Thursday, February 20, 2020

When Old Whine In An Old Bottle Doesn't Get Better With Age - Hate Mail

I will admit that I'm having a mix of something I almost never have, writer's cramp (not being a writer has that advantage, in my experience) and competing claims on my time.  Yep, another of my always aging family members has produced an unanticipated triple bi-pass this week.  I've got to do his chores for the next couple of months.  If we're all lucky.

Anyway, lacking time I dipped into the uncordial slime that is my spam box and came up with a topic, an objection to my skepticism about casting of chance and random events into a creator god in the way of the pseudo-science of abiogenesis.  I did come up with a new angle on it that I don't think I've included before, so it's not entirely a repeat.   That old Miller-Urey "proved life could happen by random events" and that so "intelligent design is disproven."

First, for that last claim to be disproven, you'd have to stipulate that Miller and Urey and their fellow anti-religious abiogenisist experiments were unintelligent.   I wouldn't claim that, merely that their ideological committments led them to make some rather stupid and self-defeating claims.  What they proved is that they could make some amino acids through a highly controlled and planned experiment, they proved that intelligence could produce that result.  So it proves the exact opposite of what is claimed for their effort.   There is nothing that any scientist could do in a lab that wouldn't have that effect, you can't remove the intent, the planning, the component of intelligence from any experiment or even from the interpretation of an observed thing, though they'll never have that in their field, they will never, ever have the first organism in the history of life on Earth to study, the only thing a truly scientific study of the origin of life on Earth could be scientifically based in. 

It's not merely a matter of the improbability of molecules wafting at random into each other and forming more complex molecules, organic molecules I'll remind you, and those uniting to form something that can become a component of a living, metabolizing and, most difficult to randomize them into being, a reproducing organism within a containing structure that will successfully, the first time, split, contain the components for two living organisms and then, in another totally unprecedented event for the not-so great god "random chance" to make, reseal itself so as both of those organisms live and reproduce their reproduction.  

Now for the new twist. 

The problem for the worshiper of random chance to sustain their scenario with has to face the fact that time is its enemy on both ends.  Time being too short to produce the incredibly remote chance of all of that lining up in exactly the right way but, also, the time frame for a series of very complex improbabilities to line up in to create life is, itself, under a very tight time line because the more complex the organic molecules needed get, the likelihood that they will deteriorate under ambient conditions after a very short time is also a factor.  I would like to know what the chances are that the very few molecules that would have been generated by abiotic activity in any given centimeter of water to have endured long in the theorized atmosphere they were created in would be.  My guess is that most relevant known molecules would tend to deteriorate rather fast and that would have to be figured into the ever lengthening odds of it happening by random chance events.  I'd love to see different graphs of different estimates of those odds. 

I'd guess that all of that would have had to come about very fast and in a very narrow window of time and the more you think about that the less probable it seems and the more unreasonable the atheist-materialist conjecture seems to an informed person who is not willing to pretend those problems away.  

There, that should give you something to fuss about while I'm away. 

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

When Brilliant People Say Stupid Things

Asked for an example of where I profoundly disagree with William Lane Craig on something, I can give any number of examples.  One of the things he said, proving that even the most brilliant of people can say the most ridiculous of things in defense of badly thought out theories was his answer to a question about the Western European - post-apostolic dogma of original sin, the idea that all human beings inherit sin at birth due to the transgression of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which is to be washed away with baptism.  His resort to using proxy voting by stock holders in a corporation has to count as one of the dumbest things I've ever heard a brilliant person say. 


Given that WLC notes that Orthodox Christianity by and large doesn't subscribe to the idea it is remarkable to me that his Evangelical commitment leads him to make such a justification of what is, in fact, a libel on the character of God.  I will note that Craig doesn't commit himself to the doctrine, he merely comes up with a defense of it.  Perhaps he intentionally was trying to subvert it by coming up with a really bad justification of it.  Though I think he really wants to defend it.   I would disagree with him that it makes a belief in original sin reasonable, I think it makes it still indefensible. 

David Bentley Hart's point that it those who could read the New Testament in the original Greek as their natural language didn't come up with a lot of these ideas which were more likely to arise among those who relied on an inferior Latin translation makes sense to me.  

I think it's one of the essential tasks of Christianity in the coming decades and, if they come, centuries, to get rid of the baggage heaped on it, much of it in the late classical period but, also, much of it in medieval Western Europe and later, as those distortions of the Gospel and the Epistles became established.  And that means that the Protestant traditions are as much and, in some cases, more in need of getting rid of junk as the Catholic Church is.  The other branches of Christianity have their problems, as well, but I think Karl Rahner was right that that stuff is not sustainable into the future.  Nor should we want to sustain it. I've told the story before, I think, that after he wrote his enormous work, the Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas had a profound mystical experience that led him to stop writing because he saw that even his brilliant arguments were useless.

On the feast of St. Nicholas in 1273, Aquinas was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.”

Considering the huge effort it had to have been, over decades, to think out and explain his theology, the product of enormous learning which was, certainly, harder to get then than now, it's clear his vision must have been on an order of the one Paul had that led to his conversion.  

The absurd place given to Aquinas as the official theology of the Catholic Church since the 1870s is something that Catholics have been trying to recover from since even before Vatican II.  Though pretending to read him is fashionable among the fascist neo-integralists.  I doubt even a tenth of one percent have read even summaries of it. They don't seem to read The Bible, after all.  

We Need An Elected Committee To Investigate Attacks On Egalitarian Democracy And We The People

If even a shaky form of democracy is restored after the carnage of Republican-fascism, I think it's absolutely necessary to investigate and expose the fascist rot that flowed into the United States through such things as "Federalism" and the fascist legal theory of the unitary executive.  I would go so far as to say that something like the House UnAmerican Activities Committee of elected officials should be mounted to look hard at the Federalist Society, among other entities, which are the enemies of American egalitarian democracy.   

The old HUAC was begun to look into Nazi subversion before World War Two and after the war went after those impotent, stupid and minimally dangerous old commies - apart from those who were spies for Stalin, they were an absurd target who never posed any real danger to American democracy.  

In the long run, the old HUAC became more useful to those sympathetic to the commies due to their excesses and, more dangerously, those who were, effectively,  indifferent to the protection of American democracy from its enemies.  

That might be a danger in mounting an absolutely essential investigation into what is clearly a real danger cororporate, oligarchic fascism, one which has corrupted the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches of the government, excessive overreach.  But that danger should not keep us from doing it because such a danger is always there no matter what we do.  THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN GOVERNMENT THAT DOESN'T CARRY SUCH A DANGER.  But that danger cannot be allowed to thwart the investigation and exposure of a real and present danger, one which has hold of a dangerously influential part of the mass media and which is clearly working hand in glove with billionaire and multi-millionaire enemies of egalitarian democracy, foreign as well as domestic.  For the record, the domestic ones, native and corruptly allowed to come here to destroy democracy, have, up till now been the greater danger, though it's clear they are coordinating and working with foreign billionaires and multi-millionaires from Britain, probably some European countries, definitely from the Putin criminal regime and the oil oligarchs of the Middle East as well as Israeli.  That distinction among billionaire traitors doesn't matter that much.   Ours are no less of a danger to our democracy than those from other lands. 

