Wednesday, April 17, 2024

#108 / A Terrifying Warning

 

 
Some disasters are real. Some threats are real, too, as opposed to those "Didn't Happen" threats featured in this blog yesterday. Click this "Didn't Happen" link if you missed it. 

As of Monday, March 4, 2024, the so-called "Smokehouse Creek Fire," also known as the "Texas Panhandle Fire," had burned through more than one million acres, "making it the largest wildfire in Texas history." 

I am quoting, above, from a Guest Essay by John Vailant, which appeared in the March 5, 2024, New York Times. Vailant has written a book entitled, Fire Weather: The Making of a Beast. His Guest Essay is titled, "The Fires Sweeping Across Texas Offer a Terrifying Warning."

What is it that makes this fire in Texas so particularly "terrifying," to use Vailant's word (it was only 15% contained at the time Vailant wrote his column)? 

Here is an extensive quotation from Vailant's essay, which I think helps us answer that inquiry: 

Two weeks before the Smokehouse fire broke out, I flew to Seattle from Cincinnati over a landscape I know well. But some 30,000 feet below my window seat lay a country I barely recognized: From the Ohio River to the Rockies, there was virtually no snow; the lakes and rivers were ice free. I’m a Northerner, and I know what February is supposed to look like, but what season was this? ....

For weeks now, red flag warnings from the National Weather Service indicating elevated wildfire risk have been popping up all across the United States — from the Mexican border to the Great Lakes and the Florida panhandle. Similar warnings are appearing north of the Canadian border. On Feb. 20, the province of Alberta, the Texas-size petro-state above Montana, declared the official start of fire season. This was nearly two weeks earlier than last year and six weeks earlier than a couple of decades ago. Alberta is in the heart of Canada, a famously cold and snowy place, and yet some 50 wildfires are burning across that province. In neighboring British Columbia, where I live, there are nearly 100 active fires, a number of which carried over from last year’s legendary fire season (the worst in Canadian history) linked to low snowpack and above-average winter temperatures.
It is alarming to see these fires and warnings in what is supposed to be the dead of winter, but fire, as distracting and dangerous as it is, is merely one symptom. What is happening in North America is not a regional aberration; it’s part of a global departure, what climate scientists call a phase shift. The past year has seen virtually every metric of planetary distress lurch into uncharted territory: sea surface temperature, air temperature, polar ice loss, fire intensity — you name it, it is off the charts. It was 72 degrees Fahrenheit in Wisconsin on Tuesday and 110 degrees Fahrenheit in Paraguay; large portions of the North Pacific and the South Atlantic are running more than five degrees Fahrenheit above normal....

Historically, it has been humans who have outpaced the natural world. From arrowheads to artificial intelligence, our species has progressed steadily faster than geologic time. But now, geologic time — specifically, atmospheric time and ocean time — is moving as fast as we are, in some cases faster — faster than technology, faster than history. The world we thought we knew is changing under our feet because we changed it (emphasis added).

The "Natural World," upon which all our human creations depend, is not only "changing." It has "changed." The fact that the changes have been caused by human activities doesn't offer comfort. It doesn't make them easier to deal with.

A climber on a steep slope might do something to dislodge a large stone - intentionally or unintentionally - and the fact that it was those human actions that have sent that boulder rolling down the mountain doesn't mean that a similar and equal human effort can stop the progress of what that human action began. And so it is with the process of global warming that has initiated our "climate crisis," with millions of acres burning into ash, with no snow in February, with all its other impacts ever clearer.

The very first thing to do, when coming into contact with a reality not formerly experienced, is to realize that it is a "reality," and that it is not going to "go away." The "boulder" of global warming is rolling down the hill. Let's not pretend it isn't rolling. Let's not pretend that human civilization is not at the bottom, and threatened with destruction.

Then, of course, there is a Step #2. Once we have admitted the reality of something we don't want to acknowledge, Step #2 is obvious: What are we going to do about it, now that we realize what's happening?

Before we can change what we are currently doing, and do what is necessary in the new situation in which we find ourselvess, we need to change our "minds." 

All of us alive today should not pretend that the boulder rolling down the mountain isn't really rolling! If we, the climbers who disslodged it, depend on the structures of civilization, below - structures of civilization that will be obliterated by what we have begun - we need to acknowledge the facts. 

After acknowledging the facts (Step #1), we need to realize that what we might have predicted for our lives is no longer any kind of reliable basis upon which we can plan for the future. We need to change our lives, give up whatever dreams and plans we might have had, premised on the idea (now so clearly erroneous) that we can assume that the world  into which we were born will continue to be the world in which we live - now, and in the future. 

