Category: Uncategorized

There are a variety of stories on this. Republicans are in some respects going too far with it, although in important ways they are quite right to be angry.

What is being offered is counseling, in effect, to encourage old people to not eat up a huge amount of resources on treatments that will only add a few months to their lives. I don’t have the time to look the number up, but some enormous percentage of our healthcare expenses are consumed in the last six months of life. It’s in the 25-50% range.

Think of the thousands it costs daily for Intensive Care, for various chemotherapy treatments, for respirators, for taking a dozen pills a day that each cost $20.

On the one hand, the people who provide these things have an enormous FINANCIAL incentive to continue the status quo, in which the actual costs of things are invisible to the people using them, and their families. This allows, at least potentially, huge profits to be made. Government can always be abused, since it is a system of allocation by fiat, and not by free market decision making.

At the same time, how do we reconcile the fact that we all die, with the ability we now have to prolong life for some period of time?

Ultimately, any system of medical care will have to ration it somehow. We cannot afford to spend, say, a million dollars a day for six months for every American. There has to be a point where enough is enough, and we just accept the inevitability of death. Religion–which the Socialists regularly do everything within their power to undermine and destroy–helps with this.

The question is who makes that decision. What the Democrats have done sneakily here is basically create a sales pitch in which the PATIENT is convinced of the need to end their own lives. This is not a death panel. The death panel will necessarily follow any government run healthcare system, but that is not what this is.

The significance of this story is simply that the slow erosion is patently already happening, in which Obamacare is slowly moulded in the darkness into something that is closer to the Socialists hearts desire. They didn’t feel the need to read the bill since they felt certain they could change it in the 5 years or so they gave themselves into something more congenial to their ideology.

This is the part we need to worry about. This is a process which is anti-democratic, as seen in the patent efforts of the supporters of this change to keep it secret. This is just the first of what have been planned as many steps. In itself, I don’t find this provision that objectionable. I find the PROCESS, however, HIGHLY objectionable.

Identity is something that will always be in flux. Personality is a chaotic system whose parameters are defined by what we choose to pay attention to, and in particular the principles by means of which we live our lives. These principles can be religious. They can be conformity–either to concrete local demands made on you, such as in traditional societies where every last part of your behavior is known to all; or to generalized themes articulated in the mass media, and as embodied in a fluid way by members of your chosen social system.

In many respects, how we view ourselves is the result of a negotiation, a mediation, between our chosen ideals, and our actual behavior. As I see it, this is an active process, and almost the relationship of one person to another. It is like there are people out there giving you advice, which you can follow, reject, or adopt partially.

Existentially, it seems to me we “are” simultaneously the negotiator, and all the components which are making claims on our attention and following behavior.

In the end, all human behavior depends on identity. All science, all politics, and all economics depends on it.

When people look to the Founding Fathers, what we see is adherence to a political system. But that political system–Liberalism–depends in turn on personal, individual identities that are not thereby CREATED by it. By and large, our Founders saw their identities as arising from either their Christianity, or their membership in the Masons. Liberalism is a political system within which moral narratives operate, and consists as a political doctrine upon the epistemological doctrine that no final general moral truth is possible, but that many truths can lead to desirable results.

These are a few thoughts. Do with them what you will.

There can be no doubt that continental America is an Empire in which the conquered peoples have been marginalized and–to a lesser extent–assimilated. The population density of the Indians even prior to the plagues that beset them–and which have every appearance of being simply epidemic reactions to diseases to which they had no antigens, and nowhere the result of official policy, despite much propaganda to the contrary–were nothing remotely like Europe.

We conquered them. We marched them into camps. Many died. The remainder were left to live, more or less in peace.

One thing we never did is enslave them. This fact became clear to me in listening to a history of the Vikings. It was not known to me–and likely not well known generally–that the wealth upon which the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden eventually came to be founded was in large measure the product of slaving. Throughout Viking history, human captives taken in raids were one of their primary commodities. They took many Irish, who were often–like West Africans–only too eager to capture and hand their rivals over.

They took so many Slavs that that is where we get the name “slave” from. They would come into a village, kill anyone who resisted, and take everyone–men, women, and children, provided they were healthy–and sell them to merchants who would trade them on down-river, usually to the Islamic world.

And when one studies world history, it is a litany of atrocities. It is no exaggeration to say that Britain and the United States, as Christian nations, are the first ones to develop a principled basis by means of which to object to what had been going on for all of human history. The Chinese kept slaves. The Greeks kept slaves. The slavery of the Jews in Egypt is part of their foundational narrative, that they remember ritually every year. The Romans kept slaves. And to the point here, the American Indians also kept slaves. The pattern was the same: you raid a neighboring village, and carry off the women you want, and the children to be raised in your way, and to do your work.

When looking at history, there is little use hand-wringing, and judging people by our own standards. What we need to track is the genesis and evolution of ideals, and then figure out how we can best improve upon and better implement those ideals in the modern world. Flogging yourself does no good for anyone but you: the benefit to you is you free yourself thereby from the responsibility of living in the present, and making adult decisions in what will always be a fluid and ambiguous world.

There are those for whom certainty is more important than clarity. Sometimes, I think the best minds just have to admit on a seemingly on-going basis “we don’t know”. This doesn’t sit well with some.

As one specific example–the one that prompted this post–people in the field of evolutionary biology want to reduce all human behavior to artifacts of our evolutionary history. It is logical enough: we are machines, programmed by our DNA, which itself arose as a complex system in response to the adaptive needs of millions of years of periodic scarcity and competition for survival among numerous organisms.

They can categorize observable human behavior, and work backwards to figure out what need each type of behavior may have met on some distant, dark, foggy shore. It all seems so clear. They can derive altruism as a derivation of the group instinct; Love as an extension both of the group instinct and the sexual urge; etc. (Note: these may not be the precise cases presented; what matters, obviously, is the intellectual framework within which it happens.)

Yet, what about this categorizing behavior itself? Can we not point to an evolutionary urge to avoid ambiguity? Can we not posit a coercive urge deriving from our social history to manufacture consent by any means possible? Can we not, in short, deconstruct the evolutionary deconstruction process as one example of itself, and thus flawed instrinsically and at root as a “truth” system”?

What comes first, matter or consciousness? We can’t know, but phenomenologically it is quite clearly consciousness. We don’t know what we don’t know, so we can’t speak to possible experiences which do not include our conscious presence, in some form.

Further, our best theories of the nature of the universe tell us that consciousness precedes the formation of matter. This was the conclusion von Neumann–who wrote the “Grundlage”, literally the book on the topic of quantum physics–reached.

Ideas obviously compete, and the best ones rise to the top, but only in conditions of open competition. And I don’t think we have had open competition in the biological sciences in some time.

That makes what passes for science nowadays much closer to the bloody and zero sum rivalries of chimp colonies, not homo sapiens. It is retrogressive.

I believe I invented this term. As I understand it, “media” is a term taken directly from Latin, and is the plural of “medium”. We don’t think about it, but the term media itself conveys a sense of transmission, of centrality, of connecting one thing, person or idea with another. Chalk drawings can be an artistic medium. A highway can be a transportational medium. We use the term medium for people who claim to be able to communicate with the dead.

Our Media, then, understood collectively, can be understood as mediating the world for us. The world in all its naked glory is out there somewhere, and what we get to see is some small portion of it, as selected for importance, and as sculpted via the direct perceivers. Not everything that could be news becomes news. Not everything that becomes news happened the way it is reported. Something happens somewhere, it enters a tube, then it hits us.

The first point in this regard I will make is that self evidently our own personal experiences–what we see of the physical world, what we observe as the behavior of matter, and social institutions, and human psychology etc–are unmediated, at least in principle. Yet paradoxically they can become mediated, if rather than trust our own eyes or intuition, we instead process things which have actually happened to us by our internalized understanding of what is POSSIBLE.

