Ted Cruz Encounters Data and Loses

In a debate with a retired admiral about climate change, Ted Cruz first labeled adherents to climate-change data “alarmists,” attempting to distract with the old straw-person/begging the question combo, and then cherry-picks the data. Unfortunately he was arguing with someone who knew the climate-change data and about all of the cherries, not just some. A link to a video snippet of the debate:

Cruz vs. Data

Advertisements

Some New Books About Racism & White Supremacy

We who are appalled and terrified by the election of Trump have our various preferences for helping to explain the catastrophe–and explaining is about all most of us believe we can do about the situation. In our more pessimistic moods, we wonder whether Mueller’s investigation or “the resistance” will have any effect, and whether the necessary effect–removal from office–will occur in time.  With the tacit approval of Congress, the U.S. has delivered the executive branch to insane, White Supremacist authoritarianism.

The locus I isolate to explain Trump’s ghastly rise is White Supremacy. I don’t prefer it to the exclusion of other explanations, but I do think that, without the continuing, intractable presence of White Supremacy in the U.S., there would be no Trump.  It is the link between the different classes and genders of white Americans who voted for Trump, it is the cornerstone of the Republicans’ base, and it is something Democrats address ineffectually, at best.  And in spite of the rationalizations about the white working class, (for example), some data suggest that racism far outweighed class and economic considerations with regard to the way the vote went.  A recent piece in the Nation referenced this data:

Nation article

As we wait to see what further hell Trump, Bolton, and the Republicans will inflict, we might try further to understand, if not disable or eradicate, White Supremacy–that homicidal, suicidal force that’s been a part of the American colonies and the United States from the get-go.  Some titles, then:

Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race, by Reni Edo-Lodge, Bloomsbury Books. I’m a White man who teaches African American Studies, and I can relate in the sense that there seems little point in trying to educate white Americans who don’t already “get it” about White Supremacy. Too many of them root their identity in it, I often think (and this includes many academics), to make attempts at persuasion anything but a waste of time.

Stamped from the Beginning: the Definitive History of Racist Ideas, by Ibram X. Kendi. Nation Books.  A good companion to The History of White People, by Nell Irvin Painter, which with superb scholarship tells the tale of the invention of Whiteness and White Supremacy during, ironically, the Enlightenment, and of how White Supremacy has been perpetuated mercilessly.

White Rage: the Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide, by Carol Anderson. Bloomsbury Books USA.  If we removed rage and a White Supremacist’s view of the world from Trump’s personality, what would remain?

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, by Richard Rothstein.  Liveright.

The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, by David R. Roediger. Verso.

Good White People:The Problem With Middle-Class White Anti-Racism, by Shannon Sullivan. SUNY Press.

Government by Madness

Because the GOP is rooted in the Southern Strategy, reactionary Christianity, opposition to science (the human genome, global warming, economic data, etc.), trickle-down economics (which even The Economist, beacon of capitalism, mocks), White Supremacy (which informed the GOP reaction to a Black president and the election of Dr. Strangelove and continues to affect deeply the justice system), opposition to feminism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, opposition to learning (“Goddamn those ‘liberal professors’), and dedication to impracticality (look what they’re trying to do to healthcare systems), it must now reign through madness, so that even those who are probably rational must embrace a widespread denial of how things are and a nihilistic approach to how things probably ought to be.

Meanwhile, the Democrats orbit the insane GOP world like a timid moon, indulging in “explanation porn,” playing defense always, and forgetting to win elections while submitting colleagues to purity tests of one kind or another.

“Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

Rhetoric Takes Another Beating in the Gun-Control Debate

The murders in Newtown, CT, seem to have correlated to a shift in attitudes toward attempts to “control” guns. They also seem to have hardened views to the extent reasoning has taken a beating.

By “controlling” guns, we can limit gun-violence; that is the implicit logic of those wanting new laws and wanting old laws enforced. It’s hard to imagine enough evidence to support this implicit logic, but at the same time, most of the gun-control advocates admit that they are trying to do “something” in the wake of the murders. Try a lot of things and see what, if anything, works: that position seems reasonable, even if people don’t agree with it.

The gun-control purists seem to make the following mistakes in reasoning:

1. Any limitations on how guns are purchased, which guns are purchased, and how ammunition is purchased translates into a confiscation of all guns. Gun control = gun-ban. In reality, all the measures proposed don’t threaten the possession of hand-guns or shot-guns for self-defense or the possession of rifles and shot-guns for hunting.

