False Equivalences

  • Frank Bruni on people who excuse Trump’s outrageous behavior for the relatively minor sins of the previous administration, unable to tell the difference in magnitude;
  • Briefly noted items about Mark Kelly and Benedict Arnold; NYT on Trump’s fatigue and Trump’s resultant outrage; Republicans getting rid of auto safety features; Trump wants money so he can get into heaven; Liberty Counsel’s boycott list and what it means; how Trump is what the founders were fighting against; and how new US rules subvert the idea of human rights.
– – –

This is about motivated thinking, whataboutism, projection, and insensitivity to scale (i.e. black-and-white-ism). About seeing the speck in your brother’s eye…

NY Times, opinion by Frank Bruni, 24 Nov 2025: The Outrageous False Equivalences That Prop Up President Trump (gift link)

While President Trump certainly has supporters who adore him and feel no need to justify that, he survives — and too often prospers — with the crucial help of voters who basically regard him as the lesser of evils.

They tell themselves something like this: Trump has shortcomings, but those are merely mirrors of the corruption and craziness on the other side. Almost any accusation leveled at him is lodged as easily — and often more righteously — against his opponents. In a government of bad apples, he’s no mealier than the rest.

But those claims insist on a symmetry that doesn’t exist. They’re equivalences not merely false but fantastical. They ignore the severity, the prevalence, the consequences of the misconduct in question. Imagine defending a suitor who’s a serial arsonist because the other guy has a jaywalking citation; both bachelors are lawbreakers, after all. That’s the perverse moral arithmetic of more than a few Trump apologists.

Bruni focuses on two in particular.

Trump is merely using his Justice Department as President Joe Biden used his and persecuting opponents in the fashion that Biden did.

That isn’t some random, cherry-picked absurdity. That’s practically every hour of Fox News. Trump’s supposed mimicry of Biden when it comes to politically motivated investigations and prosecutions is more than an article of faith on the right. It’s the dogma that washes Trump’s authoritarianism clean.

And it’s bunk.

He goes on to explain why. The other:

Trump’s grifting merely echoes the graft of his predecessor, who was not only a senator, vice president and then president but also the don of the “Biden crime family,” in the cracked MAGA parlance.

Yes, there are some shady episodes in Biden’s career, but nothing like the “relentless, boundless and unabashed monetization and merchandising” of Trump’s political station. It’s in the news every day; he doesn’t even try to hide it.

Bruni’s last line:

But cynicism and tribal loyalty have a way of replacing discernment with delusion.

Which supports my current top-level thesis, as stated yesterday.

(That citation from Matthew (so variously translated!) is an example of how wise people throughout history have noticed the things that we now clinically call psychological biases. These kinds of observations are what make great literature great, and how I think you can take any great work of literature, from Shakespeare to Austen, and take it apart in terms of modern psychology.)

\\\

Briefly noted: from the upside-down world of conservatives.

  • JMG, 26 Nov 2025: Republicans Want To Get Rid Of Auto Safety Features, via a press release by Ted Cruz. — — Of course they do! Safety features cost auto manufacturers money, and the number one priority of Republicans is to make wealthy industrialists wealthier.
  • And this takes today’s cake. Apparently a gift link; copied from a Facebook post.
  • BBC, Tom Bateman, 6 days ago: New US rules say countries with diversity policies are infringing human rights
  • Turning the ideas of human rights upside-down, the Trump administration is now considering policies that enforce race or gender diversity, DEI, and legality of abortions, to be human rights violations.
Posted in Conservative Resistance, Human Nature, Lunacy, Politics, Psychology | Leave a comment

Principles vs. Loyalty

  • More about the ad that advised soldiers they don’t need to carry out illegal orders, with threats against Senator Mark Kelly;
  • The demise of DOGE, which accomplished nothing;
  • Tom Nichols suggests the Sen. Mark Kelly should be secretary of defense;
  • Or maybe, Robert Reich suggests, president;
  • Incompetence: Accidentally invading Mexico, reversing course about swastikas, Trump believing his poll numbers are his highest ever, and cutting pollution standards without considering long-term consequences;
  • Paul Krugman on the demise of DOGE, and how Democrats will have to repair the damage.
– – –

My current top-level thesis: while liberals/progressives are about principles, empathy, and reality, conservatives are about loyalty (at the expense of principles and competency), selfishness, and ideology. It’s easy to find examples every day that support these ideas.

Case in point:

The Atlantic, Jonathan Chait, 25 Nov 2025: Trump and Hegseth’s Hysterical Reaction to an Ad, subtitled “For the president and his minions, loyalty is more important than legality.”

More about Senator Mark Kelly.

When a group of Democratic military veterans who serve in Congress released an ad last week urging service members to refuse orders if they are illegal, the Trump administration could have deployed an obvious defense: What are you talking about? We’re not issuing or planning any illegal orders.

Instead, the administration has opted for a rebuttal that is considerably more self-incriminating. President Donald Trump swiftly took to social media to call out these lawmakers for “seditious behavior” that is “punishable by death.” “It is insurrection,” the White House adviser Stephen Miller charged. “It’s a general call for rebellion.”

And now they want to court-martial him.

\\

Case in point.

Slate, Christina Cauterucci, 25 Nov 2025: The Most Humiliating Failure of the New Trump Administration Has Come to a Sad, Fitting Close, subtitled “It failed at every one of its stated goals while still managing to do tremendous damage to millions of people.”

After a 10-month run that upended the lives of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, untold millions of Americans, and millions more around the world, the “Department of Government Efficiency” appears to be dead. Reuters reported this week that, when asked about the status of DOGE, the director of the Office of Personnel Management responded, “That doesn’t exist.” He later qualified in a post on X that while DOGE “may not have centralized leadership,” its principles “remain alive and well” in the Trump government—a distinction without a difference that doesn’t make DOGE any less dead.

By its own stated metrics—slashing spending and waste—DOGE was an utter failure. When Elon Musk was first tapped to lead the hastily founded department after Trump’s 2024 election, he pledged to cut $2 trillion in federal government expenditures within his first year. Before Donald Trump even took office in January, Musk cut his ambitions in half, estimating cuts of $1 trillion instead. After a few months, he downsized the promise further, to about $150 billion.

But every time DOGE tried to report its successes, its numbers collapsed under scrutiny. This summer, when DOGE said it had saved America $52.8 billion by terminating government contracts, Politico could only verify $32.7 billion in actual claimed canceled contracts—for a total savings of just $1.4 billion. DOGE had arrived at its original estimate through deceptive accounting; a law school dean said the misrepresentation was akin to “taking out a credit card with a $20,000 credit limit, canceling it, and then saying, ‘I’ve just saved $20,000.’ ” In one case, DOGE said it had saved taxpayers $8 billion by canceling a single contract worth a maximum of $8 million.

\\\

And so, ironically. From Tom Nichols.

The Atlantic, Tom Nichols, 25 Nov 2025: Senator Mark Kelly Is in the Wrong Job, subtitled “He should be secretary of defense.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth apparently thinks that Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona is in the wrong job. Kelly was one of six Democratic legislators who released a video reminding the officers and enlisted people of the U.S. military that they are bound by their oaths to disobey illegal orders. Now Hegseth wants to recall Kelly, a decorated combat veteran and former astronaut, back to active duty in the Navy so that Kelly can be court-martialed for what Hegseth sees as riling up the troops against the commander in chief.

Hegseth has a point: Maybe Kelly shouldn’t be in Congress. But the secretary is wrong about putting the senator back in the naval service. In a more sensible and serious world (and, yes, I know this is not the one we live in right now), Hegseth would be fired—and Kelly would take Hegseth’s job as secretary of defense.

Because Kelly is qualified, and competent, and Hegseth is neither. (But he’s *loyal*.)

\

Also this.

Robert Reich, 25 Nov 2025: Senator Mark E. Kelly, Patriot of Patriots, subtitled “The contrast between him and Pete Hegseth or Trump couldn’t be more larger”

On Monday, the social media account of Pete Hegseth’s so-called “Department of War” posted that the department is investigating Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy officer.

Kelly’s supposed offense? He participated in a video reminding members of the armed forces that they have no duty to follow illegal orders — a concept enshrined in the Code of Military Justice, the shameful case of Lt. William Calley during the Vietnam War, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nurenberg Trials.

I’ve known Mark for several decades. I saw him pilot rockets into space. I gave a blessing at his marriage to Gabby Giffords.

Hegseth is mentioned, as is Trump’s taste for military tribunals. He reposts Kelly’s post about his career, which concludes,

“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

And then Reich concludes his post:

Today, Kelly refuses to be silenced by a disreputable secretary of defense and a twice-impeached occupant of the Oval Office who’s been convicted of 34 felonies.

I believe Mark Kelly would make an excellent president.

\\\

Back to incompetence.

I noted this yesterday, from MS NOW, MaddowBlog: Amateur hour: The White House keeps tripping over its own incompetence, subtitled “On multiple fronts, Donald Trump and his team are failing for the most embarrassing of reasons: They don’t appear to have any idea what they’re doing.”

