Facts, Reason and Fairness in Politics

In the last few weeks, some of the engagements among commenters here, including myself, were sharp. Some got close to overheated. Emotional overheating is something to be avoided because it tends to be a fact and reason killer and a mind closer. It also is a distrust, hate, intolerance and irrationality generator. Those negative emotions are bad for civil discourse, democracy and society generally. Bad people, e.g., the Russians and Chinese, very much want us to be overheated and they do their ruthless best to foment it. The temptation to slip into it can be very hard to resist.

For people who engage in politics, common arguments the two sides adduce are quite familiar by now. On the matter of vaccines, they either cause disease or they don't, e.g. autism, autoimmune diseases, etc. Regarding the president, he is either an incompetent lying crook or someone doing a good job under very difficult and unfair conditions. On climate change, one side firmly asserts that climate scientists are liars, corrupt, the science is too uncertain to be taken seriously, there is no major consensus among experts and/or the evidence that climate change is not real or man-made is convincing. Arguments for the other side firmly asserts, more or less, the opposite on every point.

Minds do not change. Different perceptions of facts and the reason applied to them differ on the two sides. Incompatible facts and/or reason or logic is where most of these intractable differences of opinion seem to mostly or completely come from. Minds cannot change when facts and logic are at odds.

Is it unfair or counterproductive to call the president a chronic liar?

Name calling in politics tends to elicit overheating in response. Lying requires (i) belief that what what is said is false, (ii) with an intent to deceive. Fact checkers make clear that the president routinely makes false and misleading statements to the public. By now they number in the thousands, a record arguably unmatched by any other president for which enough data is available for a reasonably fair comparison. Because the president repeats some of his false or misleading statements multiple times, there is a logical reason to believe the president is lying, not just making mistakes. That is a rational basis on which to consider the president to be a chronic liar.[1] Based on repeated false assertions, at least one fact checker concludes that the president is engaged in a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Most supporters of the president reject claims that the president routinely makes false or misleading statements or that he lies much or more than other politicians. Many or most supporters dismiss the evidence of false and misleading statements and lies as opposition lies and propaganda. The evidence is usually rejected as fake news generated by ‘the enemy of the people’ press and media and/or by democrats or liberals.

Minds on this rarely change and nothing that is said here will change the intractable disagreement on this point.

In the name of civil, rational discourse, is it a mistake to call the president a chronic liar? Does it matter that some of lies the president tells are, or at least appear to be, intended to foment overheated emotional responses, as some of the president's supporters have claimed?

Is it unfair or counterproductive to call the president corrupt?

The president's conflicts of interest are abundant and undeniable. Nonetheless, most of his supporters reject that as false, arguing no real or apparent conflicts exist. Most claim that any conflicts are trivial at worst or fake news made up by democrats and/or the enemy of the people. A promise to fully insulate himself from his conflicts is not verifiable. Some ethics experts consider that the president is significantly conflicted. The GOP’s 2017 tax cut law included breaks for owners of golf courses, an undeniable conflict that the GOP could easily have closed for the president, but chose not to do.

In the name of civil, rational discourse, is it a mistake to call the president corrupt for refusal to be transparent about fully insulating himself from his business conflicts of interest? Does it matter that (1) the president strongly criticized Hillary Clinton for alleged corruption arising from conflicts from her involvement with her family charity, (2) the president's charity has been found to be a fraud he blatantly used for his personal and political gain, or (3) despite the court finding his foundation was a fraud, the president publicly asserts that the investigation into his foundation “has been 4 years of politically motivated harassment,” and instead of investigating his foundation, investigators should have spent their time investigating the Clinton Foundation.

Footnote:
1. A used here, chronic liar is intended only to refer to a sufficiently high frequency or number of public statements reasonably believed to be lies that constitutes ‘chronic lying’. It is not intended to refer to or imply any clinically diagnosable mental or physical disease or condition.

One source comments on pathological lying: “A pathological liar is someone who lies compulsively. While there appears to be many possible causes for pathological lying, it’s not yet entirely understood why someone would lie this way. .... A 2016 study of what happens in the brain when you lie found that the more untruths a person tells, the easier and more frequent lying becomes. The results also indicated that self-interest seems to fuel dishonesty.”

The Politics of Distraction

The two major parties in the US are not the same. There are stark differences on immigration and domestic policy. However, there are fewer differences between them when it comes to foreign policy and long term economic policy.

