Tom's Musings

More fighting in what is known as the Levant region of the Middle-East has broken out. These ancient hatreds and simmering hostilities never seemed to end. So, when more fighting breaks out, we are never surprised. As basebsll great Yogi Berra once said … it is deja vue all over again.

What else would you expect when tribes that trace their origins back to antiquity compete for scarce lands amidst competing claims for legitimacy and sovereignty. In recent times, the Jews and Palestinians have been at it since since the United Nations granted the former tribe a homeland in the region in 1947. After the horrors of the holocaust, that seemed like a good idea at the time. With support from their various allies, both sides have been at it ever since (sometimes in hot wars and sometimes in cold wars). This nonsense has gone on as long as I’ve been alive.

I’m not going to untangle the middle-east mess. I’m neither that smart nor do I have enough time to write a several volume treatise on the topic. It would take that much effort to do the subject justice. But I am intrigued by a smaller issue … the rather futile efforts to assign blame in this latest outbreak. I will jump in on that exercise.

From what I see, most in the ‘West’ side with Israel. After all, the Gaza- based Hamas group fired thousands of rockets and ‘invaded’ nearby Israeli settlements. Stories of kidnappings of innocents and of unspeakable atrocities on Israeli children and the elderly sparked immediate outrage. What we do not know is whether these stories are substantially factual, given the capacity of cyberspace to be used in manipulative ways. Even if valid, the infliction of harm goes in both directions.

Time to step back a moment. I grew up in the era when the fledgling state of Israel was a weak underdog. I read the classic book, Exodus, by Leon Uris. Who could not sympathize with the brave Jewish settlers fighting against enemies on all sides merely to establish a place to live. Over the next several decades, that sense of the Israelis always being on the brink of destruction remained. That has to be a horrendous psychological burden … living with the daily reality that you might be attacked at any time or, worse, de driven into the sea and into extinction.

At first, I thought I had no comparable experience. Recently, however, I’ve changed my opinion on that. I live in an oasis of progressivism … Madison Wisconsin or Dane County. We are surrounded by rural areas that are firmly in the hands of Maga enthusiasts. We now often discuss the risks associated with taking a trip into the lovely countryside, especially if you sport a ‘Trump for prison in 2024′ sticker on your auto. Okay, I’m being facetious here but only marginally. There is real hostility across the cultural divide in America. Actual violence during the next election is not out of the question. I can understand the strains if you live daily with real threats to your very life.

I have been particularly taken by the reactions to domestic supporters of the Palestinian side on this conflict, especially on college campuses. I saw pro-Palestinian protestors adjacent to the U. Of Wisconsin campus. Calls for disciplinary action against them were rightly dismissed by csmpus suthorities. On the east coast, several Harvard groups expressed sympathy for those suffering in the Gaza strip, essentially assigning blame on Israel. Some students have lost future job offers for expressing such opinions. Other officials have called for the public exposure of these students, assuming that there ought to be a penalty for expressing their 1st amendment protected opinions. This knee jerk reaction smarts of 1950s era McCarthyism. Under no condition do we want a return to those days of censorship and intimidation.

Where do I stand? I stand firmly against getting on a tautological merry-go-round. Hamas is guilty of terrorism. But Israel is guilty of forcing suffering Palestinians into unspeakable living conditions with no hope for the future. But the Israelites are justified in their paranoia and the need for security given their tenuous situation. And is it not unreasonable for the Palestinians to erupt in outrage after decades of suffering. Who could blame them? This is an endless, self-perpetuating circle.

Here is the problem. There is no off switch to this ride. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, ‘an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.’

I wish I had a solution, or even a reasonable first step toward a solution. I don’t, not even close. However, I will say that there are ample sins on BOTH sides of this tragic issue. And the further we go around this endless merry-go-round, the more likely that unspeakable end games come into play. Will Hezbola enter the conflict, widening the bloodshed into a regional affair or worse. Will the Israelis begin entertaining some form of genocide within the Gaza strip as a ‘final’ solution. (I seriously doubt that would get beyond the fantasy stage, but my geriatric pessimism continues to grow.)

We currently have important problems to deal with today. Global warming threatens our eco-system and the species. The last year for which we have data was the hottest on record. Or take hyper-inequality, the spiraling dynamic of more and more accruing into the hands of fewer and fewer. This concentrates power into the control of the few, threatening our chances for social order or fairness. And we have the specter of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Right now, we have no idea where this rapid change in technology might lead. However, we do understand that we must get ahead of the curve if an unimaginable apocalypse is to be avoided.

Two lessons are staring us in the face. (1) We must reorder our priorities to focus on the real perils facing us. These are mostly global in character, not local. Their solutions will demand global cooperation. (2) We must address the local and provincial challenges, no matter how emotional, with a new paradigm. More conflict is not the answer to anything. Substantive solutions must rely on understanding, objectivity, civility, compassion, and compromise.

In the end, we all share the same planet. We must either learn to love one another as brothers and sisters or perish together in isolated folly.

The collapse of any semblance of coherence or discipline within the Republican House Caucus has raised many an eyebrow and has brought into question the ability of America to govern itself. But our current political dysfunction should not be surprising. Over time, one of our two major parties appears to have lost any and all interest in governing our affairs.

The factors pushing the GOP off the rails, as well as the edge of sanity, have been building for decades. Arguably, the last time such intra-party discord was witnessed (in either party) was when southern conservative Democrats revolted under the leadership of Strom Thurmond in the post WWII era. That revolution was settled during the party realignment initiated by 1953 Brown vs. The Board of Education SCOTUS decision and accelerated by the Civil Rights movement a decade later.

