I keep saying it. You kids survived covid and boomers survived '68. We can survive this. Just buckle down and fight. As I am doing here. By proposing judo tactics instead of grunting sumo.
Today -- three topical issues. Two of them somewhat overblown and one of them truly important.
1. I tried to cover the important one, last time. It's the only truly central issue in this U.S. presidential election year, and one that Democrats always ignore.
That issue is the vastly consistent right wing, all-out war vs. all fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror. Indeed, their core agenda is to wage war against the very notion of fact as a thing.
No other matter is as important! Because MOST other matters - from climate change to election denialism, to racism, to abortion, to the state of the economy - will be settled, quickly, if we restore disproof of lies.
Indeed, last time I spoke of a way that Joe Biden could raise this as a readily achievable goal. If nothing else, just proposing that method would emphasize that Democrats are generally the ones standing up for use of actual, demonstrable facts...
2. ... just as Democrats are the ones who don't want immunity from rampant law-breaking by presidents. And yes, the 'ruling' for blanket presidential criminal immunity, by the Trump-appointed (and blatantly corrupt) Supreme Court majority, was so utterly insane and treasonous that it shocked even cynical Rachel Maddow.
So, why aren't Democrats eager to claim and use that immunity, while they are in office? All those jokes about Biden dispatching 'Seal Team Six' miss the point. The real reason is simple. They don't need it.
This explains the desperation of high goppers to make the whole thing all-or-nothing. They know that if we go back to a nation of transparency and laws, using calm disproof to lance the Kremlin-run lie pustules, then sooner or later the blackmail will spill and hundreds of them will see their darkest secrets revealed, changing that crime ratio from double to triple digits. And John Roberts will be remembered by history next to Roger Taney.
That is why they must now go all-in brownshirt, as forecast in their horrendous Mein Kampf called Project 2025. For many of them, the only alternative to prison, or shamed retirement, or just universal ridicule is to emulate 1934's Night of the Long Knives. Perhaps with a triggering Reichstag Fire.
There are things that JoeB and the dems could say, that they aren't saying.
Example: every lame argument by the suborned SC majority - that 'presidents shouldn't be distracted from hard choices by legal second guessing' - could be satisfied by something called "slow process," where presidents might limit their time dealing with legal matters to (say) an externally prioritized ten hours a week. Slow... yet with justice wheels still rolling.
That plus an added layer of 'presumption of good faith' in post-hoc jury instructions should enable a president with decent legal advisors to navigate difficult ground, as Commander-In-Chief - as presidents have done for 240 years. Both of those clarifications could be arranged by legislation, negotiated in good faith, with an aim at finding a sweet spot between presidential flexibility and ... the Law. But that was never the intent of this corrupt SC majority.
Instead, they gave us a Tyrant's Bill of Spites.
I'd go deeper into that travesty. But what'd be the point? No one will care about my 'slow process' proposal... nor my suggestions re: the War on Facts. (Though I may do a midweek posting about the latter, in more detail.)
What I WILL spend the rest of this missive on is matter #3. The whole 'age thing.'
== A sweet-spot win-win-win re: the 'issue' of Joe Biden's age ==
3. Joe Biden's poor performance in the first debate is now history, with lingering distraction ripples all over. (So much for his being 'jacked up'!) Several tiring foreign trips likely roused his lifelong stuttering debility... but he also admits now that he needs to nap more.
Okay then, it happens that I have another Big Suggestion, how JoeB could deal with this matter decisively, in what could be a win-win-win-win for Democrats. And for the nation, world and future.
But first let's deal with the Fox-o-sphere ravings - "Do you want a geezer answering that terrible phone call at 3 am?"
Well, yes, I do, if it's this geezer. For several reasons.
3a. It's the appointments, stupid! We are a nation of institutions. For those 3am calls, we have a Defense Department and a State Department and a Cabinet filled with civil servants* and appointed officials. And selecting the latter is the President's most vital task.
Biden has done so, superbly! 5000 or so skilled, dedicated, brilliant professionals - without a single legal blemish among them - replaced Donald Trump's 5000 horrifically corrupt, stoopid dogmatists and Kremlin agents like Flynn & Manafort. Plus a few potemkin semi-'adults' like Tillerson and Kelly, who later denounced their ex-boss as a living monster.**
A man - even elderly - who works hard to appoint folks of character - in the caliber of Antony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris - is someone who is unafraid of being in a room filled with smarter people. That's diametrically opposite to Two Scoops Trump. Moreover, with such Very Best Folks working out all the plausible options for him, I am unafraid that such a wise grampa might face decisions at 3am.
Again: It's the appointments, stupid. And with those 5000 on the job... and 100,000 qualified civil servants protected from the Project 2025 plan (to return to a Spoils System)... I can sleep at night. And I do not care if Grampa takes some naps.
3b. Joe cares. Being human, he might resist a bit. Still, he will confront the matter of the age thing, if it gets worse after re-election. At which point he'll simply retire, allowing a vigorously qualified and now fully trained VP Kamala to take his place. (Down below, in comments if someone reminds me, I will describe how Democratic Presidential candidates always choose a qualified running mate and all but one GOP nominee chose some living horror.)
Was Kamala my first choice? No. But she is calm and balanced and totally qualified, and we'd be just fine.
But still, I'm not done with the 'age thing.' In fact, here comes my crackpot idea!
== A judo move for Biden to get a win-win-win-win out of the 'age thing' ==
This one wasn't in my book Polemical Judo. But it's in the same, jiu jitsu spirit. The sort of move that could stagger the opposition, leaving them speechless and then shrill, while proving to the public how serious and thoughtful you are... and so much more.
3c. Call for 'debates' among the top tier of Democrats!
Yep. Do this now! Joe Biden could announce:
"Look, I had a bad debate. I and millions of others don't think it means that much. But I do listen! And I know some of you out there are concerned, Moreover, unlike my opponent, I know that wishing something and yelling it doesn't make it so.
"Hey, I am showing some signs of time's passage! I surround myself with the best folks the nation has to offer and I have vast experience. And some say I'm generally kind of a wise-guy...
"But I won't be obstinate. So let's test this!
"I hearby invite six of the top members of my party... truly fine and brilliant men and women with utterly proved chops as leaders... to join me onstage for a series of three forums, leading up to the Democratic National Convention, a month from now in Chicago!
"These would not be 'debates' as such. We won't be attacking each other... much. But it will accomplish many things at once!
- First, it would test me! If I can hold my own with these whippersnappers, that should anchor my rightful (already-earned) place as the party nominee with joyful confidence!
- If I fail that challenge, then the best new leaders of our party - and in-future the nation - will have a chance to show what they've got, before the party convention delegates, who will then have the authority given to them by voters this spring, to choose another slate.
"I am confident they will pick Biden-Harris! But if not, I will campaign for any of these fine folks, with vigor and energy!
