Nazi "morality": Tales from under the bowels of the crypt

Himmler

On Oct. 4, 1943, Heinrich Himmler gave a 3-hour speech to about 100 senior SS officers. Himmler was a German Nazi politician, the leader of the German SS and the main architect of the Holocaust. This short excerpt is a part (the only part?) of that speech that addressed and justified murdering Jews.

Evacuation of the Jews

I also want to speak to you here, in complete frankness, of a really grave chapter. Amongst ourselves, for once, it shall be said quite openly, but all the same we will never speak about it in public. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30, 1934,* to do our duty as we were ordered, and to stand comrades who had erred against the wall and shoot them, and we never spoke about it and we never will speak about it. It was a matter of natural tact that is alive in us, thank God, that we never talked about it amongst ourselves, that we never discussed it. Each of us shuddered and yet each of us knew clearly that the next time he would do it again if it were an order, and if it were necessary.

I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of the things that is easily said: "The Jewish people are going to be exterminated," that's what every Party member says, "sure, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination - it'll be done." And then they all come along, the 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his one decent Jew. Of course, the others are swine, but this one, he is a first- rate Jew. Of all those who talk like that, not one has seen it happen, not one has had to go through with it. Most of you men know what it is like to see 100 corpses side by side, or 500 or 1,000. To have stood fast through this - and except for cases of human weakness - to have stayed decent, that has made us hard. This is an unwritten and never-to-be-written page of glory in our history, for we know how difficult it would be for us if today - under bombing raids and the hardships and deprivations of war - if we were still to have the Jews in every city as secret saboteurs, agitators, and inciters. If the Jews were still lodged in the body of the German nation, we would probably by now have reached the stage of 1916-17.

The wealth they possessed we took from them. I gave a strict order, which has been carried out by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, that this wealth will of course be turned over to the Reich in its entirety. We have taken none of it for ourselves. Individuals who have erred will be punished in accordance with the order given by me at the start, threatening that anyone who takes as much as a single Mark of this money is a dead man. A number of SS men - they are not very - many committed this offense, and they shall die. There will be no mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty towards our people, to destroy this people that wanted to destroy us. But we do not have the right to enrich ourselves by so much as a fur, as a watch, by one Mark or a cigarette or anything else. We do not want, in the end, because we destroyed a bacillus, to be infected by this bacillus and to die. I will never stand by and watch while even a small rotten spot develops or takes hold. Wherever it may form we will together burn it away. All in all, however, we can say that we have carried out this most difficult of tasks in a spirit of love for our people. And we have suffered no harm to our inner being, our soul, our character. (emphasis added)

** The reference is to "the night of the long knives" murder of Roehm, SA leaders and other purges.

Source: Documents on the Holocaust, Selected Sources on the Destruction of the Jews of Germany and Austria, Poland and the Soviet Union, Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, 1981, Document no.161. pp. 344-345.

Q: What do you think of modern American holocaust deniers American Nazis and people who accept or normalize them, e,g., are some or all among the "fine people on both sides"?

Is it inherent in the human condition?

Himmler's speech

about the Jews 

"Fine people on both sides"

Regarding the power of language and labels

This is why politics is so messy and often irrational

If I am not self-deluded, there is a slowly growing awareness among some of the cognoscenti in the MSM (mainstream media) about the two core sources of politics that I have been harping on for the last ~26 years. What sources? Human cognitive biology and human social behavior. I do believe that some people are actually starting to get it. Is that possible? Nah, can't be. Right? well, maybe not right.

A fascinating NYT opinion (not paywalled) makes some very cognitive biology-centered arguments about language and how labels influence perceptions of reality (how reality is framed) and how we think about what we think we see:

To Put It Bluntly

If Donald Trump ends up serving a term in prison (there’s still hope!), I’d relish the chance to refer to him as an ex-con. Like “felon,” the brute force of the term, with its hard-boiled matter-of-factness, would be extremely satisfying.

But the very power of that label has made it practically taboo. In its place, even federal prosecutors have adopted phrases like “justice involved” or “justice impacted” to describe those convicted of crimes — as if we could reform the entire criminal justice system simply by using new words.

Much ado has been made of euphemism inflation, the ceaseless efforts to reform the English language toward desired social or political ends.

Let’s return to the old “ex-con.” .... Even “former prisoner” and “formerly incarcerated person” have grown passé. But “justice involved” and “justice impacted” go further yet. They not only avoid stigma, they also remove the implication of responsibility altogether, as if the crime were something that happened to the criminal rather than an act he committed himself.

