Just a reminder that the government doesn't actually generate any money. The only money it can spend is money that it must first take from taxpayers. So if the government is going to give everyone $5000, then it must first take $5000 from everyone before it can pledge to give it back.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury...
Actually according to Wikipedia, the quote is of debatable attribution. And there are a couple different versions of this quote going around. (The other one reads: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits...")
Being a liberal, when I first heard that quote, I immediately thought about private corporations who got government subsidizes with taxpayer dollars. But I soon discovered that this quote was equally popular with conservatives. (Conservatives, of course, thought the quote applied to poor people getting welfare benefits.)
But, in 2026, I don't think there can be any debate about which side of the aisle this quote currently applies to.
On August 28, 2014, U.S. president Barack Obama held a live press conference in which he discussed the prospect of escalating the U.S. military response to the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). He wore a tan suit for the conference, designed by Martin Greenfield Clothiers. It received considerable attention, with whether it was appropriate for the subject matter of terrorism being discussed in the media. The issue remained prominent for several days and was widely discussed, often humorously, on television talk shows.[a]
I'm not sure if there was ever a good time for this technology to come out, but it's particularly unfortunate that it had to be developed right at the exact time we are witnessing a complete lack of scruples by our politicians when it comes to honesty. One can only imagine what dishonest use AI generated videos could be put to in the future.
Or more likely, in the future we are going to see politicians claim that real video footage is actually AI generated whenever the news shows something they'd rather we didn't see. And in fact, Trump has already started doing this. (Because, of course he has.)
A democracy cannot function without accurate information. The potential for this technology to undermine our shared consensus about factual reality is frightening.
And the benefits of this technology are... what exactly? How will these AI generated videos benefit our society in any way?
I've normally got a fairly libertarian streak in me, but in this case I think we need strong legislation to control what is coming. I think the best future would be if this technology was outlawed, and these machines were physically destroyed.
For the past several years, whenever I am conversing about current events, I often find myself starting out by stating , "I know at this point nothing should shock me anymore, and yet..."
A man without a criminal record, and with court-ordered protected status, is sent to a torture prison in El Salvadore due to an administrative error. This man is a father, and was taken away from his family, including a 5-year-old austic son who he was caring for. Then the court orders the Trump administration to facilitate his return, and the Trump administration refuses to do it.
As far as moral conundrums go, this is one of the easy ones. Just return the wrongly imprisoned father to his wife and son. This doesn't have to be political. This doesn't have to be a left/right issue. Just do the obviously right thing. Please. This is one of the easy ones.
And yet, they won't do it.
And then I thought to myself, "How are we as a country allowing this to happen? Why are we not flooding the streets and demanding Kilmar Abrego Garcia be returned? Have we gotten to a point where we are so complacent and so desensitived that we can just read this in our news feeds and then go on to read something else?"
And that's when I realized, I could no longer stay silent.
The past few years, I've been trying to reinvent myself as apolitical (see here and here). I had become embarrased of my youthful political advocacy, for a number of reasons (in my youth, I had been arrogant, annoying, certain that I was always right, dismissive of other views, tribalistic, I had uncritically adopted the opinions of the thought leaders of the Left, etc.). Now that I'm middle-aged, I wanted to just be quiet and respectable and normal.
I also, although I did not state it at the time, really wanted to keep this blog politically neutral, because I'm currently on the job hunt, and I figured employers would view a politically outspoken blog as a liability.
But how can you keep silent when this stuff is going on?
The deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is as blatant a miscarriage of justice as you could ask for. If we as a society can accept this, then we as a society can accept anything.
And I know that statistically Kilmar Abrego Garcia is just one person, but the way he's being treated is an indication of what our society will tolerate. When future historians write about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, what are they going to say about how the American public reacted to his case?
And if we stay silent when this type of thing happens, then, what really is the point of being alive? We're only on this earth for a few years. We have to at least do a little bit to confront the injustices of our time.
if I have nothing to offer other than stating the obvious (i.e. "this obviously really bad thing is obviously really bad"), then I'm just going to stay quiet
... but I take it back. Sometimes there's value in stating that something is bad and that you disapprove of it. If we get to a point where people stop doing this, if people are no longer outraged by blatant injustice, then we as a society have lost our morality.
And, I guess maybe I'll be doing more political posts on this blog after all. I didn't want to, but... well, to quote from The Fellowship of the Ring:
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Serious question: What is our long term objective in Ukraine?
Is it realistic for Ukraine to win this war? Can Ukraine actually get back the land that Russia stole?
Or are we simply funding Ukraine for the sake of "making Russia pay"?
I know that in this war Russia is in the wrong, and Ukraine is in the right, but would it save lives and end suffering to just stop the war now?
I honestly don't know myself. And I won't pretend that I'm well enough informed on the war in Ukraine to have an opinion.
But, based on my Facebook and Twitter feeds from the past 24 hours, I'm a little bit worried that liberals are falling into the trap of just being reflexively against whatever Trump is for.
That being said, let's state the obvious. Trump and Vance are an embarrassment. Just look at the way they conducted themselves. (If you haven't watched the whole video yet, it's worth watching.)
It's impossible to watch this video and not come away with absolute loathing for Trump and Vance, and complete sympathy for Zelensky. Trump and Vance acted like bullies, Zelensky acted like a dignified patriot.
But, I want to be careful about making the following leap of logic: "Because Trump and Vance are bullies, that means we have to continue to support the war in the Ukraine"
I don't know. Maybe we do have to support the war in the Ukraine. What do I know?
But one thing I do know is that we shouldn't support the war in Ukraine just because Trump and Vance are bullies. And after reading Facebook and Twitter this morning, I'm worried that this is where the left seems to be going at the moment: "Trump and Vance are disgraceful, therefore we have to support the war."