- This will also show the depth of the Democratic Party's bench! The public will see that there are no flukes. Any and every person on the forum stage will be blatantly better - smarter, more grownup and vastly more moral - than any and every politician in the Republican Party.
- And finally, jeepers, why should we turn down this opportunity for a vast TV audience? Let the forum participants disagree over this and that practical matter or proposal! We'll still have a great chance to present our accomplishments, plus proofs about the dangers facing our nation, our planet, civilization, freedom and our children! And a chance to disprove the other party's mountain of volcanic, poisonous lies.
"I am consulting across a wide range of wise folks. But clearly, joining me onstage will be my own chosen running mate, world respected stateswoman and my trusted friend, Vice President Kamala Harris!
"Who else? Obviously, we need Governors Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom up there! I want Pete Buttigieg, too. I'll let Bernie, Liz and AOC thrash out among themselves which of them to send from their wing. And from the other wing...? Hey Joe Manchin! Care to come back for a few nights and try the waters? They're pretty darn foul over in Fox country. Over here we argue fairly, about true things.
"So there you have it. Unlike my opponent, who squelches any competition, who demands utter obedience and denies any possible fault, I'll admit I might be wrong when I look in a mirror and say "You still got it, kid!"
"Like any wise grampa, I'll listen to the best and wisest of later generations!
"And so, we're gonna get six of em up on stage with me. And I predict two things.
"First, you'll see a terrific future for the Democratic Party and for America!
"But also, you will see the fact that I still got it! And when I don't any longer... we have a team that will keep America great and keep America winning!
God bless you all and good night."
=======================================
=======================================
Addenda
* Project 2025 includes utter trashing of the 140 year old Civil Service Act which ended the pyrotechnic corruption of the old Spoils System. The CSA insulated civil servants to do their jobs professionally, according to the law and enabled the U.S. to efficiently win our wars, build our industry and infrastructure, have clean food and water and obey laws. Trump felt frustrated by this and he intends to end it, finishing off one of the last bulwarks against a return to 6000 years of capricious rule by inheritance brat lords.
** Here's one of my standing wager demands... which no MAGA has ever had the guts to step up to meet:
Mike Pence, James Mattis, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Mark Milley, Mark Esper, H.R. McMaster, Elaine Chao, Omarosa, Bill Barr... jeez, over fifty former "great guys" have authored books about what a wretchedly horrible man they worked for. All of those 'adults in the room' have been shrugged off by Trump as 'terrible people!' Well, maybe so, in one or two - or even a dozen - cases. But unquestionably, Donald Trump has been 'betrayed' by more folks who he formerly called "great guys!" than across ALL other presidencies combined!
And hence there's one thing that no Fox ravings can obscure and that no MAGA can deny.
It shows that Donald J. Two Scoops Trump is a terrible judge of character!
Watching the post-mortem of the George Stephanopoulos interview.
ReplyDeleteTheir immediate assessment concurs with my own: President Biden didn't flub it, but he didn't alleviate the concerns of those who have them. Concerns that he may not be able to beat Donald Trump in the election and that the House and Senate races are also in jeopardy. The people who have those concerns want to beat Trump empower democracy, and they're afraid Biden can't get that job done.
As someone who wants those same things, I continue to ask something that was not asked during the interview--is there someone (or someones) who can do a better job of beating Trump and energizing anti-Republican votes.
This is different from the simple question of whether Biden can do so, and the difference is not a trivial one. Many pundits I've heard feel that almost any young, fresh Democrat would easily romp over Trump, and that Biden is selfishly holding the party back, insisting on remaining the nominee even though he is the only Dem who could lose. I still tend to see things the opposite way--that as bad (or good) as Biden's chances of winning are, his are the best of all possible Democrats this year. In other words, my sense is that if Biden should lose to Trump in November, it won't be a case of "they missed their chance to win." It will be more like, "Well, the single best shot the Democrats had just wasn't good enough."
More than anything personal about Joe Biden, I want a Democratic president and a blue congressional wave. I'm open to being convinced that Biden's candidacy is an impediment to that goal, and that he really should step aside for the good of the country (though he's the one who would really need convincing). But it's not enough to say Biden looks like he could lose. One also needs to demonstrate that a different Democrat looks like he/she could do better instead of even worse.
“The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it.”
ReplyDelete― Terry Pratchett
It's worth noting that if the Union side has the intelligence of a tardigrade, that still puts them way ahead of the Republicans, who collectively add up to a cabbage sandwich.
Completely off the subject, though a subject that comes up in this forum at times: I came across a little argument about what lies between Utopia and Dystopia.
https://nicenews.com/culture/protopias-offer-hopeful-realistic-vision-future/
Paul SB
@Paul SB:
ReplyDeleteI came up with the term (unless someone else beat me to it) for what's between a dystopia and a utopia:"mesotopia".
@Dr. Brin: re: Democrat Forum:
ReplyDeleteAn EXCELLENT proposal.
Who in the party (local, state, national) have you sent it to?
Thanks Keith. And I've sent it to no one. After this experiment, I realized Not Invented Here is a sacred catechism of the political caste.
ReplyDeletePolemical Judo, by David Brin: http://www.davidbrin.com/polemicaljudo.html
Dr Brin
ReplyDeleteA strategy that worked for me during my career was to say
Remember that idea you had last week boss? - the one I said would not work?
I have been thinking and I think we could make it work
You then introduce your strategy - always identifying it as the idea from the boss
Worked most of the time - pretty sure I got rumbled a couple of times but he just went ahead with it
Possibly you could select a highish Dem leader and start celebrating "His Idea"??
One also needs to demonstrate that a different Democrat looks like he/she could do better instead of even worse.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more. The division in the anti-Trump side is an alarming trend. Also Jim StoneKettle Wright has some great questions for the dump Biden crowd:
https://www.stonekettle.com/2024/07/raggedy-man.html
I have no problem with the press questioning whether Biden is fit. I am infuriated on how Trump's mental fitness gets graded on such a big curve. Dr. Sanjay Gupta at CNN is on social media calling for Biden to undergo cognitive and neurological tests, then make the results public. But not Trump. The Les Moonves disease has zombified the brains of too much of the mainstream media.
One very timely point on Project 2025's war on science that needs louder shouting from the rooftops is their proposal to slash NOAA funding and privatize the NWS:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/26/trump-presidency-gut-noaa-weather-climate-crisis
We in the Houston region are casting increasingly nervous glances at a capricious Beryl; her track keeps inching ever more northward and westward. I'm relived to have a public resource like the NWS that I can look at and the weather blogs I follow can use in their explainers.
A short, great assessment. I love the idea of Biden debating other democratic leaders at the convention. Huge win, huge presentation of solidarity.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do think that he should exercise his rights just granted by the supreme Court and put Trump and any Republican supporting the stolen election propaganda. They would get out of jail if and only if the country voted for implemented a constitutional amendment limiting the powers of the president to what they had been historically.