Arguably, those entrenched in defending what they saw as traditional values, including the continued hegemony of a white elite, were alarmed by President Truman’s integration of the military and the integration of Major League baseball. Northern Democratic liberals (e.g., a young Hubert Humphrey) antagonized their southern colleagues by insisting that a civil rights addenda be added to the Democratic Party’s platform. That spurred the Dixiecrat revolt. But it wasn’t until Johnson forcefully embraced broader civil rights legislation in the 1960s that conservative southern politicians fled the Democratic Party in droves. By the early 70s, the two parties were roughly organized around distinct normative and ideological positions. Our process of partisan polarization had been established.

But here’s the thing. When I was growing up, bipartisanship was common. Given my working class roots, I was a nominal Democrat by virtue of the culture in which I was raised. Still, there were many Republicans I deeply admired. U. S. Senator Ed Brooke from my home state of Massachusetts was a black man who identified as a Republican. He was a true statesman with a broad vision for society. That made sense back in the early 1960s when the most hidebound conservatives were Dems representing Southern states in which legal apartheid was yet practiced. At that time, many northern Republicans could be described as progressives. I can recall proudly shaking Senator Brooke’s hand when he visited my college campus. He was a decent and competent leader.

On occasion, over time, I even voted for individual Republicans. I prided myself on being an independent, rather despising the confines associated with prescribed labels. As a policy wonk, I generally sought to understand all sides of an issue and would work for practical solutions even in such minefields as welfare reform. As a university teacher, I took pride in helping my students develop critical thinking skills. I had little interest in telling them what to think .

However, as the old refrain goes, the ‘times they were a changin.’ Our nation’s political metamorphosis was a glacial yet consciously planned effort. It was part of a long-term plan that emerged in the aftermath of Goldwater’s disastrous attempt to capture the White House in 1964 on behalf of what would later become ‘movement’ conservatives. Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory in that contest, and a subsequent spate of liberal legislation, seemed to affirm that the 1930s New Deal was not an aberration. A renewed era of sustained progressive thought and deed seemed assured. Oh, how wrong we were.

Conservatives, on the other hand, licked their wounds and got serious about fighting back. In 1971, future SCOTUS justice Lewis Powell wrote a now famous memorandum laying out a long-term term plan for retaking political control. While it used hard and warlike language, the vision laid out by Powell was quite strategic and well considered. The ‘right,’ he argued, must work to take control of the institutions that frame the political discourse in this country. That included the media, our educational systems, the courts, local politics (including gerrymandering voting districts), among other targets. He argued that this would be a decades long struggle for the hearts and minds of the people … a concerted effort to create a new default position respecting our political and normative discourse.

Over the next decade or two, great sums of money were raised from uber-wealthy individuals to redo the infrastructure that shapes how we think about things. For example, a whole set of new think tanks were created to push conservative ideas (Hoover Institution, Cato Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Manhatten Institute, and many others). In addition, organizations were established to reshape specific institutions … the Federalist Society was charged with turning our courts into a reflection of right-wing thought and attitudes. The Americain Legislative Exchange Council worked to turn state legislatures into right-wing laboratories for change.

Education was another prime target since conservatives were convinced that the young were being brainwashed, especially in colleges and universities. In addition to Accuracy in Academia, Hillsdale College in Michigan is heavily endowed and has a mission to expose this nefarious leftist indoctrination in higher education. Conservative students were charged to ‘expose’ liberal professors. There are way too many other initiatives to list here.

Success came relatively quickly. The amiable Ronald Reagan seduced voters in ways Goldwater never could and captured the White House for the right-wing in 1980. While a darling of the conservatives for many years to come, he surely would be attacked mercilessly in today’s environment as a classic RINO (Republican in Name Only). After all, he collaborated with Democratic House leader Tip O’Neil, another Irshman with whom he could share jokes and convivial stories.

While Reagan had no trouble cutting taxes for the rich, he had great difficulty cutting spending even for the social safety net programs most Republicans despised. His budget director (David Stockman) was deeply frustrated that he could not get Reagan to drastically reduce spending even for liberal programs like Food Stamps. Thus, taxes for the wealthy were slashed but not spending (the military budget was expanded). This sent our national deficits spiraling. The revolution of the right was only partially in place.

The next lurch to the right occurred in the 1990s with the Newt Gingrich revolution. While the U.S. was just about the only advanced nation without universal health care, Clinton’s proposal toward that end  was met with incomprehensible hostility. The right-wing efforts to reshape our political dialogue was bearing fruit. Even a benefit our peer nations routinely provided was seen as government over reach here. We continued to hold on to an inefficient and highly inequitable health care financing system. Not surprisingly, Republicans finally took control of Congress. 

A media revolution also was underway, aided over the next couple of decades by the technological advances associated with cyberspace and the internet. Talk radio (remember Rush Limbaugh), then Fox News (1996), Mark Levin (2006) and other right-wing fire brands, OAN and Newsmax (both launched just before the MAGA revolution) replaced network news as distributors of news and opinion. While many had thought our new communication methods would improve society, it actually led to further tribalization and entrenched bitterness across groups.

Gingrich set the tone for the new, hard-right version of the Republican Party. No compromise with the other side was to be permitted. This was war. Since government was evil, shutting it down was a blessing (though they were surprised when people did seem to care). I recall a Republican player on the Hill (Ron Haskins) with whom I had worked on several occasions describing Gingrich to me. “He sees himself as a revolutionary. He wants to blow things up.” As someone dedicated to making government work, I was appalled. I feel Ron was wary as well. I still recall the ONE TIME Gimgrich publicly agreed with Clinton. It was on NAFTA. He barely could get the words out without having an aneurysm and stroking out on the spot.