I haven’t yet mentioned this:

Daily Beast, 21 Nov 2025: Pentagon Pete’s War Goons Accidentally Invade Mexico, subtitled “U.S. “contractors” planted signs declaring that a Mexican beach was U.S. territory.” (Via)

And for that matter this. They keep changing their minds — they float a policy change and reverse it if there’s too much pushback. No basic principles involved.

Associated Press, 20 Nov 2025: Coast Guard reverses course on policy to call swastikas and nooses ‘potentially divisive’ (Via)

\\\

This is about incompetence too.

PolitiFact, 24 Nov 2025: Donald Trump: “I have just gotten the highest poll numbers of my ‘political career.’”

The site’s summary:

  • Eight widely followed poll aggregators show that President Donald Trump notched his strongest approval ratings, and his smallest disapproval ratings, in January at the beginning of his second term.
  • Since then, his approval ratings have gone downhill.
  • Trump’s current approval and disapproval ratings are the worst of his second term and within a few percentage points of his first term’s weakest showing.

See the sources for this fact-check

\\\

Another conservative theme: favor big business in every possible way, never mind pollution or progress to mediate climate change. (I.e. short-term selfishness while ignoring long-term consequences.)

Associated Press, 25 Nov 2025: Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution (Via)

\\\

Paul Krugman on DOGE.

Paul Krugman, 25 Nov 2025: DOGE Was a Harbinger of Trump’s Assault on Decency and Privacy, subtitled “Democrats will have to repair the damage”

But although DOGE is gone, its malign legacy endures. Arguably DOGE’s biggest “achievement” was shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development. And the dismantling of USAID has left a legacy of death. According to one recent study, closing the agency “has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children.”

Back at home, DOGE wreaked havoc on the U.S. government through a combination of arrogance, ignorance and sheer incompetence.

Although DOGE is no longer, the damage persists. In addition to the needless loss of hundreds of thousands of lives around the world and the trashing of America’s global reputation, all for some flashy headlines, DOGE also seriously compromised the functioning of the US government. Thousands of dedicated federal employees were pushed out, taking their expertise and institutional knowledge with them, while those who remain are demoralized. Future recruitment of high-quality government workers will be much more difficult given the way their predecessors were treated.

Posted in conservatives, Morality, Politics | Leave a comment

Be Careful What You Wish For

  • What a no-immigration economy looks like;
  • A profound psychological question: why is RFK Jr. so convinced he’s right?
  • A thought for the day about childhood religion;
  • Briefly noted items about an administration of liars; how MAGA is tearing apart following Charlie Kirk’s death; the Christian lies behind Alabama’s voucher program; more about the demise of DOGE; and about the incompetence of the Trump administration.
– – –

NY Times, guest essay by Wendy Edelberg, 23 Nov 2025: We’re Seeing What a No-Immigration Economy Looks Like [gift link]

Right now, job growth is low. Given President Trump’s immigration crackdown and the attendant decline in net immigration, we need to start thinking about low job growth as the new normal.

Let me explain: Net immigration in 2025 is on track to be close to zero or even negative — more people will probably end up leaving the United States than entering for the first time in decades. Fewer immigrants overall means fewer immigrants entering the work force and fewer immigrants spending money.

We’re conditioned to think that job growth of 40,000 a month is a terrible omen for our economy — a sickly labor market or a sign of an impending recession. But if Mr. Trump’s restrictive immigration policies continue, it might simply be what the sustainable pace of new employment looks like.

Reality is never as simplistic as conservatives imagine.

Proponents of Mr. Trump’s approach to immigration tend to see it differently. Last year, then-Senator JD Vance essentially argued that fewer immigrants would lead to more job openings for native-born job seekers, particularly men, and that the resulting increase in wages would entice more native-born men to join the ranks of job seekers.

But I have my doubts. Empirical analyses suggest that reductions in immigration bring little change to the wages of native-born workers with skills similar to those of the immigrants who would otherwise be doing the same work. The percentage of native-born men between the ages of 25 and 54 in the job market has shown a long downward trend since 1960, with periods of strong wage growth doing little more than temporarily slowing the decline.

Republicans seem not to understand that immigrants grow the entire economy; they take jobs, but they also pay taxes and buy the products and services that all the “native born workers” with jobs produce, thus expanding *those* jobs. And this is true whether or not the immigrants are “legal” or “illegal.” Republican obsession with “illegals,” despite their indifference to the crimes of the President and others in his cabinet, indicates that they’re not concerned with legality so much as expressing white-supremacy animus against brown-skinned people.

\\\

Very long piece from the January 2026 issue. A profound question about human nature.

The Atlantic, Michael Sherer, 23 Nov 2025: Why Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. So Convinced He’s Right?, subtitled “How an outsider, once ignored by the public-health establishment, became the most powerful man in science”

It begins with personal background, as the essay opens:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. somehow knew, even as a little boy, that fate can lead a person to terrible places. “I always had the feeling that we were all involved in some great crusade,” Kennedy once wrote, “that the world was a battleground for good and evil, and that our lives would be consumed in that conflict.” He was 9 years old when his uncle was assassinated and 14 when his father suffered the same fate. I happened to be sitting next to him this fall when he learned that his friend Charlie Kirk had been shot. We were on an Air National Guard C-40C Clipper en route from Chicago to Washington, D.C., and one of Kennedy’s advisers, her eyes filling with tears, whispered the news in his ear. “Oh my God,” he said.

This is very sad, but of course, the world is not a simplistic battleground between good and evil. This is typical conservative black and white thinking. Again, very long article; I can’t begin to do it justice, except to note the predictable patterns. No patience for nuance. His family’s mystique.

Here’s a striking passage:

Science, unlike fairy tales and courtroom dramas, does not always offer a clear narrative. Initial results may fail to replicate. Real findings can get drowned out by statistical noise. Catastrophic side effects may take time to emerge. In the evolving search for truth, the public can find itself whipsawed: Margarine was a healthy butter alternative—until studies found it to be a source of the artificial trans fats that cause 50,000 premature deaths a year. The Merck drug Vioxx was a miracle pain reliever—until researchers estimated that it was associated with as many as 140,000 excess cases of heart disease. The food pyramid of the 1990s, which emphasized processed carbohydrates over fiber and protein, now looks like a sick joke given what research has shown about the roots of our current obesity epidemic.

Followed by this completely wrong-headed advice:

Kennedy thinks more people should follow his lead by consuming science directly. “ ‘Trusting the experts’ is not a feature of science,” he likes to say. “It’s not a feature of democracy. It’s a feature of totalitarianism and religion.”

It goes on and on. As with most things, there is no single, easy explanation.

\\\

Thought for the day: Staying with your childhood religion is like knowing about the outside world but choosing to live in your bedroom the rest of your life.

\\\

Briefly noted:

  • The Bulwark, Jill Lawrence, 24 Nov 2025: We’re Led by an Administration of Liars, subtitled “And the Comey case hypocrisy is as bad as the incompetence.” — — The administration lost its case because it *lied*.
  • Salon, Amanda Marcotte, 24 Nov 2025: Charlie Kirk’s death is tearing MAGA apart, subtitled “The killing of the Turning Point USA founder didn’t unify the base — it triggered infighting” — — I’m sitting on the sidelines, eating popcorn.
  • MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), Steve Bene, 24 Nov 2025: Amateur hour: The White House keeps tripping over its own incompetence, subtitled “On multiple fronts, Donald Trump and his team are failing for the most embarrassing of reasons: They don’t appear to have any idea what they’re doing.” — This was exactly predictable, given the host of incompetents Trump got into his cabinet.
Posted in Conservative Resistance, Psychology | Leave a comment

Getting the Joke

Family in town this weekend, a pre-Thanksgiving get-together to avoid busier plans next weekend. Michael and Honey and baby here; trips to Alameda and Foster City and Berkeley; I put 100 miles on my car in three days, driving back and forth across the bay. I am grateful for being part of an extended family, on my partner’s side.

\

Mostly long-form pieces today. Saving fringe bits for tomorrow.

  • Peter Wehner on the intellectual and moral decline of the American right;
  • Joshua Rothman on whether MAGA has any ideas, and my two big problems with the book he discusses (about “Great Books” and the source of morality);
  • How Marjorie Taylor Greene didn’t get the “joke” — that all of DC’s “talk of ideas and principles was flimflam to conceal self-enrichment at the public’s expense”;
  • Contrasting Trump’s posts with what “treason” and “sedition” actually mean;
  • Why Trump got along so well with Mamdani;
  • Tom Nichols on Trump’s recent outbursts;
  • Short items about how “MAGA” is being replaced by “America First”; how Musk and DOGE have withdrawn and left only wreckage, and no documented savings in their wake; and how Trump eliminates bad news by deleting it.
  • And, listening again to Beck.
– – –

The big picture: as I said last time, the political ideals of the Enlightenment, such as those in the US Constitution, may forever remain aspirational, always undermined by rank tribalism and greed.

*

The Atlantic, Peter Wehner, 22 Nov 2025: The Intellectual and Moral Decline of the American Right, subtitled “The conservative backlash against Nick Fuentes has yet to challenge the president who had him over for dinner.”