The most insidious part of the SC decision is that a good faith actor has no need of these powers.
ReplyDeleteBiden could now bribe his blackmail-compromised adversaries with pardons or money to cull their votes.
And, if he were inclined, nothing would prevent Biden from bribing a handful of Republican members of the house into not voting, re-purposing FDR's failed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 and appointing additional justices (up to six) for every member of the court *under* 70.
This would give a wink and nod to Thomas (75) and Alito (73) and allow him to increase the court to 15.
"...what lies between Utopia and Dystopia."
ReplyDeleteI believe it used to be the 'Muddling Through' scenario in Futurist magazine.
I consider it the Hell of Reduced Expectations, nor are we out of it. A lot of SF authors thought/hoped that war would have gone the way of personal duels* by now, and space colonization would be securely under way.
*Pournelle got the first one right, but only because in his 'verse timeline the USSR is still going strong and never ditched most of its nukes. Eternal MAD ending in a lifeless hellhole. The second one seems more and more likely to be a Strossian future where AIs tame the solar system while we meatsacks on Earth either swink for minimum wage or don our VR suits, depending on social status.
Pappenheimer
okay now suddenly SPOTLIGHT stopped working on my Mac. Restarting didn't work. I tried a couple of online recommended fixes using Terminal. NG. carumba! I rely on it.
ReplyDeleteKeith,
ReplyDeleteWe could have fun here with Greek and Latin prefixes. How about:
Mistopia - a place that advertises itself as a paradise but turns out to be a hell hole. America during the Age of the Robber Barons would probably qualify.
Pseudotopia - a place that isn't real, like Hollywood.
Paleotopia - a very old place, like Mesopotamia.
Partopia - a place of equals, though I doubt any such place has ever existed since the rise of civilization, it is what America is supposed to be.
Phrenotopia - a place where people think a lot, which could be applied to any college town.
Gerontopia - a place for old folks, like Miami.
Iratopia - a place that annoys people, like the DMV.
Salutopia - a place you go for your health, like many towns that had hot springs in ye olden days.
Calitopia - a beautiful place, like ancient Arcadia was reputed to be.
Contratopia - a place that won't let anyone in.
Chances are, calitopia is the only one I would use with any regularity, or maybe caligygitopia. ;)
Paul SB
"The common man will have to love, trust, honor & obey us once we prove how smart, capable & competent we are," said the stupidest smart people who ever lived, as this is a false syllogism which assumes that emotions are both rational and transactional, which they are not.
ReplyDeleteTending toward the quantifiable, transactional items of exchange include intelligence, competence & capability, whereas emotions like love, honor & respect tend to the non-quantifiable & relational.
Love, respect & trust are what intelligence can't buy.
What else you got?
Best
Lycanthrotopia?
ReplyDeleteTopotopia would be 'land of ornamental gardens'. So, Rivendell, which is basically 'Gazeboland' in the movies.
and of course, the dread land Phobotopia.
Pappenheimer
re SPOTLIGHT.
ReplyDeleteRecent patch?
Which OS version?
Keith,
I think of it as 'coastaltopia' and refer to my part of California as a reference. It's pretty nice here, but there are definite problems we need to address.
Watching the post-mortem of the George Stephanopoulos interview.
ReplyDeleteI just watched that interview and think: Shouldn't they have asked him at least once about his future plans for the next four years? And: Seeing the commentators afterwards: It felt as if they knew what to say beforehand, sticking to their own "party line".
Take heart: Reformist Masoud Pezeshkian has been elected Iran's president.*
ReplyDelete* Belatedly realising that Pezeshkian actually *is* a heart surgeon. Sorry 'bout that
Biden ran in 2020 because Trump had to be defeated and Biden knew he could provide the leadership to make it so. Cascading international crises coupled with Trump's success in promoting the idea of a stolen election makes it even more important to defeat Trump and prevent realization of Project 2025. If there were a ticket with greater likelihood of stopping Trump and Project 2025 I am sure that Biden would step aside and campaign for that ticket. Until then the Biden Administration needs to continue to address the crises that continue and deliver results for the American people. The Biden-Harris campaign can focus on winning the election.
ReplyDeleteWhen Putin realizes that Trump has no prospect of wining Putin will look for pathways out of the horrible mess that he has created for Russia. I see major opportunities for the Biden-Harris administration as a result including a start at reform of the UN Security Council.
Gnotopia is a good middle ground. Knowledge is such a double-edged sword that it cannot be the foundation of either dystopia or utopia. However, the anthropocene period is truly a 'land of knowledge' (but the jury's still out on 'wisdom').
ReplyDeletePaul SB:
ReplyDeleteCalitopia - a beautiful place, like ancient Arcadia was reputed to be.
Doesn't the Spanish name California imply as much?
or maybe caligygitopia
Heh. In the movie Saving Mr. Banks, a fictionalization of the creation of the movie Mary Poppins, the book's writer P.L. Travers objects to the use of the whimsical phrase "The constable, responstable," complaining that "responstable" is not a real word. The screenwriters then hurriedly cover up the sheet music to "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious".
scidata:
ReplyDeleteHowever, the anthropocene period is truly a 'land of knowledge' (but the jury's still out on 'wisdom').
Sophiatopia, then? Land of knowledge or land of sophistry--take your pick.
Stonekettle "re-threads" The Rude Pundit on Threads:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.threads.net/@stonekettle
Rude Pundit:
My fear is Biden drops out, Dems implode trying to agree on a replacement, and the media then switches the narrative to why it was a terrible idea for Biden to drop out.
Stonekettle:
This is exactly what would happen
In the US, the media is for-profit. They only make money when the world is in chaos. A nation at peace, a quiet competent government, people just living their lives, a religion that minds its own business, these things are bankruptcy for the News. War, blood, hate, fear, murder, chaos is what sells newspapers -- and if there isn't any, they'd have to make some
You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war
-- William Randolph Hearst (possibly apocryphal)
The fictionalized P.L.Travers clearly had little time for Will Shakespeare!
ReplyDeleteCatopia may be where cats are at ease, or it could be anagram of an edible starch pearl.
A bit of interesting news- it seems that Trump has never even heard of Project 2025, has no ideal who is behind it, has never even met any of those people. Like just about anything else that spews from his pie hole, those are easily refuted lies. But I see it as a sign that some of the warnings about Project 2025 are starting to gain traction. If the press was actually doing its proper job and justifying its explicitly stated 1A protections, mainstream reporters would be just as aggressive in grilling Trump over his connection to Project 2025 as they are in grilling Biden on his age and stamina.
ReplyDeleteThey also need to be covering NC gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson more. What a whack job.