As the Republican Party lurched further to the right, the wise pundits kept predicting that it was inflicting fatal wounds on itself. It was becoming a racist and regional party that would self-destruct and cesse to be relevant. But these wise men and women operated within their own bubble, an isolated echo chamber. In the real world, the new methods of cyber communication were operating according to a different dynamic, one that would push the GOP to places that were inconceivable when I was younger.

Essentially, this new dynamic went like this. There were now so many options from which individuals could select to get information, they could easily reinforce their priors if they tuned into the correct echo chamber. All else had been labeled fake news no matter how credible the information provided. There no longer was a Walter Cronkite to deliver the evening news in a calm, dispassionate manner, ar least no such person who could reach the whole nation. What these new outlets found (from Fox to Breitbart News) was that emotion, not logic, kept people tuned in and their fiscal bottom line healthy.

Unfortunately, this dynamic was self reinforcing. The conservative base was easily bored. They demanded  ever more salacious and gripping revelations about the sins and depradations of the ‘other’ side. And here is the key. All those enamored with authoritarianism demand an ‘other’ to fear and to despise. It might be the Shias or Sunnis in the Mideast, Catholics or Protestants in Northern Ireland, Hindus or Muslims on the subcontinent, and the most notorious of all … Jews for the German Nazis.

For the Republican base today, we have desperate Latinos pushing against our southern borders (not all that dissimilar to North Africans trying to slip into the EU.) For an insecure and easily frightened Republican base, immigrants are an easy scapegoat for a host of real or imagined threats. In our context, a good deal of the ire within the ‘right’ is directed toward the nameless elite … the educated, the ‘woke’ types they see as disrespecting and ignoring them. They thus often turn to rather ignorant demagogues who have no skill or interest in actually governing. I keep wondering if they would select their butcher to do open heart surgery on a loved one simply because that person in ‘one of them.’

What the far right found, especially their media, is a recipe that worked. In your target audience, you stoked  fear, loathing, hate, and division. Next, you offer the base a savior with simple solutions. The far right outlets have no illusions about their role and purpose. In a court deposition, Rupert Murdoch (who recently stepped down as CEO of Fox News) admitted that Fox News was NOT distributing news but rather entertainment. What he didn’t admit was that the entertainment distributed was based on appealing to the worst instincts of their audience.

For reasons I’ve never fathomed, I’m on the mailing list of many of these far-right organizations. I’m forever getting breathless messages about breaking revelations respecting the outrageous sins and depradations of the bad guys. While I can discuss these revelations as crude propaganda, many cannot. This stream of disinformation is cleverly designed to keep the base stirred up, angry, and desperately needing a strong man to save them and redress their grievances. Thus, Trump enters stage right!

The problem is that the rhetoric must keep escalating. Yesterday’s outrage is old news. Thise in front in the camera like Hannity or Carlson must produce ever more radical revelations. As the media propaganda escalates in degrees of absurdity, politicians must follow or be faced with the end of their political hopes. They might easily be labeled a RINO and primaried into oblivion.

About a dozen years ago, the best and the brightest in the Republican House were Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy. The first two are gone and the 3rd recently was unceremoniously dumped as House Speaker. Now, the extremists in the House, the nihilists with no interest in governing, are running the show. Heaven help us.

I don’t blame the Republican establishment for this mess. They are merely trying to survive. When Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney departed the scene, it was in recognition that the people they had represented for many years with honor and in a principled manner had changed dramatically. Who would have guessed just a couple of generations ago that 25 to 35 percent of the American people would trash the American constitution and wish for an end to demicrarcy … longing for a strongman to be placed in charge. They now yearn for a savior to resolve their fears and ease their pervasive anxieties. More than anything, they wish for someone to ‘get’ those they blame for whatever ills they believe they experience. If the number is closer to 35 percent, they are within striking distance of ultimate control. The German Nazis never had more support than that before getting power.

Is there hope?  Damned if I know. As I repeatedly say these days, I’m glad I’m old. On my most optimistic days, perhaps the far right will go too far and there will be a backlash. But that presumes some minimal level of judgement and just a bit of human decency among the base. I’m not optimistic on that score.

As I am writing this, Jim Jordan (a firebrand Trump supporter) has been nominated to be the next Republican House Speaker. (Note: I doubt he will be elected). Still, the revolution started decades ago would reach another level of ‘success.’  The American dream of representing a mature democracy and workable federal system of government would suffer another humiliating defeat. The wider world must look on in disbelief.

I can recall one of my Florida neighbors (when we wintered there) talking about Obama as we played a round of golf. This was about a decade or so ago. He was shocked at the level of animosity this sensible and intelligent American President received in the States. I think his precise words were, “what the f#&k is wrong with you Americans. We love him up in Canada.” I ask myself that same question these days … “what the f#&k is wrong with my fellow Americans.” Why can’t they see what is going on?

As I see America imploding in slow motion, I seriously doubt I will ever feel any pride in this country again.

Technological advances have always been a two edge sword … the Janus head figure of Roman mythology with one face gaze toward the future and the other fixed on the past. For Roman believers, Janus represented many dualities we see about us. Today, we might focus on the duality inherent in technological advancement. Put another way, most innovations can be used for good or evil, applied to the advancement of mankind or to its demise. In the beginning of any breakthrough, we cannot know where innovation will end.

