May 22, 2019: Unintended Consequence, Tragedy Of The Commons, Bane of Civilization

“Artificial intelligence is the bane of civilization, a threat to the republic; tearing at our social fabric it threatens to materially damage our capacity to govern.”

“Beneath the sheen of the new and novel always lurks unintended consequence.”

          ---from The Quotations of Chairman Joe

As noted in previous comments in these columns, technology is never what it pretends to be. Beneath the sheen of the new and novel always lurks unintended consequence. I have previously cited the automobile as an example. Beyond the enticement of travel and freedom, of individual space as opposed to mass transit, there were unintended consequences. Air pollution, urban sprawl, resource depletion, and drive-in theaters—known as 'passion pits'--greatly adding to the number of illegitimate births. In this vein an article on technology, written by Nicholas Christakis, appearing in The Atlantic, warns us that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will rewire us. “For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”. (1) They may also materially damage our capacity to govern ourselves.

The essay examines how our interactions with technology, in this case artificial intelligence, not only changes the way we react to the emerging technologies but the way we interact with each other. While technology can make us more productive it can likewise produce very different outcomes. For instance if robots are made fallible, Christakis tells us, then a sense of camaraderie emerges when the machines are introduced into a group setting. If, however, the robots do not make mistakes the groups working with them under perform because the technology does not get as well integrated into the overall effort.

Indeed, Christakis contends that “adding AI to our social environment can also make us behave less productively and less ethically. In yet another experiment, this one designed to explore how AI might affect the 'tragedy of the commons'--the notion that an individuals' self-centered actions may collectively damage their common interests—we gave several thousand subjects money to use over multiple rounds of an online game. In each round, subjects were told that they could either keep their money or donate some of it or all of it to their neighbors. If they made a donation, we would match it, doubling the money their neighbors received. Early in the game, two-thirds of players acted altruistically. After all, they realized that being generous to their neighbors in one round might prompt their neighbors to be generous to them in the next one, establishing a norm of reciprocity. From a selfish and short-term point of view, however, the best outcome would be to keep your own money and receive money from your neighbors. In this experiment, we found that by adding just a few bots (posing as human players) that behaved in a selfish, free-riding way, we could drive the group to behave similarly. Eventually, the human players ceased cooperating altogether. The bots had converted a group of generous people into selfish jerks.” (2)

Reading this, I immediately realized that this is what the Rooskies have done, through weaponizing our emerging technologies, to our elections. Christakis continues:

“Let's pause to contemplate the implications of this finding. Cooperation is a key feature of our species, essential for social life. And trust and generosity are crucial in differentiating successful groups from unsuccessful ones. If everyone pitches in and sacrifices in order to help the group, everyone should benefit. When this behavior breaks down, however, the very notion of a public good disappears, and everyone suffers. The fact that AI might meaningfully reduce our ability to work together is extremely concerning. ” (3)

Like the “killer bees” and plastics, another experiment that 'jumped the shark' and hemorrhaged from the laboratory into the environment, AI has also escaped the laboratory. The Russians, it is now apparent, are far ahead of the curve. “A study examining 5.7 million Twitter users in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election found that trolling and malicious Russian accounts—including ones operated by bots—were regularly retweeted in a similar manner to other unmalicious accounts, influencing conservative users particularly strongly. By taking advantage of humans' cooperative nature and our interest in teaching one another—both features of the social suite—the bots affected even humans with whom they did not interact directly, helping to polarize the country's electorate.” (4)

AI may, in the end, be the bane of civilization joining a host of forces—overcrowding, conservatism, anti-social media—that serve to further isolate and atomize society, tearing asunder the social fabric. Under these circumstances a constitutional crisis emerges as it becomes more and more difficult to form a more perfect union. The union disintegrates because it's prime purpose—the prime directive, so to speak, laid out in the preamble to the Constitution—no longer holds.

“An Br'er Putin, he jus laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison

___________

1. Christakis, Nicholas A. “How AI Will Rewire Us” The Atlantic Magazine Vol. 323-No. 3 April 2019. Pp 10-13.
2. Ibid. page 11
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid. page 12

