Life Is Not a Free Ride

13 September 2026 Leave a comment

Under the influence of current national politics, irresolvable international strife and a badly damaged global environment, the looming economic turmoil has the potential to worsen the cost of already troubled areas of life – food, medical care and shelter. It hardly matters what more positive changes occur in the near term; the momentum of declining quality of life seems overwhelming. We must do what we can to “gird our loins,” to salvage at least the basics of our accustomed lives, but not simply go back to what was.

We must not strive to recover the life we had, in a cycle of backward leapfrogging. We must instead deal with the conditions that are and plan for a future with justice, equity, and stability, here and abroad. After the fire, forward-looking survivors create water reserves and firebreaks while planting saplings and building new homes.

We must plan for a future in which everyone has a place and uses it responsibly. Mostly, we must understand that all life has value. We must work together. In the future, we must be focused on surviving, not just winning. We cannot continue as competing teams, or we will grind down the planet to a point at which it can no longer support life.

We must override the political short-term strategy and accept that we are morally responsible for the future consequences of our decisions and actions today. Life is not a free ride. We will pay a price one way or another.

Filed under Economic issues, Education Policy, Environmental issues, Philosophy, Politics, Social Commentary Tagged with

Want to Be a Millionaire?

8 November 2025 Leave a comment

If there were a quadrillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000,000) in the economy and it were split evenly across 400 million citizens, each would hold two and a half million dollars. (I don’t hold even half that amount.) If, however, just one thousand of the people each held a billion dollars, the rest of us would now only have $249,750.06 – about one tenth of what we would have had. Since I hold more than that quarter million amount, as do many others, there isn’t much left for the poorest half of us.

Simplistic? Oh, yes, but clearly demonstrates how big figure incomes could suck the life out of the people. Much of the money goes back into circulation, of course, but much of it just gets passed around among the rich as investments and acquisitions. Billionaires are not shopping at the little store on the corner of your block or buying rounds for the workers at the local bar or putting books in your kids’ school.

Of course, this is only reëstablishing the distribution of wealth and power inherited down from tribal chieftains who enlisted a few lieutenants to coerce the women, children and weaker men – the human resource – to grow the foods, find the materials, make the goods and provide the services that the warrior-class masters demanded. We call that “primitive.” It sounds pretty contemporary to me.

Sure, there have been some popular uprisings – peasant revolts. Even among those churning convolutions, we find the big pieces rising to the top in the cesspool for revolution. Those primitive urges aren’t going to be extinguished by any humane rationalism. The question isn’t, “Nature or nurture?” The question is, “Visceral or cerebral?” Aristotle got it. Donald Trump gets it.

Filed under Economic issues, Politics, Social Commentary

Who Are We?

5 November 2023 Leave a comment

Humanities – the clue is in the name. Engineering – the clue is in the name. The choice then is between humanity and technocracy. The society we choose is who we are. It’s interesting that we are so concerned with artificial intelligence becoming too human, but not with humans becoming too mechanistic. What would Asimov say to that? Oh, wait – literature was dropped at your school.

Filed under Education Policy, Politics, Reflections, Social Commentary Tagged with , , ,

Passing Laws to Punish Where No Crime Has Happened

25 May 2022 Leave a comment

Laws restricting people from access to opportunities their peers have based on chosen gender status, where there is no perceived harm or risk seems to contravene would seem to be discrimination for its own sake – dangerously close to outright hate. Contriving a rationale without evidence cannot justify such discrimination. Such laws enacted to deny rights and thereby inflict harm on person based on their self-expression would seem to be unconstitutional, and perhaps actual hate crimes themselves.

Here’s what ACLU says about this:

Your rights State and local laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression should protect transgender people’s right to use restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. We believe that laws that ban sex discrimination should also be interpreted by the courts to protect transgender people.

Know Your Rights | LGBTQ Rights | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)

Filed under Politics, Social Commentary Tagged with

The Road Back to the Clear World

17 October 2020 Leave a comment

In the middle of the journey of our life
I found myself in a dark wood,
Where the straight path was lost. *

Only an idiot or a liar would deny climate change or fail to accepts its causes. The idiot can be excused for his ignorance. The liar is in league with the devil to his own, usually monetary, advantage.