Does he contrast the present with whenever it was those things were higher? It begins by recounting the Tucker Carlson/Nick Fuentes controversy, and how other Republicans failed to disapprove of Carlson. Then about the Heritage Foundation (covered by Paul Krugman nine days ago) and how it changed to align with the Tea Party: “they transformed themselves into a kind of grassroots populist group that is fundamentally hostile to the institutions of our government.”

And became more radicalized with the arrival of Trump.

“The institution came to organize itself around Trump’s person rather than any set of ideas he might usefully advance,” the conservative intellectual told me. “They were unwilling to criticize him, which was never their approach to prior Republican presidents, even Ronald Reagan, and essentially forced their scholars to endorse whatever the administration was doing or else keep quiet.”

Again, the abandonment of principle in favor of tribalism. Here’s the closest the article comes to describing what Heritage once stood for:

Heritage has institutionally abandoned many conservative principles—free enterprise, American leadership on the world stage, constitutionalism—in favor of a grab bag of positions that track both with the priorities of the Trump administration and the particular whims of Carlson.

And, ruing the situation:

The reason Trump has been the dominant figure in world politics for the past decade rests in part on the MAGA true believers. They have a cultlike devotion to Trump, as unshakable as anything I’ve seen in my lifetime. Their moral blindness is almost incomprehensible to me. From what I can tell, they live in a twilight zone, a place of unreason, detached from reality, at least regarding politics. It’s a world where black is white, where up is down, and where Trump is good.

But at least as responsible for the Trump era are the people who knew better, or should have known better; who had concerns about Trump but kept them to themselves; and who felt most comfortable embracing the mindset of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” They became known as “never–never Trumpers.” They rationalized, time after time after time, their support for a man whose every part of his life is touched by corruption.

When confronted with inconvenient facts, they reject them. When Trump does cruel and wicked things, they ignore them. When they need Bible verses to justify their support for Trump, they find them. When reminded about their criticisms of Bill Clinton for his ethical lapses, they dismiss them. There is always a reason to stick with Trump, to vote for him, to justify his actions, to look the other way when needed. However bad Trump was, they assured themselves and others, the Democrats were far, far worse. And so they pulled their punches. Their ethos aligns with that of the Heritage Foundation: There are no enemies to the right.

Not just tribalism, but simplistic tribalism, black and white, good vs. bad. Not like the tribalism of multiple and mutually exclusive pop culture cults, but the tribal tribalism of aligning into two opposed groups, e.g. “no enemies to the right.”

\\\

Again, do Trump and MAGA follow any actual principles?

The New Yorker, Joshua Rothman, 22 Nov 2025: Does MAGA Have Ideas?, subtitled “A new book traces the intellectual origins of Trumpism—straight into the void.”

It begins:

In 2018, at a rally in Houston, Donald Trump articulated a distinction that was becoming central to the American right. “A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well,” Trump said. This involved “not caring about the country so much.” By contrast, he was “a nationalist.” “Really, we’re not supposed to use that word,” Trump went on. “You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, O.K.? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist! Nothing wrong. Use that word. Use that word!” The delighted crowd began chanting, “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

False dichotomy, of course; the world is not us vs them, not a zero-sum game.

Rothman wonders how the word “nationalism” came to Trump’s attention. Then turns his attention to a new book by Laura K. Field called Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right (Amz link).

Trump, now seventy-nine, seems already to be fading; the MAGA movement, at the height of its power, faces the increasingly urgent question of what comes next. If MAGA has good ideas, they might undergird its future. Alternatively, if it has bad or irrelevant ones, it may struggle to maintain its energy. Do the ideas associated with Trumpism lead somewhere, or are they a dead end? Can they stand on their own, without a reality star to animate them?

Here’s the central issue, perhaps:

Field, an academic based in Washington, D.C., was once a conservative, and has a lot of sympathy for various conservative viewpoints. She received an education in the “Great Books,” reading Plato and Rousseau; earned a Ph.D. in government from the University of Texas at Austin; and has spent plenty of time among the conservative intelligentsia.

… …

The New Right has a lot of very abstract ideas—not just about nationhood but about human nature, God, virtue, gender, technology, “the Common Good,” and more. One way to understand this addiction to abstraction, Field writes, is to look at a book like “Ideas Have Consequences,” an “ur-text” of American conservatism published in 1948 by Richard Weaver, an intellectual historian at the University of Chicago. Weaver’s view, Field argues, was that “without a transcendental metaphysics . . . there is nothing to limit political turpitude, and no reason for people to be good and true.” We might doubt this; we might point out that being uncertain about what’s right and wrong definitely doesn’t make you a nihilist. (In fact, the opposite is probably true.) Still, ever since, many conservative intellectuals have been convinced that “moral relativism” is a grave danger to civilization.

And

A common thread throughout “Furious Minds” is the frequency with which the New Right simply asserts truths in eternal terms, without justification or argument, and the satisfaction it takes in doing so. These supposed truths, once asserted, serve as justification for more assertions, creating a performance of certainty about what’s True.

I see two big problems here. The reverence for the “Great Books” by philosophers from hundreds or thousands of years ago is that many of their ideas have proven false, according to scientific understanding of the past century or two, and I suspect philosophy courses do not mention that. Theirs were intuitive truths, without evidence or validation by experiment. Second, morality does not depend on “transcendental metaphysics”: it has been understand for two or three decades now as part of evolved human nature, without which humanity would not have built the modern world. But conservatives rely on past authorities; they do not care to learn.

The essay ends:

It’s no surprise to find that the intellectual fabric of Trumpism is thin. What is possibly surprising is the degree to which the New Right has, through its arguments and behavior, refuted its own premises. In 2019, in a celebrated joint essay called “Against the Dead Consensus,” a group of conservative thinkers argued that liberalism and “consensus conservatism”—the old-school kind—had “long ago ceased to inquire into the first things”; it had taken for granted erroneous conclusions about “the nature and purpose of our common life.” They promised to turn America into the kind of place where values were taken seriously—where we might ask, for example, whether “the soulless society of individual affluence” was one we wanted. But it turns out that it’s liberalism that forces you to inquire into ideas, precisely because they’re uncertain, changeable, and contested. In the illiberal world created by Trumpism, you don’t have to ask—you can just proclaim. You can change on a dime, saying or thinking anything at all.

Exactly. It’s liberalism, not conservatism, that challenges conventional ideas and invites questions that challenge conventional wisdom. Because conservatives think nothing more needs to be learned, while progressives (including scientists) know there is a vast deal left to be learned.

\\\

Some people understand what’s going on, others don’t.

The Atlantic, David Frum, 22 Nov 2025: Marjorie Taylor Greene Came So Close to Getting the Joke, subtitled “What the Georgia representative learned in Washington”

When Jack Abramoff dominated Washington lobbying in the 1990s and early 2000s, he observed that there were two kinds of people in town: those who “get the joke” and those who don’t.

Those who got the joke understood that all of the city’s talk of ideas and principles was flimflam to conceal self-enrichment at the public’s expense. Those who didn’t, didn’t.

For example,

On the same day that Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene resigned, The New York Times reported accusations that President Donald Trump’s handpicked director of the Kennedy Center, Richard Grenell, had used the fine-arts institution’s $268 million budget to dole out favors and enrich friends and allies. If the claims—which Grenell disputes—are correct, Abramoff would recognize a fine example of “getting the joke.”

And,

Greene didn’t get the joke. Elected to Congress in Georgia in 2020, she became one of the loudest voices in American life for crackpot conspiracy claims: Pizzagate, QAnon, 9/11 trutherism, and a fantasy that California wildfires might have been caused by space lasers controlled by Jewish bankers. She repeated 2020-election denialism and promoted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda about his war on Ukraine.

For a long time, Greene’s seemingly fathomless gullibility qualified her as a MAGA leader in Congress. But the gullibility actually did have a limit. Sometime after her election, she began to realize that she’d been made a fool of.

Of all the ridiculous things Greene believed, perhaps the single most ridiculous was that Trump, of all people on Earth, was leading a heroic fight against a global network of pedophiles.

It goes on.

\\\

Slate, Paul Finkelman, 21 Nov 2025: What to Make of Trump’s Insane Suggestion About Hanging Democrats for “Treason”

Oddly, the president believes that it is criminal to urge members of the armed forces or the intelligence community to uphold the Constitution, respect the oath they took, and obey the law. Never having served in the military, the president seems not to understand that those who risk their lives to defend our nation have a legal obligation to “refuse illegal orders,” as stated by Sen. Mark Kelly, a former naval captain (which is the equivalent of a colonel in the other services). The commander in chief seems to have something different in mind for the oaths of the service members under his command. It’s unclear what that is, but certain history comes to mind. In Nazi Germany, for instance, soldiers took a “holy oath” of “unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces.” Civilians took a similar oath. Our servicemen and women, by contrast, take an oath, not to any leader but to the law and the Constitution.

The article goes on to define treason and sedition in specific detail; neither, of course, justifies Trump’s call for hanging Democrats.

\\\

Trump and Mamdani’s meeting went quite well, apparently.