Flypusher:
ReplyDeleteThey also need to be covering NC gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson more. What a whack job.
You mean this guy?
https://www.threads.net/@stonekettle
Mark Robinson:
"Some folks need killing. It's time for somebody to say it. It's not a matter of vengeance. It's not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It's a matter of necessity..."
Last night I saw a conversation one would have while trying to take the car keys away from an elderly citizen who is in denial. Just sad.
ReplyDeleteY'know, in a real debate, the candidates would ask each other the questions they deemed important to hear answers to. In last week's fiasco, there was not one question about Project 2025 or anything about how the candidates might use superpowers granted by the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteNo, we were just treated to, "President Biden, some people that you're too old for the job. Are they right?" and "Mr Trump, your campaign seems to have the momentum. of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?" How is that supposed to help anyone clarify their vote?
Love & popularity cannot be earned or purchased:
ReplyDelete"Why don't you love me, Jenny?
These immortal words were spoken by Forrest Gump, the fictional protagonist of the 1994 film of the same name, as he contemplates love's fickle finger of fate.
Rejected by society at an early age, our marginally intelligent protagonist turns to great works in the pursuit of love & popularity and becomes a much celebrated football player, war hero, olympic athlete, shrimp-boat captain, multimillionaire & trend setter all in short order, under the mistaken assumption that great works can be transactionally exchanged for love & popularity.
In other words, Forrest Gump was a Grade A moron whose entire existence can be summed up by this 35 second clip from Family Guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUJZOV9pTMo
Best
Larry,
ReplyDelete"Sophiatopia, then? Land of knowledge or land of sophistry--take your pick."
- That would depend on whether it's a place full of scientists or politicians (or preachers, or other salesmen).
Paul SB
Tony,
ReplyDeleteAilurotopia, but I have no idea what you might anagram that one into.
Paul SB
2025 denial is Trump's seniors moment.
ReplyDeleteEither he's forgotten that his own people are running it, or they haven't told him, or he's... lying!?
AD: Sonoma 14.5
ReplyDeleteSomeone suggested "Option+Command+SpaceBar does bring up the Finder-style Spotlight search, but Command+SpaceBar doesn't do anything." Wow Option+Command+SpaceBar does work! I can search again and it means the index is not at fault.. But have no idea why the menu magnifying glass or regular shortcut do nothing.
Hearing this and looking at his facial expression—oh, he’s got Smersh-Foxleitner, all right. Stage four at least. Amoral, paranoid, and profoundly self-deceptive. The worst sufferers can believe seventeen different things before breakfast … and sometimes brilliantly weave the incompatible notions together by noon!
ReplyDeleteYeah i had forgotten that scene in KILN PEOPLE. Hey that young putz could write! ;-)
Anyone have a good link summarizing the 206 pages of release Epstein logs?
ReplyDelete@Dr Brin,
ReplyDeleteI'm still curious what the genesis of the term Smersh-Foxleitner. I'll ask just this one more time and then assume you'd rather not answer.
One thing I'm noticing on this third reading is how much of a "Brin's Summer Daydream" world you set up before dittotech came along and changed the world even more. You establish a world that had ubiquitous cameras and henchmen prizes even before copying came along.
Ah. Sonoma. Say no more.
ReplyDeleteThere are serious issues with the UI that other app developers reveal. Often. Apple is playing whack-a-mole fixing them and creating others.
Not gonna think politics tonight. Hollywood Bowl is filling up.😎
I have a mod for your notion of calling for new debates amongst Democrats. Don't frame it as an immediate replacement -- and don't make Kamala jump through hoops again; that will be seen (and rightly so) as requiring her to be 'twice as good' despite being the woman with the Button should Joe stroke out.
ReplyDeleteEven if Joe is certain he can last the campaign (and I'm inclined to believe him) can he last the full four years to come? What's the hedge against repeating Reagan's second term where manipulating the declining intellect became the path to power? He should spell out what it would really take (Divine Intervention notwithstanding) to have him bow out. "If Kamala, Barack, Chuck, Nancy, Hakeem, and Jill all tell me at the same time to get out, I'll be happy to sign over Acting President powers or resign, as the situation demands." Reassure the party, the nation, and the world that there won't be a 'senior moment' in a crisis.
Let's say Joe does have to resign before finishing his second term. Kamala becomes President, and will need a new Veep. That's what the audition debates should be for! If you really think Joe will need to go, don't do this in a smoke-filled room, or a raucous convention. Start thinking through the process now! This need not remove Biden from the official ticket (a tall order at this point) -- and it effectively expands the ticket as any of the serious contenders could act as a shadow third member of the ticket. Such debates would satisfy the anxiety of the voters, the hunger of the media narrative-sharks, and be a practical hedge against the small but real possibility that Joe can't last. (I seriously believe Joe would rather work himself to death than surrender, and that too could be a spin angle to play up.)
Most important, those intraparty debates could draw attention to all the things that desperately will need doing to restore the Republic after the Supreme Court betrayed their oaths and both the letter and essence of the Constitution. Even a Democratic trifecta will have to pull on every check and balance, or else anything Congress and Administration attempt will be stymied -- and there clearly will not be a "stitch in time that saved nine" again, nor could such a gesture be trusted anyway.
I call this the Apprentice Veep plan. In part because it's a simple and easy meme, but also because it will drive the opposition bonkers!
Interesting quote from Uncle Al Einstein in 1949 I just came across:
ReplyDeleteprivate capital "tends to become concentrated in few hands”, resulting in “an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society”.
“Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education).
“It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.”
This is exactly what we're seeing, with the Republican Party defunding education generation after generation and feeding as much money a legal favors as possible to their executive golf buddies/campaign contributors. It's little wonder so many people are so dumb they fell for America's Most Obvious Conman. They think words mean what the Party tells them they mean, and are too lazy to check. That's why they think that fascism, communism, and socialism are the same thing.
Paul SB
For those worried about Biden's re-election, I give you the 13 keys. A model developed by Prof Lichtman who predicted 9 of the last 10 presidential election. The one miss was Gore v. Bush, and you can argue that Gore won except for a biased SCOTUS and hanging chads.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6bAfrnq2G0
If five or fewer of the following statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the election. If six or more are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose.
1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
False, but just barely. The 2022 red tide was a red trickle.
2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
True, no primary challenger for Biden.
3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
True, Biden is the incumbent - as would Harris if Biden resigns and she becomes the nominee.
4. No third party: There is no significant (10%+ of the vote) third party or independent campaign.
True, RFK is nowhere near the 10% threshold.
5. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
True, The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
True, long term growth has exceeded expectations.
7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
True, Biden has instituted multiple major policy changes.
8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
True, the Gaza protests are fizzling.
9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
True, Hunter is a hot mess but this does not count as a scandal.
