Monthly Archives: December 2016

Nobody Asked Me, But…Oh, Hell, Let’s Beat a Dead Horse

Posted on by

There used to be a newspaper columnist I enjoyed reading who would sometimes use “Nobody Asked Me, But…” as the title of his column. I thought maybe it was Earl Wilson, a gossip columnist who had a big following in his day. Not so. It was the equally popular Jimmy Cannon, who mostly wrote about sports:

On frequent occasions, when Cannon had no particular sports news to report, he would still manage to fill his daily column space by starting off with the phrase “Nobody asked me, but…” and then filling the rest of the column with his random opinions on any and every subject outside of the sports world. This gambit has been eagerly seized upon by newspaper columnists ever since, not only on the sports page but in every other section. Columnists who “borrow” this device will typically lead off with some lip-service tribute to its originator, such as “In the words of the immortal Jimmy Cannon: Nobody asked me, but…” and then they’re off. [Wikipedia]

 Ok, I’m off… 

Causation is a popular topic for philosophers because the idea of a “cause” gets stranger the more you think about it. For example, what causes an apple to fall from a tree? You might say the stem broke. Or you might say the apple got too heavy. Or that the earth’s gravity eventually made the apple fall. Maybe the cause was everything that led up to that moment, in other words, the entire prehistory of the universe.

It’s much harder to identify a single cause of a big event like a Presidential election. But many of us still want to know why the Electoral College went the way it did, as if there was a single cause and a simple explanation for what happened. I’ve tended to focus on the Clinton email story as the deciding factor because the media gave the story such exorbitant attention and the FBI’s involvement was so perverse. I can’t stop thinking that if only the story had received the minimal attention it deserved or if only the FBI had acted properly, the election would have ended differently.

Another factor that’s been bothering me a lot, however, is the media’s overall coverage of the campaign. This wound was reopened yesterday when I read a disturbing article about the Sinclair Broadcast Group. They’re the largest chain of TV stations in America.  Sinclair’s 173 TV stations gave remarkably positive coverage to T___p and negative coverage to Clinton.

We all know that Fox worked as a propaganda outlet for T___p. But consider how CNN showed all those unfiltered T___p rallies from beginning to end and how they recruited T___p mouthpieces to “balance” their talk shows. And let’s not forget NBC’s contributions to the T___p campaign. Remember Matt Lauer’s ridiculous interviews of the two candidates and Jimmy Fallon trying to make T___p look like a human being? T___p has been on NBC for years with his “reality” shows and has had a long business relationship with Jeff Zucker, the non-journalist who runs CNN. 

It’s enough to make you think we just witnessed a coup carried out by the media and the FBI.

On the other hand (there’s always another hand), the single most bizarre aspect of the 2016 Presidential election lies elsewhere. Putting aside the media’s failures, the FBI’s contribution, the Russians feeding Wikileaks, voter suppression, poor turnout in some quarters, Clinton’s minuses, the desire for “change”, the disappearance of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, white resentment, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, latent authoritarianism and the movements of the planets and we’re still left with one incredible fact:

Sixty-two million adult Americans, including majorities in most states, were willing to vote for a monster.

To me, that says it all.

You may have noticed by now that I haven’t followed in the footsteps of the immortal Jimmy Cannon by filling this post with opinions on a random set of topics. That’s what I intended but failed to do. I trust the title I ended up with is reasonably descriptive.

PS – I forgot to mention the damn National Enquirer. They used their presence on every grocery checkout line in America to promote the Orange Menace and highlight fake Clinton scandals. They were another cog in the propaganda machine that contributed to a 77,000 vote margin in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, après quoi, le déluge.

Good News: The 25th Amendment Can Be Invoked in 23 Days

Posted on by

Bad news: A man with a serious personality disorder will be sworn in as President on January 20th, only 23 days from now.

But as noted above, the new President will immediately become subject to the provisions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. That’s the amendment that allows the Vice-President to become President when the President dies or becomes “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” (unfortunately, of course, it’s still “his”).

Here’s the first paragraph of Section 4:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

There is more to it than that, because the President can object to the Vice-President’s declaration. Congress would then decide the issue.

Granted, given the fact that the new President is being extremely careful to appoint people he trusts to his cabinet, it might be difficult for Vice President Pence to get the necessary signatures right away. He’d probably need to wait until at least one of the President’s appointments had been confirmed, but I’m sure the details could be worked out.

