Wednesday, January 25, 2023

A song to make you cry... and determined...

I am trying to post only weekly, these days. But this needs doing. 

At all political extrema the fashion is to pour cynical hate on the deeply-flawed Great Enlightenment Experiment, and the nation that - for well or ill - is its leader. That hate is a sick version of the food that experiment needs, in order to flourish - interrogation by our righteously unsatisfied children.

We question ourselves and that is good. We teach our next generations to question us and all leaders, which (historically unusual) trait is both good and necessary, if we are ever to rise fully beyond barely upright killer-apes. 

The rate at which America, especially, has stepped toward her potential has been grindingly, shamefully slow (if quicker than any other.) And yet...

...sometimes it's a good idea, amid our habitual self-reproach, to remember all the times we did take those brave steps toward light. There are those, on this planet, who do remember.

This song by Michel Sardou is called "Les Ricains" which means, more or less, "The Yankees."

Watch this version first. I beseech you.


Les Ricains
 by Michel Sardou

If the Ricans weren't there
   Si les Ricains n'étaient pas là
You would all be in Germania
   Vous seriez tous en Germanie
To speak of I don't know what
   A parler de je ne sais quoi
To greet I do not know who
   A saluer je ne sais qui

Of course years have passed
Bien sûr les années ont passé
The rifles changed hands
Les fusils ont changé de mains
Is this a reason to forget
Est-ce une raison pour oublier
That one day we needed it?
Qu'un jour on en a eu besoin?

A guy from Georgia
Un gars venu de Georgie
Who cared a lot about you
Qui se foutait pas mal de toi
Came to die in Normandy
Est v'nu mourir en Normandie
One morning when you weren't there
Un matin où tu n'y étais pas

Of course years have passed
Bien sûr les années ont passé
We became friends
On est devenus des copains
To the friendly of the shot
A l'amicale du fusillé
They say they fell for nothing
On dit qu'ils sont tombés pour rien

If the Ricans weren't there
Si les Ricains n'étaient pas là
You would all be in Germania
Vous seriez tous en Germanie
To speak of I don't know what
A parler de je ne sais quoi
To greet I do not know who
A saluer je ne sais qui

Even better is this version... a huge crowd of French people cheering and singing along. Capable of gratitude. (Perhaps more capable than you are?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZGiKahFUi8

They know that this American Pax, for all of its faults, prevented vastly worse. That things could have been a hell, a curse. That every other era of dismal human history was worse. 

And if we do not blow it now, we have a chance to be recalled by our heirs - organic and cyber - the true humans - as the very best that cavemen could be. Crude, bestial primitives who tried nonetheless to lift our gaze and those around us. To something better.

Try - try, I dare you - not to tear up, in gratitude for this gratitude.


108 comments:

Guides to Adventures said...

The best we can do is to encourage, but for some that means actually working hard. Too damn hard for some.

Don Gisselbeck said...

To repeat myself, as a "fire up the guillotines" leftist, I continue to marvel at how far we've come. I'm but a mechanic and one of my main concerns is where to ski next. The trip will often cover what would once have been a weeks journey. It will be with the accompaniment of large orchestras or people arguing with flatearthers. It will be recorded by a pocket computer. The equipment itself has been massively improved in my lifetime. Viva Pax Americana!

scidata said...

Posted by me in CB from April, 2020:


Seeing some kind words sent to Canada from the Netherlands today (75th anniversary of liberation from Nazis). It occurs to me that similar thanks might serve to awaken memories of American contributions to civilization.
Thank you for Italy.
Thank you for Normandy.
Thank you for the Pacific.
Thank you for the Moon.
Thank you for Hollywood.
Thank you for Asimov.



The Google search engine has properly indexed CB for a while now, making it one of my favourite resources.

Alfred Differ said...

David said...

Alfred our sole geopolitical objective now is to prevent the Enlightenment Experiment from being sabotaged.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

But that does draw me inescapably to a conclusion I drew a few years ago. Expanding the geopolitical organism to our civilization means including anyone and everyone who identifies as part of it. That's your broadest horizon of inclusion that doesn't include (yet) non-hominids.

The curious conclusion, though, is that I want all these people to be able to cross borders among us freely. If I include them in our civilization, I should not bar their liberty to move around where their interests take them. Anything short of that I judge as immoral. It's a form of segregation. Separate... but equal.

I don't expect a sudden opening of the border, but I think we must bias the ratchet in that direction.

duncan cairncross said...

I don't often agree with Alfred

But I do agree 100% about borders

Capital and goods can cross borders - but not people and that's WRONG

Unknown said...

Alfred, Duncan,

While I agree with you whole-heartedly and would love to see a Commonwealth of Non-Insane Nations* with complete emigratory/immigratory freedom...well, you remember the screaming about school busing, right? You remember what Brexit was all about? A push by liberal or moderate politicians in that direction would result in them losing power.

Actually, J.G. Ballard proposed that something like that should've happened at the end of WWII, although he was envisioning a union of English-speaking people** (and not being entirely serious, I suspect)

And of course Lois Bujold had her favorite Barrayaran and obvious love object, Count Aral Vorkosigan (Athos in an SF universe) engineer freedom of movement across all Barrayaran counties as a step towards freedom and economic equality.

*Would the US still qualify?

**not necessarily fluent - "Able to give directions to a Cockney cabbie" iirc

Pappenheimer

Unknown said...

HUH - Just struck me me that the Council of Counts on Barrayar all have equal power, not related to population - a drain of citizens from reactionary counts' territories to enlightened counts' would result in something like what we are seeing now in the US Senate., where the RWWNJs have more power than they should. Newly minted Count Miles should get on that...

Pappenheimer

reason said...

I'm inclined to think that the only way you could even think about having open borders is if you had a "citizen's dividend". Then immigration would be self-limiting to people who could afford to finance themselves for a qualifying period. And a citizen's dividend (to my mind recompense for the theft of the commons) implies adequate and enforced taxation.

reason said...

P.S. Borders would in fact not be completely open - you would still need mechanisms to identify and keep out known criminals.

Guides to Adventures said...

I disagree, I say no restrictions.

Lena said...

Don Gisselback,

I'm with you on "fire up the guillotines" - why aren't the Sacklers in prison?
We could make a list, and it would be huge.


PSB

Lena said...

Quick note on migration: studies have consistently shown that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, and are always a net gain for the economy. Fascists, however, stoke xenophobia to win votes, hearts and minds, and consistently scapegoat immigrants.

They are going to find out when they end up in retirement homes and find that none of the workers they will spend their last dying years with are white.


PSB

Unknown said...

Quick note on migration: studies have consistently shown that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, and are always a net gain for the economy. Fascists, however, stoke xenophobia to win votes, hearts and minds, and consistently scapegoat immigrants.

Up here the Fraser Institute (right-wing think-tank) published a study showing that investment immigrants (those fast-tracked because they promised to invest in Canada) consistently under-performed both regular immigrants and refugees when it came to paying taxes and creating jobs — the ostensible reasons they were given preferential treatment.

