Blind Certainty

One of the harmful effects of Americans' response to Covid is that we've lost our sense of probity. Integrity, honesty, and trust have all been victims, whether we want to admit it or not. It's not just the politicians and bureaucrats, but some of our most important and trusted institutions. And many in the general population have paid and are paying the price. Almost from the start, misinformation, disinformation, and lies (You can sort out the differences yourself.) were started and repeated, fed to the American people. Some of this was just because there was much "the experts" didn't know. I understand. They were making their best guesses. But some of it, I am convinced, was deliberate for whatever reasons. Social distancing (I still hate that term!) and masks were initially intended to "flatten the curve," that is, to prevent our medical facilities from becoming overwhelmed. They weren't meant to prevent Covid, but to let more people get sick later. Again, the concern was overwhelming hospitals and medical personnel. What was it, "fifteen days" to do so? We all know how that went. We bought into the most obvious misinformation. I guess individuals can decide for themselves how disingenuous or untruthful it was, deliberate or honest mistakes. Contradictions and lies repeatedly showed themselves, but no matter. People stayed away. They put on ineffective masks. Much of America was shut down by overzealous (eager?) politicians and bureaucrats. Covid aside, how many businesses were destroyed with the accompanying financial devastation weighing on millions of people? Our children were far more dangerously hurt--socially, psychologically, educationally--than by anything the virus was going to do to them. Yet, undergreat pressure from "the experts," including the media, we agreed and consented to the dishonesty. Americans seem to no longer possess the ability to challenge. They are told obvious untruths and willingly repeat rather than question them. The many flip flops didn't lead them to ask, "Hey, wait a minute? You said something and now that that isn't so, you changed your tune." In effect, they are cooperating or at least condoning evil, perpetuating it. Those who resist(ed) are and were, if not ignored, at least marginalized or ridiculed. Some of the resisters were not quacks, but highly qualified and recognized experts in the medical community. (Well, at least they were!). For many people, their ability to recognize reality, especially to tell right from wrong, has been eroded. So readily, without thinking about the consequences it seems, Americans have made it relatively easy for the powers-that-be to control them. This was something about which both George Washingto =n and Abraham Lincoln warned us. Perhaps worse, our beliefs that have been molded by misinformation and disinformation have become embedded in certainty. Go ahead, try to have a serious conversation about all this, the last two years or more under the Covid dictatorship. How many people who challenged the new status quo, regardless of its very tenuous assumptions and results, have been "canceled?" They and their thoughts are not to be taken seriously, if considered at all. This blind certainty to follow, again often blindly, what we are told has helped to create a more and more close-minded society. That is very dangerous to a country founded on the principles of our Founding Fathers. The late novelist David Foster Wallace once described this as "amounting to an imprisonment [of the mind] so total that the prisoners don't even know they are locked up." Frightening indeed! We have become not only dismissive, but disdainful of opposing, contrary ideas. The ability or willingness to listen to differences of opinions (in all areas, not just Covid-related) has disappeared. Opponents and challengers have had their character questioned. How hilarious (but not really) that is in that what we have come to not only accept, but embrace--that is, the worse of character--from our political and other leaders, including Presidents, and institutions. It takes courage to listen, especially to challenges to our "blind certainty." That is one of the most disturbing developments about the evolution of our educational and cultural institutions. One step that needs to be taken is to realize that sometimes there are no definite answers. I have repeatedly written and said over many years that believing is not the same as knowing. Related is that we think we have the ability to always identify "the right people," that is, "the experts," who can provide definite answers, which may not even exist. Not only might we not be right in our thoughts and beliefs, but those "right people" might also be wrong. Sometimes, has history teaches us, the truth is where we find it, not where we want it to be. OF course, some folks might hold opposing views out of ignorance or even to promote an agenda, perhaps with nefarious or evil motives. But we might also do well to remember and accept that differing opinions can be the results of principled reasoning. We may or may not know or even guess a person's motives. But history also teaches that people can legitimately interpret experiences and evidence differently. Or something like that......