10. No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
False, the withdrawal From Afghanistan (though Biden did have to adhere to the terms and schedule Trump negotiated with the Taliban)
11. Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Pending, let's see if the Gaza cease fire comes through and/or the Russia army in Ukraine continues to collapse.
12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
False, Joe is no JFK mostly due to his stutter.
13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
True, outside of his poorly educated MAGA base, Trump is no Reagan.
Biden has 9, probably 10.
Trump has 3
Biden wins.
Short term, Biden just needs one photo op signing a Gaza peace accord and people will ask, "Debate? What debate?"
https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/07/06/hamas-clears-the-way-for-a-possible-cease-fire-in-gaza-after-dropping-key-demand-officials-say/
Hamas clears the way for a possible cease-fire in Gaza after dropping key demand, officials say.
P.S. Concerns about inflation are also fizzling as the inflation rate continues to fall.
The election of moderate Pezeshkian as president of Iran with former former foreign minister and JCPOA negotiator Javad Zarif bodes well for growing stability in US-Iran relations and cooling in Iran - Russia relations which could have a strong impact on Russia's capacity to continue its genocidal war against Ukraine further strengthening Biden's position ahead of the November election.
ReplyDeleteCatfish, I like both parts of your addendum to my plan:
ReplyDelete1. establish an intervention committee now, that JB will heed if the time comes…
2. Up Kamala’s times basically running the West Wing.
3. Apprentice Veep plan, sure. Though I think leaving some mystery about the actual pick has some merits. One of a dozen reasons why the dems MUST keep (expand) their hold in the Senate.
PaulSB we are all descended from the harems of men whose central goal was to give unearned power to their inheritance brats.
DP I would hardly say we live in a time of no social unrest! Also I will bet there will be tear gas in Chicago, perhaps smuggled in from Moscow. Certainly the agitators will get funding.
Just thought of this one.
ReplyDeleteIs there any reason President Biden can't, as an official act, order the IRS to release Donald Trump's tax returns?
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that harem collecting was a major arena of Conspicuous Consumption throughout human history, that fact neither means that everyone alive is directly descended from someone's harem. On top of that, the male only contributes half of the DNA. Then there's that whole thing about epigenetics - the fact that DNA is switched off and on by signals in the environment. Epigenetics is not some freak phenomenon, it's Standard Operating Procedure everywhere on Earth. And then there's the whole DNA is Not Destiny thing. DNA sets up general limits, it does not create rigid, unchangeable programs. If it did, H. sapiens would behave a whole lot more like G. beringei. Some sure do, but far, far from all.
PaulSB
I feel free to offer lots of criticism to OGH (since it's kinda his main shtick and to his credit, he invites it).
ReplyDeleteNot this time, though.
No criticism this time around.
This main posting idea of inter-party debate is a very good idea, novel and cunning. Even the right-wing shills here should want to hear such a debate.
Best suggestion I have seen here in many years.
SO, practicalities:
How do we push such a proposal to the right ears without it looking like an attack from the Left (if it is me, or Liz, or Bernie, or whatever wise folk) or the Sensible Right (OGH, Alfred, or Manchin, for that matter)?
It is a good idea, but who sells Joe Biden on it?
Maybe Pete? Maybe Clyburn?
Ideas?
In Tibet and iirc some other places, customs have arisen where a single woman will marry several men, but I think they are usually kin (brothers or cousins). Twain pointed rather bluntly out that this custom makes far sense in terms of human biology; the Coolidge effect only goes so far.
ReplyDeleteOr, ahem, so I am told.
Pappenheimer
correction - "far more sense"
ReplyDeletePappenheimer
P.S. Am helping a family friend / LGBQT person out of an abusive living arrangement ATM; Project 2025, as I understand it, would erase just about all of those initials. To the 8 hells with it and its promulgators. (The 8th Hell is the Special one in my RPG cosmography)
Catfish, "Apprentice Veep" is brilliant!
ReplyDeleteI also like the idea of splitting out Kamala as already secure. That is a good idea all on its own merits.
Pappenheimer,
ReplyDeleteWhat you are talking about is called polyandry. It's considered a pretty rare phenomenon, most famously in cultures on the Tibetan Plateau, but it's not limited to there. And yes, it's usually two husbands sharing one wife. Here's a (relatively) recent article on the subject, if you're interested.
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s12110-012-9144-x?sharing_token=A_FxOIk0AeuQv48I5xhBXve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5oroqxcebmyTl0EJWZKajo-Uggr6PQPH7Mx-KxEQT7owLrFmMwc0r_GRR-aNMrsvNlfJnO6AIUPBXcAlSCFnHMFnPEkUXEYZQRrVdqYNZxeANYDKHqIpGzPhBGWQ1uUfI%3D
Paul SB
Paul (nearly typed Lena, sorry),
ReplyDeleteYep. I know some folks who practice it right here in the US, but not officially.
There's more than one way to run a family, though I was never sure that Heinlein's line marriage concept would be all that stable. One of my wife's best friends wanted to grow up to be a Heinleinian woman, accomplished*, sexy**, and poly-something or other, and then realized that there were drawbacks and...no.
* checked that one off
** that one, too
Pappenheimer
P.S. Election new from La Belle Francaise looking good. Here's to the trend continuing, so that my kids have a climate to grow old safely in - speaking of more than one kind of climate, here.
@Pappenheimer:
ReplyDelete(The 8th Hell is the Special one in my RPG cosmography)
As in You suddenly encounter a band of 3d100 Lemures with red hats screaming a cacophony of "Build The Wall", "MAGA" and "Lock Them up!"?
P.S. Election new from La Belle Francaise looking good. Here's to the trend continuing, so that my kids have a climate to grow old safely in - speaking of more than one kind of climate, here.
Yes, I am very relieved. Though the final results are still hours away, it seems Le Pens RN is on the third place now, Macrons liberals second, Front Populaire first but without a majority.
Melenchon is no friend of Europe, and reported to be an antisemite and Putin shill, though. Yet he has a quite diverse coalition, and maybe we are spared his worst excesses. The French premier has quitted.
One commentator suggested that Macron has gambled away democracy, another that he tries to disenchant the radical parties in government.
@Dr. Brin:
ReplyDelete1. will be happening anyway, so we might as well keep it from being smoke-filled;
2. wasn't explicitly in my plan, and could be played multiple ways (medically advised signovers to Acting Presidency, unofficial delegation, foreign policy trips so we don't overstress the elder), but is basically required under any real belief of Biden's increasing infirmity, so we might as well say it's in the plan.
3. One of the built-in titration elements is that no actual pick need be made unless the intervention committee is close to pulling the trigger. This is reality, not reality TV. There's no scheduled "season finale" before the convention... the 2028 convention, that is. The Democratic Party can fire up or tone down the Apprentice Veep event schedule as need be. The horserace crowd won't stop speculating, of course, but they'd do that no matter.
