Honorable Jerold Nadler,
Chair, Judiciary Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Jerry,
Hi, Buddy.
I'm sure you remember me! You've only had similar long chats with some hundred thousand people since the one I remember at your old office on Broadway opposite the Papaya King (two dogs with sauerkraut and a drink for a buck and a half.) This was towards the end of your delaying Trump's Riverside development, so you told me how he had once pressured you to ease up with your objections, or he would fund someone to primary your seat in Albany. You didn't seem too scared then, as he doesn't scare you now.
You remember when I ran against Scott for the Assembly, mostly as a lark, but it turned out to be an enriching experience. Personally, getting most of those 500 signatures myself meant meeting people, from the celebrities along Central Park West, to one man I remember sitting alone on a bench by the river. After we talked a bit, he thanked me with the words, "you can't know this, but I sit on this bench all the time, and don't talk to people hardly at all."
Few people can actually, on their own, change the course of history in ways that don't involve atrocities. In the next few days, you have this capacity. I write this with the hope that you can take a step back from the technical aspect of the crafting the articles of impeachment to visualize this moment from an historian's eye many decades in the future,
Nancy took personal umbrage at the reporter who said that she "hated" Trump, sharing her daily prayers for him. Yet, for reasons political or personal, hatred has become the medium of our current political culture. As such, victories will only be transitory, as they will prod the loser to exact revenge. World Wars eventually do end with one side vanquished and the other prostrated -- accepting dictated terms of submission. But most conflicts only go into hiatus, to re-emerge in different forms, as our never really ended Civil War.
Benjamin Franklin's words that you quoted in 1998 still apply, "impeachment is a substitute for
assassination." One difference is that murder results in transfer of his mission to others who are enraged to the point of seeking revenge. Impeachment does not end a life, in fact it preserves the nucleus of an eponymous movement. Impeachment or assassination, ruminating on their commonality and difference is a useful exercise right now, at this moment, while it is still possible to avoid either..
There is a proclamation on this subject, one made on the floor of Congress as the opening statement of one of the two political parties. Of course you are familiar with it, as they were spoken by you.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an
impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political
parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would
lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our
politics for years to come. And will call into question the very
legitimacy of our political institutions.
Far from being tentative, or subject to debate, it was a proclamation that was to be eternal, never to be varied. Its clear desideratum of what should preclude impeachment does not lend itself to interpretation. If anything, the term "substantially" means that the circumstances of "complete party support" would make the admonition even more absolute.
Few people have the opportunity to individually change the course of history. By definition, such an action is a breach of what is expected, so much so that usually the actor's contemplation never takes shape to be considered as an alternate course of action. We form associations, networks of trust based on common goals. We have political parties and religious identities, sharing not only who we love, but who are our common enemies.
The person who articulated those words -- profound and true two decades ago, is of course the same person who is now working on the details of what will be an abrogation of these words of wisdom. While it may seem that the die is cast, that there is no other option, I suggest that the choice is one that should be considered. It will mean whether you dare define yourself as a statesman or remain a politician - an honorable profession. Your 1998 statement transcended partisanship in the service of preserving the creation of our founding principles as sacrosanct.
Donald J. Trump is a flawed human being, which is a universal with infinite variations. It is conceivable that our partisan conflagration, rising by the minute towards catastrophe, could, because of such hatred, be transformed to approach the very ideal of a nation that you so clearly articulated two decades ago.
The process of impeachment would be suspended, and replaced by respect for the office that transcends the individual occupant. This would take considerably more courage than presenting articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate. You have to be ready to risk your political career, be seen as a betrayer of your party, in the service of preserving our nation. This was the message that you so clearly articulated in 1998, that is just as valid on this day.
Michael Levin, Member of Congress
12/8/19
Dear Mike
In the next few days you will be casting a vote that will have consequences far beyond whether a President will face a Senate trial for removal from office. While it is your choice to make, as your constituent I am taking the opportunity to express my view, trusting that you will give it serious thought and then remit a timely response
Senator Clinton has stated that she lost the election based on a single event, which was Director Comey's public letter to the Senate that the case against her criminal dereliction of safeguarding secret information had been breached. As far as I know this was the single article that predicted that she would lose the election because of this announcement, which I suggest you read. The writer, who happened to be me, faced unanimous condemnation for what what was an example of the group think, or the current term, bias confirmation, which resulted in a reaction that vitiated the rational thought process of the readers of this most popular liberal web site.
I responded to each critical comment. yet did not get single reader to dare go on the record agreeing with my observation. This is the same dynamic that is occurring among the Democratic members of the House at this time. A virtually unanimous vote of Democrats to impeach the President will more than most examples of irrational group behavior, adversely affect the course of history. Nothing will solidify Donald Trumps grasp on power than Democrats uniting against him.
I will continue to elaborate my argument on this website that I will begin right after posting this. Let me add, that if you are convinced by my argument, which happens to be informed by my obtaining a MPhil from Columbia University in Social Psychology that focused precisely the potency of group dynamics, you would have to stand alone in defying the very primal need for cohesion among the crowd. I would not be making this effort if I were not convinced that Democrats are about to make an historic mistake, one that reflects our human makeup which takes an act of rare courage to confront.
Al Rodbell
AlRodbell.com
--------------------------------
Jerold Nadler is currently the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who supports impeachment and removal of President Trump. What follows is his opening statement in 1998 defending President Clinton. He has ignored the claim that they should also apply to the current impeachment of President Trump. The following are excerpts from his statement (followed by his complete statement) in 1998 --- that were valid then as they are to this day. His words are from the Congressional Record:;
We have received testimony from some of the nation's leading scholars and historians, who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of government or constitutional liberty. Presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, "a substitute for assassination." It is in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
But in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites, and certainly not those members of political elites who will not be here in the next election and the next Congress having been repudiated at the polls. Some members of this committee may think the people have chosen badly; but it is the people's choice and we must respect it absent the fundamental threat to our democratic form of government that would justify overturning the repeated expression of the people's will at the ballot box.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (R-New York): Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, today for only the third time in our nation's history, this committee meets to consider articles of impeachment against the President of the United States. This is a momentous occasion, and I would hope that despite the sharp partisan tone, which has marked this debate, we can approach it with a sober sense of the historic importance of this matter.
I believe we need to get back to basics: the Constitution and what the impeachment power conferred on the congress requires of us. Article II Section 4 of the Constitution says that a president, "Shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
We have received testimony from some of the nation's leading scholars and historians, who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of government or constitutional liberty.
Presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, "a substitute for assassination." It is in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses
To impeach a president, it must be that serious. The history of the language is also clear. At the Constitutional Convention, the committee on style, which was not authorized to make any substantive changes, dropped the words, "against the United States" after the words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" because it was understood that only high crimes and misdemeanors against the system of government would be impeachable. That the words "against the United States" were redundant and unnecessary.
History and the precedents alike, show that impeachment is not a punishment for crimes, but a means to protect our constitutional system. And was certainly not meant to be a means to punish a president for personal wrongdoing not related to his office.
Some of our Republican colleagues have made much of the fact that some of the Democrats on this committee in 1974, voted in favor of an article of impeachment relating to President Nixon's alleged perjury on his tax returns. But the plain fact is that a bipartisan vote of that committee, something we have not yet had in this process on any substantive question, rejected that article.
That's the historical record, and it was rejected largely based on the belief that an impeachable offense must be an abuse of presidential power, a great and serious offense against the nation, not perjury on a private matter.
I have heard it said tonight that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery. That it is equivalent to bribery, a per se, impeachable offense. But bribery goes to the heart of the president's conduct of his constitutional duties. It converts his loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the republic to promoting some other interest.
Perjury is a serious crime. And if proven, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not implicate the president's duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and serious offense against the nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power, it does not threaten our form of government.
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
The American people have heard all the allegations against the president, and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. The people elected the president, they still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people. There are clearly some members of the Republican majority who have never accepted the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections and who apparently have chosen to ignore the message of last month's election. But in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites, and certainly not those members of political elites who will not be here in the next election and the next Congress having been repudiated at the polls. Some members of this committee may think the people have chosen badly; but it is the people's choice and we must respect it absent the fundamental threat to our democratic form of government that would justify overturning the repeated expression of the people's will at the ballot box.
Members of Congress have no power, indeed they have no rights, to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent such a compelling threat. We have also received testimony from some outstanding former prosecutors, including the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld, who headed up the criminal division of Ronald Reagan's justice department, who compelling explained why all of the loose talk about perjury and obstruction of justice would not hold up in a real prosecutor's office, that the evidence that we have been given would never support a criminal prosecution in a real court of law.
For those who demand that the president prove his innocence rather than his accusers having to prove his guilt, or even to state clearly the specific charges, we received answers from Mr. Ruff yesterday and from Mr. Lowell this morning in which they meticulously pointed out using Mr. Starr's own work -- how the charges were not supported and were indeed contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Starr's own office had assembled. In fact, Mr. Starr has stated in his referral to Congress that his own star witness is not credible except when her uncorroborated testimony conflicts with the president's, and then it proves his perjury.
We have received sanctimonious lectures from the other side of the aisle about the rule of law, but the law does not permit perjury to be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of one witness nor does the law recognizes corroboration, the fact that the witness made the same statement to several different people. You may choose to believe that the president was disingenuous, that he was not particularly helpful to Paul Jones' lawyers when they asked him intentionally vague questions, or that he is a bum. But that does not make him guilty of perjury. This committee, this House, is not a grand jury. To impeach the president would subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, and a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign concerns fester without proper attention.
We cannot simply punt our duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere probable cause that an impeachment offense may have been committed. To do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of a so- called independent counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include in his report exculpatory evidence, and consistently misstated the law. We must not be a rubber stamp for Kenneth Starr.