May 19, 2019: Devotion to Untrue, Credulity and Delusion, Down the Rabbit-hole

“How widespread is this promiscuous devotion to the untrue?”, asked Kurt Andersen, writing in The Atlantic Magazine. “How many Americans now inhabit alternate realities? Any given survey of beliefs is only a ketch of what people in general really think. But reams of survey research from the past 20 years reveal a rough, useful census of American credulity and delusion. By my reckoning, the solidly reality-based are a minority, maybe a third of us but almost certainly fewer than half. Only a third of us, for instance, don't believe that the tale of creation in Genesis is the word of God. Only a third strongly disbelieve in telepathy and ghosts. Two-thirds of Americans believe that 'angels and demons are active in the world.' More than half say they're absolutely certain heaven exists, and just as many are sure of the existence of a personal God—not a vague force or universal spirit or higher power, but some guy. A third of us believe not only that global warming is no big deal but that it's a hoax perpetrated by scientists, the government, and journalists. A third believe that our earliest ancestors were humans just like us; that the government has, in league with the pharmaceutical industry, hidden evidence of natural cancer cures; that extraterrestrials have visited or are visiting Earth. Almost a quarter believe that vaccines cause autism, and that Donald Trump won the popular vote in 2016. A quarter believe that our previous president maybe or definitely was (or is?) the anti-Christ. According to a survey by Public Policy Polling, 15 percent believe that the 'media or the government adds secret mind-controlling technology to television broadcast signals,' and another 15 percent think that's possible. Remarkably, the same fraction, or maybe less, believes that the Bible consists mainly of legends and fables—the same proportion that believes U.S. officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.” (1)

How did we get here? How did it come to this? How did America fall down this rabbit-hole into “fantasyland”.

Andersen traces the origins of our national madness to several sources, but generally to the 1960's and specifically to the Esalen Institute. Esalen, founded by two Stanford University psychology graduates, at Big Sur overlooking the Pacific Ocean became the epicenter of the “youth rebellion”.

“Esalen is a mother church of a new American religion for people who think they don't like churches or religions but who still want to believe in the supernatural. The institute wholly reinvented psychology, medicine, and philosophy, driven by a suspicion of science and reason and an embrace of magical thinking (also: massage, hot baths, sex, and sex in hot baths). It was the headquarters for a new religion of no religion, and for 'science' containing next to no science.” (2)

The institute put emphasis on shamanistic traditions, mostly Asian but with a smattering of American Indian mixed with the flotsam and jetsam of other cultures. “Invisible energies, past lives, astral projections, whatever—the more exotic and wondrous and unfalsifiable, the better.” (3)

Like Mormonism, whose founder received his revelations quickly on the heels of having spent time in the slammer for fraud, one of the co-founders of Esalen had only recently emerged from a private psychiatric hospital having suffered a nervous breakdown. (4) Accordingly, “(H)is new institute embraced the radical notion that psychosis and other mental illnesses were labels imposed by the straight world on eccentrics and visionaries, that they were primary tools of coercion and control”, a tenet given currency in a novel and then by Hollywood in the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Soon, 'authorities' arose within the psychiatric profession publishing books like Thomas Szasz declaring that mental illness is a myth, “a theory not a fact”, “now the universal bottom-line argument for anyone—from creationists to climate-change deniers to anti-vaccine hysterics—who prefers to disregard science in favor of his own beliefs” (5)

America has always been a haven for cooks and crack-pots, a catch-basin for the flotsam and jetsam, a sanctuary for the insane and the criminally insane of those put to sea by other cultures. One has only to re-read Governor Oglethorpe's complaints to the crown about the mother country emptying its “jakes”, a colonial term for privy or outhouse, upon our shores. Accordingly, America has always been vulnerable to fits of madness. The “Great Awakening”, the first of the great religious revivals (and there would be many more), the “Palmer Raids” the McCarthy Era and other “red' scares. The rise and then fall of the KKK. This, however, is of a magnitude on an entirely different scale. Yes Esalen had it's awful impact whose influence is still reverberating through the universities, newsrooms and corridors of power, but it had some help along the way.

As Andersen points out, the assassination of JFK and it's aftermath contributed mightily to the paranoia of the country spawning whole industries of conspiracy, further feeding paranoia. The Vietnam war further eroded confidence in governance and 'expertise' a trend. By the end of the decade millions were reading a book or attending a film in which it was earnestly held that the great monolithic cultures hadn't built those monuments—Stone Henge, the Pyramids, but they were instead the handiwork of ancient aliens from outer space. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious. This nonsense reververates down the decades, for today one can tune to YouTube and view “documentaries” telling us that the pyramids were some kind of ancient battery or power station. No evidence has yet been unearthed, no power lines, no electric motor casings, no drawings showing static or any other form of electricity emerging from these structures. No matter, the thesis is pressed earnestly with no argument attempting to render readily apparent the obvious. The height of the madness, perhaps, was reached when thousands gathered in D.C. To protest the war during which they gathered all around and attempted to 'levitate' the Pentagon in order to cast out the demons. That the building didn't move matters not, for the need to believe...believe anything....is the prime directive, reason and universal observation be damned.