4. The Senate is, in my only somewhat humble opinion, the weak link in the trifecta odds at the moment. Panic and pernicious plots aside, the blue team's electoral college position is actually quite strong. More honest (on average) redistricting plus the utter cretinism of the shaky Speakerships translates into high probability of a blue House. But to hold the Senate requires a breakthrough somewhere. Since WV turnover is inevitable (it was only a fluke that it hadn't already), the Blue must either hold both Montana and Ohio seats, or pick up at least one seat elsewhere. Discounting cheating for a moment, Florida seems the most likely -- Senator Rick "Voldemort" Scott held his seat by just 0.05% last round, and that was in the midst of the Felon's term.
#ThereMightBeOneGoodRepublican
ReplyDeletehttps://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jul07-2.html
P.P. in Cherokee Village, AR, writes: Too many pundits and politicians are bashing the ability of our President to do the job required and are saying he should step down. They are in Panic Mode. I really don't blame them, BUT...
I am a lifelong "Old school" Republican, NOT A MAGA't, and I am going to vote BLUE from the top down on the entire ballot. I don't care if the top candidate for President is a CHIPMUNK!!! That chipmunk will have enough help to do the job! The GOAL is to get rid of MAGA'ts and Project 2025. The president must be ANYONE other than Trump or another MAGA't, and it will take ALL of us sticking together voting BLUE, no matter WHO is at the top of the Democratic ticket to accomplish the goal. I have been hearing a lot of others with the same opinion as I have, so if there are ENOUGH of us, hope is not lost.
Also this:
...
Which leads me to my third point. Everyone should read John A. Stoehr's "The Editorial Board" for July 5th in which he asks: What mistakes has Joe Biden made that could be attributed to age? Any? We might quarrel with his decisions. Or his policies. Not everything his administration has backed or done has been what I wanted. But can any of those things be attributed to age? Or dereliction of duty? Such as letting a pandemic rage and ignoring the advice of experts? Or letting rioters desecrate the Capitol Building for three hours?
I guess we're not going to hear Tacitus's essay on politics by way of Spock. Too bad, I was looking forward to it. But "reasons", I suppose.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't know where he was going. The relevant aspect of Wrath of Khan seems to be Kirk's obsession with denial of his own aging, and by analogy President Biden's. But the message of the film certainly wasn't that the Enterprise or the Federation would have been better off had Kirk graciously stepped aside. In fact, his stubborn refusal to do so was kind of redeemed as the correct decision by the end ("I feel...young.")
So if Wrath of Khan had a "Biden should step down" message in there, I'd have to be shown what it was.
(Maybe "A younger captain wouldn't have had to sacrifice Spock"? Could be, but I don't see how)
((A better example might have been "110 year old Captain America knew when to pass the torch." But Biden is a spring chicken in comparison.))
I too was hoping for some Khan talk. In the TOS episode, he said (paraphrasing):
ReplyDeleteOh sure, there has been technical advancement,
But how little man himself has changed.
Change man and you change the world.
This is the main drive behind my citizen science efforts. Rationalists are not so easily duped by a cynical and greedy press. They can think for themselves.
I wasn't going to continue past the first season of Designated Survivor, but it got the best of me. I liked this little exchange from the episode "Suckers" in season 2:
ReplyDeletePresident Kirkman:
"In the end, perception is everything. I've been fighting on behalf of the American people from the second I was sworn in. Now they think I'm fighting against them."
Mike Ritter (Secret Service) :
"No, they don't, sir. Everywhere we go, you inspire people. But the problem is..."
Kirkman:
"It's all right, Mike. Finish the sentence."
Ritter:
"Sir, when someone takes a cheap shot, you don't respond."
Kirkman:
"I don't like mudslinging. It's not who I am."
Ritter:
"Don't sling mud, sir. Sling hope. See, that's the fight people want. It's the hope you give them. And sometimes, it gets lost under all these attacks.
>>Is there any reason President Biden can't, as an official act, order the IRS to release Donald Trump's tax returns?
ReplyDeleteGood idea. Also the ‘love letters’ between Trump and Kim Jong Un. I want to see those and they are official US state documents!
>that fact neither means that everyone alive is directly descended from someone's harem.
Jeepers, you really need to squint at the past and realize how vast this phenomenon was. From Ghengiz Khan – alone! – providing the y chromosome for 8% of Chinese males, to 10,000 years of dominance in each little agricultural locale by the local lords… all the way to the 12,000 y.a. y-chromosome bottleneck during which (apparently) only 17% of males got to reproduce.
>> Best suggestion I have seen here in many years.
Um… matthew? Be still my heart!!! ;-)
I pushed the blog on my M sites and sent a link to some political and press… and have no idea what else I can do…
I sorta expected the French and UK election results. Europeans are realizing that today’s right is the same dangerous madness as USSR communism. Same people. Same goals. Different lapel pins.
LH thanks. DESIGNATED SURVIVOR was a very good show.
And yes. It is a pity Tacitus never really comes here to play. We all make it clear he's welcome. But that he should come wearing his shin and knee guards.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteDESIGNATED SURVIVOR was a very good show.
I enjoyed the first season several years ago. But they dragged out the resolutions so long, I felt like many of the episodes were just filler to make the season longer. Plus, too much of the suspense revolved around manufactured "This is for your ears only" misunderstandings.
So when they finally wrapped up the main plot in the (excellent) season finale, I wasn't about to keep going, even for the new "escaped bad guy is loose in the world with our military secrets" plot. Nope, I'm done.
But it's many years later now, and I'm drawn back in. I'm a sucker for fiction that idealizes America--I think of it "America porn"--like West Wing. And this series qualifies.
Just scribbled this and will blog it down the road:
ReplyDelete== What’s fundamental about the treason alliance against the Enlightenment Experiment… and hence America ==
The confederate coalition against everything the Enlightenment West stands for has two components. The oligarchs who own the movement … and the masses of what we now call MAGAs and who Robert Heinlein described as ‘know nothings.’
The first component consists of the elites who control – or who think* they control - today’s undead monster that’s taken over the Party of Lincoln. These elites are a mélange of inheritance brats, casino mafiosi, hedge lords, incest CEOs, "ex" commissars and openly avowed commissars (differing only in their lapel pins) and murder sheiks. All of them are united in one goal: restoring 6000 years of dismal feudalism. They’ve had a lot of victories along this path. For example, the chief outcome of “Supply Side” never-ever-once-correct “economics” has been skyrocketing wealth disparities around the globe. Now surging past French Revolution levels.
Despite their many victories, these elites know that world citizens could wake up, at any moment. They must complete their conversion of the globe to inheritance status before all the world’s young people fully acculturate with rambunctious individualism. Moreover, the oligarchs know there is one major obstacle blocking their full takeover.
