Monday, December 31, 2018

The End of 2018


I will not watch tonight on general principles. No Dick Clark, no watch. It took me 10 years to get used to Drew Carey after the legendary Bob Barker retired from "The Price is Right" and Bob came after Bill Cullen after all. The point is that I can only take so much change in a given situation. Which is why I retired in the first place, but that's another story which I've tried to forget about because it's neither here nor there and I'm too old and too tired to get into it as Casey Stengel would say. Besides, it's just one more year. Big deal. More of the same in 2019.

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Yuval Noah Harari - 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (Book Review)

This book by an historian asks lots of questions.  How do computers and robots change the meaning of being human?  Will algorithms determine our future?  How do we deal with fake news?  Is technology advancing faster than our ability to understand it?  Is liberal democracy in crisis?  These and many other urgent questions try our souls.

In a world deluged by irrelevant information, clarity is power.  P. xiii

What does the presidency of Donald Trump signify?  The answer is yet to come.  P. xv

The personal has become political.  As science learns to hack the brain, this fact becomes terrifying.  P. xv

Humans are losing confidence in the liberal story just as the merger of biotech and infotech are giving us the greatest challenges we have ever faced.  P. 1

The end of history has been postponed.  P. 3

Conservatives don't wish to give up the old, hierarchical world with its built-in prejudices.  Some people believe that liberalization and globalization is  con game empowering an elite at the expense of everybody else.  Liberals are in a state of shock.  As the liberal story frays, they have nothing to take its place.  P. 5

The liberal world has trouble dealing with the new technology.  P. 6

What is blockchain revolution?  P. 6

Scary stuff. P. 6

We cannot see where our technology is taking us.  P. 7

The liberal end of history didn't happen in the 90's.  P.11

Oligarchic control of the media. P. 12

By manufacturing a never-ending series of crises, a corrupt oligarchy can perpetuate its rule indefinitely.  P. 13

Liberalism has no conclusive answers to ecological collapse and technological disruption.  P.16


Terrorists are weak.  P. 164

Terrorism is theatre.  P. 165

Mexican war conquests were the bargain of the century.  P. 174

Russia's campaign of global disinformation.  P. 179

Human stupidity is one of the greatest forces in human history, yet we continue to discount it.  P. 182

Monotheism did little to improve the moral standards of humans.  P. 194

Christian bigotry in history.  P. 196

All religious and secular world views have shadows.  P. 218

How can you act morally if you don't know the facts.  P. 231

The world is complicated for our hunter-gatherer brains.  P. 235

History sustains Ukranian independence.  P. 237

Science is our reliable source of knowledge.  P. 249

Science fiction is an important literary genre.  P.250

Everything you experience is within your own mind.  P.253

Even if within a matrix it's all real.  P. 254

The movie "Inside Out."  P. 255

Technology isn't bad for you if you know what you want.  P. 271

The algorithms are watching you know.  P.272

Soon they will know everything about you.  P. 272

The circle of life: it's all circular.  P. 275

Linear ideologies in the West.  P. 276

The Marxist story is the story of class struggles.  P. 277

All stories are incomplete.  P. 280

Religious or not?  We can't change our desires.  P. 305

We are not a story.  P. 306

The answer isn't a story.  P. 313

Algorithms might eventually tell us who we are.  P. 323

Maybe the best book of the year.


Saturday, December 29, 2018

On Wounded Knee

Midterms and Troops: The Bid to Save a Party that Led to the Wounded Knee Massacre

