tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91812573536953960032023-11-16T02:28:39.871-05:00A Curious Little BlogIn which I blog about curious things that strike me, in the hope of piquing your curiousity. Also, perhaps, of getting some feedback on things that I can't figure out.Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.comBlogger307125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-62728615019741645812022-07-30T10:52:00.003-04:002022-07-30T10:52:37.611-04:00What Are Pronouns For?<p> Here's what I don't get about people defining their own pronouns (and I use "their" advisedly): If I am talking to you, your pronoun is "you." No one disputes that. If I am talking <i>about</i> you to another person, the pronoun I use to reference you is none of your business. I am in a conversation with someone else; you are not a party to it, and you are not entitled to impose rules on it. Ideally, you will never know what we say -- but if you do find out, it doesn't matter because the pronouns I used were for my convenience, not for your feelings. Heck, I may not even have met you, may not have any idea what you identify as or even what sex you really are (as sometimes happens when people have names like "Leslie" or "Ashley" that get used for both sexes, or foreign names that I am unfamiliar with). So mind your business and there will be nothing to get offended about.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-23138837658326162622021-12-11T20:01:00.001-05:002021-12-11T20:01:00.206-05:00BLM on Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict<p>You might expect BLM not to have strong opinions on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. After all, Rittenhouse shot three white people; there was no racial angle whatever. And yet, somehow, it is about white supremacy <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-lives-matter-statement-on-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/">after all</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Today’s not-guilty verdict is expected when white supremacy lives and
breathes within our institutions. It is a reminder of how our legal
systems are deeply rooted in white supremacy.</p></blockquote><p>You may be surprised to hear that the Rittenhouse verdict was predetermined: "It was a set up from the beginning. The police, the judge, the court,
mainstream media, and every single system involved all wrapped their
arms around Kyle Rittenhouse from the very beginning — from even before
the murders he committed."</p><p>I don't know about you, but I don't think anyone of those had even heard of Kyle Rittenhouse before he shot three people in self-defense.</p><p>As for what they said after the event, some people did defend Rittenhouse, but hardly all of them. I wonder if BLM is aware of the Slate article <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/conservatives-defend-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse.html">"<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The Conservative Defense of Kyle Rittenhouse Is Dangerous Nonsense"</span></span></a><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">, or the Huffington Post piece called <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rep-david-bowen-vigilantes-kenosha-wisconsin_n_5f49a3d6c5b6cf66b2b80d95">"</a></span></span><a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rep-david-bowen-vigilantes-kenosha-wisconsin_n_5f49a3d6c5b6cf66b2b80d95"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">White Supremacists Were 'On A Hunting Spree' In Kenosha, Says Wisconsin Lawmaker"</span></span></a><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">, or the one that found different portrayals of Rittenhouse in the media: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/28/vigilante-volunteer-terrorist-how-us-media-covers-kyle-rittenhouse">"</a></span></span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/28/vigilante-volunteer-terrorist-how-us-media-covers-kyle-rittenhouse"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Vigilante, volunteer, terrorist: how the US media covers Kyle Rittenhouse"</span></span></a><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">BLM's comments may seem like raving from the fringe, but this should not come as a surprise. This is a site that <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-xmas/">states</a>, without any hesitation, that "</span></span>white-supremacist-capitalism invented policing, initially as
chattel-slavery-era “paddy rollers,” in order to protect its interests
and put targets on the backs of Black people." If you thought that police forces evolved around the Western world in the 19th century, regardless of the presence of racial minorities, BLM is here to put you straight: it was white supremacy, and in particular "white-supremacist-capitalism," that invented policing. Those Bobbies were just copying the U.S. system.<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></p><p> </p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-91305348391082276122021-12-10T20:01:00.002-05:002021-12-10T20:01:24.719-05:00Black Xmas<p> Since I heard about BLM's curious statement about Jussie Smolett's trial, I had occasion to visit their site and see what other <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-xmas/">interesting views</a> they hold these days. One of those views appears a fairly conventional attack on consumerism at Christmas:</p><p></p><blockquote>As we prepare ourselves for the holiday season, we are bombarded with
ads that seek to whip us up into a consumerist frenzy. Black Friday
sales are being rolled out weeks in advance of Thanksgiving and, at
every turn, white-supremacist-capitalism is telling us to spend our
money on things that we don’t need, to reap profits for corporations.</blockquote><p>How does this relate to race? Well, <strong>"Capitalism doesn’t love Black people"</strong> they tell us. No kidding: capitalism doesn't love anyone. If you want to fight this trend, you can <a href="https://blackxmas.org/buyblack/">#BuyBlack</a>. Because if you're going to spend money on things that you don't need, at least you can spend it at black-owned businesses. Fight the capitalist system by...continuing to buy things, but at an alternate location. Okay.</p><p></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-79855420766049757532021-12-09T19:51:00.005-05:002021-12-09T19:51:59.318-05:00BLM and Smollett<p> </p><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="ecm0bbzt hv4rvrfc ihqw7lf3 dati1w0a" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id="jsc_c_cb"><div class="j83agx80 cbu4d94t ew0dbk1b irj2b8pg"><div class="qzhwtbm6 knvmm38d"><span class="d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql b0tq1wua a8c37x1j keod5gw0 nxhoafnm aigsh9s9 fe6kdd0r mau55g9w c8b282yb d9wwppkn hrzyx87i jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v b1v8xokw oo9gr5id hzawbc8m" dir="auto"><div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">BLM on the Smollett trial: "In our commitment to abolition, we can never believe police, especially the Chicago Police Department (CPD) over Jussie Smollett." Okay, but his accusers are two black men whom Smollett continues to insist actually attacked him, don't they get any credence?