As I have said beforeOctavia Butler's book, The Parable of the Sower, provides us with a metaphor that we can use to understand, and to react to our real situation. 

We need to "find some friends," bond with them, person to person, in real life, and turn our attention, with those friends we find, to what we need to do, now - what we should do in a world transformed by our actions in the past. 

What should we do? What can we do? What is going to be possible for us - not waiting for someone else to tell us what to do? What do we need to do, in this world in which we now realize we are living, with the bolder rolling down the mountain?

Find some friends. Give up your old plans, premised on the idea that things have not changed. Things have changed. Take it from John Vailant! 

Make a new plan, friends! Do some things you haven't done before; do them with the friends you find; do some things you think will help.


Tuesday, April 16, 2024

#107 / Didn't Happen!




A total solar eclipse, visible in different parts of the world, was expected to occur on April 8, 2024. And that total solar eclipse did, in fact, take place, just as promised and predicted. That happened!

What did not happen?

Well, for one thing, the "Rapture" did not happen. The poster that predicted that the Rapture would occur on April 8th turned out to be wrong. For those not familiar with the Rapture, click the link in the first line of this paragraph, and let Wikipedia provide you with some guidance: "The Rapture is an eschatological position held by some Christians, particularly those of American evangelicalism, consisting of an end-time event when all dead Christian believers will be resurrected and, joined with Christians who are still alive, together will rise "in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."

Nice idea, I guess. It just didn't happen!

Other things didn't happen, either! For instance, right wing commentator Luke Rudkowski, who operates an internet-based organization called, "We Are Change," had a number of grim predictions (or what I think it is fair to call predictions), naming April 8th as a critical date. Here is a snapshot of a bulletin sent out by Rudowski just a few days in advance of that April 8th date. Note, by the way, that Rudowski is willing to sell you some gold, if you think that might provide some solace, or protection, as the upcoming threat looms: 


A former Mayor of Nevada City, California, whose name is Reinette Senum, maintains a blog, and has a podcast presence, and comments frequently on political topics. She was even more hysterical than Luke Rudkowski in her sense that April 8th was a day of potential doom. Here is some online evidence:


Senum also sent out an email bulletin (citing to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," if you can believe that) and proclaimed the following: 

I urge you to pay close attention and be open-minded regarding the following information, as it contains a critical warning that could impact us all. While I typically focus on solutions rather than spreading fear, the current geopolitical climate demands our attention. Recent events, including the ongoing crisis in Gaza, the Baltimore Francis Scott Key bridge collapse (now being plucked out of the river by a crane with a "CIA history"), and the recent bombing of the Iranian embassy by Israeli forces suggest that we may be on the brink of a full-scale global conflict. 
The urgency is compounded by the predictive programming evident in Obama's disturbing film, 'Leave the World Behind,' coupled with recent signs pointing to a significant event aligning with the forthcoming solar eclipse on April 8th, as previously detailed in my substack post, HERE. While I am cautious about assigning specific dates to potential events, the convergence of unusual occurrences, such as states declaring States of Emergency and mobilization of the National Guard in preparation for the solar eclipse, raises serious concerns. 
More importantly, my interview with Matthew Tower, documentary filmmaker of Israel's Second 9/11: How Zionism Conquered JFK, America, and Palestine, is causing me to want to put out a severe warning to my friends, subscribers, and beyond.

It is largely good news, I guess, that none of these extraordinary predictions did, in fact, occur. They just didn't happen! 

My point, in today's blog post, is about how we should actually consider our position in the world. Are we powerless? Are we "doomed"? Is our fate, for good or ill, to be swept away by events too large for us to impact, and which probably derive from the exercise of some evil (or benign) power, international or cosmic in its character?

I would like to ask you to believe me when I tell you that the answer is, "No."

WE make the "Human World" in which we most immediately reside. To change the world, we need to take action, to do something new, something never ever tried before, perhaps. 

If we are waiting for either salvation or doom to be delivered by someone, or something, that is beyond us, we are wasting the time in which we, ourselves, might take action. Given the state of the world, wasting time is ill-advised. Time is limited, in case you haven't noticed. 

I have mentioned Michael Jackson before in this blog. As we encounter hysteria on all sides, as our genuine peril is either paralyzing us or driving us into bizarre actions and activities, let's remember those Michael Jackson lyrics: 

If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then make a change. 