"The Opening of the Fight at Wounded Knee" by Remington Frederic, 1891, Library of Congress.
On November 13, 1890, troops moved into South Dakota, a military movement that would result six weeks later in the Wounded Knee Massacre. The president sent soldiers to South Dakota, the largest movement of troops since the Civil War, in the midst of a midterm election campaign that looked bad for his party.
In 1890, Republican president Benjamin Harrison was facing a revolt in the midterms. The Republicans had risen before the Civil War as the party of ordinary farmers and workers, and had fought the Civil War to take control of America out of the hands of the nation’s wealthy slave owners. But after the war, Republicans had gradually swung behind the nation’s rising industrialists—men like Andrew Carnegie and J. D. Rockefeller—and propped up their industries with tariff walls that enabled them to keep consumer prices high. Voters, who hated the tariffs, increasingly backed the Democrats, who promised to lower them. Democrats had won the House of Representatives in 1874, and in 1884, Grover Cleveland became the first Democrat elected to the White House since the 1850s. Horrified Republicans had pulled out all the stops in 1888 to reclaim the government for their party.
In the 1888 election, they tapped large donors to fill the Republican war chest, then used the money to flood newspapers with pro-tariff arguments, warning that the Democrats were radicals who would destroy the economy, and promising that Republicans themselves would “reform” the tariff. But while Republicans’ strategy won the House of Representatives, it didn’t work for the presidency: Cleveland garnered about 100,000 more votes than the Republican candidate, Benjamin Harrison. So Republican operatives swung the election in the Electoral College, striking a backroom deal with the New York delegation to win an electoral victory. When the pious Harrison mused that Providence had given him the win, one of his operatives grumbled, “Providence hadn’t a damn thing to do with it. A number of men were compelled to approach the penitentiary to make him President.”
Harrison’s men recognized that they could not continue to hold power under the current system. So they rigged it. They admitted six new western states to the Union, the largest bulk admission of states since the original thirteen. In 1889, they split the huge Territory of Dakota into two parts—North Dakota and South Dakota—and added both to the Union, along with Washington and Montana. They fully expected the new states to vote Republican: when Montana went Democratic, they claimed the vote was fraudulent and replaced the Democrats with Republicans. In 1890, they added Wyoming and Idaho, moving so fast in the latter case that they had to call for volunteers to write a constitution that voters approved only months later. It was unclear that any of these western states even had enough people in them to justify statehood, but Republicans insisted the forthcoming 1890 census would prove that admitting them had been warranted. Administration men boasted that the admission of the new states would guarantee Republican control of the Senate and the Electoral College for the foreseeable future.
With this security in place, party leaders actually raised, rather than lowered, tariff rates just before the November election. They insisted that stronger protections for business would help workers by making the economy boom.
Furious voters gave Democrats a 2:1 majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans continued to hold the Senate, but by only four seats, and three of those senators were from states that had just gone Democratic. The survival of Republican control of the Senate came down to one man: the Senator from South Dakota.
In 1890, Senators were still chosen by state legislatures, and at first South Dakota Republicans claimed to have won the election. But almost immediately, that became doubtful: ballot boxes had been broken open and results altered. The Republicans had to make their case for South Dakota legislators to choose a Republican Senator between November and January, when the legislature met.
Right then, on November 13, with control of Congress hanging on South Dakota’s senatorial seat, President Harrison ordered 9,000 troops to South Dakota—the largest mobilization of the army since the Civil War—to protect settlers against an Indian “uprising,” an uprising that Harrison and his advisors knew had claimed no lives and no property. Army officers scoffed at the deployment, telling the president to feed the starving Lakota instead.
As the troops moved into South Dakota, the story of the election was eclipsed by what was happening on the ground. When panicked Lakota fled their reservations, army officers used both negotiations and troop movements to try and corral them back toward the government agencies at the heart of each reservation, where the army could keep an eye on them. But those negotiations went bad on the Standing Rock Reservation in the northern part of the new state when Indian police tried to bring Lakota leader Sitting Bull to the agency and ended up murdering him and much of his band. Wounded survivors ran south to take shelter with famous negotiator Sitanka at the Cheyenne River Reservation. But their arrival panicked Sitanka’s band and the entire group headed south across the middle of the state toward the Pine Ridge Reservation, to hole up with another Lakota leader on good terms with the army, the elderly Red Cloud.
It was several days before the troops cornered Sitanka’s people on the evening of December 28. Cold and tired, their leader sick with pneumonia, the band surrendered and moved, as ordered, to Wounded Knee Creek on Pine Ridge Reservation, where they were headed anyway. As night fell, the soldiers placed rapid-fire guns on the hills surrounding the camp. During the night, Colonel James Forsyth, a senior commander far more experienced with paperwork than with western fighting, took over the troops, and the following day he ordered the Indians disarmed.
As the soldiers took the few weapons the Indians had, three soldiers and a Lakota man began to struggle over a valuable gun, and it fired into the air. “Fire! Fire on them!” Forsyth shouted. In minutes, half the surrendering Lakota and 25 soldiers lay dead. The artillerymen began lobbing shells at the people escaping in both directions along the road and at those running into the ravine that lay behind the encampment. Over the next two hours, soldiers hunted down and killed all the Lakota they could find, riding them down and shooting them at point blank range as they tried to escape. Some women were murdered after they had run two miles from the campsite; one of those killed was a four month old infant who was shot from such close range gunpowder was imbedded in his skin.
In the end, about 270 Lakota and 30 soldiers died at the Wounded Knee Massacre. The Republicans did not hold the South Dakota senate seat. After weeks of balloting, it went to an Independent who caucused with the Democrats.