Well, it's been an interesting 2 weeks since Donald Trump got inaugurated. Another new constitutional crisis every day. The American way of life is seemingly on the brink of collapse. Most people I know are posting about it constantly on Facebook or Twitter. And I'm going to do my best to keep out of it this time around. You'll have to look elsewhere for your daily anti-Trump rhetoric. This blog is going to stay mostly silent on the political issues.
I waste SO much time on the Internet, and I'd like to cut down on that and try to focus more on what's really important in life--my wife and daughter, and (as much as is possible in this field), creating a stable career with which to support them.
So no more political posts. It's a waste of time. First of all, the reach that this blog has doesn't justify spending a lot of time on it. (I think there are 3 people and a dog who read this blog regularly.) But secondly it's apparent that political divisions these days are more about tribalism and emotions than they are about ideas and rational arguments. (Granted a lot of my political posts have always been more emotive than reasonable anyways, but then that's part of the problem.)
That, plus it's now apparent that everyone knows how awful Trump is, and either they are already convinced, or they don't care. In fact, the right-wing loves the fact that he's so awful and provokes such emotive responses from liberals. So what's the point of writing long political posts complaining about how awful Trump is?
And after Trump, there will be another demagogue who is equally bad. (It's apparent that this problem is all throughout the right wing.)
I'm not saying there's not important political work to be done down at the grass roots organizing level. I'm just saying that keyboard warriors are ineffective. So I'm retiring my keyboard warrior badge.
In addition to what I mentioned 4 years ago, there are some additional reasons.
1). I don't trust myself not to engage in tribalism. I am firmly on the left, and have all the cognitive biases that come with being a partisan. I trust news sources which share my political viewpoint, and distrust sources that have opposing viewpoints. I will sometimes link to or tweet out articles that support my point of view, without having researched the issue myself. I believe the worst about people with opposing political beliefs. Etc
...and related to the above point is point number 2, which is
2). I know nothing, and I am an Idiot If I look back at a lot of the stuff I've written over the past 20 years, it's clear that I am an idiot. (Case in point: my youthful obsession with Abbie Hoffman)
I suppose this is a common sentiment in middle-age, but I now realize what an idiot I was when I was young. When I was young, I thought I knew everything. The older I get, the more I realize I know nothing. I am not an expert in foreign affairs. I am not an expert on the economy. I am not an expert on poverty. Etc. So best just to shut up about stuff I don't know anything about.
Ever since 2016, I've felt like Mr. Jones from Dylan's Ballad of a Thin Man: I know something is happening, but I don't know what it is. I clearly know that we are living in unprecedented times, when the old rules of political engagement don't apply. But I don't know what the new rules are. And I'm not sure how we got here. And I don't understand what the solution is for fixing this problem.
The only political commentary I could offer at this point in time would be to raise my hands up to the sky and say, "I don't like this. Why is this happening?"
I guess the other political commentary I could do is just to point out that bad things as bad. I could point out that Trump and the MAGA movement are cruel, and racist, and stupid, and dangerous, etc, but what is the value of that? Everyone to the left already agrees with me, and everyone on the right is unreachable.
And finally, related to the above point:
4) Trump's Reelection Broke Me
At lot of unbelievable things have happened over the past 8 years.
For the first few years of the Trump presidency, every week I kept thinking, "This will be the scandal that finally undoes him. This will end his career. This will cause the Republican Party to finally put their country first, and reject Trump." But it never happened.
Finally Trump lost in 2020, and I thought we had seen the last of him.
Surely the country couldn't re-elect Donald Trump, could it? I mean, okay, 2016 I kind of get. In the 2016 election Trump was an unknown quantity, and the country was ready for some sort of change, and no one knew how bad he would be.
But after we survived the first Trump Presidency, and everyone knows exactly who this guy is, and how bad he can be, after all that, America re-elected him? And not only that, but he actually won the popular vote in 2024?
But in 2024, the majority of people actually voted for him. Despite having seen everything he did in his first term.
And the majority of women voted for him, despite his stances on women's issues.
And the majority of Latino men voted for him, despite all his racist rhetoric.
It just made me want to throw up my hands and say, "That's it. I'm done caring. If this is what America wants, then I guess this is what America is getting."
I don't understand how the majority of Americans could vote for Trump again in 2024 after they had already experienced how awful he was in his first time. And that's the point. I don't understand anything anymore. So I don't have anything intelligent to say about it.
So now, every morning when I listen to the news, and I hear something about how Trump is doing something awful, or destroying another part of the constitution, I just think to myself, "Well, this is what the American people want."
And ultimately, if this is what the majority of the American people want, well, that's how democracy works.
***************************************
While I'm here, I guess I might as well talk about why I stopped doing global warming vlogs.
I continue to worry a lot about global warming. (I've got kids, after all.) But the more I got into it, the more I got confused about what the solutions were.
I was at one time following a number of climate scientists and advocates on Twitter. Many of them were saying that we are at a point where we could completely get rid of fossil fuels immediately, and convert all of our energy to renewable. And I wanted to believe them. But elsewhere, I would read articles about the problems of getting sustained energy from renewable sources. (I expressed this confusion in this Tweet here from 2021).
Some of the climate scientists I followed believed that nuclear power would be the answer to climate change, and that we couldn't get rid of fossil fuels without help from nuclear power . Others believed that embracing nuclear power would be a disaster, and that we could make the conversion to renewables without nuclear.
Some of them believed carbon capture technology was worth investing in. Others believed carbon capture was a scam.
In the end, I decided that I didn't know anything, and there was no point in me trying to get involved in these debates.
I really hope that knowledgeable scientists continue working on these problems, and discussing it among themselves. But there is no value in having me join the discussion.
