As an adult and knowing what you know now…

-Was there ever really any hope for humanity’s continued future existence?

-As a species, were we / are we destined to fail?

LET’S IMAGINE

Imagine these things, for example:

• A “model planet” that environmentally thrives, utilizing the virtually free resources that nature provides (wind, solar, hydro, bio) to yield a relatively pristine and beautifully balanced ecosystem, with no waste.

• A species that joins together, across the globe, to work in harmony, advancing itself ever upward through continuous free higher education, healthy living, positive role models, and promoting universally constructive rather than destructive value systems.

• Reasonable population control mechanisms, encouraged for, and based on, planetary resource sustainability

• A sharing of and distributing of planetary resources, fairly, so there are no more hungry bellies or people living in squalor.

Off the top of my head, these would be some positive forces, IMO.   

So, what’s the problem?  Why can’t this be our modus operandi?  Where did we go wrong?  Give me your list of reasons.

“Some men see things as they are and ask why.  I dream of things that never were and ask ‘why not’?” –Robert F. Kennedy

Thanks for posting and recommending.

The Morality of Lies in Politics

The anti-bias ideology I believe to be more effective, efficient, sustainable and civilized for politics is grounded in four core moral values, (i) respect for relevant facts and truths, (ii) an attempt to apply less biased reason to the facts and truths, (iii) reasonable reliance on those factors in service to the public interest, and (iv) reasonable compromise with political opposition under existing circumstances. Those moral values are intended to redistribute some power from elites and wealthy interests to the masses. They also act as a barrier against the rise of authoritarian and corrupt leaders because such leaders usually or always rely heavily on lies and deceit to gain and maintain power.

I have been arguing that using dark free speech[1] is immoral and usually damaging to good things such as democracy, the rule of law, honest governance and civil liberties. That raises the question of whether there is a sound rationale to believe that lies, deceit, unwarranted emotional manipulation and other propaganda tactics are often immoral.

Not surprisingly, scholars had considered the moral implications of lying and deceit. Robert K. Fullinwider wrote this in 2007 about an analysis of lying by Sissela Bok in her 1978 book Lying: Moral Choice in Private and Public Life:

Here is the case that Sissela Bok makes for the Principle of Veracity – a principle asserting a very strong moral presumption against lying. What, she asks you, would it be like to live in a world in which truth-telling was not the common practice? In such a world, you could never trust anything you were told or anything you read. You would have to find out everything for yourself, first-hand. You would have to invest enormous amounts of your time to find out the simplest matters. In fact, you probably couldn’t even find out the simplest matters: in a world without trust, you could never acquire the education you need to find out anything for yourself, since such an education depends upon your taking the word of what you read in your lesson books. A moment’s reflection of this sort, says Bok, makes it crystal clear that you benefit enormously by living in a world in which a great deal of trust exists – a world in which the practice of truth-telling is widespread. All the important things you want to do in life are made possible by pervasive trust.

The work of Bok and others has been summarized. Thoughts on the morality of lying include:

• Lying is bad because it treats those who are lied to as a means to achieve the liar's purpose, rather than as a valuable end in themselves Many people think that it is wrong to treat people as means not ends 

• Lying is bad because it makes it difficult for the person being lied to make a free and informed decision about the matter concerned, which can lead people to base their decisions on false information  

• People may suffer damage as a result of lies 

• People lose ome control of their own lives because a lie can lead them to make a decision that they would not otherwise have made

Is it rational to extend the scope of immorality to include all of dark free speech in politics, which is broader than just political lying? Bok defines a lie as an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement. Deceit can be based on statements that are true, partly true and on information that is hidden (lies of omission). Is that immoral? Fomenting unwarranted emotional responses, e.g., unwarranted fear, distrust or bigotry by inflammatory or insulting rhetoric, usually leads to a state of mind that makes lies and deceit easier to accept. Is doing that immoral?

Acknowledgement: My thanks to PD at the Books&Ideas blog for recommending the links given in the discussion and mentioning the work of Sissela Bok.

Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. (my label, my definition)

Y’all, Norwegians Use the Word “Texas” as Slang to Mean “Crazy”

The things you learn on the Internet.



https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-use-the-word-texas-as-slang-to-mean-crazy/

If you’re Norwegian or happen to spend a lot of time around Norwegians, then this fact that absolutely blew our minds might not be news to you, but apparently the word “Texas” is slang for “crazy” or “wild,” as in, “the end of the [whatever sport they play in Norway] game was totally Texas!”

We saw the screen capture from Tumblr float around social media this weekend and were initially skeptical. But, lo and behold, the evidence has convinced us that this is really an accepted part of Norwegian slang.