Friday, December 28, 2018

Stephen J. Knott - Alexander Hamilton The Persistence of Myth (Book Review)

This book is a survey of the historiography of Hamilton.  This is my kind of historical analysis.  I did not realize before reading this book that Hamilton has been such a controversial target in American history.

Born on the island of Nevis, Hamilton was sometimes criticized for not being "one of us."  P. 2

We are all indebted to a lucky benefactor who sent him to North America.  P.3

The division between Hamilton was real.  P. 5

His "Americanism" wrongly attacked.  P. 10

Adams despised Hamilton; said he lived in a "delirium of ambition."  P. 19

Paine loathed Hamilton.  P. 20

Hamilton vs. Jefferson for the soul of the nation from the beginning.  P. 23

The dominant impression of Hamilton in the American mind.  P. 24

The case against Hamilton.  P. 25

Great summary of pre-Civil War Jeffersonian ideology.  P. 46

The Civil War renewed Hamilton's popularity.  P. 47

Garfield supports Hamilton over Jefferson.  P. 48

Douglass believed the founders look forward to the eventual and certain abolition of slavery.  P. 52

Can Hamilton be called a nationalist in the context of his own time?  P. 53

Lincoln used Hamiltonian policies but was reluctant to attribute them to Hamilton.  P. 55

Was Lincoln a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian.  P. 56

Amazing how Jefferson Davis cited Hamilton.  P. 59

Surprisingly Walt Whitman was a Jacksonian.  P. 63

Was Hamilton the patron saint of privilege?  P. 66

Republicans claimed the Hamilton mantle during the Gilded Age.  P. 69

Henry Adams: No compromise possible J and H.  Hamilton was anti-democratic.  P. 73

Did Hamilton have a contempt for the common man?  P. 75

TR was a most zealous admirer of Hamilton.  P. 87

TR's praise of Hamilton is almost over the top.  P. 89

Lippmann on Hamilton.  P. 95

W. Wilson on Hamilton.  P. 97

Wilson: Hamilton a defense of privilege.  P. 98

Detractors would say that Hamilton was never an American.  P. 98

Beard's summary of Hamilton.  P. 100

Anti-Semitic tales.  P. 112

Not one of us.  P. 112

The New Deal: Toward Jefferson and away from Hamilton.  P. 113

Claude Bowers.  Interesting man I would like to know more about.  P. 114

The Tragic Era.  P. 115

FDR transitioned to being a Jeffersonian.  P. 119

Hugo Black was anti-Hamilton.  P. 125

Dumas Malone.  P. 133-34

FDR promoted Hamilton into the American pantheon.  P. 140

Truman on Hamilton.  P. 141

In reading this book it seems that every American politician had something to say about Hamilton and Jefferson.  The ebb and flow of comments is fascinating.  Hamilton and Jefferson are not just for historians.  Hofstadter: Hamilton was the arch plutocrat.  P. 150-51