The sixties didn't invent this of course. We have a long tradition, in human experience, of embracing fantasy, believing falsehoods. For every public school there is a smaller private one in which the exact opposite is being taught. This means that there has always been a significant minority in la-la land. But the rough balance between the sane and the insane, between reason and madness, has been upended in recent decades, now to the point where we have actors playing roles as leaders and where facts are challenged by alternate facts, the universe by an alternate counterfeit. In such a cosmos the citizen alone is left to decide what is true. Truth not as objective reality but subjective opinion. If truth is subjective than opinion replaces judgment.

The conservative philosopher Edmund Burke was also a member of Parliament. After an energetic exchange with one of his constituents he replied that “If I were to sacrifice my judgment for your opinion, sir, I would not be serving this constituency well.” This is a basic principle of representative governance, judgment must trump opinion. Facts do matter.

This country was founded by disciples of the Enlightenment, ardent adherents of Voltaire and Diderot, men who believed in the primacy of reason over emotion; of fact over fiction; of discernible, objective, measurable reality over myth; of the natural over the supernatural. Our republic was founded upon these principles and depend upon them for its survival.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh

Impeach and Imprison

_____________

1. Andersen, Kurt. “How America Lost Its Mind” The Atlantic Magazine Vol. 320. No.2. September 2017. Pages 76-91. See pages 78-79.
2. Ibid page 80
3. Ibid
4. Ibid

May 16, 2018: Reflections on William Henry Harrison, Good News for James Buchanan, Somebody's Got To Hold Up The Rest

William Henry Harrison cannot get a break. When George W. " Ol' Two-Cows" Bush finally got on that helicopter and was spirited off to well-deserved oblivion he, nevertheless, was accorded a higher ranking among presidential historians than William Henry Harrison. Some would have thought that only James Buchanan would have ranked lower in the esteem of those in the know but it was not to be. Somehow, after lying us into a war and making a pig's breakfast of the Middle East, literally fiddling while a major city drowns, and presiding over the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, historians could still rank W. higher than the hapless Harrison. One is left to wonder how a man who was in office a mere 30 days, not enough time to wreak the havoc Ol' Two-Cows visited upon the nation could nevertheless suffer the calumny of history's judges.

It transpires as Gail Collins wrote in The New York Times, "Everybody's Better Than You-Know-Who". Mother used to say, when her beloved Detroit Tigers were mired deep in the cellar of the American League that there was indeed merit in finishing dead last. "Someone has to hold up the rest of the league," she would comment with a certain cryptic twist. Likewise, Buchanan and, yes, even Harrison can now sound a sigh of relief as they no longer carry the burden of holding up the rest of the class. Our very own Caesar Disgustus has replaced James Buchanan as the 'Atlas' holding up the league of presidents. It's official. Donald J. tRUMP is the worst president in the history of the United States.

Citing "a survey of experts in presidential politics--people who have an opinion about whether Chester A. Arthur was better than Martin Van Buren, Trump came in last with a score of 12 out of 100. " (1).

Move over Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, William Henry Harrison and, yes, James Buchanan. Here comes Donald J. tRUMP.

Buchanan, "whose administration began with the Dred Scott decision and ended with the Civil War. ", (2) has rightly suffered at the hands of historians. Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson "dropped dramatically, a demotion...attributed to 'evolving attitudes on his treatment of Native Americans.' But I suspect its because Trump made such a big deal about admiring him. Any friend of Donald's..."

"Barack Obama soared up into the top 10. This could be because absence makes the heart grow fonder. But you know it's about the replacement...

Meanwhile, Richard Nixon moved up to 33. It's true that he conspired to undermine the Constitution, but at least it wasn't with the Russians.

Nobody is too obscure to be less bad than our incumbent. The next time you see the current president on the screen, bragging about his great leadership skills, fee free to think: 'Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore got way more points"'. (2)

James Buchanan, after more than a century and a half, has finally been relieved of the burden of holding up the rest. He can now rest in peace. Meanwhile, William Henry Harrison still gets no respect, but at least he's moved up one rung in the ratings. At least and at last tRUMP has achieved some constructive purpose.

'An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh

Impeach and Imprison

_____________

(1). Collins, Gail. "Everybody's Better Than You-Know-Who" The New York Times. Thursday, February 22, 2018. Pg. A23

(2). Ibid.

April 19, 2018: Lessons from Rwanda, Hot and Cold Mediums, Clear and Present Danger

"The Medium is the Message" ----Marshall McLuhan.