• Here is an article from Aviso Nordland from March 2014 about reckless international truck drivers traveling through the northern part of the country. Norwegian police chief Knut Danielsen, when describing the situation, tells the paper that “it is absolutely texas.”
• Here’s one from a 2012 edition of Verdens Gang, a Norwegian tabloid, in which Blackburn Rovers soccer manager Henning Berg—a Norwegian former star who played for the British team—describes the atmosphere at a match between the Rovers and the rival Burnley Clarets as “totally texas.”
• And here’s a fisherman telling the local news about the rare swordfish he caught in Northern Norway: “I heard a loud noise from the bay, but I did not know where it came from right away. Thirty seconds to a minute later it jumped out in the fjord. I got to see some of it before I took up the camera,” he says and continues: “It was totally texas!”

Usually, when the word “texas”—as an adjective, most often without capitalization—appears in Norwegian, the context involves the phrase, “det var helt texas,” which translates to, roughly, “it was totally/absolutely/completely bonkers.” You wouldn’t call a person “totally texas”; it usually describes a chaotic atmosphere.

A Norwegian Tumblr user explained some of the etymology of the phrase in a post from last May:

The expression itself has to do with associations. It’s something that brings to mind chaotic, crazy conditions, like the “wild west,” and at least back when the expression was coined, the “wild west” held very strong Texas associations. Hell, even when I was a kid in the 80s, I thought that all American cowboys came from Texas, and that’s just how it was. Texas = land of the cowboys. And rodeos. And the wild west. A Western movie? Probably from Texas.

This quote from an paper on child language development (talking about a child’s metalinguistic development) should tell you a little bit about how Norwegians can condense a state into stereotypes:

Uttrykket ”det var helt Texas på bussen i dag” gir lite mening for en som nettopp har lært at Texas er et sted med cowboyer, rodeoer og kveg. [X]

Translation: The expression “it was totally Texas on the bus today” will not mean much to someone who’s just learned that Texas is a place with cowboys, rodeos and cattle.

The expression dates back several decades, and speaks to how the mythos of Texas has been interpreted in one Scandinavian country: “Texas” = “cowboys” = “Wild West” = “an unpredictable, exciting, sometimes scary atmosphere,” and thus can be used to describe a party that had people jumping off the roof into a swimming pool, a soccer game where fans were getting tense, or even a troubling traffic situation, which—while the etymology may be different—is fair enough for anyone who’s been in any Texas city during rush hour.

All of which is to say that when considering what “Texas” means to the world, it’s fascinating to realize just how far and wide our fabled culture spreads—or as they might say in Norway, det er helt texas as heck.

The President's Core Base of Support

Most of the time the president has been in office his approval rating has been in a range of about 41% to 43% based on aggregated poll data by the poll analysis site 538. Today, the president’s approval is 41.6% and disapproval is 53.7%. From that it seemed reasonable to think that his core base of unshakeable supporters is about 41-43%. The logic is that if people still support the president, they are likely solid supporters who would not vote for any democrat in 2020.

Despite that, other indications at least since the 2018 mid-terms kept suggesting his solid support base is somewhat lower.

The Cook Political Report, a low bias, high fact accuracy analysis site, analyzed this question in December of 2018. The CPR wrote:

In this year’s network exit polls, 45 percent approved the job Trump is doing, while 54 percent disapproved. The "strongly approve" number was 31 percent. In the last Fox News poll before the midterm election, 31 percent of registered voters and 33 percent of likely voters strongly approved. The last pre-election NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll pegged his "strongly approve" numbers at 32 percent of registered and 35 percent of likely voters, while the ABC News/Washington Post poll had it a bit lower with 28 percent. So between 28 and 35 percent can be said to be his solid base.

What about Trump’s hard-core opposition? The exit poll showed 46 percent strongly disapproving, while in the Fox News poll it was 43 and 45 percent respectively among registered and likely voters. The NBC/WSJ poll had the numbers a bit larger, with 45 percent of registered voters and 47 percent of likely voters strongly disapproving.

Polling in July and September of this year indicates that about 27-32% of registered voters strongly approve and 45-48% strongly disapprove. That suggests that Trump's solid base hasn't changed much since last December. A different September 2019 poll put the president’s strong approval rating with voters at 28%, with strong disapproval at 45%.

Obviously, support for the president can change over time.  But, if these polls are basically accurate, it is reasonable to think that the president’s core base of unshakeable support right now is about 30% instead of about 42%. If that is correct and holds up for the next 3-4 months, the president will probably need to appeal to a broader swath of the American public than he does now. It isn't clear how or if he can do that, but there will very likely be a major effort to do so. Maybe such an effort already is under way. As of September 2019, about 11% of eligible voters claim to be undecided, so that group could be the key target.