The celebration of Hamilton's 200th birthday in 1957 was a dud.  P. 152

Charles L. Black: "We are all Hamiltonians today."  P. 156

Seeing Hamiltonian vigor in JFK.  P. 156

Merrill Peterson's view.  P. 163

Adair and fame.  P. 165-66

On Howard Zinn.  P. 171

Brodie on Jefferson.  P. 182

The defense of Jefferson is a scholarly joke.  P. 182

Jimmy Carter expressed admiration for Jefferson.  P. 183

Flexure called Hamiltonian psychologically troubled.  P. 184

Forrest McDonald is pro-Hamilton.  P. 185

McDonald's views on Hamilton.  P. 186

The complexity of H and J.  P. 187

Are we still Hamiltonians or Jeffersonians.  P. 188

Comparing Clinton and Hamilton.  P. 205-06

Excellent summary of Hamilton's record.  P. 222

Federalist #78 on the judiciary.  P. 224

A well-trained militia was no substitute for a professional army.  P. 225

An energetic executive what he meant by that.  P. 227

Hamilton was no saint, but he was not the caricature of his opponents.  P. 229

Hamilton's America.  P. 230

A return to Hamilton is not likely.  This book was published before the current Hamilton revival.  P. 232





Thursday, December 27, 2018

The Real Issue is Trump's Cult


The New York Times Opinion Section
14 hrs
"The most troubling thing about Trump's presidency is that he's a reflection of the part of America we wish didn't exist, the part that has always been there, lurking in the shadows," writes TM in a comment on Thomas Friedman's column, "Time for G.O.P. to Threaten to Fire Trump."
https://nyti.ms/2GEGJmo#permid=29885296

