America the Fun

 

Why can't our Donkey & Elephant be as fun as these guys?         

     Why do these private entities get to consider themselves statesmen and run the country?  Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and their status interferes with the checks and balances of the Constitution.                  
                                                            

Who's Paying?

 

     Elon Mu$k is insistent that the population should keep growing, not stabilize or shrink.  Many people had called for population control for environmental reasons. Mu$k wants growth for continued economic expan$ion.

     If the population expands, there will be more children born who will have a lifetime of needs. Yes, they will also be con$umer$, but some will need significant social supports.

     Also, if there are more consumers, there will be more environmental impacts.

     If Mu$k wants this expansion, then he needs to be the billionaire leading the charge to raise marginal taxes* on the wealthy.  These tax revenues will provide more services for those born with more needs and will pay for environmental clean-ups.  Perhaps it could also provide more daycare and early childhood education free to more people (via vouchers, of course, so it wouldn't involve Mu$k indoctrination).

    Instead, billionaire$ like him are fine with increa$ing the gap between rich and poor. But a larger population gives him more people from which to increa$e his own wealth.  He and other billionaire$ need to pay higher marginal taxe$ on their upper earning$.

*Marginal taxes:  taxes charged only on income above a certain level or "margin."  When people talk about charging higher taxes on the rich (this blog repeatedly calls for a 42% upper income marginal level), that percentage (i.e. 42%) is not taxed on the person's entire income, but only on amounts above a certain level, say, $500,000 or $1 million.

From Sea to Dark Dead Sea

 

[This poem is about the modern American mindset and its influence upon the Church. It does not reflect a crushing depression on the part of the poetess. Cleary, this is not a new line of thought.]

The Jordan in but never out,
So knowledge takes in me such route
In brackish waters to brood about
The suppression of true freedom's shout---
The Dead Sea.

At lowest point, then, here I sit.
The deepest depression of deep'ning rift.
The deep'ning gloom---and shall it lift?
Integrity's shroud, hides Holy Writ. . .
Apathy.

As just-hatched bird by Nature bred
Lives just to squawk and so be fed
I now by histr'y do so defend
By justified means I reach this end:
The Bland Me.

I lived through day, I lived through night;
I lived through love, I lived through fright;
I turned inside to put to flight
The hopeless failures from crueler sight:
The Dead Me.

Whether by mindless shallowness
Or endless, stale analysis,
In Sophist and in Hedonist
The fear of Feeling here exists:
The fear "to be."

On me they float but can't dive in:
Cannot drown but cannot swim.
Advance in skills. . .Retreat within. . .
A merry-go-round with fatal spin. . .
Technology?!?!

Oh, to be that other sea,
Parted to let young Israel free,
Closed to drown out cruelty,
Fluid with fresh-faced vitality:
The Red Sea!!!

-----C. Marie Byars, 1987

Let Freedom Ring

Downfall of Our Forbears

Pathways

Our society is a little crazy right now.  The internet makes it worse.  Things come across as if our whole society is SJW's (Social Justice Warriors) vs. neo-chauvinists; no gun restrictions at all vs. total banning of guns; unrestricted capitalism vs. full socialism; MAGA vs. laissez faire belief systems; hard core Christian evangelicals vs. atheists; etc., etc. When you get people talking, get them away from labels, there's still a lot of overlap in the directions Americans think this country should go.  There need to be methods to support the consensus areas.

Truman's Swans

  

     In the early months of 2024, FX generated a lot of buzz about its Season 2 series of The Feud.  The season focused on Truman Capote's "swans."

     But decades before the FX program, even before the real Truman Capote was famous, there were the original Truman's swans.   Harry Truman loved his swans.  Biographies will say that Harry had no middle name, just the letter "S" to honor his grandfathers.  In reality, the "S" stood for "Swans", his mother's great love.  In 1948, he even threw a Black & White Valentine's Day Ball for them in the White House.

     The swans were a jealous bevy.  They turned on each other and became aggressive.

     They even started attacking Truman and the iconic Presidential Desk.  They had to go.

     Truman got his revenge.  He sent them to the Kansas City (Missouri) Zoo.  Their descendants are still annoyed by loud humans and their offspring today.  

Beyond Dreaming

 

• This MLK Day, how about we do something more than dream it?  How about we live it?  --Marie Byars

Downfall of Our Forebearers

 

    The U.S. Founding Fathers modeled our Constitution heavily on the old Roman Republic.  The Republic preceded the Empire (the downfall of which a lot of modern thinkers want to use as a comparison to our times).  

     The Republic lasted from 506 BC to 27 BC, whereas the Empire went from 27 BC to "kind of" 476 AD.  (I say "kind of" because the first Germanic invasion didn't completely collapse the Roman system.  The invading Germans wanted to live as Romans.  It wasn't until a few invasions later, after the Lombard invasion of 568, that an invading Germanic people began dismantling the Roman system.)  

     Let's do the math on this.  The Roman Republic lasted 479 years.  Not a bad run for the first attempt at a democratic republic.  (Some Greek city-states had run smaller direct democracies for a while, but they didn't have the same lasting power.)  

     The Empire lasted variously 503 years, if counting to the first invasion, or up to about 600 years, if counting up until the Lombard dismantling of legal and structural systems.  Although the Empire lasted longer, it was a stinking, rotting corpse near the end, and, in fact, through other portions of its existence.  (There was a half-hearted attempt after Emperor Caligula to return to a republic, but it didn't amount to much.)  The Empire was propped up by slavery and, for a while, by constant absorption of new lands through conquest.  It was kind of a weird "pyramid system", relying on conquest (rather than drawing on creating new investors to prop up old ones, as do investment pyramid schemes)--  the needs in newly conquered territories would eventually be propped up, in some ways, by what was conquered after that.

     The Pax Romana created a system of relative peace and travel that allowed Christianity to take hold (accounting for the human rather than divine factors).   Off and on over time, some scholars have blamed these very Christians for the downfall of the Empire.  The reasons are too complicated to blame Christians.  Its time had come, like those banks that are propped up too long and called "too big to fail."   (I will agree that Emperor Theodosius [r. 379-395 AD], the one who made Christianity the official religion of the Empire, was a factor in the Empire falling.  He was a lousy emperor at several levels.  His time also saw Christians turning around and persecuting pagans.)  I think it's too much of a "parlor game" trying to find parallel causes of the Empire falling and what's happening in modern American society.  Since we were based on the Republic, that's where we need to go for answers.

     The Roman Republic destroyed itself, largely, by letting itself fall into the traps of a two-party political system. The parties didn't line up exactly along the lines that ours do, but there are some parallels.  Overall, the take-away is that such a system creates a tug-of-war.  It also leads to easier corruption because it's easier to pick a side and practice bribery to get power.  With multiple parties and multiple thought streams accounted for, it's a little harder to do this.  Contrary to how "originalists" operate now days, the Roman Republic was willing to adapt itself to keep functioning.  They got nearly 500 years out of their system. We have insanity brewing, and we haven't even made it to 250 years.

     The Roman historian Sallust (@85-35 BC) suggested the conquests were a factor in the Republic's downfall.  The influx of money from newly conquered territories was a factor. "Strongmen" arose, lusting for money and for power.  Violence began to replace voting.

Cicero Denounces Cataline  --Cesare Maccari, 1889

     Our Founding Fathers were pretty smart men, overall.  (As an aside, I disagree theologically with many of them because, counter to what some of my fellow believers say, they were not all Christian.  A lot of the prominent thinkers were Deists or proto-Unitarians, meaning they didn't believe in a Trinity.  But they were, seemingly, a pretty intelligent bunch.)  These men were trying to create a stronger system to replace the loose Articles of Confederation from right after the Revolutionary War. That weak, decentralized system left our new nation very vulnerable in several aspects, including militarily and economically.

     The Fathers were cautious and wanted a sensible balance between centralized powers, the rights of states and the rights of individuals (at least White landowning men).  They looked to the Republic.  Strangely, they did not take into enough account how partisanship had brought down the Republic. 

     They also did not take into account the politics in Great Britain at the time, which was already a constitutional monarchy with a sitting Parliament.  (The words directed at George III in the Declaration of Independence should more properly have been directed at Parliament.)  England had long used a "first-past-the-post" system, meaning the person who got the most votes (even if it were a "plurality" and not a "majority") won the race. England was also developing tug-of-wars between Tories and Whigs at that time.  The UK is largely a two-party system (allegedly), though other parties exist in name. With how badly Labour has conducted itself, it's practically a one-party system right now.  The Tories (Conservatives) are managing things so badly, though, that it remains to be seen what happens there.