***************************************
Now, granted, in the previous blog post I did actually write about political events. This was because I thought I had noticed an angle that no one else was commenting on--the fact that the Christian Right, by their own logic, now needs to step up and fill the gap in poor relief that is left by the end of USAID. (I'm sure someone somewhere has probably written the same thing, but I couldn't find it anywhere). And so I couldn't resist chiming in with that. And maybe, in the future, if I think I notice something else that no one else is saying, I might drop in with my two cents.
But if I have nothing to offer other than stating the obvious (i.e. "this obviously really bad thing is obviously really bad"), then I'm just going to stay quiet.
**************************************
Update: February 8: Okay, obviously defeatism is not a long term solution. If you want to get inspiration from someone who's actually doing something, check out Phil Christman: here and here.
Correction: March 28, 2025: It's been pointed out to me that the majority of people did not actually vote for Trump. More people voted for Trump than for Harris, and Trump did win the popular vote, but he didn't get the majority. If you combine the vote for Harris (48.34%) with the vote for other (1.85%), it means that more people voted against Trump than voted for him. See here.
...when it comes to Donald Trump, there is nothing I can say that will matter, not even a little bit.
That’s not some empty gesture of fatalism. It’s a recognition of reality. There’s already an immense and suffocating media ecosystem built entirely around Donald Trump, pro and con, left and right, earnest and cynical. The man is the gravitational center of modern American political discourse. He is the sun around which all else orbits. He has been analyzed, dissected, profiled, parodied, investigated, indicted, psychoanalyzed, lionized, and demonized to a degree that exceeds comprehension. Every possible critique of him has already been made, often in triplicate. His corruption, his cruelty, his incompetence, his shamelessness - all of it has been written a thousand times, often by people far more credentialed and connected in the world of partisan politics than I am. He and his reign are topics so saturated with analysis that there’s scarcely any rhetorical oxygen left to consume.
Because of my upbringing, I spent my formative years in conservative Christian culture, and I consider myself well-versed in conservative Christian arguments.
One subject that the Christian Left frequently uses to attack the Christian Right is the Christian duty to care for the poor and helpless. The Christian Left will frequently say, "You guys are being unchristian, because Christians are supposed to care for the poor, and you guys want to dismantle government programs that help the poor."
In response to this, the Christian Right will say, "Exactly. It is not the duty of Christians to care for the poor, not the government. We as individual Christians, or as Christian charities should care for the poor, but not the government." Some of them even go further, and argue that when the government provides for the poor, the government is in effect depriving Christians of their opportunity to care for the poor, and since the Christian duty to care for the poor is a sacred thing, the government is actually depriving them of their religious practice.
If you grew up in the church, you've probably heard this all before yourself. If not, take my word for it, it's an argument frequently used by conservative Christians to justify why they want to end government assistance to the poor. If someone were to do the work, and go through conservative Christian publications from the last 40 years, I'm pretty you'd be able to find this argument articulated in print numerous times.
Anyway, you can probably tell where I'm going with all this. With the shutdown of USAID, it's been widely predicted that this will result in a lot of deaths. From the Guardian:
Analysis confirms that several thousand women and girls are likely to die from complications during pregnancy and childbirth as a direct result of Trump’s order to freeze aid to the agency for 90 days.
...
The initial repercussions include the abandonment in warehouses of supplies of crucial drugs in Sudan, the site of what is currently the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, as well as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where recent fighting in the east has further destabilised the fragile region.
Across Africa, hundreds of thousands of children who rely on school meals have been left without sustenance after food was left to rot in the wake of Musk’s declaration that he wanted the US aid agency to “die”.
...
In Bangladesh, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, which coordinates pioneering research into one of the most prolific killers of children, has laid off some of the world’s most respected scientists working on malaria programmes.
...
Elsewhere, the director of a major international aid organisation in Colombia – who also requested anonymity – feared the impact on those who most needed help. “The people who this is going to affect the most are those already without a safety net. Precisely those who are least able to find another source of food, shelter or income,” they said.
...etc. Go read the whole article for all the impending humanitarian disasters.
Okay, Christians, now is your chance! Time to put your money where your mouth is. This is your opportunity to step in and fill the gap that is left by the withdraw of Government aid to the poor. This is what you've been waiting for. Now dig into your pocketbooks, and do your Christian duty.
The world’s richest man has decided that the world’s richest country shouldn't help some of the world’s poorest people.
This is blatantly illegal. An unelected billionaire cannot simply shut down federal agencies authorized by Congress at will. pic.twitter.com/uzExo2xc1z
Update update: Just now saw Jeremy Konyndyk quoted on the Philip Defranco show. Watch from 7:38 to see him quoted:
Saturday, January 25, 2025
What do we think about Tariffs?
Okay, serious question here. (And by "serious question", I mean I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic about this, I'm genuinely confused and hope someone can clarify it for me.)
Since Trump has become big on tariffs recently, I've seen I don't know how many liberals on Youtube and Twitter, etc, make fun of how MAGA people don't understand what a tariff is:
Progressives were supposed to be in favor of fair trade. And what was fair trade? I thought fair trade would have involved using tariffs.
So what happened? Is this just a matter of liberals just dunking on whatever Trump supporters like? Or was there a political realignment that happened? Or maybe I'm seeing a split between the Clinton liberals and the true progressives, and the Clinton liberals are the ones making fun of the tariffs? Or is there something unique about the Trump tariffs? Or, are we liberals just making fun of the fact that MAGA people don't understand who pays tariffs, and we're not actually opposed to the tariffs themselves? Or are progressives supposed to be anti-tariff now?
in my youth, I have spent a lot of time getting into political debates about different ideologies. And over the years, I have learned a few things which, had I only known them years ago, would have saved me a lot of time. I now wish to impart my wisdom onto you in the hopes that you can also redeem some of your time which would otherwise be spent squabbling about politics. And that wisdom is:
1) Most political debates are actual semantic debates. (e.g. calling Obama's tax plan socialist or calling Trump's immigration policy fascist will quickly lead into a discussion about what "socialism" or "fascism" really means.)