I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR this morning, and they had a segment on the civil war in Rwanda in the 1990's. The war began with hate radio and led to the destruction of social norms. In the aftermath, radio adopted a sitcom involving intermarriage between the tribes. Studies done by a professor at Princeton reveal that while the media didn't change the prejudice, it did change norms restoring the nation to more civilized behavior. Behavior is, apparently, determined much more by social norms than by prejudice. There are lessons here. Talk radio--hate radio--Limbaugh, Alex Jones et. al., have been eroding social and political norms for decades resulting not only in the explosion in the number of hate groups in this country but in the elevation of Caesar Disgustus to the throne. In this sense tRUMP is not an aberration but a symptom of the illness inflicted by hate radio and fixed noise.

Impeaching and imprisoning our Caesar Disgustus is a necessary act because he is a clear and present danger. But it is not enough. We must clean up our public discourse by shutting down talk radio and bringing objective reporting back into the forum.

It is no mere coincidence that radio brought Hitler to power as it did the genocide in Africa. Radio is a 'hot' medium, that is, it is one-directional and involves minimum participation by the audience as a lecture differs from a dialogue. McLuhan included film and photography (especially high resolution photography) as 'hot mediums. He identified as 'cool' mediums such as television, newsprint and cartoons because they were low resolution, drawing the participant or audience into them rather than shouting at them. In our age ,with high definition, television is becoming a hot medium. For the implications of this read Marshall McLuhan's "Understanding Media", in which he concludes that the rise of fascism would not have occurred in the age of television because while radio is conducive to expressing anger and rage (because it is a hot medium), Hitler and Mussolini would have come across a laughable cartoon, albeit dangerous figures, on television in low definition black and white. It is no coincidence then, that Nixon, who had a face and voice for radio--and indeed, those who listened to the debates on radio thought Nixon had won-- would lose to Kennedy in 1960 but win in 1968 because television has gained higher resolution with the addition of color. With the advent of high definition, television now poses the same threat as radio for being a medium conducive to the transmission of rage and discontent. Enter Faux News.

It is not benign, and it is not neutral for, as McCluhan taught us so many years ago, media is the message. That is, it is not content that determines the message but the media itself. In this case it is the media that amplifies and legitimizes rage. Therefore, how it is used becomes critical and the the greater society has every right to insist that it be used responsibly.

The other lesson from the Rwandan experience is that it isn't prejudice that produces the genocide. It is the destruction of social norms, which the "Idiot Wrong" have been celebrating for nearly a half-century. Caesar Disgustus is all about destroying norms and therefore is an existential threat not only to the republic but to civilization itself.

"An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison

_____________

(1). NPR. "Morning Edition", Thursday April 19, 2018

(2). See McLuhan, Marshall. "Understanding Media: The Extension of Man" Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

April 15, 2018: Ideological Affirmative Action: Orgy of False Equivalence, Breathtaking Public Gullibility.

To suggest that conservatism somehow rises to the legitimate equivalency of liberalism or socialism is to engage in ideological affirmative action." 

---from "The Quotations of Chairman Joe" 

Economist Paul Krugman, writing in Friday's New York Times (1), excoriates the media and its insistence upon the 'equivalency of ideas' for the rise of the penultimate con-man Paul Ryan and, by extension, the rise of the ultimate con-man Caesar Disgustus himself.  Considering the former, Krugman writes of Ryan: 

"Look, the single animating principle of everything Ryan did and proposed was to comfort the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted.  Can anyone name a single instance in which his supposed concern about the deficit made him willing to impose any burden on the wealthy, in which his supposed compassion made him willing to improve the lives of the poor? Remember, he voted against the Simpson-Bowles debt commission proposal not because of its real flaws, but because it would raise taxes and fail to repeal Obamacare. 

"And his 'deficit reduction' proposals were always frauds.  The revenue loss from tax cuts always exceeded any explicit spending cuts, so the pretense of fiscal responsibility came entirely from 'magic asterisks': extra revenue from closing unspecified loopholes, reduced spending from cutting unspecified programs.  I called him a flimflam man back in 2010, and nothing he has done since has called that judgement into question. 

"So how did such an obvious con artist get a reputation for seriousness and fiscal probity? Basically, he was the beneficiary of ideological affirmative action.  

"Even now, in the Age of Trump, there are a substantial number of opinion leaders—especially, but not only, in the news media—whose careers, whose professional brands, rest on the notion that they stand above the political fray.  For such people, asserting that both sides have a point, that there are serious, honest people on both left and right, practically defines their identity." (2) 

There are serious political thinkers on the right.  Krugman's colleague at The New York Times, David Brooks, is one of them.  But, as Krugman is quite right to observe: "While there are some serious, honest conservative thinkers, they have no influence on the modern Republican Party." (3) 

Citing what Krugman calls "asymmetric polarization" caused in turn by a "motivated gullibility",  