Salon, Jason Kyle Howard, 23 Nov 2025: Donald Trump always falls for a handsome man in a suit, subtitled “Zohran Mamdani is just the latest babe to win POTUS’ affections”

It’s the stuff of political romance novels. A frustrated, angry bear of a president is roaring in the Oval Office about how people refuse to submit to him. …

Then: a knock on the door. His three o’clock has arrived, the same little communist he has raged against behind closed doors and before the media. “Mr. President,” the beautiful man says as he enters, extending his silver-ringed hand in a firm greeting. 

The mood in the room shifts. The president studies his guest, noting his kind, steely brown eyes and neatly trimmed beard. He looks at his dark suit and flashes an approving smile. 

Going on with many other examples. Trump is all surface, no substance.

\\\

More about Trump, Democrats, and Piggy.

The Atlantic, Tom Nichols, 21 Nov 2025: The President Is Losing Control of Himself, subtitled “Donald Trump’s outbursts on social media this week were different than usual.”

It would be easy merely to note, yet again, that the president is a depraved man and a menace to the American system of government. As remarkable as it is to say it, however, the outbursts of this past week are different, and were likely triggered by Trump’s panic over the release of files about his former friend, the dead sex offender Jeffery Epstein. No one should treat this new phase in the president’s aggression against democracy as just another episode in the Trump reality show.

And ending:

Americans, and especially their elected representatives, must pay attention to Trump now in a way that many of them have never thought to do before. The president of the United States is publicly howling for the arrest and execution of members of Congress, knowing that he commands a base that will take him seriously and has people in it that might act on his demands. (And no, Leavitt’s curt denials are not a reassurance.) Despite Nixon’s famous 1977 assertion, things do not become legal just because the president wants to do them. This is a new and dire development in the ongoing American constitutional crisis. The voters, Congress, and, yes, the U.S. military must all now be more vigilant than at any time in our modern history.

And indeed, there are reports of death threats against those Democrats.

\\\

Briefly noted:

  • Media Matters, 21 Nov 2025: Right-wing media figures are starting to declare “MAGA is dead”, subtitled “Some right-wing personalities are announcing the end of Trump’s MAGA movement and claiming ‘America First is ASCENDANT'” — — Many examples, with links. Not sure what the difference is between MAGA and “America First,” except that changing slogans allows conservatives to distance themselves from MAGA’s failures.
  • Is DOGE dead? Politico, Sophia Cai and Daniel Lippman, 21 Nov 2025: Inside the DOGE Succession Drama Elon Musk Left Behind, subtitled “What really happened when he logged out of Washington.”
  • I’ll quote Rob Latham on Facebook about this: “An in-depth—and infuriating—overview of the wilding spree Elon and his minions subjected our government to, and a sad survey of the wreckage they left behind. One of the worst examples of self-sabotage in US history. If a foreign enemy (or evil space aliens) had taken over, they could hardly have done worse.” — — His final sentence echoes comments of mine.
  • And Jim Wright on Facebook: “DOGE never produced a single shred of evidence of fraud, chicanery, or even waste. They just cut without regard to the damage, gleeful in their arrogant wanton destruction. Musk bailed out when it became obvious DOGE was… well, a dodge.”

\\\

One of my favorite albums of all time.

I’ve posted “Turn Away” two or three times before.

Posted in Conservative Resistance, Morality, Politics | Leave a comment

The Retreat from the Enlightenment

The key theme of our age, at least in the US: the retreat from the aspirations of the Enlightenment, both political and scientific. Content with tribalism and intuitive superstition.

Actually, these forces have probably never gone away. The difference now is they’re being driven by the current US administration.

(Edit next day: I changed “achievements” of the Enlightenment to “aspirations,” because there wasn’t any perfect past of such achievements.)

NY Times, Thomas L Friedman, 18 Nov 2025 (in today’s print paper): On Republican Neo-Nazism, Hamas and Israel: An Epidemic of Moral Cowardice (gift link)

Beginning:

I write today about an epidemic. It’s not biological. It’s an epidemic of cowardly, immoral and unprincipled decisions by leaders across the political spectrum. Our last biological epidemic — Covid-19 — was a tiny invisible pathogen that made us physically sick. This epidemic of moral cowardice is right in everybody’s face and it’s eating away at the civic bonds that hold societies together.

Three examples preoccupy me personally: The Republican Party today has a neo-Nazi problem that it refuses to confront. The progressive left today has a pro-Hamas problem that it refuses to confront. And the Jewish people and Israel have a radical Jewish settler problem that they refuse to confront.

The first of them is in US news every day.

While this may seem an odd grouping, its elements have more in common than you might think. The neo-Nazis in the Republican camp want a white Christian America from sea to shining sea — empty of as much diversity as possible. The radical settlers in the West Bank want a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — empty of as many Palestinian Arabs as possible. And Hamas jihadists also want an Islamic state in Palestine from the same river to the same sea — empty of as many Israeli Jews as possible.

Those three examples have other things in common. One is they just don’t care anymore about hiding their excesses or their agendas. It’s all out there online or on YouTube. They are not embarrassed.

And the bigger picture…

Put them all together and it becomes obvious that we are watching a broad breakdown in the liberal, humanistic order that dominated Western democracies after World War II. It’s the wholesale uprooting of what I call our societal “mangroves” — the unwritten norms that are necessary to restrain, filter and buffer aberrant behaviors and hatemongering, even when technically legal.

The same story Heather Cox Richardson has been telling. Friedman goes on to discuss those Young Republicans who were in the news a few weeks ago and JD Vance’s defense of them; Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes; Vance’s and Trump’s lack of criticism.

[Trump and Vance] undoubtedly know that a not insignificant minority of their voters hold these racist, antisemitic views and they don’t want to alienate them before the midterms, which are expected to be very close.

That’s where the Republican party is.

\\\

On the second point.

The Morning Heresy, CFI, Jeff Dellinger, 21 Nov 2025: “No Longer a Trustworthy Source” – Chaos at the CDC…

We begin today where, unfortunately, we must: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s latest act of anti-science vandalism to America’s public health infrastructure.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its website to contradict the long-settled scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism, shocking career scientists, delighting anti-vaccine activists, drawing a rebuke from a key Republican senator and sparking an uproar among medical professionals and autism advocates who questioned whether the agency’s credibility is now gone.

The Post notes that the changes were made without consulting (or even informing) “career scientists at the agency responsible for information about vaccine safety and autism.” In a statement published yesterday afternoon, CFI blasted the move as “a shameful dereliction of the CDC’s public health mission that should be reversed immediately.”

William Matthew London, who curates the HHS Watch resource page for CFI’s Quackwatch, was unsparing: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with its leadership and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices appointed by Secretary Kennedy, is no longer a trustworthy source of health information.”

The CDC move drew intense criticism from a chorus of public health scientists and medical experts, with the APHA writing:

Amplifying this claim and encouraging unnecessary investigations only worsens parents’ fears; it will not lead to better therapies, improved support for caregiving families, or changes in health care, education, and society in ways that would help children with autism thrive.

And this:

JMG, 21 Nov 2025: RFK Flack: “Vaccines Cause 80% Of Autism Cases”

“Mary Holland, CEO of Robert Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense, celebrating the latest change to the CDC’s website.”

“For thirty years, parents have been gaslit because of pressure from pharma and the government, because they’ve been pushing these shots and they’re very lucrative. And, so, it is so wonderful that we now see the start of HHS and CDC telling the truth. …

Wait, wait, I thought you guys determined that *tylenol* caused autism. So which is it? Get your story straight!

\\\

Short items to be noted tomorrow (or Sunday) will be about job approval ratings and Fox News, Chinese spying through baby monitors, a Mexican beach, changing their minds about swastikas, and making bad news disappear.

Posted in Conservative Resistance, conservatives, Decline, Lunacy, Politics | Leave a comment

Now It’s Calls for Execution

  • Several Democrats advise the military that they don’t have to follow illegal orders; Trump orders their trials for sedition, punishable by death;
  • More about Trump and Piggy;
  • And more about Trump and the Crown Prince;
  • Items about the CDC reinstating an implication between vaccines and autism, despite RFK Jr.’s promise not to; weakening the Endangered Species Act; how the Coast Guard will no longer consider swastikas and nooses as hate symbols; and a MAGA rant blaming illegals for every imagined problem.
  • And an elegant bit of Zbigniew Preisner.
– – –

Yesterday it was Trump calling a female journalist “piggy.” Today it’s Trump calling for the execution of Democratic politicians who would follow the law.

Politico, 20 Nov 2025: Trump calls for Democratic lawmakers to face trial for ‘seditious behavior’, subtitled: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he wrote on Truth Social. (via JMG)

President Donald Trump on Thursday called for six Democratic lawmakers to face arrest and trial after they made a video encouraging U.S. service members and members of the intelligence community to refrain from following orders if they broke the law.

Remember the Nuremberg trials? “I was following orders” is not a defense; you’re still guilty of whatever crimes you were ordered to do.

\\\

More about “Piggy”.

The Atlantic, Sophie Gilbert, 20 Nov 2025: President Piggy, subtitled “This is what consequence-free misogyny looks like.”

The roughly six months that have made up November this year have—it’s fair to say—not been a high point for women, journalism, women in journalism, women with jobs, or anyone following the news.

