What A Fool Believes

The disappointment continues.  I get a digital NYT newsletter each morning.  It contains some fluff bits - recipes, games, puff pieces, but it also has a lead story or two that are actual news.  That is where the disappointment comes in.  This morning one of the lead stories about the unconstitutional deployment of the military to cities within the USA included the following, "This is the president’s vision for law enforcement. He believes that crimes should be prosecuted to the max, and that low-level violations set a permissive climate for nastier ones. "

Of course, the NYT did not mention the fact that it is unconstitutional.  They did not mention that it is unprecedented.  Basically they were parroting whatever Felon47 said with damn little in the way of critical analysis.

We humans have some amazing abilities but, (for most of us at least) mind-reading is not one of them.  Given that, in situations where it doesn't matter or if speed is more important or we have no feasible method of proving or disproving a statement, we might generously forgive the simple taking of someone's word for it.  There are situations where that is probably the best and most reasonable choice.  But it is definitely not all situations.

Quite frequently there are actions that are temporally, geographically or, thematically associated with the statement.  Those actions can function as clues in a significant percentage of statements or claims made by humans.  In an essay written for a different project, I make the claim that "Belief Leads Behavior".  While I will make temporary allowances for habit, as a general rule what you actually believe(as opposed to what you say you believe) determines how you behave.  The light switch is my standard example.  When you walk into a room and reach for the light switch, it is because you believe that flipping said switch will result in desired illumination.  If you walk into that room a thousand times and the first hundred or so times nothing happens when you flip the switch, the next nine hundred or so times you will bring a flashlight or make other arrangements.  You no longer believe the light switch will accomplish your goal of illuminating the room so you stop flipping the switch.  Habit might keep you reaching for the switch even after you know it isn't working but that habit will not keep going for long.  

Felon47 has a long public history.  A history that includes several instances of law-breaking and/or law ignoring.  He violated housing laws in refusing to rent to minorities.  He demanded the Central Park Five be put in/kept in prison even after the law declared them innocent of the charges.  He has multiple felony convictions and has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in illegal behavior on more than one occasion.  He has been accused of rape of young girls and convicted of sexual assault (rape) of an adult female.

Those are simply not the behaviors of someone who has any level of respect for or belief in the law.  The NYT knows this.  They have either reported on or been involved in (or both) any number of his instances of breaking or ignoring the law.  Hell, he took out a full page ad in the NYT in his effort to make sure innocent minority men went to prison for something they did not do.  The NYT knows about all of that.  

Felon47 has undertaken several different methods to avoid taking responsibility for his actions.  He files lawsuit after lawsuit in an effort to complicate things.  He files appeal after appeal of convictions in an effort to financially break his victim(s).  He even ran for POTUS to avoid prosecution and publicly considered preemptively pardoning himself. 

I have no idea how stupid one would actually have to be to know all of that and still harbor some idea that Felon47 has any respect for the law much less being inspired to make some idiotic statement about him "believing" that all crimes should be prosecuted to the max.  Now, you could modify the statement and make it believable.  Make it so that all poor people are prosecuted to the max or so that all minorities are prosecuted to the max or so that all non-wealthy immigrants are prosecuted to the max and I will have no argument to make.  But it could not be more clear from his behavior(s) as to how he actually feels about crime and punishment.

Felon47 treats the law as just another tool for him to use in defrauding business partners or otherwise enriching his family (read: him).  With the assistance of the NYT, we have watched these happen in real time.  My question is "why?"  Why is the NYT attempting to gaslight its readers and subscribers?

This is far from the only example of the NYT doing or saying something at his benefit or behest.  I see them touting Russian advancements in Ukraine while ignoring some very effective retaliatory Ukrainian strikes on refineries and factories that support Russia's war efforts.  Again, the question is "why?"  I refuse to believe that the NYT of all organizations does not understand the difference between journalism and parroting PR releases.

I can't answer my own question.  I do not know the "why".  What I know is that I am increasingly skeptical of any of their reporting of which I cannot immediately find corroboration.  For gaslighting to be most effective it requires the willingness of the victim to be gaslit.  I am unwilling to accept obvious bullshit just so I don't have to think about it, just so my cogitative life is simpler.  I'd like to know there are other folk like me out there.

The Business End Of The Shaft

 

If you sign up for a martial arts class, regardless of cultural origins, all of them will start by teaching you the basics. In the case of karate, once you master the basics, you get a black belt and are considered ready to begin learning how to fight effectively taking into account your own strengths and weaknesses. The basics are just the foundation.