"Centrists who couldn't find real examples of serious, honest conservatives lavished praise on politicians who played that role on TV.  Paul Ryan wasn't actually very good at faking it: true fiscal experts ridiculed his 'mystery meat' budgets.  But never mind.  The narrative required that the character Ryan played exists, so everyone pretended that he was the genuine article. " 

I've written about this false equivalency before, one essay about the minimum wage leaps immediately to mind (4).  We've raised the minimum wage more than a score of times since its inception in the 1930's and not a single job has been lost.  Nevertheless, whenever progressives lead a campaign to raise the minimum standard the same hoary argument that it will cost jobs is regularly given equal time on television and more than equal time on talk radio.  In this case, one of the more egregious examples, the relative merits of the opposing argument are not equivalent.  The conservatives are here, as in so much else, simply dead wrong.  The historical record clearly demonstrates their error.  Nevertheless, they are paraded out upon the stage and by so doing error is granted legitimacy.  This savaging of universal empirical observation is the beginning of a not so slow slide down the slippery slope wherein facts are opposed by 'alternate' facts, the known universe by the 'alternate' universe of Fox and Fiends. 

  

As Krugman duly notes, these same dynamics that produced the laughable posturing of Paul Ryan are the same forces that produced Donald J. tRUMP.  

Like Ryan,Caesar Disgustus has not emerged from under a cabbage leaf, he is, in fact, the product of the bastard union of an "orgy of false equivalence" joined with a breathtaking public gullibility.   

The Republic appears to have survived Paul Ryan.  It is not entirely clear if the Republic can survive Caesar Disgustus.   

"An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh" 

Impeach and Imprison 

________________ 

(1). Krugman, Paul.  "From Flimflam to Fascism" The New York Times.  Friday, April 13, 2018. Page A27 

(2). Ibid 

(3). Ibid 

(4). See March 29, 2018:  Minimum Wage, Maximum Myth, Dog-Eared Objections, Into the Abyss.  

February 19, 2018: Idiot Wind, Vandalizing the Language, Beneath the Dignity

Everyone is familiar with the word 'trump' as it pertains to playing cards. “To bring a superior card to bear”, or in a broader context a verb meaning to bring superior force, superior intelligence, superior resources to bear upon the situation.

In 2016, Robinson Meyer, writing in the Atlantic Monthly Magazine , accused the then presidential candidate of perpetrating “a crime against the English language”. “It seems probable”, continued Meyer, “that his campaign will doom a perfectly pleasant word, a happy verb with a 750 year history.” (1)”

It had a good run, entering the language in the “late 14^th century”. Its first meaning, however had nothing to do with cards rather “a trump was a trumpet, and if you trumped, you were just blowing your horn” (1). Sound familiar?

“For a long time all trumps were noisy”, writes Meyer, citing Shakespeare and the Bible, “but even if they made a joyful noise, not all trumps were holy. Trump also means, especially in British English, to, erm, break wind...

“Trump has exuded this meaning for centuries. A Latin translation guide from the 1550's gave trump as a synonym for crepo which is defined like this: Trump or let crakke or fart” (1) It wasn't until the 1550's that the term began to assume and not until the late 1600's that it achieved its current meaning, this trump being a bastardization of the French word triumph. Nevertheless, other meanings emerged as in deceive or cheat, as in bring trumped-up charges, or a worthless trifle, known to us as trumpery.

Still, as Meyer points out, it is the “noisy trump” that echoes down through history, quite appropriate for the blowhard now in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Caesar Disgustus is the “idiot wind.” (2); an ill-wind from the backsides of the village idiot. I hope the term survives this national and, perhaps, global catastrophe. I think the term has potential. We need to resurrect the archaic meaning: trump as fart.  In this case, channeling our Pepe Le Pew, a disgusting, foul-smelling, greasy fart.   In addition, I can envision the word trump assuming new meanings as in: verb, adjective, pejorative, meaning gullible, fool, ignorant, incompetent, coarse, boorish, uncouth, submissive, whining, pitiful, beneath the dignity of men. Usage, as in: "What a Trump!"  or,   "Don't be such a trump!” or, "I cannot bring myself to believe you're such a fucking Trump!".  Perhaps, in a final accolade, Trump replaces  Benedict Arnold as a term synonymous with sedition or Treason.  

“an' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”.

Impeach and Imprison

_____________________

1. Meyer, Robinson. “Another Victim of The Election: the verb 'to Trump'. The Atlantic Monthly Magazine October 25, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/ave-atque-trumpe/505259/
2. See : December 2, 2014: Generation of Swine, The Idiot, Bad Citizenship for a discussion of the original meaning of the term 'idiot'. 

February 13, 2018: Immigration Puzzle, Pseudo-science, Gene Pools and Supremacy.