A quick recap: On Friday, Donald Trump said to a reporter on Air Force One, “Quiet. Quiet, piggy,” when she tried to complete the most basic requirement of her job by asking a question. Earlier this week, when a reporter at the White House asked Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, about the determination by U.S. intelligence that he was complicit in the killing of a Washington Post journalist—a finding that bin Salman has denied—Trump viciously scolded her for her “horrible, insubordinate” question. …

\

And let’s not forget this, from *three* days ago!

NY Times, Editorial Board, 19 Nov 2025: No, Mr. President, We Cannot ‘Leave It at That’

The realities of geopolitics have long required the United States to ally itself with foreign leaders who commit terrible deeds. Defeating foreign threats often requires the help of countries that fall far short of being liberal democracies that respect human rights. Saudi Arabia is a classic example of such a country today. It both has a disturbing human rights record and is a legitimately valuable American partner in countering Iran’s aggressions and building a more stable Middle East.

But working with imperfect partners does not mean that the United States should cover up and lie about their misdeeds, as President Trump did when receiving Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, in the Oval Office on Tuesday. It was a fawning, cringe-worthy performance that belied America’s more powerful status. It was absolution rather than realpolitik.

\\

Briefly noted.

  • NY Times, 19 Nov 2025: Trump Moves to Weaken the Endangered Species Act, subtitled “Four proposed rules could make it easier to drill for oil or harvest timber in areas where endangered species live.” (via JMG) — — Tearing down what others have built. Conservatives aren’t actually for conservation.
  • Washington Post, 20 Nov 2025: U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols, subtitled “The military service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, has drafted a new policy that classifies such items ‘potentially divisive.'” (via JMG) — — How else to understand this than as another example of creeping white supremacy? (Divisive between who? Racists and non-racists? As if racists need to be pandered to by the US government?)

\\\

What I’m listening to as I compile this post (on the Preisner’s Music album). I haven’t seen the movie; ignore the clip. Just listen to the music. Very elegant, even moving.

Posted in Lunacy, Music, Politics | Leave a comment

What Meaning Means, and if AI Gods Provide That

  • What the search for meaning actually means;
  • How AI apps fulfill religious needs;
  • Reasons why math scores are falling;
  • Short items about Nick Fuentes, people fired for criticizing Charlie Kirk, Trump and the Saudi crown prince, and RFK Jr.’s miasma theory.
  • Robert Reich on honor and shame.
– – –

Thought for the day. It’s been long established that primitive human nature involved searching for patterns in the environment, to detect causes and effects that could be relied on for survival. And this in fact led to the development of the human mind, but also a lot of false positives, i.e. apparent causes that did not actually exist. Thus superstitions. And, now is my thought, the idea that every effect, even human existence, must have a cause, is the origin of the persistent human pursuit of “meaning”. What is the “meaning” of life? Perhaps that notion is a just a projection of the propensity to search for causes of *everything,* and in this case, as in many others, simply doesn’t exist. Perhaps we just are.

\\\

This story has been floating around in various forms for a few weeks. It means more than what most people think it means.

Axios, Jessica Boehm, Russell Contreras, Isaac Avilucea, 17 Nov 2025: AI arrives at church: How chatbots are shaking up religion

A new digital awakening is unfolding in some churches, where pastors and prayer apps are turning to artificial intelligence to reach worshippers, personalize sermons and power chatbots that supposedly resemble God.

Why it matters: Some users say AI is helping churches stay relevant in the face of shrinking staff, empty pews and growing online audiences. But the practice raises new questions about who, or what, is guiding the flock.

State of play: New AI-powered apps allow you to “text with Jesus” or “talk to the Bible,” giving the impression you are communicating with a deity or angel.

The Week summarizes several stories on his topic in this morning’s report, posted separately here: God is now just one text away because of AI subtitled “People can talk to a higher power through AI chatbots”

They say God is always with you, and now that includes in your pocket. From chatbot Jesus to AI-written sermons, churches are using the technology to try to get more people engaged with religion. AI could improve access and allow pastors more freedom for hands-on work, but it may not be effective in drawing in the masses.

My comments: People, people, remember what AI does, which is to gather as much information as it can from the web, from digitized books and other sources, and generate replies to queries that it thinks *look like* what such replies should be.

There’s nothing *there*, there’s no man behind the curtain. To the extent these AI bots are useful to people, they are fooling themselves, they are seeing only what they want to see. But that, to my mind, is always what religion has done: feed back what the user wants to hear. There’s no there there.

\\\

Why is this happening?

The Atlantic, Rose Horowitch, 19 Nov 2025: ‘A Recipe for Idiocracy’, subtitled “What happens when even college students can’t do math anymore?”

For the past several years, America has been using its young people as lab rats in a sweeping, if not exactly thought-out, education experiment. Schools across the country have been lowering standards and removing penalties for failure. The results are coming into focus.

Five years ago, about 30 incoming freshmen at UC San Diego arrived with math skills below high-school level. Now, according to a recent report from UC San Diego faculty and administrators, that number is more than 900—and most of those students don’t fully meet middle-school math standards. Many students struggle with fractions and simple algebra problems. Last year, the university, which admits fewer than 30 percent of undergraduate applicants, launched a remedial-math course that focuses entirely on concepts taught in elementary and middle school. (According to the report, more than 60 percent of students who took the previous version of the course couldn’t divide a fraction by two.) One of the course’s tutors noted that students faced more issues with “logical thinking” than with math facts per se. They didn’t know how to begin solving word problems.

A couple obvious culprits spring to mind. But let’s not jump to conclusions.

One theory is that the attention-shredding influence of phones and social media is to blame. The dip in math scores coincides with the widespread adoption of smartphones; by 2015, nearly three-quarters of high-school-aged kids had access to one. A related possibility is that technology is making students complacent. Emelianenko told me that students “are just not engaged in math classes anymore”; they seem to believe that they don’t need to learn math, because they can use AI instead.

Or maybe the pandemic “supercharged the decline.” Or maybe it’s because universities phased out using test scores from the SAT and ACT, that filtered out those not good at math. There’s no one clean answer here (as there seldom is in life) but the problem is real.

“Who is going to trust somebody who got a degree in airline engineering who doesn’t know how to think through a problem without a computer telling them the answer?” Brian Conrad, a Stanford math professor, told me. “The premise that foundational ideas don’t need to be learned anymore is a recipe for idiocracy.”

Referring to the 2006 film, which is a hoot.

\\\

Items briefly noted.

  • The New Yorker, Jay Caspian Kang, 18 Nov 2025: Nick Fuentes Is Not Just Another Alt-Right Boogeyman, subtitled “The rise of the white-nationalist streamer should worry us even more than it already does.” — — Noted, but I think I’ve heard enough about this guy for a while. I have better things to do. If he becomes a danger, I’ll come back and read this.
  • The Atlantic, Katherine J. Wu, 19 Nov 2025: RFK Jr.’s Miasma Theory of Health Is Spreading, subtitled “The NIH is picking up Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s argument that a healthy immune system can keep even pandemic germs at bay.” — — Humanity cannot bear very much reality; we keep slipping back into intuitive, and wrong, takes on the world. The miasma theory of health is like flat-eartherism. This is another piece of evidence about a very serious, existential threat to human existence — the limitations of human cognition.

\\\

OK, here’s more on the third item just above.

Robert Reich, 19 Nov 2025: Honor and Shame in the Era of Trump and Epstein, subtitled “Honor comes with wealth. The only exception is pedophilia.”

When Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) arrived at the White House yesterday, he was met by a Marine band, officers on horseback carrying the Saudi and American flags, and fighter jets flying over the White House in a V formation.

It was far more pomp than visiting foreign leaders normally receive.

What had the crown prince done to merit such honor from the United States?

He has helped broker a tentative peace between Hamas and Israel. But so have Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates.

The real reason for the honor is that MBS and the Saudis are doing lots of business with Trump’s family — and this visit is part of the payoff.

It’s MBS’s effort to rehabilitate his reputation after Saudi operatives murdered Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi and chopped his body into pieces with a bone saw — a killing that U.S. intelligence determined was greenlit by MBS.

But in yesterday’s joint Oval Office appearance — freighted with flattery between Trump and MBS — Trump brushed off a reporter’s question about MBS and the murder.

“A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen,” said Trump, referring to Khashoggi.

Things happen?

Once again, Trump and MAGA are nothing about law and order, or even civilized life. They are about authoritarian power.

Posted in authoritarianism, Meaning, Politics | Comments Off on What Meaning Means, and if AI Gods Provide That

Greene and Pinker, and “Piggy”

  • A conversation between Brian Greene and Steven Pinker, two of the current greatest scientists/writers;
  • Heather Cox Richardson on how Trump “cares,” and his “piggy” comments;
  • Briefly noted items about how the GOP destroys, not builds; how the Trump administration uses bogus math; Christian nationalism and football games; and how conservatives discover new “rights” to take down Obergefell.
– – –

I have said before that in our modern age knowledge of the world is available to every person, in great detail, in books and in videos and on websites like Wikipedia, and how they comprise detailed understanding of the world far beyond anything captured in the ancient holy books. And there are podcasts, including those by many of the great nonfiction writers of our time. Here’s an example, which popped up on Fb today.