We have been entrusted with the grave and awesome duty by the American people, by the constitution and by history. We must exercise that duty responsibly. At a bear minimum, that means the president's accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo and beyond demands that the president prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific impeachable conduct. This, they have failed to do.
If you believe the president's admission to the grand jury and to the nation of an inappropriate sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky and his apologies to the nation were not object enough, that is not a reason for impeachment. Contrition is a remedy for sin and is certainly appropriate here. But while insufficiency of contrition may leave the soul still scarred, unexpiated sin proves no crimes and justifies no impeachments.
Some say that if we do not impeach the president, we treat him as if he is above the law. Is the president above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law, to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen whether or not he is impeached
.
SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has...
NADLER: I ask one additional minute.
SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.
NADLER: Thank you.
And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third president in U.S. history and the first since 1848 to be censured by the Congress. But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as a punishment for an errant president.
The case is not there. The proof has not been put forward. The conduct alleged -- even if proven -- does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the full House.
To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this committee to the condemnation of history for generations to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12/8/19
Dear Mike
In the next few days you will be casting a vote that will have consequences far beyond whether a President will face a Senate trial for removal from office. While it is your choice to make, as your constituent I am taking the opportunity to express my view, trusting that you will give it serious thought and then remit a timely response
Senator Clinton has stated that she lost the election based on a single event, which was Director Comey's public letter to the Senate that the case against her criminal dereliction of safeguarding secret information had been breached. As far as I know this was the single article that predicted that she would lose the election because of this announcement, which I suggest you read. The writer, who happened to be me, faced unanimous condemnation for what what was an example of the group think, or the current term, bias confirmation, which resulted in a reaction that vitiated the rational thought process of the readers of this most popular liberal web site.
I responded to each critical comment. yet did not get single reader to dare go on the record agreeing with my observation. This is the same dynamic that is occurring among the Democratic members of the House at this time. A virtually unanimous vote of Democrats to impeach the President will more than most examples of irrational group behavior, adversely affect the course of history. Nothing will solidify Donald Trumps grasp on power than Democrats uniting against him.
I will continue to elaborate my argument on this website that I will begin right after posting this. Let me add, that if you are convinced by my argument, which happens to be informed by my obtaining a MPhil from Columbia University in Social Psychology that focused precisely the potency of group dynamics, you would have to stand alone in defying the very primal need for cohesion among the crowd. I would not be making this effort if I were not convinced that Democrats are about to make an historic mistake, one that reflects our human makeup which takes an act of rare courage to confront.
Al Rodbell
AlRodbell.com
--------------------------------
Jerold Nadler is currently the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who supports impeachment and removal of President Trump. What follows is his opening statement in 1998 defending President Clinton. He has ignored the claim that they should also apply to the current impeachment of President Trump. The following are excerpts from his statement (followed by his complete statement) in 1998 --- that were valid then as they are to this day. His words are from the Congressional Record:;
We have received testimony from some of the nation's leading scholars and historians, who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of government or constitutional liberty. Presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, "a substitute for assassination." It is in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
But in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites, and certainly not those members of political elites who will not be here in the next election and the next Congress having been repudiated at the polls. Some members of this committee may think the people have chosen badly; but it is the people's choice and we must respect it absent the fundamental threat to our democratic form of government that would justify overturning the repeated expression of the people's will at the ballot box.
Transcript: Opening statement of Rep. Nadler
House Judiciary Committee hearing, December 10, 1998
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (R-New York): Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, today for only the third time in our nation's history, this committee meets to consider articles of impeachment against the President of the United States. This is a momentous occasion, and I would hope that despite the sharp partisan tone, which has marked this debate, we can approach it with a sober sense of the historic importance of this matter.
I believe we need to get back to basics: the Constitution and what the impeachment power conferred on the congress requires of us. Article II Section 4 of the Constitution says that a president, "Shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
We have received testimony from some of the nation's leading scholars and historians, who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of government or constitutional liberty.
Presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government. Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, "a substitute for assassination." It is in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses
To impeach a president, it must be that serious. The history of the language is also clear. At the Constitutional Convention, the committee on style, which was not authorized to make any substantive changes, dropped the words, "against the United States" after the words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" because it was understood that only high crimes and misdemeanors against the system of government would be impeachable. That the words "against the United States" were redundant and unnecessary.
History and the precedents alike, show that impeachment is not a punishment for crimes, but a means to protect our constitutional system. And was certainly not meant to be a means to punish a president for personal wrongdoing not related to his office.
Some of our Republican colleagues have made much of the fact that some of the Democrats on this committee in 1974, voted in favor of an article of impeachment relating to President Nixon's alleged perjury on his tax returns. But the plain fact is that a bipartisan vote of that committee, something we have not yet had in this process on any substantive question, rejected that article.
That's the historical record, and it was rejected largely based on the belief that an impeachable offense must be an abuse of presidential power, a great and serious offense against the nation, not perjury on a private matter.
I have heard it said tonight that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery. That it is equivalent to bribery, a per se, impeachable offense. But bribery goes to the heart of the president's conduct of his constitutional duties. It converts his loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the republic to promoting some other interest.
Perjury is a serious crime. And if proven, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not implicate the president's duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and serious offense against the nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power, it does not threaten our form of government.
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
The American people have heard all the allegations against the president, and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. The people elected the president, they still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people. There are clearly some members of the Republican majority who have never accepted the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections and who apparently have chosen to ignore the message of last month's election. But in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites, and certainly not those members of political elites who will not be here in the next election and the next Congress having been repudiated at the polls. Some members of this committee may think the people have chosen badly; but it is the people's choice and we must respect it absent the fundamental threat to our democratic form of government that would justify overturning the repeated expression of the people's will at the ballot box.
Members of Congress have no power, indeed they have no rights, to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent such a compelling threat. We have also received testimony from some outstanding former prosecutors, including the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld, who headed up the criminal division of Ronald Reagan's justice department, who compelling explained why all of the loose talk about perjury and obstruction of justice would not hold up in a real prosecutor's office, that the evidence that we have been given would never support a criminal prosecution in a real court of law.
For those who demand that the president prove his innocence rather than his accusers having to prove his guilt, or even to state clearly the specific charges, we received answers from Mr. Ruff yesterday and from Mr. Lowell this morning in which they meticulously pointed out using Mr. Starr's own work -- how the charges were not supported and were indeed contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Starr's own office had assembled. In fact, Mr. Starr has stated in his referral to Congress that his own star witness is not credible except when her uncorroborated testimony conflicts with the president's, and then it proves his perjury.
We have received sanctimonious lectures from the other side of the aisle about the rule of law, but the law does not permit perjury to be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of one witness nor does the law recognizes corroboration, the fact that the witness made the same statement to several different people. You may choose to believe that the president was disingenuous, that he was not particularly helpful to Paul Jones' lawyers when they asked him intentionally vague questions, or that he is a bum. But that does not make him guilty of perjury. This committee, this House, is not a grand jury. To impeach the president would subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, and a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign concerns fester without proper attention.
We cannot simply punt our duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere probable cause that an impeachment offense may have been committed. To do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of a so- called independent counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include in his report exculpatory evidence, and consistently misstated the law. We must not be a rubber stamp for Kenneth Starr.
We have been entrusted with the grave and awesome duty by the American people, by the constitution and by history. We must exercise that duty responsibly. At a bear minimum, that means the president's accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo and beyond demands that the president prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific impeachable conduct. This, they have failed to do.
If you believe the president's admission to the grand jury and to the nation of an inappropriate sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky and his apologies to the nation were not object enough, that is not a reason for impeachment. Contrition is a remedy for sin and is certainly appropriate here. But while insufficiency of contrition may leave the soul still scarred, unexpiated sin proves no crimes and justifies no impeachments.
Some say that if we do not impeach the president, we treat him as if he is above the law. Is the president above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law, to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen whether or not he is impeached
.
SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has...
NADLER: I ask one additional minute.
SENSENBRENNER: Without objection.
NADLER: Thank you.
And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third president in U.S. history and the first since 1848 to be censured by the Congress. But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as a punishment for an errant president.
The case is not there. The proof has not been put forward. The conduct alleged -- even if proven -- does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the full House.
To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this committee to the condemnation of history for generations to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My Dailykos.com experience / banned from my community
Dailykos is the premier liberal public website dedicated to advancing the Democratic party. It was founded in 2002, owned and controlled by lawyer-activist Markos Moulitsas, known as Kos, reflected in the eponymous website's name.
I had been a member since 2006, posting over 700 essays (called diaries) and perhaps ten times this number of comments. At times this makes for interesting dialog, however there are implied, and sometimes explicit limits on the deviation from acceptable discussions as defined by the owner. The rewards for the members are not pecuniary, but in the satisfaction of having an online community with a common political orientation. The "remuneration" is in the form of Recs, or recommendations that may elevate a diary to featured position for several days, with extensive readership and dialogue. Conversely, deviation from their prescribed extreme left political position in specific issues or on Party consensus, can result angry responses, or no comments at all, a "cold shoulder." by the community.
From the beginning I had walked that line between joining the chorus of prescribed ideology and expressing independent views that deviated from this party line. This resulted in various forms of management sanctions that were mediated by members who were given the authority to "flag" a diary or a comment. Over time cliques of members connected, so they could alert the posse to an outlier's presence, and have a comment removed and the diarist admonished.
Unbeknown to me, these admonitions did go on my "record." So, on Feb 1, of 2019 when I posted this essay- top of list, that accumulated hostile comments without rebuttal, after being called away for a few hours, when I attempted to engage in a dialog with the community, to my shock, my membership had been revoked. Knowing that I had been careful to follow the guidelines and regulations for member's participation, I sent an immediate appeal, expecting that this would be reconsidered, as Kos had said was done on occasion.
I made my case, even humbling myself by apologizing for not being more sensitive to the community's feelings, after several exchanges with staff, I was simply cut off, without any claim of not following the specified principles for members essays and comments.