     George Washington's exit speech when ending his presidency (see elsewhere in this blog, under the "politics" or "moderation" labels) warned strongly against developing a two-party system.  He warned it would have people at each other's throats.  He warned that it left the door open to foreign intervention in our political system, notably through bribery.

     So why couldn't the Fathers have taken some additional steps to address elections and parties in the Constitution? Some say there is no way to address this in such a document.   Yes, there were several ways. They could have pondered harder since they were intelligent and dedicated to the survival of our republic. They could have mandated that political parties not be private entities. They could have stipulated that, if parties were to form, there would be no less than three and no more than five at any one time.  If they had thought hard enough, they could have considered the option of required run-offs, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system.  After all, with the electoral college system, there were times that run-offs happened in the House of Representatives to choose the President in the early days.

     Hopefully our republic can course correct in ways the Roman Republic did not.

My Type of Patriotism

For this 4th of July, this picture describes my patriotism:

#politics

More Groucho Marx Quotes

 

For your April Fool's enjoyment:  

• The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.  If you can fake that, you've got it made.
• I must confess, I was born at a very early age.
• I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.
• Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
• I intend to live forever or die trying.
• A hospital bed is a parked taxi with the meter running. 
• All people are born alike-- except Republicans and Democrats.
• Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
• A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. 
• She got her looks from her father.  He's a plastic surgeon.
• Either he's dead, or my watch has stopped. 
• Why, a four-year-old child could understand this.  Run out and find me a four-year-old child:  I can't make head nor tail out of it.
• Before I speak, I have something to say. 
• Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you. 
• Humor is reason gone mad.   --Groucho Marx 

12 Days of Christmas* Math

If you got everything listed in the carol "The 12 Days of Christmas", here is what you would end up with:

12 partridges (in either one or 12 trees!)

22 turtledoves

30 French hens

36 calling birds

40 golden rings

42 geese a-laying  (and, at some point, all those goose eggs!)

42 swans a-swimming

40 maids a-milking (it's not even legal to give people as gifts; it never was ethical, even when legal!)

36 ladies dancing

30 lords a-leaping

22 pipers piping (oh, the noise if they're all bagpipers! 

12 drummers drumming (add this to the pipers and, oh, what noise on Day 12!)

[There are formulae for figuring total numbers of gifts, also.]

You will need to sell the golden rings to clean up the bird mess!

*The 12 Days of Christmas are NOT before Christmas, as a lead-up to them. Rather, they go from December 25th to Twelfth Night, January 5th. The next day, January 6th, is Epiphany, commemorating the coming of the Wise Men (before it commemorated the coming of other people to Washington, D.C. in 2021 😒).  [You can find several accounts on-line about how it was supposedly a way to secretly communicate Roman Catholic doctrines during Tudor Anglican times.]

Patriot of Another Country

 
    July, of course, celebrates American Independence Day.  Demonstrations of patriotism will abound.  If you wish to see old July 4th related posts on this blog, please choose the "Fourth of July", "patriotism", or "politics" links on the left sidebar (on the desktop version).

     This July, the blog is looking at quotes from a German patriot, Chancellor Otto von Bismark of the old German Empire.  I never used to seek out Bismark quotes because I thought his militarism (which united the Germans under the Prussians) was a big factor in the long-term problems Germany created.   

Caricature of Bismark by William Stolz, d. 1893 (Public Domain)

     However, it turns out there was far more to Bismark than militarism.  Here are some interesting quotes from him:

• That which is imposing here on earth has always something of the quality of the fallen angel who is beautiful but without peace, great in his conceptions and exertions but without success, proud and lonely. 
• Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.
•  Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.
•  What we learn from History is that no one learns from History.
•  A really great man is known by three signs-generosity in the design, humanity in the execution, moderation in success.
•  Man cannot control the current of events. he can only float with them and steer.
•  The life of a man is like a game of chess, which he plays according to his art.
•  Life is like being at the dentist. You always think that the worst is still to come, and yet it is over already.
•  A bad plan that is well executed will yield much better results than a good plan that is poorly executed.
•  Love is blind; friendship tries not to notice.
•  Hounds follow those who feed them.
•  I have never lived on principles. When I have had to act, I never first asked myself on what principles I was going to act, but I went at it and did what I thought fit. I have often reproached myself for my want of principle.
•  When you want to fool the world, tell the truth.
•  People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a hunt.
•  Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.
•  Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war. 
• A generation that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that deals one.
•  A little caution outflanks a large cavalry.
•  Woe to the leader whose arguments at the end of a war are not as plausible as they were at the beginning.
•  Show me an objective worthy of war and I will go along with you.
•  You can do everything with bayonets, but you are not able to sit on them.