     - Michael Jackson, Man In The Mirror 

 


Monday, April 15, 2024

#106 / Private Equity And Making Politics Primary

  

 
Blackstone, Apollo, and a handful of other firms are demolishing the US economy for short-term gain, and leaving workers and communities in the wreckage.
- Chris Hedges 

If you click on the YouTube link you will find at the top of the page, you can listen to Chris Hedges talk with Gretchen Morgenson, author of These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America

If you'd rather read than listen, which I, personally, find is quicker, you can click right here for a full transcript of Hedges' exploration, with Morgenson, of how "private equity" works. Hedges' title is, "How Private Equity Conquered America."

The main point, I think, is pretty much this one: When ongoing businesses are purchased by the "private equity" funds set up by wealthy individuals, the individuals whose "private equity" is what is used to buy up those businesses are not, at all, intersted in the businesses themselves. They don't, particularly, want to run a local newspaper, or an airline, or any other business.

All they are interested in is money. 

"Private equity," therefore, to put it another way, is not focused on maintaining the businesses it buys. Private equity is focused on making the most money possible. If fucking the business is what helps private equity do that, then that is exactly what private equity will do ("fucking" is being used as a technical term, here, by the way). Check out the condition of your local newspaper for an example!

But what about the "public good"?

Well, here is who is generally interested in the "public good": the public. 

The "public" means you and me, and we do not, of course, have the billions that "private equity" has. 

What do we have? Well, "we, the people" - and that's who "the public" is - have "politics."

Read all about it in Chris Hedges' transcript! Or, listen, if you'd rather do that than read. 

If you do follow along with Chris Hedges, reading or listening, either one, I think you will conclude that it's time for us to reassert the primacy of the public good. If you end up sharing my thoughts about that, and if you're "serious" about what it takes to have the public good prevail over private equity, you will realize that a whole lot of us are going to have to reorient our lives and make "politics" primary.

If significant numbers of us are not willing to do that, then we know what will happen to the public good. It will be (and we will be) ...... [insert the applicable technical term here, using the past tense].*


 
Image Credit:
https://youtu.be/shv9g-4xXww?si=YLw6r9q1Z60sd4cS
_______________________________________________
*Today, being "tax day," is probably a particularly appropriate day to make this point.

Sunday, April 14, 2024

#105 / A Guest Book Review

 


I have previously mentioned Hadley Vlahos and her book, which is titled, The In-Between. If you would like to read my earlier blog posting, here is where to click. In that earlier blog posting, I commented on a conversation between Vlahos and New York Times writer David Marchese. Marchese superintends the "Talk" column at The Times, which appears in the newspaper's Sunday magazine. The column focusing on Vlahos is dated October 21, 2023. 

Vlahos is a hospice nurse, but my earlier discussion didn't really center on that. My attention was captured by Vlahos' assertion that she often had the feeling, after one of her patients had passed, that the world was unaware of the significance of that person:

There’s this moment, especially when I’ve taken care of someone for a while, where I’ll walk outside and I’ll go fill up my gas tank and it’s like: Wow, all these other people have no idea that we just lost someone great. The world lost somebody great, and they’re getting a sandwich. 

I was struck by that observation because it is my belief that we very seldom understand the point that I think Vlahos was recognizing with her comment. We are all great. We are all important. We don't even recognize that ourselves. Generally, I cite to Ugo Betti when I say this. Click right here to find out something about Betti that you won't get from the Wikipedia article that I have linked to his name.

At any rate, my earlier blog posting didn't really get into Vlahos' work as a hospice nurse, nor did it much feature the main thrust of The In-Between, which is accurately described on its front cover as a book containing "unforgettable encounters during life's final moments." My lack of much comment on the central message of Vlahos' book, in that earlier blog posting, is of course quite natural, since I had not read the book. All I had read was just the Marchese column.

In what was a pleasaant surprise to me, someone who had read that earlier blog posting of mine went out and got Vlahos' book, and then sent me an email to thank me for drawing her attention to it. She did read the book (which I hadn't done), and the email I received constituted what might be thought of as a "guest book review." Here it is:

I want to tell you about the Hadley Vlahos book you mentioned in your blog #334 from last year, "We've Just Lost Someone Great."

I'd bought it online [and] I think it is a fantastic book, in part because it is accessible to most people who have any interest in death, whether natural or forced by circumstances to finally have to face it...  Actually I couldn't stop reading it, though I tried to manage it in measured doses like my antibiotics. I think she's done a profound thing in a very simple format, which normally would make me judge it to be less-than-serious....

So - I'll bet your local library has a copy, since it was on the NYT bestseller list for weeks last year, according to that NYT interview you referred to in your piece. I'd say it's an easy read ... but I don't think it's lightweight. I am profoundly grateful to you for bringing it to my/our attention!