The physical fighters of the military spend a lot of time and effort learning how to fight and maintaining physical fitness. If you added BUD/S to the rest of the disciplines I studied in the USN, I would have never gotten through any of them. An electronics tech should have an idea of how to use anything in their space as a weapon and should know what is more deadly but they should not be derelict in learning electronics so that they can lift weights, run in sand, and spar with martial instructors. We specialize not because we are incompetent to do other things (though some surely are). Rather we specialize because learning everything is impossible and is an impediment to doing anything at the highest level.

If you are ever given a choice to go into a fight carrying just the tip of the spear or, just the shaft of the spear, which would you choose? If the choice is mine, I am choosing the shaft. It can be used like the bo staff of traditional Japanese martial arts. It could be broken in half and used as escrima or Kali sticks from the Filipino martial traditions. The point is that you fight differently if you have the entire spear, just the point or just the shaft. This is the basis of my suggestion that everyone who is eligible for full voting citizenship, should be eligible for military service. No, you should not expect a paraplegic in a wheelchair to pass the Marine PT test but we should expect them to do what they can and the military should have some pretty detailed knowledge about what that is and what they should be taught.

While Pete Hegseth understands beer pong to an Olympic level, his understanding of all things military would not be out of place in a satirical cartoon written for 6 year olds. The overwhelming majority of the military never pulls a trigger or slits a throat.  We drive, mechanic, build, type, decode, cook, paint,  navigate, pilot, nurse, account, play musical instruments, translate, document and and and.  If you were to have everyone that was not a trigger puller stand down, it would not be long before the trigger pullers discovered the value of logistics experts.  Hegseth is so completely wrong that it almost seems intentional.  It is difficult to believe someone could actually be so clueless but either he is or, he is like his boss, working for their Vladdy Daddy.

Dog On A Chain

When I was a kid roughly 60 years ago, we had a bit of a different attitude towards pets than is commonly exhibited currently.  Cats were routinely declawed, a practice that is widely thought to be cruel these days.  Dogs didn't live in the house back then for huge numbers of dog owners.  Quite frequently, the dog was on a chain in the backyard with access to their doghouse with food and water but generally restricted to an area the radius of the chain length.

Dogs that were kept in that manner served as early warning systems if someone (or some thing) walked through the yard or up to the house. Today we recognize that as being the casual cruelty that it was but, back then that was just normal.  

Of course, then as now, things were not perfect.  Sometimes the dog slipped their collar or their repeated jerking on the chain caused it to break or come loose.  Then it was time to go looking for the dog to recapture it before it could do damage or be hit by a car and injured or killed.  I myself was bitten by our neighbor's dog once when he got loose.  The dog knew me and generally we got along but, when he got loose and I happened by on an evil bicycle, he felt he had to defend his home and pack.

Some folks did things a little differently and would put up a kennel with tall enough walls that the dog could not get over it.  The dog house and most everything the dog needed would be inside the kennel.  I would imagine that to the dog it was a lot less cruel than the chain but at the end of the day, we were still isolating pack animals and today, anyone who cares to can know what torture that is.

Keeping the dog in the kennel rather than on the chain did not change much else about the animal's behavior.  They still barked at anything outside of what they considered "normal" and they still occasionally got loose.  When they got loose, they acted pretty much just like a dog that had slipped his chain.  For the most part, whether it was your dog or someone else's, you really did not want to see the dog running loose.  Cars, motorcycles and bicycles were guaranteed to be chased.  Pedestrians were hardly guaranteed safety but walking was better than running if you wanted to avoid inciting the dog's ire.

The chain and the kennel were physical restraints but they were also the method of indoctrinating the dog as to what was his to guard and who he had to respect.  Once the dog was loose, it was their choice.  They might choose to expand the area they were guarding and they would definitely let you know if you were not in the group of humans they chose to respect.  They were not bad dogs.  They were dogs being dogs and doing dog stuff.  

These days we tend to keep the dogs in the house with the humans.  Responsible dog owners will do some level of socialization and training that simply did not happen very frequently back in the day.  Still, dogs and dog trainers/owners understand that there are different acceptable standards of behavior when the dog is on leash or in the house than when the dog is running free in the dog park or accompanying their human on a walk in the woods.

The thing is, dog behavior is not unique.  They do a lot of the same things that humans do in a way that makes sense to dogs.  We can learn from that.  We humans are also animals.  We exhibit some of the same tendencies even if it is not obvious to everyone that we are doing that.  