The right euphemism not only removes blame, it also reassigns it. Thus, “prisons” become the “carceral system” or part of the “carceral state,” which suggests that the act of imprisoning people may itself be the crime. The implied question is: What gives the state a right to put people away?

One major goal of lexical reform is to humanize and dignify the person behind a simple label. This is exemplified by what The Associated Press calls “person-first” language, recommended in its latest guidebook, issued in May, when referring to anyone implicated in the criminal justice system, avoiding terms like “inmate” and “juvenile.”

Another example is the word “slave,” which suggests a totalizing condition, while the increasingly preferred “enslaved person” emphasizes that the person is someone upon whom slavery (or “enslavement”) has been imposed.

Not all these rephrasings are necessarily downgrades, or even wrong. There is inarguably a power, sometimes a necessary one, in reconstituting terms, especially when they refer to human beings. As Toni Morrison once explained, “The definers want the power to name. And the defined are now taking that power away from them.”

Many of these changes seem neutral on the face of it. The replacement of “homeless” with “unhoused” at first glance seems like a superfluous switcheroo. But key to the change is the implication that the government has failed to provide a home, not that someone has lost one. Similarly, “poor” neighborhoods become “under-resourced communities.” And truancy, which feels like an accusation of juvenile delinquency, instead becomes “absenteeism,” which humbly suggests a box left unticked on the attendance list, more the fault of the school than the student.

Language has always driven and reflected societal change. In Orwell’s time, vague language was used by the powerful to defend or obscure brutality (e.g., British rule in India, Stalin’s purges, Soviet deportations).

This tendency still exists in political language (see “enhanced interrogation”). But today’s vague language is more often used as a means to ward off bad things so we don’t have to deal with harsh reality. Euphemistic language becomes a kind of wishcasting, and perhaps even a way of avoiding — or covering up a lack of — more substantive reform.

At a time when words are frequently treated as tools of oppression or means of resistance, charged with causing harm or spreading misinformation, we’ve all started watching what we say. But for language to remain an effective way to communicate intent and meaning, we should consider the reasons — beyond kindness or sensitivity — behind our euphemisms. Some words are brutal for a reason, and sometimes we need to deliver a pure blunt force.

In the recent Harris vs DJT debate, I was looking for more blunt force from Harris than she delivered. That led me to think her debate performance was mediocre. Apparently, my assessment was wrong and her performance was better than mediocre.

This opinion piece raises the issue of political correctness. Professional political propagandists and marketers have been aware of the power of labels for decades. For example relabeling the estate tax as the "death tax" was coined in the 1940s, but it didn't gain traction until the 1990s. This propaganda tactic is old, not new. The death tax label effectively reframed the issue in a negative way that wealthy people wanted. In essence, radical right authoritarians invented their own political correctness (PC) and treated it as the right way to see things as opposed to how pro-democracy.

That is why, at least for a while, America's authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement was so critical of PC. PC was contentious because it took power from authoritarian definers and transferred it to the defined. The MSM seems to be waking up to this. 

That raised a question -- attacks on PC seem to be less common, but why?:

Q: Why aren't American radical right authoritarians attacking political correctness as much as they did some years ago?

A: The perception that American radical right authoritarians are not attacking political correctness as much as they did in recent years may not be entirely accurate. However, there are some factors that could contribute to a shift in focus or messaging:

Evolving Rhetoric and Priorities

Changing Targets: Rather than directly attacking "political correctness," radical right groups may have shifted their focus to more specific issues like critical race theory, gender identity, or immigration policies.

Mainstreaming of Anti-PC Sentiment: Some anti-political correctness views have become more mainstream within conservative circles, potentially reducing the need for radical groups to emphasize this particular issue.

Political and Social Climate

Post-Trump Era: During the Trump presidency, attacks on political correctness were a central theme. In the post-Trump era, radical right groups may be recalibrating their messaging strategies.

Social Media Dynamics: Changes in social media platforms' policies and algorithms may have affected the visibility of radical right content, including anti-PC messaging.

Tactical Shifts

Rebranding Efforts: Some radical right groups may be attempting to rebrand themselves to appear more mainstream, potentially toning down explicit anti-PC rhetoric.

Focus on Other Issues: The COVID-19 pandemic, economic concerns, and other current events may have shifted attention away from political correctness as a primary talking point.

It's important to note that while the specific language or frequency of attacks on political correctness may have evolved, the underlying sentiments often remain present in different forms within radical right discourse. The apparent reduction in attacks on political correctness could be more a matter of changing tactics and rhetoric rather than a fundamental shift in ideology.