Well, given this review, I thought I had better read Vlahos' book for myself! And so I did, and I am glad I did! I am writing this blog posting to say that I absolutely agree with my "guest book reviewer." Vlahos' book is, I think, profound.

Take it from me, or from my guest reviewer. Hadley Vlahos' book is recommended!

 
Image Credit:

Saturday, April 13, 2024

#104 / Taking A Charge




Pictured is Brandin Podziemski. He plays basketball for the Golden State Warriors, as even non-Warriors fans can probably surmise, just by consulting the picture above. Those who follow the Warriors, who may still be denominated "Authentic Fans," a term that was in vogue a few years ago, well know Podziemski, who is a "rookie" this season, but who has become one of the more valued players on the team.

The picture of Podziemski, sitting on the court, comes from an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 27, 2023. The article is focused on a "skill," if you want to call it that, that few players possess, and that Podziemski brought to the team as a relatively recent arrival. 

The "skill" referenced is the willingness and ability of Podziemski to "take a charge." That means that the player is willing to embrace "the gritty, sometimes painful task of planting his body in front of an onrushing opponent," and letting that opponent knock him down, so that the opponent, instead of making a basket, and scoring two points "at the rim," as the announcers say, is called for a foul, instead. 

A player who is willing to put his body in the way of a basket-bound opponent, "taking a charge," can convert what is likely to be a two-point score for the opposition into an opportunity for the team whose self-sacrificing player has "taken the charge" to  make some points itself, and certainly to take possession of the ball.

Here is a little excerpt from the Chronicle article, commenting on this particular basketball talent: 

Brandin Podziemski, even as an eighth-grader, understood he needed to find ways to contribute to his team. He couldn’t jump especially high, so he embraced the gritty, sometimes painful task of planting his body in front of an onrushing opponent. 

That skill proved useful as Podziemski moved from St. John’s Northwestern Academies outside Milwaukee to college stops at Illinois and Santa Clara. And now, as a Golden State Warriors rookie, Podziemski remains accomplished at one of the game’s unglamorous, if valuable, chores. 

He leads the Warriors in charges taken this season with 12 (through Tuesday), including a dramatic, game-saving one Dec. 17 in Portland. Podziemski’s total ranks fourth in the NBA and tops all rookies. 

Brandin recalled a church-league coach extolling the value of taking charges. His dad traces the habit to eighth grade, when Brandin chose to pursue basketball over baseball. He started watching videos of college and pro players, including the European leagues, and diligently studied the nuances of the game.

“I think that really took off when he went to military school,” John Podziemski said. “His school credo was, ‘You’re only as strong as your weakest link.’ Brandin seemed to think if he couldn’t go up in the air to block every shot, then he could take a charge.”

It became a small snapshot of a wider St. John’s philosophy stressing team over individual. Podziemski came to realize if he was deficient in one area, such as pure athleticism, there was no point in lamenting his shortcoming (emphasis added).

The phrase that captured my attention, as I read The Chronicle story about Podziemski, was the phrase I have highlighted, above: "team over individual." In fact, that "team over individual" philosophy is the essence of what I celebrated as "Warriors Ball" in that blog posting I referenced earlier, and in this one, too

That approach has worked for the Warriors. 

I contend that it works for all of us, when we practice it in the context of the way we configure our politics, society, and economy. 

Why don't we give it a try? We still have lots of time left in 2024 to consider how to accomplish that, and to celebrate our connections, not our individualism!


 
Image Credit:

Friday, April 12, 2024

#103 / Let It Be A Tale




Refaat Alareer is pictured above. Peoples Dispatch identifies him as an "internationally beloved academic, poet, and activist." Wikipedia tells us that "Alareer was killed [on December 6, 2023], in an Israeli airstrike in northern Gaza, along with his brother, brother's son, sister, and her three children, during the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip." 

Wikipedia also notes that the Euro-Med Monitor released a statement saying that Alareer was apparently deliberately targeted, "surgically bombed out of the entire building," with his death having been preceeded by "death threats that Refaat received online and by phone from Israeli accounts."

Alareer left behind a poem, which I am reprinting in full at the end of this blog posting. His poem, "If I Must Die," was referenced in a New York Times' editorial statement published on April 8, 2024. Paula Chakravartty and Vaasuki Nesiah, authors of that statement in The Times, are both professors at New York University. In their statement in The Times, they were objecting to the discipline imposed by the university's administration against students who read Alareer's poem at a poetry reading held during the Spring semester, this year.

In the hard copy version I read on the morning of April 8th, the Chakravartty-Nesiah column was titled, "Political Dissent Is Under Attack on Campus." Online, the column was titled as follows: "Is This The End of Academic Freedom?"

The concerns that Chakravartty and Nesiah have raised about academic freedom are justified. But even more importantly - at least, so I think - Alareer's poem raises an even more important question for all of us, as citizens of the United States, and as those who are ultimately responsible for what our country does. Protests sweeping the country, objecting the United States' military contribution to what Israel is doing in Gaza, are making a point. The kind of military destruction that Israel has imposed on Gaza, accompanied by the tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people, is insupportable; it is wrong, and the United States, not Israel alone, bears a significant share of the responsibility, having furnished the means for all that death.

"Death" is no adequate solution for any problem we encounter in life. As I said recently, in another blog posting, "leadership" does not require "killing people." 

Alareer wanted his death to inspire "A Tale" a story full of hope. But what we have been seeing is not that. What we are witnessing is an "old story," and it is time for all of us to begin telling a different one. This is not the time to “pick a side,” and assign blame, or to pronounce approval.  Killing others as a way to confront the real problems we face in this life brings no hope now - nor ever really did. Such assignments of blame and approval are an “old story,” the “traditional story,” the story we always seem to tell ourselves. As I have said in another past blog posting, we should pay attention to a statement popularly attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." 

What we have been witnessing, I think is not what Refaat Alareer so fervently wished for. Instead of the "Tale" that he wanted us to tell, we are still hearing, on repeat, that story that has been told for so long, and that has been repeated so often. That story that we continue to hear, that "old story," told so often, has documented our failure, time after time, to make death any kind of satisfactory and efficacious solution to the problems we confront in life.

So, as we listen to that "old story" being told again, let us truly understand it. 

Then.... we do need to be sure that we truly understand it. 

And then.... when we do. 

I hope you do. 

Let us tell a different story, starting now. 

Let it be a tale!

oooOOOooo

“IF I MUST DIE”
     - Refaat Alareer

If I must die,
you must live
to tell my story
to sell my things
to buy a piece of cloth
and some strings,
(make it white with a long tail)
so that a child, somewhere in Gaza
while looking heaven in the eye
awaiting his dad who left in a blaze—
and bid no one farewell
not even to his flesh
not even to himself—
sees the kite, my kite you made, flying up above
and thinks for a moment an angel is there
bringing back love
If I must die
let it bring hope
let it be a tale

Thursday, April 11, 2024

#102 / "Rational Ignorance" And Our Voting Power




Writing in the Sunday, April 7, 2024, edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, Joe Mathews, a political commentator, describes "rational ignorance" this way: 

Californians vote on many ballot measures, but we rarely participate in significant public discussions about their content and impact. 
This isn’t simply a result of apathy or poor civic education. Rather, it’s an example of “rational ignorance,” a term coined by economist Anthony Downs in his 1957 book, “An Economic Theory of Democracy,” that defines this democratic reality: Since you have just one vote out of millions, your vote doesn’t much matter. So, it’s rational to not devote precious time to reaching well-considered decisions about how you vote (emphasis added).

You can click right here if you'd like to read the entirety of Mathews' column on this topic, though be aware that The Chronicle's paywall might frustrate your efforts. It could be that you will not be able to read what Mathews has to say unless you are a subscriber.

Ironically, on the very same day that Mathews' column appeared in The Chronicle, telling readers that "your vote doesn't much matter," the headline on a front page story in the San Jose Mercury News read this way: "Lesson learned: Yes, every vote really does matter." 


That headline, just quoted, is the "hard copy" version of the headline, and documents the fact that in an election held to determine who will succeed Anna Eschoo, in the United States Congress (District 16), two different candidates tied for second place - Joe Simitian and Evan Low - meaning that the election in November is likely to be a runoff with three, not two, candidates on the ballot. 

As a result of this second place tie vote, it is quite possible that the candidate who wins in November will not have to receive a majority of the votes cast in that runoff election. One of the three candidates will be able to claim the post with the votes of only 33 ⅓%, plus one. A column by Daniel Borenstein, which ran on April 7th in The Mercury's "Opinion" section, denounced the fact of this "three-way" runoff, claiming that "the state Legislature has completely failed in its duty to protect the integrity of results in extremely close elections." 