The old assurances that the Constitutional order and habits of the United States could be relied on to protect egalitarian democracy given by, among others, the meat-heads of the civil liberties industry and the media they enabled to destroy democracy, are clearly not true.  

If they were true we would not be where we are today with no prospect of recovering the pre-Trump normal and no guarantee that he won't get four more years to destroy it.  

The old and falsely comforting reassurances that we could protect American democracy through the First Amendment, through that most impotent of all protections against a concerted campaign of well-planned lies and con jobs, "more speech" are spouted by the neo-Nazis, by the Trump crime regime, from their enablers in Republican-fascism, now/

And, stupidly, the libertarian left whose slogans they hijacked without any difficulty is too stupid to understand that they've done it because their facile slogans swamp the most obvious refutation of those slogans in reality.   Libertarians of the alleged left are some of the stupidest and most reality resistant of people, or so experience has taught me.  Some of them have a financial and professional interest in it, especially those in the legal profession and in the professional media. 

American democracy, egalitarian democracy, decency won't be regained or secured without overturning most of the post-WWII culture that brought us here being overturned.  That will include the most meat-headed idea of all, that because "The First Amendment" democracy can't choose between the ideology of egalitarian democracy and the various forms of gangster governmental schemes and oligarchic legal plans, not to mention the explicitly anti-democratic ideologies of fascism, Marxism, Nazis, and oligarchy.   

A truly democratic society owes the enemies of egalitarian democracy nothing which will enable them to con and sucker enough people to gain power, we owe The People, the thing which the Constitution, itself, claims to be merely the servant of, the protection of egalitarian democracy from ALL THEIR ENEMIES, foreign, domestic, and certainly within the legal profession and the judiciary and the media.  

We shouldn't let the excesses of the idiot commie hunters to cow us from answering  the real danger that we don't merely face, but which is governing the United States and destroying democracy right now. 

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

My Fellow Democrats - Just saying

but I'm unaware of anyone getting Bernie Sanders to promise to, this time, STAY in the Democratic Party if he gets the nomination or if he doesn't or if he is not president next year.

Hell, has he ever promised to stay in the Democratic Party IF HE BECOMES PRESIDENT?  

Seems to me those are things we might want to pin the oily old man on right away. 

Superficial Untelligence - Answer To An Inquiry

Duncan Black doesn't mind that his blog is a place where people can post libels about other people, he's never much minded that.  I remember when he found out that the Supreme Court had issued a ruling that said people like him can't be sued for posting lies and he figured he was off the hook to exercise any responsibility over what liars posted on his blog, it thrilled him to the point where he put finger to keyboard about it, about as much work as he does.  I wonder if it's about the same time he's rumored to have gotten a buddy of his to give him an app that let his computer post new and content free posts when the old ones got too long without him having to exert himself.   

Duncan Black is a very minor example of what's wrong with letting people lie with impunity, just as he's a very minor example of everything else.  He's a lazy jerk, you get that with the affluent, the white, the male who figure they're entitled.  If my greatest claim to fame was an unnamed reference on a very old re-run of the wretched white- pseudo-liberal fantasy, The West Wing I think I'd give up.  But, then, I don't mind trying.   

As to being called names there, there might be three to four people who make that place a bad habit who I might, might care what they think of me.  I figure they're old enough to make their own bad friends.  The rest don't think much so it doesn't matter. 

Lawdy.  I do hate The West Wing. 

Hristo Vitchev Quartet - "It May Backfire"


Hristo Vitchev, guitar
Weber Iago, piano,
Dan Robbins, bass
Mike Shannon, drums

The Kropotkin Village Fools Only Those Who Want To Be Fooled - Hate Mail

In being a critic of natural selection it is not that common but somewhat inevitable that someone will bring up the most famous of those atheist-materialist patches put on the Darwinism that atheist-materialists liked because it was a weapon to use against some common - and rather naive - views of Judeo-Christian religion.   The more informed of them will bring up the Mutual Aid theory of Kropotkin which is the model of all such false-fronts put on what is inevitably the brutality of Darwinism.  Those false fronts started with Darwin, as soon as he started getting criticism of the brutality of his theory as applied to the human species.  His own ass covering was transparent and it was obviously meant for PR to the general public, not something to be taken seriously by his fellow Men of Science, and the men of science never did take those false-fronts seriously.  

That can be seen rather clearly in the fascinating article that the critic of scientific racism, eugenics and Darwinian fundamentalism of Sociobiology and Evo-psy, Stephen Jay Gould wrote an interesting article about the biggest and most often cited - though among scientists, generally ignored or discounted - such patch, the Mutual Aid of  the anarchist utopian, Petr Kropotkin who obviously expected biology to replace religion, he being a typical anti-religious 19th century ideologue.  

That was something he shared with Gould whose late-in-life accommodationist non-intersecting magestria proposal was his equally uninfluential attempt to be nicer about rejecting religion while keeping it away from his atheist-materialist religion but which has worked about as badly as Kropotkin's patch up job for Darwinism.   I met Gould once, he was a nice guy and he certainly was nicer than most Darwinists in rejecting scientific racism and eugenics, but he had to be as dishonest about Darwinism and Darwin, himself, to do that as putting a false front on that requires.   And even he couldn't bring himself to present Kropotkin as credible:

I confess that I have always viewed Kropotkin as daftly idiosyncratic, if undeniably well meaning. He is always so presented in standard courses on evolutionary biology – as one of those soft and woolly thinkers who let hope and sentimentality get in the way of analytic toughness and a willingness to accept nature as she is, warts and all. After all, he was a man of strange politics and unworkable ideals, wrenched from the context of his youth, a stranger in a strange land. Moreover, his portrayal of Darwin so matched his social ideals (mutual aid naturally given as a product of evolution without need for central authority) that one could only see personal hope rather than scientific accuracy in his accounts. Kropotkin has long been on my list of potential topics for an essay (if only because I wanted to read his book, and not merely mouth the textbook interpretation), but I never proceeded because I could find no larger context than the man himself. Kooky intellects are interesting as gossip, perhaps as psychology, but true idiosyncrasy provides the worst possible basis for generality.

I would recommend reading the entire article because Gould being Gould, he had some interesting observations, though most of those flow from an article I haven't been able to read,  Darwin's Malthusian Metaphor and Russian Evolutionary Thought: 1850-1917 by Daniel P. Todes.  Mostly it was presenting what different species of Darwinists came to think of it as a product of the Darwinist's environment, the difference between Darwin and A. R. Wallaces' experiences in the biologically abundant tropics and how that, informed by their reading of the brutal Malthus led to their theory and the experience of Russian intellectuals in the vast wilderness of Russia with its relative lack of abundance.  I would note that his explanation of how different intellectuals came to say things differently doesn't do much of anything to support Kropotkin's attempt to make Darwinism less brutal, I concluded reading the article by thinking it was a rather subtle attempt to explain away his thinking by use of the genetic fallacy.  Though one that works as well to explain away his own and Darwins' theories which had their own origins. 