Next question: Will the new President be unable to perform his duties as required? That’s an easy one. The man is clearly suffering from a severe psychological disorder. (I mean, seriously.)

It didn’t get much attention, but three professors of psychiatry sent a letter to President Obama last month. They called for the next President to undergo “a full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation” in order to see if he suffers from an incurable (!) illness called “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”. Professional ethics demand that psychiatrists not diagnose patients from afar, but is there any doubt that the President-elect is not a well person? From their letter:

Here … are the 9 criteria for “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”. If an individual has 5 out of the 9 they have a confirmed diagnosis of this illness…

“Summary : A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

3. Believe that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Has a sense of entitlement

6. Is interpersonally exploitative

7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”

Opinions may vary, but I give him roughly nine out of nine. 

The professors continue:

1. People with NPD are extremely sensitive and insecure. They psychologically require constant compliments and acknowledgement because they do not have their own internal self-esteem. They need to get it from others.

2. If someone does criticize them, … it triggers this deep and painful lack of self-esteem and they MUST lash out to relieve the pain of the criticism.

3. They have only two modes: They are either fully your friend and love you or you are their enemy and they will do everything to discredit you or humiliate you. They can’t help it. The pain of having someone in their circle who does not approve of them or acknowledge them, almost constantly, is too great.

4. There are only two ways to deal with someone with NPD, and they are both dangerous. There is no healthy way of interacting with someone with this affliction. If you criticize them they will lash out at you and if they have a great deal of power, that can be consequential. If you compliment them it only acts to increase the delusional and grandiose reality the sufferer has created, causing him to be even more reliant on constant and endless compliments and unwavering support.

5. Because they crave the attention and approval of others they develop great capacity to engage and entertain and can be quite charismatic, even to the point of developing a cult-like following.

6. Someone with NPD will NEVER get along with any member of the press or any media outlet that criticizes him.

7. Someone with NPD will NEVER hire (and will fire) anyone who criticizes him. Therefore, and because they believe they know better than almost everyone else, they have a very hard time listening and taking any advice.

In other words, the President of the United States will be psychologically armed and extremely dangerous as of high noon on January 20th. That’s when the Vice-President of the United States needs to begin the process of saving us from the Electoral College. Never put off until tomorrow what needs to be done today.

PS:

Bad news: Mike Pence, a rock-ribbed Republican jerk, would become President.

Good news: We’ve survived bastards like him before.

More good news: If Pence doesn’t immediately get the 25th Amendment rolling, see Article 2, Section 4, Impeachment. Even Congressional Republicans do their jobs sometimes.

A Chilling Moment from “The Manchurian Candidate”

Posted on by

From 1962, it’s the scene in which Senator Jordan, shown below, discusses the political ambitions of his colleague, Senator John “Johnny” Iselin: 

15732370_10101046324050040_2786114729509509676_o

Let me quote a bit more:

Sen. Jordan: You’re seriously trying for the nomination for Johnny?

Mrs. Iselin: No, we couldn’t make it. But he has a good chance for the second spot. Now, I’ve answered your question, but you haven’t answered mine. Will you block us?

Sen. Jordan: Would I block you? I would spend every cent I own, and all I could borrow, to block you. There are people who think of Johnny as a clown and a buffoon, but I do not. I despise John Iselin and everything that Iselinism has come to stand for. I think, if John Iselin were a paid Soviet agent, he could not do more to harm this country than he’s doing now. You have asked me a question. Very well, I shall answer you. If you attempt a deal with the delegates, or cause Johnny’s name to be brought forward on the ticket, or if, in my canvass of the delegates tomorrow morning, I find that you are so acting, I will bring impeachment proceedings against your husband on the floor of the United States Senate. And I will hit him, I promise you, with everything in my well-documented book.

Mrs. Iselin: [Mrs. Iselin leaves without a word, the discussion clearly over, for the present]

The three of us watching the movie all had the same reaction. Maybe you’re having it too.

The Word We’ve Been Looking For

Posted on by

“Plutocracy” and “kleptocracy” are inadequate to the present moment. So it was a pleasant surprise to learn there’s a word that means “rule by the worst”. Assuming the Electoral College doesn’t do its duty tomorrow, we now have terminology that fits the bill.

I was so happy to find fitting language for phrases like “America is now ruled by a …” and “The Orange Menace is a true …” that I wrote about it on Daily Kos. That’s a busy site where liberals and progressives discuss current events, such as the end of the world as we know it. 