When a right-wing institute has to admit that a reviled group is actually a net gain, even counting the supports they got when they first arrived, you know the data has to be incontrovertible. Which, of course, doesn't stop out own fascists and fascist-adjacent types just ignoring it and repeating the same old lies.

Darrell E said...

GTA,

I don't think completely open borders would work well at all unless the "standards of living" were reasonably equivalent nearly everywhere.

Guides to Adventures said...

So then you invest in people, economically and politically.

locumranch said...

It's a Song of Senescence...
It;s a Prayer for the Dead & the Dying.

Let us pause to give remembrance the USA that once was,
a 95% white judeo-christian country with singular purpose,
united by its homogeneity, in pursuit of common values,
an unsophisticated but mostly honest agent of great actions,
only to replaced by a babble of polyglots, a gaggle of
special interests and disparate tribes at war with themselves.

With first its silent and then it's greatest generation,
the once united but now former USA changed our world for the better.
It conquered the world in not only one but two great wars,
as it engaged in little wars & skirmishes without number.
It scraped the skies with great dams, bridges and buildings,
and it fired rockets & missiles into space itself,
laying siege to the moon, stars and very battlements of heaven.

It is proper to remember the dead.

As put forth in the holy books of Zelazney and Ecclesiastes: Every thing dies, all comes to naught, all is vanity.

http://galacticjourney.org/stories/Fantasy__Science_Fiction_v025n05_1963-11_MadMaxAU.pdf


Best

David Brin said...

Sorry guys. I guess it's my turn to be the awful anti-liberal. But I want a future world - and along the way a future America - where the zeitgeist is tolerance, diversity, curiosity, rambunctiously friendly individualism, and assertive self and world improvement. I don't care what color Americans will be but the culture matters to me, a lot...

...and that culture will not survive if we open the borders wide.

America has proved she can absorb and 'digest' a LOT of immigrants and make them diversely at-core-Americans. great. I also lived in Paris where the immigrant 'banliues' seethe with undigested hate that spans generation after generation, surrounded by un-liberal prejudice

Alas, the experiment has been run Putin, Erdogan, Assad and others in their cabal sent waves of refugees flooding into Europe, testing their liberal policies and the result was what they hoped for, an illiberal backlash by citizens whose welcoming spirit was overwhelmed and voters who turned populist rightward... which (as planned) wound up doing no one any good.

Liberal guilt prevents us from doing the obvious, using our might to crush brutal regimes that turn their own populace into refugee weapons against us. A century ago, US Marines went into C.Amerrica as mercenary thugs for United Fruit. Now that guilt prevents us from sending the Marines to free the peoples of Honduras etc. from their own homegrown gansters and thugs, though that would also help US to stay what we are.

Larry Hart said...

reason:

And a citizen's dividend (to my mind recompense for the theft of the commons)


To my mind as well, although I'd phrase it less antagonistically. Rent for the use of the commons. A tacit agreement between all parties concerned, rather than punitive damages for a wrong committed.

Don Gisselbeck said...

The Sacklers alone are a sufficient argument against the death penalty (14th Amendment) Don't get me started on the W R Grace Corp in Libby, Montana.

Lena said...

Dr. Brin,

I'm completely with you on overturning fascist dictators around the world. We did it to Hitler and Mussolini, but failed to do it to Franco, Stalin, and Mao. Then after that we started propping up brutal dictators all over Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Reagan even gave millions of our tax-payer dollars to Pinochet so he could torture and murder his people. Will America ever live up to what it purports to be its ideals?


PSB

Unknown said...

At Gettysburg, after the battle, they asked the guy in charge of burials how the Union dead should be buried - aphabetically, by states? He's supposed to have said. "Mix 'em up. mix 'em up. I'm sick and tired of state's rights."

Pappenheimer

likewise for the living.

David Brin said...

Glad dirtnapninja sometimes comes by. He is blatantly a native English-speaking and intelligent Kremlin troll, desperately rationalizing for evil - but he is sometimes actually informative amidst his baloney arguments.

Lcoumranch, on the other hand, keeps declining into bitter senescence. All the evil without any of the brains or guts. Seriously, old man. We're not on your lawn. Go shout at a cloud.

Unknown said...

Maybe we could advance to where we could switch species...As I emailed my Kipling Girl last night - "...been aware since before high school that I was a poor fit in most groups of humans, and no other species are currently available. Kept falling off the branches with the Bonobos, washed out of Raven flight school...."

Pappenheimer

Lena said...

Pappenheimer,

If I could once exchange with fate my place
Would give to scheme of things a newborn face
A scheme where good would not be cursed by base
And thus evolve a fairer human race.

- Omar Khayyam

PSB

Alan Brooks said...

LoCum is worth bantering with. It won’t go anywhere, but imo he (we presume male) is a challenge on par with dirtnapninja, whose handle is as bad as the false-flag “evil ukrainian”, from a year ago.
Let us say LoCum is correct that every problem we solve merely causes other problems: a very common sentiment.
What then? Do we live simple lives like, just say, the Amish? Do we starve ourselves like the Jains? Do we contemplate our navels or curl into the fetal position?

Guides to Adventures said...

We give a damn.

Larry Hart said...

Pappenheimer:

Maybe we could advance to where we could switch species...


My wife and I are kidding on the square* when we watch for the UFO that left us on this planet to come looking for us.

Our daughter has to face the incontrovertible fact she was born on earth. We have the pictures.

* credit to Al Franken for that expression.

Larry Hart said...

Alan Brooks:

Let us say LoCum is correct that every problem we solve merely causes other problems: a very common sentiment.
What then?


loc seems to proceed from the postulate that all good American values spring forth from the fountainhead of white Christian male society, and that all other hangers-on who happen to benefit from that clade's wonderfulness had better refrain from rocking the boat. If we push too hard for equality under the law or freedom for other religions, they'll refuse to take up the White Man's Burden any longer, and then we'll be sorry.

Lena said...

Alan Brooks,

A couple threads back you suggested offering an olive branch. However, with some people, if you give them an inch, they'll take Poland, and you might earn the nickname "Neville". : )


PSB

Alfred Differ said...

...and that culture will not survive if we open the borders wide.

I respectfully disagree, but won't push for immediately wide open borders. What I want (initially) is for them to be open enough that people already here can pull their relatives over. Run the other rules alongside so we acquire talent, but don't segregate families.

This one matters to me because it gets personal. My father's father came over with a brother almost 100 years ago. He found work in a coal mine in SW Pennsylvania and then went back and got his family. They were all back in PA just in time for the Depression to hit and it was the eldest daughter working as a domestic servant who kept food on the table. It was the grandmother I never met who first found stable work after the economy began to recover.

The social atom is family. Some are small and some are extended. At any size they are more likely to be economically viable after transplant due to their natural bias to cooperate and a variety of skills they possess.

We can reasonably debate how closely related someone must be to qualify as family, but I consider that a detail. If we allow cousins to be pulled, they can pull each other and get to second cousins and so forth. Make them liable for support of relatives for a while and that will deal with most issues. [My brother's wife would NOT have pulled her brothers over if there was a liability bond. She's a better fit for our culture than they are.]

David Brin said...

Actually, I think the WORST part of immigration law is favoring relatives of the already arrived. I hate that!