Two Quick Thoughts

I have had two thoughts, inspired by Abraham Lincoln, the past week or so. First, if we were to have a Meeting of Minds dinner, here is a question I'd ask of him. Were an escaped/runaway slave to show up at your door, what would you do? Lincoln was a Constitutionalist and a legalist. He believed in the sanctity of the Constitution as a precious document. He was also devoted to the law. Throughout the years of his Presidency he struggled with the problem of how to abolish slavery in light of its protection in the Constitution (Article I, Sections 2 and 9, and Article 5 if I recall without double-checking) and Fugitive Slave Laws passed in 1793 and 1850. Lincoln and other Americans were required, by law, to aid in the apprehension and return of runaway slaves. Given his hatred of slavery and all it encompassed, yet his strong penchant for following the Constitution and obeying the law, what would Lincoln do in such a situation? We obviously will never know, but it is interesting to speculate in light of his conflicting and evolving views. Yep, that would be a question I'd ask him. The second is more convoluted. It deals with my lack of comprehension of a significant or at least vocal portion of Americans. Why are there so many anti-capitalists and even anti-democrats (not the political party) in academia and politics and increasingly so in the corporate world? I just don't understand them. They have prospered under the freedoms of democracy and capitalism. Why don't they celebrate American culture, founded not on geography, racial or ethnic lines, and/or out-and-out political and military might, but on the ideas and ideals of Enlightenment thinkers? These Enlightenment ideals were radical/revolutionary, that people could rule themselves, that they had natural rights not granted by government but to be guarateed by it, etc. I think far too many people conflate or actually confuse two terms: equality/egalitarianism and equity. The former, in general, refers to equal opportunities, to having those opportunities protected by government/law. The later has come to mean equal outcomes. I am, of course, generalizing with this. But I don't think I'm misrepresenting what has come to pass. There are egregious examples of evil being perpetrated under the protections of the Constitution and American law. Two obvious ones are slavery and corporate/capitalist exploitation of workers/labor. But on the whole, mischaracterizations of the 1619 Project withstanding, the United States has provided for far better lives for its citizens than any other civilization/society. Therein lies the issue, the difference between a real America and and ideal America. Returning to Lincoln and his wisdom, re-read the Gettysburg Address. "Four score and seven years ago, our Fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." The word "proposition" and is key. Too many people do not understand this. Lincoln did, though. "All men are created equal" is a "proposition." It is not theorem or, in effect, a law. The US, as Lincoln well knew, was not perfect, not in practice. But it was always directed toward perfection. In fact, that's how he viewed the Civil War, even with all of its horrors and devastation. Who is ignorant enough to believe in utopia? Even Thomas More, whose book Utopia, forms the basis for the concept of utopia, "an ideally perfect place." More knew the derivation of the word utopia, from Greek meaning "nowhere or no place." Utopia, that is, a perfect society doesn't exist and, except to the most naive, never will. But as Lincoln went on to explain at Gettysburg, we still strive to attain perfection. He said, "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." That is, be a better person today than you were yesterday.