2) Political labels have no agreed upon definition.
3) Therefore, most political debates are a waste of time.
Remember this the next time you are tempted to get into a political debate on Twitter or Facebook. It will save you a lot of time and energy.
I actually realized a long time ago that most political debates were actually semantic debates.
For example, I remember once, over 20 years ago, when I was at a party and I got to a long political debate with someone about whether capitalism or socialism was the worse system, and we both attempted to use China to illustrate our point. I cited China as an example of the problems with capitalism, and he cited China as an example of the problems with communism, and then we realized we were having this big long debate, and we didn't even agree on our terms.
"China has privately controlled corporations," I said. "Of course it's capitalist."
"China is ruled by a one-party system," he countered. "Of course it's communist."
That's just one example that sticks out in my mind, but I've had countless experiences like this over the years--experiences where halfway through a big long political debate, I realized my opponent and I were simply talking past each other, because we had completely different ideas of what "capitalism" and "socialism" actually meant. I'm sure you've had countless experiences like this as well.
I should have learned a lesson from this, but I didn't. Like a lot of arrogant people, I just assumed that I knew exactly what these words meant, and everyone else was wrong. (I was a political science minor back in college, so I had the illusion that I knew this stuff.)
* "capitalism" refers to a recent economic development in human history, emerging in the 19th century, in which the economy is dominated by corporations, and the corporations are privately owned by stockholders. Anyone who used the term to simply refer to buying and selling was wrong.
* "socialism" refers to the workers controlling the factories (as opposed to the stockholders). Anyone who used the term to refer to high taxes or welfare programs was wrong. That's welfare capitalism, not socialism.
* "anarchism" refers to the anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement. (Of course that's not the literal definition of anarchism--the word literally means "no government"--but the literal meaning doesn't matter, because it's the historical use of the word that's more important). Anyone who attempted to use the literal definition of anarchism was wrong.
* "Nazism" was fascism plus racism. Anyone who used the terms interchangeably was being imprecise.
* "democracy" referred to a system of government in which the people voted on the laws directly, a laancient Athens. Anyone who used the term "democracy" to refer to the United States was being imprecise. The United States is a republic.
So, you see, I thought I knew what I was talking about. But I was wrong, wrong wrong! The truth is that none of these words have any agreed upon meaning.
First of all, even among political scientists, there is widespread disagreement about what these words actually mean. But even if the experts could all agree, it still wouldn't matter. As any linguist can tell you, words don't actually mean what the dictionary says they mean. Words get their meaning from the way that they're used in real life. If enough ordinary people think that socialism means higher tax rates, then that is what the word means now--at least in one sense.
I have a memory or reading a linguistic textbook about 10 years ago, and coming across the section where the authors were discussing how words are paired with their meanings. And the authors said that most people don't really understand how unstable the nature of meaning often is. As an example, they mentioned how many people passionately talk about terms like "democracy" and "socialism" without ever realizing that there are no agreed upon definitions for these words.
And I remember looking up from the book and thinking to myself: "This linguistic textbook has just taught me more about politics than all the political science courses I ever took."
At any rate, Orwell says it eloquently, so I'm just going to quote him:
Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. (full essay here)
I Was Wrong
Let's get some mea culpas out of the way. Here are my apologies for every time I've tried to insist upon an exact definition for a political label
(...and no doubt I've made other posts over the past 20 years which I'm just not remembering.)
In each of these posts I was wrong for trying to insist that there was some sort of correct definition of the word which the general public was just not getting. Apologies to everyone.
Also, while recently listening to Revolutions Season 7: The Revolutions of 1848 by Mike Duncan, I've been learning about the history of socialism, and I've learned that historically the word had a very broad meaning. Historically, a "socialist" was just anyone who was concerned with "the social question"--that is, the question about what to do about the problems of poverty accompanying the industrial revolution. The means, methods and solutions that the early socialist thinkers advocated differed tremendously from each other, but if they were at all engaged in trying to solve the social question, then they were socialists.
For years I've been telling people: "Socialism means the workers control the means of production, and if you use that term to refer to anything else, you're wrong." But it turns out I was wrong. The term has a very broad history.
Note to Self: Always Remember This
Having achieved middle-age, I think I've largely lost the urge to endlessly debate politics. (Having long political discussions that stretch into the night is something you only do in your 20s, right?) But, as the above list of links show, I can still get sucked into the temptation to try to define political terms. So I'm writing this post for myself as much as for anyone else.
Always remember--political labels are meaningless. Don't get sucked into the trap of trying to define them. Don't try to debate them.
If you have to debate politics, talk about the effects of individual policies instead. Don't say "Obama's tax policies are socialist". Pretend the word "socialist" doesn't exist and then talk about why you don't like Obama's tax policies.
Similarly, don't talk about Trump's fascist policies. Just talk about why you believe Trump's policies will have bad effects.
And for god's sake, I'm begging you, don't get sucked into an argument about whether or not China or North Korea or anywhere else represents a genuine communist state.
** In my mind at the time, I thought "mercantilism" meant an economy of exchanging goods for money--i.e. the system that pre-dated capitalism. But a trip over to Wikipedia indicates that I myself was misusing the term mercantilism.
Believe it or not, I occasionally still get into debates about the Vietnam War.
I occasionally encountered right-wing Americans who believe that America could have won the war if the hippies hadn't betrayed the war effort. (My wife's best friend was dating an ex-military type who spouted these opinions.)
On the other side, I occasionally encounter British friends who try to tell me that America was militarily defeated by the Vietnamese.
I argue against both of these opinions. America never militarily lost the war, I tell my British friends. We could have stayed in Vietnam forever, if we had wanted to.
What we couldn't do, however, was dictate how Vietnam was going to govern itself, and then go home and expect them to keep doing what we wanted. If we wanted to dictate how Vietnam was going to organize itself, then we would have had to stay there forever.
In that sense, the war was unwinnable.
The United States military is the strongest military in the world. It can defeat any foreign army. But what we can't do is to fly halfway around the world, re-organize the society of a foreign country, and then fly home and expect our re-organization to stay in place 2 minutes after we leave. Those wars are always unwinnable.
...I haven't mentioned Afghanistan yet, but you can tell where I'm going with this, right?
I've not researched the collapse in-depth, but there appears to be an interesting parallel with how quickly the South Vietnamese government collapsed after the U.S. withdraw, and how quickly the Afghanistan government collapsed after the U.S. withdraw. Again, it shows that these type of wars are unwinnable. You can keep your army in Vietnam for 20 years or Afghanistan for 20 years, but 2 minutes after you leave, the locals are going to go back to organizing their society the way they want to.
As for the criticisms of Biden:
From everything I've heard, it sounds the withdraw could have been better organized. But let's be honest, there was no way to do this in a dignified matter. Things were going to start collapsing the minute we started withdrawing, and there was never a version of this withdraw that was going to look good. So they'd still be criticizing Biden on right-wing media no matter how this played out.
But, that's not to say Biden gets a free pass on this entirely. If the withdraw could've been better organized, then let him be criticized appropriately.
The 2019 Afghan papers are worth re-visiting (link here). See also this previous post by me on the same subject here.
When Trump won in November 2016, I was inclined to see it as a fluke. (Hillary was a terrible candidate, so I figured Democrats stayed home in large numbers, and a lot of right wingers decided Trump was the lesser of two evils.) I also figured that our institutions were strong enough that Trump wouldn't be able to get away with anything blatantly unconstitutional before he was impeached.
I was wrong on both counts. It appears that among the Republican voters, (particularly among white evangelicals) Trump genuinely has a strong base. This is the new political reality, and this needs to be reckoned with.
Trumps voters are not the numerical majority. (Hillary won the popular vote, after all.) But because of the way the electoral college system is set up, they are the electoral majority.
So, in order to change the calculation, what needed to happen? We see a lot of outrage in the streets nowadays, but this passion isn't necessarily going to lead to victory in November. We already had a lot of passion in 2016. We don't need to be increasing our passion, we need to be increasing our converts.
Now, this is all anecdotal, but based just on my Facebook feed, all the conservative evangelicals I'm in touch with are not getting converted. In fact, the more passion and outrage they are seeing on the left, the more they are digging in their heels and retreating into their own world of conservative memes and fake news. (See also Whisky Prajer: Research vs. "Research")
Every day when I log into Facebook, I come very close to losing my patience with these people. "You people are so stupid!" I want to yell. (A couple times I've written, and then deleted a Facebook post complaining about all the general stupidity and gullibility I see regularly displayed on conservative Facebook.)
But here's the thing: it doesn't do any good to get angry about it. And it also doesn't do any good to claim the moral high ground on this (even though that feels emotional satisfying).
Here's the only calculation that matters: Trump won the electoral college in 2016. In order to beat Trump in 2020, we needed to have decreased the polarization and started converting Trump supporters over to our cause. Instead, the polarization has increased.
It was always a mistake to demonize Trump supporters, and increase the rhetoric of Political Correctness on the Left. Instead, what we needed to say to them was: "Join us. A better world is possible, and you can be part of it."
(And yes, if you look through my Twitter feed and blogposts from the past 4 years, I'm as much a part of the problem as anyone. I've also given into feelings of anger over the past 4 years, and I'll own that.)
Keep in mind that in times of political polarization, the President doesn't need to unite the country. The smartest option for Trump at this point is to increase polarization, and then rely on his base to get so angry at the Democrats that they aren't tempted to cross party lines and vote for Biden. It worked for Nixon in 1968 and again in 1972. And it worked for Bush in 2004. And it worked for Trump in 2016.
That, plus Joe Biden has got to be the most uninspiring candidate I can remember in my lifetime. So that's trouble as well.
**********************************************
A couple weeks ago, I made the following joke on my Facebook page:
There's chaos in the streets, and the country is even more polarized than it was 4 years ago. At least the good news is there's no way Nixon could ever get re-elected to a second term now.
Yep, I'm still standing by this analogy.
******************************************************
I've made all these same points on this blog 3 years ago. I know it's bad form to plug your own posts, but I was re-reading my old post from January 2017 Thoughts On the Anti-Trump Protests and Thoughts on a Way Forwardand I feel like it's just as relevant now as it was then. So although I'm tempted to write more here about how self-defeating the left's rhetoric has been over the past few years, I feel like I already said all this back in January 2017, so I'm just going to leave this post here, and encourage you to re-visit my earlier post for a fuller explanation of my thoughts.
Addendum:
I never got a reply to this, but this exchange from a year ago has stuck in my mind, because it seems to be illustrative of the problem:
If "we shouldn't put children in cages" can't appeal to their humanity and "we shouldn't nuke hurricanes" can't appeal to their intelligence, then it's time to admit that Trump voters cannot now or ever be reasoned with.
It's very easy to just throw up our hands in despair, but if some of those Trump voters can't be convinced to change their minds in 2020, then we can expect a repeat of the last election.
I've been on twitter recently, and I've been noticing that some people are getting a little bit too jubilant about this impeachment.
So let's keep this in perspective. Whatever happens, Trump has won. You can mock him for being only the 3rd President to ever get impeached if you want, but he is still a U.S. President.