There is some merit, I think, in what Bornstein argues, but I would like to focus in this blog posting on Mathews' claim that it is "rational" for you to pay little, in any, attention to your voting choices. He makes this claim, of course, on the grounds that your individual vote "doesn't much matter," which is certainly not the way that Immanuel Kant would like you think about whether or not you should get involved with voting. 

Kant, as you may remember, is the philosopher who explained the importance of the "categorical imperative." Wikipedia gives this shorthand summary of what Kant claimed was a preeminent ethical principle:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

In other words, in the voting context, if you don't think you should waste your "precious time" paying attention to voting, you are really arguing for a system based on the idea that no one should vote at all. Is that really the kind of world in which you'd like to live? What do you think about that, Mr. Mathews? Is that really what you're shooting for? That would be pretty undemocratic!

I strongly urge anyone reading this blog posting to get involved in voting, as the November 2024 election rolls around. I'd argue that figuring out who and what to vote for, in all of the various elections that will be on the November ballot, is one of the best ways to use our "precious time" as Election Day draws near. Sure, watching Netflix movies, and posting TikTok videos, and taking walks in the woods, and other activities (studying for exams, if you are a college student) are all good ways that your "precious time" can be spent. But let's not give short shrift to "democracy." Democracy is pretty precious, too. 

As a final note. While I'm telling you that you should get involved in "voting," I do want to make clear that what I call "self-government" demands more of us than merely casting a vote. If we want to be "governing," not simply "governed," then we need to get personally and directly engaged in the political process. We can't have "self-government" if we are not willing to get involved in every aspect of government ourselves.

That said - lest anyone think that "voting" alone is sufficient - if the question is whether or not you should vote, and whether or not you should inform yourself on why, and when, and where to vote, then I have an answer to Joe Mathews, and to anyone else who might be enamored of the "rational ignorance" theory of our relationship to government. The correct answer is: YES! VOTE! 

Voting is a very good use of our "precious time." 
 

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

#101 / Insurrection And Ressurection

 


A friend from the Central Valley (she authors columns for a couple of Central Valley newspapers, which are published under the title, "Notes From Home") has drawn attention to the similarities between the word, "insurrection" and the word "ressurection." Her column on this topic, coming shortly after Easter this year, got my attention. Here's how she begins her discussion: 

Only two letters separate “resurrection” from “insurrection.” The prefixes are attached to the same Latin root, surgere, which means “to rise; see surge.” Only two letters separate the English definitions of each: resurrection means “to rise again,” while insurrection means “to rise against.” But in our guts we feel they are 180 degrees apart, one good and holy, the other bad and dangerous. Of course, the reason the Jews begged Pilate to take Jesus out of the picture was that, to them, he and his followers felt like an insurrection.

Trudy Wischemann, who writes those "Notes From Homes" columns, is very much focused on the need to make a "change in the political control over our water resources, a change which necessarily would diminish the power of the largest landowners in this end of the San Joaquin Valley." What Wischemann wants, in other words, is a "revolution," of a kind, in the management of water resources. An "insurrection" would certainly be one way to begin, and to carry forward, a fundamental change in who controls the water resources that determine who benefits, who doesn't, and how our world is structured. 

What if, Wischemann asks in her column, we started characterizing the kind of changes we need to make - which are, indeed, "revolutionary" changes - as a "resurrection," as opposed to an "insurrection." 

An "insurrection" seems to indicate that we need to take action against an existing order that, normally, can claim deference, and that we will ordinarily take for granted as a "reality," as something "normal," and that, we often assume, is entirely "just and proper." That conception of what it means to engage in an "insurrection" - some kind of affirmative attempt to overturn the existing state of affairs - is why we tend to think of an insurrection as something "bad and dangerous." Overturning the existing reality is, by definition, disruptive.

If our efforts to change the existing order were seen not as an "insurrection," but as a "resurrection," they would be characterized as a return to, and as a restoration of what is "just and proper." At least, that's Wischemann's suggestion, as I'm reading it. 

In fact, the unsatisfactory arrangements by which our world is governed, including the arrangements that are a consequence of the massive wealth inequality that has so profoundly distorted our political, social, and economic life, are all the result of past actions, and the present conditions in which we live are not something that are either "natural" or inevitable. That's true of how we manage water. And it is true of how we manage a lot of other things, too!

"Ressurection," not "insurrrection"? I think Trudy is on to something. 

Viva la Ressurection!

Tuesday, April 9, 2024

#100 / The Kennedy Candidacy


 

The New York Times has published an "Opinion" column by Michelle Goldberg, which speculates on the impact that the independent presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will have on the anticipated Biden-Trump political showdown in November. Goldberg's column was titled as follows: "Terrified Parents, New Age Health Nuts, MAGA Exiles. Meet the R.F.K. Jr. Faithful." 