My major objection to Gould's article is that he, as is always done, variously presents natural selection as articulated by Darwin and his closest friend-colleagues such as Huxley, Galton and Haeckel as a law of nature and, when they want to deny the brutality in that "law" as a mere "metaphor".  As Gould demonstrates, anyone wanting to do that double-speaking two-step can start with Darwin, himself, covering his own ass in the first edition of On the Origin of Species, even as his later editions of that work and his major work on the application of natural selection, The Descent of Man proves that Darwin had no intention of his theory being taken as a mere metaphor but as a basis of actual human action, military, social, legal and medical.  His endorsement of Haeckel and Galton all through that later book as well as of Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" as being exactly what he meant by "natural selection" in the last two editions of On the Origin of Species.

Gould certainly had read at least The Descent of Man and he was certainly aware of the brutality of Haeckel and Galton.  Gould himself said of Darwin's chief promoter in Europe:

[His] evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his grave words about objective science—all contributed to the rise of Nazism.  [Ontogeny and Phylogeny]

Every single statement Gould made about Haeckel could be made of Darwin if you change out "English" for "German" and we know that because in The Descent of Man Darwin, himself, said that Haeckel perfectly and in more detail elucidated his own thinking on natural selection as it was relevant to the human species.  In letters we now that Darwin eagerly anticipated the British doing in places other than Europe, what the Nazis did in Europe.  He, himself, described the British genocide of the Tasmanians in such terms. 

When does a "scientific metaphor" encouraged as a basis of social, medical, legal and military policy stop being a "metaphor" and become an ideological assertion?  I can answer that, as soon as Haeckel, Galton, George and Leonard Darwin, and yes, Charles Darwin start proposing it as such and all of them did during Charles Darwin's lifetime and with his support as a scientific expert.  

Kropotkin was typical of the atheist-materialist presented with the theory of natural selection, whether or not they understood the alleged scientific basis of it, they saw it as confirmation of their atheism and materialism and as scientific proof against the existence of God and if not proof, useful propaganda to win over the naive, the ignorant and gullible masses for anti-religion.  That, I will assert, is the primary motive of his use from the beginning, his use in evolutionary biology, allowing them to pretend they had a universal explanation for the phenomenon of evolution - no doubt something like what Newton and his successors had given physics and which chemistry was attaining in atomic and molecular theories when it was certainly not that.  Gould, himself, didn't really believe it even as he remianed a champion of Darwin, rather stupidly claiming that natural selection was the greatest theory in the history of science, at one point.  He said such things even as he knew they couldn't be true, as other mechanisms to compete with natural selection were gaining credibility and even as his own professional work weakened its universality.  In the article he says:

But Todes identifies a far more interesting reason in the immediate experience of Russia’s land and natural history. We all have a tendency to spin universal theories from a limited domain of surrounding circumstance. Many geneticists read the entire world of evolution in the confines of a laboratory bottle filled with fruit flies. My own increasing dubiousness about universal adaptation arises in large part, no doubt, because I study a peculiar snail that varies so widely and capriciously across an apparently unvarying environment, rather than a bird in flight or some other marvel of natural design.

If he'd said that during Darwin's lifetime, I'll bet he'd have waged the kind of dirty campaign - through others - that was his typical response to serious criticisms of his theory.  Just as his more orthodox champions waged in Gould's time against him and other critics of ultra-adapatationists who won that battle and who hold influence, now.  As I said yesterday, that will always be the case as long as natural selection is retained as the ruling ideology of biology. 

As someone who cringes every time I hear the word "meme" an invention by one of Gould's enemies, Richard Dawkins, to try to patch up his absurd theories and which pretty much no serious scientist ever adopted, I was struck that the body of Gould's article claimed a kind of memetics that didn't want to be called that.  Attributing different spins on natural selection to the predilections caused by environment, culture and field of research probably has some validity, though I think that's a sign of the basic theory, itself, being nothing but a product of the artificial conditions of the British class system and not anything that has any kind of existence in nature.  It's not shocking, at all, that the little thug that Boris Johnson dumped his neo-Darwinist racism and eugenics when the opposition got too hot.  Darwinism was born of the same Brit class system that Boris Johnson and his fascist allies want to retain and intensify.  It is no shock that the neo-Nazis in the United States, Canada, Australia, Britian, Germany, etc. speak in such terms.  It wasn't any shock when, stripped of the Marxist veneer it had on it, that such stuff isn't taking hold in neo-Soviet Russia where fascism and neo-Nazism are the variation on gangster government that has control, now. I don't think you need "memes" to explain that, they're thugs and gangsters like Britain has always been ruled by.  The kind of thing that will arise whenever there isn't a strong egalitarian democratic government that levels things so such corruption can't take control.  And that never happens except in a very specific kind of religious context which is the opposite of Darwinism.  As Darwin's good buddy, Haeckel put it in Freie Wissenschaft und Freie Lehre a book Darwin said he agreed with, entirely, 

Darwinism, I say, is anything rather than socialist! If this English hypothesis is to be compared to any definite political tendency—as is, no doubt, possible—that tendency can only be aristocratic, certainly not democratic, and least of all socialist. 

Monday, February 17, 2020

Told You So: I Found This CV for Andrew Sabisky, Boris Johnson's Just Sacked Racist Nut Sack And Eugenicist

Andrew Sabisky is a writer and independent research worker, particularly interested in evolutionary psychology, behavioural genetics, mental chronometry, and individual & group differences in intelligence and personality. After a MSc in Psychology of Education at the Institute of Education, he has presented talks on intelligence, genetics, and testing at multiple researchEDs and the Festival of Education (2015/2016). He plans to train as a chartered educational psychologist.

I assume my readers won't be any more surprised than I am not by such a racist, eugenicist, neo-fascist having such educational credentials.   You will never stop seeing these kinds of people close to power as long as natural selection is the ruling ideology within biology. 

The Perpetual Suicide Of The American Left Is Playing Itself Out In the Sanders Cult

If I were thirty or so years younger, I'd research and write a book geared to a popular audience, The Perpetual Suicide Of The American Left: A History.  The topic would be the major and some of the minor figures who have grabbed the megaphone or, as those were invented, microphone to declare themselves the most leftisty of the leftist, impress and - their only real goal - leading a smaller or larger small faction of leftists who then a. act and talk to discredit the left, generally, b. split the left that might unite to win something possible instead of the inevitable make-believe, pie-in-the-glorious millennium that it is possible for such most leftist of the lefty to peddle to the stupid and gullible who are their following.  And c. inevitably split bitterly and divisively. 

Bernie Sanders' cult is only the current most successful of such con-men, they litter the wreckage that American leftism has generally been.  

That wreckage comes from several parts of  the history of the American "left".  the less damaging and idiotic anarchists such as the idiotically elevated Emma Goldman who, late in life as she saw the rise of fascism in Europe rather stupidly asked her friends if she had wasted her life on her ideology of anarchism.  It is one of the seldom mentioned aspects of the legendary Goldman and her idiot boyfriend, Alexander Berkman, that her great inspiration, the anarchist moral atrocity of "propaganda of the deed" was an ideological inspiration to Mussolini's conception of fascism as Goldman's other hero on the basis of his inversion of morality, Fredrich Nietzsche was an inspiration of Nazism.  In the United States its self-indulgent violence did nothing to help the cause of the rights of workers and caused probably decades of setbacks for it.  It is worth noting that the anarchists, even before Goldman and Berkman appeared on the scene were far better at fighting with each other and damaging the nascent socialist movement, inevitably splitting and destroying any such socialist group or party they attached themselves to like limpets. 

