereof of our leaders to see what they are capable of appreciating. Trump's case is one of edifice complex with a slather of gilt.

Fighting the last war
Hitler took a great deal of his ultimate program from America. We shamelessly swept Native Americans from our fertile prairies. We had slavery. We supported eugenics. He thought that the Ukrainian and Russian breadbasket could be the great fertile frontier for Germany. Too bad that the people already living there had airplanes and tanks! In this case, Hitler was several decades, if not centuries out of date, and paid grievously for it. For all his prowess in harnessing modern technology and economics to a program of national rebuilding and totalitarian control, Hitler was additionally obsessed with the the defeat by France in World War 1. It was all very backward-looking. Trump's errors of history are smaller-bore, but analogous, in that his conceptions, such as they are, are generally decades out of date. Is coal going to come back? That is absurd, not to mention environmentally suicidal. Is manufacturing coming back? Only with robots. He is harping on the nefarious trade policies of China (and Canada!). Well, that ship has mostly sailed. China has developed with our implicit help and support (not to mention funding our prodigious deficits). The remaking of a poverty-stricken communist basket case into a prosperous capitalist nation over the recent decades is the strongest possible compliment to our ideology and generous guidance of the international system. (Though further work remains to make our democracy functional and attractive as an alternative to China and Russia's new model of authoritarian capitalism). We should concentrate on fostering an increasingly rule-based and legitimate international system that keeps China on a responsible and lawful path, rather than introducing instability that only diminishes our current and future standing.

Love for fellow authoritarians
Whether there is a compromising Russian dossier on Trump or not, his love for Putin is unfeigned. G. W. Bush looking into Putin's eyes was bad enough, but this is revolting. Whether Duterte, Jinping, bin Salman, or Jong Un, Trump seems to love them all. Naked power is his elixir and dream. How sad that America's power has been built over the last century on more subtle foundations- the attractiveness of a properous, lawful, and respectful system that other peoples and nations can aspire to rather than cow before. Making America great used to involve opposing dictatorships rather then trying to emulate them.

• A linguistic emergency.
• State of the border. 
• Turning the international order upside down.. on Putin's orders?
• Mental illness.
• Remember the dust bowl? 
• Empathy is not weakness.

Why no Russian Renaissance?

Russia was much closer to Byzantium than Western Europe. So why didn't it feed from the scholarship of the East on the fall of Constantinople, as the West did? Books by John Lawrence and Martin Sixsmith.

OK, this is an unfair question. But if one's closeness to the learning and culture of Byzantium is supposed to be related to one's ability to assimilate it and recover the riches of antiquity that supposedly fed so much of the Western European Renaissance, then Russia was far better positioned than Florence. Russia had long-standing trade relationships and routes to Constantinople, and shared the same Orthodox Christianity. Indeed it still sees itself as the last inheritor of Byzantine culture. Some of the largest cities in Europe in 1000's were Novgorod and Kiev, of the early Rus period after Viking/Varangian invasion of the nascent Slavic areas.

But there were countless hindrances. When the scholars of Byzantium fled the Muslim takeover in the 1400's, did they want to go to Russia? Not likely. Western Europe had already gone through a mini-renaissance in the 1200's, and was incomparably more diverse, academically advanced, and wealthy than Russia at the time. Also, the Mongols invaded Russia in 1237, ruling with a slowly loosening grip till 1480. This would obviously put a serious crimp into any renaissance.

Poland, next-door, had its own mini-renaissance, roughly through the 1500's. Even in this most distant province of Europe, Italian architecture, arts, and science penetrated, and yielded the brilliant response of Copernicus, among others. It turned out that exposure to Byzantium was only a small part of the recipe- a spark, but far from the most important ingredient. Poland's great period was based on riches from trade with the Baltics, and dominion over a great deal of what is Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia today, plus quite a bit of travel to Italy. Prosperity and its consequent cosmopolitanism was perhaps more imporant than contact with Byzantium alone.

Holy investiture

One could also imagine getting too much of a good thing. Byzantium itself was Orthodox Christian, and inheritor of Greek and Roman learning, but had itself nothing we would call a renaissance. There was something about Greek Orthodox Christianity that seems to have been, and still is, stultifying to free thought and scholarship.

Was Islam an influence? In the West, Islam was a transmitter of ancient texts and a source of independent scholarship, via the lengthy occupation of al-Andalus, as well as trade throughout the Mediterranian. This was at least as influential as the recovered treasures of Byzantium. But, being present at the very gates of Constantinople, and as a significant part of the Mongol empire, the Islamic influences must have been at least as strong in Byzantium itself as well as in Russia- but to little avail.

It is not a big point, but the historical irony is that Russia inherited the strong ruler model, the love of ornate ceremony, iconography, architecture, and the deeply entwined church-state model of Byzantium- some of which were rather retrograde characteristics- leaving the West to gain from some of its other, more positive achievements, or perhaps rather, transmissions from a deeper past.