If you'd like to "read all about it," click that link, just above, and maybe there won't be any paywall protection, and you can get the full story, as outlined by Goldberg. The picture above, we are informed, shows a Kennedy supporter clutching a copy of a book of essays by L. Ron Hubbard. For those not immediately recognizing who Hubbard is, he founded Scientology in 1952. According to Wikipedia, Scientology "is variously defined as a cult, a business, a religion, a scam, or a new religious movement." Goldberg clearly thinks that the Kennedy candidacy has some significant similarities!

I have no firm opinion on what the political impacts of an independent Kennedy candidacy will be, in terms of who gets elected to the presidency this coming November. I tend to think that the Kennedy candidacy is not good news for Biden and the Democrats, and will assist the Trump candidacy - and this is what Robert Reich thinks, too, based on a recent blog posting. Still, as Goldberg observes, it's really not completely clear what is likely to happen.

I would note that both Kennedy and Trump are candidates running against what some see as a governmental "establishment," what many identify as the "deep state," or as the "administrative state." I note, too, that we saw, during Trump's presidency, following the 2016 election, how a person with no actual personal experience in government approaches the job. Next time around, if Trump is elected again, his presidency will likely resemble his first term, but on steroids, with inconsistent personal predilections, and with his grandiose and self-centered ambitions and resentments driving decisions that really ought to be based on a consistent, and thoughtful, governmental policy. Kennedy, it seems to me, would likely helm a presidency cut from the same kind of cloth. 

I happen to have a LOT of criticisms of the United States government, as it is currently constituted and operated. Criticisms about an unresponsive (and even malign) "deep state" are not, in my opinion, completely off-base, though I am far more concerned about the domination of our government by military contractors, giant corporations in general, and by the "billionaire class." A cure for the problems afflicting our government, however, at least in my opinion, will not come from installing in our highest office a "dictator-for-a-day," and/or someone who either directly or indirectly claims that, "I, alone, can fix it." Such persons should not be placed in any office, in my opinion, and that goes, too, for any candidate who gives the impression that this is, exactly, what she or he believes about his or her own capabilities, without being stupid enough to say that out loud. 

We are not going to cure the problems we have with our government from the "top down."

We have got to start working from the "bottom up." 

Since the president is always elected (or should be) to provide leadership, and to inspire citizens, voters, and others to get involved, themselves, in the work of "self-government," I am not seeing either Trump or Kennedy as a satisfactory candidate, providing a route to improvement.


Monday, April 8, 2024

#99 / Leadership Requires Killing People. Sorry!




Do you need me to identify the person who is pictured above (the person who is responsible for the statement that I am displaying as my title for today)? I didn't think so (but query whether you would be able to identify that person fifty-six years from now)! 

At any rate, here is the quote that sent me to my keyboard, to make certain that anyone reading this blog post will think, at least a little bit, about the assertion made in my blog title. My title was extracted from a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd

“Every leader kills people,” [Tucker] Carlson said blithely, adding, “Leadership requires killing people, sorry.”

Tucker said it, so I guess that settles that question, right?

Well, maybe not! It could be that there is a "define leadership" issue raised by that statement by Tucker Carlson

Carlson's fawning over the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was questioned by Maureen Dowd, and I am suggesting that Dowd, in fact, was absolutely right to question Carlson's statement. Carlson appears to have confused "killing people" with "leadership." 

One of our greatest leaders, of course, died before Tucker Carlson was even born, and maybe that is why Carlson is so out of touch with what genuine leadership is all about. The leader I am talking about never killed anybody, though somebody killed him (and just because he was a leader).

So, do you need me to identify the leader I am talking about, the person who is pictured below? I bet you don't - even though he was killed fifty-six years ago!


 

Sunday, April 7, 2024

#98 / Incarnation 101




The jolly looking guy pictured above is G. K. Chesterton, known as a "Christian apologist." Born in 1874, Chesterton died in 1936, when he was sixty-two years old. 