Humans are a bundle of 

unconscious biases

High resolution image

Science: About the origins of political beliefs

From time to time, the question arises about where a person's political beliefs come from. At the most basic human level there is nature (inheritance of genes) and nurture. Nurture refers to the environmental factors that influence a person's development after conception including things like upbringing, life experiences, family and social relationships and norms, culture, community, learning ability, sex, language, poverty, wealth, religion, education and epigenetics. Epigenetics refers to gene expression changes after an egg gets fertilized, e.g., exposure to lead, or PFAS or other toxic chemicals in the environment, especially effects on a fetus or young children.

Some years ago I came across two nature vs nurture estimates for the origin of personal politics. If I recall right, one estimate was that politics came about equally from nature and nurture. The other was that it was about 40% nature and 60% nurture. Being interested in this, I did some searching to see what the research says these days. 

Q: What are current estimates of the influence of nature (genes) compared to nurture on how people form their political beliefs or ideologies?

A: Genetic Influences: Twin studies found that genetic factors account for a substantial proportion of individual differences in political traits, with heritability estimates averaging around 0.50 (on a scale of 0-1). One study using data from the Minnesota Twin Study found that sociopolitical conservatism was 57% heritable for the overall population. For the most politically informed fifth of the public, the heritability of sociopolitical conservatism was estimated to be as high as 74%.

Environmental Influences: For the least politically informed half of the public, the heritability of sociopolitical conservatism was estimated to be only 29%, suggesting a stronger role for environmental influences.

Interaction of Genes and Environment: Political knowledge appears to facilitate or influence the expression of genetic predispositions in political attitudes.

The NYT wrote in 2022: In “The Law of Group Polarization,” Cass Sunstein of Harvard Law School argues this about polarization: This general phenomenon — group polarization — has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, “radicalization,” cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism.

A 2018 article commented:

What about political orientation? Left-leaning liberals estimated a greater genetic contribution to psychiatric disorders and sexual orientation compared with conservatives, while conservatives assumed a relatively greater contribution of genes to traits like intelligence and musical ability. This led to what the researchers called "a surprising sort of 'balancing out'," meaning that individuals' accuracy did not differ by political persuasion.

The researchers believe this pattern is consistent with the idea that moral judgments are central to the political split in the USA. Right-wing participants more strongly endorsed the idea that some people have more innate aptitude than others, while the left-wing participants more strongly endorsed the idea that many stigmatized traits are largely innate and should therefore be treated with fairness and compassion, not judgment. 

 

So there was no greater biological denialism or "blank slatism" by one political wing than the other, but rather a genetic cherry-picking to suit one's own world view.

A 2022 paper commented:

First, we find that religiosity’s role on political attitudes is more heritable than social. Second, religiosity accounts for more genetic influence on political attitudes than personality. When including religiosity, personality’s influence is greatly reduced. Our results suggest religion scholars and political psychologists are partially correct in their assessment of the “culture wars” – religiosity and ideology are closely linked, but their connection is grounded in genetic predispositions.

A 2024 research paper about the genetics of right wing authoritarianism commented:

Objective: Political attitudes are predicted by the key ideological variables of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), as well as some of the Big Five personality traits. Past research indicates that personality and ideological traits are correlated for genetic reasons.

Results: RWA and SDO exhibit very high genetic correlation (r=0.78) with each other and some genetic overlap with the personality traits of openness and agreeableness. Importantly, they share a larger genetic substrate with political attitudes (e.g., deporting an ethnic minority) than do Big Five personality traits, a relationship that persists even when controlling for the genetic foundations underlying personality traits. 

Conclusion: Our results suggest that the genetic foundations of ideological traits and political attitudes are largely non-overlapping with the genetic foundations of Big Five personality traits.[1]

In other words, two core ideological traits of RWA and SDO have a much higher genetic association with political policy attitudes than the Big Five personality traits. The covariation of such ideological traits with policy attitudes is best explained by genetic overlap, not common socialization or nurture. Contrary to key social and political psychology theories, the data here suggests that hierarchy-related traits might form a heritable genetic package for navigating intergroup struggles over territory and resources.

The research is sometimes hard to integrate into a simple left vs right framework. This 2023 paper argues that knowledge of basic science is more important in shaping attitudes toward at least a few issues of science such as global warming than partisan politics:

It is often assumed that a primary source of contention surrounding science is political and, therefore, that partisan disagreement drives attitudes about various science topics. Other models focus on the roles of basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication, arguing that these facilitate pro-science beliefs. To test these competing accounts, we identified a range of controversial issues ostensibly subject to potential ideological disagreement and examined the relative roles of political ideology, science knowledge, and cognitive sophistication. Results show there was actually very little partisan disagreement on a wide range of nonetheless contentious scientific issues. We also found only weak evidence for identity-protective cognition; instead, reasoning ability was broadly associated with pro-science beliefs. Two experiments that focused specifically on anthropogenic climate change found that increasing political motivations did not increase polarization among individuals who are higher in cognitive sophistication, indicating that increasing political motivations may not have as straightforward of an impact in this context as often assumed. Finally, one’s level of basic science knowledge was the most consistent predictor of people’s beliefs about science across a wide range of issues. Results suggest that educators and policymakers should focus on increasing basic science literacy and critical thinking rather than the ideologies that purportedly divide people.

In conclusion, it seems that nature or genetics seems to be more important than nurture for some or most people who score high on social dominance and authoritarianism traits. But lack of knowledge (nurture) is also an important or dominant factor for at least some people with some political issues. As a species, humans doing politics appears to be non-trivially influenced by both nature and nurture.

Footnote:

1. The Big Five personality traits are on a spectrum, with individuals scoring anywhere along a continuum, allowing for a nuanced understanding of personality rather than a simplistic categorization:

Openness to Experience: This trait reflects how open-minded and willing an individual is to new experiences. High scorers tend to be imaginative, curious, and open to new ideas, while low scorers may prefer routine and familiarity.

Conscientiousness: This dimension indicates how organized, responsible, and goal-oriented a person is. Individuals high in conscientiousness are typically diligent, disciplined, and reliable, whereas those with lower scores may be more spontaneous and less structured.

Extraversion: Extraversion measures how outgoing and energetic a person is in social settings. High extraversion is associated with sociability, assertiveness, and a tendency to seek out social interactions, while low extraversion (or introversion) is linked to being reserved and needing solitude.

Agreeableness: This trait assesses how compassionate and cooperative an individual is towards others. High agreeableness is characterized by kindness, empathy, and a desire for social harmony, while low agreeableness may reflect competitiveness or a more critical nature.

Neuroticism: Neuroticism refers to emotional stability and the tendency to experience negative emotions. Individuals high in neuroticism may be more prone to anxiety, mood swings, and emotional instability, whereas those low in this trait are generally more calm and resilient under stress

Abortion news update; Recycling revisited; Mildly odd & interesting headlines, etc.

The WaPo reports about abortion battles in Missouri, where the state supreme court allowed a pro-abortion ballot measure to stay on the ballot. Anti-abortion authoritarians had challenged the measure claiming it was too ambiguous:

If approved by voters, the constitutional amendment would allow abortion until fetal viability. The state currently bans the procedure in nearly all cases.

Just several hours before ballots were to be finalized, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday afternoon that a measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution is specific enough to present to voters in November.

The decision came after a short but politically fraught morning hearing before all seven judges — four of them women, five of them appointees of Republican governors. Only days earlier, a lower-court judge had ruled the ballot measure invalid because it does not identify which laws it would repeal.

“By a majority vote of this Court, the circuit court’s judgment is reversed,” Chief Justice Mary R. Russell wrote.

The outcome means that Missouri will remain among more than half a dozen states with measures to protect abortion rights on their ballots this fall, including in presidential battleground states such as Arizona and Florida. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, every ballot measure that has sought to preserve or expand abortion access has passed in red and blue states alike. Measures that have sought to restrict access have failed, including in conservative Kansas.

This is an unexpected bit of good news. A majority of Republican judges allowing an anti-abortion a ballot measure to stay suggests that the Missouri court Republicans aren't MAGA judges. Instead they may be far better pro-rule of law conservatives. Two points:

• Authoritarians are shameless hypocrites, even when it endangers human life. The forced birth laws that many red states passed are intentionally ambiguous to create uncertainty among doctors and nurses about what procedures are legal and what aren't. That forces doctors to not treat patients in unclear situations, sometimes calling their lawyers before deciding if a treatment is legal or criminal. Here and in some other states with pro-abortion ballot measures, radical right authoritarians are whining about ambiguity in pro-abortion laws. Worse yet, arrogant authoritarian anti-abortion legislators reject complaints about ambiguity and say their laws are crystal clear, implying that the doctors and their lawyers are stupid. The insulting arrogance of the morally rotted anti-abortion authoritarians mindset is extremely insulting to say the least. 

• Although the situation is complicated and apparently fluid, poll data for 2019 indicated that there was majority public opinion in only four states favoring banning abortions in most or all situations, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Data from 2024 suggests that support for abortion rights are increasing nationwide. The increase in abortion rights support apparently started in response to the May 2022 leak of the Dobbs decision about a month before the USSC released the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Missouri is not one of the states where majority public opinion favor a strict abortion ban. The point is this: Authoritarianism includes acting against majority public opinion when it suits authoritarians in power, which is what most red state forced birth laws do.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

The NYT reports about how some companies deal with their unrecyclable disposable plastic products -- they lie about it: The SEC said Keurig, in its financial filings, had claimed its pods could be “effectively recycled” but didn’t note that two big recycling companies wouldn’t accept them. Financial regulators on Tuesday charged Keurig Dr Pepper, the maker of popular K-Cup single-use coffee pods, with making inaccurate claims about the recyclability of the plastic pods. The fine, $1.5 million, is small for one of the world’s largest beverage companies. Keurig Dr Pepper has a market capitalization of more than $50 billion.

To recycle the pods, the foil at the top, the coffee grounds and paper filter all have to be removed and the plastic pod clean. Does anyone do that? Probably very few. 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Elon Musk Breaks Debate Silence With Bizarre Offer to Impregnate Taylor Swift -- What a looney tune!

Trump Demands ABC Be Shut Down for Daring to Fact Check Debate -- What a looney tune!

Taylor Swift Brings 283 Million Fans to Razor-Thin 2024 Election -- Maybe that will help some

More than 337,000 people visit Taylor Swift's link to register to vote -- That could make a difference!

“Concepts of a Plan”: Trump Roasted for Having No Clue What He’s Doing -- DJT's plan to replace Obamacare is concepts of a plan, which is clear as mud

Megyn Kelly has a meltdown over Taylor Swift backing Harris–Walz -- Kelly falsely claimed a Minnesota law allows trans children to ‘chop off their body parts’ without parental consent -- The election seems to be heating up, while Faux News seems to be a bit overheated

Researchers say meeting your dog's gaze and petting them causes brains to synchronize | Additionally, dogs who had genetic mutations that cause them to have social impairment symptoms showed a loss of synchronization, as well as reduced attention during their interactions with humans

About the allegedly evil, socialist deep state

An extremely long WaPo article (not paywalled) (about 11,000 words) discusses the work of an obscure bureaucrat, Christopher Mark, working for the federal Department of Labor. Chris developed the math and statistical analysis to make roof collapses in coal mines less frequent. His work has saved thousands of lives. If this is too TL/DR for you, just scan some of it and the five points I make at the end.

The Canary

The organization, called the Partnership for Public Service, created the awards, called the Sammies, in 2002 to call out extraordinary deeds inside the federal government. Founded the year before by an entrepreneur named Samuel Heyman, it set out to attract talented and unusual people to the federal workforce. One big reason talented and unusual people did not gravitate to the government was that the government was often a miserable place for talented and unusual people to work. Civil servants who screwed up were dragged before Congress and into the news. Civil servants who did something great, no one said a word about. There was thus little incentive to do something great, and a lot of incentive to hide. The awards were meant to correct that problem. “There’s no culture of recognition in government,” said Max Stier, whom Heyman hired to run the Partnership. “We wanted to create a culture of recognition.”

Christopher Mark: Led the development of industry-wide standards and practices to prevent roof falls in underground mines, leading to the first year (2016) of no roof fall fatalities in the United States. A former coal miner. .... Mark was born in 1956, the eldest of three sons of a civil engineer named Robert Mark [an engineering professor at Princeton].

Coal mining had long been the most dangerous job in the United States. At the height of the Vietnam War, a coal miner was nearly as likely to be killed on the job as an American soldier in uniform was to die in combat, and far more likely to be injured. (And that didn’t include some massive number of deaths that would one day follow from black lung disease.) Up to that point in the 20th century, half of the coal miners who had died on the job — roughly 50,000 people — had been killed by falling roofs. In his classes at Penn State, Chris saw at least one reason for that: The coal mining industry had learned to see the problem as the cost of doing business.

His rock mechanics professor was a Polish aristocrat named Z.T. Bieniawski. .... [Bieniawski] was a fabulous professor — the sort of teacher who got you thinking even when he didn’t mean to. One day he lectured his students on the formulas used to design the pillars that supported the roofs of coal mines — which of course sounds like a topic to light a fire under no one. But it lit a fire under Chris. He’d experienced roof collapse. He knew that poorly designed pillars killed people. Now he learned that the formulas used to create them were all over the map. “A kid in class raised his hand,” said Chris. “He asked, ‘which of these formulas is the right one?’” As Bieniawski had created one of the formulas, the professor’s answer seemed almost modest. “You need to use your engineering judgment,” he replied. But that can’t be right, thought Chris. Each formula implied a different pillar design than the others. At most only one could be right. When wrong, coal miners died. Yet no one had figured out which formula was best or really even saw the problem. “I said, this is the place for me!” said Chris.

He graduated in 1981 without a clear idea of where to go next. He had a serious interest (mine safety) but no obvious place to express it. He worked for a spell with an engineering consulting firm in Chicago but found it dull and beside the point.

The body of a coal miner after 

a tunnel cave-in

Then Bieniawski called to say that he’d just received new funding for a PhD student. He wanted Chris to be that student. All Chris needed was a thesis topic. The coal mining industry soon supplied it. On Dec. 19, 1984, a roof collapsed inside the Wilberg Mine, just outside of Salt Lake City. The miners at Wilberg had been trying to break the world record for the most coal mined in a single day. Nine senior officials from the mine’s owner, Utah Power and Light, had entered the mine to witness history. Suddenly, a fire broke out in one of the two main tunnels. Before the executives or 18 working coal miners could escape, the roof in the second tunnel collapsed and blocked their exit. All 27 people wound up trapped inside an inferno. It would take a year to recover their bodies. And Christopher Mark thought: If they’d figured out the right formula for their pillars, they’d all still be alive.

“Pillar Design For Longwall Mining” would be the subject of his PhD thesis and the title of his first paper. Bad pillar design was killing longwall coal miners. It’s what killed 27 people in the Wilberg Mine. It had killed miners since longwall mining had been invented in the 1940s. It had also cost the coal industry money. .... “The same roof fall that can kill miners can also cost a lot of money,” Chris said. And yet even though the coal mine industry had a huge financial incentive to figure out how to solve the problem, it hadn’t solved it.

The powers obviously were only as helpful as the safety rules. And the safety rules had some problems. In the late 1960s, roughly 200 American coal miners were dying on the job every year. Half of those were killed by collapsing roofs, and roughly half of those were killed while following the existing safety rules.

No one ever told Chris to invent better rules. But before he even began to figure out better designs for coal mine pillars, he knew that was what he wanted to do: He wanted to keep miners safe. As he worked toward his PhD, he figured out that the only place to do it was inside the federal government. The coal mining companies had largely dodged their responsibility. Industry executives who visited Penn State made it clear to Chris that they viewed safety as a subject for wimps and losers. And no one coal mining company was likely to fund the research that would benefit all coal companies. Working on his thesis, right through the mid-1980s, Chris had offers to teach, but he knew no university could guarantee him access to the mines he wanted to study. “Plus, academia puts on a facade of being impartial but is in fact much more closely connected to industry than anything else,” he said. “In some ways it is an arm of industry.” He needed to find a job inside the federal government, with either the Mine Safety and Health Administration or the Bureau of Mines. The mine safety agency had been hit by the Reagan administration with a hiring freeze. But the Bureau of Mines, still largely owned by the industry, had some money and knew about his research. “I just kind of had an open door there,” said Chris. “I’m not actually sure who even hired me. I know I had one interview because I forgot a tie and had to stop off at Wal-Mart on the way to buy one.” It was now 1987. He was 31 years old, married and the father of a 1-year-old son.

He joined the bureau at its research facility outside of Pittsburgh. Upon arrival, he sensed a certain wariness from his new colleagues. No one else had a PhD. No one else had studied with the great Bieniawski. “They put me in a basement office that was way out of the way with a guy who was mentally unstable,” said Chris. “Whenever I’d get a phone call, he’d start making these funny sounds.” They also assigned him to the jobs no one else wanted — week-long trips to gather data from coal mines in Kentucky. None of it mattered; he was the least likely human being on the planet to put on airs, and what was pain to others was pleasure to him. He didn’t even much care that his phone calls triggered at the desk beside him the honks of a braying donkey. “I thought I’d died and gone to heaven,” said Chris. “The idea of being able to spend weeks studying these longwall mines was fantastic. And as soon as I got to the Bureau of Mines, I had no one to tell me what to do. I even made up my own title: Principal Roof Control Specialist.”

Every now and then, however, Chris’s work slipped into public view. His coal mine roof rating was used all over the world and, in his own narrow circles, he was well known. In 2016 — the first year in recorded history that zero underground coal miners were killed by falling roofs — Chris landed in a public spat. He’d seen an article by an economic historian about the history of roof bolts in the journal of Technology and Culture. The historian wanted to argue that roof bolts had taken 20 years to reduce fatality rates because it had taken 20 years for the coal mining industry to learn to use them. All by itself, the market had solved this worker safety problem! The government’s role, in his telling, was as a kind of gentle helpmate of industry. “It was kind of amazing,” said Chris. “What actually happened was the regulators were finally empowered to regulate. Regulators needed to be able to enforce. He elevated the role of technology. He minimized the role of regulators.”

To set the record straight — and maybe also to start a fight with an academic he was bound to win — Chris wrote a long and debate-ending letter to Technology and Culture. As it happened, he knew the journal well. His father had been its editor.

 

Chris Mark in an Alabama mine, next to a chunk of rock that fell into the walkway from a nine-foot-high sidewall because a bolt meant to hold it in place wasn't long enough

I asked Chris a question that plainly irritated him. .... “Is it normal for someone in your job to write academic history papers?” .... His papers — mostly nitty-gritty descriptions of his research inside coal mines — have made him, by a factor of two, the world’s most cited mining engineer. “I never wrote an academic paper,” he said, a bit sharply. “Not one. They’re technical papers.” He caught himself and explained that he saw himself not as an academic but a solver of practical problems. “I have an absolute allergy to academic elitism,” he said, but finally added. “No, it’s not normal.”

That is a small part of this fascinating article. The article goes on at great length about what Chris did. Because of his work, 2016 was the first year in American history that no coal miners died in roof collapse accidents. A few points are worth knowing:

• Before Chris, regardless of their contrary propaganda, mine companies did not care about safety, they cared about profit

• Federal regulatory agencies were captured and controlled by the mine industry

• Relevant parts of academia were captured and controlled by the mine industry

• Chris never considered himself to be an academic - he distrusted and hated academic elitism  - he saw himself as a problem-solving technician, not an academician 

• No matter how vehemently the American authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement denies it, work like what Chris has done is squarely targeted for extinction by Project 2025 -- DJT will fire people like Chris who cannot be bought off or otherwise corrupted -- Chris is part of the evil deep state that American authoritarians want to get rid of

The debate

The day after

My assessments was F for DJT (as expected, mostly lies, slanders and irrational crackpottery), D for the moderators (they let DJT interrupt, gave him significantly more time than Harris and they did not always fact check DJT's blatant lies) and C for Harris. The main MSNBC politics crew apparently would have given Harris and the moderators an A and DJT an F. Faux News (Hannity, JD Vance, JFK Jr would have given Harris and the "far left" moderators an F and DJT an A. Faux said Harris lied constantly, e.g., about fracking, confiscating guns and defunding the police.

Those assessments aside, what really mattered was the reaction of undecided voters. Some initial polling indicated that 63% said Harris won and 37% said DJT won. If that polling holds up in the next couple of weeks, then maybe my assessment was wrong, particularly about the effectiveness of Harris' performance. I tried to look at the debate from the point of view of an undecided voter, something I may do not understand very well. From there Harris looked mediocre to me. But maybe to others, she looked pretty good and/or DJT looked mostly like the radical freak liar he has been since 2016. 

NYT commentary: For two undecided voters: Bob and Sharon Reed, both 77-year-old retired teachers who live on a farm in central Pennsylvania, had high hopes for the debate between Ms. Harris and former President Donald Trump. They thought that they would come away with a candidate to support in November. But, Ms. Reed said, “It was all disappointing.” .... But not all voters, especially those undecided few who could sway the election, were effusive about the vice president’s performance.

WaPo reporting: Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) praised Trump’s debate performance in the spin room following it. But he also acknowledged some skill on Harris’s part. “What we learned tonight is that Kamala Harris is actually probably pretty good at needling people,” he said. .... [commentary like the following is what reflected my reactions in giving Harris a C] As the debate went on, Harris continued to do just that. She described herself as a “middle-class kid raised by a hardworking mother,” and as someone who, unlike Trump, knows “not everybody got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times.” And she repurposed Trump’s signature line from his signature show, “The Apprentice,” to rebut his repeated false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people,” she said. “So let’s be clear about that. And clearly he is having a very difficult time processing that.” [maybe that kind line by Harris was more effective than I initially thought]

A WaPo swing state poll: In the first presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump, The Washington Post tried something new: We asked a group of uncommitted, swing-state voters in real time about their reactions to Tuesday’s debate. They thought Harris performed better, regardless of how they plan to vote in November.