It's like if the Hamburglar got impeached. Sure, you can be happy about the fact that the Hamburglar's getting impeached, but Geez Louise how did we ever get to a point where the Hamburglar is President?
Now, don't get me wrong, as I've said before, impeachment needed to be done. Even if it is doomed to fail in the Senate, it needed to be done. Some sort of message needed to be sent that this kind of behavior is unacceptable.
But, if it fails in the Senate (and all indications are that it will) then this will not materially affect Trump in any way.
Also, the fact that not one Republican supported impeachment is a real worrying sign of just how bad things have gotten.
So what is everyone so happy about? If this is treated as just some sort of symbolic victory to gloat about to the Republicans, then it will just get them madder and increase polarization in this country, and will likely increase Trump supporter's turnout in 2020.
To re-iterate: I'm not saying (like some strategists have) that impeachment shouldn't have been done because it will increase Trump's 2020 chance. Impeachment needed to be done. But it should be treated as a solemn affair, not as an opportunity to dunk on Republicans or gloat about the misfortunes of our political rivals.
It will be interesting to see how things develop the next few days. But there have been a lot of worrying signs.
In addition to all the shocking news coming out about how Trump has been breaking the law (which is pretty shocking in and of itself), there's been the disturbing news about how Trump has been reacting to the investigation.
Donald Trump's tweet alleging a coup:
As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the....
....People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!
As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the....
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
And his comments suggesting that the Whistle Blower should be executed:
“I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now,”
This is not how someone talks who wants to respect the democratic process.
But, as with everything else that has happened the past 3 years, the worrying thing is not just the fact that Donald Trump has said this. The worrying thing is that this has not been universally condemned by people across the political spectrum. Donald Trump is still supported by the Republican Senate. He still has the support of a large percentage of Republican voters.
How did we get to this point? If a significant portion of the population can't recognize this as dangerously unstable language, then our democracy is no longer functioning.
So, then, what are we evolving towards?
That, ultimately, remains to be seen. But there was another piece of news today which may give some indication of a possible direction. From the BBC:
According to an excerpt, the president privately suggested to aides that soldiers shoot migrants in the legs, but he was told it would be illegal.
Previously, Mr Trump had made a public statement suggesting soldiers shoot migrants who throw rocks.
Mr Trump suggested other extreme measures, according to the book.
"Privately, the president had often talked about fortifying a border wall with a water-filled trench, stocked with snakes or alligators, prompting aides to seek a cost estimate. He wanted the wall electrified, with spikes on top that could pierce human flesh," reads the extract.
So we have a President who is not only showing dictatorial tenancies, but who also wants to shoot migrants.
This is no time to mince words, so I'll just say it: This is fascist.
...and yes, I know this word has gotten over-used a lot. And yes, I know we're all sick of people using the word "fascist" on their blog posts to describe their political opponents.
But this combination of a desire to destroy the democratic process mixed with this desire for increasing violence... what would you call this if not fascist? I'm not saying we're a fascist society yet. But what I am saying is that we have a fascist president.
Now again, the problem is not only Trump himself. In theory, there are checks and balances in the United States constitution to prevent someone like this from becoming a dictator. But those checks and balances require the political will to act. And at this point in time, it will require the Republicans to put their country ahead of their own political party.
All the current predictions are that the Republican Senate will never vote to impeach Trump. I guess we'll see. Maybe things will change. But it's shocking to me we've even gotten to this point. How could it not be obvious to everyone at this point that Donald Trump needs to go?
Donald Trump's campaign may definitely have courted elements of Fascism, but (to repeat what I said earlier) I believe the institutions of American government are stable enough to withstand this. There are enough checks and balances in the American system to prevent any one group from getting too powerful. And as long as a lot of people still oppose Donald Trump (and a lot of people still do) then we won't be seeing a rapid conversion to a Fascist state anytime soon.
With Donald Trump, the eternal question has always been: Are we supposed to take him seriously, or not?
After all, he's not a traditional politician. He's an Internet Troll who got elected as President. He delights in saying deliberately provocative things just to get a reaction from people, and he doesn't intend to follow through on most of what he says. Half of what he says today will be forgotten by tomorrow anyway.
And it's working for him. He's worn us all down to the point that we've become used to it. His supporters now expect it as part of his game. And the rest of us are not really shocked anymore when he says outrageous things.
That's the only explanation I can think of for why everyone hasn't turned on him yet. Maybe no one is worried about this threats of civil war, because no one ever took him seriously?
But these comments would be unacceptable if anyone else said them. And Donald Trump shouldn't be getting away with them either.
Sunday, September 08, 2019
So this got under my skin, and I wanted to respond.
Even though I know these things are ultimately a waste of time. sometimes I just need to put in my two cents so I can get it off my chest.
In the old days I would have done this as a blog post, but I decided doing it as a youtube video would take less time than actually writing all my thoughts out. So I opted for the lazier option of just turning the camera on.
I knew what I wanted to say in vague terms, but the fact that this is not scripted unfortunately shows. I repeat myself, stumble over my words, and lose my train of thought.
Nevertheless, for whatever it may or may not be worth....
(Several more with a similar tone can be found with a Google Search).
I completely forgot to add that I wasn't going to talk about his arguments about liberty and the second amendment because they weren't relevant to the argument about God.
Also, probably wasn't clear on a couple points, but...
* The verse Ted Cruz cited is open to interpretation. It could mean merely that because of mitigating circumstances, the person wouldn't be punished to full extent of the law. It's not clear that this verse means that the person has a "right" to self-defense.
* It's also not entirely clear why killing someone at night is self-defense, but killing them in the daytime is not. A thief in your house could also be a danger to you in the daytime. Ted Cruz might be correct--there's possibly an argument to be made here. (I guess nighttime is scarier.) But it's debatable. It's another assumption that's being added to a long list of assumptions in his convoluted argument.