• Taliban poised for success. Despite hearts and minds operation... while the American military seems delusional, like in Vietnam.
• Librarians- on the front lines of homelessness and drug addiction, and community.
• Lawless organization ... our border system.
• Fake news / warfare from Russia. Or Trump. Or Fox.
• Some problems with Bill Clinton.
• "As much as 54% of present high-seas fishing grounds would be unprofitable without large government subsidies."
• Who really owns the jobs issue?

Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings ...

Charles De Gaulle and the greatness of France. Review of his war memoirs.

Fin de siècle France was a mess. After a century of social and political enervation, France was not the powerful country she was over most of Western history. Proust is a fair barometer, obsessed by the distant glories of the noble houses, but met in the present with their dissipated exemplar, Baron de Charlus. World War 1 was billed by some as a romantic rite of purification by blood, but turned out to be throughly ruinous and horrible, leaving the France even more adrift and traumatized, despite having "won".

Naturally, France then failed to face up to the rapidly developing threat from the East, and crumpled igominiously once the Germans came, entering into the quasi-occupation / collaboration that was Vichy. Who was appalled by this? Everyone, even the Germans. And especially Charles de Gaulle, a government minister and military figure who had argued over the prior decade for military mechanization and mobilization, to supplement the static Maginot line. He was incensed that the government chose to surrender and enter into collaboration, instead of spiriting off what and who they could to France's extensive overseas possessions and continuing the war from there (while leaving the French continental population to whatever administration the Germans saw fit to impose).

Seeing no one else stepping up to that task, he took it on himself, powered by the radio broadcasting resources of the BBC. He stands as one of the great statesmen of the century, single-handedly organizing the Free French resistance against what turned out to be the millenarian and cataclysmic Hitlerian regime, leading the French state during the very delicate and difficult post-war period, and also re-organizing the French state (the Fifth Republic) along new lines, within which it still exists today.

At the liberation.

Vain? Yes. Monomanical? Absolutely. A selective memoirist? Yes. A born politician? Evidently. De Gaulle was obsessed with the greatness of France, a phrase that comes up time and again in his memoir. He most potent weapon was the word "No". When Britain wanted to get some payback for all its assiduous help, by, say, acquiring some of the French possessions in the Middle East like Lebanon and Syria, De Gaulle said no, and fought them off. De Gaulle faught tooth and nail for every colonial backwater, and later on for every inch of German territory he could wrest out of the Allies. This "No" rose out of the power De Gaulle developed as head of the French people, nurturing their feelings of pride, and victimization, and hope, through the long years of occupation, and the slow process of liberation.

The most interesting aspect of the book is the careful (if self-adulatory) accounting De Gaulle constantly keeps of how his listeners are feeling- how the spiritual bond between him and troops being reviewed, or crowds hearing his speaches, or the French community at large, is developing. It is feelings which are the object of propaganda, the sinews of civic community, and the foundation of national power. These feelings start off rather tenatively, but via the radio broadcasts, and through slow persistence on the ground, first setting up shop in England, then Brazzaville (then part of the French empire, wrested from Vichy), then Algiers, and finally Paris, De Gaulle gains the hearts of the French, and enters into uncontested administration of post-war France. De Gaulle also carefully took charge of the internal French resistance, by supplying arms, other logistics, and leadership.

A sample quote: De Gaulle, installed back in Paris, receives a communication from Marshal Pétain, earlier the titular head of the Vichy regime, now on his way to imprisonment in Germany, to the effect that Petain would like to negotiate with De Gaulle about the transfer of formal powers of administration in France, i.e. his own surrender, in order to prevent civil unrest.

"But what reply could I make to this communication? In such matters, sentiment could not stand in the face of the rights of the state. The Marshal referred to civil war. If by that he meant the violent confrontation of two factions of the French people, the hypothesis was quite out of the question. For among those who had been his partisans, no one, now, rose up against my power. There was not, on liberated soil, one department, one city, one commune, one official, one soldier, not even one individual who professed to oppose De Gaulle our of loyalty to Pétain. As for reprisals, if certain factions of the resistance might commit retaliatory actions against the people who had persecuted them in collaboration with the enemy,  it devolved upon the public authority to oppose itself to such actions, while insuring the action of justice. In this matter, no compromise was conceivable."

It is an object lesson for our time, in making a nation great again. Firstly, De Gaulle writes very well, in style that is admired in France, and also communicates his clarity of intellect, even in translation. Secondly, he generates increasingly representative advisory councils as he goes along, always taking the temperature of the major threads of French resistance (including the communists whom he loathes). Instead of tearing down state structures, he continually builds up new ones, in preparation for effective administration of ever larger populations and areas. Thirdly, he is never a poodle for foreign powers, standing up for French interests at every point, even when there is no France to stand up for. And fourth, his mind is always on the big picture. There are no scandals in this book, only high policy and monomaniacal focus on the objectives of a healthy France, Europe, and world.