                                                               --Otto von Bismark

       Otto von Bismarck in Retirement, 1881
(Public Domain)

What the Heck?

 

     I've been trying to tell people (i.e. Americans I know) that losing the "Center" in our political representation was going to be a disaster.  We're tearing ourselves apart and heading towards the ridiculous.  Soon it will be both ridiculous AND ignorant!

Yeats "The Second Coming"

More Political Choices

    

     The 20th Century was, in many ways, a tug of war between far right (often fascist) and far left (communist/extreme socialist) movements in many parts of the world.  Each of these movements would justify what they did, saying "At least, I'm not those guys..."  "We just do what we do to keep those guys at bay..."

      Guess what?  They're both bad; they're both really bad. They both lead to autocracy.  Once autocracy is in place, it all becomes about propping up the autocrat's ego and/or greed.  Whatever the people who put the autocrat in place wanted, that fades in light of the autocrat keeping his position, no matter what.  Beware-- what you thought you'd get by supporting an autocrat will fail.              

 

The old adage that right & left bend around and meet in some weird spot.  Here it's backwards, in the past.  The center goes forward.

       As we move into the 21st century, this tug-of-war seems very active in the U.S.  If you listen closely to the loudest of the voices, they seem perfectly willing to cave in to autocracy to get what they want.  

      There are other combinations than hard right and hard left.   

      Besides the absolute Center, there are really 4 dimensions that combine differently in different voters:  liberal on social matters, liberal on economic matters, conservative on social matters, and conservative on economic matters.  

     One of these voices that truly exists but is almost completely unrepresented is the voice that is conservative on social matters (or at least wants to ensure that religious conservatives have an on-going place in society), yet economically liberal (not necessarily fully socialist; just more progressive taxes).   Some people who don't understand this position assume that it would be an autocratic one.  Not necessarily.  The positions defined as "Christian Democratic Parties" in much of Europe fall into this perspective.  These parties do not seek to exclude people who are socially liberal from the society nor to deny their rights. They just want to ensure that people who practice traditional or conservative religions (in ways where they are not discriminating again others in society) are not ostracized from society for their beliefs.  In addition, many European countries that are otherwise socially liberal do not have free and unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy.  Some Americans who believe in this combination feel that better support for workers is a family matter (supporting something that's socially conservative); it might also reduce abortions. 

     The economically conservative yet socially liberal position is not officially represented by either major political party but is hugely represented in influence across society.  They are loosely defined as the "Libertarians."  This is the position a lot of businesses and business leaders like.  If you listen closely to what a lot of the media says about "moderates" they favor, they hold this position.  A fair amount of the Hollywood crowd is in this camp.  "Be nice to everyone on the surface.  But don't let everyone know that it's still much easier for the rich to get richer than people on lower rungs to climb any higher."

     The right & left are getting very polarized socially.  The economic area has many centrist thinkers.  Some of the center has shifted into liberal economic territory during the 45th presidential administration.  But the economic center is still larger than the economic left.  This 'territory', especially slightly left of center, is similar to the propositions discussed in the paragraph on European Christian Democrats.  This would be more of a repeal of Reaganomics, improving educational & training opportunities, improving a safety net for workers or the truly disabled, improving public works projects (some of which would also improve the environment). Price controls would not be a factor (except possibly in the area of medicine, such as prescription medicines and insurance costs); neither would be taking over industries, etc.  Private enterprise would continue.

     Though the Right & Left are becoming more polarized on social issues, this does not mean that the numbers are equal.  It does appear the Religious Right is shrinking and is maintaining its political clout is somewhat artificial ways. This is not helpful for anyone in the long term.

     If we had better representation, it would take the force of one vs. the other away.  It would be less likely that an eventual "victor" would pull everyone off the cliff with a huge tug.  We could get some of this through things like rank-choice voting and fully open primaries.