2. Any support for any new laws is un-Constitutional. Even Ed Meese jumped into this mess by saying “it” (any executive order related to guns) would be un-Constitutional. He’s a fortune-teller!

3. The Constitution guarantees the right to own fire-arms. This view ignores the phrase “a well-regulated militia. It also ignores all the advances in technology regarding “arms.” Let’s start here: should adults have the right to own hand-held rocket-launchers? How about we say, “No”? Okay, then from that point, let’s walk back toward hand-guns and shotguns. Bazooka? No. Soon, of course, we’ll walk back to assault-rifles. Should we have the right to possess them? I think it’s a reasonable question to ask. Purists think it translates into banning guns altogether.

4. A proliferation of guns and of people (in public places) with guns will cut down on violence. For example, teachers should pack heat in the classroom. Regarding the specific example, I’m thinking “No” because I think of all that could go wrong. Regarding the larger remedy: It seems every bit as shaky, if not more so, than the assumption that new gun-laws will reduce gun-violence.

The only thing I know for sure about the current debate is that it won’t be a debate, per se. It will be a campaign of slogans and fallacies, rather like every other important national “debate” we now have. One effect of global warming seems to be the flooding of middle-ground.

The GOP Adjustment as Rhetorical Problem

Adapt or wither: that seems to be one major piece of advice the GOP is receiving. However, I did hear at least one “progressive” radio-host advise, “Please don’t adapt!”

Adapt to what? Allegedly, changing demographics, contrary attitudes toward some social issues, and the perception that the GOP chiefly represents “wealthy interests.”

If the problem(s) were seen in rhetorical, not strictly political terms, I might advise the following:

1. Define the “immigration problem” as “an immigration problem”–not as a problem of race and not as a threat to “culture.” If you think immigration-processes should be more orderly and consistent, then work with Democrats to make them so. Or don’t adapt and keep making the issue more about race and culture, and keep intimating that Latinos are “taking our jobs.”

2. Don’t swallow this business about “a changing America” whole. African Americans have made up 10-12 % of the population for a very long time. This isn’t a change. They vote largely Democratic because you, GOP, have basically pushed them to do so and because you have treated the first Black president like dirt. You can still play traditional rough politics and treat him with respect.

And if I were you, I’d have somebody confess that the Southern Strategy has always been about race, and I’d have the official confessor apologize.

3. When it comes to politics and governing, stop defining “gay marriage” as a religious issue. Treat it as a religious issue in your respective religions. If your church doesn’t want to host gay marriages, then it need not do so, obviously. But otherwise marriage is a civil matter, even if some couples–gay and straight–behave uncivilly after they get married. The U.S. isn’t a theocracy. I’ve met Tea Party people who agree with me on this, by the way.

4. Stop running the trickle-down con. People are catching on that’s it complete economic bullshit. More than that, there’s concrete evidence from Clinton’s 8 years that modestly raising taxes on the wealthiest helped the economy without hurting (as if!) the wealthy. Romney tried to run the Reagan con again, and enough people didn’t go for it (apparently) for you/him to win. It’s a pathos-move that’s quit working, and it never made logos-sense.

5. Look, we all know all politicians have to be data-deniers sometimes. Politicians lie. They deceive. But when it comes to data about evolution, global warming, dirty water, dirty air, and running out of fossil fuels, you all need to grow up.

6. When both you and the Democrats discuss budgetary issues and government-intrusion issues, you have to stop pretending the military is beyond enormous. It’s a data-thing. Empiricism.

7. If the question of abortion were as simple as you want to make it, a lot more people would agree with you now. If the question weren’t in large measure about women and their right to control what happens to their bodies, a lot more people would agree with you know. If you really want fewer abortions, support education and contraception. Or: don’t adapt.

Or–don’t adapt, as your progressive “friend” suggested.

How to Freak Out Politicians: Agree

Imagine, citizens, if there were a vast bi-wing and head-to-tail conspiracy among us to agree on a few things that politicians hope and pray we never agree on. To induce us to watch them, give them money, and vote for them, politicians need there to be at least the appearance of difference.

True, some politicians go out of their way(s) to convince us, that, all right, you really are different, Pal, and more is the pity: Akin in Missouri. Paul Rand Ryan. Roseanne Barr (she ran for governor).

Nonetheless, please allow me to forge on in this fantasy-of-agreement by listing some things on which we could agree if we just shifted our angles of perception slightly.