Those who are legally here have already won the lottery and they send billions in remittances back to relatives in the Old Country, making THEM lottery winners and elites. Such families can also hire lawyers - there and here - to help with immigration applications.

VASTLY better would be:
- true merit systems the reward hard work and skills and accomplishments in the home country, even without relatives here...

- an actual lottery.

I get that family ties can help immigrants who arrive to be less of a taxpayer burden. It still sucks, morally.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

Those who are legally here have already won the lottery and they send billions in remittances back to relatives in the Old Country, making THEM lottery winners and elites.


We've had the debate about chain migration before. I think Alfred is correct on this one. Families tend to want to be together, and a policy telling new immigrants "Forget about bringing your loved ones with you," would be counterproductive. It casts the immigrant into a mere temporary worker whose only benefit is to send US money somewhere else where he will eventually need to return to or else leave his family permanently. To have immigrants become part of American society itself, he needs to have his people be able to settle here as well.

Not to mention if the family left behind are in danger politically.

"Skills and accomplishments," is definitely one thing the country looks for in new applicants. Why not acknowledge that "part of an existing support system," is also good? How else to reconcile the fact that we don't want immigrants showing up to take advantage of welfare programs, but we also want to give refuge to "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free"?


- an actual lottery.


The winner of an actual lottery is not forbidden from sharing the wealth among his friends and loved ones.


I get that family ties can help immigrants who arrive to be less of a taxpayer burden. It still sucks, morally.


It only sucks if each family member bumps a productive loner from his spot. As if immigration is zero-sum. If we assume that immigrants can be a benefit to the country rather than just a burden, we should have no trouble accommodating separate tracks for family members of citizens and for desired skill sets without the one impinging on the other.

Alfred Differ said...

I do recognize a zero-sum element in the debate over chain migration. There is a limited amount of patience in our culture for the pace of change. Future Shock is real enough to matter, so whether we are changing skin colors, religions, languages, or music… culture changes bump up against a social limit. Go beyond that limit and we get reactionary opposition from people who might have otherwise tolerated a slower change.

———

If I were in a position of power and able to debate those who feel chain migration is immoral I'd offer a compromise coupled with some paraphrasing aimed at demonstrating respect for the person if not their opinion.

A) I don't see chain migration as immoral. In fact, I see opposing it as immoral.
B) However… I recognize the opposition and have no intention of asking for rules against them until advocates on my side of the debate reach 90%+ of the population.

Until then I want a blended immigration system that neither of us will genuinely love, but we won't hate it either.

1) Let a lottery exist. Let a system that draws talent to us exist. Let these programs be capped if advocates want it.
2) Let family draw nuclear family members any time they choose. Let them draw grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and first cousins after a year with a provable income at or above a local poverty standard.
3) Let the people drawn over by rule #2 NOT be able to draw ANYONE until a year passes and then rule #2 applies.
4) Let each State decide its willingness to financially support new immigrants including whether or not to set liability rules on 'sponsoring' family.
5) Once an immigrant becomes a citizen, no proof of income rule can be applied anywhere in the US.
6) There must be no immigration cap on rules 2 through 5.

A State that wants to avoid an immigration flood would set their poverty standards a little higher, but at the cost of stating to the world their people are impoverished. I think we could leave the standard to each State without any risk because immigrants would likely move to where jobs are located anyway.

Alfred Differ said...

We have certainly discussed chain migration before, but I think it is relevant to this posting because we are talking about defense of our Enlightenment Experiment.

a) If someone wants in on the experiment, I think we are morally obligated to recognize them as one of us.
b) If they are not already in a nation that actively supports and defends the experiment, we are obligated to help them get to one IF that is what they want.
c) We should not split their social atom.


What did we fight for in the big wars if not for full inclusion?


Geopolitical theory would argue we fought for US dominance, but the US is something of an ideal. It is very easy to argue we fought for Enlightenment dominance. If we do that, there are inescapable conclusions.

Larry Hart said...

@Alfred Differ,

I think you and I are mostly of the same opinion on immigration, though we perhaps emphasize different aspects.


Geopolitical theory would argue we fought for US dominance, but the US is something of an ideal. It is very easy to argue we fought for Enlightenment dominance. If we do that, there are inescapable conclusions.


That sums up my thinking as well. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," implies universality. While recognizing that we have no way of enforcing our values outside of our borders, the Declaration morally commits us to doing our part in whatever way possible. Accepting political refugees is one way of doing so. Using soft power to influence other countries to establish better working conditions or reduce contamination is another. So is helping an aspiring nation fight back against an aggressor.

I also recognize the reality that no country can just open the doors to anyone and everyone from outside to immediately become one of us. Aside from the problem of being swamped by numbers, there is also the threat of those who actively wish us harm.

But under a controlled immigration system, I don't see a lot of tension between the slots for family members and those for actively-sought achievers.* When my grandfather brought his wife over to Chicago from eastern Europe, it didn't interfere with our capacity to include Albert Einstein. The circles they each travelled in were very different.

* Republicans don't honestly see the problem either when the immigrant suits their ends. They had no trouble fast-tracking citizenship for Rupert Murdoch.

Larry Hart said...

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Jan26-7.html

...
The 1992 presidential election was a milestone. For the first time in its history, the Democratic Party got its strength outside the rural South, with wins in the Northeast, Illinois, and the West Coast. This is when the urban-rural divide really started to take off in many areas.
...


It's hard to believe now, but both California and Illinois went reliably Republican for president in much of the 20th century. Not always, but more often than not, even including the Democratic FDR years.


...
The gap between rural and (sub)urban America can be summed up by a remark from Maria Kefalas, a sociologist at St. Joseph's University and author of the book Hollowing Out the Middle. She wrote: "People who live in rural America are surrounded by folks who play along with a particular worldview, yet my friends from Brooklyn and Boston will tell you they don't know anyone who supports Trump or won't get vaccinated. It's not open warfare, it's more like apartheid."

matthew said...

Immigration in the US is simple - either make legal immigration easy and readily available, or illegal immigration will continue to swamp legal immigration.

It is not a question of "closing our borders." Keeping immigrants out entirely is impossible while still remaining recognizable as America.

It is only a question, "Do we create a permanent underclass of unlawful serfs or a blended nation of citizens?"

As always, racism is the primary driver of the response.

duncan cairncross said...

Matthew
Keeping illegal immigrants out is simple

LARGE fines and jail time for the people who employ illegal workers

This works in almost all other countries

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

I usually get stuck in the details when discussing this with honest opponents. On some issues I wind up having to agree even if I don't like the moral implications.

For example, the Enlightenment would be better off if immigrants did their participation from where they are. We do better with diversity, but it need not be located here. IF they can be active participants in our civilization without leaving their homeland, I think we are all better off.

Unfortunately that sounds roughly racist and immoral in the ears of many. What if they are trapped under a regime where they can't? Well… then we are better off if they get out. What if they aren't as 'Protestant White' as locumranch's poetry describes? Well… anything that helps them be a more active participant in our civilization is likely better.