So again, my assessment of Harris' performance seems to have underestimated her.

The day of the debate

Continue this chat tomorrow.

At ~15 min: So far Harris is doing badly responding to DJT. DJT is flinging tons of lies and BS at her but she is having a hard time directly responding. She just can't get her footing. DJT is winning so far.

At ~20 min DJT spews horrific lies about abortion. Harris finally says DJT is telling lies. Finally. Harris finally attaches DJT with Project 2025. DJT responds with blatant lies about his policy and what "Americans wanted." DJT calls Harris a liar, then launches into another blast of lies. Harris' comeback is OK but not that impressive. She forgets that most Americans want a national law to protect abortion. DJT keeps saying (lying) Americans want to decide at the state level.

At ~26 min Harris talks about being a prosecutor and immigrants and drugs coming over the border. She argues that DJT killed the Republican border bill, but her attack is mediocre at best. DJT responds with blatant lies about Harris' rallies and his crowd sizes. He blamed Dems for the border mess, ignoring the fact that he killed the border bill. DJT says illegals are eating dogs and cats in Springfield OH, which is totally insane and not supported by facts. DJT says people say that on TV. Harris' response to that blast of lies and crackpottery is again mediocre at best -- she is off point. In response, DJT blithers about him firing people, but Biden didn't fire anyone and he lies about getting more votes than presidential candidate ever. DJT's lies are just overwhelming Harris.

At ~34 min DJT lies and says Harris is letting foreign criminals into the US and US crime is "through the roof." All lies. Now DJT is lying to one of the moderators, who are doing a piss poor job of calling out DJT's lies. Harris points out all of DJT's crimes. DJT responds he is winning in court and the lawsuits against him are all political and Biden-inspired and bogus. That's another blast of blatant lies. Harris hits back citing DJT's comments about cancelling the constitution. DJT interrupts and says he "took a bullet to the head" because of Harris and Biden.

At ~42 min DJT lies about his "many, many" billions of dollars he made. DJT accuses Harris of defund the police and DJT tells her to shut up, she shuts up. DJT lies about fracking and criminals, blaming Harris and Dems and lying about her policies and destroying America. DJT blithers about the size of solar farms, when they are tiny in terms of US land mass. DJT then lies about illegal immigrants killing people and not being prosecuted. DJT lies about Pelosi being responsible for the 1/6 coup attempt. Harris counters saying DJT fomented the 1/6 attack and he was impeached for it, but then she goes into Chrarlottesville and the 'fine people on each side' thing.

At this point, personal frustration with the weakness of Harris' responses is getting hard to contain. I hope I misread this, but DJT is clearly winning with blatant lies and slanders that Harris cannot effectively rebut. 

At ~51 min DJT denies losing the 2020 election and his prior comment "lost by a whisker" was sarcasm. Again, DJT just blasts out lies and nobody can counter him in this stupid ABC debate format. DJT is steamrolling both Harris and the moderators. Harris' response is mediocre at best. She just cannot land a solid punch. DJT hits back citing Hungary's dictator Viktor Orban as a smart leader who thinks the world wants DJT to be president because DJT is respected and feared. DJT attacks Harris' run in 2020.

At ~57 min the Israel mess is asked about. Harris responds, calls for ceasefire and a 2-state solution, but will always arm Israel -- rebuild Gaza. DJT responds saying the war would never have started if he was in office. Then DJT slanders Harris saying she hates Israel and the Arab populations too. He blames everything bad in the Middle East on Harris-Biden. Harris says she does not hate Israel and comments, including some comments about Ukraine and North Korea -- mediocre. Harris still does not have the guts to call DJT a dictator. DJT barges in and blithers lies about crime and the gross incompetence and weakness of Biden and the Dems.

At ~70 min DJT blithers about Ukraine -- claims the war will be settled before he is sworn into office if he is re-elected  because he knows how to get the job done. Harris can't respond because DJT  interrupts. Harris then gets a chance to respond and again her response seems to be too soft -- she gets into details and it just isn't working. Then, finally Harris starts to hits DJT harder. DJT responds with blither and a whopper lie that Harris was sent to negotiate with Putin and Zalenski about the Ukraine war. Harris calls that a lie, which is it.

The "moderators" keep letting DJT interrupt. 

I can't watch this any more. I'll pick this up here again tomorrow.