Student Loans

So it seems the Biden Administration is trying to buy votes for Democrats in the upcoming November mid-term elections. The means for doing this is forgiving student college loans. It's not clear if this means complete forgiveness or only a part of the loans. Other than those who will benefit from the freebie, what's there to like about this? I think it was President Herbert Hoover, in opposition to cancelling other nations' debts to the US from the First World War, who famously said, "They hired (borrowed) the money, didn't they?" Pay it back. Total student debt in the US stands close to $2 trillion, not quite, but close. Some economists say student debt repayment is a bigger financial burden than credit card debt and auto loans. Why is there so much college debt? A first place to look is at the federal government. How typical of the federal government to create a problem and then create another problem tryng to "fix" the first one. In guaranteeing payment of student debt to colleges for room, board, and tuition, the feds pretty much guaranteed what happened would happen. Colleges, knowing they'd get paid, kept increasing their bills to students. After all, if the federal government was going to guarantee payment, the schools were sure to get their money regardless of how much it was. Perhaps if students had been forced to get loans not secured by the feds, private lending institutions would have been a bit more circumspect in agreeing to pay colleges for the ever-increasing bills. That is, if the colleges were not absolutely certain they'd get their money, maybe they, too, would have given more consideration to their costs. I do have sympathy for students and parents in paying for a college education. The costs are astronomical and ridiculous. At my college room, board, and tuition for 2022-23 is in excess of $80,000; when I was a freshman, 55 years or so ago, costs were $3,200. I know there is said to be plenty of financial aid, but c'mon..... Nationally, there has been an explosion of administrative positions, often paying upwards of $100,000 annually. And how many tenured instructors teach only two or three courses a term--at full pay? Perhaps a solution might also be to look at the colleges themselves, the ones who jack up tuition, room and board, and the ubiquitous fees. Well, they do have to pay for their diversity officers, chancellors of equity, and vice presidents of inclusion, etc. Those six-figure salaries can add up! Maybe if the Biden Administration called the colleges to task..... After all, I'm guessing the vast majority of students didn't have their education improved one iota by the diversity, inclusion, and equity ministers. And I'll bet the parents who foot the bill would gladly trade lower college costs for elimination of such boondoggle positions. The President's press secretary recently stated "Not a single person in this country has paid a dime on federal student loans since this President took office." She seemed to say that boastfully, as if that was a good thing. Apparently that these students "hired the money, didn't they?" has never occurred to her or the administration. To cheat people out of their money, "people" here often meaning taxpayers, is not a good thing. I don't believe that is true, that "not a single person......" At least I don't want to believe it is true. I'd hope there would be enough students and former students with the character to repay their debts, especially if they could. I concede, in this day and age, I could be wrong. I have no idea how many people default on their loans, but assume the number/percentage is substantial. The reality of such "forgiveness" is that the burden of these loans would fall on taxpayers, most often those who didn't borrow the money. And think about those people who didn't go to college, didn't borrow money, or, worse, already paid off their debts. What about them? Do we just call them "saps" and move on? I won't forget during the Iowa caucuses, an Iowa farmer confronted Elizabeth Warren, a big proponent of debt forgiveness, about this. The farmer had saved for years to put his children through college, sacrificing so there wouldn't be a need for loans. What about him? he asked Warren. She seemed flummoxed and in her arrogant, self-righteous fashion dismissed the farmer. I guess that was her version of calling him a "sap." Once again in this country, people who do things the right way, such as accepting responsibility for their actions and paying their own way, are penalized. And not only are they penalized, but are called names ("saps"). So, for paying off all my student loans, under their terms, on time, I am a "sap." There is a further problem. How can it be that a single person, in this instance the President, can unilaterally wipe out trillions of dollars of debt with his signature? Isn't that why we have a Constitution, so that people like Biden (and Warren and Schumer.....) can't do this? What happened to the sanctity of contracts, which is, in effect, what a student loan is? I know the Constitution protects the inviolability of contracts from intrusions by states, but the federal government, I don't remember. Still, the principle is the same. A contract freely entered into by two or more parties should be inviolable. Yet, on a whim to perhaps buy votes, the President can undo this? If so, what is next? Here's an idea! Instead of forgiving student loan debt, why don't all those in favor of that, instead, pay off some student's loans? These Bozos will get what they claim is good, that is, recent graduates not struggling with debt, while also not passing along the financial burden to taxpayers. It would be nice to "forgive" my mortgage payment. Oh, I forgot. I paid off my mortgage 15 years early. But what about credit card debt? OK, I pay off my credit cards each month, too. Well, what about my auto loan? I could do with that being "forgiven." Mr. President, can you "forgive" that, too? I know, I know. Federal loans (or guarantees) vs private transactions. But once the door is opened, well, ask Pandora.