Telling people to stay home isn't inherently immoral, but I have issues with those who give too much ground to others who want to conserve what we currently are. It's hard to know where to draw a line with conservatives, but it likely isn't where THEY want it… or where I want it. So… we have to talk.

———

There are all sorts of cultural sources for resistance to immigration. Most of them are about preserving something that is from changes. It's as if some snippets of what we believe about ourselves belong on an endangered species list. That may actually be the case! I'll even admit some might be worth defending since a lot of them add up to our identity as members of this Enlightenment civilization.

Ultimately, though, this is about faith. The lower case kind. 'faith' as in 'loyal to'.
Do we understand the ideals that make us an enlightenment civilization?
Do we defend and propagate those ideals?
Do we permit immigrants to adapt them to their cultural backgrounds?
Do we demand immigrants to understand, defend, and propagate too?

As long as we can answer positively for most of those questions, I don't think Enlightenment Civ is in much danger even if we screw up immigration policy. Maybe our kids or their kids will get it right.

———

As for Einstein, his case isn't as rosy as many imagine. We accepted him and then slotted him into Princeton's Advanced Institute where he essentially became a hermit. His active achievement days were largely behind him and isolation didn't do his work any favors. The community in which he lived couldn't have been more different from Berlin. Much the same happened to Gödel since Princeton was nothing like Vienna.

I have a mixed opinion about immigration policies aimed at acquiring talent. I want the talent, but I don't believe many civil servants to whom we assign tasks would know talent if it bit them on the ass. Same goes for a lot of my fellow Americans. 8)

Alfred Differ said...

Duncan,

Large fines might work IF we mostly agreed to catch the employers.

As with Prohibition, we don't agree enough to make the rule stick. By the time we imposed enough other rules to make the first one enforceable, we'd have created another cash cow for organized crime to milk.

I live in southern California. There are a whole lot of us that would prefer no legal authority screwed around with our labor market. If they are here and want to work diligently, it's hard not to see LE as the enemy when they enforce stupid laws. So... I'd rather not pass them and put LE in that position.

duncan cairncross said...

Alfred
The secret is to go for the Employers and go HARD - none of the fines that are 2% of the profits

Works in most other countries - and we have much much much LESS in the way of legal interference with workers

David Brin said...

If we want a permanent Republican majority here and for Europe to go like Hungary, then by all means open the borders wide...till the next super-GOP govt slams them shut forever. Our enemies used refugees as a weapon quite effectively.

I am far more aggressive for refugee rights. I want war against the elites and gangs in those countries, who are turning honest families into refugees.

And sure, let in as many as we can without killing the goose who lays gold eggs of liberty.

Amazing how much in common the "throw down all fences!" folks have with the forced school bussing dopes. This Enlightenment is potent and powerful and creative and magnificent... and vulnerable to the same sort of failings from within that doomed Athens. And the worst failure mode is a panicky citizenry.

I am in this for the long haul.

---
The GOP fortunately is self-immolating with their tax proposal. Have you seen it?

Tony Fisk said...

Back to tanks, it was too good a meme: while it is true Russia has acquired some T-34s from Laos, it was a few years ago, for ceremonial purposes.

Tony Fisk said...

Meanwhile, the skies still have powers to amaze...

Alfred Differ said...

Duncan,

Too "Law and Order" for me. Go HARD after any moderately large group in the US and we get more evidence for us being barbarians. The nicest thing they do is flip the bird and go about their business. More likely is they'll corrupt LE.

David,

I hear you. I'm up for a little exporting of our revolution. 8)

locumranch said...

I'll accept the Wikipedia link offered up by Pappenheimer, you know, the one that that estimates that the USA was "90% white" from 1920 until 1960, nor will I quibble about wiki's racial definitions when the majority of US Hispanics (58% thereof) and US Jews (92% thereof) also identify as 'white'.

Even so, my point still stands.

Demographically speaking, the former USA no longer exists:

(1) The Greatest Generation (born ~1900-1925) is dead & gone;
(2) The Silent Generation (born ~1925-1945) will join them shortly; and
(3) The racial demographic that built the Hoover Dam, triumphed in two 'hot' world wars & one cold one, and put men on the moon is moldering in its grave.

Also according to Wikipedia:

A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or society. A nation is thus the collective identity of a group of people understood as defined by those features..

A nation is its people, and you are incredibly delusional if you believe that you can replace a nation's founding population, along with its language, history, ethnicity & culture, and still have the same nation with which you started.

And, lastly, a wager:

Prove me wrong and win an extremely rare & expensive bottle of Chateau Margaux grand vin, bottled in 1787, that I currently have in my possession.

Of course, I had to replace its contents with Mogen David's extra heavy Malaga wine in 1987 and then the bottle itself in 1999, but it is EXACTLY THE SAME WINE (circa 1787) much prized by Thomas Jefferson & the Scottish Enlightenment.

It's even refillable.


Best

David Brin said...

WOw... mining this for rich quotations. Those of you with a taste for biting poesy should read this Kipling...

https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm

Unknown said...

Just one last act of Shermanity - the IDF fielded a "super Sherman" which was an unchanged hull with a 105 mm cannon crammed into the turret. Did good service but was replaced as soon as more modern AFVs were available. Still wondering where they found Jewish hobbits to man it - can't have been much room left in that thing.

Pappenheimer

duncan cairncross said...

The famous Firefly Sherman variant had a 17 pounder Gun (I think about 75mm) - and it was notoriously "stuffed" in there
How they managed to fit a 105mm gun in there????

Acacia H. said...

I'm linking the Tumblr post because of the comments below it explaining some of what is going on here and its potential.

https://www.tumblr.com/mistersaxon/707583506070503424

Essentially what we have here is a cellulose foundation from which other cells can be grown. So you can grow mini-organs for potential transplantation using a patient's own genetic structure (say a piece of kidney for someone whose kidney is failing) or brain tissue or skin or whatever. Or you could grow meat for eating or groups of cells for testing medicines and the like without killing animals or the like.

Anyway, I figured you'd all find it interesting.

Acacia H.

Acacia H. said...

As for Locu's comments...

In Japan, there is a beautiful temple. The Japanese consider it the same temple that was first built there. But it has burned down a half dozen times in various wars and been rebuilt each time. Yet it is still the same temple.

Locu, your bottle of wine is still the same bottle of wine that was so valuable. That the wine and bottle have been replaced is immaterial - because to you, it is the same bottle of wine as before and if you value it as such, then it is in fact that same. The Ship of Theseus is still the same ship even with all the sails and ropes and wood replaced. Because we choose to accept it as the Ship of Theseus.

The United States of America is the Ship of Theseus. The people who lived here back in 1775 may be long dead, the states may have changed over time and we may have gained more states as well, the population may have grown, political parties have sprouted up, factions formed... but we are still the same country that we were in 1775. Because we choose to be.

Take pride in that. Or don't, if you don't see value in it or in a bottle of wine, that is up to you.

Acacia H.

reason said...

By the way Duncan is correct. The best way to stop illegal immigrants is to prosecute employers. Somehow both sides in the US don't talk about that. Heavy fines for a first offence. Jail for continued offences.

Larry Hart said...