Rule of law, enforced equally and governed by facts. Hence, in order to achieve their goal, they must suppress the defenders of fact-based rule-of-law. The nerd castes.
They must stir all-out war vs ALL fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror. (All the western strengths who Vlad Putin openly blames for the fall of the USSR.)
Which brings up the second component of the anti-modernity cult. This one is vastly larger… the MAGA /confederate ground troops in their millions. They share the same agenda, only in the opposite order. Their top wish (as Heinlein explains) is suppression of nerds, out of basic, cultural hate. (Not all of it unjustified! As I describe elsewhere.) And in order to get that, they’ll gladly help the oligarchy achieve restored feudal rule by inheritance brats.
Same goals, in slightly different order.
I just explained for you the devil’s bargain between our would-be lords and their vassals. It is exactly the same as in 1778 when Cornwallis went South to find more tories to support the King… or in the 1860s when a million poor whites marched off to fight and die for their plantation lord class oppressors. Or when Appalachians - who owe FDR and the Democrats absolutely freaking everything - spit in the eyes of those who helped them out of Deliverance hell.
As Heinlein describes, it's a cultural thing. And yes, you nerds out there simply cannot grasp why – using facts and logic and appeals to common decency and progress – you can accomplish nothing against this devil’s alliance.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2017/03/looking-back-at-heinleins-future.html
I largely agree with your proposal. The one thing I would add is that it may be necessary to introduce an objective component to the decision making in order to reassure the public that continuity of competent leadership will be maintained, regardless of what happens.
ReplyDeleteBiden could say something like: "I believe I can finish the campaign, beat Trump and serve for another four years. However, I could be wrong... For practical reasons, I can't step aside before the election (citing such issues as those mentioned by Stonekettle). But, to assure continuity after the election, I will commit to stepping down in favor of my vice president if an independent committee of respected gerontologists (selected by the relevant medical society?) conclude, at any point, that I can not fulfill my duties as president. Meanwhile, I will support debates, etc. to explore who could be appointed as the new vice president in such an eventuality..."
He could then challenge Trump to embrace a similar process (which Trump would almost certainly reject...) And, with the focus firmly on continuity, he could spend the next few months making it a choice between democracy/continuity and fascism/"repealing the 20th century..."
Der Oger,
ReplyDelete3d100 lemures with red caps shouting MAGA slogans will definitely be in my PC party's next trip to the Hells (which the have avoided so far, so it will be the first)
I will even credit you for it if a module is ever published somewhere.
Pappenheimer
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDelete"Jeepers, you really need to squint at the past and realize how vast this phenomenon was...."
- But no mention whatsoever of any of the other factors I brought up. Even if absolutely every human on earth were descended from Ghengis Khan, it would hardly mean what you suggest it means. Genetic determinism - the old-fashioned, political version - has been debunked for a while.
Even if we think everything we do is run by genes, genes are nowhere near as simple as our generations were taught in school. Epigenetics screws genetic determinism pretty effectively. Let's take a relatively simple example. When I was a wee lad in school I was taught that eye color is a simple Mendelian trait, and I'm pretty sure that most people my age and up don't have the faintest clue how wrong that is. To begin with, the Genies so far know of 8 genes that determine eye color, and strongly suspect there will turn out to be many more - like 150 or so. It's not just a gene to code for melanin. It's not just one gene for each of the three rings of iris muscle (which is how I have hazel eyes - something your basic Mendel can't explain). There are genes for receptor molecules, transport molecules, all the molecules used to build each of these proteins. Everyone who isn't an albino has the DNA to make melanin. If it weren't for epigenetics, everyone but albinos would have brown eyes. But chemicals floating around in the bloodstream and/or interstitial fluids can signal changes to the methylation markers on those genes, changing gene expression. So if those melanin genes are only switched on for a short time, you get grey eyes. Longer, you get blue. Longer still, green, and longer than that, brown. And even brown eyes come in different shades from an almost amber to almost black.
Polygeny already makes genes complicated, and is what usually makes bell curves. Bell curves tend to resist directional selection. Now the number of human behaviors that are controlled by a single gene is exactly zero. So even if every human in existence were a descendant of one harem-obsessed male, polygeny and differential gene expression would ensure that we are all still unique individuals, not Ghensis Clones.
Then there's those pesky frontal lobes, cultural guides to appropriate behavior, and individual life histories with all the ways that conditions behavior. When you oversimplify complex realities, you come to bad conclusions.
I would never dream to lecture you about physics.
Paul SB
3d100 lemures with red caps shouting MAGA slogans
ReplyDelete... are actually part of one of the quests for Steve Jackson's Fantasy Trip reboot ('Fire in the Temple') It has a dragon as well.
They must stir all-out war vs ALL fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror. (All the western strengths who Vlad Putin openly blames for the fall of the USSR.)
ReplyDeleteIt is one front in this war.
Others: The relentless attacks on minorities, worker's rights, unions, women's rights, social welfare, public health, limitations to corporate power, human rights, government transparency, media independence, the ability to vote, political participation, social cohesion and faith in democratic systems.
Concentrating on one front means losing the others, maybe throwing allies under the bus. Technocratic administrations are no miracle pill for curing authoritarianism and populism, and sometimes, they are their catalyst or helper.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jul08-4.html
ReplyDelete...
Of course, without 60 votes in the Senate, no law about abortion can pass the upper chamber unless the party in charge abolishes the filibuster. Nevertheless, a position that the matter is up to the states, changes it from a moral imperative to just another political issue, like tax rates. To the anti-abortionists, saying that it is up to the states is like saying banning murder is up to the states.
Well, isn't it?
As far as I know, there's no federal law prohibiting murder. From what I've heard, until the JFK assassination, there was no federal law which covered assassination of a president. It was the Dallas police department that had to prosecute that one.
Can someone who knows European parliamentary government please explain what just happened in France? A few days ago, it was "National Rally wins big and may form their own government." Today, it's like, "Never mind. They're not even in the top two."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad and all, but really don't know what's going on.
I'm glad and all, but really don't know what's going on.
ReplyDeleteEvery state in Europe has it's own electoral system. France has a first-past the post system with a run-off round.
Left and Center made a deal: They each withdrew candidates to hinder the RN from gaining the majority in the run-offs.
Also, I assume that a majority of the electorate woke up to the wake-up call from two weeks ago: Voter turnout was the highest in 40 years (around 60%).
Even if Le Pen did not win, that result might not mean that France will get a stable government. Left and Center are not exactly warm to form a coalition government (which is quite rare for France), and even if they did, it might turn out like our own current "Traffic Lights" coalition in Germany: Bickering and self-sabotaging.
Macron could thus be forced to call for new elections in one year ... if that wasn't his plan all along.
Der Oger:
ReplyDeleteFrance has a first-past the post system with a run-off round.
Thanks for the explanation.
If only the US had a runoff round in 2016, the world would be quite different.