A human at work will have a different standard of behavior than a human at home or a human running loose.  The human perceives a different level of responsibility in each scenario.  As a general rule, a human is more constrained at work, less so at home and most open to saying and doing atypical stuff when they are "running loose".

Now, I am no spring chicken but I do not predate do gooders.  Even back then there were those who advocated for not using the chain or kennel to isolate pack animals.  Still they did not run around removing chains or opening kennels randomly as they encountered such a situation.  They knew the dog would have to learn a different way of how to be without the chain or kennel as a restraint.

We can apply that attitude to humans and the smart people will.  We understand that at some level, jobs constrain humans.  Our desire for increased income, security for our families(packs), and reluctance to institute drastic change for no apparent reason serve to reinforce that constraint. 

Jobs though, are not handed down from heaven.  They can be taken away or simply become superfluous.  What happens then??  What do humans do when the constraints are removed??  We will probably be finding out soon.  

One of the (in theory) unintended effects of Felon47 instigating the firing of several journalists, comics, lawyers and academics is that firing removes constraints. No longer need they worry about losing their jobs.  They don't have to give a shit what the FCC thinks.  A significant percentage of any audience they have previously cultivated are likely to seek them out wherever they land.

The internet, social media in particular, is collecting quite a few journalists, comics, lawyers and academics that have been randomly released from their chains.  Blue Sky, Substack, Reddit and some smaller outlets are starting to be gifted with the unconstrained musings of those sacrifices to Felon47's ego.  

I sincerely hope that Colbert, Kimmel, Lemon, Phang, Dowd et al remain hyper aware that their metaphorical chains have been removed.  I sincerely hope there is a whole lot of biting that will be happening very soon.

Democracy Suppression

A friend of mine has said for years that "Democracy is discussion".  Jesse is correct.  If you want to have real democracy, the constituency has to be able to talk to each other and agree or disagree as you will.  Democracy is a crucible of ideas and to determine which ideas are good, bad or inbetween we must have discussion.

For as much of my life as I have gone to bars, I have heard a canard that does not seem to depend on location or level of intoxication.  It is and has always been bullshit.

Back when I was more active in local politics, I attended a LOT of public meetings.  I went to the public shows of votes but I also went to the wonkish meetings held by committees of or sponsored by elected officials.  I interacted with architects, civil engineers, planners and our local elected officials.  

I am more of a technical sort of guy.  My degree is in engineering.  So planning and architecture were not anything that "came natural" to me.  This was stuff I had to pay attention to and learn about because I wanted to be able to understand what everyone else was saying.  In paying attention, I was introduced to concepts that had never occurred to me as intentional behavior.

While there were several things I learned, of particular interest to me was the concept of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places and the behaviors that were acceptable in/at each place.  (They may have 4th and 5th as well but I didn't catch it.)  As I understood it, the 1st place was home - the place where you sleep and keep your stuff.  The 2nd place for most people was work - office, warehouse, construction site etc etc.  The 3rd place sort of depended on your personal habits.  If you were a religious individual, the 3rd place might well be your church.

Traditionally (at least to hear men tell it) , the home was a "man's castle".  We watched Leave It To Beaver.  We learned that when a man comes home from his stressful day at work, he needs a drink, then dinner and through it all, peace and quiet.  Sooooooooo, discussing issues that were causing a conflict in democracy could only happen if the man brought it up.  The little woman and the offspring could give good news and ask for advice.

The 2nd place was where the man's boss was.  Sure he spent a lot of time at the office but there, one talks about what the boss wants to talk about and if in fact one would like to keep the job, disagreeing with the boss is ill-advised.  It aint much of a discussion if you can't say what you actually think.

The 3rd place is where things, IMNSHO, get interesting.  When I was a kid, the 3rd place for my parents was definitely church.  My dad was a minister at a small church so, he still had to have a "day job".  As such, I strongly suspect there were issues that he did not bring up at work but once we got to the church, I have zero memories of him inviting the congregation to prove him wrong.  No one argued with him while he was in the pulpit nor immediately before or after the service.  Respect and tradition and the fact that my dad was known to slap a MFer on occasion might be the reason he got no pushback.  Of course, it could also have been that everyone was in lockstep agreement with him.  Regardless of the reason, I never noticed anyone trying to discuss or argue issues of democracy with him whilst he was wearing the collar and robes.