@Acacia H,

Your point is well taken and one I would have made myself. But it's wasted on loc, who is being sarcastic about the wine. He knows darn well that the replacement wine is of lesser grade, and uses that as a metaphor to imply that replacing Mayflower-era Americans with immigrants cheapens the brand.

Start with the obvious. No one in any country who was alive in 1775 is with us today. A country--any country throughout history--maintains integrity by replacement, not by immortality. Whether it remains "the same country" depends largely on whether succeeding generations have the same values as their elders. If those values are related to blood and soil, then an influx of immigrants does change things. South Africa today is not quite "the same country" as apartheid South Africa was.

Then again, a new generation may reject old values for reasons other than race. America had its "generation gap" in the 60s which arguable made us a different country than we had been. Less arguably, modern day Germany is a different country from Nazi Germany, owing nothing to race-mixing or immigration.

loc seems to be a blood-and-soil American, taking as given that the country's metaphorical wine is only legitimately "replaceable" by new citizens of the same racial makeup as the old ones. Whereas I see the essence of "America" not as a race, but as dedicated to a set of ideals pertaining to humanity. As long as replacements hold those same values dear, it matters little what race or ethnicity those replacements belong to.


Larry Hart said...

reason:

The best way to stop illegal immigrants is to prosecute employers. Somehow both sides in the US don't talk about that.


That's because the big donors to both parties don't want to keep illegal immigrants from working for sub-standard wages. What they want is a class of workers who can be abused without legal or political recourse. I honestly think they'd bring back slavery if the concept hadn't been given as bad a name as outright anti-Semitism has in the past half-century.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

The GOP fortunately is self-immolating with their tax proposal. Have you seen it?


Do you mean replacing income tax with a 30% sales tax? Or have they come up with something even crazier since then?

Trump-era Republicans are all about the id, and so I suspect they think that everybody hates the IRS, so any plan that does away with that organization will be popular. Just as Trump thought that firing James Comey would be popular among Democrats because we disliked him for the Hillary e-mail thing.

Lena said...

Dr. Brin,

RE: American culture

Which culture are you talking about? Don't forget that 70 million Americans voted for a criminal and obvious conman (seriously, anyone who did not see that The Grope was a conman by 1989 was either not paying attention or is exactly the kind of gullible idiot every conman dreams of), largely because he spewed hate against anyone who is not a rich, white, Christian male. Are you familiar with a book called "The Passing of the Great Race" by American author Madison Grant? Once it was translated into German, Hitler called it his Bible. The beautiful, pro-humanity ideals of Enlightenment are not shared by vast numbers of Americans (and this is true in other democracies around the world). Ironically, these people call themselves patriots, when they betray the principles on which America was founded.

We can't deal with a problem by defining it away. American culture is a deeply troubled phenomenon.


PSB

Larry Hart said...

PSB:

seriously, anyone who did not see that The Grope was a conman by 1989 was either not paying attention or is exactly the kind of gullible idiot every conman dreams of


The best con men get their mark to want to believe the con, and therefore to willingly go along with it. Trump excels at that. Where he falls down is that the really good con man leaves his mark thinking that he (the mark) has been well served rather than taken to the cleaners. Trump doesn't do that part well.

I've often been mentioning a line from our host's novel Earth in which three young men in Indiana are listening to the "back in my day" musings of an old gremper. One of the enraptured youngsters thinks to himself that (paraphrasing from memory), "Even if what he's telling us is bull semen, it doesn't matter because it's great bull semen." I think that accurately describes the appeal of Trump to those he appeals to.

Unknown said...

Duncan,
"...How they managed to fit a 105mm gun in there????"

Obvious, now that I think about - spinoff tech from UNIT in London.

Bigger on the inside.

Pappenheimer

Unknown said...

Skimming Loc's last thing (couldn't finish it, it sounds like all other Decline of the West rants of the past century that PSB alluded to) reminded me of the rich and very White Anglo-Saxon Protestant antagonist from Avram Davidson's "Masters of the Maze", who opined that everything after the Articles of Confederation was downhill. Everyone who believes that the good old days were better than today gets to choose their own apogee. Personally, I think that civilization began its decline in 1983, which was the last time one girl told another that I looked cute within my hearing.

Pappenheimer

Unknown said...

Acacia, thanks for the Ship of Theseus analogy - was going to use it but you did it better.

Pappenheimer

Larry Hart said...

Pappenheimer:

Personally, I think that civilization began its decline in 1983, which was the last time one girl told another that I looked cute within my hearing.


To each his own, but I think it's perfectly obvious that civilization peaked in the summer of 1977 when I re-discovered the Evanston beaches and saw the original Star Wars nine times. I trace the decline and fall to the fact that I failed to work up the nerve to ask Stacey out, even though I am now pretty sure she would have said "yes".

scidata said...

Re: Ship of Theseus

It's a good contrast of science vs romanticism. Consider the Antikythera Mechanism. Which brings us closer to 'syntonicity' with 1st century (and all of enlightenment) thought: a crusted, mysterious, stone-like relic, or a functioning, accurately reconstituted working device? Do writers hope for crumbling dust in an Eloi 'library', or for future readers trying to grok the stories?

Les Ricains sentiment is repeated by the Belgian who once kissed me on the cheek merely for being a Canadian, or the Marseilles scene in CASABLANCA.

Unknown said...

Larry,

Perhaps we can compromise on 1980, the year of Reagan's landslide election?

Pappenheimer

David Brin said...

The total target of the GOP tax plan is to preserve inter-generation wealth accumulation in nobel families... feudalism.

Unknown said...

OK, Dr Brin, gotta ask for a correction there since "Nobel families" is exactly the opposite meaning than what you are going for. Though your corrected statement is undeniably true.

Pappenheimer

Off to bed, sick wife and work coming up

Larry Hart said...

scidata:

Les Ricains sentiment is repeated by the Belgian who once kissed me on the cheek merely for being a Canadian, or the Marseilles scene in CASABLANCA.


Heh. My French is a little rusty*, but I wonder who had the snark to translate "A saluer je ne sais qui" (literally: to salute I don't know who) as "saluting fuck knows who".

* A subtle Casablanca misquote.

Larry Hart said...

Oh, and a serious question. Do French people really refer to their neighbor to the east as "Germanie" rather than "Allemagne" as I learned in school?

David Brin said...

I REALLY need to reread my postings before pressing the button! Nobel indeed, har!

Oughta tell you guys that I found a good place to slum. There's this MAGA cartoonist... he's very talented! And he's a drooling putinist issuing daily wretched lie memes. But the real attraction is that his community of followers is compact enough that I can do drive-bys that really irritate, e.g. demanding wagers that no one there is ever man enough to step up and bet upon.

Yeah it may be a waste of time. But it's a compact daily couple of minutes and I type fast. And I offer compact meme images, like that of DT ecstatically celebrating with Lavrov and Kisliak, or of traitors Michael Flynn and Jill Stein at dinner with their master Vlad. Any of you are welcome to drop by and taunt!

https://www.facebook.com/afbranco

David Brin said...

Hitler accepted the alternate name and even planned to name the greater reich "Germania."

locumranch said...