The cost of reversing or possibly stopping or at least slowing the causes of climate change would be enormous, hitting nearly everyone, and it would be conditional upon humanity’s very broad willing participation. The cost, and not just the economic cost, of dealing with the effects of climate change unchecked would be catastrophic, and would be unconditional and unremitting upon everyone. One way or the other, world leadership must come together to lead the world like Dante’s Virgil through the depths of the coming Inferno. If they cannot, and surely many will not, do this, we are consigning our children and their children and their children’ children to the very depths of Hell – ultimate environmental collapse.

In our journey, there is a point of no return, a virtual River Styx, beyond which stopping the causes will be pointless, and our efforts will have to turn to salvaging the remains of diminishing life on the planet. So here are the questions:

1.  Do we spend our energies and economies on stopping climate change or preparing for its consequences, and if both, in what ratio? (defining the problem)

2.  Once that is decided, how most effectively and expediently can the world and its leadership be persuaded to undertake and continue the challenge? (planning a solution)

Do your own research. Develop your own conclusions. Act.

Here’s the hard part: We all live on this planet; we are part of its life. It is our only home in an unimaginably large, mostly empty universe, time only runs one way, and nothing out there can guarantee our survival. Self-preservation is the preservation of the whole. There are only winners or losers, not both. We all, every living thing and the planet itself, share responsibility for this home. There are no opt outs.

*  The Comedy of Dante Alighieri, trans. Tom Simone, Focus, Indianapolis, 2007, Canticle One – Inferno, Canto 1, ll. 1-3.

Filed under Environmental issues, Politics, Social Commentary Tagged with ,

A Letter from Joe

31 August 2020 Leave a comment

Dear Mr. President,

My wife and I were having a conversation this morning about what we might do after the outbreak of civil war. I just thought I’d write to let you know how much I admire the facility with which your words, and that cute little O shape your mouth makes–like a little horn, have brought this country to its knees, ready to throw itself into war.

However, would you please direct those loyal men who fight for you, young and old, to look elsewhere than our house for violent engagement? We have nothing you want; we’re educated, thoughtful and compassionate people. We aren’t the sort of people you would like to hang out with. We have no land to speak of–just a little city plot with a cozy little bungalow–not even a spare bedroom for a guest, paying or not. Before retirement, we worked in education and public health, causes you might have heard of. They turn no profit of the monetary kind, just happier, healthier people.

Well, I had better let you get back to your golf game. I know your boys will take care of all that nasty work you have ahead of you, suppressing and intimidating democrats. So, here’s hoping you succeed in being the last man standing–alone in the United Graveyard of America. Have a nice day.

With due regards,
Joe Average

Filed under Politics, Social Commentary Tagged with ,

The ‘New Far-Left Fascism’?

4 July 2020 Leave a comment

Let’s see. Go to Wikipedia and look these things up.

Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Wikipedia

So, under a fascist government, the people are all responsible to the state. Right?

Ed.

Anti-fascism is opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals. The anti-fascist movement began in a few European countries in the 1920s, and eventually spread to other countries around the world.

Wikipedia

It was at its most significant shortly before and during World War II, where the Axis powers were opposed by many countries forming the Allies of World War II and dozens of resistance movements worldwide. Anti-fascism has been an element of movements holding many different political positions, including social democratic, nationalist, liberal, conservative, communist, Marxist, trade unionist, anarchist, socialist, republicanist, pacifist and centrist viewpoints.

Wikipedia · Text under CC-BY-SA license

So, that’s pretty clear; over the last hundred years, anti-fascism has meant opposing anything in the “far-right” fascist camp, making anti-fascism to the left of fascism. Right? Fascism’s as far right as you can go; so anything else is to its left..

Ed.

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management of enterprise as well as the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.

Wikipedia

So, socialism is just about how the people are invested in everything, or at least most things. It’s about sharing the wealth of the state (Ouh, the workers owning Amazon?), but not about how the government is run. Right? So, are the people responsible to the state then, or is the state responsible to the people.

Ed.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

Wikipedia

So, this sounds a lot like the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the first ten Amendments. But the “limited government, and individual rights” part sounds like 20th Century Republicans, while the “civil rights and human rights” sounds like 21st Century Democrats. It sounds like the government is responsible to the people, but not so much about protecting them from the differences the people see among themselves. Right? Sounds like the Tea Party folks.

Ed.

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.

Wikipedia

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the French Estates General. Those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime.

Wikipedia · Text under CC-BY-SA license

So, that doesn’t sound so awful, and it seems as if leftists would have the state actively support civil rights and human rights as well as individual rights. Right? And the Constitution says that the exercise of one right may not impinge on the rights of another.

Ed.

Okay so what the hell is the president talking about when he “…Warns Of ‘New Far-Left Fascism’ At Mount Rushmore…?” (NPR) He seems to count on people’s inability to understand what they hear as long as it has a good beat and you can dance to it. (Who remembers Dick Clark?) I can’t believe Trump is as ignorant as he assumes his audience to be.

Meanwhile, back in the good old District (not state) of Columbia (not Capital), is Mopey Barr setting up a Putinesque take over of the presidency, based on the extreme emergency of Covid-19? Perhaps we could have Donald Trump as president for life with extreme emergency powers – our own Führer. What’s that brown stuff on your nose Bill?

Filed under Critical thinking, Politics, Social Commentary Tagged with ,

The Second Coming

19 July 2019 Leave a comment

William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

——————————————————————————-

The classic example of Modernism lies in the line “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold,” which by extension declares that there is a moral or social “center” from which we have lost hold, spiraling into the darkness of the unknown, ungoverned by any moral core. This is Yeats’ response to the world of the First World War, a war among wealthy, powerful, rather degenerate and often incompetent European monarchies fought by everyone but them.

How appropriate then for our Post-Modernist time when the world is racked by oppression, conflict, discord and violence in a chaos of the Ongoing World War, a war among wealthy, powerful, degenerate and often incompetent world autocracies, many of whom make war on their own subjects.  If there ever was a moral center, it has faded into complete obscurity.

What “rough beast’s” hour is coming around now to save us? How long must we wait for anything to come from without to save us from ourselves?

———————————————

The great lesson of history, well recorded in our Humanities: We have learned nothing from history, except how to repeat it, as this phrase has often coined.

Filed under Literary Criticism, Poetry, Politics, Reflections, Social Commentary

I’m a Yank

11 September 2018 Leave a comment

I’m a Yank, but I don’t feel any pride, any satisfaction in the winning of the Civil war, only the satisfaction that the slaves were freed and the country was reunited.
It was the sorriest time in our history. We went to war with ourselves. Hating and killing our fellow Americans was the bottom. I can’t admire bragging about winning. I can only be proud that we put ourselves back together, not when we were trying to tear ourselves apart. Good goals were accomplished, but many bad things happened. The cost was horrendous, and worsened by the economic devastation of the South following our bloody victory.
I hardly wonder that a Southern would feel outrage at the pulling down of statues, when our Minnesota Capitol and Washington are adorned with Union soldiers. It must look like 150+ years of gloating—the ultimate poor sportsmanship.
This country has some growing up to do. Arrogant winners make sore loser. Defeat on the battlefield is bad enough. It isn’t necessary to take their honor as well. We were better to the Japanese following WWII than we were to the South after the Civil war. Can’t we show the world we’re better than that?
All the memorials of the war should be honored, but put away. Leave the memorials to the reuniting and the freeing of the slaves. Commemorate the good stuff.

Filed under Philosophy, Politics, Social Commentary Tagged with

When You Make Your Voting Choice, Consider

4 August 2018 Leave a comment

Many folks will be trying to convince you to vote one way or another. Here are some ideas about what to listen and ask for, and how to react to what you hear. Persuasion works from three platforms, each a little lower than the least accessible, and each more accessible, but subject to misleading claims. Supporters and candidates will drop a mass of statements in your lap about truth, proof, evidence and facts in their attempt to persuade you to vote in their favor. Be ready.

  1. Rational arguments require the voter to have a broader knowledge base and be more willing to follow a line of reasoning. “This is how it would work.” (critical thinking)
  2. The voice of authority will ask the voter to rely on history and reputation as a matter of trust. “Have I ever lied to you?” (limited thinking)
  3. And the agitator will play on your baser feelings, especially those that lead to physical response. “FIRE!” (no thinking)

None of them however represents truth, though each has a relationship to facts. So let’s talk about that relationship first.

Facts are by definition real and present. They are not proven by evidence; they are evidence. Facts are accessible to anyone with functioning senses. Glass is hard. Water at room temperature is a liquid. These are not disputable. Right?

Fact → Evidence

Not all evidence is factual however. If a person’s fingerprint is found on a murder weapon (fact) that indicates that that person held the (otherwise determined) murder weapon (evidence), but that does not make indisputable that that person actually committed the murder; it’s not proof.

Evidence ↛ Fact

A proof is an evidentially sustained conclusion. Proofs are reached by logically arranging factual and circumstantial evidence to a conclusion. Such an arrangement is called a “logic,” and when there are different possible logics, leading to different possible conclusions, any one conclusion cannot be considered an indisputable proof. Furthermore, one might reasonably guess that the more pieces of evidence needed to x_Jay's Oakreach a conclusion would suggest more possible arrangements of that evidence with more possible conclusions. And one would be correct. So does a proof lead to a truth?

Truth is a thorny issue. Is telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” possible? Putting aside Truth, as in the ultimate, divine truth about everything, truth is very simply a belief. If I feel a piece of glass and it feels hard, then I would believe that the hardness of glass is a truth. Of course, if I melt it down and blow it into a vase, I would find that it isn’t always hard. If I mix gelatin into hot water and cool it to room temperature, I might find it is no longer a liquid, but now a colloid. If I can’t count on facts being factual all the time, however will I be able to reach a proof I can accept as truth?

Evidence → Proof

Proof ↛ Truth

Truth is a matter of what I believe it to be. I guess I’ll just have to have faith to get to the truth. Faith is accepting the unprovable as true. My faith and therefore my truth is mine alone.

Belief → Truth

Undertaking actions then, such as voting, based on someone else’s truth is risky. If someone tells you they have the truth, and she or he wants you to accept that truth, you must remember that that “truth” may be believed but it is not provable, whether it’s really true or not. Even when someone tells you what she or he believes, you must still take his or her word for it or not. You can never really know. All evidence of belief and therefore “truth” must be highly circumstantial. The more “evidence,” necessarily circumstantial, that a person provides in support of a truth, the more you need to question that truth. Could such evidence even lead to a reasonable proof? Has that person really accepted that truth himself or herself, or is she or he really just trying to get you to accept it for some other purpose? If more evidence only makes any conclusion more debatable, what effect does more evidence have on the unprovable validity of someone else’s professed belief? How’s your faith in that? Now to the vote.

In choosing who or what to vote for, immediately dismiss any claims involving the word “truth.” Look for factual information that you can see or hear yourself, arranged in a reasonable logic that you can understand, and to a conclusion that weighs well against values and condition you support – Yes, align it with your truth. That’s still not enough.

You have to decide then if the proposition or candidate you “like” can actually get enough support to make that agreeable conclusion a reality. Beside aligning your vote to the most issues of yours that are supported, you must decide if enough of other voters’ issues are supported to have a hope of election. That will require looking more broadly at the whole campaign, all the candidates and issues, and many other societal factors that will impinge on the election.

In a statewide election, issues in one area may not be well supported in other areas. In any election, are their other candidates that support most or the most important of the issues you support? In rank choice voting, you’re asked for your alternative, compromise choices up front. Are there hot topic issues in the public eye that might influence voters? These can often be completely unrelated to the competencies necessary for the role to be played in governing. Such things as ethnicity, race, gender and religion are particularly common “false” factors in voting choices. Is the best outcome

  1. voting for the best candidate,
  2. getting the best alternative candidate elected or
  3. keeping the worst choice from getting elected?

Most of all, avoid the temptation to vote for something or someone because that’s what or whom you were told to vote for. Be wary. If you haven’t been worked up enough to do something constructive, how will it help you to have someone get you all worked up to do something destructive?

And finally, if you want to vote for someone because that candidate is just like you, then write your own name in. You’re probably just as qualified as he or she is.

 

Filed under Critical thinking, Politics, Social Commentary Tagged with ,

← Older posts