But what if you are not a churching sort of person? (like me)  What is your 3rd place?  I can't speak for everyone but for me and several of my friends and acquaintances, our 3rd place is the bar.  Okay, technically it is "a" bar.  One of the several that I sometimes attend but that's not important.  The important thing is that for the entirety of the time I have been going to bars - which started circa 1972 (don't tell mom), there has always been someone willing to spout the bullshit about not discussing politics or religion in bars.  

Now, I have certainly met any number of folks that did not handle conflict well. I have seen no few instances of fisticuffs and even weapons involved interactions.  (okay sure, by "seen" I might mean, "been involved in")  So I get some of the reluctance.  The problem is that we are essentially out of places.  Places where one might discuss issues critical to democracy in one's chosen nation are in short supply if home, work, church and recreation area are off limits.  The truth is that the suppression of discussion, which is effectively the suppression of democracy, only benefits those who are in opposition to democracy.  

If you are not opposed to democracy and you are not being manipulated by those opposed to democracy, why would you be opposed to discussion?  Yes, I know you don't like having your ideas and beliefs questioned.  Unfortunately that puts you in the "opposed to democracy" camp.  If you just wanted peace and quiet, you could have stayed home and drank for less money.  You could have taken a walk in a park instead of going to a bar.  You went to a bar to be social but you only want to be social on your own terms?  Unfortunately that puts you in the "opposed to democracy" camp.

In truth, the bar and other purely social environments are the most reasonable places to discuss politics, religion, sociology and everything else you might not have in common with co-located people.  We intuitively know that discussing positions that are in opposition to your boss is bad for one's advancement potential.  We intuitively know that the folks that live in our homes already know much of what we think.  Discussing politics at home will frequently look like "preaching to the choir".  So either you discuss politics and religion in places that are neither home nor work or you eschew democracy by reasonable understanding.

Yes, there are plenty of places that are neither home nor work nor bar.  However, if one phrases it as I have, as purely social environments, the number of places that do not fall into one of the three categories dwindles to insignificance.  

I doubt those that spout the idiocy that substantive issues should not be discussed anywhere they might actually make a positive difference think that is what they are doing.  (TBF, I doubt they think but that might just be me being judgemental.)  Still, they are actively doing the work of fascists and others who have a bone to pick with democracy.  The Founding Fathers appear to have understood the importance of open discussion to democracy.  The very first Amendment to the Constitution is about that very thing.  While I might understand the descendents of slaves and the indigenous population and the indentured population that built the railroads might be skeptical of said Founding Fathers, I believe they got that 1st Amendment right.  

If you really, honestly are dumb enough to believe that the generalized stifling of discussion anywhere is a perfectly reasonable thing, I can only hope you are smart enough to go out of your way to choose an establishment where I am not.  I am a patriotic American.  I refuse to participate in the suppression of democracy.

Not Event, Process

 I do not think there is a fix for the USA's gun problem.

Now, keep in mind that I fancy myself a bit of a wordsmith and I chose each word in that sentence with intentionality.  Luckily, in this age of wonders I can help you understand that which I write.  Let me hook you up with some punctuation and such.

I do not think there is "a" fix for the USA's gun problem. 

See the difference?

The USA has a history of gun violence.  We used increasingly sophisticated firearms to forcibly take the land from the indigenous peoples that lived here for millennia before the arrival of Europeans in any significant number.  We used firearms as a routine tool in the efforts to keep slaves from escaping.  Then we used firearms to intimidate the freed slaves.  When the folks that mined the coal and the gold and other things decided that they should be fairly paid for their efforts, the oligarchs of the day sent in guys with firearms to convince them to shut up.  They did the same when factory workers thought they should not have to work themselves to death for nearly nothing.

Though the ability to read was not necessarily ubiquitous, the so-called "pulp" novels lionized outlaws and lawmen in the old West through the telling of a mixture of truth and fiction that all but worshiped firearms competence.  The entertainment aspect of firearms did nothing but expand once video recording became possible.

The highest honors given in the military are generally awarded to those that did some incredibly brave shit while being shot or at least shot at OR for doing some incredibly brave shit while shooting or shooting at other humans.  Guys that have never even been to a big city, much less a different country can purchase all of the gear and guns that Hollywood tells us the truly bad dudes in the military use.  That's right, you too can be a Special Forces Operator without bothering to get in shape, join the military, learn military history or philosophy, learn hand-to-hand combat.  All you have to do is to get the right gun(s) and you are just as sexy as any other steely-eyed operator with a scruff beard and a thousand yard stare.