In relation to the 'Ship of Theseus', I happen to own the original, and I'll have you know that (1) it's made of fiberglass, (2) it's proper name is 'canoe', and (3) it's preferred pronouns are 'ship' and 'shim'.

It's an exercise in magical thinking & sophistry (the worst kind), this incredibly insincere & cynical assertion that linguistic 'redefinition' can alter material reality in any significant way, as if asparagus piss can become french champagne with just a name change.

I, for one, have had my fill of this PC Orwellian Sickness which has rendered language nonsensical & communication near impossible.

As for those of you who believe otherwise, you can bray yourselves silly as your world sinks below the waves forever.


Best
____

LOL. I'm literally shouting into a cloud right now, but I never shout 'at' clouds because clouds cannot hear & words do not change the weather. Acacia can either accept this or not, as rejection only proves that she really don't know clouds at all.

The French prefer to refer to Germans as "Goths" and Germany as "Germanica", according to the historical documents of Asterix & Obelix.

David Brin said...

Did anyone actually read that yowl?

Tony Fisk said...

The fellow is a golem, into which someone has placed a dictionary (probably a first edition of Merriam-Webster)

We can all agree that it was an egregious* yowl.

* whose original meaning was 'great'.

Unknown said...

The last 3 words are "Asterix and Obelix," heroes of literature I will almost always upvote. Beyond that, no.

"Le blogeur, il est fou!"

Yay me just learned a new word in French - since blogging didn't exist during my HS years.

Pappenheimer, making tapping motion

Unknown said...

TBF, we were still mostly working with bronze back then. Have you ever tried to debug one of those "Stone knives and bearskins" home computers?

Pappenheimer

Alfred Differ said...

His yowl was another lament for language being fluid. He even went so far as to object to the reality of ideals in suggesting that nations are their people while obviously advocating for certain other ideals that compose his identity. Hmpf.

I get the Orwellian Sickness he describes, but that's not what's going on here. We simply disagree about what certain things are and what other things mean. In philosophical terms, our ontologies partially overlap and we debate metaphysics. I don't think there is much value in that fight except in learning how we seem to agree on broad usage rules regarding English but disagree about a whole lot of details.

Larry Hart said...

Tony Fisk:

We can all agree that it was an egregious* yowl.

* whose original meaning was 'great'.


According to Kurt Vonnegut, the literal meaning of "egregious" is "outside the herd". Something or someone surprisingly unusual.

Der Oger said...

On immigration:

Maybe, just maybe, truly enlightened Americans should be VERY QUIET on matters of immigration, since the last few years prior to the Ukraine, it was you (with our help in Afghanistan, without in Iraq and Lybia) who helped create those numbers of refugees.

Or, as a young Kurd in my town said a few years ago, when the ISIS war was underway: "We were better off with Saddam."

Maybe truly enlightened Americans should consider that their past leaders actions have had consequences that led to the current state of affairs that makes people flee their countries (particularly, actions that provided American citizens with cheap bananas).

One way to face these consequences is to take in refugees. Another one would be to publicly state that Operation Condor and similar operations were a crime against humanity with at least massive responsibility of the US and to support structures that ensure that it does not happen again.

And maybe, just maybe, a truely enlightened American should ask himself: "If I throw the immigrants to the wolves, will their hunger be satiated? Or will they come after LBGT+ people, worker's rights, non-Christians, and, finally after me?"

BTW, though the rise of the far right is undeniable, the reasons for this are differing by each country.
As for France, centralism and a lack of repentance for the colonial past plays a much larger role. As for any area (including East Germany) formerly under the Warsaw Pact, I assume it is that authoritarianism is still ingrained in those states (now under far right instead of far left colours) and the voting populations have suffered great strains due to migration within the EU (especially in Hungary and Poland). Or put it into other terms: Those who accepted responsibility for their own lifes wandered into the west for financial reasons; increasing the voting power of those who need scapegoats.

Larry Hart said...

Reposting to fix a crucial word...

Der Oger:

Maybe truly enlightened Americans should consider that their past leaders actions have had consequences that led to the current state of affairs that makes people flee their countries (particularly, actions that provided American citizens with cheap bananas).


I'm not going to claim the mantle of "truly enlightened" for myself, but I will say that many of us here were against the Iraq War before it began, and many were against Bush/Cheney from the start. It's just that our voices were marginalized and silenced, especially on tv. Phil Donohue lost his show for being anti-war, and Bill Maher lost his for being insufficiently anti-Muslim. Let that last one sink in, because for Bill Maher to be insufficiently anti-Muslim takes a lot of work.

We're not all rah-rah over foreign adventurism. It just looks that way on tv.

scidata said...

Very little of the world's trouble is rooted in political disagreement. Delusion, romanticism, mental illness, and plain old hunger/insecurity are everything. We're all trapped by the savanna within. But knowing of the trap is the first step in avoiding it (DUNE '84).

Zed F. said...

If most of the people currently trying to cost the US's southern border are from Central America, perhaps the answer is stop being the "world's policeman" and switch to the "world's EMT," and then see what we can do in recompense the century of US fuckery that turned them into banana republics.

The reason fewer Mexicans are crossing the border is their economy is strong right now. The NAFTA renegotiation was perhaps the one thing TFG got right. Can we do that in the Central American Triangle?

locumranch said...

Rather than being just "another lament for language being fluid", my so-called yowl of mockery is a scathing indictment of the cynical & intellectually dishonest manipulation of language (sophistry), not to inform or communicate, but to gain advantage against one's rhetorical opponent.

Like Zeno's Race Course paradox, the 'Ship of Theseus' argument is a prime example of an approach which corrupts language to such an extent that any word can mean anything & any object can literally be anything.

A more modern example of this is Herr Der_Oger's suggestion that all living young Americans are somehow collectively responsible for the actions of their predecessors, much in the same way that all young Belgians are collectively responsible for colonial atrocities in the Congo & all young Germans are collectively responsible for the murderous actions of their predecessors.

In the good old USA, our illogical Intellectual-Yet-Idiot class utilises this type of argument to condemn itself in a most ironic fashion, by first postulating that (1) 'all whites are collectively responsible for slavery & racism', only to be forced to acknowledge that (2) '82% of the American Jewish collective identifies as white' which then forces one to conclude that (3) 'American Jews are also collectively responsible for racism & slavery'.

The fact that an unapologetic Dr. Brin comes out in favour of closed borders & merit-based immigration restrictions is the one bright spot in this thread, as he apparently refuses to 'buy in' to the deliberate & cynical manipulation of language that would condemn him as both a white supremacist & racist, even as he condemns others by the very same criteria.

As either 'World Police' or 'World EMT', the current USA has no further obligation to the rest of the world in ANY role, assuming that one accepts that the younger generation is in NO WAY responsible for the actions of their predecessors.

If, however, one assumes that the younger generation is directly responsible and CULPABLE for the actions their predecessors as Der_Oger argues, then Germany & their Ukrainian Nazi collaborators need to die horribly after being nuked from orbit.

The time has come to either shit or get off the pot:

Either ABSOLVE the younger generation for the actions of their predecessors,
Or prepare for a bloody & unending reckoning of hereditary score-settling.