YouTube: What Happens When We All Know? | Brian Greene & Steven Pinker

An hour-long chat between two great scientists and writers. With an occasional ad. I listened to about 15 minutes; it’s largely about ideas from Pinker’s latest book, which I will write up here soon. I seldom listen to podcasts; I’d rather read books. But there are podcasts out there by Sean Carroll, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, and others, some with weekly posts. They’re ways of keeping up with the latest thoughts by the greatest contemporary thinkers, if you’re not inclined to read books. They’re better than listening to sermons.

\\\

How Trump cares. And his “piggy” comment. How has the US sunk to this level? Or: given the excellence and expertise so readily available, as in the above item, why has the US government declined to moronic proportions?

Heather Cox Richardson: November 17, 2025 (Monday)

President Donald J. Trump spent the weekend flooding social media with posts claiming that his economic policies are working and that his 34 felony convictions and the investigations into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russian operatives were illegitimate, and posting angrily about those people calling out his association with Jeffrey Epstein. He even reposted a statement from one of his own lawyers saying, “If Jeffrey Epstein had any dirt on Donald Trump, he would have had great leverage in the criminal case against him at the time he died,” which perhaps conveys a different message than he intended.

Then, after fighting furiously against the upcoming House vote over releasing the Epstein files the FBI collected as part of its investigation into the convicted sex abuser, at 9:15 p.m. last night Trump abruptly reversed course, saying that House Republicans should vote in favor of releasing the files “because we have nothing to hide.” “I DON’T CARE!” he posted.”

But of course, he does care, as is evident from how deeply he fought the release of the files the FBI collected during its investigation of Epstein right up until the final signature on the House discharge petition that would force the House to vote on a measure to require the Justice Department to release the files. As Meredith Kile of People magazine reported, when a female Bloomberg reporter at a press gaggle aboard Air Force One November 14 asked him if there was anything “incriminating” in the Epstein files, he pointed a finger in her face and said: “Quiet! Quiet, Piggy.”

From other sources, apparently his “piggy” comment is a common rebuff to female reporters. Classy as always. Also here: JMG, via Newsweek: Donald Trump Tells Reporter ‘Quiet, Piggy’ When Asked About Epstein Files .

\\\

Briefly noted.

  • Right Wing Watch, Kyle Mantyla, 17 Nov 2025: The Next Phase In The Crusade To Overturn Obergefell — — Conservatives have now discovered a “right” of children to be raised by heterosexual parents. Would they also criminalize single parents? And their argument admits that gay couples can, and do, raise children. My take: children benefit from having as many adult influences in their lives as possible; it takes a village etc.; but young children have no sense of whether those adults are male or female.
Posted in conservatives, Science | Comments Off on Greene and Pinker, and “Piggy”

Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

Subtitled “How Religion Poisons Everything”
(Twelve, May 2007, 307pp, including 24pp of acknowledgements, references, and index)

Here is the fourth, and last-published, of the four books by the so-called “new atheists” published in the mid-2000s. While Sam Harris was an academic, Daniel Dennett a philosopher, and Richard Dawkins an evolutionary biologist, Christopher Hitchens was a journalist and “public intellectual.” It’s worth glancing at the table of contents of his enormous essay collection Arguably to get an idea of his range of subjects. He had opinions about a great many things. He drank and smoked a lot and died at age 62. And he deliberately used lower-case “god” in the title of his book.

There are many videos of him speaking; he is erudite, has a cultured British accent, and can speak fluently on any topic at a moment’s notice, it seems. By the same token, this book reads more like a personal essay than an extended rational argument, chapters detailing historical events endlessly with occasional personal anecdotes thrown in. He’s the least polite of any of the four. Wikipedia has this summary, including the book’s critical reception. (With nits like how he confuses two of the Crusades, without addressing any of his core topics.)

Not surprisingly, many of his topics overlap those of the Dawkins book just revisited. (Imposing religion on children; arguments from design; how the NT is worse than the OT; how religions arise; how art and science reveal more than the scriptures; about Hitler and Stalin; and obviously, how the claims of religion are false.) Unlike the Dawkins, I have not reread this book recently; I’m just polishing up the notes I took back in 2007.

*

Ch1, Putting it Mildly

When author was a boy, it was Mrs Jean Watts who taught scripture lessons, and it was her saying things like “see how God made the grass green, since it’s the most pleasing color” that caused his thoughts to rebel—obviously, she had it exactly backwards. Eyes adjust to nature, not the other way around.

Other epiphanies—

  • If god created everything, why are we supposed to praise him for doing what he did anyway?
  • Why didn’t Jesus heal blindness, not just one blind man?
  • Why all this prayer with no result?
  • Why this anxiety about sex?
  • And a minister would say faith will become important when you start to lose loved ones. What does that have to do with it? How does the truth of religion depend on being comforted?

There are four irreducible objections to religious faith—

  1. It misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos;
  2. It combines the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsis;
  3. It results and causes sexual repression;
  4. It is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.

Author says “I am morally certain that millions of other people came to very similar conclusion…”

Our principles are not beliefs, based on faith; we are not dogmatic. We are not immune to wonder and mystery—that’s what art and literature explore….  the revelations of science are far more awesome; the Hubble photos. Marx was misquoted (about religion being “the opium of the people”).

Religion is mad-made, and the men who made it can’t agree on what their prophets et al actually said or did. Yet they claim to know *everything*…

Not that author would advertise these views; he’s happy to participate in religious rituals when circumstances require.

Religion is only the beginning of arguments about meaning, of justice; it will never die out, as long as we fear death, the unknown, and each other. It can’t be prohibited. But is the opposite true? In fact, people of faith are happy to plan the destruction of those who disagree with them—

And so the author concludes: Religion poisons everything.

Ch2, Religion Kills

Why is it that belief in a supreme being who dictates the rules of the universe not make people happy? Congregations are seldom happy to revel in their claims; they must interfere with nonbelievers, to have power in this world. Thus Mother Teresa flew across the world to influence the divorce laws of Ireland.

Dennis Prager asked author how he would feel about being in a strange city and seeing a group of men approach him from the down the street. Would he feel safer knowing they came from a prayer meeting? In fact, author has been in such positions, and would feel threatened… as he has in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, and so on.

There was the Ayatollah Klomeini, who issued a pronouncement of death against Salman Rushdie, for writing a work of fiction. At the time, perhaps, he needed an issue. In fact, attempts were made on Rushdie, or on his translators—some succeeded. And the Taliban, destroying ancient works of art. And the 9/11 hijackers were no doubt very sincere in their faith. And Robertson and Falwell, who blamed it on various sins. And so on…

Ch 3, A Short Digression on the Pig: or, Why Heaven Hates Ham

All religions seem to have dietary provisions; what is it about the pig? Author speculates it is perhaps because of their very similarity to humans… even the taste may be that of “long pig”, as roasted human is referred to in New Guinea…

Ch 4, A Note on Health, to Which Religion Can Be Hazardous

Religion is bad for your health. In Calcutta and other Muslim nations, a US/UN campaign to inoculate against smallpox was denounced by religious authorities as a western plot to sterilize the faithful… Meanwhile Catholics spread misinformation about condoms.

Isn’t it interesting that most ‘miracles’ are about healing. Arguments against condoms cite ‘natural’ justifications. Is it natural for a grown man to suck the penis of an infant boy? It is if it’s Jewish – performing a circumcision. No matter how weird or unhealthy, such practices are considered the free exercise of religion. So the Christian Scientists, the Adventists, etc.

Author says by all means allow adults to entertain various weird ideas… but to impose them on children is some kind of sin.

There is the ‘Jerusalem syndrome’, describing those psychiatric patients who wander around that city claiming to be the messiah. We are to take their claims at face value.

Religions claim a monopoly on sexual matters, and are oddly preoccupied with virginity. A category of literature focuses on adults recovering from religious education. And religions seem to focus, even welcome, the end of the world (hardly a healthy preoccupation), from various prophesiers to Left Behind and David Lindsay. Ironically, they would hijack the advances of science to carry out their ends.

Ch 5, The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False

Obviously, the early faithful were ignorant about the world in which they lived. Any attempt to reconcile their writing with science is doomed to failure.

Deism was at one time a reasonable position, but now it is a childish thing, to put away with childhood. Laplace said his hypothesis about the movement of celestial bodies did not require the idea of god; neither do we; to have faith makes no difference.

We can wonder about how ‘they’ thought in ancient times, but it’s no excuse. Ockham’s razor implies that if a creator is necessary, so is an infinite regress of them. A ‘leap of faith’ has no end.

Ch 6, Arguments from Design

The paradox of religion is the insistence on submission, with the conceit that humans are at the center of things. Humans are solipsistic; superstition is understandable, they are innate.

Author recalls bus ride in Sri Lanka, when a pedestrian was run over, and author dissuaded local authorities, leading other passengers to regard him with some kind of reverence…

Fortunate events are heralded as miracles; unfortunate ones overlooked.