1. “Gay marriage,” so called. Let’s assume you oppose two gay persons’ being able to marry. You do so for religious reasons. Let us then assume that two gay persons get married and live in some part of your city. You will never see them, or, if you do, you won’t know they’re married. At the same time, they will have no effect on your religious beliefs, nor will the State, which may not, according to the Constitution, interfere with your place of worship. They will have no effect on your marriage, if you are married. You don’t have to approve of gay marriage, and you may oppose it in your church. You’ll never have to attend a gay marriage, nor will a married gay couple ever visit your church or come to your home. Now imagine that you regularly drive on a section of Interstate highway that is in terrible shape. Wouldn’t you rather that your representative(s) get that thing fixed than touching your “gay-marriage” nerve so they can get money out of you?

2. The deficit. I don’t know anyone in our wing-to-wing conspiracy who doesn’t want this thing fixed. The GOP will have you believe that President Obama is a profligate liberal, and the DEMS will have you believe that the GOP wants to push old women off cliffs. All of that is pure distraction. Obama is prudent to the point of being an Eisenhower Republican, and most of the GOP wants to fix the thing. What if we all agreed that we wanted some prudent cuts in federal spending, some mild increases in revenue (from the upper-brackets), and some practical, non-ideological adjustments to Social Security and Medicare? I’m talking about the kind of pragmatic approach to a budget that you and I have to practice every day in our lives. And what if we all “said” to our representatives: get it done.

3. Global warming. I suggest that if we accept scientific conclusions on other settled matters (smoking increases the likelihood of getting lung cancer), that we should accept the conclusions about global warming and humans’ contribution to it. If you can’t go so far as the latter (humans’ role it in), you can still probably agree that certain steps need to be taken. If you live in farm country, you need the government to help deal with a greater likelihood of droughts and flash-bloods. If you live in the path of hurricanes, you’re going to need more infrastructure, an efficient and effective FEMA, and so on. People are now building machines to suck the carbon out of the air. It doesn’t matter what their politics are. Also, we know we’re running of of oil, so it’s in all our interests to cultivate others sources. Again, our message should be, across the board, get it done.

Maybe you can think of additional and/or better examples of these. Meeting places. Common ground. Issues we can work out, problems we can define differently.

But mainly, just think of the extent to which the politicians would freak out, and just think how much they have it coming.

Is Republican Atavism Becoming a Liability?

Because Republicans seem almost always to know how to beat the Dems, I feel as though the safe answer to this question is “No.” After all, until the Southern Strategy stops working in presidential elections, etc., one would be rash to suggest that atavism of the racist kind were becoming a liability.

That said, please consider this quotation from Rick Santorum, from a TV interview in the past 48 hours or so:

“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat.”

Obviously, he’s arguing against placing women in combat-situations. Problem: In most war-related deployments, all women and men are already in potential combat-situations. One may be driving a supply-truck in a convoy and get attacked. Is there any evidence that women, because they are women, are performing poorly in the military? I haven’t seen any. In other words: moot point?

Second, such an observation belongs to a broader pattern of Santoromesque views on gender and sexuality: If a woman gets pregnant, no matter the circumstances, she must give birth–even to the extent of being forced to give birth. Two gay or lesbian adults who want to get married must be prevented from doing so . . . because . . . because . . . ? Because Rick’s a conservative Catholic, even though the Constitution isn’t. Rick, go to Mass, but when campaigning, please talk about the economy, nuclear weapons, health-care, foreign policy, global warming (yes, it’s real), clean water, the public infrastructure, and so on.

Third, something may be unique or not. There are no degrees of uniqueness. Fourth, when did “camaraderie” become a problem in the military?

Fifth, all of this seems like tired material (“moot point”). The U.S. is clearly getting more and more comfortable with “gay marriage,” and why wouldn’t it? Who in the hell cares what sexuality the married couple down the street is? They do, of course, but aside from that, why spend any time worrying about it or making “gay marriage” illegal or talking about it in a presidential race? Why not merely ask to borrow their lawn-mower? Rick’s entitled to his personal view on the matter, but that’s it.

Unencumbered once again by data, I hesitantly hereby opine that old-time GOP rhetoric like this–designed to pump up the bass on the base, I gather–seems to be getting much less effective.

But we’ll see. Never underestimate that base, and never overestimate the Dems. Santorum strikes me as dim, boring, and reactionary, in no particular order. But I’m just one data-free person, although not unique.

%d bloggers like this: