October 10, 2023

How "tu quoque" got us here, and why it will make things worse.

First, what is "tu quoque"?

From Wikipedia:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also" ) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.

As a logical fallacy, "tu quoque" presumes that the other party in the discussion is hypocritical, and equates hypocrisy with invalidity. (essentially, "you're just as bad, why should I listen to you?" )

The moral high ground is tricky territory, because it stands on the swamp of history, wherein every atrocity was preceded by the perpetrators having been victimized by a previous atrocity of some sort, granting them the moral high ground, however briefly. From that height, they perpetrate another atrocity to redress the perceived imbalance, passing the moral high ground to the new set of victims.

And so it goes.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, ultimately.

I am no friend of realpolitik - it has too often been used to justify action that ignores the necessity of a sacrificial balance between current and recent perpetrators of injustice and their victims, for the purposes of enriching or aggrandizing the already-privileged.

Nevertheless, I believe that only between the perilously unstable moral high ground and the foggy ambiguities of realpolitik will we ever be able to find the solutions to the most tragic bedevilments of modern conflict and the slaughter of the innocents.

"Tu quoque" is the argument of the moral high ground. "The end justifies the means" is the argument of realpolitik. Both are perilous, both perpetuate the cycle of horror and violence and tragedy.

What is left?

I can only offer something learned from successes in helping people who suffer because of addictive disease establish and maintain a stable recovery. (Please note the phrasing "suffer because of addictive disease", which includes not only the people with addiction but the family members and people who love them who are drawn into the cycles of dysfunctional survival-based behavior, sometimes for generations.)

For a long time, treatment methodologies assumed that addictive diseases proceeded from a "root cause" - adverse childhood events, generational trauma, early exposure, genetic loading, etcetera. And there is, indeed, some correlation between a variety of genetic load, genetic expression, and experiential events, and addictive disease. Where we went wrong was in assuming that for each individual, recovery would proceed from a thorough examination and understanding of their own "root cause."

Here's the harsh truth of recovery from addictive disease:

Regardless of the 'root cause', recovery can ONLY proceed from changing the behaviors of addiction FIRST.

Stop drinking. Stop using the drug. Stop making the dysfunctional choices.

The longer you can keep that up, the more your recovery will stabilize.

Does identifying your "root cause" help at all?

Sometimes. Especially if you can identify the sources of some of your dysfunctional choice-making: "My alcoholic parents convinced me that nothing I did would ever be good enough, so I continually strive to reach an unreal standard of perfectionism" may be a good insight and help you recognize what needs to be changed. But the change comes from the hard work of learning to recognize the damaging internal dialog, and develop a better internal dialog to replace it, and keep working on that over and over, lifelong.

Getting stuck on a "root cause" can be incredibly harmful, too. One person I know had established three years' worth of stable recovery, and decided it was time to get therapy to 'surface some family issues and deal with them.' The resulting, as memories of childhood abuse and trauma were carefully recalled in exquisitely painful detail and hashed over in months of bi-weekly therapy sessions, was a profound depression and, ultimately, relapse.

Does this relate to world politics and conflict?

Every person in active addiction can give you a dozen reasons why they're using the drug, engaging in the self-destructive behavior, etcetera, without even stopping to think. Sometimes the reasons are heart-rending, like the brilliantly promising concert pianist who entered a concert hall to practice just as a crew were replacing a clerestory window, and dropped the sheet of glass, slicing off the pianist's arm. That one was good for years of drinking, to the loss of family, friends, health, and very nearly their future as the physical effects of alcohol toxicity accumulated.

Then there was the woman in the abusive relationship with her alcoholic father, who kept her in a state of virtual slavery, controlling every aspect of her life, taking every paycheck from her for his own needs, destroying every tentative friendship, isolating her from other family, and slapping, punching, pushing her downstairs when he thought she was even thinking of "rebelling." But it was okay for her to drink, so she did. And eventually, she killed him in a drunken rage, and the neighbor who was trying to intervene, and the cop who was called, and ended up in prison. Where, ironically, she eventually achieved a stable recovery, and began to write poetry.

Do these lessons apply to conflicts between peoples or nations?

For a lot of people, recovery starts with an intervention, or intervention-like event, involving outside parties. Primarily, people who have been, almost invariably unintentionally, enabling the dysfunction of addictive disease. Sometimes, it's a formalized appointment with those who care about someone expressing concern while making a believable case for how they will stop doing the things that have enabled the dysfunction. Sometimes, it's waking up with a terrible hangover to find someone gone for good. Sometimes its the death of an enabler and no replacement on the horizon, piled upon the accumulated misery.

A lot of times, though, those formalized interventions fail, because the well-intentioned people either don't make a believable case for no longer enabling, or because the person who can't imagine living without their drug or compulsion manages to sidetrack them with "tu quoque" and derail the whole process. Or because someone who wanted to be part of the intervention has a stake in making it fail, for their own reasons, and no one was able to prevent that.

Is there an analog for this kind of failure in negotiations to end conflicts, by well-intentioned other parties?

Yes, yes, and yes.

It is not easy. But two things are essential:

First, kick "tu quoque" to the curb. Keep it OUT of the process. The moral high ground, as a place of consensus, will NEVER be attainable. Focus on what needs to change, going forward.

Second, identify the 'enabling behaviors' and STOP THEM.

Mercy must win out over justice.

sorrowfully,
Bright

October 8, 2023

Prayers and loving intentions welcome - my Mom is having hip surgery now.

Dear DUer friends and family,

Yesterday I learned my 93-year-old Mom had a fall; the community she lives in is minimally staffed on weekends, and it was some time before the on-duty medical staff could be reached. This morning I learned that they had diagnosed a hip break and she had been taken by ambulance to a local hospital, where surgery is underway as I write this.

I have terribly mixed feelings right now. She has been so unhappy with life for so long. It has been so difficult for her to cope with the dementia and its concommitant loss of memory and capability, and the macular degeneration that is depriving her of the consolation of being able to at least read, look at magazines, etc. She often expresses the hope that she can 'go to heaven soon'.

The choice, the doctors told us, was between the surgery (always risky for a 93-year-old, even one as generally healthy as Mom) and being bedridden for the remainder of her life. She's been evaluated for hospice twice in the past year and each time the verdict has been "she's nowhere near qualifying for hospice - she could live another 10 years. Or die tomorrow from a sudden event." With that in mind, "bedridden for the remainder of her life" seemed like a potentially lingering and cruel sentence, so we okayed the surgery.

She has a history of negative cognitive complications with anaesthesia - post-anaesthetic psychoses, disorientation, etc. But her physical recuperation in the past has been nothing short of phenomenal.

Should she survive and recover from this surgery she will need physical therapy to regain maximum health and mobility, and for someone with her type of dementia that will be a trying ordeal as well.

There are no "good" outcomes for Mom, or for those of us who love her and share the pain of her struggle. But this morning as I was doing my morning meditation and prayer time, one of my readings had the heading, "Together". And the reading included this: "When I work, play, or pray with others, something greater than the sum of our individual efforts results."

That reminded me that I am part of a large, loving, and powerfully helpful community. Be with me, please, and hold us - my Mom and those who love her - in your hearts that we may be blessed with the strength and serenity to find the joy and the growth within the darkness of this difficult time.

hopefully,
Bright

September 11, 2023

Where economic theories take the wrong turn. (Long read)

Disclaimer: My opinion, based on a good deal of topic-specific reading and research I have been doing lately (as well as studies some decades ago at University), plus more than six decades of living in an increasingly unregulated capitalist economy. Your mileage WILL vary... that's part of what I'm getting at, here.

Economic theories are less like bungholes (everyone has one, and occasionally trumpets smelly and noisy stuff from it) and more like sex toys: People may try several, but they generally end up relying on the one that gets them off the most reliably.

As with a lot of other human nature-based phenomenological patterns, we've been trying to make economics into a "science" for ages. Proponents of this instance as evidence the elaborate mathematically-based models that occasionally coincide with observed phenomena, the demonstrable reliability of large-number prediction algorithms, and various other facty and numbery aspects of the discipline.

The addition of artificial intelligence, supermassive data sets, and high-speed processing gives these folks hope that someday we'll be able to feed in numbers and get out a precise explanation for why there's hyperinflation in Venezuela, and, even more hopeful, how exactly we can avoid the next bubble-related economic contraction. But economics, as a thought discipline (or even a worldly philosophy) doesn't work at those levels.

Granted, some things are fairly predictable - most of the time. When interest rates go up, usually bond prices drop and yields go up. When stock values go down, bonds become more desirable.

Of course, when interests rates go up AND stock values tank, where does that leave bonds?

You can tie yourself in knots trying to get every detail right in a prediction algorithm, because the suite of phenomena that make up "the economy" in the "finance and money policy" sense of the term (as opposed to whether you'll be able to get a job, afford your mortgage payments, or get the car fixed sense of the term) is getting steadily more complicated. Our understanding of "money" - what it is, how it functions, how to set policy involving it that won't fuck up the rest of the economy - has never been less of a consensus. And money is where it all started.

There are endless tomes on this, some more readable, some less. Having studied a good few, what I came up with boils down to this:



If you try to make the system absolutely secure, confining every kind of transaction with regulations, certainties, rules, and guarantees, money (and the economy) languishes. Growth fails, it may not even keep up with expanding populations. Stagnation is the best you can hope for, dearth is more likely, and Malthusian outcomes are not impossible to contemplate.

If you try to make the system absolutely free to grow and innovate and offer endless risks that incentivize growth and expansion, money (and the economy) spirals into an increasing concentration, producing a casino that rewards a miniscule few and impoverishes a multitude. Oligarchy is the best you can hope for, dearth is more likely, and bloody revolution is not at all impossible to prognosticate.

Any economic theory that ignores the reality of that narrow channel is someone's fantasy. Or perhaps, political agenda. Any economic theory that attempts to define that channel and explain how to keep it open in terms of measurements like interest rates, bond yields, commodity prices, trading practices, hedging tools, etc. is playing darts blindfolded.

The channel between greed and trust can easily be mismanaged in two ways: First, micromanagement that is like stretching temporary barriers along the sides of a river's path to try and keep it in bounds or nudge it a little this way or that. Such strategies may produce evanescent local effects, but they won't stop the river from eating out its channel as dictated by flow and climate conditions and random boulders crashing down here and there.

The channel between greed and trust can also be mismanaged by using Corps of Engineers tactics and building heavy-duty dams, levees, etcetera. They may last longer but when the inevitable comes the catastrophes are all the greater, even if you thought you got it right. (And how often do you? Look at the track records on America's major floodplains and coastal areas...)

So what does help?

A better understanding that economics is a dynamic discipline that is constantly changing, but it DOES exist in the context of human behavior. So aim at balancing the influences of human excess: Set up a system that provides modest incentives for those who seek security above all, to try a little risk. Add guardrails that prevent those who hit big at the greed casino from having access to the power structure, so they cannot bring others down with their risk taking, or consolidate their wealth into a twenty-ton weight damming the flow.

Tax progressively, but modestly, including all forms of wealth in the mix - asset holdings, value growth, and revenue.

Use the powers of government, through taxation, insurance, targeted credit guarantees, and the provision of base-level savings/investment tools, to provide access to minimum financial health for citizens. Post-office savings and loans rather than payday usurers. Reinsurance programs to assist the insurance industry in spreading risk and keeping prices low and accessible to homeowners. 'Untaxable' maximums for retirement and educational savings, based on mandatory and frequent reassessments of value. There are a hundred creative ways - of course, they all depend on having adequate tax revenue from those who benefit most from the economy.

Allow risk, and reward levels of successful risk taking that don't incentivize playing with other peoples money unbeknownst to them. "Windfall" tax exemptions, income averaging, deferred interest credits and other tools can encourage the creative to innovate, reward innovation, and still keep the games honest. Stepped 'elevators' to asset and growth tax exemptions that can be adjusted to somewhat offset marginal tax rates on income.

We are now suffering from decades of progressively unregulated capitalism and laissez-faire market practices. (One phrase: "Collateralized Debt Obligations" ) We've let the whales into the casino management, and they've rigged every game. So yes, recovery will have to start with restoring trust, in a big way. Reining in the excesses of "corporate personhood". Tying off the conduit between massive wealth and political control. Re-regulating the basics more stringently and capping the worst excesses of the baroque 'innovations' in hedging, arbitrage, venture capital, merger and acquisition rules, monopolization, etc.

Until then, all the formulae for interest rate management, credit and commodity pricing, bond offering, exchange and currency management, are just so many darts flung at the board. Some will make a difference for a while, maybe.

What we need to aim for, long term, is a realistic outlook that sees the economy as a platter balanced on a stick, with a bunch of marbles rolling around on it. Equilibrium becomes defined not as "no lateral motion" but as an acceptable level of lateral motion that always moderates in the other direction to a near-equal degree. "Acceptable" being perceptible but never at risk of wobbling out of control to the extent of the marbles falling off, or worse, the plate dropping off the stick.

It will always be a game of whack-a-mole with innovators trying to subvert or use each new rule to their own advantage. Therefore, having a robust and skilled corps of "hackers" to test each rule in advance, and reverse-engineer solutions to emerging problems, is also essential.

But first, we need to turf the whales out of the casino management.

thoughtfully,
Bright

September 6, 2023

The antidote to "Democratic panic syndrome": Putting Joe Biden's poll numbers in perspective

Full article here: https://www.salon.com/2023/09/06/the-antidote-to-democratic-panic-syndrome-putting-joe-bidens-poll-numbers-in-perspective/

It's that time in the presidential campaign cycle again when Democrats feel the need to express their discontent with their choices and political journalists, in turn, declare that the party is in a panic. It's a tradition — and it's always most dramatic when an incumbent Democrat is facing re-election.

I'm reminded of Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, who wrote in September of 1995, "There is little unity among Democrats or on the center-left on the desirability of reelecting President Clinton." He was right. At the time there were pitched battles going on among the centrists and the progressives which made the prospect of solidarity in the party a distant dream. The huge Republican win in the midterm election of 1994 as well as the non-stop scandal-mongering and investigations by the congressional Republicans had Democrats everywhere wondering how Clinton could possibly win re-election. The only thing that seemed to unite the party at the time was a mutual loathing of Newt Gingrich. 14 months later, Clinton won a decisive victory.

Similarly, at the same point in the 2012 election, there were rumblings from certain quarters that it might be wise to run a primary challenge against President Barack Obama after his approval numbers fell to the 30s in some polls. It had been a very rough three years trying to recover from the financial crisis, not to mention the rise of the Tea Party and a political massacre in the 2010 midterms. The New York Times reported in September of 2011, "Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama's Chances":

In a campaign cycle in which Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year's midterm elections, some in the party fear that Mr. Obama's troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races. "In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated," said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. "There is tremendous discontent with his direction."

"Yes, don't let up on working to make 2024 a Democratic win - it will save many lives, not to mention democracy itself. But also, don't waste too much energy fretting about the uncertain and unknown." Good advice, I forget who said it. Someone here on DU, no doubt.

positively,
Bright

September 2, 2023

New Mexico is a large state, but we have a small population. And many of us were born elsewhere.

In other states, even in other countries. We come here for many reasons, but for those of us called here by the genius locus, we quickly become New Mexicans among New Mexicans. It is that kind of place. We have our share of the great and the famous, but they tend to weigh in among the storytellers, the artists, the observers and creators of heart-stopping beauty.

We have thrown into the human pool few in the category of great leaders or statesmen of global note, compared to the long list of artists, musicians, or luminaries of stage and screen.

Popé. Dolores Huerta. Geronimo.

And Bill Richardson, in whom also burned the light of liberation. I don't know how many violent deaths were averted, how many lost ones brought home, because Bill Richardson spoke for liberty, peace, and human dignity.

It was a substantial number.

He talked to a lot of scary people, without fear for himself.

Talked.

That's what he did. I guess in a way he takes his place among the great New Mexico storytellers, for his talk wove strength, drove out fear, painted vivid images of the best we can be.

He was Governor of New Mexico when I was called here.

I saw him many times although I met him to speak to exactly once.

Here's what I noticed about him: You simply could NOT fear him. He was the most UNthreatening, UNintimidating person in any room, in any crowd. Not in a weak or self-effacing way, either. He lit up any space he was in, with joy and possibilities and curiosity. He reminded me a little bit of Hubert H. Humphrey. He was a happy warrior.

But he looked like the guy down the street. The one who has the food truck and makes everyone smile and always adds a little extra to your order, with a wink and a grin. A real ordinary guy. Ordinary looking. Middle height. A little stocky. Well-padded, yanno. Average in every way except the blazing grin and the eyes. If he wasn't looking at you or talking, you could totally overlook him.

Like I did, at first, when I met him.

We'd moved to Santa Fe maybe six months previously. We needed a sofa, so we went to a local furniture store, near downtown. Not one of those big chains. Not high-end fancy decorator stuff. Just a small furniture store, they still had them back then. I was wandering around looking at the living-room furniture groupings, and I almost ran into this guy, who was standing near one of the sales desks. About my height.

"Oh, excuse me!" I remember saying. "I'm sorry... I was looking at the furniture." (Of all the fatuous remarks in a furniture store...)

His eyes crinkled and this grin blazed out. "No problem. What are you looking for?"

I thought he might be a sales person!

"Something Santa Fe. We just moved here, and not a lot of what we brought looks right."

"New to town, are you? Well, I hope you like it here."

"Absolutely."

And just then, one of the REAL store peeps came up, saying, "Sorry, Governor, I had to... (I don't know... something or other. I sorta lost it at that point. I had been talking to the Goob! I hadn't even known it!)

I sort of backed away, smiling, and he nodded and smiled at me again, and then turned to talk to the store person.

And my esposo was standing a few yards away, yukking it up.... "Yeah, that was the Governor."

And of course it was. He did look just like his pictures, but they just looked like any sort of middle-aged, middle-sized, Norteño.

He did a lot for New Mexico, in his two terms as Governor. He did a lot for America, too. And for hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who were at risk of death or torture or long-term captivity, all over the world.

So yes, he might have been born in California, he might have grown up in Mexico, he might have been schooled on the east coast, but Bill Richardson was, and now always will be, a great New Mexican.

Pass gently, Governor. Your memory is a blessing. May your joy endure, and be an abiding consolation to those who loved you and will miss your presence.

respectfully,
Bright

August 25, 2023

It's uncanny, isn't it...?

amazedly,
Bright

August 1, 2023

And just think... they haven't even STARTED on the documents hijinks yet...

Indictments, indictments,
Roly-poly indictments
Indictments, indictments,
Serve them up, YUM!

In the morning,
Laughing grand juries,
In the evening,
Blowing up the news!

Ask a prosecutor,
Anything you want to,
They won't answer,
Read the charge!

Indictments, indictments,
Roly-poly indictments
Indictments, indictments,
Serve them up, YUM!

I waited hopefully,
Outside the courthouse,
Waited for the day
It would all come out!

Count one defrauding,
Count two obstruction,
Count three attempting,
Count four - RIGHTS!

Indictments, indictments,
Roly-poly indictments
Indictments, indictments,
Serve them up, YUM!

Delusional narcissistic sadsacks are never seen
Experiencing nasty consequences for their shit,
At least until now.... yeah

Indictments, indictments,
Roly-poly indictments
Indictments, indictments,
Serve them up, YUM! (repeat a lot!)

(Extra points if y'all can identify the source lyrics for this version!)

Hopefully,
Bright

July 13, 2023

Pianist and Jacobs School professor Andre Watts dies at 77

A sad loss of one of my early musical heroes...

Pianist and Jacobs School professor Andre Watts dies at 77

I had a serious crush on him after seeing him perform with the Minnesota Orchestra in the early 1970s. He was a great pianist, and a compelling performer. I think I'll look out some of my old recordings of his, and see if I can get digital versions to add to my library.

Cross gently, dear sir.

sadly,
Bright

June 21, 2023

Dear Representative Schiff, I hear you got censured. May I suggest...

That you have the wording of the censure motion engraved on a nice big bronze plaque, with the names of those who proposed and seconded the motion in nice big letters at the bottom, and all who voted for it in smaller type below?

Then mount that plaque next to your office door.

Then get a really good quality picture of yourself taken next to it, giving a thumbs-up gesture. Sell autographed copies (I will certainly purchase one!) as a campaign fundraiser.

In fact, you could have little resin copies made of the plaque, embedded in a nice poly paperweight, or a larger plaque suitable for hanging, with your picture included. Larger donation for those.

You got a gold mine, here, Sir. Get creative!!

hopefully,
Bright

June 8, 2023

I can certainly think of books *I* would like banned. Lots of 'em.

Starting with toxic garbage like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "Mein Kampf" and the works of Ayn Rand and a whole long list of more recently-published screeds advocating all kinds of hatred, authoritarianism, ignorance, violence, etcetera.

Then I'd move on to the really tacky, badly-written, mind-rotting crap that fills a lot of Amazon's self-published categories and imprimaturs.

I could probably be talked into requiring either the recall and reprinting, or outright banning of anything misusing the Oxford comma, too.

But you know what?

If you gave me a magic wand, and said "Wave this and your whole list will be banned forever" I'd bust that magic want over my knee toot sweet, and not ban a damn' thing.

Because the whole point of writing and publishing stuff is that everyone must be free to do it, and everyone must be free to read any damn' thing they want no matter how stupid or hateful.

By taking away "certain" books, you take away the fundamental right created by the existence of thought and sharing thought in published form. At that point, you are taking away the ability of people to say "no" to reading stuff they don't want to read, and "yes" to stuff they do want to read.

And the ability to say "yes" is only meaningful if the ability to say "no" is guaranteed and protected, and the ability to say "no" is only meaningful if the ability to say "yes" is guaranteed and protected.

Take away either and you're committing intellectual rape by removing the power of consent.

ethically,
Bright