Further details: formal rules of the website along with statements by users on my "career" adherence to them along with the unfairness of the banning on this are available by contacting by email at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com
This was one of the comments on the diary that triggered my banning.
Update 11/16/2019
As for the content of the article that got me banned, "Gov. Ralph Northan, taking a step back," the demand that he resign has been forgotten. This article six months after his condemnation ends with
"But all three Democrats weathered the storm, defied calls to resign and are now poised to oversee the most dramatic change in state..laws in recent memory."
In the nine months since my banning from Dailykos, much has happened personallyas well as in Virginia. Shortly after the banning I explored the possibility of taking legal action based on the implied contract being entered into of my providing content while Dailykos agreed that I would have perpetual presence based on my not breaching the posted rules.
I explored this with two legal scholars. The first Eugen Voloch of UCLA came to the conclusion that it would be a difficult case that he would personally not take, but that other lawyers may. I realized the difficulties, and chose not to explore it further. This was a situation validating the truism of "Difficult cases make bad law." While my personal injury seemed unjust the right of an individual who allows one into his home, church, or political party should not be subject public or judicial review. My recourse is exactly what I am doing, which is to explore other ways to express my views that are "common carriers" where exclusion would be subject to judicial review.
This essay is an example of the recourse that is available.
I had been a member since 2006, posting over 700 essays (called diaries) and perhaps ten times this number of comments. At times this makes for interesting dialog, however there are implied, and sometimes explicit limits on the deviation from acceptable discussions as defined by the owner. The rewards for the members are not pecuniary, but in the satisfaction of having an online community with a common political orientation. The "remuneration" is in the form of Recs, or recommendations that may elevate a diary to featured position for several days, with extensive readership and dialogue. Conversely, deviation from their prescribed extreme left political position in specific issues or on Party consensus, can result angry responses, or no comments at all, a "cold shoulder." by the community.
From the beginning I had walked that line between joining the chorus of prescribed ideology and expressing independent views that deviated from this party line. This resulted in various forms of management sanctions that were mediated by members who were given the authority to "flag" a diary or a comment. Over time cliques of members connected, so they could alert the posse to an outlier's presence, and have a comment removed and the diarist admonished.
Unbeknown to me, these admonitions did go on my "record." So, on Feb 1, of 2019 when I posted this essay- top of list, that accumulated hostile comments without rebuttal, after being called away for a few hours, when I attempted to engage in a dialog with the community, to my shock, my membership had been revoked. Knowing that I had been careful to follow the guidelines and regulations for member's participation, I sent an immediate appeal, expecting that this would be reconsidered, as Kos had said was done on occasion.
I made my case, even humbling myself by apologizing for not being more sensitive to the community's feelings, after several exchanges with staff, I was simply cut off, without any claim of not following the specified principles for members essays and comments.
Further details: formal rules of the website along with statements by users on my "career" adherence to them along with the unfairness of the banning on this are available by contacting by email at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com
This was one of the comments on the diary that triggered my banning.
Stephen Dreyfus gramofsam1
February 04 · 01:02:19 PM
I am befuddled and mystified. I didn’t know the writer was banned, and I still don’t know why. Was it because he defended Northam? Was it because he criticized Democrats? Did he state something overtly racist that went over my head? Where is the boundary between banning inappropriate comments and diaries, and censoring ideas that are too uncomfortable to contemplate? I am guilty as charged for recommending his diary. I did so because I followed the first link to the New York Times article which I read in full, along with dozens of well-meaning and thoughtful comments from readers both black and white, some of whom were convinced he should resign, and some who weren’t so sure. (I also read an article on Nation that called for his immediate resignation.) I was simply trying to acknowledge that this diary had a thought-provoking link that was worth reading.
Update 11/16/2019
As for the content of the article that got me banned, "Gov. Ralph Northan, taking a step back," the demand that he resign has been forgotten. This article six months after his condemnation ends with
"But all three Democrats weathered the storm, defied calls to resign and are now poised to oversee the most dramatic change in state..laws in recent memory."
In the nine months since my banning from Dailykos, much has happened personallyas well as in Virginia. Shortly after the banning I explored the possibility of taking legal action based on the implied contract being entered into of my providing content while Dailykos agreed that I would have perpetual presence based on my not breaching the posted rules.
I explored this with two legal scholars. The first Eugen Voloch of UCLA came to the conclusion that it would be a difficult case that he would personally not take, but that other lawyers may. I realized the difficulties, and chose not to explore it further. This was a situation validating the truism of "Difficult cases make bad law." While my personal injury seemed unjust the right of an individual who allows one into his home, church, or political party should not be subject public or judicial review. My recourse is exactly what I am doing, which is to explore other ways to express my views that are "common carriers" where exclusion would be subject to judicial review.
This essay is an example of the recourse that is available.
Impeachment - A synecdoche of the people
There are words that have strayed far beyond their origin with no
harm to anyone but linguistic snobs. (as the word synedoche) When one reads about the
decimation of a town, we all know it means absolute destruction and not
the original Roman practice of killing one person out of ten for
punishment. In contrast, when there is a groundswell to impeach a judge
or a President, there is no doubt of the meaning, whether it's a tweet
or the headline in a national newspaper.
It does not refer to the preliminary vote that was given this term in our Constitution to mean an indictment by a simple majority of the members of the House of Representatives. Whether it was the outpouring of "Impeach Earl Warren" posters after the Supreme Court decision to end segregation, or today's targeting President Trump, the word means more than to go through the constitutionally defined procedures that remove a government official from office.
It does not refer to the preliminary vote that was given this term in our Constitution to mean an indictment by a simple majority of the members of the House of Representatives. Whether it was the outpouring of "Impeach Earl Warren" posters after the Supreme Court decision to end segregation, or today's targeting President Trump, the word means more than to go through the constitutionally defined procedures that remove a government official from office.
Unlike other countries, our dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. So, American English is inherently fluid, as words not only objectively define the subject but the speaker tone. Any decent computer program could find enough words that identifies a person's political loyalty, which unfortunately short circuits substantive discussion. With the word "impeach" distorted by both political parties about equally, replacing it need not be drowned out by partisanship. Whether the cry is to "Impeach Obama" or "Impeach Trump" that's not what those who are join in the chorus literally mean --- unless the rare times when it does.
When the Republicans were deciding whether to impeach President Clinton for perjury, they were using the constitutional meaning, knowing there was no chance that they could get the two thirds majority in the Senate to actually remove him. The thinking was based on the confused aura of the word held by the public so that, "Democratic President William J. Clinton Impeached" would forever taint his presidency. They were wrong. As his approval rating was among the highest of retiring presidents.
The continued misuse and misreading of this term is both a reflection and a perpetuation of the low level of understanding of our government by the general public. It implies that the outcome of a general election is subject to continued support for an official during the term of office, and does not acknowledge that the word itself only means passage of the initial, and easiest of a two part process. If the word was replaced by "remove" the office holder, it could be a veiled threat of violence or to use of the elective process, neither of which capture the "throw the bum out vehemence; or an appreciation of how our constitution is structured to balance the authority of an elected official with the emotions of the electorate.
Of course It's the conflation of the two processes that makes the word so popular. It sounds both official and angry. Those leaders who thus distort language may lose the linquaphile vote, but who cares. Remember, candidate Trump absurdly accused his Democratic opponent and the President of being "founders of the Islamic State" When one of his supporters tried to give him an out with, "you mean they provided conditions for their growth" he said, "No, I said they founded it and that's what I mean."
Trump won his race to the bottom, not by the precision of his language, but his bold wielding of words into primitive utterances that united his voters in visceral hatred of the enemy. In doing so he may have changed the practice of politics in this country and the world.
And damn it that's why I want to see the guy impeached. And I stand by that.
My brother Eduardo
He's not my real brother, but after a few years of his helping me keep our back yard presentable, and getting to meet two of his blood brothers, we had a long conversation yesterday. Those reading this if anywhere near my own age, which I define by remembering a time before television, are aware of changes in technology and culture that were beyond the imagination of science fiction of our childhood.
Words. It's a part of our beings as basic as the air we breathe. Infants don't remember those first words uttered and understood, yet this mastery is the single difference between us and our phylogenitc cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos. In my own situation discovery of words came past infancy watching my father absorbed in something called a newspaper, with black markings that were like our talking, but different.
If blessed by educated parents, some may have had this explained and maybe even learned to pronounce some of the things on those lines of the newspapers, the written word. I sensed my father absorbed in those newspapers, having no inkling of why. Later I realized the articles were about the clash of civilization of a war that had engulfed the world, that this child was told nothing about. "President Roosevelt is Dead" "Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan" ""Japan Surrenders" were earliest memories of headlines shouted out the window by my big sister, still not by reading them
Finally, at last, on that magical day my first grade teacher opened the big book, she pointed at the shapes and said to us, , "Look Dick look" I now had the key, that I knew I would be able to know all of the words, the articles, the stories that my father and mother were fascinated by. Thus began the long quest for understanding, that now nearing the end of my life, I must accept as part of my particular voyage.
Eduardo was born three decades after me, in a village in Mexico, that he wrote down as Chatino Zezomtepc, and then he told me about it. His village was a continuation of a culture, language and even something that isn't really translatable: it's not government, or legal system, but a single elder, who takes the role of resolving any conflicts that may arise. This culture existed not only before Columbus but from a time when Aztecs and Incas were the civilizations of the region. I won't pretend to have more knowledge than this single conversation and this Wikipedia article, but both confirm something that explains the rare warmth that defines our relationship.
Eduardo's first language, and that of his parents, didn't have written words, but were one of about a hundred current languages that are becoming extinct as the years go by. There is a commonality between the interaction of Europeans with indigenous peoples in the U.S. and Canada, except, these Mexican groups were more isolated. Eduardo's infancy, and not only that his parents, but perhaps hundreds of generations previously, were cloistered circles of a small dwellings where everyone was extended family. Even to this day, there is no private property, the idea of personal enrichment to the detriment of a neighbor probably doesn't exist.