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">If you're wondering what abolition the above statement refers to, they later say "Black Lives Matter will continue to work towards the abolition of police." That's not defunding, mind you, which some people can claim means something other than what it says. That is <i>abolition</i> of the police. </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> The statement concludes that "We will continue to love and protect one another, and wrap our arms around those who do the work to usher in Black freedom." Except, apparently, the freedom of black men wrongly accused by certain other black men, because it's not convenient.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">https://blacklivesmatter.com/statement-regarding-the-ongoing-trial-of-jussie-smollett/<br /></div></div></span></div></div></div></div>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-31016800789281101692021-03-05T21:23:00.002-05:002021-03-05T21:23:21.208-05:00The Oldest President<p>Did you know that Joe Biden is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age" target="_blank">oldest person to become president</a>? The previous record was held by Ronald Reagan. Joe Biden was older when he became president than when Reagan's second term <i>ended</i>. That means that every minute Biden spends in office, he will be setting new records for the oldest president to have served.</p><p>Does this matter? It may or it may not. One thing is for certain: we would have heard a lot more about it if Biden had been a Republican. I recall quite a bit about Reagan's being the oldest president when he ran in 1984. The fact that many people have raised questions about Biden's mental acuity long before the election makes it even more relevant. I have heard a number of people question whether he will serve out his term, and I think it is a fair question. He may, of course; but, at his age, it would hardly be shocking if something happened that forced him to resign.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-60304120324766889872021-03-04T22:09:00.006-05:002021-03-04T22:09:48.178-05:00Neanderthal Thinking<p>Presumably everyone is aware by now of Biden's comment that <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-criticizes-mask-mandate-lifting-texas-mississippi/" target="_blank">lifting mask mandates is the result of "Neanderthal thinking."</a> It is only marginally surprising to see a Democraic President insult Republican governors in this way. It would have been more surprising, perhaps shocking, 25 or 50 years ago, but hardly unusual these days. (Although it may be the first use by a major public official of "Neanderthal" as a pejoritive; at least, I can't recall any others.)</p><p>What could he have said? How could Biden have phrased his comments differently to make the same point but without the contemptuous overtones? It isn't all that hard to come up with something. "I realize that it is tempting to open up public spaces and get rid of mask mandates as soon as possible," he might have said. "We do need to get to that point, but I think we aren't there yet. The dangers of premature opening are too great, and the goal of having universal vaccination is too close, for us to take that chance. I hope the governors who are making these decisions will reconsider, for the sake of their citizens and all Americans." See, that wasn't so hard, and I don't even agree with Biden. He could have said it nicely, without insulting anyone, and it would have had all the more force for being magnanimous. Instead he just comes off like someone who is out of touch.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-45545008205698049842021-03-02T20:23:00.001-05:002021-03-02T20:23:03.074-05:00Why Is This Okay?<p>Are we allowed to manage our borders? Clearly, the people who support abolishing ICE don't think so. That includes excluding people for medical reasons; after you get rid of ICE, after all, you won't have any means to keep them out. That's why I'm confused that I haven't heard pushback against <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/justintrudeau-border-pandemic-covid/2021/02/28/id/1011814/">Canada's shutdown of immigration from the U.S.</a> It seems to me that this should be as off-limits as it would be if America shut out immigrants from Canada (or Mexico, or China) because their country was undergoing a covid epidemic. I would like someone to explain to me why it's okay for Canada to keep out Americans, but not okay for Americans to keep out anyone; and, if it isn't okay, why don't we hear just as much against Trudeau as we hear against American leaders who support basically identical policies?<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-55234493456106499122021-03-01T10:47:00.001-05:002021-03-01T10:47:01.622-05:00Don't Boycott the Olympics<p>Calls to <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/will-countries-boycott-the-2022-winter-olympics-in-beijing/ar-BB1aXH53">boycott the 2022 Olympics in China</a> have been increasing recently. China's human rights record continues to be deplorable, but I don't think the Olympics are the appropriate place to express our dissatisfaction. The whole point of the Olympics, it seems to me, is to be a place where countries of the world can come together regardless of political differences. Even though China's actions toward the Uyghurs are reprehensible, I question whether they are so much beyond the pale that it is worth turning the Olympics political over them.</p><p>I say that because I do leave open the possibility that a country could do something so egregious that it would seem to be tacit acceptance to participate in an international event that it hosts. I would expect most human rights issues to be addressed when deciding on the host country, however. China's treatment of Uyghurs may have gotten worse recently, but their record has been bad going back at least 30 years and probably as long as the Uyghurs have been part of China. The time to speak out against China's hosting the Olympics would have been when the IOC awarded the Olympics. I don't know exactly when that was, but it appears that future host cities have been determined out to 2028, so it was very likely within the last ten years. I'm pretty sure that China's treatment of Uyghurs has not gotten exponentially worse in the last decade, although I am willing to be proven wrong on that point.</p><p>There is also the issue of the athletes who have trained for years who are denied a chance to compete. This is also a serious concern, and a reason not to boycott lightly, but it is secondary. If we discovered Auschwitz-style extermination camps where the Chinese were killing massive numbersof Uyghurs, I would consider that sufficient reason to boycott the Olympics, and athletes' plight would not seriously enter into it. Mass killing is more important than sports. But to choose an ongoing issue, not raise concerns about it for ten years, and then call for a boycott: that seems irresponsible on the part of politicians, and something that athletes should not be punished for.