Best

David Brin said...

Looking past his turgidly inflamatory wording, I agree with Zed. And the insourcing of US manufacturing that is now accelerating will create booms along the US-Mexico trade zone.

Central America should get the same... once their elits are in jail.

Alan Brooks said...

Depends where, Loc; In certain backwaters, residents might feel guilty for the legacy of, just for starters, bad prisons (where, ironically, rape is rather common) plus the knowledge that they’re paying taxes to continue ills that are frequently celebrated as traditions. Sins of the fathers.
Not so much what you write—
but your language is way over the top.

Alan Brooks said...

Zed and Loc share an interest in over-emphasis: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Paradoctor said...

Locumranch: (snarks variant of Ship of Theseus argument)
Acacia H., Anonymous, and scidata: That's the Ship of Theseus argument.
Locumranch: The 'Ship of Theseus' argument ... corrupts language to such an extent that any word can mean anything & any object can literally be anything.
Me: Pick a lane! You critique yourself!

The 'Ship of Theseus' argument is a variant of the paradox of the Heap. Just how many sand-grains does it take to make a sand-heap? It would take a Heap of changes to turn Ship into another ship; how many is that?

Your very body is like the Ship of Theseus. Some cells persist for a lifetime; most do not; and even the ones that persist are made of atoms that the body fully replaces in at most a few years. (My rough estimate is: replacement times is approximately ten times body mass divided by ingestion-excretion rate.) So are you still you?

Larry Hart said...

re The 'Ship of Theseus' argument...

There is a salient point in there. Obviously, if you replace the contents of a Champagne bottle with piss, the contents are not in any way "the same" just because of the label.

Also obviously, a crate of Champagne bottles which all claim to contain "the same thing" self-evidently do not contain the same molecules of liquid. So what is it that makes a set "the same" when they are self-evidently not completely identical? I mean, the crate of Champagne bottles of a certain vintage might at least contain liquid that was all part of a single batch, but the set of (let's say) bottles of Sunny Delight orange-flavored drink on store shelves around the country don't even have that in common. So again, what makes any two bottles of the stuff "the same" as the others?

Now, apply this line of thinking to the question of what makes a country "the same country" over time when no individual resident lives (all exceptions duly noted) more than a handful of decades. Replacement is an essential part of survival. So what is the difference between "replacement" that keeps the character in place and "replacement" which subverts it? Out loc would have it that perpetuation of the national character depends exclusively on racial/ethinic/geneitc heritige. And historically, that has (or seems to have) been more true of European countries. Sweden or Poland or even France and Germany, if not today then in older times, were essentially defined by the genetics of their residents. Almost any country with a name like "X-land" or "X-ania" or "X-stan" literally defines itself as the land of the X's.

The blood-and-soil crowd here in the US insists that the US is similarly defined as a land of white Christian men. I assert that they are wrong. The founding documents of the United States declare something very different--something that is now true of other countries but wasn't so much in 1976 or 1789. The country is dedicated to propositions, one of which is that all humans are created equal. A more cynical view, expressed in an early Cerebus comic book is that we are dedicated to the proposition that we can all become filty rich. Either one is true from a certain point of view. And replacement by children or by immigrants who are dedicated to the same propositions is what keeps us "the same country" to the extent that anything stays the same.

Der Oger said...

A more modern example of this is Herr Der_Oger's suggestion that all living young Americans are somehow collectively responsible for the actions of their predecessors, much in the same way that all young Belgians are collectively responsible for colonial atrocities in the Congo & all young Germans are collectively responsible for the murderous actions of their predecessors.

Oh my. Really?
Wanna really play THAT GAME?
That game most of us have played over here before we even left school?

Okay, the "light version", for starters.

Responsibility is not the same as guilt.

It could be the opposite.

Guilt is, depending on the point view, the bad feeling of remorse and sadness when crossing a certain threshold or a verdict. Guilt is directed backwards, and generally useless. Using guilt is a different form of scapegoating, in which a generation that cannot (for the most part) speak for itself anymore, to wash your hands clean of your responsibilities, make anyone forget what happened ... and then being free to repeat that errors.

Responsibility is acknowledging that errors have been made, making amendments, ensuring that the error is remembered, installing safeguards that that error will not repeat itself. Responsibility is directed forward. Making sure that your society does not unleash this particular evil again. And, maybe, ensuring no one else does.

But it is a fine example how the far right ties those both terms together, muddying the waters, attempting to warp the view on reality. It is a known tactic to state that those responsibilities to not exist because our granddaddies were guilty. Poland made it even a crime stating that Polish Nazi collaborators even existed, or on research on this topic.

Some of those fascists even be psychologically or intellectually incapable of understanding the concept of "responsibility", who knows.

How far Belgium is in taking over their responsibilities in dealing with their colonial history - I honestly can't say. All I can say is that Nigeria (provider of gas and oil) gains a fine new museum (DID THEY EVER MADE THEIR HOMEWORK ON HOW LONG GERMAN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS CAN LAST, FROM CONCEPTION TO REALIZATION? HA!) and some stolen artifacts back, whereas Namibia gets it's reparations for the Herero massacre.

Unknown said...

Paradoctor -

I'm willing to accept that I am still me even when every single atom has been replaced gradually, over time - but I share Dr. McCoy's aversion to having it all done at once, via transporter beam.

And just no for the "uploaded copy of your higher brain functions in sufficiently large computer." That ain't me.

As someone who has participated in US adventurism in the past, even if only by providing meteorological support, I'm extremely wary of putting boots down in South and Central America. Even the local governments who generally support the US get nervous for good historical reason. I think a better tack - and I need to discuss this with a friend who's a diplomatic historian by training - would be to emphasize a combination of NONinterference AND demilitarization south of our border, where the US, acting through the UN, guarantees a nation's safety from outside invasion on condition that it demilitarize itself. Not every nation can become Costa Rica (and perhaps even Costa Rica can't maintain its balance) but this is something worth trying for, because standing militaries are the obvious power bases of right-wing dictatorships and the vehicles for the coups that install them.

Pappenheimer

P.S. is the US in danger of a coup from its own military? The Founding Fathers certainly thought so, but not here, not yet, due to tradition and professionalism. Some future HyperTrump could create an opening for, at least, quite a bit of fratricidal conflict. We've had one before. The idiots who think a new civil war would be a good idea have no idea just how destructive even conventional weapons have become; this is proven because they think that AR-15's will help them win one.

Unknown said...

Did Loc actually state that someone thinks "all young Germans are collectively responsible for the murderous actions of their predecessors."?

What young Germans are collectively responsible for is NEVER AGAIN. And they are doing, with some skinheaded exceptions, a good job.

Pappenheimer

David Brin said...

der Oger, the experiments in Postwar Germany & Japan were very different. Japan, while thoroughly traumatized to renounce militarism, also was allowed to enter a strange state of denial, under which any individual - even a politician - could get away with re-couching history in face-saving ways. (e.g. "Imperial forces then 'advanced' across the Yangtze.") Not quite as bad as US Southerners & sympathizers getting a century of 'lost cause' romanticism.