This internal self-destructive activity is the most notable effect that the anarchists would have in the reality of real life.  Even when anarchists like Goldman and Berkman developed what would be one of their many temporary enthusiasms for the ideas of someone else that wouldn't last.  The idiots got a lot of their ideas about the attractively exciting violence of "propaganda of the deed" from the advocate of terrorism,  Johann Most - as I recall Berkman brought her to one of his lectures as a first date -  but they soon broke with him as they, no doubt, got bored and fussy and, no doubt, didn't get their way in some futile and stupid internal discussion and had a fight with him.  I don't remember the unimportant details but Goldman got pissed off when Most said something uncomplimentary about her boyfriend and she slapped him across the face with a horse whip.  Not that she and Berkman had a very stable relationship, either, they broke up as a couple to screw around with other people, including each other.  Their ever temporary adoption of one or another sect of anarchism was never much more than temporary as those habits they share with virtually every major figure of the play left led to breaks and splits among them.  The excuse was often some "principle" which I used to buy but I think it was mostly ego and personality and selfishness.  It's remarkable what a selfish lot those ultra-idealsts were. 

And what you can say about the anarchists in that regard you can probably say many times over about the various species and figures within Marxism.  The Marxists were only ever good for the same things, a. discrediting and damaging the real left that actually had some political success,* b. dividing even the play left as they saved their aggression to use it up in internal struggles for controls of their pathetic little "parties" and organizations and to war among the ever tinier little cliques that came after the splits in the already tiny cults. 

The history of the American left is an absolutely needed cautionary tale against continuing with the practices of the left here and elsewhere which have produced nothing good.  I am convinced that the atheism, the naturalism, the scientism and the resultant amorality of most of the major figures in that left are the source of a large part of why they will always have that effect.  

The attraction to violence among them is one of their most obvious features - given that the uniform effect of that in American politics has been radically counterproductive it would have been given up long ago if that violence wasn't their real goal.  When that violence can be made vicarious through distance in place, time, economic class and race, it can be indulged in by the mostly affluent members of the academic play left without any actual inconvenience or risk to their own sweet asses.  And there is no mistaking that as a main feature of that left, it is mostly of that kind - they complain bitterly whenever working-class and poor people opt for political associations that are more likely to get them something other than killed or imprisoned or discredited.  

As I've mentioned before, it was the widespread affection for the most accomplished murderers of the 20th century among that "left" that was a shamefully belated insight for me.  The day I realized that someone murdered by Stalin or Mao or in the German "Democratic" Republic or, yes, by Castro was as dead as a Jew or disabled person murdered by the Nazis and, that was the defining commonality between Nazism and Marxism was the key to my understanding of all of those dear old lefties that I'd been taught to revere in the magazines of the left, in the books issued by lefty professors by lefty presses, by the secondary hagiographic bull shit that led me to revere the memory of Stalin's agents and fan boys, be they the Rosenbergs or the Hollywood 10 as being no better than neo-Nazis and no real part of any American left that was ever going to succeed and which was, in no way, worthy of admiration, respect or lying for.  

Bernie Sanders has a lot of people gulled, he's an old man with massive baggage in the form of his public-access TV show, his scribblings for various 1970s self-styled underground papers (they never had to be underground, that was part of the romantic let's-pretend bullshit that the "new left" was), and things like his support for the Trotskyite presidentical candidate in 1980 and 1984, when he could have been supporting the one and only people who were going to be president in stead of Reagan.  That didn't much matter when he was merely a slightly accomplished member of the House or Senate from the eccentric NYC colony of Vermont.  His one and only real use was in him caucusing with the Democrats to the extent that meant he might keep Republicans from the majority and for his voting with Democrats.  Though it clearly gave his already too amply fed ego more nourishment than was safe.  It also fed his legend which is what his campaign in the twilight of his life, as he's already had one heart attack and as the Republican-fascists will reveal that huge load of baggage he trails behind him to make him the McGovern for a new century.   Supported by the rump end of the quasi-Marxist left, people like Michael Brooks and Sam Seder and In These Times and the even more obvious pseudo-lefties on the make such as The Young Turks, history is repeating itself in the most disastrous way possible. 

The part played by the real left is in not facing the fact that we have got to get away from them, to push them away, to reject them and permanently identify them as our enemies.  We can't continue to work with them because they don't work, they discredit, they divide, they enable their actual ideological cousins, the fascists.  

The play left is not a real left, it is the enemy of the real left that has any hope of winning elections and controlling any of the branches of the American government.  The self-pitying anarchists and Marxists don't deserve our pity, they certainly don't deserve our support - I'd even leave them on their own in trying to secure their rights to speech and freedom of press and association, rights their heroes don't grant to those they dictate to and which, no doubt, they'd suspend if they ever took power.   

Here's a rule to live by, never, ever trust a "civil libertarian" who advocates the right of the opponents of democracy have an ability to spread their ideological poison.  Never trust anyone, whether with a law license or a job in journalism who says we must be fair to fascists, nice to Nazis or kind to commies.  We must not do anything that lets them get another try to kill people. 

The ones who have a right to our support and help are the ones who the Marxists, the anarchists claim to champion but who will never get a thing from them.  Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made the most revolutionary change in the United States after Abraham Lincoln, two of them had to contend with being tarred with associations with the "real left" which bitterly hated both of them and ran candidates against them.  The Democratic left owes the Marxists, the anarchists not a single thing.  

* The quintessential example is, of course,  the old Socialist Party which managed to do what no socialist or Marxist party has done since, won mayorships and seats in Congress and which was destroyed by some "most leftisty of leftists" I am convinced on orders from Lenin and Trotsky in 1919.  

Saturday, February 15, 2020

"Who Is To Say That. . . " - Hate Mail

Note:  Blogger posted this prematurely, I was intending to post it on Sunday.  I'm leaving it up since it's been up for a few hours, now.  I'll edit it more tomorrow.

Many atheist-materialist-scientistic notions of"ethics" or ersatz, fake, synthetic morality will involve  itself with absurd notions such as the one that would claim that you can get something like the obviously religious morality of the Golden Rule, loving your neighbor as you love yourself, equality, equal justice, providing for those in need and distress, etc. from natural selection when all of those are violations of the selfishness that is the aspect of natural selection that interprets animal behavior, including human behavior.  I've given the formulas of that from Darwin and his entirely conventional scientific disciples over and over again.  Selfishness, ruthless competition, trying to prevail in a struggle for existence, reproductive advantage, etc. are the essence of natural selection.  It is in every single way the opposite of morality as derived from the Jewish religious tradition and as adopted and expanded by later Jews, Christians and  Muslims.   

That incompatibility was noted from the 1860s by both critics of Darwinism such as Frances Cobbe and scientific Darwinists enthusiastic to be let off from the morality of Christianity and Judaism.  Assertions of the inequality of human beings, of the evil effects of allowing those deemed inferior to live and have offspring, of the evil of providing medical care, food, social services, to those deemed inferior or "weaker" the good that would come of genocide of groups ranging from the disabled and sick within racial and national groups to wiping out entire races, the victors stealing their lands and resources for themselves were all deemed good by Darwinists from Darwin on.  