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-31789090271689155742021-02-25T22:12:00.002-05:002021-02-25T22:12:13.353-05:00Abuse of Language<p>I have many opinions on politics, but one of my firmest principles is that language should not be abused. You may be aware of George Orwell's famous essay, "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language">Politics and the English Language</a>," in which he argued that people use language to obscure political realities more than to clarify them. I can't speak for his day, but it is certainly common now, when you commonly hear "speech" equated with "violence" and violence (by the correct side) equated with legitimate protest.</p><p>This morning, I was eating breakfast in a hotel and I saw a segment on CNN about the Capitol "insurrectionists" on January 6th. (I can't find an article that uses that word in the headline as the news story did, but there are many articles on CNN that make liberal use of that word, e.g. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/senate-impeachment-trial-day-3/index.html">this one</a>.) CNN has put a lot of effort into maximizing the potential danger from the riot that day, but I don't think any amount of rationalizing would equate what happened to an attempted insurrection. There may conceivably have been people participating who actually wanted an insurrection, but was happened was clearly an excited crowd in which some members got carried away and entered the Capitol (without any resistance from security, from what I hear, so basically without violence, although some violence did occur). You would think if anyone seriously wanted to attempt an insurrection, they would have done something like kidnap a member of Congress or attempt to enter the legislative chambers and make demands. Instead, some people stole some souvenirs. If this was an attempted insurrection, it was the lamest attempt ever.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-12415647040460565562021-02-23T19:03:00.002-05:002021-02-23T19:03:36.986-05:00Moral Bankruptcy<p>Someone posted the following to <a href="https://twitter.com/mattwallaert/status/1360606475345829890?s=20">Twitter</a> recently:</p><p></p><blockquote> As a social psychologist, I understand why using women’s sports to argue against transgender rights works. But it is tough to
imagine a more morally bankrupt position: ‘I’m going to make you sit in a
gender that doesn’t fit you so my daughter can win her soccer game.’</blockquote><p>When it comes to moral bankruptcy, it’s hard to beat “All of society
needs to treat delusional individuals as a different sex than they
actually are, to the detriment of people actually of that sex.”</p><p></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-62000320161395340032021-02-19T19:26:00.004-05:002021-02-19T19:26:20.827-05:00Treaties and Enforceability<p>Biden has now rejoined the Paris climate accords. Back when Trump withdrew from them, there was a lot of talk about how there was no need to withdraw since all the targets were voluntary anyway. (One wonders what the point of being party to the agreement is in that case, but we'll leave that aside.) In what I believe to be an unprecedented developement, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/paris-courts-find-french-government-guilty-of-not-upholding-commitment-to-paris-agreement">private organizations in France sued the national government</a> for failing to live up to its commitments under the agreement and actually won in court. This is unusual on multiple levels. For one, I'm not sure what standing any group could possibly have to sue its government over an international treaty. Perhaps that is a nicety of common law as opposed to Roman law; I don't know enough to say. For another, it is hard to see exactly what this suit achieves for the plaintiffs. The court ordered the government to pay one franc as a fine, and I don't see any other remedies included, so it is difficult to tell if the government is required to take any specific steps. It is difficult to tell what precise steps they would have to take since there are no damages to be compensated -- perhaps, again, damages are a concept of common law that doesn't apply here.</p><p>One thing we can definitely conclude is that at least one other party to the climate accords does not believe they are voluntary, and I wonder what all those who said the contrary a few years ago would respond to that.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-63427268137608380232021-02-18T22:23:00.002-05:002021-02-18T22:23:22.395-05:00Biden and China's Cultural Norms<p>I have mixed feelings about whether Biden should have taken China to task for its treatment of the Uighurs (and Hong Kong) <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/02/17/biden-says-uighur-genocide-is-part-of-chinas-different-norms/">in his first talk with president Xi Jinping</a>. I do not have mixed feelings about how he explained his failure to do so in a town hall: his responses are reprehensible. “Culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow,” Biden said. Yes, we are aware that China has no respect for human life and this is normal for their government, but that is emphatically not a justification for their actions.</p><p>Biden made it sound like China's human rights abuses are just a natural extension of their history of trying to stay strong and unified. There is some truth in that, but historical continuity is never considered exculpatory, or even a mitigating circumstance, among Americans ready to denounce human rights abuses in other countries. I don't always agree with the human rights gadflies, but in this case, I do: China's treatment of the Uighurs is an outrage, and its ongoing threats against Taiwan are not only morally wrong but also a serious potential cause of a major war.</p><p>Biden could have explained his failure to berate China simply enough: "This was my first conversation with Xi, and I did not want to begin our relationship too aggressively. We did not discuss any matters in detail, so a reference to specific policy points like this would have been out of place. We will certainly be bringing up China's human rights record in future meetings, and especially calling attention to it in international fora such as the United Nations." Instead, he excused his own failure to bring it up by justifying China's policies, which is weak and not appropriate for a leader.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-76474855540299423742021-02-17T19:49:00.002-05:002021-02-17T19:49:29.259-05:00Second Independence Day<p> I am sick of wearing a mask, and sick of shutdowns and everything that goes with them. It is obvious now that there is <i>no</i> danger of covid killing large numbers of the population under the age of 60, and the younger one is, the less vulnerable one is. That's not to say that young people haven't died, and won't die in the future. People die of all kinds of things, but rightly pay little attention to the things with a very low chance of causing death. Even if you tried to protect yourself against every possible cause of death, you would still die, and you would lead a miserable existence in the meantime. That's why I think we should focus on protecting the most vulnerable, and letting the rest of us judge our own need for safety and willingness to take risks.