Germans had their noses rubbed in the inarguable crimes and spent 3 generations with heads bowed in remorse that was (often) genuine and won a kind of respect, even from my vehement father. Even now, as strong as I am in support of Ukraine, I understand Scholz's walking-a-minefield care in the Leopard 2 issue.

Germany must be seen as reluctant to lift a saber to the east. In fact, I would warrant that the theater we just saw was worked out in advance.

Unknown said...

Dr Brin,

Huh. We cross-posted, but I think we are in agreement. I apologize and will be more careful in the future.

Pappenheimer

Unknown said...

agreement re: Germany, at least

Pappenheimer

Der Oger said...

What young Germans are collectively responsible for is NEVER AGAIN. And they are doing, with some skinheaded exceptions, a good job.

The current and almost resolved discussion is: What is more important: Saying NEVER AGAIN to Fascism and Tyranny, or War? Especially in the East? (For me, that question was answered with our participation in the Kosovo War. For others, it is still an unthinkable thing.)

Germany must be seen as reluctant to lift a saber to the east. In fact, I would warrant that the theater we just saw was worked out in advance.

Makes sense.
Though a multitude of other possible reasons remain on the table.

One was: What if the allies never intended to let the Ukraine win fast and hard? What if the strategy is to let Russia bleed out slowly? Letting them starve to death at arm's length, as a proverb goes?

Larry Hart said...

Der Oger:

Wanna really play THAT GAME?


I wouldn't advise it with that guy. It's a mug's game.


Guilt is directed backwards, and generally useless.


There must be an evolutionary reason for the existence of guilt. I think it works toward avoiding repetition of regretted actions or situations. The lesson of the past directed forward.

Other than that, I'd say your assessment that it is "pretty useless" is correct. Guilt makes one want to change the past, which (sci-fi aside) is impossible.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

Germany must be seen as reluctant to lift a saber to the east.


One of the most ridiculous and horrifying things to come out of Donald Rumsfeld's mouth during the run-up to the Iraq war was his scoffing at Germany (among others) for being too pacifistic to join in the "coalition of the willing".

What century did he grow up in? Even though I am not religious, I get down on my knees and thank God that we live in a time when Germany can be credibly considered to be pacifistic.

Unknown said...

"...never intended to let the Ukraine win fast and hard."

There's a tendency to think that elite decision makers have Great Plans. Ask any historian about that and they may laugh (politely) in your face. I think Bismarck was the last guy to actually have a Plan that worked. No, make that Marshall. Recall that most of the elites thought Russia still had enough military power to overrun most of Ukraine before this whole shambles started. They were caught wrong-footed and have been nervous about starting WWIII; so they took the bureaucratic way of giving enough power to Ukraine to keep it going, but not enough to give Putin an excuse to blow up the world. Switching gears is hard.

Pappenheimer

scidata said...

Larry Hart: There must be an evolutionary reason for the existence of guilt.

Agreed. Dogs seem to feel and display guilt. And I can't ever remember a dog denying responsibility for badness. Introspection and remorse are what I'd look for in a Turing test, not chatGPT-level mimicry.

A lot of this is mirror neuron related. That Marseilles scene wasn't about the French and Germans. It was about the Americans (Rick explicitly, LES ameRICAINS implicitly). The band leader's glance up to Rick for permission, and Rick's nod in response contains the entire theme of the film without a single spoken word. Try that, chatGPT.

Humans are wicked smaat.

duncan cairncross said...

I agree with Pappenheimer - the expectation was

(1) Ukraine would fold - the "leader" would pack cash and scarper"
This would lead to a massive occupation and drain Russia of a huge amount of resources
or
(2) Ukraine would resist - but be beaten
This would lead to a massive occupation and drain Russia of a huge amount of resources

The idea that Ukraine would defeat and push back the Bear was NOT considered likely

Alan Brooks said...

Come to think of it, the tank wrangling was probably theater.
But, one might ask, why did Poland pick this year to ask for trillions in reparations from Germany?

Der Oger said...

I think Bismarck was the last guy to actually have a Plan that worked.
Most of his plans failed more often than not, in the long run. Even if he gave us social security. I think more of him as a gambler than a cool-headed, calculating statesman.

But one quote from him remains true, even in these days:

"Nowhere there are more lies than before an election, during a war, and after a hunt."

But, one might ask, why did Poland pick this year to ask for trillions in reparations from Germany?

My guesses:
- Maintaining a welfare state and buying large amounts of american tanks and miltech requires money. They have less to spend due to EU-based sanctions (for example, by violating separation of powers rules for member states, as well as fines for environmental violations.), and, as they industrially develop, they gain less from the regular EU funds (Brexit, being more developed than other Eastern states).
- Bashing Germans wins votes. As does bashing the EU in general, Russians, LGBT+ people, refugees, vegetarians and bicycle drivers. (The last two are not jokes.) The governing Law and Justice (or PiS) party is practically an arch-catholic version of the GOP.


Larry Hart said...

duncan cairncross:

The idea that Ukraine would defeat and push back the Bear was NOT considered likely


When Zelenskyy said he needed "ammunition, not a ride," he captured the hearts and minds of the west, and IMHO he became, if not the Leader of the Free World, then its living symbol.

Larry Hart said...

scidata:

The band leader's glance up to Rick for permission, and Rick's nod in response contains the entire theme of the film without a single spoken word.


Though set in North Africa with mostly European characters, Casablanca is an American film meant primarily for a US audience. The movie is dated 1942, but must have been written and filmed before that. At one point, a drunken Rick says, "It's December 1941 in New York. What time is it here?", which tells me that the scene was written and probably filmed prior to the US entering the war.

Rick--as you say, symbolizing America--wants to stay neutral and "stick my neck out for nobody," but in that scene, he seems to realize that true neutrality between brute and victim is not an option. Not for someone who "In 1935...ran guns to Ethiopia" and "In 1936...fought in Spain on the Loyalist side." He's not quite ready to do battle himself--that comes later--but he chooses a side, and gives aid and comfort to that one. Very much like the current situation with Ukraine.

Wasn't in Churchill who said that he could count on America to do the right thing after all other options were explored? And C.S. Lewis had Merlin going through that same process of eliminating all other options before doing the right thing at the end of That Hideous Strength.

Larry Hart said...

Need I add that Casablanca makes the list of the five movies I would have with me if stuck (with a working player) on a desert island for the rest of my life? And if forced to choose only one movie, that would be it?

David Brin said...

I pick INCEPTION because I'd spend about 50 viewings looking closely for stuff I missed... and the sound track would deafen me to my desert Isle sobs.

David Brin said...

onward

onward

Tony Fisk said...

... and maybe convince yourself that Newton was right, and tops *ought* to keep spinning?

At the start of this abject lunacy, I determined that there was a Russian translation of the end speech from The Great Dictator which, I suppose, goes to show that Chaplin is as heeded now as he was back then.

Unknown said...

Doubt this says much good about me, but I'd pick Galaxy Quest. I'll need the laughs, and unlike most funny movies it's eminently rewatchable.

Pappenheimer

David Brin said...

onward

onward