By Thomas Friedman

OPINION|Time for G.O.P. to Threaten to Fire Trump

Time for G.O.P. to Threaten to Fire Trump

Republican leaders need to mount an intervention.
Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist
CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Image
CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Up to now I have not favored removing President Trump from office. I felt strongly that it would be best for the country that he leave the way he came in, through the ballot box. But last week was a watershed moment for me, and I think for many Americans, including some Republicans.
It was the moment when you had to ask whether we really can survive two more years of Trump as president, whether this man and his demented behavior — which will get only worse as the Mueller investigation concludes — are going to destabilize our country, our markets, our key institutions and, by extension, the world. And therefore his removal from office now has to be on the table.
I believe that the only responsible choice for the Republican Party today is an intervention with the president that makes clear that if there is not a radical change in how he conducts himself — and I think that is unlikely — the party’s leadership will have no choice but to press for his resignation or join calls for his impeachment.
It has to start with Republicans, given both the numbers needed in the Senate and political reality. Removing this president has to be an act of national unity as much as possible — otherwise it will tear the country apart even more. I know that such an action is very difficult for today’s G.O.P., but the time is long past for it to rise to confront this crisis of American leadership.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump’s behavior has become so erratic, his lying so persistent, his willingness to fulfill the basic functions of the presidency — like reading briefing books, consulting government experts before making major changes and appointing a competent staff — so absent, his readiness to accommodate Russia and spurn allies so disturbing and his obsession with himself and his ego over all other considerations so consistent, two more years of him in office could pose a real threat to our nation. Vice President Mike Pence could not possibly be worse.
The damage an out-of-control Trump can do goes well beyond our borders. America is the keystone of global stability. Our world is the way it is today — a place that, despite all its problems, still enjoys more peace and prosperity than at any time in history — because America is the way it is (or at least was). And that is a nation that at its best has always stood up for the universal values of freedom and human rights, has always paid extra to stabilize the global system from which we were the biggest beneficiary and has always nurtured and protected alliances with like-minded nations.
You have 2 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
Donald Trump has proved time and again that he knows nothing of the history or importance of this America. That was made starkly clear in Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’s resignation letter.
Trump is in the grip of a mad notion that the entire web of global institutions and alliances built after World War II — which, with all their imperfections, have provided the connective tissues that have created this unprecedented era of peace and prosperity — threatens American sovereignty and prosperity and that we are better off without them.
So Trump gloats at the troubles facing the European Union, urges Britain to exit and leaks that he’d consider quitting NATO. These are institutions that all need to be improved, but not scrapped. If America becomes a predator on all the treaties, multilateral institutions and alliances holding the world together; if America goes from being the world’s anchor of stability to an engine of instability; if America goes from a democracy built on the twin pillars of truth and trust to a country where it is acceptable for the president to attack truth and trust on a daily basis, watch out: Your kids won’t just grow up in a different America. They will grow up in a different world.
ADVERTISEMENT
The last time America disengaged from the world remotely in this manner was in the 1930s, and you remember what followed: World War II.
You have no idea how quickly institutions like NATO and the E.U. and the World Trade Organization and just basic global norms — like thou shalt not kill and dismember a journalist in your own consulate — can unravel when America goes AWOL or haywire under a shameless isolated president.
But this is not just about the world, it’s about the minimum decorum and stability we expect from our president. If the C.E.O. of any public company in America behaved like Trump has over the past two years — constantly lying, tossing out aides like they were Kleenex, tweeting endlessly like a teenager, ignoring the advice of experts — he or she would have been fired by the board of directors long ago. Should we expect less for our president?
That’s what the financial markets are now asking. For the first two years of the Trump presidency the markets treated his dishonesty and craziness as background noise to all the soaring corporate profits and stocks. But that is no longer the case. Trump has markets worried.
The instability Trump is generating — including his attacks on the chairman of the Federal Reserve — is causing investors to wonder where the economic and geopolitical management will come from as the economy slows down. What if we’re plunged into an economic crisis and we have a president whose first instinct is always to blame others and who’s already purged from his side the most sober adults willing to tell him that his vaunted “gut instincts” have no grounding in economics or in law or in common sense. Mattis was the last one.
We are now left with the B team — all the people who were ready to take the jobs that Trump’s first team either resigned from — because they could not countenance his lying, chaos and ignorance — or were fired from for the same reasons.
I seriously doubt that any of these B-players would have been hired by any other administration. Not only do they not inspire confidence in a crisis, but they are all walking around knowing that Trump would stab every one of them in the back with his Twitter knife, at any moment, if it served him. This makes them even less effective.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ah, we are told, but Trump is a different kind of president. He’s a disrupter. Well, I respect those who voted for Trump because they thought the system needed “a disrupter. It did in some areas. I agree with Trump on the need to disrupt the status quo in U.S.-China trade relations, to rethink our presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan and to eliminate some choking regulations on business.
But too often Trump has given us disruption without any plan for what comes next. He has worked to destroy Obamacare with no plan for the morning after. He announced a pullout from Syria and Afghanistan without even consulting the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the State Department’s top expert, let alone our allies.
CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Image
CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
People wanted disruption, but too often Trump has given us destruction, distraction, debasement and sheer ignorance.
And while, yes, we need disruption in some areas, we also desperately need innovation in others. How do we manage these giant social networks? How do we integrate artificial intelligence into every aspect of our society, as China is doing? How do we make lifelong learning available to every American? At a time when we need to be building bridges to the 21st century, all Trump can talk about is building a wall with Mexico — a political stunt to energize his base rather than the comprehensive immigration reform that we really need.
Indeed, Trump’s biggest disruption has been to undermine the norms and values we associate with a U.S. president and U.S. leadership. And now that Trump has freed himself of all restraints from within his White House staff, his cabinet and his party — so that “Trump can be Trump,” we are told — he is freer than ever to remake America in his image.
And what is that image? According to The Washington Post’s latest tally,Trump has made 7,546 false or misleading claims through Dec. 20, the 700th day of his term in office. And all that was supposedly before “we let Trump be Trump.”
If America starts to behave as a selfish, shameless, lying grifter like Trump, you simply cannot imagine how unstable — how disruptive —world markets and geopolitics may become.
We cannot afford to find out.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on FacebookTwitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Correction: 
An earlier version of this article misstated the frequency of false or misleading claims told by President Trump. It was an average of almost 11 a day during his first 700 days in office, not five a day.
Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs Op-Ed columnist. He joined the paper in 1981, and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. He is the author of seven books, including “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” which won the National Book Award. @tomfriedman  Facebook