According to where in the nation you reside or visit, you could feasibly encounter venomous snakes, mountain lions, bobcats, black bear, grizzly bear, wolves, wild boar, coyotes, or a host of other wild animals.  Over the years and locales, some of those animals have been infected with rabies or hazardous parasites.  Firearms marketing and Hollywood have convinced us that a firearm is the only reasonable protection from any threat of that type.

Of course, the USA is rather famously a "melting pot".  There are people in the nation that don't look like you and weren't raised like you.  You simply have to have a gun to protect you from those who speak different languages or have a different accent or who eat spicier food than you enjoy (/sarcasm).

My descriptions of reasons to have/carry a firearm are not thought or intended to be comprehensive.  Rather they are meant to demonstrate my initial point.  If you were to ban firearms marketing or force Hollywood to cease glamorizing gun culture, it would not change history and it would not affect population numbers of fauna that have made their home here.

If we are to have a positive effect on gun culture, the changes would have to be incredibly broad.  Those changes would have to include things for which we have shown damn little appetite in this nation.  There would have to be an educational aspect to teach respect for the local wildlife.  There would have to be an economic aspect to get folks that make their money from the manufacture and sales of firearms onboard.  We would need coordinated and comprehensive cultural exposure programs so as to make foreign looking/sounding people less scary.  Songs of peace and love can't do it alone but they certainly should be in the mix.

There is not and cannot be "a" fix for our issues.  Like damn near everything else we deal with, gun control would have to be a process - NOT an event.  There is no switch to throw.  The goal is of sufficient importance to justify our continued efforts but, we need to temper our expectations of speed and effectiveness.  At the end of the day, there are a couple of things you need to be hyper aware of.  If someone says "All you need to do is this one thing" they are either lying, stupid or some combination of the two.  If someone says "There is nothing to be done, it is what it is" they most likely count the firearms industry as a source of their money or power and they do not want that to change.

Do not let perfect be the mortal enemy of significantly better.  Change is a constant in the universe.  We will change.  The only question is of who we let direct that change.  I think it is time that we let sanity drive for a bit.

The Questions We Don't Ask

 

Have you ever taken a ride in a car that you had not fully and completely inspected??  I certainly have.  As a matter of fact, I have taken a ride in such a vehicle when there were people in the vehicle that I did not know.  And it ain't just cars.  Trains, airplanes, boats and, when I was younger and more trusting, even amusement park rides are all things I have taken a ride in/on with no inspection nor necessarily knowing who owned the vehicle or how they made their money.

The truth is, most every youngster I encounter who is not obviously under guard has made some questionable life

choices.  I am not better.  Take for instance, what would have been my response if someone had offered young me

a free or cheap trip to someplace I really wanted to go and all I would have to do is spend 45 minutes or so

loading/unloading all those plain packages?

The reason we have DUE PROCESS is that we do not know what we do not know.  It is being reported that a

"Venezuelan drug boat with 11 people aboard" was bombed in international waters by the U.S. military.  There

was reportedly complete loss of life aboard the boat.

Now, I suppose there could actually be a comprehensive file somewhere on each and every one of the 11.  There

is a chance they were all actually gang members who all came from middle and upper middle-class families but

joined the gang because that is what they wanted.  It could well be that everyone on the Venezuelan coast knows

better than to take free rides on boats.

Or, did we bomb a boat before we got around to asking the questions that could reasonably suffice as due process??

As an aside, I am going to point out that I have never done cocaine or several other drugs.  I know for a fact that

I have been physically close to cocaine, heroin, and no few pills.  The thing is they just sat there.  The drugs didn't

jump me and hold me down while they migrated past the blood/brain barrier in some nefarious plan.  They just

sat there.  If someone wanted to experience whatever the drugs caused, they had to eat, smoke, inject or snort them.  

A quick search will not reveal 11 American drug users that were snuffed out to balance the books.  There is a reason

why economists speak of supply AND demand.  There is also a reason we (are supposed to) have DUE PROCESS. 

So we don't have to figure out the correct question to ask at every couldbe questionable situation.  

In a previous essay I asked a pertinent question related to the case of Breonna Taylor who was negligently

murdered in her sleep. The question I asked was  “What would a neighbor of yours have to do to justify the

authorities killing you?”  Today I am going to ask you, what act of a drug cartel would justify the U/S. government

killing you?  With sufficient due process that becomes an unnecessary question.  As a matter of fact, proper due

process would have eliminated an awful lot of recent past cultural issues in the USA.  You might not be concerned

yet because so far everyone denied due process looks different from you.  