In some ways, Mary Shelley captured our ambivalent attitude toward technology in her 1818 novel about Frankenstein’s monster. Victor Frankenstein set about to create an artificial man based on decent intentions, including responding to his scientific curiosity. His creation, for a variety of reasons he could not foresee, escaped his control. This marvelous, if not inspirational, creation soon became a fearsome being to the world outside his lab. Victor had unleashed a force on his community that ordinary people could not understand nor accommodate.

There are historical examples that go in both directions of course. The breakthrough inspirations of Jenner and Fleming led to life-saving innovations against infectious diseases. Henry Ford’s innovations in assmbly line production of cars reduced the time it took to assemble a Model T Ford from 12.5 hours to less than a minute. The cost fell from $850 to less than $300, thus bringing the automobile within the reach of the middle class. Of course, the unintended consequences on assembly line workers, congested streets, and air pollution were yet to be appreciated.

Other examples fit Asimov’s warning more closely. Between the American Civil War (and the Franco-Prussian War) and the outbreak of WWI, the technology of warfare advanced dramatically. At the start of the Civil War, most soldiers employed single shot, front loading rifles. They were slow, cumbersome weapons that were not accurate. Tactics demanded massing soldiers together to generate any effective firepower.

By 1914, armies had machine guns followed by tanks and high-powered artillery and bombs dropped from planes and lethal nerve gases. Yet, the battlefield tactics still were based on the killing technologies of prior generations. The result was an unimaginable slaughter (over 10 million soldiers) as leaders could not, or would not, recognize how the world had changed. They sent massed armies into technologies that cut them down with efficient ferocity.

Most of us have seen the movie ‘Oppenheimer.’ This epic captures the angst of modern science and scientists. The instinct to pursue knew technologies, often based on compelling rationales in the moment, can and do result in faustian choices. Could the scientists working on the Manhatten project risk Getrmany developing the bomb first?

At the same time, many of them realized they had unleashed an apocalyptic weapon upon the world, regretting their actions. And yet, almost 8 decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wars have been localized and conventionally waged. Has the totality of nuclear force lessened our militant instincts. A point to be debated.

Nothing touches upon Asimov’s point better than the AI (artificial intelligence) spectre 👻 . Will this modern day Framkenstein be a net force for good or evil. Without question, the potential applications are endless and the possible benefits breathtaking. Just take medical diagnoses alone. Think about a digital doctor with all medical knowledge available to them, who never tire, and who can make decisions in nanoseconds. Think how quickly science can progress when not impeded by human frailties and inefficiencies.

And there lies the rub. As AI abilities leap forward, who can predict what might happen? The current versions have a fraction of the connections in the human brain and yet can outperform us in virtually every dimension. How long before our products, over which we yet exercise some control, simulate consciousness, free will, and even our more basic failings. Is it not likely that they will conclude that these wholly imperfect humans atremptingvto exploit them are unnecessary. What then? The so-called ‘godfather’ of AI has upped the probability that AI will replace, or at least significantly diminish the presence of humanity, by at 25 percent.

Noodling this led me to the following thought. As these machines become capable of mimicking, or even exceeding, advanced human attributes (emotions, creativity, desires). If so, what will prevent them from simulating the worst of our tendencies … except at a higher level.

The thing is, we are only at the very beginning of this adventure. Today, AI is like those huge, clunky IBM mainframes of the 1950s with vacuum tubes that could not even perform tasks easily available on a cheap hand-held calculator today. Just think what they will be able to do in a couple of generations, especially if they assume control of their own futures. Perhaps they will simulate all human attributes such as jealousy, ambition, and anger … except at higher functioning levels.

If that happens, why in the world would they not dismiss and eliminate these slow moving and archaic homo-sapiens who would be good for very little, at least to their analysis. To my mind, we would be more bother than anything else.

Consider this, does functioning at levels far beyond what humans could ever hope to achieve guarantee that our future machines will act at higher normative levels. Will they be kind, morally superior, focused on higher level goals? I’m not sure. After all, we have highly educated (Ivy League) Republicans who act like barbaric, school yard bullies. Perhaps our future machines (we need a better term) will wage botter battles among themselves but at an unimaginable level of sophistication and ferocity. In such a world, heaven help us or whomever replaces us.

I will say this one time. I’m glad I’m old!

This is Nobel Prize week. The Peace Prize was just awarded to an Iranian female activist (Narges Mohammedi) who has dedicated her life toward seeking the freedoms that others of her gender enjoy elsewhere in the world. Her persistent efforts to secure some reasonable treatment for Islamic women have been met with ferocious resistance by the Islamic extremist authorities. She has been arrested more than 30 times, convicted some 13 times, and has been sentenced to almost 3 decades in prison and some 145 lashes. She is paying a harsh price for her convictions.

We in the West shake our heads at what we consider such barbaric behaviors on behalf of governing authorities in many Islamic countries. Why treat half of the human species with such casual, yet excessive, cruelty?

But think about it for a moment. Has not the American Republican Party of today become, or is at least trending toward, the American version of the extremist religious Taliban. They seek to command ever greater control over women, their reproductive rights, and their role in society … mostly yearning to reestablish a male dominated society.