Tuesday, August 06, 2019
Addendum: I'm still Mad About This Video Game Thing
(An addendum to the previous post)
And another thing that makes me so angry about this whole "video games cause mass shootings" nonsense...
Listening to the pundits and politicians talk about the link between video games and violence, it is very notable that none of them are citing any evidence. At all. They're just talking about how they don't like video games, and how they're sure that it must be doing something bad to young people's minds.
Look, if you want to just complain about how you don't like what the young people are doing these days, you can retire and spend all day on your front porch.
But if you go on TV and make these allegations, you should do your homework ahead of time.
And it's bad enough when pundits do it, but then when actual politicians (people in actual positions of power) start talking about how they "feel" video games are behind these massacres, then this is the height of irresponsibility.
It's a stupid debate, like I said before. But, fine, if you guys want to get into it, then let's get into it. What does the evidence show? What is the statistical correlation between violent crime and video games? What is the link between crime rates and the popularity of video games in countries? What is the evidence that video games cause violent behavior? (This data is easily available. The topic has been researched to death. There have been literally thousands of studies on this by now).
This is serious topic. And the opportunity cost of addressing the wrong issue will mean that we've lost the chance to prevent the next massacre. So we should be taking this seriously.
Instead what we have is a lot of out of touch old people talking about how they don't like video games. Either they're stupid, or they're being deliberately obtuse in order to misdirect.
I am rapidly losing my patience with civil debate and am getting to the point where I just want to scream obscenities at people. Which on one hand is a completely natural reaction to everything that's been happening the past few years, and yet at the same time is exactly the wrong thing to do if we're ever going to make any progress.
But really, it makes me so, so angry when I see people still blaming gun violence on video games.
This is the stupidest argument ever. For reasons so obvious that I feel like I'm wasting my time typing them out again. Violent video games are popular with kids all over the world, but the U.S. is the only place that has regular gun massacres. Japanese and South Koreans play way more violent video games than the U.S., and they don't have these gun massacres.
Part of this frustration is just fatigue. I've been pointing out this fact out on this blog for over 15 years now. (See this post from 2003. And this post from 2012.) And I just weary of having to type out the obvious over and over again.
But it's not just me. Lots and lots of people have been making this really obvious point. For years.
So why are we still having this discussion about video games?
Tuesday, July 09, 2019
...I'm not particularly proud of this, but now that it's done I may as well post it here as well.
The origin of this dates back from about 15 years ago, when I had some ideas bouncing around my head, and was toying with the idea of writing a long political manifesto.
I thought about it for a few months, and then never wrote it. That is the fate of most of my ideas for long epic blog posts. (And let's face it... that's probably just as well.)
Vlogging, however, allows me to have a shot at the same subject matter without having to do the hard work of writing or paragraphing. So now that I've started vlogging, it occurred to me that I could perhaps tackle this subject after all.
The wife and baby were away last week, so I had the apartment to myself, and filmed some videos. I made a rough outline to try to keep myself on topic (something that has been a problem in previous Vlogs). My notes are HERE, and also posted below. But I didn't get through all the points I had outlined.
As it turned out, the subject was too big, even with the camera on. (Maybe especially with the camera on. Writing at least forces you to think about your word choices, but video encourages rambling).
Anyway, for whatever it may be worth, here is my vlog on anarchism
Anarchism
A. Preliminaries
Vlog series, rambling, notes
My history--activist scene. At first I mocked anarchists. (high school and college education). Media Mouse (Anarchists in Grand Rapids), Reading (History/Biography mainly, not philosophy Melbourne 2010). Nowadays: not particularly political, no group loyalty, dangers of tribalism
Disclaimer--Other people know this better, Not an expert, Not fresh in memory, Rambling, video time limit, mispronounce French names
Why do? Self-indulgence, (at a coffeehouse talk), possibly clear some stuff up. Invite corrections, Booktube tie in
Structure: What it is, History, arguments for and against.
B. What is Anarchism
Anarchism is difficult to define, and has a lot of different varieties. Example, the conference I went to. Anarchists resist strict categorizations. (Although there are some doctrinaire anarchists.)
Dictionary definition misleading--but same with many political ideologies (Democrats, Republicans, National Socialists, etc). Historical tradition is more important than definition. Anarchist history 1870s to 1930s.
Anarchism is not anarchy in the sense of chaos (James Bond villain. Organized anarchism is not an oxymoron).
anarchy= an (no) archy (government/ruler) e.g. monarchy, oligarchy. Does it mean no government or no ruler?
Usual description: no unjustified hierarchies. Hierarchy has got to justify itself. (parent/child, ship on high seas)
Anarchism comes out of Socialist tradition--Is this strange?
Common misconceptions: Socialism is higher taxes, Obama-care, etc. But this is actually welfare state within capitalism
Also: Marx didn’t create Socialism. Socialist movement from 1820s.
Common misconceptions about capitalism--buying and selling.
History textbooks often say Capitalism emerged in the 18th century. I found this confusing
Capitalism: shareholders (stockholders) get the profits from the company, not the workers. (By definition, then, the workers are not being paid the value of their labor, since the profits go to the shareholders).
Socialism: workers control the means of production= workers control the company. (Private property)
Makes sense with anarchism--abolishment of hierarchies.
7. So...It’s on a scale. Absolute state control of factories (e.g. Stalinism or Maoism) is opposite of anarchism. But some forms of decentralized democratic socialism are quite close to (or equivalent to) more organized schools of anarchism. (My experience debating Socialists). Some of the difference is what tradition you want to identify yourself with. Libertarian Socialism
8. Anarchism: small communes organized into federations. Direct democracy or recallable elected representatives. Consensus democracy. (Consensus minus 1).