<br /></p><p>When we are finally free of these covid restrictions, we should declare a second national independence day, and we should declare that we will not allow ourselves to be restricted like this in the future in the name of emergency measures. I'm all for emergency measures implemented by the executive branch (governors and, to a lesser extent, president), but only for two weeks. That's my limit for emergencies. After that, unless something is preventing state legislatures and Congress from holding sessions, all executive restrictions should be eliminated and it should be up to the legislatures to decide. Are they going to have arduous debates and trouble coming up with restrictions that everyone can agree on? Probably so. That's why we have legislatures: because we can't all agree, and we choose representatives to discuss and debate and come to compromise solutions. There is no excuse for a democracy to have emergency orders lasting a year or more.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-80964723780274233802021-02-16T21:40:00.000-05:002021-02-17T19:26:38.877-05:00Common ground<p> In these divisive times, it is import to cherish moments when we agree with those on the other side of the aisle. This is such a time.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-53704399001448185952021-02-15T23:06:00.005-05:002021-02-15T23:06:58.420-05:00Are you surprised?<p> Outside of Minneapolis and conservative news outlets, you won't see much about this. Most of the top hits I got searching for "Minneapolis police funding" were about the money they cut last year, not the most recent news.<br /></p><p><a href="https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-to-spend-6-4-million-to-hire-more-police/600022400/" target="_blank">Minneapolis to spend $6.4 million to hire more police</a> </p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-16059976604483804232021-02-14T09:17:00.004-05:002021-02-14T11:41:16.305-05:00Deadly riots<p>Remember, right-wing violence is the major threat to the US. </p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/violent-blgm-protest-two-nypd-injured" target="_blank">Violent BLM protest in NYC leaves two NYPD cops injured, 11 arrested</a> </p><p> </p><p>(Edit: is this reported on any MSM site? I can't find it on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or other. I'm not saying it isn't there, but I would appreciate it if anyone can find it they would post links.) <br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-23421487475502945202021-02-12T19:47:00.004-05:002021-02-12T19:52:27.258-05:00Double standards<p>This is brilliant. Everyone on the Right has been listening to aggressive rhetoric from the Left for years and can see the absurdity of charging Trump with inciting violence. This is the best answer.</p><br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aj1Rwlztapg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OjnX4IUt_eo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-77101396046137065552021-02-11T18:41:00.003-05:002021-02-11T18:41:31.540-05:00The Impeachment Trial<p>I understand the Democrats made a lot of use of video from the Capitol riot while making their case for removal. It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't: no amount of video evidence of the damage done by rioters counts at all against Trump. The gist of the case is to show that Trump incited the riot, and even if the rioters burned down the Capitol and everyone in it, it would not have the slightest bearing on whether he did or not.</p><p>They have also used evidence from some of the rioters who said that they were following Trump's instructions. From what I have read <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-trump-dozen-capitol-rioters-trumps-guidance/story?id=75757601" target="_blank">here</a>, those instructions consisted of marching to the Capitol. Well, there is no doubt that Trump encouraged his supporters to do that. It should be needless to say, but, again, here it is: marching to the Capitol is not the same as attacking the Capitol. If it were, practically every Democrat who ever led a protest would be guilty. It doesn't even matter if rioters <i>thought</i> Trump wanted them to attack the Capitol, because that speaks more to their state of mind than his. It only matters if Trump spoke words that could reasonably be interpreted as instructions to attack the Capitol, which he unambiguously did not. The fact that several of the rioters are currently facing trial and would like to shift blame from themselves onto someone else should certainly factor into any evaluation of the rioters' state of mind. (One lawyer said "that her client had taken Trump's 'bait.'") The other question is, how did so many people march on the Capitol and <i>not</i> attack it, nor think that Trump wanted them to do so, and were not even aware that attacks were taking place?</p><p>All this speaks to the expectations of Democrats, who were, indeed, convinced that Trump was going to attempt violence, and who therefore are able to see violence in anything he says, even things that speak of peaceful protest. But this has nothing to do with the actual situation on January 6; Democrats have been expecting some extraordinary anti-Constitutional act by Trump since before he even took office.<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-60493222332871117882021-02-11T09:20:00.002-05:002021-02-11T09:20:14.768-05:00Biden: Cracking down on disrespectI was surprised to hear Joe Biden making the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-i-will-fire-you-on-spot-if-disrespect-others-2021-1?op=1" target="_blank">following comments</a> during the swearing in of his new staff:
<blockquote>I'm not joking when I say this: If you're ever working with me and I hear you treat another with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot On the spot. No if, ands, or buts...And it's not hyperbole. The only thing I expect with absolute certitude is honesty and decency.</blockquote>
Let's leave aside the irony that Biden himself has <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/biden-calls-iowa-voter-damn-liar-and-fat-after-ukraine-accusation.html" target="_blank">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-on-video-lashes-out-at-detroit-auto-worker-in-profanity-laced-gun-dispute" target="_blank">insulted</a> <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7984593/Joe-Biden-calls-voter-lying-dog-faced-pony-soldier-claims-caucus.html" target="_blank">people</a> while campaigning and has a history of <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/499065-lies-damned-lies-and-the-truth-about-joe-biden" target="_blank">dishonesty</a>.
The thing that strikes me about this is that it is illegal. You cannot fire someone on the spot like that. It is possible that, because we're dealing with political staff, Biden is exempt from the usual federal rules regarding employment, but still. It might sound nice to promise to fire people who "talk down" to other people, but that's a pretty vague standard. Even if the case is obvious, it is still hardly a good idea to fire an employee -- who might otherwise be ideal -- based on a single incident. I was surprised that no one in the news seemed to comment on this, but I did find one <a href="https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/president-bidens-fire-on-spot-policy-is-a-bad-idea-for-your-business.html" target="_blank">article</a> that draws attention to the down side of such a peremptory policy:
<blockquote>When I first hear that, I thought, "Hallelujah! That is precisely what we need--someone to take a hardline on proper behavior."
And then I put my HR hat on and said, "But that's terrible policy."