Since Eduardo does not have "papers," when the current President took office, I asked him whether he was troubled by his aggressive hostility to those in his situation. His response took me a while to understand. He said, "It doesn't matter, if I have to go back it will be fine." Eduardo came to this country twenty years ago, and while some of his brothers have joined him,, he hasn't been back to Mexico, or his village since then. When I call Eduardo a brother, its a genuine feeling of simple affection that siblings can feel between each other. Maybe, it's partly that his lack of anglo social status is no threat to my sensitivity to a lack of it, as we can relate as if none of this matters.
I would love to be able to go with him to his village, to explore as much as possible the belonging that he must have felt by dint of his simply being born. There are no professional authorities -- lawyers, doctors, accountants, businessmen, politicians--- none of this, just other members of this extended group who speak the same language and now follow the same religion -- which happens to be a variation of Christianity - an artifact of Spanish conquerors. .
Eduardo knows he could never visit and then return. He can never take his friend, (that's me) with him to be introduced to his family. I get the feeling that he enjoys my company as much as I enjoy his. He gets pleasure in being able to satisfy my somewhat complex landscaping needs without the impulse to think how this can be best monetized. He would do it out of friendship if he didn't need to buy gasoline and pay rent! I realize that both Eduardo and myself never absorbed much more than the primitive need for affection and belonging.
I sort of envy Eduardo, since while he became part of the ancient traditional language of his people, I, and those of my generation were excluded. The ancient language of Yiddish, part German but with some Aramaic going back unbroken for generations, ended with me. Eduardo was part of the long strain of extended family going back centuries, while I happened to be the one just past the last of the line. Eduardo could sense what such a person would be feeling and offered special affection to this person, spending time to share what both of us have lost.
We spent a few minutes where I could clarify his confusion when he described his religion as not being Christian, but rather,Catholic. I explained the diagram, the apex being Christianity, and then the divisions between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. It turns out he defines his faith as Catholic, but not part of the hierarchy assumed in the term, with the Pope at the apex. He has an extended annotated New Testament in his truck, that he had shared with me including some "science fiction as facts" that seems to be a belief among his group.
Words. It's a part of our beings as basic as the air we breathe. Infants don't remember those first words uttered and understood, yet this mastery is the single difference between us and our phylogenitc cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos. In my own situation discovery of words came past infancy watching my father absorbed in something called a newspaper, with black markings that were like our talking, but different.
If blessed by educated parents, some may have had this explained and maybe even learned to pronounce some of the things on those lines of the newspapers, the written word. I sensed my father absorbed in those newspapers, having no inkling of why. Later I realized the articles were about the clash of civilization of a war that had engulfed the world, that this child was told nothing about. "President Roosevelt is Dead" "Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan" ""Japan Surrenders" were earliest memories of headlines shouted out the window by my big sister, still not by reading them
Finally, at last, on that magical day my first grade teacher opened the big book, she pointed at the shapes and said to us, , "Look Dick look" I now had the key, that I knew I would be able to know all of the words, the articles, the stories that my father and mother were fascinated by. Thus began the long quest for understanding, that now nearing the end of my life, I must accept as part of my particular voyage.
Eduardo was born three decades after me, in a village in Mexico, that he wrote down as Chatino Zezomtepc, and then he told me about it. His village was a continuation of a culture, language and even something that isn't really translatable: it's not government, or legal system, but a single elder, who takes the role of resolving any conflicts that may arise. This culture existed not only before Columbus but from a time when Aztecs and Incas were the civilizations of the region. I won't pretend to have more knowledge than this single conversation and this Wikipedia article, but both confirm something that explains the rare warmth that defines our relationship.
Eduardo's first language, and that of his parents, didn't have written words, but were one of about a hundred current languages that are becoming extinct as the years go by. There is a commonality between the interaction of Europeans with indigenous peoples in the U.S. and Canada, except, these Mexican groups were more isolated. Eduardo's infancy, and not only that his parents, but perhaps hundreds of generations previously, were cloistered circles of a small dwellings where everyone was extended family. Even to this day, there is no private property, the idea of personal enrichment to the detriment of a neighbor probably doesn't exist.
Since Eduardo does not have "papers," when the current President took office, I asked him whether he was troubled by his aggressive hostility to those in his situation. His response took me a while to understand. He said, "It doesn't matter, if I have to go back it will be fine." Eduardo came to this country twenty years ago, and while some of his brothers have joined him,, he hasn't been back to Mexico, or his village since then. When I call Eduardo a brother, its a genuine feeling of simple affection that siblings can feel between each other. Maybe, it's partly that his lack of anglo social status is no threat to my sensitivity to a lack of it, as we can relate as if none of this matters.
I would love to be able to go with him to his village, to explore as much as possible the belonging that he must have felt by dint of his simply being born. There are no professional authorities -- lawyers, doctors, accountants, businessmen, politicians--- none of this, just other members of this extended group who speak the same language and now follow the same religion -- which happens to be a variation of Christianity - an artifact of Spanish conquerors. .
Eduardo knows he could never visit and then return. He can never take his friend, (that's me) with him to be introduced to his family. I get the feeling that he enjoys my company as much as I enjoy his. He gets pleasure in being able to satisfy my somewhat complex landscaping needs without the impulse to think how this can be best monetized. He would do it out of friendship if he didn't need to buy gasoline and pay rent! I realize that both Eduardo and myself never absorbed much more than the primitive need for affection and belonging.
I sort of envy Eduardo, since while he became part of the ancient traditional language of his people, I, and those of my generation were excluded. The ancient language of Yiddish, part German but with some Aramaic going back unbroken for generations, ended with me. Eduardo was part of the long strain of extended family going back centuries, while I happened to be the one just past the last of the line. Eduardo could sense what such a person would be feeling and offered special affection to this person, spending time to share what both of us have lost.
We spent a few minutes where I could clarify his confusion when he described his religion as not being Christian, but rather,Catholic. I explained the diagram, the apex being Christianity, and then the divisions between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. It turns out he defines his faith as Catholic, but not part of the hierarchy assumed in the term, with the Pope at the apex. He has an extended annotated New Testament in his truck, that he had shared with me including some "science fiction as facts" that seems to be a belief among his group.
A Rare Moment to Change the course of History
President Trump has recently stated that in Iraq "we should have taken the oil" being
candid about what Phillips sees as one of three central pathologies of our political culture. He
sees the other dire threat in "astonishing levels of debt" now a
multiple of what existed 2006, unlike the debt accumulated to win WWII which was
quickly reversed during the peace and prosperity that followed.
The subtitle of Phillip's book is central, "the ominous intrusion of radical Christianity into politics
and government" What the book did not explore is the
complex and paradoxical cultural-legal infrastructure that results in an
educated populace accepting a religious ethos that most do not
personally believe. Right now it seems impossible to transform this country from
ostensible religiosity, I say ostensible because of surveys showing Catholics generally have acceptance of Roe v. Wade; as other other denominations, in spite of this being inimical
to a central religious edict.
This is being written only days before the impeachment hearings of president Trump are to begin. Many witnesses will be sworn in, meaning that if they make an intentional false statement it will be a criminal act. Such an oath is often administered with the the words, "So Help Me God" with no overt realization of what such an oath implies.
One of the chairpersons of a committee that will be taking evidence, Jerold Nadler, was among nine members of congress who recently voted to revert the present national motto "In God we Trust." back to "E Pluribus Unum." Our founder's were clear in the first amendment, which both restricted and liberated belief in God, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Whatever one's feelings toward president Trump, and few are neutral, the process of impeachment hearings itself can be the occasion for acknowledging our founders effort to create a secular government. This can only be done if those who administer the oath to witnesses do so without the implication that God has anything to do with it's legality. (Reference to article of legal support)
More importantly, an expected challenge and explanation will place in the public domain the open discussion of a subject that still remains forbidden to speak about, yet dooms our nation to a religiosity that defined the pre-enlightenment era.
This is being written only days before the impeachment hearings of president Trump are to begin. Many witnesses will be sworn in, meaning that if they make an intentional false statement it will be a criminal act. Such an oath is often administered with the the words, "So Help Me God" with no overt realization of what such an oath implies.
One of the chairpersons of a committee that will be taking evidence, Jerold Nadler, was among nine members of congress who recently voted to revert the present national motto "In God we Trust." back to "E Pluribus Unum." Our founder's were clear in the first amendment, which both restricted and liberated belief in God, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Whatever one's feelings toward president Trump, and few are neutral, the process of impeachment hearings itself can be the occasion for acknowledging our founders effort to create a secular government. This can only be done if those who administer the oath to witnesses do so without the implication that God has anything to do with it's legality. (Reference to article of legal support)
More importantly, an expected challenge and explanation will place in the public domain the open discussion of a subject that still remains forbidden to speak about, yet dooms our nation to a religiosity that defined the pre-enlightenment era.
The Demise of the Democratic Party
Sent to Rep. Mike Levin
9/13/2019
I reference this article in today's "The Hill" publication. "Time to retire the Ferguson narrative"
The title is too passive and ignores the crisis that is upon the
Democratic Party, one that could not only forfeit the 2020 election, but
make this political party an artifact of history.
While
the mainstream media all have articles on the two candidates, Senators
Warren and Harris, several other candidates published accusations, short
of being libelous, against the police officer who killed Michael
Brown. They implied that the killing was unjustified but only the two
women accused the police officer, Daren Wilson of "Murder" of Mr.
Brown. This is a textbook example of libel, a civil offense as this
was not protected political speech, but stated as a fact.