He sees that in order to conduct the resistance from colonial territories, he will have to promise their independence, at least in principle. But getting from there presents enormous problems, especially when the British push Arab and Islamist agitation. De Gaulle ended up being the one to wind up the bitter Algerian war, (1962), selling out the various pied noir (settlers, in current parlance) to grant Algerian independence. When the US dreamt up the United Nations, De Gaulle viewed it with suspicion (and, in view of the ill-fated League of Nations, with some distain), even as he successfully got a seat on the security council. While this council may seem an absurd anachronism today, its original aim was rather evidently to serve as an anti-German league, consisting of all the Allied powers from WW2, particularly those surrounding Germany.

De Gaulle with Willy Brandt. De Gaulle was intent on building good relations with Germany, and integrating Germany into a new pan-European economic and security system.

In addition to his bitterness about Britain's greed, De Gaulle was bitter about the US as well. Roosevelt never took him seriously, and continually tried to circumvent De Gaulle in setting up occupation administrations and in conferring with the "big" allies. It is not entirely clear what the basis of this distaste was. It was putatively about De Gaulle's upstart status, as one who created his own state out of nothing, rather than sitting atop a pre-existing apparatus, not to mention a lack of democratic credentials. It was also about France's weakness- her ignominious military defeat left a sour taste, for sure. There was also France's unproductive treatment of Germany after WW1, first demanding huge reparations that prostrated and embittered Germany, then lacking the backbone to back them up or productively renegotiate them, rather allowing Hitler to thumb his nose at the Versailles regime and embark on his mad buildup to WW2. Or there may have been something else. But De Gaulle got his revenge later on, when he entangled the US in Vietnam, which was one jewel he was exceedingly reluctant to yield out of the colonial empire, especially to a bunch communists. All in all, our relations with France are a lesson on focusing on the current war and the friends you have, not the last one, or the ones you wish you had.

• "... a federal judge or magistrate judge signing off on the search warrant on the president’s lawyer after finding probable cause of criminal acts."
• Piketty on Russia. 
• Not a happy scene in Afghanistan.
• Word of the week: chromothripsis.
• A party of sociopaths?
• We need micropayments on the internet, in place of ads.

A Moronic Foreign Policy

Trump accomplishes the opposite of what he claims. But Putin would be so proud!

Is America great again? Apparently, we are getting there very fast, even faster than orginally envisioned, according to our President, who is also a very stable genius, with an extremely large button. But for some reason we are also a world-wide laughing stock, headed by a moron whose erratic spleen is vented daily on Twitter, who can't read more than a few sentences at a time, who lies compulsively, and whose wanna-be mobster management style is pathetically at odds with any trace of professionalism. His vision of greatness seems to be letting corporations and the rich (such as himself) run roughshod over everyone else. How long that will play with his base is anyone's guess. But the worst consequences of Presidential intelligence and temperament (or lack thereof) are, as usual, on foreign policy.

The US has been leader of the free world, and the industrialized world, since World War 2, and arguably since World War 1. We have been the indispensible nation, the leading economy, and the leading culture of the 20th century. We faught a drawn-out and bitter Cold War with the main ideological and geopolitical adversary, communism, which ended with the latter's complete implosion. Russia has reconstituted itself along Tzarist lines, while China has reconstituted itself along similar capitalist/authoritarian lines, but without the personality cult at the top, at least until the current president, Xi Jinping. These former communist countries have learned from each other, and from the West, to arrive at their current blend of corrupt, Orwellian one-party rule, combined with substantial personal and business freedoms. And China is growing at a clip that will make it the largest economy and leading world power in a matter of decades, if not years.

This is the current competition that we face as a governing model- one that is attractive to smaller countries like Pakistan, the Phillipines, Iran, and many others. It is a time of flux, and our leadership, while not as central as in the fight against communism, remains critical if real democracy is to supplant fake democracy. Yet our current administration is pedaling as fast as it can in the wrong direction. It is itself beholden to Russia for its existence, and the President conveys his admiration for Vladimir Putin as often as possible. It embodies precisely the same style of corrupt, authoritarian, nepotistic, and predatory tendencies as the countries we least want to emulate.