Your turn’s comin’.  If you give them enough time, they will get around to denying due process to you too.

 

Guided Misstake

I don't know whether y'all are honestly clueless or simply overwhelmed with officious idiocy but it sure looks

like this sorta slipped between the cracks.

There is a reason why we call them "guided missiles".  There is a reason why we don't call them "freakin' huge

bullets".  Modern missiles, like damn near everything else, have computers in them.  Like airplanes, they have

control surfaces.  They connect to GPS or the alternatives. Through the use of the computers, communications

ability and control surfaces, the missiles can alter their course mid-flight.  They can correct for path drift, severe

weather, or whatever.

Now, don't get me wrong, modern day missiles are not perfect. Quite frequently some error factor is mentioned

in the specs. A missile might be accurate to 50 yards after flying 500 or more miles.  Given a well-chosen warhead,

being 50 yards away from a missile strike would not do you any favors.  At best you might die slowly enough to

understand that you are dying.  At relatively close range, the warhead could be left off and the missile would work

like a really big, seriously expensive, guided bullet.  In short, the missiles (for the most part) go where they are told

to go.

On the 21st of August - a mere six days after meeting with Felon47 to discuss peace - a NASDAQ listed American

company in Western Ukraine (the area farthermost away from Russia) that manufactures household goods - coffee

makers as a fer instance - was struck by two Russian cruise missiles.  It was not an accident.  A single strike might

be credibly blamed on equipment failure, jamming, operator error or an example of a one-in-a-million error rate. 

The 2nd strike eliminated all of that.  The 2nd strike made the message unambiguous.  On other days, properties

affiliated with EU and/or independent European nations that have no known military affiliation or use have been

struck - or more precisely, targeted by Russian missiles and drones.

These are not accidents.  The missiles are GUIDED as are the drones.  Along with the munitions, they are

delivering a message.  The only real question is "Who is the message for?"  Putin already knows he is Felon47's

Vladdy Daddy and has no need of messaging him.  The USA citizenry is the likely messaging target.  If we lose

faith that Ukraine can prevail, such intelligence and logistics support as we have sporadically provided would be

at serious risk.  A secondary message is for the European leaders.  Putin wants them to ignore their lying eyes and

believe him when he tells them how strong Russia is and that their nuke arsenal is ready to fly.  It is bullshit. 

Nukes need a lot of expensive maintenance, especially long range missiles.  The oligarchs signed the contracts to

do that work, took that money and did not do the maintenance.  I would suggest that a significantly higher than

acceptable percentage of those weapons cannot be immediately brought to bear and various situations make it

unlikely they could be made useful without several years worth of effort.  Among the clues that lead me to that

conclusion is the much higher than expected number of said oligarchs attempting to prove gravity to be more of a

suggestion than an actual law.

While it is not difficult to imagine Putin spitting in Felon47's face, Putin would probably not waste the effort.  The

missile attack clearly demonstrates that he gives not one shit what the felon thinks.  That is probably the message

most ought to read into Russia's actions.  They honestly do not care what he thinks.  That really ought to tell you

everything you need to know about this conflict.  

Uh, Yes, Slavery Was Very Bad

 I have a quick, easy and gawdawful expensive way to call Felon47's bluff.  

We need for a group or individual of means to offer Felon47 a billion dollars for him to submit to being a slave for a month to a Black person to be named later. (me, I would name me)  The conditions and treatment he would be subjected to would be restricted to historically verifiable things that happened to slaves.

However, I am nothing if not reasonable so, he would not have to endure the treatment that every slave got.  A committee consisting of me, my siblings and a few thousand of my closest friends would choose one slave with a verified recorded history and for his billion dollar payout, Felon47 would only have to endure a month of the treatment that one slave endured.

If by some odd chance he did not survive the month and could not collect the payout, the money would become a donation to organizations such as NAACP, sickle cell research, shelters for abused women, etc etc. 

I don't have the number for any billionaires in my contact list but I'm pretty sure the money could be raised.  So what say Bone Spurs Bitch, you mind us putting our money where your mouth is?  One month, one billion dollars and history will remember you for as long as the nation endures.

UPDATE:

In the interest of fairness and to avoid allegations of cherry picking, I and my crew will choose a hundred slaves with a verified recorded history instead of one. Once he agrees to the deal, his offspring will be presented with the one hundred slaves stories and they will have to choose which one Father Felon must endure for the month. If they cannot or will not choose in a week's time, then I will make the choice.