Every
hour that passes without a formal retraction by the two accusers will
increase the money damages awarded to the police officer, but this is
secondary to the political consequences. Both Senators Warren and
Harris have extensive credentials, Warren in academe, and Harris as
Attorney General of California. As such, their ignorance of the
decisions of two grand juries, one under the auspices of the Obama
administration, not to indict Wilson for any crime, is stunning. It
also acknowledges the informal conspiracy of many African Americans who
made false statements to condemn the police officer. The full story has
been on Wikipedia
for years, which makes the ignoring by Democrats of the actual events
as validated by the two grand juries all the more indefensible.
One
of the more contemptible characteristics of President Trump is his
ignoring reality, his positions often being only for personal and
political advantage. This only has meaning if there is an alternative,
which had been the opposition Democratic which had been known as the
"reality party." This ignoring the decision of the Grand Juries is a
challenge to the legitimacy of our entire body of laws, the
infrastructure of our country.
This
is not only a crisis for the Democratic party, but it could be a
further exacerbation of the pathological divisiveness that have been
growing over the last decades. I understand that Mike Levin is a first
year member of Congress, yet it's time to ring the bell and gather the
elected legislators and leadership to try to save the Democratic party,
and whatever is left that unites our country.
Al Rodbell
760-505-1170
July 27, 2019
Honorable Jerold Nadler
Chairperson Judiciary Committee US House of Representatives
Given
your position of leadership in the Democratic response to President Trump's
actions, you have a unique opportunity inherent in your chairman
position, specifically the administration of the oath of office. The
one to Mr. Mueller was viewed by tens of millions of Americans, yet it
was perfunctory, a preface to the hearings which were the main event.
You asked him to stand and raise his right hand, and you said,
"Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you
are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge so
help you God?" He responded, "I do."
You
were among the nine members of the House of Representatives to vote in
2011 in favor of the national motto of "In God We Trust" to be reverted
to the previous one. In 1956 there may have been a justification for
replacing "E Pluribus Unum" with one that differentiated us from
communism, which is atheistic, but our world has changed since then. If
there ever was a justification for this tacit religious indoctrination,
it no longer exists.
The highly respected Pew Research Center provides encyclopedic ongoing reports
on this subject that's is too extensive to summarize here. Let me say
their data shows that this oath of office that includes an allusion to
God is inimical to the spirit of enlightenment and our own first
amendment. I realize that our Supreme Court has consistently rejected
this view but never specifically on the swearing in of a witnesss.
Since this oath of office is part of a different and co-equal branch of government, I doubt they will attempt to adjudicate it.
The
exact words of the statement of a witness that places their testimony
under sanctions of perjury are not prescribed by law, which allows you
personally, to have an effect on legitimizing the expanding numbers who
do not believe in God, or who prefer to keep their views private.
One
taking the oath to testify should continue to have the right to convey
their belief that a false statement will be punished by a higher
authority. This can be achieved by the chairperson asking the witness "Do you (swear or affirm) to tell the truth etc..... The individual
may then answer in two ways. "I do, so help me God" or simply "I do"
Whether
you should use this suggested variation based on your own discretion is
an open issue. It may make sense to bring this up at a closed
Democratic caucus hearing, but I do not see this requiring a vote of
the entire House of Representatives. Belief in a higher
being has become a political football. Ironically, two demographics, African Americans and Southern White evangelicals are most dedicated to advancing Christianity. If my suggestion is to be considered the means of introduction should be
sensitive to the short and the long term political effects. My
suggestion does not deny any person so inclined to personally state
his/her promise to a higher being. Yet, it also, with no disruption to
the order of business, allows one testifying to publicly legitimize a
secular orientation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas California see notes that follow:
AlRodbell@Gmail.Com
AlRodbell.com -personal blog with links to elements of this message.
Recent refusal by the Supreme Court to accept case that allowed the motto to remain on U.S. Currency
This
is based on the view that such reverence to God on public places is
"ceremonial deism" which does not impinge on the establishment clause of
the constitution.
The
rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with
religious adults, atheists, conscientious objectors, mental defectives,
and children. Affirmation is simply a solemn undertaking to tell the
truth; no special verbal formula is required. As is true generally,
affirmation is recognized by federal law. “Oath” includes affirmation, 1 U.S.C. §1;
judges and clerks may administer oaths and affirmations, 28 U.S.C.
§§459, 953; and affirmations are acceptable in lieu of oaths under Rule
43(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Perjury by a witness is a crime, 18 U.S.C. §1621.
Mass Murder -- Palo Alto Texas manifesto from Patrick Wood Crusius
The Inconvenient Truth
About Me
his manifesto. This attack is a response to the
Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators,
not me. I am simply defending my country from
cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an
invasion. Some people will think this statement is
hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic
and cultural destruction brought to the Native
Americans by our European ancestors, but this just
reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the
invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left
is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this
cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an
invasion. Some people will think this statement is
hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic
and cultural destruction brought to the Native
Americans by our European ancestors, but this just
reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the
invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left
is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this
attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic
community was not my target before I read The
community was not my target before I read The
Great Replacement. This manifesto will cover the political
and economic reasons behind the attack, my
gear, my expectations of what response this will generate
and my personal motivations and thoughts.
Political Reasons
and peaceful means to stop this seem to be nearly
impossible. The inconvenient truth is that our lead
ers, both Democrat AND Republican, have been
failing us for decades. They are either complacent
or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the
American public in our history. The takeover of the
United States government by unchecked
corporations.
I could write a ten page
essay on all the damage these corporations have caused, but here is what
is important. Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly
anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic
population, America will soon become a one party-state. The Democrat
party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the
transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st
Democratic Debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for
illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing
and then legalizing millions of new voters. With policies like these,
the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely become nearly unanimous
in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a
Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy
Hispanic population to the Democrats is all it would take for them to
win nearly every presidential election. Although the Republican Party is
also terrible. Many factions within the Republican Party are
pro-corporation. Pro-corporation = pro-immigration. But some factions
within the Republican Party don’t prioritize corporations over our
future. So the Democrats are nearly unanimous with their support of
immigration
while the Republicans are divided over it. At least with Republicans,
the process of mass immigration and citizenship can be greatly reduced.
Economic Reasons
two decades, half of American jobs will be lost to it. Of course some people will be retrained, but most will not. So it makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here. Invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America. In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs. Joblessness in itself is a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the better. The lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitions social projects like universal healthcare and UBI (Universal Basic Income) would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.
Even though new migrants do the dirty work, their kids
typically don’t. They want to live the American Dream which is why they
get college degrees and fill higher-paying skilled positions. This is
why corporations lobby for even more illegal immigration even after
decades of it of happening. They need to keep replenishing the
low-skilled labor pool. Even as migrant children flood skilled jobs,
Corporations make this worse by lobbying for even more work visas to be
issued for skilled foreign workers to come here. Recently, the senate
under a REPUBLICAN administration has greatly increased the number of
foreign workers that will take American jobs. Remember that both
Democrats and Republicans support immigration and work visas.
Corporations need to keep replenishing the labor pool for both skilled
and unskilled jobs to keep wages down. So Automation is a good thing as
it will eliminate the need for new migrants to fill unskilled jobs.
Jobs that Americans can’t survive on anyway. Automation can and would
replace millions of low-skilled jobs if immigrants were deported. This
source of competition for skilled labor from immigrants and visa holders
around the world has made a very difficult situation even worse for
natives as they compete in the skilled job market. To compete, people
have to get better credentials by spending more time in college. It used
to be that a high school degree was worth something. Now a
bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job
market. The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has
plummeted. This has led to a generation of indebted, overqualified
students filling menial, low paying and unfulfilling jobs. Of course
these migrants and their children have contributed to the problem, but
are not the sole cause of it. country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
100 shots fired in quick succession. I’ll have to use a heat-resistant glove to get around this. 8m3 bullet: This bullet, unlike pretty much any other 7.62x39 bullet, actually fragments like a pistol hollow point when shot out of an ak 47 at the cost of penetration. Penetration is still reasonable, but not nearly as high as a normal ak47 bullet. The ak47 is definitely a bad choice without this bullet design, and may still be with it.
Other gun(if I get one): Ar15 – Pretty much any variation of
this gun doesn’t heat up nearly as fast as the AK47. The round of this
gun isn’t designed to fragment, but instead tumbles inside a target
causing
lethal wounding. This gun is probably better, but I wanted to explore
different options. The ar15 is probably the best gun for military
applications but this isn’t a military application. This will be a
test of which is more lethal, either it’s fragmentation or tumbling. I
didn’t spend much time at all preparing for this attack. Maybe a month,
probably less. I have do this before I lose my nerve. I figured that an
under-prepared attack and a meh manifesto is better than no attack and
no manifesto
Reaction
Statistically, millions of migrants have returned to their home
countries to reunite with the family they lost contact with when they
moved to America. They come here as economic immigrants, not for asylum
reasons. This is an encouraging sign that the Hispanic population is
willing to return to their home countries if given the right incentive.
An incentive that myself and many other patriotic Americans will
provide. This will remove the threat of the Hispanic voting bloc which
will make up for the loss of millions of baby boomers. This will also
make the elites that run corporations realize that it’s not in their
interest to continue piss off Americans. Corporate America doesn’t need
to be destroyed, but just shown that they are on the wrong side of
history. That if they don’t bend, they will break.
Personal Reasons and Thoughts
My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn’t
exist. The job of my dreams will likely be automated. Hispanics will
take control of the local and state government of my beloved Texas,changing policy to better suit their needs. They will turn Texas into an
instrument of a political coup which will hasten the destruction of our
country. The environment is getting worse by the year. If youtake nothing else from this document, remember this: INACTION IS A
CHOICE. I can no longer bear the shame of inaction knowing that our
founding fathers have endowed me with the rights needed to save
our country from the brink destruction. Our European comrades don’t have
the gun rights needed to repel the millions of invaders that plaque
their country. They have no choice but to sit by and watch their countries burn. America can only be destroyed from the
inside-out. If our country falls, it will be the fault of trait-ors.