In foreign policy, this administration has been sending a lot of mixed signals. This on its face is bad foreign policy, and contributes directly to a decline in global leadership. But it is understandable, as a war plays out within the White House between the President's terrible instincts, and the obvious interests of the US as represented by his hand-picked military policy staff, by a withering State Department, and by whatever other sane people remain. So we have been making enemies on a daily basis. The President promised that he would solve the Middle East, and the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Who knew that meant giving Israel whatever it wants, and giving the finger to any notion of a peace process? The pissing match with North Korea has been both futile and contemptible. We have relinquished whatever slight claim we ever had to leadership on global warming. The sudden attack on Pakistan, while eminently understandable, was also unnecessarily bombastic. The attacks on NATO and Europe, though since reeled back by his handlers, have been very damaging to the notion that the US has anything futher to do with the future of Europe. Mexico? Don't even ask.

In sum, we are retreating from greatness on a daily basis, becoming a smaller, petulent actor on the world stage, at a time when our values are under the most subtle attack, and when competing models of governance have found new footing after the communist debacle. We seem to be rushing to join them, rather than standing for enlightened values of truth, decency, and equality.

• A spirited foreign policy debate between a trump-is-not-so-bad person, and a we-are-going-to-hell person.
• Trump is an asset ... to someone.
• We have now taken the measure of our man.
• Opposite of helping the working class.
• Immigration is another part of the class war.
• Restore Net Neutrality- join a vpn system.
• How bad is facebook?

Truth and Enlightenment

What the Enlightenment and Modernity have wrought, and who has problems with it.

As our values of truth and honesty are slipping, it seems worthwhile to review how we got here. People generally have a tenuous relation to reality. What we see through our eyes is only its surface. We can see plants all our lives and yet have no understanding of how they work and how they came to be. Such knowledge has to come through painstaking inference into a mental model, based on clues, experiments, mutations, exceptions, and the like. Humans are champions of inference, as attested by conspiracy theories and religion- ways that our need to for theories of reality outstrips our actual knowledge, sometimes flagrantly.

Historically, there have been occasional periods when intellectuals had the prosperous and calm conditions to make progress on this front, out of the mire of preconceptions, superstitions, and traditions, and into a more measured and rational view of reality. Not that there is ever a perfectly rational view, but there are clearly more and less rational views possible. The ancient Greeks experienced one such period, founding schools of philosophy that lasted hundreds of years, and fostering the greatest scientist, teacher, and thinker of the ancient world, Aristotle. But the greatest such period was the Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment of Western Europe, when the learning of the ancient world combined with mounting prosperity and technological development to dispell the fog of Christian theology, and made of scholarship an independent, rigorous, and institutional pursuit that continues today.

Painting is an example of this movement. The Renaissance painters learned perspective, and reveled in new powers of realistic portrayal. Realistic painting may now be old-hat, even déclassé, but after the rude iconography of the Middle Ages, it was revolutionary, reminiscent of the incredibly naturalistic statuary of Greece and Rome at their heights. Similar movements in all areas of intellectual life, including science, philology, history, politics, and social thought generally, and philosophy, brought us to modernity, where our relationship to nature is fundamentally transformed, from that of a mystified and dependent spectator, to that of a deeply understanding (if not always respectful) steward. While morals and ethics are not themselves a matter of truth and natural observation, (though they have a lot to do with integrity and honesty), the same truth-finding ethic trained on social institutions brought down, step by step, the superstitious hold of the religio-monarchical system, to the constitutional / social contract systems of today.

Francesco di Giorgio, ~1490, an idealized architectural view.

But some are not happy with this change in perspective. There were obviously losers in this process of cultural and intellectual maturation. Principally religion, which tried mightily to understand the nature of reality, while mediating our relation to it, but couldn't help putting the cart of dogma and power ahead of the horse of intellectual integrity. For honesty and truth begin in the method of getting there. True humility, not the false and preening humility of putting one's god before all other gods and considerations, is the first step to being able to even see the subtle stirrings of nature, and then to follow them out. Charles Darwin was orginally intended for the parsonage, but as he unfurled the relentless mechanism of biology, and experienced its stabs in his own life, he ended up an evident atheist, woken up to a more sober, mature, and we might say enlightened, view of our nature and situation.

Reality isn't always pretty. Facing it takes fortitude and work. Thus the astonishingly durable, if slipping, hold of religion into this, the twenty-first century. Thus also the attraction of fake news and con artists, not to mention religion. Far easier to have comfort and hope in false and familiar beliefs than to accept uncertainty and ignorance, and do the work required to resolve them, even partially. Who would have thought that, at the so-called end of history, when the US won the cold war, and spread its blend of capitalism, relative freedom, and intellectual ambition across the world, that such moral rot would set in here at home, with our plutocrats, (with the connivance of Russia, of all things!), standing at the head of an army of resentful religious traditionalists, straining every nerve to spread distrust, small-mindedness, and lies over the land?

• Intellectuals- the first targets of authoritarians and fascists.
• And State is the department of intellectuals, at least till now.
• Which country takes the cake for lying?
• But our Republicans are in contention as well.
• What's the matter with Kansas.. will soon be the matter with the rest of us.
• ... Until the revolution.