I'm not going to be focusing on conservatives in this post, as most of the audience here can already enumerate the many sins of the Republican party. At the same time, it's easy while bashing the opposition to forget your own party's track record, so let's recap.

The Democrats, typically with bipartisan support:

• Let Alan Greenspan run loose at the fed for 8 long years
• Overrode Glass-Steagall, by way of Gramm-Leach-Bliley
• Starved Mexico with NAFTA
• Screwed the poor, especially single moms with Clinton's "welfare reform"

And that's just under Clinton. Before any liberals chime in his defense, Clinton apologized for the welfare reform, and called NAFTA a mistake after the fact, when it was too late to undo the damage. Meanwhile Greenspan himself admitted to his shenanigans after the fact, again after all the damage had been done. His tenure is a matter of record. For more on Greenspan's many sins, read Griftopia by Matt Taibbi.

Moving on to Democrats under Obama:

• Bailed out wall street, implored the DOJ to "look forward, not backward" instead of chasing prosecutions for bad actors that sold out homeowners and crippled the economy.
• Reneged on the public option, and laughed at single payer instead of negotiating from a position of single payer hoping for a public option. Never pursued bad actor HMOs.
• Overall, workers, especially those without college degrees were hit hard under the Obama economy and the Bush economy that preceded it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

Taken it its totality, wealth under all administrations since the 1970s has been stagnant for workers while the top earners have enjoyed a steadily increasing windfall on the backs of everyone else.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

The people and entities that hold real political power - have the ear of congress - in the US do so because they're the holders of the debt - for example, those people and entities that buy t-bills.

Those debt holders are the ones that effectively, albeit indirectly set economic policy in the US, as it filters down through business interests and politicians into our austere material reality.

There's a reason that support of working people has eroded across the political spectrum for decades, and the above is a big part of why - perhaps even a bigger cause than the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector.

The bottom line is that working people don't have many friends in the halls of power.

The Republicans distract from this using white racial resentment and fear of "the other."

The Democrats distract from this using identity politics and fear of Republican power.

It's a shell game designed to prop up a country whose economics are less and less tenable to a majority of people. It's a distraction designed to keep your eye off the fact that this democracy barely represents the people at large anymore.

It's the economics. It's always economics of the situation - not just the economy, but who is benefiting from it. The stock market figures can't speak to that.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend to have any solutions, but if nothing else it's cathartic to at least name the problem.

For the Children

I generally tune out as soon someone appeals to The Child. Meaning as soon as someone starts talking about how we must do something to protect the children, or otherwise for the children, I stop listening.

It's a bankrupt appeal that relies on raw emotion without any substance. It's an appeal to the abstract idea of people, some not even existing yet (future generations).

I'm not interested. Worse, politicians use these appeals to strip personal liberty. It's as bad as appeals to safety and security in terms of its deceptive power. It appeals to such base feelings that it's nearly impossible to separate those from the actual policy proposals, and people end up giving up rights and freedoms because of it.

And who really wants a childproofed world? Do we want a world where all media, games, events, indeed, entertainment in general is "safe" for children? No more Pride parade. No more violent TV shows. No more Law and Order: SVU. No more Rockstar games. Hell, no more hockey when it comes down to it. No cigarettes, no alcohol, and no swearing. No westerns. No provocative art or poetry. No adult video, nor magazines. Power tools all must be childproofed. No more firearms. Nothing that might endanger The Child.

Here's a modest proposal: The children don't matter. The Child does not matter. It's abstract empty symbolism. People matter.

Watch your own children. It's nobody else's job to keep them safe.

Another trap is trying to look out for future generations. The past and the future are illusions - more abstract concepts. The present is real. Righting the wrongs of the world as it exists pays for itself in the future. Things like peacemaking, fiscal responsibility, investment in community, all these things help the present and the future.

We cannot truly predict the future. At best we can model it statistically using various tools, and we're wrong as often as not. In some cases, like climate and overpopulation predictions, we've virtually always been wrong. On the other hand, things like climate change can be addressed by way of our pollution and consumption problems in the present - things that are causing us problems in the present.

The present is real. The Child is not.

Don't let anyone take your eye off the ball.

Fact Checking Partisan Claims That California Mismanages Its Forests

The current wildfire season in California has received attention and criticism from the president. The AP fact checked the president’s criticisms and finds them false or irrelevant and thus misplaced.