Common sense, you see, is in my view common. We are more or less born with it, and add to every time we stub our toe, or unintentionally offend someone, or otherwise have an unpleasant bump with “the world”.

This is one point. The more important point I wanted to make, and the reason for the neologism (other than my fondness for them) is a perception I had the other day.

I went to see “Voyage of the Dawn Treader”. As always when I go to the movie theater, I was struck by the largeness of everything, and the loudness of everything. I was struck by how our lives are pervaded–filled, centrally–with media. We watch TV as children. We watch TV as adolescents and adults. Our first experience with “sex” is almost certainly via the computer or DVD. We take our iPods everywhere. We listen to music in cars. Many people fall asleep watching TV. Between the internet and TV, most people consume media for probably a third of their lives. I’m not talking waking life: I literally think 8 hours sleep, 8 hours work, and 8 hours of internet/TV is not too far off. Obviously, most people surf the internet even while at work.

Always, always, always, we have imaginary figures in front of us. We have movie actors who seem brave and noble–or villainous and interesting, or sexy, or mercurial, or ideosyncratic, or whatever floats our particular boat–who are in front of us all the time. All the time. All the time. In supermarket checkout lanes. On TV. In newspapers.

In the movie theater, I was looking at some young men I would call freaks. They were fat, pale, and unhealthy looking. And I know they spent a lot of time watching movies, and probably playing immersive video games. Many kids nowadays spend so much time consuming media, that they never develop proper social skills. They are like bread that is half baked. They are morally retarded in important ways. You know the people of whom I speak. You see them. They are nice enough, but you always know there is something going on in their heads that is not of this world.

They are not full members of our social order. Yet who can say anymore who IS of our social order? Who are we? Media–in the middle–has taken up all the reference points we used to have. The Bible? Gone for all but those who go to church, which in this country at any rate is still quite a few people, which is encouraging in a way.

It seems to me that where genuine community could stand, in all too many cases there is an array of vivid and unforgettable images burned. It is clear from evidence that exposure to violent media mutes natural empathy and directly supports cynicism and–presumably following–depression.

Can we not say that in many cases where the possibility for the expression of affection and loyalty and goodwill may have happened in another time, now we have this sort of childlike, imbecilic, pseudoconnection, more afraid than open, more symptomatic of a childlike emotional sensitivity, and lack of capacity for mature connection with others?

It seems that way to me. We have created a new type of human being, unlike anything seen before. I literally think our interactions with media, with images of death and love and novelty, are rewiring our physical brains in ways that no one has yet fully grasped or investigated.

Nationalism has often served the cause of Communism; Communism has never served the cause of nationalism, to my awareness. You are either a Communist or a nationalist. You cannot be both.

A good example is Ho Chi Minh, which of course was the name he adopted when he became a Communist in the early 1920’s/late 19-teens.

Stupid people sometimes argue that he had to compromise with the Soviets/Chinese, after the Americans let him down. The reality is that he joined the Communist International in the early 20’s, and spent the decade trying to further the Communist cause in Asia. He spent most of the 30’s in the Soviet Union with Stalin, and he had dozens of political rivals executed in the 1940’s. In the 1950’s, when he got control of North Vietnam, he had at least 10,000 people executed as “bourgeoisie”. His close followers, in their memoirs, are very clear that he never deviated from his desire to implement Communism in both North and South Vietnam. He pretended temporarily to put Communism aside, but several hundred people knew then, and wrote later, that that was a ruse.

It makes me angry that people would argue even for a moment that he was ever anything but a red fascist. It is not possible to be well meaning and make this argument. It is not possible to be diligent and make this mistake. I conclude that those who do make this argument are themselves fascist apologists.

I will add that there are many ways for elites to take power.

Communism can use the hatred of foreign imperialism to hand power to a fascist elite.

Socialists can use the hatred of the “rich” to hand power to a fascist elite.

Environmentalists can use the fear of environmental disaster to hand power to a fascist elite.