Design arguments range from macro to micro. They betray the same solipsism. Being inspired by the shape of a daughter’s ear. But ears look the same even when their owners are deaf. We like to think the world is suited for us, forgetting the other planets and infinite space.

At the micro end are all the unverifiable and unfalsifiable arguments. Quote Shermer on the eye; it’s not intelligent, there are variants – ospreys have *better* eyes than humans, and some fish have 4 eyes. But details show flaws. Evolution is smarter than you are. Intelligent Design is a tautology.

Evolution is capricious and cruel—species have disappeared, so have human cultures, gone in floods or conquest. Genesis cites beasts but knows nothing of microorganisms.

The Burgess Shale, as written about by Gould, implies that ‘rerunning’ evolution would by no means result in the same outcome. Cites It’s a Wonderful Life; the Galapagos, Voltaire, Sam Harris.

Ch 7, Revelation: The Nightmare of the “Old” Testament

Religion betrays itself by citing revelation, which rather undermines its insistence on faith. Obvious objections: revelations are inconsistent, often come to illiterate people in remote places, etc.

The early books of the bible, called those written by Moses, include the Ten Commandments, which are easy proof that religion is man-made—were murder et al permissible before Moses? How can they demand the impossible—to not even *think* about wanting other people or things? Why didn’t god just invent a different species?

And what was left out—nothing about slavery or child abuse or rape or genocide. In fact, a few passages later, Moses *orders* a slaughter.

Fortunately, we can be reassured that none of these events ever actually took place; they’re fiction. Thomas Paine spelled out that Moses was obviously not the author.. He was referred to in third person, the books allude to events that occurred long after his death. Numbers describes Moses’ command to slaughter all civilians except virgin women. The books are preoccupied with the local—nothing beyond the desert, the nomadic existence.

Ch 8, The “New” Testament Exceeds the Evil of the “Old” One

The gospels are preoccupied with fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament, but are obviously hammered together and later tampered with. HL Mencken. The error, made by Mel Gibson and everyone else, is thinking the gospels are history, when they disagree on important matters, and *other* gospels give even other accounts, the gospel of Judas, for example, giving Jesus’ origin as the celestial realm of Barbelo. If that had become canonical, unbelief in Barbelo would have been grounds for torture…

The best argument for the questionable existence of Jesus is the lack of records by his contemporaries; the gospels were reverse-engineered and mistranslated (almah meant young woman, not virgin). Jesus never mentioned his virgin mother; was rude to her. And what about his brothers and sisters? Amazingly, the Catholic church invented the doctrine of Assumption as late as 1951. Thus man-made.

Like the Old Testament, the New is full of astrology and magic, and Jesus’ sayings are oddly absurd—unless coming from a person who actually believed his ‘kingdom’ would come in the lifetime of those who followed him. (thus, ‘take no thought in the morrow’).

CS Lewis’ preposterously argued that the absurdity of those teachings proved his divinity—otherwise he would have been a lunatic. In a sense there’s a brave argument here: either the gospels are literal truth, or the whole thing is a fraud. But the gospels can’t be literal truth…

Another scholar, Barton Ehrman [[ who now writes as Bart Ehrman ]], set out to examine the gospels and discovered sections that were obviously added later—e.g., the story of the woman adulterer who was brought before Jesus, who said let him who is without sin cast the first stone. It wasn’t part of the original gospel…

Only ‘faith’ is left.

Ch 9, The Koran is Borrowed from Both Jewish and Christian Myths

The Koran grew out of the usual oral tradition among illiterates, and once written down could only be expressed in Arabic. Translation is resisted, and doubters sternly repressed, betraying a sort of insecurity. .. Author describes an incident at a dinner party in DC when someone took great offense over a remark he made about Jesus.

Islam began in the 7th century: Muhammed and the cave; the ‘hejira’. In some sense Arabs felt ‘left out’ of the tradition of revelation, so they welcomed their own prophet. But squabbles began almost immediately, since Muhammed left no succession plan.

There’s some question whether Islam is really a separate religion, since so much was plagiarized from earlier holy books. It demands complete surrender and submission, with no justification. The form of Arabic at the time permitted vastly different readings (i.e. the way vowels and consonants were recorded), and collections of anecdotes about who said what were sifted over the ages, at one point 237 years later an expert decided only 10,000 of the original 300,000 could be authenticated—and then many of those were from other sources, or contradicted each other. One set of sayings were known as the ‘Satanic verses’ because at some point Muhammed decided he didn’t mean what he said, and supposed he must have been possessed by the devil at the time.

Hume had the final word on revelations… (which is easier to believe, etc.). And Islam has never had a ‘reformation’ like the other major religions.

Ch 10, The Tawdriness of the Miraculous and the Decline of Hell

It’s odd that religions require miracles at all; doing so is to admit that faith by itself isn’t good enough, that something is required to impress the credulous. The things to observe about supposed miracles is how petty some of them seem—tears from a statue, etc.

Hume again expressed the issue: is it more likely the laws of the universe were suspended for one person, or perhaps that they were deluded?

Two examples: resurrection, and UFOs. The interesting thing about resurrections is how many there were in various biblical stories. And in any event, what do they prove? As for UFOs, despite the many accounts and their similarity, never has any physical evidence appeared.

Author had direct part in the church’s investigation into Mother Teresa, first concerning a TV documentary filmed in a dimly lit room, when a technician decided that when the footage came out better than expected, the holy light was the reason. Then the later story about a woman in Bengal who was supposedly cured by Mother Teresa, with all the shady circumstances therein.

Similarly the faithful are anxious about having to explain natural disasters, when no explanations are needed if you merely understand the basics of geology and weather and chance. Yet the faithful are eager to blame this or that sin—take your pick.

Better explanations, via science and art, exist now than anything in the holy books.

Author has some sense of what it’s like to lose one’s faith—his in Marxism eventually gave in to reality. You’ll feel better when you do.

Ch 11, “The Lowly Stamp of Their Origin”: Religion’s Corrupt Beginnings

It’s still possible to see new religions arise—the cargo cults of pacific islanders. Later a child evangelist named Marjoe (for Mary + Joseph) Gortner grew up, quit the racket, and made a documentary film exposing the techniques they used—which won an Academy Award, and changed nothing.

Then there’s the Mormons, and Joseph Smith’s discovery of burial mounds and golden plates that no one could be allowed to see besides himself; he ‘dictated’ their contents to scribes, with of course much material lifted from the bible. Dennett wonders if the preachers really believe what they preach. In any case, Joseph Smith had the charisma to play the role, for people in a new territory open to the idea. Mormonism was explicitly racist, until a convenient ‘revelation’ changed church policy. And give it to them for the clever idea of retroactively converting everyone who ever lived, via their genealogy databases—a way to solve the problem of how people who lived before their prophet could be saved.

Ch 12, A Coda: How Religions End

The prime example being the case of Sabbatai Sevi, a 17th century ‘messiah’ who claimed many followers, but who managed to disappear without becoming a martyr; his followers vanished and he became a footnote in history.

Ch 13, Does Religion Make People Behave Better?

Author admires Martin Luther King, but he didn’t preach religion so much as nonviolence. Curiously, the Old Testament brought down all sorts of plagues and punishments on people, but only Jesus mentioned Hell and the concept of *eternal* punishment.

History shows that the morals of the great religions are questionable—both Christianity and Islam endorsed slavery…until it became economically prudent to abandon it. Both sides of wars always claim god to be on their sides.  Islam still condones slavery, for those they consider heathens.

Gandhi is not as admirable; he simply rejected modernity, would have had India reduced to villages and prayer wheels, and let others do the fighting for him rather than taking part in serious negotiations.

So do people need faith? The point is, behavior doesn’t prove anything one way or the other about the ‘truth’ of the faith. Examples.

Ch 14, There Is No “Eastern” Solution

Author once attended an ashram, where a sign said to leave your shoes, and your mind, at the door. Religions of the Orient may seem attractive, but they lead to the same kind of violence… as in Sri Lanka, where suicide murders were invented. Dalai Lama seems mild, but what he advocates amounts to one-man rule, by himself, and his statements are so full of vapid contradiction that they’re ‘not even wrong’.

Ch 15, Religion as an Original Sin

Some precepts of religion are simply immoral themselves. Creation myths, for example, that are simply wrong in light of recent knowledge about the universe.

Blood sacrifice—the idea that slaughtering animals, or humans, accomplishes anything. There are still cults trying to breed the ‘red heifer’, and people kill each other over a cave in Hebron where Abraham supposedly lived.

Atonement—the idea that one person dying 2000 years ago somehow forgives the sins of someone living today—who had no involvement or interest in that event, and is implicated in the ‘original’ sin simply by being alive.

Eternal punishment and impossible tasks—strictures that are mere wish-thinking, often revealing hypocrites who say one thing and do another. Laws that are impossible to obey—coveting goods, merely thinking about adultery is adultery. It makes religions into police states, where every thought and action is watched, or banana republics, where bargains are made to excuse or forgive.

You can’t compel altruism, or it isn’t altruism. You can’t overlook the plain fact that a humans hands reach to the genitals…

Ch 16, Is Religion Child Abuse?

A passage in Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is a prime example of a preacher describing the torments of hell in order to frighten children. Religion institutionalizes torture, including the traumatization of children.