This is why I see my actions as faultless. Because this isn’t an act of
imperialism but an act of preservation. America is full of hypocrites who will blast my actions as the sole
result of racism and hatred of other countries, despite the extensive
evidence of all the problems these invaders cause and will cause. at much higher rates than average. Yet another reason to send them back. Cultural and racial diversity is largely temporary. Cultural diversity diminishes as stronger and/or more appealing cultures overtake
weaker and/or undesirable ones. Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country. The best solution to this for now would be to divide America into a confederacy of territories with at least 1 territory for each race. This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting each race self-determination within their respective territory(s).
guard or policeman, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers.
Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous
target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day. My
ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions on automation,
immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I
putting this here because some people will blame the President or
certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I
know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and
blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their
reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that. Many people think
that the fight for America is already lost. They couldn’t be more
wrong. This is just
the beginning of the fight for America and Europe. I am honored to head the fight to reclaim my country from destruction.
-------------------
Article with extensive background information on the perpetrator
the beginning of the fight for America and Europe. I am honored to head the fight to reclaim my country from destruction.
-------------------
Article with extensive background information on the perpetrator
2020 -The election that will shape the world's future
Response to N.Y. Times Article 6/11/19
--------------------------
Cogent clear article on the epochal transformations of technology that are already moving forward.
Let's posit two worldwide cultures, reality and myth. The first, the secular applications of the scientific method the later on outgrowth of a mythology that is a byproduct of human visualization, where imagination including the concept of death is a byproduct.
This same brain that has discovered the genome, quantum physics and space travel has also given us cultures that include hatred of the "other" --be them alien tribes or religions. The panic of isolation from one's extended family is every bit as human as our unique intellect.
Over the course of a my own lifetime we have not become more open minded, but shuffled concepts that were taboo among the educated population. As an example, the use of the phase "colored people" for the current "people of color." I can personally attest that using the obsolete world is now cause for banishment from one's liberal tribe, one's community
This is not trivial because the bowdlerization of terminology of earlier eras negates the possibility of understanding social change, of putting our moment of time into the perspective of other eras. The word "negro" becoming taboo, actually now conflated with the actual invidious "N word" This impedes understanding of major landmarks in racial issues of the 20th century.
We are left with a diminished vocabulary, excluding words that had developed during the long growth of enlightenment. The larger population, without these tools of objective analysis, is left with only their gut instincts, also known by the widely used term among candidates of gravitating to "common sense solutions."
By definition, democracy is the will of the majority of citizens. "Literacy test" now refers a method of excluding newly emancipated slaves their voting suffrage provided by the fifteenth amendment. It was a device of the unrepentant southerners requiring only blacks to remember complex arcane elements of law that they would inevitably fail. Yet the concept of a minimum degree of literacy being required for those who choose the representatives is not unreasonable. The current elimination of this requirements means that young person who reads at a third grade level, along with a senior with severe Alzheimers, both of whom can't possibly comprehend the issues get to determine who will make our laws ,and choose our Supreme Court Justices.
A belief in a supernatural being who both created the world and provided rules for living, what we call religion, is widespread in the world. In previous centuries, before the interface of humans with cyber-technology had began, there was little harm in such religious faith (except the vast carnage of wars between sects, some with minor differences)
We are in the midst of a cyber-technological revolution. The evidence that the changes over the last century will pale in comparison with those of the next is evident in numerous reports of even modifying our genome that evolved over eons of time, along with creating simulations of sensations out of semiconductors that had been part of our human sensory system It is not unrealistic that given another century of survival of civilization, that technology will advance at an even faster pace.
Donald J. Trump's election to the presidency should be viewed as welcomed preview of the choices that must be made. It will be seen as an historic tragedy that this opportunity has become a source of ratings for satirists, and endless repetition of missiles of calumny from his opposition. It becomes the chanting of an isolated village asserting the evil of the ogre who must be vanquished. In spite of, or because of his denigration of the process of comprehending complexity such as climate change, or the economic effect ending free trade among countries; he manages to have transfixed the attention of the country on his every action and word.
I own a copy of Liberty Magazine from May 1938 only months before war began. One of the articles is a positive interview with the Fuhrer describing the optimism of his people, and that his antisemitism was only as he stated, "I only want Germany for Germans" The seven years that followed, with the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people would have been dismissed as beyond the realm of rational possibility.
The selection of the Democratic nominee will be a race to the bottom, with the use of buzz words and promises that can never be. This is all wrapped up in a belief, or ostensible belief, in an almighty among candidates, a God of any variety of all , but that is based on a wisdom that is found in ancient books that have become sacred. The Trump-Republican party has captured this segment of our population, yet the only competitor of the two party system is treating this issue as untouchable.
Political Science is no more the philosophical endeavor of understanding how complex entities can organize themselves. It now includes the skills of obfuscation and mass manipulation that is one of the connotations of "politics." It looks like there may have been a master of the art form who has become our President. The most tragic consequence is if the vulnerabilities of our system, most profound being the innate propensity of humans to make choices based on emotional connection rather than complex analysis is ignored.
Will one of the candidates for the nomination for President on the Democratic ticket, define his or her belief that faith in a supernatural being does not give anyone special privileges. Will there be a single candidate who will run on a platform that includes the reversion of the 1956 motto of "In God We Trust" to the previous one, "E Pluribus Unum" This is a possibility, as nine members (out of 387) of the House voted to do just this in 2011
I'm not sure that this approach will win the election for Democrats next year, but if they are not willing to be the "reality party" with all that this means, for me they will have lost something much greater than an election.
The World Is a Mess. We Need Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
By Aaron Bastani
Cogent clear article on the epochal transformations of technology that are already moving forward.
Let's posit two worldwide cultures, reality and myth. The first, the secular applications of the scientific method the later on outgrowth of a mythology that is a byproduct of human visualization, where imagination including the concept of death is a byproduct.
This same brain that has discovered the genome, quantum physics and space travel has also given us cultures that include hatred of the "other" --be them alien tribes or religions. The panic of isolation from one's extended family is every bit as human as our unique intellect.
Over the course of a my own lifetime we have not become more open minded, but shuffled concepts that were taboo among the educated population. As an example, the use of the phase "colored people" for the current "people of color." I can personally attest that using the obsolete world is now cause for banishment from one's liberal tribe, one's community
This is not trivial because the bowdlerization of terminology of earlier eras negates the possibility of understanding social change, of putting our moment of time into the perspective of other eras. The word "negro" becoming taboo, actually now conflated with the actual invidious "N word" This impedes understanding of major landmarks in racial issues of the 20th century.
We are left with a diminished vocabulary, excluding words that had developed during the long growth of enlightenment. The larger population, without these tools of objective analysis, is left with only their gut instincts, also known by the widely used term among candidates of gravitating to "common sense solutions."
By definition, democracy is the will of the majority of citizens. "Literacy test" now refers a method of excluding newly emancipated slaves their voting suffrage provided by the fifteenth amendment. It was a device of the unrepentant southerners requiring only blacks to remember complex arcane elements of law that they would inevitably fail. Yet the concept of a minimum degree of literacy being required for those who choose the representatives is not unreasonable. The current elimination of this requirements means that young person who reads at a third grade level, along with a senior with severe Alzheimers, both of whom can't possibly comprehend the issues get to determine who will make our laws ,and choose our Supreme Court Justices.
A belief in a supernatural being who both created the world and provided rules for living, what we call religion, is widespread in the world. In previous centuries, before the interface of humans with cyber-technology had began, there was little harm in such religious faith (except the vast carnage of wars between sects, some with minor differences)
We are in the midst of a cyber-technological revolution. The evidence that the changes over the last century will pale in comparison with those of the next is evident in numerous reports of even modifying our genome that evolved over eons of time, along with creating simulations of sensations out of semiconductors that had been part of our human sensory system It is not unrealistic that given another century of survival of civilization, that technology will advance at an even faster pace.
Donald J. Trump's election to the presidency should be viewed as welcomed preview of the choices that must be made. It will be seen as an historic tragedy that this opportunity has become a source of ratings for satirists, and endless repetition of missiles of calumny from his opposition. It becomes the chanting of an isolated village asserting the evil of the ogre who must be vanquished. In spite of, or because of his denigration of the process of comprehending complexity such as climate change, or the economic effect ending free trade among countries; he manages to have transfixed the attention of the country on his every action and word.
I own a copy of Liberty Magazine from May 1938 only months before war began. One of the articles is a positive interview with the Fuhrer describing the optimism of his people, and that his antisemitism was only as he stated, "I only want Germany for Germans" The seven years that followed, with the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people would have been dismissed as beyond the realm of rational possibility.
The selection of the Democratic nominee will be a race to the bottom, with the use of buzz words and promises that can never be. This is all wrapped up in a belief, or ostensible belief, in an almighty among candidates, a God of any variety of all , but that is based on a wisdom that is found in ancient books that have become sacred. The Trump-Republican party has captured this segment of our population, yet the only competitor of the two party system is treating this issue as untouchable.
Political Science is no more the philosophical endeavor of understanding how complex entities can organize themselves. It now includes the skills of obfuscation and mass manipulation that is one of the connotations of "politics." It looks like there may have been a master of the art form who has become our President. The most tragic consequence is if the vulnerabilities of our system, most profound being the innate propensity of humans to make choices based on emotional connection rather than complex analysis is ignored.
Will one of the candidates for the nomination for President on the Democratic ticket, define his or her belief that faith in a supernatural being does not give anyone special privileges. Will there be a single candidate who will run on a platform that includes the reversion of the 1956 motto of "In God We Trust" to the previous one, "E Pluribus Unum" This is a possibility, as nine members (out of 387) of the House voted to do just this in 2011
I'm not sure that this approach will win the election for Democrats next year, but if they are not willing to be the "reality party" with all that this means, for me they will have lost something much greater than an election.
"And the war came." as It will again if we ignore history
"War" and "politics" are usually different domains of our
thinking and of public discussion. It is actually a continuum,
something not realized until the transition between the two occurs.