The idiotic patches of that by those who wanted Darwin for the damage they found he did to religion but without the more dangerous and unsavory aspects of the inversion of morality that it asserted as a law of nature were just that, idiotic and doomed to lose out to the more "scientific" views that, it is a fact, the Nazis put into effect in their genocides just as the conventional Darwinist biologist Vernon Kellogg warned that the scientist-military officers during World War One were asserting was the basis of their behavior in that war.  

And if it isn't that complete idiocy, there is the other idiotic source of such phony morality, utilitarianism.  Utilitarians assert that whatever is the ultimate source of the most happiness to the most people defines what is good, with modifications of the statement of that constructed as the problems with that basic claim are brought up.   

The classic examples of problems with that involve one of the favorite contemplation of the utilitarian "ethicists" who should we kill.  If every other person in the world would be made happier by the murder of every last Jew - Jews being a rather small minority of the human population - then certainly it would be moral to kill every last Jew, or Kurd, or Palestinian or you name it.  Or just one child.  What if sacrificing one child to the Minotaur a year ensured the happiness of the rest of the community then, certainly, under the general scheme of utilitarianism, that would be a good thing to do.  Or to maintain one of a group in misery, to torture them to derive sadistic pleasure, etc.  

But the problem of such phony materialist-atheist substitutes for morality are more basic than that.  It requires that some calculation of competing levels of happiness both in terms of happiness and in how many people will be made happy that are impossible to define and certainly impossible to calculate in any real way.  One of the things that critics of this absurd idea that is so widely held by the ironically self-entitled profession of "ethicist" have pointed out is that it is impossible to determine the outcome in the distant future of potential acts in the human present.  If Adolph Hitler or Joseph Mengele had been murdered as children, what would the results for millions of people in history have been?  If Charles Darwin had gotten drunk one night in college and broken his neck or been stung by a swarm of wasps and natural selection had not been invented  A. R. Wallace not having the same influence with the right kind of people to get it adopted.  Who knows what good or bad the descendants of children who died in childhood due to the British Poor Laws - which Darwin decried were too much aid to the least among us because it kept children of the poor alive long enough to have children - would have done if they had lived?  

Utilitarianism is in the running as one of the stupidest philosophical positions ever to gain widespread adherence by people trained in philosophy in academic institutions, it is, as I noted this morning, at best, an idiotic and useless exercise in ivory tower speculation, at worst it turns into a program of promoting infanticide, active or passive, "doing or allowing" the performance of what are obviously and rightly considered evil acts.  

I used to be indulgent of such nonsense out of the lazy, irresponsible habits encouraged modernist-scientistic libertarianism because it is impossible to come up with mathematical proofs in any of this - why they don't let that bother them about natural selection or utilitarianism is evidence of the comfort for their selfishness derived from those substitutes - the kind of cowardly refusal to assert the obvious truth that so often comes after the generally vile phrase "who is to say that . . . "   "That" slavery is evil, that providing food and medical care and habitation to the destitute, the poor, to the other is good, that killing every last Jew or Indian or gorilla, is bad.  

I can answer that, now that I've seen through these things, we are to say it.  

We are to take the responsibility to assert the rightness of the Golden rule, of doing justice, of giving to the poor, of protecting habitats and wild animals of doing no harm.  It is one of the just condemnations of modernism, of scientism of atheism that it denies that responsibility, that it lets us off the hook to make that choice.  Without us making that choice, no one else can be depended on to make it either.  

Saturday Night Radio Drama - Philip Davison - Quiet City





In part a murder mystery, in part a comedy of terrors, Quiet City is also a séance of sorts, plus a rapid-fire farce (with a great many car-doors). 

Enter (or exit) Richard Meadows, an apprentice adulterer who meets his premature end at the very start of play, yet lingers on to the close of business in a livelier, if lethal, presence as a poltergeist, a forensic phantom parsing his own assassination.

Cast ListCiarán Hinds played Richard, both naturally and preternaturally.
Deirdre Donnelly was Gloria, his present and past wife in excelsis;
Olwen Fouéré ... Virginia, who is anything but;
Patrick Dawson ... Virginia's partner and procurer;
David Herlihy ... the surly and churlish John;
Bryan Murray ... a sinuous sleuth whose charm disarms;
Michael James Forde ... an affable Anglo gigolo;

Áine Ní Mhuirí ... the dowager, more deft than daft.

Sound supervision was by Damian ChennellsProducer Aidan Mathews 

Something a bit different, better than the same old, same old. 

As They Say In Letterkenny

Image result for letterkenny i don't r give a fuck

Someone's having a fit because I misattributed a show tune.  As if that's going to keep me up nights. 

The Total Futility And Absurdity Of Materialist-Atheist-Determinist Ersatz Morality

I run luke-warm and cold on the form of entertainment that debating is, I mean a real debate, not the food fights that are the debased form of "presidential debate" invented as a TV spectacle by the Kennedy campaign in 1960 and going generally down hill from that already low point.  

No, I mean real debates in the structure of a debate in which the main substance is the presentation of detailed arguments by two sides on a fixed question.  It can be fun and sometimes mildly informative but as a means of substantial engagement on an issue, it generally barely skims the surface and is more successful in presenting stage craft than informed argument.   At best they are extended battling TED talks which might count as an even more degraded form, a shorter, more superficial mono-debate in which everything is as much of a set-up job as the presenter of one wants to make it.  Generally they want to rig it more than Plato set it up for his Socrates.   They aren't any way to form an informed opinion or adopt a difficult position on a complex issue - though their questions often pretend that's what the exercise does.  No, for that you have to read books and follow up by reading what the arguments in them are based in and to think about them.  Let's not forget thinking, though debates and TED style intellectualism do so often. And the result is often not fast or entirely unambiguous. 

Which is, actually, my central point here as I'll argue in a minute. 

Yesterday I listened to a debate between the Evangelical Christian apologist, brilliant intellectual and a man who I have profound disagreements with,  William Lane Craig and the Yale Ethicist Shelly Kagan on the question of whether or not God is necessary for morality.  

Both men are highly trained philosophers and a lot of the argument depended heavily on some very complex, technical aspects of formal, academic philosophy.   I think it's largely due to the clear fact that Craig is a highly experienced and excellent debater that he made far more points than Kagan who seemed to get tied up less in philosophical complexity than the scientists who Craig often debates.  But I also think it's because Kagan, an atheist had the inferior position to defend.  

The first thing I thought while listening to Craig addressing Kagan's typical baroque, highly technical and hardly invulnerable assertion of how deterministic, materialistic atheism could generate moral positions that had some universal application in reality* - real enough to prevent the kinds of atrocities that the 20th century atheist-scientistic regimes which, no doubt, always hover over this question - was that the atheist attempt is doomed to utter futility in real life. 

It is too complex for more than a few specialists in that area of philosophy to understand the arguments of someone like Shelly Kagan - the mass of humanity in which any moral action and refraining from immoral action will have to find the only reality that matters would never be likely to understand or be effected by such an "ethicist's" systems for constructing morality.  