Militarists can use the rage and energy of war to hand power to a fascist elite.

America, by design, discourages the formation of elites. We distrust them culturally, and our system of government–when operated properly, as it has not been for some years–makes it hard for any one group to gain too much power by any means. This is all too the good, since history is replete with examples of those who can taking what they want.

I’ll have more to say about Vietnam after a while, but the net is that is now nothing more than the same corrupt, nepotistic regime it was before, except that the elite has more power than it did under Diem or Thieu. Things are much worse, which was an utterly predictable outcome.

The more I live, the more I hate intellectuals. They have caused so much unnecessary pain, and they never accept responsibility.

Here is a lot of useful information.

What you will note is that in 2008 some $1 trillion was paid in income taxes. Of this, the top 1% (some 1.5 million tax returns) paid nearly $400 billion, and the bottom 50% (nearly 70 million tax returns) paid not quite $30 billion.

The top 5% paid 60% of the income taxes.

Self evidently, our tax system is progressive. Self evidently, the rich pay most of the taxes. I get sick and tired of the demogoguing on this issue by stupid socialists. You know what happens when you radically increase the taxes on the top income brackets? Do you? You do know it has been tried, correct?

What happens is they start hiding income, move it to another country, or move it to non-tax revenue producing assets, like tax exempt bonds.

Back in the 20’s self made millionaire Andrew Mellon said that 25% was about the most you could realistically expect to get sustainably, but if that was all you asked, most rich people would willingly pay it, as that was less exhausting than trying to hide or move their income.

Consider this: By 1926 65% of the income tax revenue came from incomes $300,000 and higher, when five years prior, less than 20% did. During this same period, the overall tax burden on those that earned less than $10,000 dropped from $155 million to $32.5 million.

What are we to make of this? To my mind, the self evident conclusion is that low rates at the top of the income tax bracket is, paradoxically, conducive to TAX CUTS for the poorest Americans.

Fact one: our government needs revenue.

Fact two: when top income tax rates are too high, the taxes don’t get paid. This is not a question of morality, but empirical fact.

Fact three: if the money doesn’t come from the rich, and the government insists on spending the same amount of money, then logically it comes from everyone else.

Conclusion: if we want to decrease the tax burden on the economically less well-off, we need to avoid punitive taxation of the wealthy. 25% continues to seem like a good number.

I will add that socialism is a poorly considered moral creed consisting in resentment and aggression towards the rich. Liberalism–my creed–consists in actually caring about the poor.

Anyone who thinks Obama cares about the poor is smoking the good stuff. None of these socialists do. They like feeling high and mighty, and they like throwing their weight around. If you want to see economic ruination, though, just go look and see where they have been.

I offer Detroit and Washington, D.C. as Exhibits A and B.

I offer Britain as Exhibit C, and Greece as Exhibit D.

I offer China as Exhibit E (no national healthcare, by the way), and Cuba as Exhibit F.

History is irrefutable. Socialism is not a historical or economic doctrine. It is the creed of petulant and self-important fools, with neither common sense nor common decency.

Is “possessed of a sociopathic, aggressive personality disorder” the same as saying “evil”? Is it more descriptive? Does it contain more information?

No, I don’t think it does. Where psychology wants to tame the wild social world by labeling it, I want to PARTICIPATE in it–not stand outside it–by interacting with it.

Maybe evil people have certain genes. Maybe they have suffered certain head traumas (as have many serial killers). Maybe they had lousy childhoods.

Yet in the end they still CHOOSE to do what they do. Cruel people choose not only to enjoy cruelty, but to consciously engage in it. They don’t fight it.

Implicit within psychological narratives–their own propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding–is a certain givenness, a certain fatalism.

Within moral narratives, there is the space for choice, and action. This creates more room for movement, and movement is necessary for change.

We have to judge ourselves. This can include forgoing judgement for numbness, but out it will, sooner or later. Moralism is the process of reconciling our self image with our decision patterns. Psychologism, without moralism, is the process of rationalizing what already is.