Opposing groups in the form of political parties, are designed to allow
their divergent interests and values to be negotiated short of actual
combat, using a structured plebiscite to determine which shall prevail
-- until another scheduled vote will allow alteration or change in
direction. Politics can be fun, a structure that brings people together
against a common enemy without the cost of human carnage. It has this
carnival quality, an intoxicating unifying institution, that is until
the music stops.
"And the war came" is from the part of Lincoln's second inauguration that looks back at his first, when there was still hope that the differences between the confederacy and the country defined by the federal constitution could be accommodated by both sides. My contention is that we are at a similar place right now, with failure to foresee the future consequences of war making such a tragedy possible.
We may actually be closer now than even the prelude to the Civil War. The current President has articulated only somewhat less than an overt threat with words such as these: "I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."
The escalation of this saber rattling from the other side was confronted by the recent pronouncement of the presumptive Democratic candidate for the Presidency, Joseph Biden in a public statement based on a question at a live town hall. It was whether he would promise to "not pull a President Ford” by pardoning Trump “under the pretense of healing the nation.” emphasizing his point with, "Absolutely, yes. I commit.”
His firm statement is meaningful, as the question was an opportunity for him to define a direction for his administration that would have been a reversal of the calumny and hatred of his predecessor. He could have responded with words to the effect, "This is a difficult subject, as the expectation of endless prosecution could energize Trump to do something foolish to prevent the traditional transfer of power. "
"And the war came" is from the part of Lincoln's second inauguration that looks back at his first, when there was still hope that the differences between the confederacy and the country defined by the federal constitution could be accommodated by both sides. My contention is that we are at a similar place right now, with failure to foresee the future consequences of war making such a tragedy possible.
We may actually be closer now than even the prelude to the Civil War. The current President has articulated only somewhat less than an overt threat with words such as these: "I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."
The escalation of this saber rattling from the other side was confronted by the recent pronouncement of the presumptive Democratic candidate for the Presidency, Joseph Biden in a public statement based on a question at a live town hall. It was whether he would promise to "not pull a President Ford” by pardoning Trump “under the pretense of healing the nation.” emphasizing his point with, "Absolutely, yes. I commit.”
His firm statement is meaningful, as the question was an opportunity for him to define a direction for his administration that would have been a reversal of the calumny and hatred of his predecessor. He could have responded with words to the effect, "This is a difficult subject, as the expectation of endless prosecution could energize Trump to do something foolish to prevent the traditional transfer of power. "
It would
have been bad enough if he had stopped with this statement, but he
went further, and in doing so betrayed his lack of mastery of the structure
of the executive branch of our government. He continued with “It’s
hands-off completely. Look, the attorney general of the
United States is not the president’s lawyer. It’s the people’s lawyer.”
He is accurate in as far as there being a tradition that once an attorney general is appointed there is a
high degree of autonomy in specific decision making. Yet, as in all
cabinet positions, it is the elected president who defines the general
policies.
The AG is the "peoples lawyer" only to the degree that he follows the
principles that are determined by the president.
Biden
may have been trying to convey that he would not engage in the attempt
to use the Department of Justice to advance the partisan goals of the president,
but in doing so he went too far, and worse, sacrificed the opportunity
to convey that he would be more than an extension of the livid hatred of
most Democrats for President Trump. He implied that after his
nomination and election he will unleash a tiger of an AG to destroy the President and will not restrain how he does it.
The
lack of any media discussion of Biden's promise is further evidence
that the endeavor of healing has been replaced by normalization of the
hatred of one side towards the other. No prominent Democrat
has questioned Biden's statement, so the full extent of the consequences
of
his promise has not been explored. This is in contrast to President
Ford's explanation of his career-ending decision to pardon Nixon that he
presented at a voluntary congressional hearing, a case that holds up to this day.
UCSD Lecture on Free Will - A personal story
The blog article below was posted before I attended the lecture described. The story of what occurred there, Science and Mysticism, was posted to a public website that received over two hundred comments.
------------------------------
Oct 12, 2015
This is prompted by a lecture on the title subject at UCSD, which I choose to exercise my free will to provide to attendee's the case that the premise is not only incorrect, but an affront to the most profound elements of the enlightenment, the long slow ascendance of scientific research of ignorance. This lecture is given by a tenured professor at a respected public academic institution, which makes it that much more egregious.
Of course, my making this case to this audience is similar to my standing up at St. Patrick's Cathedral and accusing the Pope of revering one as the son of God, who is just a human being like the rest of us. It would not play well to that audience. And those attending this lecture here are part of our culture, one that enjoys fantasy and reveres those who have appeared to master the mysteries of the universe.
First, the name of the lecture is inherently inimical to not only science, but our current civilizations stasis between faith and science. Physics is science, FreeWill is faith, a belief. In an article of Steven Jay Gould, a renowned biologist of the last century, he described why these must be kept separate for reasons of co-existence between faith and science, in this article "Nonoverlapping Magisteria,"
Physics, is a branch of science, of which a paramount rule is that any theory must be falsifiable by experiment. Phenomenon must be amenable to operational definitions to allow reproduction of experiments for verification. Free Will is of a different nature, fundamentally the realm of values and morals, elements dealt with by cultures and religions, not by experimental verification. Societies that espouse free will such as Saudi Arabia and the United States, upon breach of cultural-religious norms will torture and execute the individual. Counties that do not, such as Norway, will never cause suffering to another human being no matter what the deviation from norms or degree of suffering he has caused.
The subject of the presentation today suggests that the scientific method may be applied to determine which country is correct. No matter how many people cheer him on it does not become true. Majority rule has never defined true science, if it did we would still believe in possession by witches and the central place of our planet in the universe. However, we do have evidence that mass movements can germinate, and grow, and take over entire countries and culture ----irrespective of the validity of their premises. Sadly, this lecture illustrates one we are now living through.
------------------
Addenda: This forgoing is written after attendance at above lecture at various times
Needing support for my challenging Professor Keating from someone with credentials, I wrote this email to a man who only had months to live, who had been my neighbor for ten years:
This was his obituary in the New York Times, and there will never be a description of such an accomplishment ever again: Wesley A. Clark, Who Designed First Personal Computer, Dies at 88
-----------------------------
I viewed with care this two hour video of what was described as:
The Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination (at UCSD) will have a panel discussion on 8/6/15 o the subject of The Physics of Free Will. The event will be a discussion about what modern physics has to say about the concept of free will, including perspectives from the foundations of quantum mechanics, cosmology, and speculations about the role of of conscious observers in the cosmos. Discussants were Brian Keating (Physics, UC San Diego), Andrew Friedman (Astronomy, MIT), and David Brin (Hugo & Nebula Award Winning Author).
One option that was seriously considered by at least two of the discussants was that our existence was as creations of a massive simulation, with common elements of the film, "The Matrix." Dr. Keatings presentation was similar to the one I attended, but with more detail of the relationship between Physics and Free Will beginning at about 35 minutes into the video. Dr, Keating uses a quip during these lectures that always brings a laugh, "The slide of the group of undergrads, grad students and post docs, is proof that there is no "free will." He chooses not to explore how the dynamics of absorbing and accepting of academic values, that does not end when his collection of obedient individuals reaches a level of authority, can perpetuate error that eventually becomes part of a Zeitgeist.
Hour long video of lecture by Dr. Keating, "Physics of Free Will" (not the specific one I attended)
Lee Smolin is one of the most articulate theoretical physicists who challenge in his many books and articles the mystification of deviation from historical restraints that have given legitimacy to science itself over the last centuries.
Excerpt from article by Sean Carroll, an eminent theoretical physicist, on limits of expert views:
----------------------
------------------------------
Oct 12, 2015
This is prompted by a lecture on the title subject at UCSD, which I choose to exercise my free will to provide to attendee's the case that the premise is not only incorrect, but an affront to the most profound elements of the enlightenment, the long slow ascendance of scientific research of ignorance. This lecture is given by a tenured professor at a respected public academic institution, which makes it that much more egregious.
Of course, my making this case to this audience is similar to my standing up at St. Patrick's Cathedral and accusing the Pope of revering one as the son of God, who is just a human being like the rest of us. It would not play well to that audience. And those attending this lecture here are part of our culture, one that enjoys fantasy and reveres those who have appeared to master the mysteries of the universe.
First, the name of the lecture is inherently inimical to not only science, but our current civilizations stasis between faith and science. Physics is science, FreeWill is faith, a belief. In an article of Steven Jay Gould, a renowned biologist of the last century, he described why these must be kept separate for reasons of co-existence between faith and science, in this article "Nonoverlapping Magisteria,"
Physics, is a branch of science, of which a paramount rule is that any theory must be falsifiable by experiment. Phenomenon must be amenable to operational definitions to allow reproduction of experiments for verification. Free Will is of a different nature, fundamentally the realm of values and morals, elements dealt with by cultures and religions, not by experimental verification. Societies that espouse free will such as Saudi Arabia and the United States, upon breach of cultural-religious norms will torture and execute the individual. Counties that do not, such as Norway, will never cause suffering to another human being no matter what the deviation from norms or degree of suffering he has caused.
The subject of the presentation today suggests that the scientific method may be applied to determine which country is correct. No matter how many people cheer him on it does not become true. Majority rule has never defined true science, if it did we would still believe in possession by witches and the central place of our planet in the universe. However, we do have evidence that mass movements can germinate, and grow, and take over entire countries and culture ----irrespective of the validity of their premises. Sadly, this lecture illustrates one we are now living through.
------------------
Addenda: This forgoing is written after attendance at above lecture at various times
Needing support for my challenging Professor Keating from someone with credentials, I wrote this email to a man who only had months to live, who had been my neighbor for ten years:
Wesley A Clark
Hi Wesley,
I just read this article in the N.Y. Times, Data Storage on DNA Can Keep It Safe for Centuries, that referenced your seminal work on personal computers.