</blockquote>
It pretty much says everything that I think, so go have a look at it and see if you agree.Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-13385984499778881932020-10-01T09:39:00.003-04:002020-10-01T09:39:24.359-04:00Trump's Debate Manager<p> "Donald. Donald, listen to me!" He slaps the president across the face.</p><p>"Do you want to be president next year, Donald? Because if you do, you have to stop interrupting your opponent."</p><p>"I know it worked against Hillary. But you know what? You didn't do it that much against her. Besides, people were looking for reasons to vote against Hillary. They didn't like her, and they liked that you stood up to her."</p><p>"Guess what, Donald? People are not looking for reasons to vote against Biden. They're looking for reasons to vote against you. That's right. I know Biden is going senile. Yes, I know Biden has left a trail of gaffes and outright lies about his personal exploits that would have destroyed a lesser candidate. Guess what? If he has survived those things, he is not a lesser candidate. There is something about him that appeals to people, and VIEWERS DO NOT LIKE TO SEE HIM INTERRUPTED."</p><p>"If you're debating a candidate prone to gaffes, let him make gaffes! Interrupting him all the time just saves him from himself. Let him speak, for heaven's sake!"</p><p>"Donald, you've got to control yourself. You can go out there and be yourself, and interrupt all the time, and lose the election; or you can go out, act like a normally polite person, and take turns talking. That doesn't guarantee you'll win, but doing it the other way guarantees you will lose."<br /></p>Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-31486343406120459212020-07-20T20:34:00.002-04:002020-07-20T20:34:51.995-04:00Cherish All LivesI disagree with the Black Lives Matter movement on just about everything, but I admire their brilliant choice of a motto. They've picked something that no one could possibly disgree with. Of course black lives matter! But what does that mean? Well, it was started in reference to police killings of blacks, so it must imply that we have to cut down on that. But how? Defund the police? That doesn't follow, and it's far from something everyone would agree with. Somehow, however, people who agree that black lives matter find themselves swept up in the defund the police movement. And since police obviously aren't going to be totally defunded, they start thinking about what else they can do to stay on the right side, the safe side. That begins by putting "black lives matter" on all their web sites and telling people that we must do more to stop racism -- which is quite a jump from the bland assertion that black lives matter.<br />
<br />
Saying "black lives matter" is inherently racial, but it's also obvious, so it appears like a neutral statement. So much so that people who counter with "all lives matter" are considered racist, even though "all lives matter" doesn't mention race and "black lives matter" does. Why would it be racist? Because it seems to deny the reality that black lives are not valued in our society and blacks are killed, mistreated, and generally undervalued disproportionately. Never mind if there is actually any evidence to support that "reality." If you agree that "black lives matter," you must agree with it; and if you assert that all lives matter, you must not agree with it, and therefore you must not think that black lives matter. Thus the power of a slogan to direct thought.<br />
<br />
I like to come up with effective titles and slogans, so I have given some thought to this issue. It is difficult to counter "Black Lives Matter," and "All Lives Matter" clearly isn't doing it. I think the counter slogan needs to be more active. The power of "Black Lives Matter" lies in the way it implies that society does <i>not</i> think black lives matter. Saying "All Lives Matter" is obviously a response to "Black Lives Matter," but without the implicit idea that society doesn't value all lives. ("Blue Lives Matter" was more effective, I thought, but it is also very particular.) The counter-slogan needs to be something that poses the same implicit contradiction to society's actual values, and preferably something more active that just saying "something matters."<br />
<br />
The best I can come up with at the moment is, "Cherish All Lives." This implies that society does not cherish all lives, and that we need to do so. It encompasses "Black Lives Matter" because, if it is true that black lives are not valued, then clearly anyone who believes "Cherish All Lives" must believe that this is a wrong that needs to be corrected. But it also gives us room to say that police lives matter, white lives matter, even disagreeable people's lives matter: it's not about race or ideology, but about love and humanity. If you truly believe that all lives matter, then I think you should believe that we need to Cherish All Lives.Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-45944504497973216402020-07-09T11:23:00.003-04:002020-07-09T11:23:55.084-04:00If you'd stay, I'd subtract Twenty years from my lifeFor some reason these lines from Billy Vera's song "At This Moment" have been running through my head recently. Sometimes I like to think about hypotheticals, such as, "Would someone really give up 20 years of his life for a romantic interest?"<br />
<br />
I'm not a good candidate for this question, for two reasons. One, I am happily married; and two, I am over 50, so losing 20 years off my life seems pretty dire at this point. Let's assume, then, that we are dealing with a 20-something person who is desperately in love and appears not likely to win their beloved's heart. Even in those circumstances, would you do it?<br />
<br />
At other times, I have used speculative questions like this to wonder how a person would assess the reality of the offer. For example, if someone offered to buy your soul for $1 million, would you accept? You probably would not think that this person could literally buy your soul even if he wanted to, but would you take a chance anyway?<br />
<br />
In this case, however, I am more concerned with the balance of the offer: would you trade 20 years of your life for a romantic partner? So let's assume that the genie making this proposal is entirely credible: you believe he can do what he says, your only question is whether you want to accept.<br />
<br />
Even granted that you believe the genie has this power, exactly what is he proposing? One of the recurring themes of wish-granting is the wisher getting what he asks for in a literal sense, but not getting what he really wants (e.g., <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_Bottle" target="_blank">this episode</a> of The Twilight Zone). But you don't have to assume that the genie is trying to trick you to worry about this, especially when you're dealing with human behaviour. What exactly are you wishing for? Do you want this person to say yes right now? That's fine, but what if they change their mind later? Do you want this person to be completely devoted to you for the rest of your life? That's more in line with what you were probably thinking, but still...might it not become a little tiresome for you? Sure, you love this person now, but how will you feel in a year or five years? And will the fact that this person is automatically and unconditionally yours make him or her seem less desirable (as I feel it is bound to do)? You could, of course, separate from this person later if you wished, but how would you feel having forced this person to love only you, and then abandoning him or her for someone else? Surely you would have at least some guilt over that.<br />
<br />
