Perseverance Descent Video

 This is from a New York Times article:

The car-sized Perseverance rover is about 10 feet long (not including the robotic arm arm), 9 feet wide and 7 feet tall (about 3 meters long, 2.7 meters wide and 2.2 meters tall). It weighs 2,260 pounds (1,025 kilograms) on Earth. Mars gravity is about 38% of that on Earth. Does that mean it weighs only about 859 pounds on Mars?

This interactive graphic gets into the details of what is on and in the rover.

Secrecy and the Supreme Court

Everything degenerates, even the administration of justice, nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity. .... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -- Lord Acton, 1834-1902

Power cloaked in unwarranted opacity, tends to accelerate, harden and deepen corruption. The Supreme Court has an awful lot of power and it is awfully opaque. That opacity can hide an awful lot of corruption, including partisan politics. Hidden corruption in government deceives and betrays the public. -- Germaine, 2021

Context

A couple of recent Supreme Court (SC) decisions led me to want all nine justices impeached and removed. The first was the SC dismissal of lawsuits against the ex-president for violating the emoluments clause. The court "reasoned" that the case was moot because he was out of office. The reason he was out of office was that the SC refused to rule in the case while he was in office. As I saw it, the court intentionally dragged its feet to protect a deeply corrupt president for partisan political purposes. To protect the ex-president, the court went against its own precedent of allowing cases against politicians out of office for their crimes. None of the three democrats on the court dissented, so I concluded they too voted to defend the indefensible. I wanted all nine impeached and removed from office for that grotesque failure of duty to defend the rule of law.

More recently, the SC unanimously voted to allow prosecutors access to the ex-president's tax and financial documents. Once again, the court intentionally delayed issuing this for months to protect the beast while it was still in office. And again, there was not one word of explanation, including nothing from any of the three democrats. The SC just tossed its nasty thing into the punch bowl and was above explaining the delay to us unwashed masses of fools and mushrooms. Given the secrecy and lack of explanation for the protective delay, that too looked like indefensible politics and another attack on the rule of law. I wanted all nine impeached and removed for that dereliction of duty.

A long standing personal complaint is excessive opacity in the functioning of federal courts, especially the powerful SC.

Secrecy & the Supreme Court

A 1973 paper, Secrecy and the Supreme Court: On the Need for Piercing the Red Velour Curtain, discussed the rationale for secrecy of SC operations and decisions. The paper noted that Judge Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965) argued that, although there is a legitimate need for the public to know how the court operates, the SC could not open itself up to public scrutiny without ceasing to function effectively. Huh??

In reaction to that, common sense flares up and reflexively retorts to Frankfurter: That is sheer nonsense. SC justices are appointed for life precisely to insulate them from public opinion and partisan politics. What the hell are you blithering about?  

Despite that common sense reflex, the paper's authors point out that the Frankfurter rationale, if that's what it is, "has met with virtually unanimous approval." So much for common sense.

The paper's authors write:

Our thesis may be simply stated: basic democratic theory requires that there be knowledge not only of who governs but of how policy decisions are made. .... We maintain that the secrecy which pervades Congress, the executive branch and courts is itself the enemy. .... For all we know, the justices engage in some sort of latter-day intellectual haruspication[1], followed by the assignment of someone to write an opinion to explain, justify or rationalize the decision so reached. .... That the opinion(s) cannot be fully persuasive, or at times even partially so, is a matter of common knowledge among those who make their living following Court proclamations.

The authors go on to level a slew of ferocious criticisms of SC secrecy and sloppy thinking and writing. They point to political expediency as the core but hidden source of court decisions. They cite one commentator as describing the practice of opinion formation as "scholarly astrology." They argue that "the very fact that students of the Court exhibit a desire to gain a better understanding of the Court is ample proof that the opinions are inadequate to explain the decision making."

Some factors that can make the process opaque and the product shoddy include a need for compromise to get at least five votes. That can lead to murky thinking and writing. A major source of opacity and confusion arises when judges work backward from conclusions to reach principles instead of using principles to draw conclusions. In other words, judges often decide based on their opinions, biases and values, not on relevant legal principles. They smash the round pegs in their own minds into the square holes of legal principles, often at the partial or complete expense of facts, true truths and sound reasoning. The rationale that secrecy is needed for the decision-making process is not explained, just asserted: "Justice W. J. Brennan states that the conferences are carried out in "absolute secrecy" for "obvious reasons" and avoids any further elucidation of the matter. .... It is the validity of that notion that is challenged in this article."

What are the obvious reasons? Just blurt them out so that we can decide what to believe for ourselves.

Maybe the sources of muddled language and incoherent thinking cannot be avoided. Humans are human, not Vulcans, the Borg, Klingons or goldfish. The situation would be much more understandable and forgivable if some of the secrecy was lifted and the public allowed to see more of how and why decisions are made. That would go a long way toward easing the kinds of suspicions some people have, like me, that SC justices are more corrupt politician-ideologues in black robes than honest, unbiased interpreters of the law.

Footnote: 

1. Haruspication: the act or practice of divination from the entrails (guts) of animals slain in sacrifice, mainly sheep and poultry livers; haruspicy had its heyday as a religion in ancient Rome  

There is a scientific link between lower levels of cognitive intelligence and being homophobic, a study has found.

 Researchers at the University of Queensland, Australia, drew correlations between those who record a low intelligence quotient (IQ) score and those who express bigoted, prejudiced views.

This connection, scientists wrote in the journal Intelligence, is the first to connect the dots between lower cognitive ability and homophobia.

In comparing the two data sets, researchers found that the lower a person’s cognitive intelligence was found to be, the more likely they were to be homophobic.

“Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice,” they concluded.

more details:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/02/09/homophobe-intelligence-study-queensland-university-australia/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289617303628

Increasing Recognition of the Immorality of Lying?

A Washington Post article, Impeachment is over. But other efforts to reckon with Trump’s post-election chaos have just begun, commented about the real world consequences of deceiving people:

“There has to be some consequence for telling these lies — because when you lie to people, they take action based on what they think is true,” said Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican who received threats after false allegations of fraud in the counting of the city’s votes. “Because it’s such a dangerous new thing that occurred, there has to be some reconciliation. Moving on isn’t enough. .... Meanwhile, a variety of groups and individuals who say they were harmed by lies told about the election are pursuing lawsuits.”

That is the first time I can recall any politician publicly saying something like that. Maybe the consequences of lies in politics are starting to dawn on some politicians and voters. Maybe lawsuits will help drive the moral message home. Maybe.

One politician the message has not fazed in the slightest is you-know-who:

On Tuesday, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, Giuliani and members of two extremist groups, arguing that their rhetoric caused the Jan. 6 riot in violation of an 1871 law that bars violent interference in the performance of Congress’s duties. Thompson is being represented by the NAACP, which said other members of Congress are expected to join.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller has rejected the effort, saying in a statement that “the facts are irrefutable” that Trump “did not incite or conspire to incite any violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6th.”

It's not just about lying and truth: “We should have burned it all.”

America is in the midst of a ferocious political and social war over facts, true truths, sound reasoning, tolerance and social comity. For millions of conservatives, the ex-president has normalized lies, falsehoods, crackpot motivated reasoning, intolerance and racism as acceptable means to achieve sacred goals. For clear headed conservative leaders, the goals are concentrated power and wealth via anti-democratic fascism and white supremacy. For deluded rank and file conservative voters the goals are defense of democracy, truth and the American way, roughly white Christian Nationalism for some or most.

Racist doctor in Miami, Jennifer Susan Wright, outraged at 

being asked to socially distance in a store by a hispanic 

man so she attacked him;

she is being charged with a hate crime;

“This is not going to be Biden’s America, this is my America.

We should have burned it all.”

Mission accomplished: Racism normalized

Book Review: A Lot Of People Are Saying

The 2019 book, Book Review: A Lot Of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy, is an explanation of the rise of a new kind of conspiracy thinking that falls short of being conspiracy theory. The book is short (176 pages, paperback version) and easy to read. The authors are Russell Muirhead, Professor of Democracy and Politics, Dartmouth College, and Nancy L. Rosenblum, Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government, Harvard University.

The book was published before the 1/6 coup attempt and how the now fascist GOP responded to it so far. The authors were thus not influenced by those watershed events in American politics. Those anti-democratic events directly negate a few of the assertions the book's arguments are based on. Nonetheless, the overall analysis and arguments that Muirhead and Rosenblum make remain mostly untouched. This book offers a reasoned vision of what is happening right now and just how damaging and dangerous this species of dark free speech is.

What is new conspiracism?

Classical conspiracy theory, which can be true or false, attempts to make sense of political events by positing evidence, reasoning and a theory that explains the events. There is some proportionality between evidence and the explanation. There is an honest attempt to find evidence to fit the theory or to make evidence fit a theory. Conspiracy theories (i) are typically attached to an ideology or political theory, and (ii) provide an explanation. Sometimes the investigation is flawed by external factors such as partisanship, confirmation bias and/or motivated reasoning, but at least there is an attempt to offer explanations that better fit the facts. Classical conspiracy theories include ones to explain the 9/11 attacks. The drafting and content of the Declaration of Independence arose from a conspiracy theory among Americans about the evil, tyrannical intentions of the British government toward America. 

“The incendiary purpose of the conspiracy theory in the Declaration remains. On July 4, 2017, National Public Radio issued one hundred tweets that together contained the full text. Twitter followers identified as Donald Trump supporters were confused. They read the Tweets as inciting violence against the administration. ‘So NPR is calling for revolution. Interesting way to condone violence while trying to sound patriotic.’  ‘Your implications are clear.’ ‘Glad you are being defunded. You never had been balanced on your show.’ And the omnipresent charge: ‘Fake news.’”

By contrast, new conspiracism dispenses with an explanation and a political theory. Bare assertions are legitimized by online repetition and affirmation or ‘likes’. That is the thin oxygen that gives new conspiracism its life and power. 

“Yet the new conspiracism discards this defining purpose [of explaining an event]. Not only does the new conspiracism fail to offer explanations, there is often nothing to explain. .... The typical form of the new conspiracism is bare assertion .... Another example of sheer allegation is ‘birtherism’. .... Today, ‘fake’ is the most familiar example of bare assertion: fake news, fake FBI reports .... Fakeness is not a matter of error, after all, but of malignant intent. .... In addition to shedding explanation, the new conspiracism sheds political theory. It does not offer an account of what is threatened. It does not offer an account of the constructive political change that should follow from exposing the danger. .... The new conspiracism is not defending ultimate values; often the stakes are low, of the moment, and no values are articulated at all.”

Bare assertions typically come by way of one or both of two rhetorical tactics, the ominous question and innuendo. The ominous question, e.g., did the authorities test for this or do that in their investigation of the allegedly mysterious death of Antonin Scalia in Texas: “‘My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas.’ No specific accusations are made, and no falsifiable assertions are ventured. The ‘just asking questions’ tactic substitutes for argument, evidence and explanation.” 

In the 2016 election, the ex-president used innuendo against Ted Cruz by repeating a National Enquirer article that suggested without evidence that there was a connection between Cruz’s father and Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s assassin. The ex-president said “Even if it isn’t totally true, there’s something there.” 

New conspiracism is often mixed with classical conspiracy theory, making it more difficult to understand and deal with. In that regard, it constitutes some of the very best dark free speech that mixes some facts and/or truths with lies and/or motivated reasoning. 

A lot of people are saying

New conspiracism relied heavily on repetition, forwarding and liking Tweets and public affirmation such as ‘a lot of people are saying’.

“What Trump, for instance, wants is not the architecture of an organized political party or even an organized movement but a throng that assents to his account of reality. ‘You know what’s important’, he said about his fantasy of illegal Clinton votes, ‘millions of people agree with me when I say that.’ Affirmation of his reality is the key act .... This helps us understand just how the internet is vital for the new conspiracists and how their use of it is different from classical conspiracists’. .... Repetition is the new conspiracist’s oxygen, and it sometimes seems, its whole purpose.”

The goal of new conspiracism: delegitimation

The authors argue that delegitimation of democracy, government officials, the press and other democratic institutions is the main goal. By constantly asserting false realities and crackpot motivated reasoning, the new conspiracists disorient people and imposes a constant burden on them to keep rejecting the attacks. This is not the same as reasonable mistrust, which is healthy for a democracy.  

“Where mistrust is a necessary element of democratic accountability and widespread mistrust is a sign of democratic failing, delegitimation is an active assault on democracy. Delegitimation exists when a political opposition that is mistrusted is come to be seen as a public enemy, for example. We are learning what delegitimation looks like. Authorities are cast as hostile elements .... Officials are ‘so-called’ officials .... They are demeaned and undermined, threatened, and declared criminal or traitorous.”

How to fight against it

The authors here are like some or most others who have written on the topic of political dark free speech. People and politicians have to constantly speak truth to the lies and nonsense. Politicians have to be more transparent to reduce the size of targets for conspiracism. Politicians have to be more assertive about “enacting democracy,” which they define as both acknowledging concerns there may be in conspiracism but firmly pointing out that the beliefs are false and democratic government is not out to enslave the American people. They admit that some republican politicians (1) acknowledge the public concerns, but fail to defend democracy, or (2) say nothing at all. Both of which are inherently anti-democratic. 

Interestingly, the authors concede that closed minds cannot be reached. Instead, open minds are the target for the difficult task of trying relegitimize and repair what has been delegitimized and damaged.

The weakness that runs through this book has to be made clear. The 1/6 coup attempt and how the GOP responded thereafter directly contradicts some of what the authors were thinking and arguing. They did not foresee in 2019 what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. In my mind, the 1/6 coup attempt changed the new conspiracism the authors articulated to a newer and more virulent form. That virus mutated on 1/6 and it got a lot nastier than the original strain. We really need a new and better vaccine.

Oops! I accidently took a "nasty" pill this morning :-O

Let's play "What's wrong with this picture?"

(Hint: See arrow) 😉