If theology can often get too complex to explain to most people, the kind of quasi-utilitarian claims and arguments that someone like Kagan makes which must meet the requirements of, among other things,  Darwinian natural selection (which is a universal acid against any kind of moral protection against genocidal violence), materialist determinism (Kagan's position of having determinism compatible with free-will is, frankly, absurd) and a myriad of other a priori requirements of a good, Yale-based atheist-materialist-scientistic philospher to maintain their respectability means that any such system of morality will be as vulnerable to rejection as it is absurdly and impractically inapplicable in real life.  It is an ivory tower system which may as well exist in a closed display case like the one Edward Albee made the center of his absurdist play, Tiny Alice.  

I'll give you this passage discussing Kagan's disagreement with his fellow ethicists from that helpful source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the article on the already abstruse topic,  "Doing vs. Allowing Harm."

Even if Rachels were correct that Smith’s and Jones’s behavior is morally equivalent, we may not be able to infer the moral equivalence of killing and letting die in general (where other things are equal) from this. Shelly Kagan argues that this inference assumes that “if a factor has genuine moral relevance, then for any pair of cases, where the given factor varies while others are held constant, the cases in that pair will differ in moral status” (Kagan 1988). He claims, moreover, that this assumes the Additive Assumption, the view that “the status of the act is the net balance or sum which is the result of adding up the separate positive and negative effects of the individual factors” (Kagan 1988, 259). He raises several objections to the Additive Assumption. Firstly, one might describe a pair of cases that are exactly alike except that one is a killing and the other a letting die, where the first intuitively seems far worse than the second. If this pair of cases is as good as Rachels’ pair, then either the inference is valid in both cases—to prove the contradiction that killing is both worse and not worse than letting die—or it is invalid in both cases. Secondly, one might raise the rhetorical question: why addition—rather than, say, multiplication or some other function? Similarly, Kamm (1996, 2007) defends a Principle of Contextual Interaction according to which a property can behave differently in one context than another.

Just which would be killer do they suspect is going to wade through the arguments and sort out the conflicting opinions of experts about such things as "additive assumption" before they decide whether or not to kill someone?  

And I think that is guaranteed to be the result of any atheist attempt to reconstruct something that we would generally concede to comprise superior moral behavior.  Ineffective impotence that will always, in real life, favor the depraved.  

That huge deal made by atheists in arguing this question, of whether or not such morality is possible without God, of those dear old atheist professors who are beloved figures of kindness and such people do exist, but life proves that in the wider real world to count on that is unrealistic and absurd.  

In general life unless they lead by an example of moral behavior, their technical explanations coming up with a materialistic basis for their behavior is as likely to be contradictory as it is to be ineffective in having a general effect in the wider world. We shouldn't rely at all on the nice old atheist professor acting morally within his own sphere of experience extending beyond that.  Depraved monsters can do that, too, certainly in regard to our own self. But also their extended connections.  Even the most evil of Stalinist henchmen or Nazis knew when someone treated THEM well or in ways they, no doubt, felt to be unfair even as they tortured and murdered scores, hundreds and tens of millions   And there are even those who were nice to their children and spouses and friends as they murdered thousands at their day jobs.  Some of them held university professorships and were, no doubt, popular with at least their favorite students and many were doctors of medicine as they willingly, enthusiastically became figures within the killing industry.  

I would guess that for a percentage of such lovable figures, who tested their actions against their a priori commitments to materialism, scientism, Darwinism, atheism,  they'd be more likley to give up their morality in favor of some species of materialist depravity.  Look at how many of Kagan's fellow atheist-university-based "ethicists" spend much of their time drawing up lists of people it's OK to kill based in the same kind of utilitarian notions.  Even the ones who want to be nice to animals.  

I wish there were some way to have heard a debate between Craig and my favorite atheist, Richard Lewontin, because I suspect Lewontin has a far deeper understanding of things philosophical than most atheists and, certainly, many of his fellow scientists. .  I think he would have appreciated the ambiguities of his position better than even a Kagan did and far more than some of Craig's other atheist debate opponents.  The confrontation of him and the biologist Lewis Wolpert was pathetic (Wolpert is a philosophical idiot who gets by on his dotty old professor act) and the one between him and the physics professor Bernard Leikind was even more of an embarrassment for the atheist.  Clearly a preparation in post-WWII science doesn't require a high degree skill in logical argument.  

One of the most impressive things Lewontin ever did was admit that his atheism is based in his a priori preferences and not in any essential position of science.  We all have our own a priori committments on which we base our arguments.  Clearly for an "ethicist" of the atheist variety their overriding such committment is to there being no God, their secondary one might, might be in promoting moral behavior.  But their prime directive will always be to avoid anything that might imply that God is real or, to their secondary committment, necessary.  That has been my general experience of reading, listening to, discussing things in any depth with any atheist who will engage on even the most modest depth on any issues - most of them are atheists on the same basis as sports or pop culture fandom, it doesn't go any deeper than that.  

My a priori committment is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you at every level up to and including the commitment to egalitarian democracy and its universal spreading and environmental preservation.  I find that God as the source of that is far more likely to produce a good effect in the world than any intellectual construction of an ersatz replacement based on some notion of science.  I do fault Craig for missing a great opportunity to point out, in discussing the fact that under the atheist scheme of things in which morality is nothing but an (absurd and self-contradictory) assertion of natural selection and social convention that the Nazis were consistent with their own constructed code of behavior.  He seemed to present that as an aberration of the thing Kagan was presenting when their genocideal behavior was founded securely in claims of natural selection as can be found in the entire literature up to and through the Shoah and the other mass killings of the Nazis.  The mass murders were a product of the kind of thinking Kagan and his fellow atheist "ethicists" hold as their a priori commitment.   

And I don't think the mass murder was, uniformly, an unleashing of a deep and abiding, historically conditioned hatred and love of cruelty.  There are instances of death camp commanders punishing sadistic behavior by the guards, even, if my memory serves, of one being ordered to be executed by his commander on the basis of being sadistically cruel while murdering.  What is to be made of that is certainly too long for this already long piece.  You'd need a long series of books by many scholars to get a grasp of it.  What is to be made of mass murderers with a sense of morality and, English doesn't provide any word I know except the totally inappropriate one "kindness" overridden by the "applied biology" of Nazism?   You'd get nowhere near understanding of it in a debate though I'll bet the superficial members of the audience would guess they knew what it was all about.   For the love of Mike, they would after a TED talk. 

*  I should point out that with Kagan and the other atheists I've listened to on this topic, they want to have it both ways, of claiming a commitment to the universality of morals while claiming that they have only a social and biological meaning.  That, in itself, is a seld-defeating contradiction, which, for the modern atheist, will always be further defeated by one of their ultimate a priori commitments required for maintaining a reputable life in academia. 

For anyone to claim such a thing based in natural selection is completely and absolutely absurd because natural selection is an assertion of competition within as well as among species for the personal advantage of individuals.  Not even the ridiculous attempts to past various anti-competitive schemes to it can change the basic nature of natural selection.  Darwin and his followers repeatedly, over and over again, up till right now argued that it is a struggle for existence which, again in obvious and complete double speak, produced superior individuals, the parents of today's and the futures species.  