Maybe there's a way around even that problem. Maybe you can get the genie to make this other person love you as long as you love him or her. That should straighten out the problem of your changing your mind later. But what exactly is your love? I'm sure "love" is a meaningful emotion, but when it comes to enforcing wishes, it is a little difficult to define. Is it a binary? Do you love this person or not? Or is it a sliding scale, so that the more you love this person, the more he or she loves you? In the latter case, would you wonder at all times whether he or she was loving you as much as you want? Would you actually try to love the person more, in order that you might be more loved? And how would it feel having to earn love one quantum at a time, even if you are paying for it in the same coin? It actually seems like a pretty good situation in general, trying to love someone more so that they will love you back; but, once you tie it to a enforceable rule, it seems a lot less heartwarming and a lot more transactional.<br />
<br />
I haven't even gotten into the question of giving up 20 years of your life. Twenty sounds like a lot to me. For some reason, I think of ten as the standard. I imagine the last ten years of a person's life to be full of a lot of pain and inconveniences, so that maybe you wouldn't miss those years as much as ten years when you were younger. The length of time is certainly variable, and I would guess that a lot of people are fine for seven, eight, or even nine of their last ten years. Or, you might have been destined to die suddenly at age 50, and you are actually dooming yourself to miss some of the prime years of your life -- most of them, if you agreed to exchange twenty years for your sweetheart. Given that the death is a future cost and the benefit of love is immediate, I expect that people would generally pay less attention to the cost than to the benefit. If it were a real scenario, we would include the chance that we might never have to pay; for example, if the genie were instead a business that we owed, maybe the business would go bankrupt in the meantime. And the mode of death being undetermined, we might think we could avoid it by leading a very healthy lifestyle and avoiding risky activities. These wouldn't help with a genie, presumably, but you'd try to come up with some rationalization of how the genie was going to make you die, some comparison to a real-life phenomenon, and work with that.<br />
<br />
I don't have any conclusion to this thought experiment (since conclusions aren't really the point of them), but I'm glad I was never forced to make this choice.Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-30136922104060844112020-06-12T19:05:00.001-04:002020-06-12T19:05:14.931-04:00The role of hypocrisy in public debate<br />No one has anything good to say about hypocrisy, but I am going to argue that it is best left out of political debates -- for the most part.<br /><br />Dave Rubin relates a time that he lost patience with an old friend of his. They were debating a subject over a meal, and his friend insisted that Rubin's motives must be something other than whatever argument he was making. Rubin stopped him and asked (roughly), "Are you willing to grant that I believe the things that I say with the same sincerity that you believe the things that you say?" The friend would not concede that, so Rubin walked out of the restaurant and ended their friendship.<br /><br />I have faced similar accusations many times. Often, friends will phrase it so that it doesn't apply to me directly: "I believe you," they effectively say, "but I don't believe anyone else who makes the same argument."<br /><br />The tactic of accusing someone of insincerity or hypocrisy is possibly the lowest form of argument. It avoids the issue and changes attention from the matter at hand to a person's character, which should, in principle, have nothing to do with the correctness of his argument. Logically, it is a form of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. It seems to have become more common in the past few decades, in America at least, and it could be the cause for the current crisis over free speech. Rational debate depends on the idea that all sides are trying to arrive at the truth, with the end goal (in political debate) of creating a better society. If one knows in advance that his opponents are secretly working for an underhanded purpose, there is no reason to submit to the mirage of a debate. It such cases, it is better to shut down the dishonest speech and leave public debate to honest men and women -- who all, of course, happen to agree on the best way to approach an issue.<br /><br />There are thus good reasons to avoid using the charge of hypocrisy against one's opponents; the more this charge is used and believed, the less likely truly free speech is to continue, and with it, a free society. At its most dangerous, the charge of hypocrisy is levelled at someone on the basis of no evidence whatever: he simply <i>must</i> have a more sinister motive than what he claims. I am calling this "dogmatic hypocrisy" because it is a claim based entirely on the belief of the accuser. Since sinister motives are hard to demonstrate, many people have taken to using the shorthand of associating an individual with a supposedly unacceptable group or publication. Quillette is on the list of unacceptable publications. The ironically titled "<a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quillette" target="_blank">RationalWiki</a>" page begins its article on Quillette by asserting that it is an "online magazine that tries to present itself as centrist and libertarian when in reality it serves to legitimize many views shared by the alt-right. For example, it regularly publishes articles from a strong conservative viewpoint that are anti-feminist, anti-immigration, Islamophobic and anti-transgender, with some articles more controversially supporting racialism and HBD ("human-biodiversity") pseudoscience, popular among white nationalists." Obviously, the author of that passage does not want to "legitimize" these harmful views by taking Quillette authors seriously.<br /><br />That such a priori judgments are harmful to an open debate is probably evident to most readers. However, there are two further levels of challenging someone's motivations that are more difficult to dismiss. The first is what is commonly meant by "hypocrisy": doing one thing and saying another. We might label this "behavioural hypocrisy." Two favourite tropes that fall into this category are Christian preachers caught having affairs, and men who speak against homosexuality getting caught engaging in gay sex. A signal event of this type occurred when Larry Craig, a politician who (according to some) "had a record of anti-gay legislation," was arrested for soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom. More recently, Neil Ferguson defied a <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/neil-ferguson-error-judgment-185743692.html" target="_blank">lockdown</a> for which he was the chief proponent. He described his behaviour as "an error in judgment," but I think most people would consider it more aptly a case of lying and cheating.<br /><br />Behavioural hypocrisy makes for wonderful political theater, and it seems difficult to argue that someone who says one thing but does another does not make a good advocate for his position. There are at least two problems with using the charge in a political setting, however. First, it is not necessarily the case that a person's inconsistent behaviour indicates deliberate hypocrisy. As Samuel Johnson once asked an interlocutor, "Sir, are you so grossly ignorant of human nature, as not to know that a man may be very sincere in good principles, without having good practice?" (from Boswell’s Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, Monday, 25 October). Indeed, depending on when the transgression occurred -- before, during, or after his public pronouncements -- a person may have changed his views and may even be advocating a position specifically because of bad experiences of his own, such as reformed alcoholics.<br /><br />Second, even an insincere person may advance a valid argument. A lockdown may be a good idea, even if its main advocate doesn't obey his own rules. Certainly, if a politician is arguing for a standard that no one can live up to, that seems like a bad standard to enforce. On the other hand, the fact that one person, or several, have failed to meet a standard does not mean that the standard itself is invalid. All you have succeded in showing is that one particular person lacks the moral standing to insist on that standard; you have not undermined the argument for the standard except in a very limited way.<br /><br />There is one case, I think, where it is fair to challenge a person's motives, and that concerns what I will call "judgment hypocrisy." Consider the case of government debt. There are different ways of assessing its importance, but if someone says one day that it is a terrible evil, and the next day advocates deficit spending for his favourite program, it is reasonable to point out this inconsistency. When it comes to assessing the relative merits of fiscal responsibility, someone who changes his mind frequently should not be considered seriously as an advocate for either side.<br /><br />When people on the Left lined up to affirm that the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were serious and credible enough to disqualify him from the Supreme Court, they created a standard that was bound to work against them some day. Because Christine Blasey Ford's complaint had no evidence, even circumstantial, to support it, Democrats argued for a default position of #BelieveAllWomen. (In spite of the recent <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/tara-reade-believe-all-women.html" target="_blank">article</a> arguing that #BelieveAllWomen is "overwhelmingly" used by conservatives, a Twitter search reveals that it was initiated, and has been used about equally, by feminists. There was even an article in December 2017 in <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-12-15/consider-the-consequences-of-believeallwomen" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> warning of the dangers of #BelieveAllWomen -- prior to the Kavanaugh hearings). Alyssa Milano recently reinterpreted this hashtag, arguing that "Believing women was never about 'Believe all women no matter what they say,' it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default." Which is credible, in a way; clearly, not every single accusation made by women can be true. What is problematic is how this standard has been applied by Milano and others. In 2018, neither Milano nor anyone else on her side talked about "gray areas," which she has suddenly discovered. There is literally not a single point in Ford's accusation that has more evidentiary support than Tara Reade's against Joe Biden: Reade's incident was more recent, she can identify a specific time and place that it occurred, and she reported it immediately to people around her. If there is any reason for believing Christine Blasey Ford, that reason applies more strongly for Tara Reade, yet Milano and others have decided not to take Reade's accusations as seriously. The only defense has been from individuals saying that they know Joe Biden and believe him, which is no defense at all in the #MeToo standard where no amount of character witnesses or good deeds counts as evidence against sexual assault.<br /><br />I have only seen one serious argument for Democrats to ignore Reade's accusations against Biden, and that came from Linda Hirshman in her New York Times editorial, "I Believe Tara Reade. I'm Voting for Joe Biden Anyway." It is refreshing at least to the extent that it acknowledges the seriousness of Reade's accusations and doesn't try to triangulate some system in which Ford is more credible than Reade. Instead, her justification is that electing Biden will do far more good than harm, even if he is guilty of sexual assault.<br /><br />This argument sounds plausible, as it posits a Biden-or-Trump dichotomy that certainly does offer different directions for America. If this were October, I think she would have a reasonable case. However, it is May, and the nomination hasn't even been given yet. Hirshman dismisses any alternative to Biden brusquely: "All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal." This is a very strange judgment, considering that there have been repeated rumours of a brokered convention in which Biden would be replaced; and this was true even before Reade's accusations became an issue. Hirshman is not so much making the case that Biden would be preferable to Trump, but that the <i>chance</i> of a Biden victory against Trump is worth more than both punishing a person accused (credibly, she judges) of sexual assault <i>and</i> the chance of some other candidate's beating Trump.<br /><br />Even "judgment hypocrisy," however, still has its limits as a tool in political debate. One rarely debates an individual, but rather a position held generally by a political faction to a greater or lesser degree. If Hirshman and Milano are hypocritical in their views of sexual assault, they might not be the ones at the forefront of the next case, so calling out their inconsistencies does not serve as a definitive argument against anything. I think it is fair to use their examples as a means of forcing other commentators and politicians to define their own views -- to demonstrate if they suffer from judgment hypocrisy or, on the contrary, are willing to risk the disapproval of other members of their faction to hold consistent views.<br /><br />Utlimately, there is no substitute to taking every argument seriously -- in other words, to ignoring hypocrisy and dealing with an opponent's claims. Even if a person's motives are well and truly bad, his arguments may be correct; and if his judgments are insincere, you can at least challenge their validity by putting forward your own judgment or some community standard as an alternative. The temptation to short circuit a lengthy argument by asserting that your opponent does not really believe his own argument will always be a temptation, and it is not always unreasonable, especially if you are in a debate with a particular individual. There are, however, better and worse occasions to use hypocrisy. Hopefully the typology provided here will help convince people to limit their accusations to judgment hypocrisy and, occasionally, behaviour hypocrisy, while shunning the kind of dogmatic hypocrisy that threatens to undermine the very principle of free debate.<br /><br />Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-53881841567959098932019-12-02T18:52:00.003-05:002019-12-02T18:52:43.196-05:00Terrorist Organization designationI dissent from what appears to be general support for President Trump's designation of Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. There are several layers to unwrap in this dissent, however.<br />
<br />
First, the cartels are obviously criminal organizations, and I support whatever we can do to combat them within the existing law (which, I imagine, is a fair amount, at least as far as their American activities are concerned).<br />
<br />
Second, it is possible that the cartels meet the definition of a terrorist organization under whatever act it is that authorizes the designation of terrorist groups. As far as I can tell from the <a href="https://www.state.gov/terrorism-designations-faqs/" target="_blank">State Department website</a>, the three criteria for the designation are that an organization (a) must be foreign, (b) must have the capability and intent of engaging in terrorism, and (c) must threaten the security of the U.S. or of U.S. nationals. The first and third are undisputable. The second is probably true, insofar as the cartels use "terrorism" (which I will define for the moment as "violence as a means of intimidation") against Mexican government officials, and probably others as well.<br />
<br />
My objection is that it is clearly not what the original act was created for. Even if cartels meet the designation, they are not primarily "terrorist" organizations. The cartels use terrorism to help them achieve their primary goal, which is getting money. Terrorist groups properly so called use money to commit acts of terror, which are used to achieve their primary goal of destabilizing governments and/or forcing governments to act in a particular way.<br />
<br />