Then, another thought struck me. Didn’t Western society go through a similar era where laws and customs were dominated by religious and not secular principles. I just finished reading ‘A World Lit Only by Fire’ by William Manchester. This is an excellent work focusing on the period of time in Europe when the Protestant Reformation challenged the existing primacy of religious authority and where our world view was circumscribed by dogmatic orthodoxy. And yet, it was a period during which scholars began to question the existing consensus on the nature of the world. Pioneering souls, driven by curiosity and the drive to make better sense of the world, began to question accepted truths passed down from sacred sources and endosed by religious leaders. These proto-scientists relied more and more on careful observation and their analytical skills. This often put them at odds with the religious authorities of the times which is a significant understatement of the reality in those times.

Of the many lessons from Manchester’s excellent work, two strike me as relevant today. First, the pre-reformation religious authorities were hardly role models for the spiritual path in life. Pope’s waged war, employed their Papal position to enrich themselves, routinely engaged in lascivious behaviors (too often siring illegitimate children). It was common for the religious elite to sell top positions in the Church to the highest bidder. Corruption started at the top and drifted down the spiritual hierarchy.

Church officials systemically sold indulgences, i.e. get out of Hell free cards. Their approach was simple. It was all too easy to implement since their followers were illiterate and all important documents were in Latin which only the top elite understood. They first sold an uneducated laity on the horrors awaiting them in the after-life, scaring them into submission. Then they suggested that the Church hierarchy, and only them, offered an alternative to an eternity of torture. Finally, they they moved in for the kill by offering a convenient way to avoid the unthinkable consequences of a wayward life … for a price of course. The Republican Party learned well from these early con men. Scare your followers, offer a simple solution, and bleed them dry.

The competition for the goodies attached to Church leadership were so seductive that three different candidates assumed the position of Pope at one point. With time, The abuses were sufficiently flagrant that secular leaders, particularly those in Northern Europe became restive to the point of questioning their subservience to a Papal authority that inspired less and less respect. The way for Martin Luther’s revolt was set by the early 1500s.

The second theme associated with the pre-reformation church involved the harsh penalties for any deviation from accepted orthodoxy. There was an accepted view of the world, one sanctioned by religious authorities. Those deviating from these revealed truths were subject to the severest penalties including torture and death. The empiricists of the era often cowered in the face of religious intolerance. Copernicus did not publish his findings of a helio- centric solar system until after his death (his friends saw to its release) while Galileo retracted his supportive findings in the face of Papal approbation. Rigorous inquiry was not for the faint of heart. Many who questioned existing dogma went into hiding if they could.

Wars stimulated by religious or arcane disputes over seemingly insignificant points of dogma, though often colored by conventional political overtones, were an ongoing reality in that era. The pre-reformation era saw a series of Crusades which pitted Christianty against Islam. But intra-Christian conflicts spawned by the dissolution of a homogeneous religious framework in the West became a constant source of terror … the consequences of which typically fell on innocent peoples lower down in society. I’ll mention just a few … the War of the Three Henrys, the French War of Religion, the Julich Succession during the German Reformation, the English reformation conflicts including the Jacobite uprisings, and so many more. Untold numbers suffered and perished in the name of God.

The point of all this being that monotheistic absolutism, the stubborn belief that ‘my God is better than your God’, has led to more suffering and death than most, if not all, competing causes. The irony should not be lost on anyone. So many killed and maimed in the name of the Prince of Peace. Even when considering more recent world conflicts based largely on secular political goals, they were often imbued with appeals to superior cultural and spiritual meanings. Each side invoked the blessing of God.

Fortunately, as more secular sentiments dominated political life, especially in Europe where religiosity is low, the levels of conflict have abated dramatically. (A recent exception has been the Catholic-Protestant ‘Troubles’ in Ireland.)

All this leads me to wonder if the conflicts we have seen in the Middle East, including the religious orthodoxy that punishes women simply for being women, suggests that the Islamic world is struggling through its own version of an evolutionary period. Perhaps they are struggling with the very issue that plagued Western societies for centuries … should religious or secular impulses govern our national and international lives. Perhaps the existing regimes, including the Shia and Sunni factions, must exhaust their outdated beliefs and emotional dispositions until more secular attitudes and perspectives become dominant. Hopefully, their maturation won’t take as long as it did in the Christian West. Only time will tell whether that optimistic notion is warranted.

The irony of all this is that spiritual beliefs can be a two edge sword. They can elevate individuals and the collective to behave in ways we all can admire. At the same time, they can be used to rationalize and justify the most bestial of attitudes and behaviors.

This brings me back to the comments from the Dalai Lama introduced at the beginning. Spiritual beliefs asserted as dogma are seldom a good idea. Their authority is always debatable, and the consequences of slavishly adhering to them often are reprehensible. Love, and a good heart, should always trump dogma asserted in the form of absolute truth. That is authentic spirituality.

The early 1500s were a kind of tipping point in our Western evolution. In religion, the process of rethinking unquestioned dogma began. Early scientists began to explore the universe about them in rigorous ways. The great texts (and religious documents) were translated into local languages and made available more broadly. Local and national authorities began separating themselves from religious authorities. Brave explorers began to seek out worlds and possibilities previously unimaginable, with Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe a prime example. A new world was being born.

Slowly, people began looking to the future as opposed to revering the past. They started recognizing that the world around them was not static but malleable. Situations and society could be improved for the benefit of all. Of course, substantive change takes time, and selecting critical moments in the past is a subjective exercise. But I see the decades around 1500 as a tipping point in history. After that, we began the slow march to modern society.

Perhaps a tipping point is taking place in the Islamic world. We just don’t see it yet. Still, we can hope.

Many of you have already seen this. Still, I am moved to share thus widely since the source is neither a liberal AND spent considerable time in Trump’s inner circle.

Below is a recent quote on Donald Trump by John Kelly, retired Marine Corps General who served as Trump’s longest serving WH Chief of Staff (2017-19).

“What can I add that has not already been said. A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family (lost a child in war)- for all Gold Star families- on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”

“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on working men and women. A person that has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and in war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions and the rule of law.”

“There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.”

Nothing is more discouraging to me than the fact that so many Americans still follow thus utterly damaged man with cult like adoration. For many years I pondered the question of how the German people could support Hitler. That is no longer a mystery.

As you know, the brainiacs on the far right believe that the Dems and other radical ‘socialists’ are controlled by a ‘dark state’ controlled by Hillary Clinton operating out of secret pizza parlors that are fronts for pedophilia rings. Even those with the best educations available, like Governor Ron Desantis, cozy up to such borderline psychoses. I’ve always thought that he and the other Ivy League conservatives know full well that this nonsense is BS. It simply is the easiest way to con a large and remarkably gullible base as they pursue ever more power. So, for example, they gleefully attack Covid vaccines as the Devil’s work and demonize Anthony Fauci as Satan’s pawn. So what if people die or suffer as a consequence of their immoral and self-serving stands, they will garner ever more power from a fanatical cult.

The true believers on the right might now have another target for their venom … the Nobel Prize selection committee for Physiology and Medicine. How the radical left in America managed to infiltrate and take control of this international committee based in Stockholm is a bit of a mystery to me. However, they are a crafty and dedicated lot. Besides, you can’t refute the evidence. Given the most recent announcement of the Nobel selection committee, it is clear that the ‘dark state’ now controls those in charge of awarding sciences most prestigious awards.

It was announced that this year’s prize in Physiology and Medicine would be given to Professors Katalin Kariko of Szeged University in Hungary and Drew Weissman of the University of Pennsylvania for their work in developing the MRNA approach to developing vaccines. Their breakthrough work resulted in the Covid vaccines being developed in record time, enabling their early availability to fight off the most significant global health threat in memory … Covid 19 and its variants. Of course, you are only impressed with their work if you do not believe that Covid was a fraud unleashed on a gullible world to embarrass the greatest world leader since Napoleon Bonaparte … Donald Trump.

Let us assume the pandemic was, in fact, real. After all, I cannot imagine the entire world collaborating with America’s radical left to foster a hoax on the U.S. just so liberals could impose specious mandates and shut down much of the economy for a while. Yes, the response to the pandemic (real or fake) was an inconvenience to our wannabe dictator, the Donald. However, I thought he redeemed himself well by suggesting we all drink bleach or some such rot. Only NFL QB Aaron Rodgers came up with a more creative solution … Intervectin. Wow! It remains a mystery as to how the Nobel committee could overlook the contributions of Trump and Rodgers in handing out this prestigious award. Perhaps the fact that both of these loonies are bat shit crazy had something to do with the Committee ignoring them.

Apparently, the Committee decided to go with solid science as opposed to political exploitation and personal delusions. How narrow of them. The winners, Katalin and Weissman, first met at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1990s where they began to pursue a new concept for developing life saving vaccines.

Up until then, most vaccines used dead or weakened forms of a virus to protect patients from more deadly forms of the disease. As the 18th century came to a close, Edward Jenner presumably overheard a milkmaid comment that she would not get smallpox because she already had the cowpox. Apparently, regular folk knew instinctively about the therapeutic advantages of exposure to a less virulent form of an infectious disease. Jenner ran with this insight and successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of inoculations to ward off the dire consequences of the more deadly smallpox.

Most subsequent vaccines were based on the same principle. However, Kariko and Weissman pursued a different tact, one that was ignored by mainstream science at the time. Then again, the developer of the polio vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk, was dismissed early on by many in the medical community. He also persisted and was proved correct when his vaccine against a dreaded disease that I feared as a kid became available in the mid-1950. Dr. Albert Sabin was one of the early critics of Salk, though he did go on to develop an oral form of the polio vaccine several years down the road. But Salk ignored his critics and pursued his vision. His dedication and courage undoubtedly saved many lives and avoided great suffering.

Just what is this new approach developed by the Nobel winners? I’m a layman, but here is what I understand. They take part of the genetic code of the virus and turn it into a vaccine. This vaccine enters the cells and tells them to produce the Coronavirus spike protein. These look like spikes sticking out from the cell. The body’s immune system reacts as if a pathological virus is present. Antibodies are produced and T-cells activated. It is much like the body preparing for a real war. Now, if a person then contracts Coronavirus, the antibodies and T-cells are present and prepared to attack this potentially more deadly threat.

The big idea behind this technology (which I really don’t understand) is to use the genetic code in innovative ways. Presumably, future vaccines to ward off new threats can be developed using this insight and on a much more expeditious time frame. I recall thinking that the scientists frantically working on a Covid vaccine in 2020 came up with something in an astonishingly short time.

Kariko and Weissman’s insight may be on the order of Jenner’s smallpox and Alexander Flemming’s anti-biotic revolution (penicillin). Using specific genetic codes might well unlock the key to other life- saving vaccinations, perhaps including ways to fight specific forms of cancer. Only time will tell.

For now, Kariko and Weissman likely will be added to the far right’s hall of shame, along with Anthony Fauci, the dedicated scientists and doctors at the Center for Disease Control, and all those who labor in research labs in the search for new ways to save lives and reduce human suffering. May they continue their heroic work even as the far right attacks and vilifies them merely in the pusuit of power and personal gain or merely to vent their accumulated bile.

Society may adore football stars and Taylor Swift. In my book, however. those that push the boundaries of knowledge are the real heroes today, no matter what the hate-mongers on the right claim.

Is money the root of all evil? Hell if I know, but it sure can pose a danger to society especially if existing resources are not shared in a reasonable or equitable fashion. Let’s explore this thesis for a bit, shall we?

The world’s economy is doing very well. We know that the ranks of the desperately poor, have declined substantially in the past couple of decades. From another perspective, global equity markets recently have been valued at some $109 trillion dollars. As the saying goes, a trillion here and a trillion there and soon you are talking real money.

Moreover, the size of this pie has tripled since the turn of the century. That is, there has been an explosion of wealth as evidenced by the mushrooming of yachts, private planes, and displays of egregious wealth. In short, while some of this newfound lucre has drifted down to the needy, the vast majority has gone in the other direction … toward the economic elite.

Of course, not every part of the globe has shared equally in this bonanza. The U.S. and Europe enjoy over 55 percent of these goodies with the States appropriating the lion’s share. Still, so-called emerging markets are catching up. China has seen a 12- fold increase in market equities over the past two decades. Moreover, while China used to send its best and brightest to the West to be educated, they now are investing substantially in home-grown research and education. Two Chinese universities now compete with the best Western institutions. India, on the other hand, is projected to enjoy the fastest growth over the next two decades. These emerging markets are projected to dominate the traditional winners in the West by 2050.

The other key factor is who, within individual countries, has benefitted from all this economic expansion. This is a complex topic, so we will keep it simple. In the U.S., the top 1 percent take at least 20 percent of the national income (some estimates have put it closer to 24 percent until Covid disrupted things) … a figure that has more than doubled since Reagan assumed office in 1980. The bottom half of the population must make do with 10 percent of the pie. Wealth, or accumulated income, is even more unevenly distributed.

Now, you might say that the distribution of income is determined by market forces and is beyond the scope of human intervention. Neo-classical economic thought treats these outcomes as the product of natural laws, like gravity, and should not be messed with. Any public interference would distort market operations and lead to inefficiencies and distortions. Worse, such interventions would inconvenience the filthy rich.

Then again, if that were the case, I would expect to see a good deal of homogeneity in distributional patterns across countries, especially across more or less peer nations. But, in fact, there is considerable variation when the standard measure of inequality, the GINI coefficient, is examined.

For example, I suggested earlier that the U.S. has a comparatively high level of income and wealth inequality. Some 80 countries are measurably more equal in how income and wealth are distributed across their populations. These include the U.K., Canada, Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, all the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, and most Eastern European nations. Oh, and I might throw in Russia and China. Within the European community as a whole, the top 1 percent garner 12 % of the pie (not 20 plus percent like the U.S.) while the bottom half access 22% of what is available (more than twice what the less fortunate in America get).

So what, you might wonder. Well, I often wonder why Americans so blithely put up with the few taking such a huge portion of their resource pie. Why don’t they see this as unfair. Again, this is a complex issue. I recall an old observation about a basic difference in how Americans and Europeans respond to wealth. When a Rolls Royce passes poorer folk on the continent, they often respond with anger. In America, those looking on sigh with admiration and believe that such blessings can one day be theirs. After all, there is always the lottery.

No matter the difference in how people respond to displays of great advantage, there is one outstanding danger. As income and wealth become increasingly concentrated at the top, so does power. Money can buy media exposure and can help leverage the mechanisms through which social control is maintained. The more money at the top, the more likely the rules will reflect the interests and preferences of the elite. That is why hedge fund managers pay less proportionally in taxes than working stiffs. Money is power, and those with the most gold get to shape the rules.

Most politicians would rather eschew the employment of raw power to retain control … Trump may be the exception. No, most prefer a subtler approach … the classic bait and switch tactic. Keep people obsessing on irrelevant issues while you rob them blind. Keep them afraid, divided, and focused on marginal questions like abortion, transgender and gay politics, barbarians at our borders, guns, books that are grooming our kids, and all sorts of emotional topics that deflect attention from more substantive concerns. Conservatives realize that common folk respond to emotional narratives that strike their hearts while liberals keep making rational arguments, which is why the libs usually do so badly.

With people distracted, those that occupy the top spots in our economic pyramid can continue to gather more and more for themselves. At some point, we may reach the point at which there may be no possibility of addressing the rules which, if revamped, might create a more equitable and integrated society. The imbalance may be permanent, self- sustaining, and self-perpetuating. Perhaps we are already there.

So, is money the root of all evil? Not sure about that. But concentrated wealth does permit all kinds of evil to flourish. Of that, I am without any doubt.

Retired 4 star Army General Barry McCaffrey recently observed the following about Trump supporting MAGAs … ‘what we are seeing is a parallel to the 1930s in Nazi Germany.’ He is joined by numerous other pundits, such as highly regarded historian Heather Cox-Richardson for example, who observe that the 2024 election might well determine whether the American experiment in democracy will continue or whether the nation will succumb fully to a form of authoritarian rule. I must admit, while I’ve never seen myself as an alarmist, I share a good deal of these dark forebodings.

Despite the rhetoric expounded in our public propaganda, America only inched close to a mature democracy within my lifetime (circa late 1960s) and then immediately faced a backlash from entrenched white elites, especially in Southern and rural states. Right from colonial days, there has been a strong sentiment that elite whites, preferably property owners, should rule as a form of entitlement.

The undercurrent of discontent among those who basically distrust democratic rule has always been there, from the various populist movements of the late 19th century through Huey Long, the Silver Shirts, the American Bund, the KKK, the American Nazi party. Today, we have literally hundreds of anti-government and hate groups festering across the land.

At the same time, we ought not be overly myopic. America’s deep cultural divide, a phenomenon I’ve discussed in prior posts, is woven deeply into our zeitgeist. It is part of us. This nation has been divided since its inception when the issue of slavery was swept under the rug as the Constitution was created. Our electoral college reflected the deep negative animus between larger states with industrial potential and more rural areas favoring an agricultural and a mostly hierarchical society. America tenaciously held on to slavery, and then legal apartheid, long after most of our peer counties abandoned such primitive practices.

What has changed recently, in my opinion, is that these sentiments now control a major political party. Starting with the Goldwater movement in the 1960s, picking up speed with the Gingrich revolution in the early 1990s, and coming to full fruition with Trump in 2016, one of our two major political parties now embraces and reflects the elitist and authoritarian impulses that have always been there, but kept politely beneath the surface and hidden from public view. The hate mongers and demagogues of the past might have enjoyed popularity but wielded little effective power (e.g., Father Coughlin in the 1930s).

For me, the biggest difference now, and the source of our existential threat, is that the hate filled tribalism and over reaching authoritarianism has driven all moderation and sanity from the Republican Party. The fleeing of Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney marks the end of any constraints on the venerable GOP and surely any prospects of principled governance from the conservative wing.

Those that would tear away even the pretense of democracy and the rule of law now have real power. That is far different from the political arrangement of my youth when liberals and conservatives were distributed across both parties. That partly was an anomaly persisting from normative allegiances cemented during the Civil War and which remained until the realignment spawned by the modern Civil Rights movement emerged in the late 1950s.

There are many factors one might suggest to explain today’s political polarization. We have the tribalism fostered by social media, the rise of agenda driven propaganda outlets, the weaponization of evangelical religion, and a growing sector of the population that could not identify their own self interest with the help of GPS and a guide dog.

These and other factors have resulted in an environment based on identity politics sustained by a virulent hate of the ‘other,’ especially on the right. This perhaps best reflects McCaffrey’s observation that America today parallels Germany during the rise of Naziism. In the eyes of today’s Republicans, the radical left (anyone who still believes in civility, compassion, and community) are a contemporary version of Jews in the 1930s. Is anyone surprised that Trump is hinting at executing former staffers he considers disloyal.

Normally, I would say that our contemporary form of fascism will fail, as did the spasms of extremism in the past. After all, Trumpers represent perhaps 30 percent of the population. Then again, let us not forget the lessons of history. The Bolsheviks were a small minority in 1917, even among the leftist forces seeking to replace the Czar. And the Nazis, even at the height of their popularity before being handed power, barely captured a third of the popular support.

With an antiquated electoral college in place, with our cultural divide as wide as it is, with some $10 billion expected to be spent just on the upcoming national election alone, with disinformation and likely Russian interference in our next election, is anyone confident that Trump or a Trump substitute can be kept from national office.

I would like to say that Americans are too wise and sane to flush almost 250 years of effort and sacrifice to create a mature democracy down the drain. Yes, I would really like to say that. But I cannot. After all, we elect people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, and Paul Gosar. These are seriously damaged people.

Yes, as a cartoon character observed a long time ago … we have met the enemy and it is us. We have no one else to blame.

Have you ever thought about this?

In 100 years, like in 2123, we will all be buried with our relatives and friends.

Strangers will live in our homes that we fought so hard to build, and they will own everything we have today.

All our possessions will be unknown
and unborn, including the car we spent a fortune on, and will probably be scrap, preferably in the hands of an unknown collector.

Our descendants will hardly know
who we were, nor will they remember us.

How many of us know our grandfather’s father?

After we die, we will be
remembered for a few more years,
Then we are just a portrait on
someone’s bookshelf,

And a few years later, our history,
photos and deeds disappear
in history’s oblivion.

We won’t even be memories.

If we paused to analyze these thoughts, perhaps we would understand how ignorant and weak the dream to achieve it all was.

If we could always be conscious of this, perhaps our approaches and our thoughts would change. We would be different people.

I’d change all this to live and enjoy
the walks I’ve never taken, the hugs
I didn’t give, the kisses for the children, animals and loved ones,
the jokes I didn’t have time for.

These would certainly be the most
beautiful moments to remember.

~Unknown

Hi all. I am back in the hospital. Damn!

Had a scary evening Friday. I was at a friends house waiting to watch the Wisconsin football game. Suddenly I kept getting dizzier and dizzier. I was about to say something when I woke up on the floor surrounded by EMT types.

My friend, a retired nurse (so she has seen a lot) said it was scary. I glazed over, foamed at the mouth, and collapsed. She did say the EMTs were there almost immediately. I vaguely recall trying to say ”I’m okay.” At least I think I did. But my friend put an end to that nonsense. I was pale, clammy, sweating, nauseus, and barely able to converse. Next thing I knew, Im bouncing in an ambulance as they attached me to an IV and several other mecical devices. I know they thought I was having a heart attack. In fact, before they let me go today, one more check on my heart. And yes. Contrary to public opinion, I have one.

Much more likely, this is related to the infection I’ve been fighting over the past month or so (they pumped me full of antibiotics over the weekend). This Urinary Tract Infection (possibly caused by e-coli bacteria) may have impacted my kidneys and prostate. But all that may sound more ominous than it is. My readings were getting better before this setback.

Home today I hope. However, future posts may be at a slower rate. We will see!