Am I not the epitome of fairness??

Shortest Essay Ever

 Land doesn't vote.  Land has no Constitutional protections.  Land has no representatives.  Human citizens are the one's with rights.  They are the one's whose red or blue self-identities matter.  When looking at an election map, only look at the citizens.

Land doesn't vote and has no Constitutional protections.  Any questions?

Balance The Right Thing

 A fairly standard understanding of human intelligence involves the ability to see relevant patterns in physical things or physical events or the things that lead to or surround those things or events.  I do not have an issue with this understanding.  However, I am leaning towards recognizing it as very incomplete.

In his recent essay Do The Right Thing  - Bill Foster correctly points out that immoral acts frequently lead to undesirable outcomes.  Those outcomes may be immediate but a lot of the time, perhaps the majority of times, the undesirable outcomes are years or decades down the road.  We have been doing this civilization thing long enough that seeing the patterns which predict those outcomes are seen, recognized for what they are, and even publicized.  They are then ignored by the majority of humanity.

That ignoring seems horribly counter-productive.  Why would we do that?

To me, the universe seems to be all about balance.  Forces must equal out or cancel out.  You have to have as much positive as you do negative to have a stable atom.  Chemical reactions are all about reestablishing equilibrium. Balance is key.  

It may not be obvious to most but I am thinking that human pattern recognition has a balancing phenomena too.  Unfortunately, it appears to be significantly less well acknowledged.  We should change that.  I propose that a standard measure of human stupidity should be whether one sees the connections between any two or more things or events.  The inability to see those connections limits our ability to understand our environment.  If we could see those connections and recognize them for what they are, we would have much less to fear from The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Stupid people are the ones that cannot see the connection between the prevalence of disease on other continents and public health here.  They can't see the connection between what gets put in the air and water and chronic health conditions.  They act as though there is no connection between adherence to the rule of law and the desirability as a tourist destination.  They are severely out of balance, they see patterns but not connections.

TBH I'm not sure this helps much.  In my experience ignorance can be addressed through education ("can" being the operative word).  Stupidity though, has no such clear fix.  Perhaps we could focus our efforts more where some level of success is actually possible.  Perhaps if we put more energy into explaining the connections we could turn a few lights on.  Clearly what we are doing now is not working.

The Future Is Not So Bright

 I am not the author of this piece.  Bill Foster (see the link) is however a veteran of the USN having retired after 21 (I think) years of active duty.  I think the piece is important and deserves as wide of an audience as possible.  I am including the full text as well as the link.  Share it if you feel the urge.

In the interest of full disclosure, Bill has published several of my essays to his Substack and in theory, will do more as I write more.  Enjoy.  Discuss.  Share.

Bill Foster's Substack - Read a lot. Don't die.

On a Friday last month, shortly after midnight, in a move that was not covered properly by the media, the House voted on a $9 billion recissions bill, clawing back money already appropriated by congress. This bill marks the end of congress as an institution. It is the straw that breaks the camel’s back in a decades-long process of congress giving up institutional power to the executive branch. Our constitution establishes three coequal branches, with checks and balances between them. However, as the executive as accrued more and more power to itself, the legislative branch has simply rolled over time and time again. There are no longer people in congress who protect the institution itself. Instead of a coequal branch of government, congress has become the prize won after elections. It is no longer a battlefield. Instead, it is the reward for the winning team.

The Founders referred to political parties as factions and thought they had designed a system of government in which the built-in separation of powers would subsume competition. Factions would not arise because the separation of powers would create factions in government. Here is the thing though: Parties are inevitable. Every single time someone says to me (and it is OFTEN), “Man, parties are destroying this country,” I ask them to name a democracy without one. Hell, even China has parties within the communist party. People get together and compromise and that makes parties. You can no more have a democracy without parties than you can have an ocean without water. You can do whatever you want to your government but as soon as you say, “I want a law that makes it illegal to lasso a fish [TN]” and someone says, “I’ll vote for that if you vote to make whale hunting illegal on Sundays [OH],” well, you have a political party. It is inevitable.