Language is important, and misusing language is slippery slope in any endeavour, but especially in government. For the same reason, I oppose using RICO laws to prosecute people for criminal activities that really have nothing to do with the kinds of criminal organizations that RICO was created to prosecute. If the existing laws aren't adequate, pass better laws. It is precisely because people are willing to misuse existing laws that no one has any confidence in what legislators express as their intentions when they propose laws. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Desegregation" target="_blank">Proponents swore</a> that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not and could not be used to enforce racial quotas or mandatory school busing, but it ended up doing it anyway. People who lament the hypocrisy and scepticism of politics would do well to combat cases like these. (Note that I am not blaming the authors of the laws themselves, whose intentions may have been sincere. It is the people who later misuse the laws, and their superiors who allow it, who are really to blame.)<br />
<br />
I also wonder, in the case of the cartels, what this designation is expected to achieve. From the same State Department web page that I cited above, it looks like the main legal difference for designated terrorist organizations is that U.S. business dealings and cash gifts are prohibited. I'm sceptical whether this is all that relevant to drug cartels, and I wonder if the designation isn't more for show than for substance. However, there is probably more to the issue than I am aware of, so I will refrain from judgment for the time being.Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181257353695396003.post-52055207938075386922019-08-25T23:07:00.001-04:002019-09-02T16:38:31.048-04:00More Varieties of Religious Experience<div class="tr_bq">
I like to give credit where credit is due, and therefore I will point out a place that I agree with William James. He writes,</div>
<blockquote>
When I read in a religious paper words like these: "Perhaps the best
thing we can say of God is that he is _the Inevitable Inference_," I
recognize the tendency to let religion evaporate in intellectual
terms. Would martyrs have sung in the flames for a mere inference,
however inevitable it might be?</blockquote>
I appreciate that, because many people who study religion try to reduce it to something easily explainable, something where they do not have to grapple with the question of divinity, and here James shows how little sense it makes to ignore divinity, or to add it in only as something inescapable but not really tangible.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, James himself reduces the mystical union with God to a person's union with his own unconscious, which seems to be going in the same directionl. He says, <br />
<blockquote>
Let me then propose, as an hypothesis, that whatever it may be on its _farther_ side, the "more" with which in religious experience we feel ourselves connected is on its _hither_ side the subconscious continuation of our conscious life.</blockquote>
And proceeds to elaborate on how religious sentiments are simply derived from the subconscious. He is as kind as he can be to religion, saying that theologians are right that a religious feeling is a sense of something "other" insofar as the unconscious is unknown to our conscious minds; but, to rephrase his own question, which people would be willing to die for the glory of having made contact with their own unconsciousness?<br />
<br />
Elsewhere, James tries to sum up religious feeling, and comes up with this:<br />
<blockquote>
The resultant outcome of them is in any case what Kant calls a "sthenic"
affection, an excitement of the cheerful, expansive, "dynamogenic" order
which, like any tonic, freshens our vital powers. In almost every lecture,
but especially in the lectures on Conversion and on Saintliness, we have
seen how this emotion overcomes temperamental melancholy and imparts
endurance to the Subject, or a zest, or a meaning, or an enchantment and
glory to the common objects of life.</blockquote>
To which I can only ask: really? Yes, many of his examples show people taking enormous new appreciation for life and the things in it, but many others show people trying to separate themselves from this world and this life. One of the lectures on saintliness gives many examples of mortification of the flesh, to the point that it turned my stomach to listen to some of it. Here is a particularly striking paragraph (one of many) about a German mystic:<br />
<blockquote>
to emulate the sorrows of his crucified Lord,
he made himself a cross with thirty protruding iron needles and
nails. This he bore on his bare back between his shoulders day and
night. "The first time that he stretched out this cross upon his
back his tender frame was struck with terror at it, and blunted
the sharp nails slightly against a stone. But soon, repenting of
this womanly cowardice, he pointed them all again with a file, and
placed once more the cross upon him. It made his back, where the
bones are, bloody and seared. Whenever he sat down or stood up, it
was as if a hedgehog-skin were on him. If any one touched him
unawares, or pushed against his clothes, it tore him."</blockquote>
How in the world could James conclude that this fits in the category of "cheerful" or "expansive" emotions? And it comes in a lecture on saintliness, which he particularly calls out as a place for examples that fit his case?<br />
<br />
I feel like James is trying to make sense of religion, but he is trying to make it into a psychological phenomenon and to avoid all relationship to the supernatural. In doing so, he contradicts his own earlier examples and leaves me to conclude that he was not at all a very thorough thinker.<br />
<br />
I would add that the examples of the saints who took mortification of the flesh to extremes I also find unappealling. I understand that part of being religious is setting one's mind on the next world rather than this, and that self-denial plays a role in that. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that God put us in this world with the intention that we should enjoy nothing that He provided us, and I want no part of a religion where the greatest sanctity consists in the greatest infliction of self-mortification.<br />
<br />
[Postscript: I wrote this entry when I was almost done with the book, but not quite. At the very end, James surprised me by going in completely the opposite direction. He had been discussing religion purely from psychological perspective, but at the end he allowed himself to speculate on whether there was anything beyond psychology -- i.e., whether God actually exists, or is just a word that we use to describe certain phenomena. This is a pet peeve of mine, so I was interested to see him call it out and actually say that he thinks God does exist; or rather,<br />
<blockquote>
What is this but to
say that Religion, in her fullest exercise of function, is not a mere
illumination of facts already elsewhere given, not a mere passion, like
love, which views things in a rosier light. It is indeed that, as we have
seen abundantly. But it is something more, namely, a postulator of new
_facts_ as well. The world interpreted religiously is not the
materialistic world over again, with an altered expression; it must have,
over and above the altered expression, _a natural constitution_ different
at some point from that which a materialistic world would have.</blockquote>
"It is only transcendentalist metaphysicians," he goes on to say, "who think that, without adding
any concrete details to Nature, or subtracting any, but by simply calling
it the expression of absolute spirit, you make it more divine just as it
stands." This is precisely my position, but it seems so incongruous coming at the end of his book, when he has spoken so favourably of transcendentalism over against any other kind of theology. "You will readily admit," he asserts, "that no description of the phenomena of the
religious consciousness could be better than these words" which he has just quoted from a transcendentalist philosopher. It is true that James addresses the limitations of this philosophy, but not to refute any of it, merely to say that it is unable to prove religion logically, something which James believe a prior impossible.]Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08865541236246247617noreply@blogger.com0