The president: “Every year, as the fire’s rage & California burns, it is the same thing - and then he (Newsom) comes to the Federal Government for $$$ help. No more. Get your act together Governor. You don’t see close to the level of burn in other states.”

The facts: The president's claim is false. Far fewer acres burn in California than Alaska and other areas. Roughly 266,000 acres (108,000 hectares) burned in California, while 2.57 million acres (1.04 million hectares) burned in Alaska this year, more than nine times the California tally so far. That is based on statistics from the National Interagency Fire Center. Also, the Great Basin area and Southern and Southwestern regions have all had fires that covered more than 440,000 acres (180,000 hectares) in 2019.

The president: “The Governor of California, @GavinNewsom, has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met he must ‘clean’ his forest floors, regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers.”

The facts: The president's claim is false. California has 33 million acres (13.3 million hectares) of forest land, with 57% owned and managed by the federal government, 40% by private landowners and 3% by the state. That data is according to governor Newsom’s office, Forest Unlimited and the University of California’s Forest Research and Outreach center. In addition, many of the fires are not in forests but are in areas of shrub, agricultural areas and grasslands. In those areas, forest management is not an issue, according to University of Alberta fire expert Mike Flannigan. Clearing debris in those areas would be of little use.

The president: “Also, open up the ridiculously closed water lanes coming down from the North. Don’t pour it out into the Pacific Ocean. Should be done immediately. California desperately needs water, and you can have it now!”

The facts: Trump’s point is irrelevant to battling wildfires. According to LeRoy Westerling, a fire expert at the University of California, Merced, “Fire suppression is not limited in any way by the availability of water.” Westerling mused, “How does President Trump propose that these waters be used to reduce fire risk? Is he proposing to build a statewide sprinkler system with federal money?”

By now, there is no basis to believe that the president has any significant concern about facts and truths. He shows no overt or detectable concern for being accurate in attacking whoever he dislikes. This is yet more evidence of his contempt for facts and truths.

A Personal Perspective on Madness

Madness is a subject that is very personal to me, as it's something I've lived with probably for most of my life, but I was not properly diagnosed until more recently. It has progressed from a bipolar condition to being schizoaffective, following a psychotic break I had about two years ago. I don't believe there's any substitute for lived experience, and so with this essay I endeavor to convey some of that experience and my observations to you, gentle reader. I feel anyone can read clinical accounts of the condition, the sanitized list of symptoms on Web MD or similar, but to actually know what it's like is as elusive as it is interesting, or so it seems to me.

A little bit of background: Schizoaffective Disorder (bipolar type) is a condition that exhibits symptoms of both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This group of conditions tends to run in families. The experience and symptoms vary greatly person to person - some researchers think it's a spectrum disorder. I don't want anyone to consider my own personal account to be universal, nor my feelings on it.

For all of the issues with it, one upside is it means I have experience with a spectrum of symptoms to write about. I have experienced manic episodes including manic psychosis, schizophrenic psychosis, mixed episodes, and depression.

People without mental illness tend to think of it exclusively as a disability. Some people with these conditions (though I don't know how many, I have anecdotal information) don't see them as strictly disabilities. I happen to be one of them. I will cover the good, the bad and the ugly here.

First, my favorite: Mania with psychosis. Take some speed, some MDMA and some LSD at the same time and that's roughly the feeling of it. It's a ride. The creativity, the visions, the wonder of it all is just incredible. My best writing has come immediately after this state, when I was still manic but the psychosis had receded. This is an artist's phase - a painter's dream. The downsides are numerous including the extreme irritability that comes with it the rest of the time, the lack of inhibition, and the brain damage. This irritability was damaging my personal relationships and the brain damage aspect was particularly sobering. Medication prevents these downsides, but I lose the artist's state. I miss it dearly. The mania itself is exceedingly pleasant, even euphoric. It's so much fun I let it go on for a week before my spouse checked me into the hospital - before I knew about the brain damage. I wasn't really eating or sleeping though either.

I think that week knocked some things loose in my head, some probably important, but some simply things seized from disuse since childhood. Despite my analytical tendencies I've always been more the creative type than anything, and now I'm more creative than I used to be generally but far less perspicuous in my thinking. It's a trade I'll take, as I'd much rather find a new idea or a good question to ask than be able to perfectly deconstruct and analyze details. I'm not afraid to explore even the patently impossible, like magic, to see if I can mine some utility out of it. I've really taken to heart the idea that everything is exactly as useful as you make it.