On May 26^th, 1924 the Congress enacted and President Calvin Coolidge soon thereafter signed into law the Immigration Act of 1924 which included the National Origins Act and the Asian Exclusion Act limiting “the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census, down from the 3%  cap set by the 'Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which used the census of 1910. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians, Slavs and Eastern European Jews. In addition, it severely restricted immigration of Africans and banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians.” (1) The Act is commonly known as the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, authored by Congressman Albert Johnson and Connecticut Senator David Reed.

Johnson, representing Tacoma Washington, became Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, a plumb committee assignment for a man who was head of the 'Eugenics Research Association”, “a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the mentally disabled.” In 1927 he defended his hallmark claim to fame by calling the Immigration Act of 1924 “ a bulwark against 'a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed” (2) . To further clarify his views, Johnson “in support of his 1919 proposal to suspend immigration he included a quote from a State Department Official referring to Jewish people as 'filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits.”(3)

Johnson was not alone in his racist predispositions. He brought on the Committee staff Harry Laughlin “a leading American Eugenicist in the first half of the 20^th century. He was the Superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closing in 1939, and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory sterilization legislation.” (4) Laughlin was a close associate of Johnson and the Congressman had previously collaborated Laughlin while head of Eugenics Research Association. Laughlin not only worked on drafting the legislation but “provided extensive statistical testimony to the United States Congress in support of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924. Part of this testimony dealt with 'excessive' insanity among immigrants from Southern Europe and Eastern Europe. He was eventually appointed as an expert eugenics agent to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization ...At least one contemporary scientist, bacterial geneticist Herbert Spencer Jennings, condemned Laughlin's statistics as invalid because they compared recent immigrants to more settled immigrants. (5) Laughlin not only went so far as to launch a eugenics investigation of the United States Senate but the House itself had on staff a Congressional Eugenicist.

Eugenics has, in the wake of World War II and the death camps, become widely discredited. Indeed, the “Reichstag of Nazi Germany passed the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring in 1933, closely based on Laughlin's model. Between 35,000 and 80,000 persons were sterilized in the first full year alone. (It is now known that over 350,000 persons were sterilized). Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Heidelberg in 1936 for his work on behalf of the 'science of racial cleansing'....By the end of the decade, eugenics had become associated with Nazism and poor science. Support for groups like the American Eugenics Society began to fade. In 1935, a review panel convened by the Carnegie Institute concluded that the ERO's research did not have scientific merit. By 1939, the institute withdrew funding for the ERO, and the office was forced to close” (6)

Nevertheless, the law that Eugenics inspired remained the law of the land until the Immigration reform acts of 1952.

By using the census base of 1890 instead of the previous benchmark of 1910, the quotas established by Johnson, Reed and Laughlin would be based on a much 'whiter', more Western European America. The result as shown by the following graph illustrates the impact of the legislation of subsequent migrations:

Relative proportions of immigrants from Northwestern Europe^[a] (red) and Southern and Eastern Europe^[b] (blue) in the decades before and after the immigration restriction legislation.(7)

 Rachel Maddow, in a recent broadcast on MSNBC, has connected the dots. Citing an article in The Atlantic Monthly, Maddow pointed to the origins of tRUMP's immigration policy.

“Senator Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Justice Department, once praised a 1924 immigration law whose chief author in the House once declared was intended to end “indiscriminate acceptance of all races.”

Sessions has long been a proponent of immigration restriction, and was one of the first to back Trump’s call on a ban on Muslims entering the United States during the primary.
During an October 2015 radio interview with Stephen Bannon of Breitbart, now a top adviser to the president-elect, Sessions praised the 1924 law saying that:

In seven years we'll have the highest percentage of Americans, non-native born, since the founding of the Republic. Some people think we've always had these numbers, and it's not so, it's very unusual, it's a radical change. When the numbers reached about this high in 1924, the president and congress changed the policy, and it slowed down immigration significantly, we then assimilated through the 1965 and created really the solid middle class of America, with assimilated immigrants, and it was good for America. We passed a law that went far beyond what anybody realized in 1965, and we're on a path to surge far past what the situation was in 1924.” (8)

There you have it. Congressman Luis Guttierez of Illinois is right.  The administration isn't simply seeking to deal with illegal immigration, but legal immigration as well. But the Rescumlican approach is much more disgusting, for the inspiration of the Bannon/Sessions-inspired immigration policy is the eugenics based deeply racist law of 1924. Racial discrimination based on ethnic cleansing; Making America White Again.

“An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”.

Impeach and Imprison

_____________________

1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Johnson_(congressman)
3. ibid
4. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_H._Laughlin\
5. ibid
6. ibid
7. op.cit
8. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/jeff-sessions-1924-immigration/512591/

February 12, 2018: Maturity, Knowing 'The Other', L'Enfant Terrible.

“Maturity is being able to see through the eyes of another.”

                        ----from "The Quotations of Chairman Joe"

Maturity is being able to see through the eyes of another. This is its true definition. Being able to see through the eyes of another means that one must recognize 'the other'. One must be able to put oneself, intellectually and, at times, emotionally in the 'place' of 'the other'. In doing so one not only recognizes 'the other', but begins the process of legitimizing the presence of 'the other', perhaps in time getting to truly know 'the other'.

We define juvenile—meaning 'childlike-- behavior as a pronounced self-centeredness, often manifesting itself into an aggravating form of narcissism. Just as for the Greeks citizen was the opposite of idiot, maturity is the opposite of childlike. And what most marks the passage from childhood to adulthood? Being able to apprehend, understand, see through the eyes of and putting oneself in the place of the other. In a word: empathy.

To become mature one must have empathy. Those familiar with childhood development know that the process of recognizing, then knowing 'the other', takes some time. For some it is a normal process taking a few months or years; for some it is a long and tortuous process; for others it never happens. Normally the child begins to see beyond himself in childhood and the process of maturity becomes well advanced by early adolescence. In the case of our Caesar Disgustus, “The Donald” never took the first step toward maturity.

When columnist George F. Will wrote that tRUMP doesn't know what it is to know he was referring to objective knowledge. The problem runs much deeper than that. Caesar Disgustus' 'unknowing' extends far beyond textbook knowledge. Indeed it extends to the very heart of body and soul; for what makes Disgustus so disgusting is his inability to see beyond himself. He is an adult trapped in the mind of a three year old, held in the grips of a mental and emotional retardation that renders him unable to grasp the essence of anyone about him. People are simply objects to be used and discarded or, if he is offended, simply dismissed. Biographer David Cay Johnston relates how tRUMP reacted when members of the family sued because the heirs of his alcoholic brother Fred were not give their due. Disgustus cut off the medical insurance for his Great-Nephew who then died an early death. Explaining himself he simply told his biographer that “they had sued my dad”--that is his father's estate. This, in the eyes of Disgustus was an unforgivable act causing, in turn, an act of retribution regardless of the consequent pain and suffering. Disgustus could not relate to the pain he would cause for he cannot see through the eyes of another, he cannot see beyond himself.

This week we see him defending a White House aide who was forced from office by accusations of domestic violence, acts which prevented him from gaining the necessary security clearance for the job he held for over a year. Disgustus couldn't bring himself to see through the eyes of the victim, he could only chirp about what a sad day it was for the perpetrator, what a great job he had done while serving by his side (and, by extension, what a great choice Disgustus had made putting him there), and how unfair the whole process had been. Nothing about the pain and suffering of the victims, nothing about the inappropriateness and the mistakes made concerning the hiring of this man and keeping him in a position requiring security clearances that everyone knew were not to be forthcoming.

It is for these reasons that he fails so miserably at performing one of the most important tasks of the office—that of being consoler-in-chief. To console the nation one must have empathy and empathy, for this man-child, simply does not exist. It is for these reasons that he cannot bring himself to apologize no matter how egregiously offensive his actions. It is for these reasons that he takes no heed to the pain and suffering his policies inflict—on immigrants, the sick and elderly, on the poor, on minorities, on the very middle class upon whom a healthy republic depends. It is for these reasons that he always plays the victim, always throwing a temper tantrum, for he cannot possibly perceive his actions to be anything but honorable; any criticism as disingenuous and a betrayal. It is for this reason that Disgustus, like the cartoon character Pepe Le Pew, cannot understand why the country finds him so disgusting.

“The Donald”, as his second wife called him, simply never grew up; the child never became a man. And now the White House has become, in Senator Corker's telling phrase, “an adult day-care center”, where aides work tirelessly, if not entirely successfully, trying to control “L' Enfant Terrible”.

“An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”.

Impeach and Imprison

____________

Note: L'Enfant Terrible is a French expression meaning one whose startingly unconventional remarks or behavior cause deep embarrassment to those around him, as a child will often offend the adults in the room by inappropriate behaviors.

February 1, 2018: Rising Star, Democratic Response, What Could Be

From Fall River, Massachusetts, young Congressman Joseph Kennedy, gave the Democratic response. Pundits were quick to say that it was a forceful speech, well delivered, and aimed primarily at the Democratic base. It was more than that.

Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont and Chairman of the Democratic Party, said last year that the time has come for the Boomers to “get out of office and out of politics”, a sentiment that has echoed for more than a decade through the columns of these postings. Like his great-uncle, John F. Kennedy, the young congressman represents not only the “Kennedy” wing of the Democratic Party, but perhaps the next generation of 'millennial's' who have found the passage into adulthood much more difficult than their forebears. While cataloging the shortcomings of this administration, which are many, Kennedy laid down the gauntlet saying that if this generation builds that wall, his generation will tear it down.

Kennedy is, of course, the grandson of Robert F. Kennedy, and while it is never wise to embrace dynastic politics we must, nevertheless, keep an open mind.

That he is a “fresh face” is welcome. That he is not a “Boomer” is an additional recommendation. That he chose to make a pointed challenge, thus putting great distance between what he sees as the future of the party and his country and those of the “Generation of Swine”--Republican, Democratic, and Independent, is a godsend.

This year marks the 50^th anniversary of those terrible events of 1968 (see previous posts). MSNBC host Chris Matthews has published a best-selling book on Robert F. Kennedy because, in his words, Kennedy represented the polar opposite of this administration, and our time. I purchased a copy of the book and gave it to my daughter as a gift inscribing therein: “a reminder of what once was, and what could be”.

“Impeach and Imprison”

December 18, 2017: System is Rigged, Conservative Bias, A Mighty Hill

In a December 3, 2017 email, former Florida congressman Alan Grayson made a clear case for conservative bias in the electoral system and it's not what you think. Here is his argument in its entirety:

“The system is rigged, because to win, Democrats need more votes than Republicans do.

Seriously.

In two of the last five Presidential elections, the Democrat won the popular vote, and lost the election.  (In fact, the last time that any Presidential candidate, winner or loser, won more than 53% of the vote was in 1984.)  The explanations for winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote don’t end with the “butterfly ballot,” or “Pizzagate.”

What would happen if the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates received exactly the same number of votes, nationwide?  Very likely, the Republican would win.

  

The Cook Political Report’s “Partisan Voting Index” (PVI) measures how states and congressional districts vote differently from the nation as a whole, based on the last two Presidential elections.  The “blue” states are “D+”; the “red” states are “R+”; the “purple” states are “even.”  If a state has a “D+2” PVI, that means that if the vote in the country as a whole is tied, that state would favor the Democratic candidate by 52% to 48%.

Thanks to the GOP’s domination of small states, there are 27 R+ states, 20 D+ states, and three that are even.  The R+ states give the Republicans 262 electoral votes, just eight short of a win, while the D+ states give the Democrats only 242 electoral votes.  Among the three even states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, the Republican wins with either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, while the Democrats have to win both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Advantage: GOP.

In the Senate, the small states and the large states each have two votes.  There is one Senator for every 300,000 Wyomingites, and one Senator for every 20,000,000 Californians.  The fact that there are 27 R+ states and only 20 D+ states means that if the national votes are even, there would be something like 57 Republican Senators and only 43 Democratic Senators.  The GOP’s advantage in the smaller states puts them close to a filibuster-proof majority, when the national vote is even.  To get to a 50-50 Senate, the Democrats have to win nationwide by around six points.

Advantage: GOP.

In the House, gerrymandering gives the GOP a huge advantage.  The GOP’s control of many state governments has allowed it to “pack” Democrats into a small number of Congressional districts, while spreading a solid majority of Republicans (usually 57% to 43%) in numerous districts.  That’s why the Pennsylvania delegation, an “even” state, is 12-5 GOP, and the Michigan delegation, a “D+” state, is 9-5 GOP.

Nationwide, there are 238 R+ House seats, eight even seats, and only 189 D+ seats.  (Republicans hold only eight D+ seats, and Democrats hold only nine R+ seats.) 

218 seats make a majority.  The Democrats would have to win every D+ seat; every even seat; every R+1, R+2, R+3 seat; and at least one R+4 or worse seat to win that majority.

Advantage: GOP.

So the system is, in fact, rigged against the Democrats.  We need more votes than they do, just to break even.  How can we possibly make that happen?

Turnout.

Only 22% of Hispanics are Republicans.  But last year, only 48% of Hispanics voted.

Only 33% of voters under the age of 25 are Republicans.  But last year, only 43% of those young voters voted.

We have to get more Democrats to vote.  When Democrats vote, Democrats win.

Courage,

Alan Grayson”

Additionally, there are other structural forms of conservative bias, principally state and local governments. Since county lines are drawn geographically instead of by populations—there are more rural county governments than urban. Therefore, there are more conservative office holders in this country. More county judges, prosecutors, commissioners and the like giving the GOP a much deeper bench upon which to draw candidates for state and federal offices.

Yes it is a mighty hill to climb with the GOP always on the Democratic side of midfield. This is why we must organize, proselytize, and resist.

Impeach and Imprison.