I
often think about you, and the condition you mentioned to me, Dementia
with Lewy Bodies. I have more mundane cognitive decline, just the
inability to recall names or specific bits of knowledge. Wikipedia is
my salvation as far as public issues, as with just a shadow of a memory
of something I can trace it down to their expansive article complete
with references.
I've
become involved in something interesting, that almost got me thrown out
of a lecture at University of California at San Diego last month. Now
that I know that you have the distinction of being "the only person to
have been fired three times from MIT for insubordination." I'll consider
it a badge of honor.
I
was asked to leave because I insisted on giving a response to a lecture
with the name, "The Physics of Free Will." While technological
"miracles" have become routine, with you being among the early wave in
the cyber world, I see a need to maintain a wall between science,
whether theoretical or applied and fantasy. If you have the time and
interest this essay I wrote entitled "Science and Mysticism" describes the lecture and my response.
Best regards to Maxine
Al Rodbell
And then his response
I had almost begun to think I'd never be hearing from my old friend again, my neighbor across the hall
in the Big Apple; but Al, I'd lost the iMac file that held our exchange
of email correspondence, a matter of clumsy-finngers, I
suppose … partially paralyzed left-hand.
Restart
Good Sir Alvin of Rodbell,
I'm delighted to hear from you again, and you get full marks for refusing to leave the UCSD meeting out there on the left coast in San Diego! Of course I read your essay, pointing out why the lecturer's emphasis was so far off base. Your logic is faultless.
Mine, in a related form: I believe that there are
at least as many Gods as there are people in the world, and I don't
believe in any of them (which makes me a poly-atheist). In any case,
count me among the many readers who admire your great writing skill!
There's
more I wanted to write here, but this will have to do for a re-opener. I
have to take myself down to a holiday party in the lobby of our
Brooklyn apartment building for the annual NAM festivities.
Best of all possible wishes,
-- Wes
This was his obituary in the New York Times, and there will never be a description of such an accomplishment ever again: Wesley A. Clark, Who Designed First Personal Computer, Dies at 88
-----------------------------
I viewed with care this two hour video of what was described as:
The Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination (at UCSD) will have a panel discussion on 8/6/15 o the subject of The Physics of Free Will. The event will be a discussion about what modern physics has to say about the concept of free will, including perspectives from the foundations of quantum mechanics, cosmology, and speculations about the role of of conscious observers in the cosmos. Discussants were Brian Keating (Physics, UC San Diego), Andrew Friedman (Astronomy, MIT), and David Brin (Hugo & Nebula Award Winning Author).
One option that was seriously considered by at least two of the discussants was that our existence was as creations of a massive simulation, with common elements of the film, "The Matrix." Dr. Keatings presentation was similar to the one I attended, but with more detail of the relationship between Physics and Free Will beginning at about 35 minutes into the video. Dr, Keating uses a quip during these lectures that always brings a laugh, "The slide of the group of undergrads, grad students and post docs, is proof that there is no "free will." He chooses not to explore how the dynamics of absorbing and accepting of academic values, that does not end when his collection of obedient individuals reaches a level of authority, can perpetuate error that eventually becomes part of a Zeitgeist.
Hour long video of lecture by Dr. Keating, "Physics of Free Will" (not the specific one I attended)
Lee Smolin is one of the most articulate theoretical physicists who challenge in his many books and articles the mystification of deviation from historical restraints that have given legitimacy to science itself over the last centuries.
Excerpt from article by Sean Carroll, an eminent theoretical physicist, on limits of expert views:
Physics is the easiest subject of all, which is why we know enormously more about it than any other science. The social sciences deal with fantastically more complicated subjects, about which it’s very naturally more difficult to make definitive statements, especially statements that represent counterintuitive discoveries. The esoteric knowledge that social scientists undoubtedly possess, therefore, doesn’t translate directly into actionable understanding of the world, in the same way that physicists are able to help get a spacecraft to the moon.
There is a final point that is much trickier: political inclinations and other non-epistemic factors color our social-scientific judgments, for experts as well as for novices. On a liberal/conservative axis, most sociologists are to the left of most economists. (Training as an economist allegedly makes people more selfish, but there are complicated questions of causation there.) Or more basically, social scientists will often approach real-world problems from the point of view of their specific discipline, in contrast with a broader view that the non-expert might find more relevant. (Let’s say the death penalty does deter crime; is it still permissible on moral grounds?) Natural scientists are blissfully free from this source of bias, at least most of the time. Evolution would be the obvious counterexample.
----------------------
The Green New Deal- an historical perspective
March 24, 2019
This is an extended comment on this article from the online publication, "Lets Fix This Country" The article is written with the right mix of detail and broad concepts to allow this involved citizen to really think about "The Green New Deal. Kudos to the author- publisher, a long time colleague.
Anyone who skimmed, go back read it carefully and go to the links that expand on why GND (one more acronym to handle) is inherently complex, utopian yet, important for we who will escape the problems that the GND tackles by opting out, otherwise known as dying- (ideally after a full long life) Politics inherently, even when tacitly, overlaps ideology- IE Marxism and current term "liberal."
Those of us born before TV (a useful benchmark) are living in a world that was unimagined in our childhood. This is from the technological (every person on earth has a supercomputer in their pocket) to the cultural (a child has the right and ability to decide his gender) Those political leaders of the pre TV age, no matter how brilliant or benevolent, could never have come up with a plan for the next century. We face the same problem today.
Climate change, while an actual phenomenon, "only" means that a portion of the world will become uninhabitable. I suggest, this should not be the central, but one of many, of the profound changes in the coming century. In the pre-TV era, there were other fears equivalent to Global Warming. The expected population explosion was more dire as food production would remain static. Now the latest prediction is world population will soon peak, and prosperity and lower birth will change the prediction of mass starvation.
Global warming is real, but other seismic cultural and technological changes will interact in a way that is not predictable. As of now, social interaction depends on physical proximity, a truism that is rapidly vanishing. Science fiction can no longer be considered fictional, but predictive. Even if Global Warming makes a quarter of the earth uninhabitable, based on the revolutionary technological changes that will only accelerate, it is reasonable that those creatures of future generations, will be in a world where everything is different.
While climate scientist can have a general idea of the consequences of the increase in greenhouse gases on our earth, what they can't predict, based on similar efforts six decades ago is how technology could change pretty much everything. This recent article from the N.Y. Times describes the dire prediction that never happened of what was known as The Population Explosion. Exacerbating this catastrophe were limits on food production, which turned out to be overcome by what we now know as the Green Revolution, research and technology starting in 1950s that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world.
Rationality lies somewhere in between the full attack on Global Warming proposed in the Green New Deal legislation of 2019, and complete dismissal of the potential serious adverse effects of this advocated by President Trump. As of now this is impossible, based on the distortion of perception caused by confirmation bias, an example of this being an article on the liberal L.A. Times that described a major study predicting that by the turn of this century the U.S. economic productivity will be reduced to ten percent of current level.
The actual report it referenced said it would be "reduced" ten percent. The newspaper refused to correct this, and few if any other than I, seemed to have noted the error. Such confirmation bias is at the root of the exacerbation of the culture wars since the last election. As long as the American public is so divided as to be living in different realities, the prognosis is dire.
This is an extended comment on this article from the online publication, "Lets Fix This Country" The article is written with the right mix of detail and broad concepts to allow this involved citizen to really think about "The Green New Deal. Kudos to the author- publisher, a long time colleague.
Anyone who skimmed, go back read it carefully and go to the links that expand on why GND (one more acronym to handle) is inherently complex, utopian yet, important for we who will escape the problems that the GND tackles by opting out, otherwise known as dying- (ideally after a full long life) Politics inherently, even when tacitly, overlaps ideology- IE Marxism and current term "liberal."
Those of us born before TV (a useful benchmark) are living in a world that was unimagined in our childhood. This is from the technological (every person on earth has a supercomputer in their pocket) to the cultural (a child has the right and ability to decide his gender) Those political leaders of the pre TV age, no matter how brilliant or benevolent, could never have come up with a plan for the next century. We face the same problem today.
Climate change, while an actual phenomenon, "only" means that a portion of the world will become uninhabitable. I suggest, this should not be the central, but one of many, of the profound changes in the coming century. In the pre-TV era, there were other fears equivalent to Global Warming. The expected population explosion was more dire as food production would remain static. Now the latest prediction is world population will soon peak, and prosperity and lower birth will change the prediction of mass starvation.
Global warming is real, but other seismic cultural and technological changes will interact in a way that is not predictable. As of now, social interaction depends on physical proximity, a truism that is rapidly vanishing. Science fiction can no longer be considered fictional, but predictive. Even if Global Warming makes a quarter of the earth uninhabitable, based on the revolutionary technological changes that will only accelerate, it is reasonable that those creatures of future generations, will be in a world where everything is different.
While climate scientist can have a general idea of the consequences of the increase in greenhouse gases on our earth, what they can't predict, based on similar efforts six decades ago is how technology could change pretty much everything. This recent article from the N.Y. Times describes the dire prediction that never happened of what was known as The Population Explosion. Exacerbating this catastrophe were limits on food production, which turned out to be overcome by what we now know as the Green Revolution, research and technology starting in 1950s that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world.
Rationality lies somewhere in between the full attack on Global Warming proposed in the Green New Deal legislation of 2019, and complete dismissal of the potential serious adverse effects of this advocated by President Trump. As of now this is impossible, based on the distortion of perception caused by confirmation bias, an example of this being an article on the liberal L.A. Times that described a major study predicting that by the turn of this century the U.S. economic productivity will be reduced to ten percent of current level.
The actual report it referenced said it would be "reduced" ten percent. The newspaper refused to correct this, and few if any other than I, seemed to have noted the error. Such confirmation bias is at the root of the exacerbation of the culture wars since the last election. As long as the American public is so divided as to be living in different realities, the prognosis is dire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)