There is a reason that eugenic inequality has been ascendant since the 1970s, it is because the temporary suppression of such talk after the crimes of the Nazis were exposed was the aberration in an intellectual regime of Darwinism, which was guaranteed to be merely a temporary suspension of that logical conclusion of the theory,  Darwinism will ALWAYS produce eugenics and eugenics will, ALWAYS devolve into schemes of who we are to kill.   The theme song of Darwinism, if there should ever be one, is the Nazi,  Rodgers and Hammerstein style waltz, "Tomorrow Belongs To Me. 

Friday, February 14, 2020

McCoy Tyner Trio feat. Gary Bartz - Fly with the Wind


McCoy Tyner - piano
Gary Bartz - saxophone
Gerald L. Cannon - bass
Eric Kamau Grāvātt - drums

The Question Is . . .

"What do you think of Mike Bloomberg being in the race?"

Apparently not much because I haven't written about it.  He's got several of the disqualifiers I've written about:

A. He's not really a Democrat.

B. He's too old.

C. He didn't get into the race soon enough.

D. He's way to the right of where I would want to have to vote, thought the one and only "candidate" still in the race I wouldn't vote for is the Putinesque weirdo Tulsi Gabbard.  We've got one Putin puppet, replacing him with another would only mean she'd get a honeymoon while the media pretends she isn't one. 

I certainly understand why the DNC and Democrats are taking him seriously, there are several billion reasons why.   He's a billionaire who is, obviously, scared of a. Donald Trump destroying American democracy, b. Elizabeth Warren becoming president and proving she knows how to do what she said she intended to do.  I don't know which one he worries about more except that Trump is already wreaking havoc and wrecking democracy.  I don't like him, I didn't like him when he was Mayor of NYC, I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him but if he wants to save America from Trump, all I can say is he's not all bad. 

I don't blame the DNC for taking advantage of the money advantage that real billionaires bring, it's not their fault that the Supreme Court and the civil liberties industry have opened up American democracy to that kind of destruction on the basis of "the first amendment".   The "Handmaid*" idiocy that expected American fascism to come in on the forms of a fundamentalist bible-thumping preacher got it 180 degrees wrong, it came in on a legal theory dreamed up by fascists who use a cameo of James Madison as their logo.  

If, by some miracle, Elizabeth Warren became president I would get 180% behind an effort to investigate federalist-fascism, its backers and its ideologues because they were such a huge part of bringing us past the brink of disaster.  They have done everything the old commie hunters claimed to fear but which the old commies never had any chance of doing and, unlike those old commies, they're in control of the federal government., the executive, the Senate, the Supreme Court and a good part of the judiciary. 

If you hear someone blaming the DNC for having to pay homage to the billionaires they're either igonrant idiots or liars or both.  The play-lefty media you'll hear that from are both.  It's the ACLU, Eugene McCarthy, a couple of liberal state parties in New York and Minnesota, the fascist James Buckley, etc. who deserve your blame.  They helped create this corrupt pantomime of democracy, Democrats and some Republicans in the Congress tried to prevent it, it was the judiciary that guaranteed this corruption.  They're having to do the best they can with the corruption the high-priests of the judiciary made this.  If you want a clergy for facism to come from, it's the secular high-priesthood of the Supreme Court. 

*  Little did I know when I read that mildly entertaining thing that it would morph into the totally absurd thing it has become.   I wonder if there's some other book of hers that Atwood wouldn't rather be known for.   I'd read some others by her but I don't think I'm interested in looking at any more after Handmaid mania became a thing.   I liked The Robber Bride a lot better.  But the women in it are stronger so, ironically, it's not going to be TV-movie fodder in the same way.   It's a lot funnier, too. 

Hate Mail

Give me a break.   Nomiki Konst is an ideological hooker, trying to hook her star from, literally, from Joe Biden in 2015 to Bernie Sanders the next year.  She's a light weight.  If Sam and Michael are down to a middle-aged, ex-Young Turk staffer - I'd love to know why she was let go, but not enough to try to find out -  like her they're getting down to the dregs.  Her word against Joy Reid's.  Yeah, right. 

Fasten Your Seat Belts Nevada's Going To Be One Bumpy Ride - And Bernie Is Getting Ready To Ratfuck It For Trump Again

If, as we are being warned and as I was certain would happen, the Nevada caucus is another debacle, it should be the death of that anti-democratic atrocity.  Perhaps this time it might be. 

One thing I'm absolutely certain of, if anyone but Bernie Sanders comes out "the winner" in Nevada, the Bernie Bots, encouraged by the likes of Majority Report, In These Times* magazine will whip up the Bernie cult, again, risking them doing what they did in 2016, increase the chances of Trump having four more years to destroy democracy.  Nothing less that the coronation of Bernie Sanders will prevent that and, sorry, but the chances of him being the nominee probably lessen from here on in.  He's not even getting the numbers he got in 2016 so far and I doubt he's going to do well in the primaries held in the coming weeks.  

The caucuses were the source of  the bulk of Bernie Sanders' claimed wins the last time, and when he didn't,  they were and are and will be the foremost generator of Bernie media conspiracy rumors and dark rumblings.  I listened to Sam Seder and the idiotic dim wit he's promoting, Nomiki Konst going after Joy Reid over the fact that a lot of the worst of the fuck up in Iowa was due to "reforms" to make the process more "transparent" demanded by the Bernie Bots the DNC had on the committee to reform the system.   Considering the hay Seder et al were making in whipping up a scandal over Buttigeig using the word "black" in front of a black audience, seeing these two white people going after Joy Reid a day later tripped the ol' irony meter. 

I will note that in slamming him, they leave out the fact that Tom Perez tried to get rid of the caucuses, something he should have publicized far more than he did - the DNC is absolutely shitty about messaging but that's another post - and that if state parties wanted to, they could bypass mandated caucuses as a means of choosing delegates to their state and national conventions.  The state legislatures of the various states have no say in how delegates are chosen.  Something Konst misrepresents, I suspect because she knows the Bernie camp were instrumental in retaining them because Bernie Sanders would have disappeared in the early weeks of 2016 without the fucked up, anti-democratic caucuses and their little nook of the media would have had a lot less material to work with if there were clear and fast results such as you get with well run primary elections.  Caucuses are ALWAYS FUCKED UP, ARE INHERENTLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ARE ALWAYS OPEN TO INTERFERENCE. 

I will state again something I noted as soon as I came back from my town caucus in 2016,  that a lot of the Bernie supporters were people who I'd seen changing party registration, enrolling in the Democratic Party right before the caucus as was so stupidly allowed, here,  some of whom I heard say that if Bernie Sanders didn't get the nomination they were going to vote for Jill Stein.  

I was sitting with the sign-in papers right next to a Bernie Bot who had a petition for people to sign sitting right next to me.  I heard a lot of these instant and temporary Democrats and what they had to say.  If she hadn't been a woman, I might not have been able to resist punching one of them in the mouth as she darkly muttered, before it even started that the person who was convening the caucus was going to rig it for Hillary Clinton.  I happen to have known the convener my entire life and you couldn't find a more honest or fair-minded person.  That goddamend bitch didn't know him because she wasn't a Democrat and she was a new-comer in town.  One who couldn't be bothered to find out who it was she was accusing of corruption.   She is typical of the Bernie Bots around here who I've heard.  They're the kind of people that Seder and Konst and Michael Brooks, etc. cultivate as their audience.  

I'm telling you, if the Democratic left wants to ever win we are going to have to build a real, realistic left for the future that excludes these people.  They are not anyone we can work with, they are not only undependable, they are treacherous. 

* I really want to know who is backing their go-to guy, a foreigner from New Zealand, Branko Marcetic, who is writing hit pieces against Democrats in favor of Bernie Sanders, including Elizabeth Warren.  I wonder why him doing that in INT and Jacobin (Geesh!, talk about the play-left)  is not foreign interference in our elections.  If it hadn't been working in concert with those who did it overtly to put Trump in office as I warned four years ago and if he wasn't doing it again, this time, I wouldn't even raise the suspicion that someone might be working to that end on the "left" through such "journalists".  How about that for an alternative conspiracy theory to float?   I'm beginning to think that a lot of those guys are assets of the Putin regime as we are now discovering so many were of the same gangsters when they called themselves Communists.  

Thursday, February 13, 2020

McCoy Tyner - La Habana Sol


McCoy Tyner, Piano 
Aaron Scott, Drums,
Avery Sharpe, Bass

About once every winter, when it's really cold and snowing I think of this.  Today's the day.

We keep loosing our power.  I'll post later

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

I'm old enough to remember the 1992 presidential election. Tom Harkin swept the Iowa caucus. Paul Tsongas narrowly won the most votes and split the delegates in New Hampshire a week later. Then Jerry Brown won in Maine, and Bob Kerry won in South Dakota.

Dr Jacquelyn Gill

The Atheist-Secular Play-Left Are Not Only Undependable You Can Only Count On Them Sandbagging The Real Left - Hate Mail

The Democratic Party has got to get shut of the atheist-secularist-play-left, based mostly in urban centers such as New York City and college towns, Madison being, for me, the quintessential example of that.  The kind of thing that is so often composed, mostly, of the most callow of adults, those of college age and which, even when it's geezers doing it, caters to and attempts to harness those whose life experience leads them to be the most unrealistic.  There are great things about the young but only when they do what the play-left doesn't want them to do, pursue what is possible and use the success in that to push on.  And to know when that's not possible for now.  Most don't, the play-lefty media doesn't want them to focus on that, they want the eyes and clicks of those who aren't mature enough to do that. 

My brother regularly checks out the lunatic right-wing media to keep track of the insanity.  I can't stomach that so I pay that same kind of attention to the play-lefty media who are as big a problem for the real left as the fascist right is for us. I look at the mags, The Nation, In These Times, The Progressive (don't get me started of fucking Madison) and the electronic play-lefty media, Democracy Now! ("or we'll fucking hold our breaths till we turn BLUE!")  The Young Turks, Majority Report, etc.  They never learn a thing as the current insanity among them over Bernie Sanders proves.  I listened to some of Sam Seder and Michael Brooks and the even stupider Nomiki Konst and it was like the predictable, cyclic deja vu of every disastrous, counter-productive, Republican-fascist enabling attack by the play-left on the only left that's going to get elected and take power of the past fifty-two years.   

No.  They have not learned a fucking thing as their predecessors of the make-believe revolutionaries of Republican-fascist enablement I mentioned here last week, Al Lowenstein and his buddy Curits Gans never learned a fucking thing, as the ACLU never learns a fucking thing, as the people who run the secular-atheist-pseudo-left never learn a fucking thing.   We've got to build a real, winning left that doesn't depend on them in any way because they have proven themselves, over and over and over again for more than a century to be not only undependable but fully and willingly and knowingly the enemies of real progress in the United States.  

The "Reverend "Coach Doeth Protest Too Much, Ya Think?

What's most funny about "Rev" Coach  Dave Daubenmire making himself temporarily  infamous by suing Pepsi and the NFL over the hoochie coochie act of a couple of aging cheerleader types during the Superbowl halftime show is that the half-time show was an interruption in the barely concealed feast of homoerotic exhibition that American football is.  

American football is first and foremost the way that nominally straight men get their homoerotic kicks while pretending that's not what they're doing.  Gay men and women know better, though in most cases it's only the gay men who will admit it.  American football is the thoroughly sublimated homoerotic lust that dare not speak its name.  It is first and foremost an excuse for men to look at other men's overly ample, steroid and gluttony enhanced asses bent over in the most telling poses taken by men who then grope and slam other such men to the ground by jumping on them.  That's why women who watch it watch it, that's something the gay men who watch it admit openly they watch it for.  Is it any shock that football features so prominently in the nominally Catholic universities and colleges for which it should be banned as an obvious violation of the entire teaching of Jesus?  Someone once told me the most vicious football coach they ever witnessed was a Jesuit.  Coaches, some of them make out with the big money but all of them are there for the sexual aspect of it, even those who exclusively have sex with women. 

On top of that the only reasons for it are for money to be made out of the conventionalized porn show that American football is - and considering how much porn sells, it's no shock that there's loads of money to be made from what is, otherwise, a less compelling athletic event than curling.  Sex money and violence are the liturgy of American football, it is totally not anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus, the "reverend's" religion is neo-Paganism that calls itself Christianity.  

I barely knew who the two women who got the revved up coach all hot and bothered are - I didn't know till looking them up that it's spelled "Jlo" -  but what they did was no different in substance from what the cheerleaders on the sideline do every game.   They're there to distract the audience from how boring football is.  

Cheerleading is essentially a stripper act without taking the last stitches of skimpy, skin tight clothes off.  And also part of the cover story denying the homoerotic feast of boy on boy booty that is football.   Football cheer leading is a cover act so the guys can convince themselves that they're not there to watch a lot of men's asses encased in skin tight spandex, asses big enough to be visible from a distance.  They're there for the same reason the beer is, that's there to help the guys deny what's going through their heads.  

Why a football coach wouldn't have noticed the cheerleaders all these years, one who is now mounting a publicity laws suit over the half time show leads me to wonder what the coach was looking at instead of them, all those years on the field. 

I don't know what denomination if any the Rev. is given his title by but it's got nothing to do with Christianity.   I will note that in looking into him for about as much time as it's worth - less than 10 minutes - it notes he was disappointed in his 2010 congressional bid, no doubt as part of the billionaire financed, racist reaction "tea party" campaign of that year.  Which is the only positive thing I found out about him.  

Now we can forget about him, I hope. 

Update:  Apparently my most OCD troll has a lust for zaftig men's asses that dare not speak its name.  Though he's shrieking about it a bit.  I wonder if his girlfriend has a clue.  He's expressed a love of sword and sandals movies in the past when I made fun of them.   And in the typical way, he's the one accusing me of "projecting" which is just one of the limited ways of someone saying "I got nutthin'".   

I've never been attracted to jocks, though there are a few baseball players from the pre-streoid era I found attractive.  I've never liked them caponized.  I'm not an ass man, whereas he's all ass.