Abortion is a difficult issue but every step of understanding the issue has been fought by the church. Genital mutilation—including circumcision of boys—is practiced to control sexual pleasure. And ridiculous misinformation about masturbation persists on Islam websites…

Ch 17, An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch “Case” Against Secularism

But, people always ask, haven’t secular/atheistic regimes been just as bad—e.g. Hitler and Stalin? The answer is they were totalitarian societies, which are religious in a sense, with a supreme leader and thoughtcrimes defined to control the private sphere. (As bad as John Calvin’s defining who is and who isn’t saved or ‘elected’ being out of one’s control.)

There is also the point of how the established religions responded to those regimes. The Catholic Church endorsed Mussolini, made treaties with Hitler, and through inaction condoned their regimes; and after the war, the church helped Nazis escape to South America.

While in Asia, Hirohito was proclaimed to *be* god.

Einstein is quoted as praising the church, but the statement is phony; in fact he explicitly denied belief in a personal god, etc. The communists sought to replace religion. But the religious impulse is ineradicable… p247.6: “All that the totalitarians have demonstrated is that the religious impulse — the need to worship — can take even more monstrous forms if it repressed.”

More examples: North Korea, anti-Semitism, apartheid in South Africa.

Ch 18, A Finer Tradition: The Resistance of the Rational

Unbelief has always existed, though until recently it’s been kept largely private. Socrates showed how conscience is innate, and how to mock believers by taking their beliefs at face value. Later: Lucretius, Spinoza in 17th century Holland, cursed for ‘pantheism’; Bayle and Voltaire and Kant, who undid the traditional arguments for god and faith. Writers like Paine and Franklin paid lip-service to religions of the time. Darwin used the words. Only Einstein needed no caution, being explicit about his denial…

Ch 19, In Conclusion: The Need for a New Enlightenment

If we had the alternative to be handed the truth, or be able to search for the truth, we should take the latter. Now we have fundamentalist regime, Iran, about to possess nuclear technology, while creating hysteria over Danish cartoons.

Religion has run out of justifications; we need a new enlightenment, the study of mankind, of science and literature that enable us to know ourselves and our world.

Last paragraphs:

Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifts and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry, both for its own sake and for the eternal ethical questions with which it deals, can now easily depose the scrutiny of sacred texts tht have been found to be corrupt and confected. The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by easy electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development. Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse. And all this and more is, for the first in our history, within the reach if not grasp of everyone.

However, only the most naive utopian can believe that this new humane civilization will develop, like some dream of “progress,” in a straight line. We have first to transcend our prehistory, and escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the catacombs and the reeking altars and the guilty pleasures of subjection and abjection. “Know yourself,” said the Greeks, gently suggesting the consolations of philosophy. To clear the mind for this project, it has become necessary to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it.

\\

A final comment of my own. I don’t think his humane civilization will ever development. For centuries, there’s already been a split between those who understand all these things, and those who don’t. The latter are those form whom life is made easier by ascribing to a particular religion, or say they do, without necessarily knowing the complete content of the religion. Many people don’t *care* about the world is about beyond their personal well-being. And if they do care, it’s so easy to say, all the answers are in this or another holy book, period. That explains a lot. That’s why (see Prothero) the more people in some countries know about religion, the fewer they actually believe. And to a large extent it’s an identity, the way being a member of a town or city or descendants from a particular country is… not a matter of an individual choice.

 

 

Posted in Book Notes, Religion | Comments Off on Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

Richard Dawkins, THE GOD DELUSION, post 6

(Houghton Mifflin, Oct. 2006, 406pp, including 26pp of appendix, books cited, notes, and index)

(Post 1; Post 2; Post 3; Post 4; Post 5)

*

Here are glosses on the Preface and 10 chapters of the book, followed by some general comments.

The Preface points out four consciousness-raising aspirations. First, you don’t have to live with the religion you grew up with. Second is the power of ‘cranes’ in understanding the cosmos. Third is the issue of childhood indoctrination, as in assuming a child belongs to the religion of their parents. And four is atheist pride; it’s not something to be apologetic about.

Chapter 1 explains how awe and wonder are available from the wonders of the universe, and how scientists who express such awe are not religious is the supernatural sense. This book concerns supernatural gods. Author is amazed by the deference religion is given, especially in America, and while he’s aware many will take offense by his arguments, he will not go out of his way to offend, yet will speak plainly.

Chapter 2 considers the ‘God hypothesis,’ the plausibility of a supernatural intelligence who designed the universe and everything in it. Polytheism is more common than strict monotheism, e.g. the Roman Catholic church with its trinity and saints and angels. The three major religions all derive from Judaism, the cult of a desert tribe obsessed with sexual restrictions and charred flesh. Paul of Tarsus founded Christianity. Islam added violent conquest. The American founders were deists and secularists. The existence of God is a scientific question, and can be considered as such on grounds of probability. If a god exists who can suspend natural laws it would be a quite different universe than one without. Studies of prayer show no effects.

Chapter 3 considers the standard arguments for God’s existence, and dismisses them as vacuous (Aquinas) or illogical or subjective. The gospels are inconsistent, and only four of them were retained; there were others. Pascal’s wager is about feigning belief. Bayesian arguments can be fudged. Religious people generally believe what they wish to be true. All sorts of rationalizations for the existence of evil. And anyway, who made God?

Chapter 4 takes the opposite perspective, explaining reasons why there is almost certainly no God. Creationists are impressed by the apparent design of the world, but natural selection is the consciousness raiser to explain that, and to explain so-called ‘irreducible complexity.’ Author calls such arguments failures of imagination, or ‘arguments from personal incredulity.’ Arguments from anthropic principles can be explained without resort to gods. And the Templeton Foundation is disingenuous, paying scientists to offer ideas that can be twisted in support of religion. Summary: the appearance of design in the universe is explained by natural selection, a crane, not a skyhook intelligent designer.

Chapter 5 expands the perspective to explore the roots of religion, why it would have evolved, what it’s ‘good’ for. Some ideas invoke group selection to explain why groups united by religion out-survive those that don’t. Or religion may be a by-product of something else, perhaps from the instinctive and necessary gullibility of children to believe everything their parents tell them. Religion appeals to the mind’s tendency to perceive purpose, even consciousness, in inanimate objects. These become ‘memes’ that spread across many minds, with occasional mutations. We can see how easily new religions appear and evolve, from Mormonism, Scientology, and cargo cults.

Chapter 6 considers the roots of morality, asking why we are good. The religious think religion is necessary to be moral, while in fact there are obvious Darwinian explanations for ideas of compassion and altruism. Most people claim they would be good anyway, even if there were no God watching over them. Criminals are more likely to be religious, more educated people less so. How do we decide what’s good and what isn’t? Through various applications of universalist principles and the practical consequences of various behaviors.

Chapter 7 concerns why morals do not derive from scriptures (given the many bizarre things that happen in the OT); how the NT is no better, or even worse; how Biblical rules apply only to the in-group; how the moral zeitgeist has moved on since Biblical days despite religion, not because of it; and how being an atheist is unrelated to people being evil.

Chapter 8 addresses why author is so hostile to religion; why not just dismiss it, like astrology? Because submission to a holy text subverts science, and an understanding of the real world. Examples of blasphemy laws, of attitudes toward homosexuality, of abortion and the conflation of embryos with fully grown adults, of the false Beethoven fallacy, and of how ‘moderation’ in faith fosters fanaticism.

Chapter 9 address childhood inculcation, how children are automatically assigned the religion of their parents, and how this is a kind of mental abuse. How it’s more important to teach children how to think [which is exactly what the parents don’t want them to do]. How the price of maintaining such cultural diversity is the lives of children. How teaching comparative religion, and teaching the Bible as literature, would be valuable.

Chapter 10 is about whether religion fills a “gap” in the brain, providing consolation and inspiration. But atheists are not more depressed than believers, and despite the promise of an afterlife, believers are just as afraid of dying as anyone. And how presuming that the only reason your life has meaning is because God exists is infantile. Science is much more inspiring; our brains evolved in a world of limited range, and science allows is to see a far greater reality.

\\

Here’s a comment I wrote down upon finishing a reread of this book in 2022:

Honestly, no one seems to spell this out, but the ‘traditional values’ of religious faith and ‘family values’ that place the highest priority on generating as many children as possible, are merely the protocols of the most basic tribal values for perpetuating the species—i.e. for winning the game of ‘natural selection’. The reason people (especially parents) fear homosexuality, is because it reduces potential grandchildren; the reason they fear atheism is because it threatens the social cohesion and common purpose of the tribe. To think that the only ‘purpose’ of sex is reproduction is to limit human experience to the most basic animal functions. To deny the discoveries of rationality and science in the face of religious faith is to limit human experience to the most basic tribal protocols. Is that all being human is? Ironically, in denying evolution and proscribing social roles outside narrow reproductive functions, fundamentalists are being as animalistic as they possibly can be—not transcending their animal heritage at all, but perpetuating it.

Posted in Atheism, Book Notes, Psychology, Religion | Comments Off on Richard Dawkins, THE GOD DELUSION, post 6