These are some broad thoughts I will expand on later.

Edit: I have too much else floating around my brain. I want simply to add: where is the concept of Goodness in psychology? In what would it consist? Altruism? What are the categories from which it is built, if not moral categories?

In my view, psychology–a true psychology, of the sort James tried to build (in my understanding)–is necessarily moral first, and descriptive secondarily. I won’t expand on that for now.

I was thinking about monuments. What are our monuments to, in Washington? We have the Washington monument, dedicated to one of the most scrupulous and talented leaders the world has ever known. We quite easily could have been ruled by a dictator.

The Lincoln Memorial remembers, too, one of the most talented and principled leaders any nation has ever known. He was a passionate abolitionist, but considered the principles of our Constitution and the necessity of preserving the Union to be paramount. He negotiated as well as was possible the most terrible time our nation has ever known. One can question his wisdom, but not his humanity and deep-seated desire to do what was right.

The Vietnam and Korean War memorials remember wars we fought overseas for other nations, to protect their freedom, and to position the powers of democracy favorable relative to the Communist authoritarians who wanted to end freedom on the planet Earth.

World War 2 memorial remembers another war we fought overseas, which resulted in the liberation of large sections of East Asia, the protection of Australia and New Zealand, and the liberation of Europe. Other people started the War. We finished it.

Jefferson Memorial. He was a complicated man, but no one can doubt that even though he may have been weak as an individual-really, a man of his times and his place–that he articulated some of the most noble ideals ever uttered by anyone.

Contrast this with the Arc De Triomphe. It remembers a dictator who made war on Europe for over a decade, killing millions. He was the heir to a revolution in which they tried to kill religion, and succeeded in murdering ten’s of thousands of people solely based on accidents of birth, political misfortune, and chance.

The Eiffel Tower was erected on the 100th anniversay of that same revolution, which created the template for Communist totalitarianism.

If you look at Rome, you see everywhere symbols of either Catholic tyranny, or Roman tyranny. The Coliseum saw the public murder of many people. St. Peter’s has presided over the execution of many heretics.

Look at Greece. The Athenians were imperialists. They conquered large sections of the Mediterrean, including parts of Turkey, Sicily and other places. The Parthenon itself, as I recall, was built in a time of war with somebody. Might have been the Peloponnesian War.

I don’t have the time and patience to be exhaustive, but will say simply that almost all nations commemorate empires. The Kremlin. Tiananmen Square. Angkor Wat.

The people we commemorate were decent human beings. The wars we have fought have by and large been for other nations. The Spanish-American War was fought in no small measure because of the repressions of the Spanish.

We have not been saints, by any means, but I do see a sincere effort to remember times of genuine generosity and nobility of spirit. Our best is better than the best of most other nations in history.

Yes, I know these are self labelled, but it’s my blog, right?

“If you never try, you fail seldom, but succeed never.”

I came up with that in response to a post on a board in a business where I was working that said: “Fail often and succeed sooner”, which I liked. Under that, it said something like “if you don’t do your best, you shortchange others; and if they don’t do their best they shortchange you.” That wasn’t it, but that was the sentiment.

While doing my work, I got to thinking about the Greeks. What is their equivalent? “Do as little as possible, and have as much fun as you can every day?” “Soak everybody else”. “Screw work”. Whether expressed or not verbally, that is the sentiment they have expressed politically, as have many other nations in Europe, who cannot even be bothered to reproduce to continue the viability of their nations. Everything, they seem to believe, stops with them. Hard to worry about your grandchildren if you don’t ever have any children.

Americans work hard. No one can deny us that. We work as hard as the Japanese or Chinese. I know plenty of people who work 60 hour weeks. I’ve done it myself many, many times, and more.

People who work hard will always do well, especially if they also work smart. So much of the world wants to take a two hour nap every day and leave at 5pm, and still live as well as people who take 30 minutes for lunch and work until 8pm. That is patent injustice. Reward the workers, and ignore those who don’t work. That is a viable motto for continued prosperity.