While Chesterton is no longer with us, he has not been forgotten - at least not by The Wall Street Journal, which published a commentary referencing Chesterton in its January 4, 2024 issue. The commentary was written by Bishop Robert Barron and was titled, "The Incarnation Changes Even Nonbelievers." Barron, by the way, is apparently known, informally, as the "Bishop of the Internet." Among other things, Bishop Barron said the following:

G.K. Chesterton once observed that even those who don’t believe in the doctrine of the Incarnation are different for having heard it. Christians celebrate this transformative revelation from Dec. 25, Christmas Day, through Jan. 6, the feast of the Epiphany. There is something so counterintuitive about the claim that God became human that the minds of those who but entertain the notion change willy-nilly. If you have taken in the story of the baby who is God, you simply aren’t the same person you were before. 
First, your understanding of God will be revolutionized. The God who can become a creature without ceasing to be God and without compromising the integrity of the creature he becomes stands in a fundamentally noncompetitive relationship with the world. In most non-Christian theologies and religious philosophies, God is typically understood as set over and against the universe: a supreme being in sharp contrast with the finite beings of the created order. But the God capable of the Incarnation, though certainly distinct from the world, is noncontrastively other. He isn’t competing with creatures for dominance on the same playing field. To shift the metaphor, he isn’t so much the most impressive character in the novel as he is the author, responsible for every character in the story, yet never jostling for position among them.

Christians do believe, of course, that God "became flesh and dwelt among us." God's "Incarnation" is a major focus of Christian thinking and belief. 

It struck me, though, reading The Journal's discussion, that there is another way we could think about the idea of the "Incarnation." Leaving out of the picture the "counterintuitive" idea that Jesus was both God and human at the same time, isn't it true that we should be amazed and made worshipful by something we actually tend to take for granted: "life," itself. 

Those scientists who study the origins of the universe speak in the language of physics and mathematics. A fairly recent article, in The New York Times, for instance, was titled, "The Early Universe May Have Gone Bananas." The discussion was aimed at dealing with the unexpectedly pickle-like and banana-like shape of new galaxies, as they were just coming into being - now disclosed by the most recent investigations of images from the James Webb Space Telescope.

In fact, while it is extremely interesting to learn more about the processes governing how the physical stuff of the Universe came into being, and was then, ultimately, transformed into galaxies, solar systems, suns, and planets, that whole story is really just about "rocks" - gasses congealing into rocks, and rocks disappearing into Black Holes, from which no light, or other information can escape. Physics is pretty impressive, but is focused on physical and material realities. Isn't "life" a lot more wondrous?

What is it that brought "life" into existence? There isn't any physical explanation of which I am aware. "Life" denotes some "spirit," some ability of whatever is "alive" to recreate itself, and to change itself, and to evolve, and to become a different form of "life." How did that "spirit," that "life-thing," ever penetrate the physical world made out of atoms - "rocks" in their most elemental form, at least as we first understood them, before we started understanding that "energy" and "rocks," have certain equivalencies. 

I think I might be able to go Bishop Barron one better, and say that anyone who has really thought about the fact of "life" itself - the fact that it exists, and that we exemplify it - will be changed, and transformed. Once we get a grasp on what a miracle it must have been - and is - that there is something more than rocks, and gasses, and galaxies, and all the other physical realities we know about, and that we, ourselves, are a mystery and a miracle; we are, like Chesterton said, "different for having heard it." 

The incarnation of God into Human form is a miracle and a mystery. And so is "life" itself. That is what I'd call "Incarnation 101," Christian belief on "training wheels." 

Once we truly perceive the immense miracle of "life" itself, we are, as Chesterton said, "different." 

Saturday, April 6, 2024

#97 / In The Company Of Friends




Page Smith was the Founding Provost of UCSC's Cowell College - and long may his name be both remembered and revered. Page was an historian, who focused on American history, and with particular attention to the revolutionary period. Page was also, profoundly and thoughtfully, concerned about education, as the quotation above indicates. He helped found the "The Penny University," in Santa Cruz, after he left his teaching position at UCSC. 

Page also left behind a legacy, at Cowell College, in the form of a very simple and concise explanation of what education should be all about. It is still remembered, and is featured on the Cowell College web page. I am printing it out, below:

The Pursuit Of Truth, In The Company of Friends

I am not teaching this Quarter, which makes me nostalgic for the last time I was teaching - and that last time was in a classroom at Cowell College, as a matter of fact. 

There was a little plaque, right at the bottom of the stairway that led up to the classroom in which I taught my class. The classroom was located on the second floor. The plaque wasn't very obtrusive, and I only noticed it pretty late in the Quarter, but it spelled out, as a message to contemporary students, Page's wonderful little statement:

The Pursuit Of Truth, In The Company of Friends

All good things really do require that we pursue them, and make our commitment to them, in "the company of friends." Politics, as well as education, must be carried out in the company of friends. It won't be successful unless it is. 

If you are as concerned as I am with potential political and related difficulties ahead, don't forget Page's advice. It is my advice, too: "Find Some Friends."