And parties are ESSENTIAL Society is made up of different people who want different things so the way you get laws is through compromise. Parties are organizations that compromise and provide information. As a voter, what do you really know about tariffs? Probably more than you did a year ago, but I doubt you can discuss the differences between the GATT and the WTO and how one led to the other, let alone what the proper tariff rate is for rivets. Can you discuss how chickens relate to light trucks via tariffs? Can you discuss how tariff engineering influenced Converse sneakers? Where is the Court of International Trade and what are its powers (as you can probably see, this is a future column)? That is the purpose of representative government. I get irritated at online arguments where someone says, “you don’t know this or that.” Of course I don’t. The modern world is complicated, and it takes years to know most things. We try to elect a representative and a party that we agree with.

Unfortunately, a multitude of trends are working against representative democracy right now, first among them gerrymandering. When a district is gerrymandered to make it safe, it becomes impossible for a centrist to become elected. Candidates in gerrymandered districts don’t have to compromise. Their fear is being primaried by a more extreme candidate. When candidates on both sides of any individual issue fear facing a primary election more than they fear not accomplishing something, compromise becomes impossible. This is a much more serious problem than is commonly acknowledged.

The more extreme candidates that gain office because of gerrymandering are also to blame for congress no longer being a coequal branch of government. Neither party works to protect the legitimacy of congress as an institution. This has been going on for decades. It has been going on since World War II, minus the brief post-Watergate respite. It is congress’s duty to resist power grabs by the executive branch. At key moments in history, bipartisan movements have arisen to maintain congress’s power. For example, after the Vietnam War, congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973. Since its passage, it has been weakened because congress has refused to assert its powers as every consecutive president has violated it. The Constitution clearly grants the power to declare war to congress. The nonsensical argument the executive tends to make is that bombing another country is not declaring war. Congress could easily clarify that if they wished by amending the War Powers Act but there is no interest in doing so because individual members of Congress prefer to take credit if it goes well and assign blame if it does not. No one is willing to stand up for the institution and the reason they are unwilling to do so is because they are mostly in safe districts and there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

The situation is that we have a Congress in which trust is difficult to attain because of partisanship. Partisanship gets increased because of gerrymandering and incumbency advantages. This is why Congress has not passed a budget since 1996. Did you know that? It has been THIRTY FUCKING YEARS since we have had a budget. Instead, Congress passes a set of continuing resolutions every year because the compromises necessary to make an actual budget are seemingly unattainable.

Now, on top of this situation, we have added recissions bills. The recissions process comes from the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. When Congress passes a bill authorizing spending, the executive must spend the funds. If they refuse to do so, that is called impoundment. Impoundment is illegal but the Trump Administration is doing it anyway, and as a result there are several lawsuits working their way through the courts. Under the ICA, the administration can impound funds legally by notifying Congress that they wish to impound the money within 45 days. This is called a recission and this is why they had to wait till midnight to pass the bill as that was the deadline.

The bill cancelled $9 billion in funding for USAID, public broadcasting, various UN health agencies, the UN human rights council and refugee assistance. Now, what I have written so far is bad enough, but it is important to look at this in context. This administration has impounded many separate sets of funds for many months. It is important to look at how illegal this is. Congress appropriates money and the executive spends it. That’s it. If the administration refuses to spend the money, they are usurping the power of congress, which is a major violation of the constitution. Congress was not notified within 45 days about the funds in the recissions bill but only after many months. All of this is part of a pattern of the administration using a variety of illegal means to not expend appropriated funds for activities it doesn’t approve of.

This recissions bill is the largest ever passed, the first since 1999 and only the second since 1974. It fundamentally rearranges Congress. This is because budget negotiations are based on compromise. Let us say that one party wants increased defense spending and the other party wants increased spending for health care. They trade so they each get what they want. But now, the party that wants to increase defense spending can agree to the health care spending and then just pass a recissions bill to impound the health care money. You can make whatever compromise you want to get 60 votes, then pass a recissions bill and take it back with only a fifty-one-vote majority. This is literally the last straw, and I imagine that this is going to break the appropriations process and that we are headed for a major fiscal process as it is impossible to come to a compromise when the other side has a tool like this and has shown the willingness to use it in an abusive manner.

The only question now is how the Democrats will respond. We are headed for a couple different debt ceiling and budget showdowns, and the Republicans are not going to give. They will threaten a US default, which could have unimaginable costs, a 2008 style crash. However, if they are willing to compromise, how can they be trusted with recissions on the table? The Republicans are going to be terrorists threatening to shoot the hostages and, unfortunately, I don’t see any way out of the situation except to let them do so and hope the public recognizes who is actually at fault, just like they recognize who is at fault in most of Trump’s …. Um …. Shit …. We’re screwed.