On to a less pleasant topic, the schizophrenic delusions and psychosis: First of all, it's an inexplicably popular misconception that schizophrenia has something to do with multiple personalities. It does not. It is not some sort of Jekyll and Hyde condition. What it is - or rather feels like, is a bad acid trip. It's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas without the drugs. There is a profound paranoia that just wells up and knots in the gut. At points I thought my husband, and best friend since childhood was trying to starve and poison me. I saw "bad magic" everywhere, and "the night people" who could be anybody and whose goal was to "sanitize" human beings of their essential humanity - creating more "night people", which is a whole lot creepier than it sounds when you're under the thrall of that paranoia, especially when they're out to do the same to you. They were an essentially malicious enemy I would ascribe almost arbitrarily to potentially anyone I encountered - basically anyone I didn't like the look of. It was as terrifying as it was irrational.

Even medicated, I still have the paranoia but it has nothing to "attach" itself to since I no longer have the delusional thinking that goes with it. It's just free floating fear, but it tends to center itself around people. To this day I feel people watching me all the time when they aren't. I tend to think of people as default hostile, and I avoid encounters with people I don't already know. This comes out as agoraphobia apparently - according to my latest psych eval. I guess it makes sense, as I'm holed up most of the time these days. Anti-anxiety meds don't seem to help, but indica strains of pot take the edge off. So do cigarettes.

Finally, this is the crippling part of the condition that comes with the schizophrenia symptoms: The loss of executive function, short term memory, and various other cognitive impairments. These conditions are degenerative which makes them particularly scary - especially when they use terms like "premorbid IQ" in the studies. For all its faults I've always felt blessed for the mind I was born with, and I hate to see it so damaged. Everything from switching tasks to keeping track of mundane things like chores and hygiene are a challenge. I can still write software, in some ways better I think in terms of being more creative, but I cannot manage my time or my tasks so I cannot do so professionally anymore. In fact, my psychs have been surprised I am still working at all. Many if not most people with these conditions do not. It also wreaks havoc on my sleep patterns. I can't get more than 4 hours at a time regardless of what I do. Apparently that's neurological. I find myself in a dark house for much of my day, which makes my mornings challenging. Waking up to the sunshine is something I never thought I'd miss.

All in all I have been fortunate as I have very understanding and supportive family around me, which is great, because these days I need those close to me to have lot of patience. Sometimes I feel like a burden and that's difficult, but therapy helps, and so does the love I'm surrounded with. I wish more people in my position had that. It keeps me saner than I otherwise would be, I think.

I wrote this piece in hopes to give some personal insight on madness that one can't readily find in the sterile pages of the DSM. I don't need condolences pity or even sadness on your part. It's wasted emotion. I am honey the monster and I'm mad as hatter, and I'm okay with that. It's a challenge but nothing I can't handle. Instead, I simply hope you have found some value or curiousity in my account of all this.

Christian Not Sure Why He Should Look Forward To Heaven When He Already Lives In America

FRISCO, CO—Local Christian man Dave Hearth recently came across an interesting verse in the Bible: Philippians 3:20, which says that our citizenship is in heaven.

Confused, Hearth checked the cross-references and read that we are supposed to set out hearts on things above, not on earthly things in Colossians 3. In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul even had the "gall" to write that he "longs" to be clothed with his heavenly dwelling instead of his earthly tent.

"I just don't get it," Hearth told reporters. "I already live in the United States of America---what could the eternal state possibly hold for me?"

"I guess I can understand the Bible writer guys saying they long for heaven," he said. "They just lived in Israel, which is pretty nice, but it's not like it's God's chosen country or anything. I just don't feel these verses really apply to me."

Hearth pointed out that he already has baseball, Chevrolet, and guns, concluding that there's just nothing that eternal life with God could possibly provide him that he doesn't already have. He's now rescinded his eternal citizenship in the new heaven and new earth, saying "thanks but no thanks" to the offer to reside anywhere but the present-day US of A.

"For my citizenship is in America," he said. "I'm just passing through the Kingdom of God."

https://babylonbee.com/news/christian-not-sure-why-he-should-look-forward-to-heaven-when-he-already-lives-in-america