Culture Wars

 

 "I think there’s an adrenaline rush or dopamine hit from engaging in full-fledged culture wars that otherwise thoughtful souls on both sides of the political spectrum can find intoxicating. For some, life is worth living only when ‘the soul of America’ is at stake. So the soul of America is ALWAYS at stake."  

 --Phil Vischer, creator of the Christian cartoon series VeggieTales, on evangelical Eric Metaxas, whom he once employed as a writer.  

Exceptional?

 What's the point in arguing about the term "American exceptionalism?" We're a nation of imperfect people, founded on some amazing ideas of a democratic republic, enshrined in our Constitution. We've done some very noteworthy things; we've done some things that were stupid and even cruel. Accepting all these facets doesn't make us [1] less American, nor [2] less willing to accept or work on problematic parts of our past. Can we unify on this, too?   --Marie Byars

Try a New Tool

 

It's well past time for the "sides" [mostly referring to the culture wars] to think they can use the political system as a sledgehammer to "smash" their opponents into oblivion.  

No one's going anywhere, folks.  You're wasting a lot of energy, a lot of political capital, and a lot of your ability to try persuasion, instead.  --Marie Byars

Pro-Life Bona Fides

Being pro-life, really being pro-life, means realizing you wanted these lives in the world when you see disagreeable toddlers in the grocery store or are seated near crying children on a plane.  Oh, and blaming it on bad parenting (as in "I'm pro-life, and the mother should definitely have had these children, but they're only being awful because she's a bad parent") doesn't count.  It also may not be true. 

Being pro-life isn't easy for anyone.  It's not easy for the mother who bore children at times that weren't convenient for her. But it's also not easy on the rest of society.  If you're Christian and pro-life, it doesn't fit the full Biblical ethic to make it solely "that woman's problem."  Be pro-life in the best sense of the word, and embrace the messiness that comes from children being in the world!

Hard But Worth It

An old sketch of mine.

Integrity is not easy. But it's important, and it's worth it.

The Second Coming

[A poem for our times---unfortunately]

 

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.

William Butler Yeats, 1865-1939

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?

--William Butler Yeats, 1919  (aftermath of WW I; beginning of Irish War of Independence; pregnant wife ill from 'flu pandemic)

*Widening gyre:  cycles or circular motions; Yeats was referring to his belief in cycles of history.   He felt that an orderly one that came with the birth of Christ was about to give way to chaos. [This writer, looking at history, would not agree it had been all that orderly since Christ's birth.] The times just after First World War, with the concurrent 'flu pandemic, brought a lot of "apocalyptic" thinking about. The devastation of those two events was enormous.  

**"The center cannot hold" is taken by some political scientists or laymen to suggest that a third, centrist party cannot take off in places like the United States.   The touchstone for the metaphor may actually be military:  The center of a battle line being broken through.  It may also be Yeats' sense that society's ties to religion or other traditional cultures or worldviews are being torn apart.  In this sense, it would be things that "center people" rather than a Centrist view.
    However, in our current tribalistic political times, it's sad thing that a Center once created by compromise cannot be heard.  It's not totally gone (though it seems more and more people are taking sides, and the rude voices try to drown the Center from both sides), but it doesn't have voice in our current society.  Note, also, Yeats saying the worse are "full of passionate intensity."
     (I would argue that our "First past the post" election system, the winner takes all idea, is a big part of the problem.  With ranked choice voting, more people risk voting for others in multi-party systems, not feeling they're going to "throw the vote" to the candidate they really DON'T like. They put that person 2nd, and if their preferred candidate is taken out of competition, their #2 vote still counts for something.  And it can go beyond #2, as far down as ranking is deemed feasible.)

***Spiritus Mundi: spirit of the world; the collective spirit of humankind.  According to Yeats, it is a mystical concept, ''a universal memory and a 'muse' of sorts that provides inspiration to the poet or write."

****Apparently the AntiChrist, trying to mock and mimic Christ with its birth in a figurative Bethlehem.  Interesting, how is it slouching before birth?  Is this an accidental oversight?  Or is this a description of something so horrific it forces whatever its maternal creation is to slouch off in an evil journey before birth that mocks the holy one of Mary (pregnant with Jesus) and Joseph?  [Thoughts of Voldemort in Harry Potter, before he gets his body back. come to mind.  Also, a shadowy Tash overtaking Narnia in the last of the Chronicles of Narnia.]