Science Revisited

I see the "scientists" are at it again. Mask mandates, boosters, shots for infants and toddlers. And, of course, the convincing factor provided (and accepted by most people) is "The science is settled." I've written about this before, but I think it might be time to revisit this idea, that "The science is settled." How often have we heard that in the past few decades, more recently in dealing with Covid? "The science is settled." The statement, for a variety of reasons (political, nefarious, economic), has been summarily used to push agendas. It has been successful to discourage challenge and debate, especially when challenges and open discussion are feared. It has succeeded in swaying people who don't really know, but think the scientific community is always right. (You can read "medical community" into that, too.) How easy it has been to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents of certain agendas by tossing out, "The science is settled." Who, it has been asserted, but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?" In recent decades the best example has been "global warming," er, "climate change"--or whatever it's called now. I'm old enough to remember the Newsweek magazine cover in the '70s that proclaimed "A New Ice Age?" Then there was the assurance that, due to acid rain, all of our lakes would soon be destroyed. Of course, now (the past couple of years) it's how we deal with the Corona virus. "The science is settled." It's distressing enough to hear politicians, even Presidents themselves, echo this. But when scientists do likewise, it seems to me they have forgotten a basic principle of what they have studied. No, the science is not settled. It never is. That is the essence of science, that there are unknowns and there is always something new, more to learn. But the phrase, "The science is settled," has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate (however compelling that debate may be), dissent, and challenges. It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, and a sense of credibility to a viewpoint. Worse, it sways and even convinces people who don't know much about an issue, but, well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them. That the science is never settled is one of the important lessons I learned in my Physics courses at Amherst. I admit to not recognizing that at the time; it took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!" Consider..... For centuries, literally hundreds of years, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes something called "ether"). This was not disputed, not by anyone credible. People, even scientists, accepted this because Aristotle (and Empedocles and other Greek scientists) said so. Other cultures, Chinese, Indian/Buddhist among them, had similar beliefs. The science had been settled. No challenges allowed! In 1633, if I recall correctly, the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial--with the very real possibility of losing his life and soul (excommunication, the death penalty of the soul). His crime was to challenge the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, another of those Greeks. He postulated that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth. Galileo's observations led him to agree, at least in part, with the heliocentric theory of the Polish scientist Copernicus and other. The earth was not stationary, but in fact revolved around the sun. (Copernicus didn't get it exactly right, but he was headed in the right direction.) Such blasphemy/heresy (What did the Church know about science? How many "heretics" were killed because of the Church's scientific ignorance?) almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul. The science had been settle. No challenges allowed! More than two and a half centuries after Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein said this about the greatest of British scientists. "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort. Newton stands before us, strong, certain, and alone." Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize this "most genius" of scientists. Alexander Pope, a contemporary of Newton, penned this. "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light." There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion. I think Newton would have disagreed with much of this. To him, the entire universe was open for continued scrutiny. 20th Century science has, if not disproved, at least modified many of Newton's theories. These include Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others. But for 250 years, the science was settled. No challenges allowed! The 20th Century astronomer/astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument. My position is mistaken.' And then they would actually change their minds." So, the science isn't really settled. But apparently only scientists, well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization, sources of funding, and their own arrogance, know that. This is something we should all think about the next time, whether it's climate change, how do deal with the virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled." It's not and it never is.

Augustus

I just finished a novel by John Williams, Augustus. I enjoyed it a lot, but realize it's likely not for everyone. If I didn't learn much new, the book did lead to a great deal of thinking. Can a book, fiction or otherwise, receive any higher a compliment? When we think of Augustus, we think of power, of authority. As the first emperor of Rome (creating the Roman Empire), he had as much power as modern-day dictators (with allowances for technology, military advances, etc.).  He had many titles, Imperator (military conqueror, almost like emperor), Caesar (after his uncle and adoptive father, who was declared a god), Pater Patria (Father of his country), Consul (the highest "elected" office, elected by the Senate), Magisterium (highest judge), and Augustus ("Revered One") and Pontifex Maximus ("Great Bridge Builder") both religious titles. But among them all, his favorite title was Princeps, which implied he was the first citizen of Rome, but nevertheless, a citizen of Rome first and foremost. Despite all of his power, he was quite tolerant.  When a poet wrote a satirical, demeaning, and perhaps even blasphemous poem about Augustus, he not only took no action against the poet, but decreed nobody else was to do that either.  In effect, this poet was being protected by the man he had lampooned.  "I was never hurt by the bark of a dog" it was claimed he once said. In addition, he re-created Roman society, its economic life, so that any Roman citizen, regardless of the station of his birth, could become as wealthy as his efforts  (and accidents of life!) would take him. Forty or more years of Roman civil war, "Romans killing Romans" he lamented, were ended, too, at least for a while. In his last days, Augustus wrote, "It is remarkable to have grown so old that one must depend upon the work of others to search into one's own life."  He was a valetudinarian, no, not the graduate with the highest GPA in his/her class. He was like a hypochondriac on steroids, often thinking he was on his deathbed. How close he actually was might be questioned, but at least six times before he died at the age of 76 he thought he was checking out. He also warned his successors of policies that would, in a little more than a century after his death, lead down the long road to the downfall of Rome.  He was incredibly prescient. The legacy of Augustus isn't merely that he was the first and greatest of all the Roman emperors. It is that he saved Rome, "the world" at the time.  In doing so he also paved the way for (saved?) the Western Civilization to come a millenium and a half later.  Had he not saved Rome, is it likely that the West would have become what it did, the beacon for the rest of the world to emulate (although much of it chooses not to do that)? I know it's not fashionable to pay tribute to old white men, but Augustus is deserving of accolades.

Meeting of Minds

Steve Allen was a Renaissance man of sorts. He composed music (thousands of songs) and was an actor (including starring as Benny Goodman in the biopic of the jazz legend). He hosted pioneering radio and television shows (the original host of the Tonight Show). "And he was the author of 50 or more books (including Ripoff, the first book I ever reviewed for publication). One of his television and book projects was called "Meeting of Minds." It was a brilliant concept, at least to me. The premise was gathering "minds" of the past to discuss the past, present, and future. Each episode was a roundtable discussion, usually centered around dinner. Topics discussed included religion and religious toleration, women's rights, slavery, race, and specific historical events such as the Civil War. He presented personalities from all walks of life, from different time periods, and from the world over. For instance, one "dinner" included US Grant, Marie Antoinette, Karl Marx, and Sir Thomas More. Another "starred" Galileo, Emily Dickinson, Charles Darwin, and Attila the Hun. Actors and actresses, including his wife Jayne Meadows, played the parts, with Allen providing them a great depth of research. My question is this: If you could host a Meeting of Minds, who would you invite? You could have several episodes, so you wouldn't be restricted to four or five personalities. You, like Allen, could plumb the depths of history, all ages/eras, and travel the world. I'm pretty sure regular readers and those who know me recognize Abraham Lincoln would likely be my first invitee. Who would be his fellow first diners? So many from which to choose! Reserving the right to change my mind, I would initially complement him with Augustus, the first and greatest Roman emperor, Theodora, the wife and at least co-ruler of the Byzantines with her husband Justinian in the 6th Century, Mark Twain, and maybe David, of Goliath fame. Leonardo da Vinci would certainly help form a second group, maybe paired with Henry Ford. I might add Karl Marx and Aristotle. Another set might include Isaac Newton, George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Augustine. How interesting to have Genghis Khan for dinner with Emily Dickinsn and Jeanette Rankin, the first woman member of the US Congress who was the only person to vote "NO" to declarations of war for both the First and Second World Wars, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. Imagine this conversation between Atilla t. Hun and Emily Dickinson: "Attila, would you mind passing the bread?" "But of course Emily. Love your poetry by the way." "Can I call you Atti? Or how about Hunny?" Let me consider one more: Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, and Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. The possible lists are endless and we could mix and match! If you had your "Meeting of Minds," who would be invited?

"Let's Go Brandon!"

Several AMs on my runs this week I came across "Let's Go Brandon" signs and pennants/flags hanging from homes or on flag poles. "Let's Go Brandon" appears to have died down some, but I have some thoughts. I am not a Donald Trump supporter, never was and never will be. I didn't vote for him in '16 and '20 and, if he's nominated, won't in '24. People can disagree with that, but I've made myself clear. Others can accept that or not. And, they can support him if they want. This is America. I hope that doesn't cause anybody to "cancel" me. That seems to be the trend in recent years: Cancel anyone with whom one disagrees. At the same time, I can't imagine voting for Joe Biden. I don't claim the election in '20 was stolen, but I can't get my head around 80 million people voting for him--I just can't. If people and the lame stream media jumped all over Trump for his lies, they seem pretty quiet about the multitude of whoppers told by Biden. Talk about a sociopathic liar! Back to "Let's Go Brandon1" after getting the groundwork framed. First, I think the entire episode tells a lot about the lame stream media. Of course we all know where this originated. Some woman reporter was interviewing a NASCAR race winner, "Brandon" something. (I don't know his last name; I don't follow NASCAR.) In the background a huge chorus of "F**k Joe Biden" erupted from the stands. The reporter smiled and said something like, "Listen! They're cheering 'Let's Go Brandon!'" If I recall correctly, the NASCAR guy grinned and replied, "I don't think that's what they're saying." But that was the story, at least initially, "Let's Go Brandon!" I suppose I could cut the interviewer some slack, but I've heard the You Tube and "Let's Go Brandon!" wasn't what I heard in the least. That for a few days the lame stream media tried to run with this, a cover-up, says a lot. That the lame streams didn't figure out someone somewhere recorded what was actually being chanted and would soon appear all over the Internet tells even more. But there's no media bias, nope. Now, what really has had me thinking is the reaction of many people, from back when to now. I have heard people say, as well as write letters-to-editors, how "disrespectful" and "vulgar" "Let's Go Brandon!" is. One said, "It's obscene." Hmmm. Funny how selective memory as well as selective morals come into play here. I wonder how many of these same folks who cite the vulgarity, the obscenity of "Let's Go Brandon!" have ever thought about it. No curse word, nothing vulgar or obscene was uttered. What do these people think of "We were screwed?" I'm pretty sure "We were screwed" doesn't emanate from threaded fasteners used to attach items to wood, etc. Nope, that's not it. How many of them use that phrase, "We were screwed?" Are they being "vulgar?" If not, why not, especially if they think "Let's Go Brandon!" is obscene? How many of these same people said anything at all when real vulgarity was used to refer to Trump? For four years, was there any major celebrkty awards show that didn't have the obligatory "F**k Trump!" or a flashing of the middle finger? I don't recall any letters-to-the editor about that! (Should I bring up the roundly-applauded, by such people, photo of a decapitated Trump?) I also don't remember anyone telling me, face-to-face, about such obscenities/vulgarities. Nope. I know why, though. "But that's different." So, can I say the same thing as above regarding "disrespect," being "disrespectful?" Oh, the holier-than-thou, self-righteous might claim "He's the President. At least respect the office." Did they respect "the office" when Trump was holding it? I know the answer to that one, too. And some of those same critics of "Let's Go Brandon" fully embraced the Michigan governor's political ads in '18 that ended with "And I'll fix the damn roads!" So, "damn" is no longer "vulgar?" Maybe it isn't if certain people utter it, but is if others do. I will not forget a radio talk show caller during the gubernatorial (Isn't that a great word to say, "gubernatorial?") campaign, shocked that his 5-year old daughter said the word "damn" at the dinner table the night before. Thank you, Governor Whitmer! Those people my age can easily imagine would would have happened to one of us had we said "damn" at the dinner table back when! Out to walk Andy on our street, one that resembles the Burma Road of the Second World War--and our streets are paved!