9. Anarcho-communism versus anarcho-syndicalism.
B. History
Antiquity--Modern (after French Revolution) Max Stirner
Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin
Proudhon:
First to self-identify as anarchist. Famous dialogue (But Bakunin often seen as founder). Proudhon more in Socialist tradition. (Against violence)
Biographies: Couldn’t find on Amazon. Revolutions of 1848 by Priscilla Robertson (Part in the Revolution)
Also, feud with Marx (Marx feuded a lot): Philosophy of Poverty/ Poverty of Philosophy. Any biography
Dark side of Proudon: anti-semitism (but not major), Patriarchal
Property is theft
4. Bakunin
Biography?
Russian aristocratic family:
Bakunin also involved in Revolutions of 1848 (Revolutions of 1848 by Priscilla Robertson) With Wagner (Wagner: A Documentary Study edited by Herbert Barth, Dietrich Mack, Egon Voss)
Imprisonment in Russia, escape to Japan-USA-Europe
Feud with Marx--
Bakunin’s darkside: antisemitism (Francis Wheen: Karl Marx A life), also his love of conspiracies (anti-democratic) Sergey Nechayev; Catechism of a Revolutionary. Careless about Revolutions (not like Marx). Also not as brilliant as Marx
But… critiques of Marx still hold (Isaiah Berlin) We believe power corrupts those who wield it as much as those who are forced to obey it. Under its influence, some become greedy and ambitious tyrants, exploiting society in their own interest, or in that of their class, while others are turned into abject slaves. Intellectuals, positivists, doctrinaires, all those who put science before life…defend the idea of the state and its authority as being the only possible salvation of society-quite logically, since from their false premises that thought comes before life, that only abstract theory can form the starting-point of social practice…they draw the inevitable conclusion that since such theoretical knowledge is at present possessed by very few, these few must be put in control of social life, not only to inspire, but to direct all popular movements, and that no sooner is the revolution over than a new social organization must be at once be set up; not a free association of popular bodies…working in accordance with the needs and instincts of the people but a centralized dictatorial power concentrated in the hands of this academic minority, as if they really expressed the popular will….The difference between such revolutionary dictatorship and the modern State is only one of external trappings. In substance both are a tyranny of the minority over the majority in the name of the people-in the name of the stupidity of the many and the superior wisdom of the few-and so they are equally reactionary, devising to secure political and economic privilege to the ruling minority, and the…enslavement of the masses, to destroy the present order only to erect their own rigid dictatorship on its ruins.
End of life: (The World That Never Was: A True Story of Dreamers, Schemers, Anarchists, and Secret Agents by Alex Butterworth...and Bakunin, An Invention by Horst Bienek
Workingman’s International--1872 expulsion (and New York) Jura Federation--1876
5. Kropotkin
I’ve read about the least--but he has the best reputation (reasonable, no crackpot.)
The Great French Revolution --A People’s History of the World by Chris Harman
Supported World War I-- Marxists always bring this up (Emma Goldman autobiography)
6. Paris Commune
Big in Marxist and Anarchist mythology, but ultimately an unplanned revolution. (Marx warned against it). Working class revolution, but ideology confused
Anarchist--City autonomous. Recallable delegates (Bakunin at Lyon the year before)
Marx--name associated with it, but delayed Isaiah Berlin, Paris Commune, Revolution and Reaction Revolution went off--election Jacobin (Blanquist) majority, Proudhonist Socialist Minority (anarchist), Louise Michel (Louise Michel by Edith Thomas)
"The most fundamental split in the Commune so far had taken place, and henceforth its Assembly would consist of a Majority and Minority faction; the one, controlled by Jacobins, wanting to exercise dictatorship and terror--the methods of '93--and blaming the failures of the Commune upon the sentimentality of the Socialists; the other desiring to govern by reasonably democratic methods, to observe moderation in order to leave, as Rochefort put it, 'the door at least half open to conciliation'. In the light of twentieth-century history, it seems perhaps ironical that the exponents of democracy and moderation should have been chiefly the Internationalists, the forefathers of Lenin's Bolsheviks."--The Fall of Paris by Alistair Horne
Brutal repression--future violence
7. Propaganda of the Deed
assassinations--targeted and not so targeted (The World That Never Was: A True Story of Dreamers, Schemers, Anarchists, and Secret Agents by Alex Butterworth)
8. Anarchism in the United States
Haymarket massacre 1886
Emma Goldman (Living my Life)
Homestead Strike--Henry Clay Frick--Attempted Assassination
Socialist Critique of this--undemocratic--Emma Goldman sort of realizes this later in life
Leon Czolgosz--assassinated President of the United States (Weird, isn’t it?) Inspired by anarchists in Europe (witnessed police brutality). Not allowed in any anarchist group, and yet he self-identified as an anarchist. (Brings up problems of self-identification, group responsibility). Disavowed by anarchists, except Emma Goldman.
9. China--attraction to anarchism in 1910s and 1920s--Chinese Communist Party largely made up of anarchists until Cominterm, Chen Duxiu used to be anarchist, sons anarchist
10. Korea--anarchists in 1910s
11. Japan
1910 crackdown--accused of killing the emperor
Osugi Sakae (Sakae Osugi) Memoirs of an anarchist--childhood, Osugi Sakae: Anarchist in Taisho Japan by Thomas Stanley. Free love scandal. Murdered by police in 1923 (precursor to crackdown).
People my age didn’t know him, but 1968 generation did. Anarchist versus socialist. (Chomsky)
12. Spain--Spanish Civil War Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
Arguments
Vietnam
Holocaust (120,000 buses), Stalin secret police Gulag
Manhattan project
anarchist space program
environment