If you want to know more, please visit my post over there. Thank you and good luck.

Religion and I (Continued Again)

Posted on by

Did a powerful being create the universe? If so, does that being know absolutely everything about its creation? And could that being change the way its creation works with no difficulty at all? Damned if I know.

Of course, many of us claim to know. I never have. When I was little, I was impressed by the miracle stories. Later on, I learned that stories about miracles are much more common than miracles themselves. 

Eventually, I concluded that I was an agnostic. It seemed like the only reasonable position to hold. Take the proposition that God exists. The possible responses are: 

  1. I know that God exists;
  2. I don’t know if God exist;
  3. I know that God doesn’t exist.

Choosing (2) means you’re an agnostic. (You could also say (4) “I don’t know what ‘God exists’ means”, but let’s put that aside as overly argumentative.)

But consider a proposition like “The Easter Bunny exists”. If we replace “God” with “the Easter Bunny” in those three sentences, it feels easier to choose (3): “I know that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist”. Why? Well, because I know there’s no Easter Bunny.

Seriously, only little children believe in the Easter Bunny; there is no worldwide religion devoted to believing in the Easter Bunny; no philosophers or theologians have argued for the existence of the Easter Bunny (well, some have in a way, but not many). Under pressure, I might agree that it’s not completely impossible that the Easter Bunny exists, but I’m much closer to believing (3) “it doesn’t” than (2) “I don’t know”.

As I was thinking about writing these posts, I came across something called the Dawkins Scale. It’s from a book by the biologist Richard Dawkins. It’s also known as the Spectrum of Theistic Probability. In theory, each of us belongs somewhere on this scale:

dawkins_scale

Although I usually think of myself as an agnostic, Dawkins would say I’m an atheist, i.e. (6) “De-Facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable”. Not everyone agrees with the way Dawkins defines the word “atheist”; some of his critics think that to be an atheist, you have to be completely sure that God doesn’t exist.

I’d forgotten, however, that ten years ago, when I stood in front of the congregation at the Unitarian Church, reading my “theology” or “credo”, this is what I said:

This leaves me as either an atheist or an agnostic, depending on how those words are defined. Using language from the biologist Richard Dawkins, my position is that I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that God is not there.

Hence, ten years later, still number 6 on the Dawkins Scale.

Even so, I recently began watching a Public Broadcasting program called “From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians”. Most of the program was familiar from books I read years ago, and it was a little annoying how often they stopped the narrative for ethereal singing and beautiful video of the sun and clouds. But listening to how the New Testament was written and cobbled together decades after Jesus lived, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to read the “books” of the New Testament in chronological order.

I don’t mean “chronological” in the sense of “as the events supposedly occurred or will occur”. That would mean starting with the birth of Jesus and continuing on to the Apocalypse. I mean reading the parts of the New Testament in the order in which they were written. (There is at least one version of the New Testament, called Evolution of the Word, arranged that way. The book’s description says it “reveals how spiritually and politically radical the early Jesus movement began and how it slowly became domesticated”.)  

Scholars believe the first book of the New Testament was written by Paul the Apostle roughly 20 years after Jesus died. That’s 1 Thessalonians, written around the year 50. That was followed by six or seven other letters written by Paul. The first gospel, Mark, wasn’t written until the year 70 or so. The first gospel that appears in the New Testament, Matthew, was written around 20 years after that (60 years after Jesus died).

Maybe reading the New Testament in the order it was written will show something important about how Christianity began. So far, I’ve read three of Paul’s letters. He comes across as a true proselytizer, someone saying whatever he can to turn his audience into followers of Jesus. I’m not sure I’d have trusted him, since he seems like such a self-promoter, although it would have been a relief to hear him say it wasn’t necessary to follow the Jewish dietary laws or be circumcised in order to become a Christian.

In 1 Thessalonians, Paul blames his fellow Jews for killing Jesus. I assumed that was an accusation from later times created in order to foster anti-Semitism. In Galatians, he calls the world “evil”. Paul emphasizes that faith in Jesus is the one true path to salvation. When Jesus returns, the faithful will be lifted up into the clouds, after which they’ll live with the Lord forever.  

I don’t know if I’ll keep reading, or if I’ll share what I read. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that I won’t be moving higher or lower on the Dawkins Scale.