Oger,
ReplyDeleteDo you think Macron is smart enough to come up with a plan like that? Doesn't he have a business background?
Paul SB
'What is going on' in France, and also the UK, is a voting tactic called the 'Peoples Primary Model'. Monbiot explains it here.
ReplyDeleteIt's basically a form of proportional pre-poll to allow progressive minor candidates to see who has the most overall backing. Lesser players then agree to withdraw, effectively pooling their votes. I don't think it would be useful in the actual US elections since you're locked into a two party situation, but it might have some use in primaries.
Tony Fisk:
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would be useful in the actual US elections since you're locked into a two party situation,
Well, one of the two major party candidates always wins, but others do take votes from them and affect the outcome. If Jill Stein voters in 2016 or Nader voters in 2000 had had a chance to weigh in on, "Now, it's between the Democrat or the Republican. Which do you hate less?" the outcome might have been different.
Eisenhower's great skill was in finding people who he could trust to do their jobs.
ReplyDeleteTrump prefers people who tell him how great he is.
Putin wants people who tell him what he wants to here (as in they can conquer Ukraine in a few weeks).
Paul SB you are arguing with a strawman. I never claimed that all being descended from harems would negate contributions from the mothers. BUT when those mothers are ALSO descended from the same harems, stuff adds up. Especially when we were already male mammals and thus already inclined to benefit genetically by steling repro advantage from other males.
ReplyDeleteYou accuse me of oversimplifying - bah! I am simply pointing out a blatantly under-discussed component of what we are.
Words fail me.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/us/politics/biden-trump-parties.html
...
But Mr. Trump’s supporters argue that his issues are different from Mr. Biden’s. “The notion that these are equal, I just don’t see it,” said David Urban, a longtime Republican strategist who worked on past Trump campaigns. He compared the situation to a basketball star tearing an A.C.L. and being unable to play, as opposed to being obnoxious or insulting.
“You may not like Trump,” Mr. Urban said. “You may think he’s mean-spirited, you might not like his demeanor. You may think he’s crude, he’s rude, he’s brash. But you still think he can run the United States. Whereas with Biden, he’s not running anything.”
>> Oger: “It is one front in this war. Others: The relentless attacks on minorities, worker's rights, unions, women's rights, social welfare, public health, limitations to corporate power, human rights, government transparency, media independence, the ability to vote, political participation, social cohesion and faith in democratic systems.
ReplyDeleteDer Oger, I never said that races, minorities etc aren’t harmed by this mad treason. In fact that is blatant and already HUGELY discussed. And it is true that right wing agitators try to rile prejudiced impulses among the millions of quasi confederate, lower middle class whites, in the same manner that was used to rile southern whites in the 1860s and 1950s. Getting poor whites to ignore the actual war – class war – waged against them by the oligarchy. The dog whistles are useful in that way. BUT…
They are not what motivates the modern plantation lords, themselves. Think about it. WHO worries Putin and MBS and the casino mafiosi and the other lords of the right? They seek all-power and worry most about forces in society that can BLOCK them!
Who can block them. The POWERLESS? You think trans or gays or poor blacks are the ones making the lords worried? Heck even the dog whistle racism is muted, on Fox. They don’t dare make it too blatant.
The enemies who oligarchy must destroy – and who are attacked relentlessly in rightist media – are the nerd castes, the civil servants who are the TOP priority enemies of Project 2025. The scientists who say “That’s not true.” The FBI guys who might arrest even an oligarch. The IRS.
One of the great victories of the rightist putsch is that almost no one on our side dares to point this out, without getting a reaction like yours. Because the nerd castes ARE safe and comfortable, as individuals. So their disempowerment seems a lesser crime than hurting minorities.
But that disempowerment is THE central goal of the would be lords. And it is time to point it out.
My latest version of the wager challenge.
ReplyDelete"As leaders of the revived and vastly strengthened NATO alliance arrive in DC this week, one is smirking. Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán bucked diplomatic tradition by taking sides in U.S.politics, openly backing Donald Trump and ties to the U.S. right." One more pebble on the sand pile of Putin's desperate hope that the mad MAGA right will rescue him.
I know MAGAs who frantically incant that "the Russia thing" has long been debunked. They avoid wagers over Manafort, Flynn, Stein, Stone, Bannon and a hundred other blatant Kremlin agents in the Trump camp. Or how every current communist regime (but Vietnam) and every "ex" commissar in Moscow desperately supports Donald Two Scoops.
Hey Biden, release the "We fell in love" letters between Trump and maniacal despot Kim Jong Un! Throw in murder sheiks, casino mafiosi, hedge lords and inheritance brats ... and all the nazis AND commies ... and you have a perfect alignment of the world's evil, united in anxious longing for Project 2025 to end the American Enlightenment.
But sand piles collapse.
And so...
NOW! Wager $$$ stakes ANY of the frantic assertion-incantations flung by Foxites starting with
- "the Russia thing."
- The ratio of Biden vs Trump 'lies' during the last debate. Or across 4 years. I'm fine either way
- Ocean Acidification, its lethally dangerous reality and only possible cause
continues....
ReplyDelete- Polling top meteorologists - those running miracle TEN DAY forecasts - re climate change
- Ratios of indicted and convicted high figures in the Dem vs Repub parties - including (especially) child predation, starting with Dennis 'friend to boys' Hastert (hint: it's 40 to 1.)
- Average rates of every turpitude in Red States (except Utah) vs blue ones, including ingrate net-inward sucking of tax dollars from the rest of the nation
- Whether ANY prdicted benefits of Supply Side EVER came true except skyrocketing wealth disparities and declining industrial investment
- Whether US manufacturing is NOW experiencing the greatest revival in 70 years, thanks directly to the Pelosi bills
- Whether Trump has been 'betrayed' by more former 'great guys' than ALL previous US presidencies, combined
- The degree that the current MAGA/Foxite enemies list overlaps perfectly with Vlad Putin's list of US elements whom he blames for 'history's worst tragedy' - the fall of the USSR... including - wow - 100,000 FBI/Intel folks who are now suddenly all vile enemies denounced by Fox hypnotists
... continues
- Whether Democratic administrations are nearly always more fiscally responsible re debt and deficits
- Name 1 fact-profession NOT hated-on by Fox?
- Let's recruit a panel of generally apolitical retired senior military officers for a bet adjudication panel. Ask those heroes (who won the Cold War &War on Terror) to weigh Hunter B's whole life vs any random WEEK of the Trump boys. Let's tally NDAs & hush payments!
- Check Fox anti-science 'campus indoctrination' rants. Let's knock on 20 RANDOM doors at a nearby university!
- Compare DEATH rates of those who refused vaccines!
- Correlate Project 2025 with the treason majority on the Supreme Court legalizing illegality by a president.
- Or whether the US Founders were 'tea party' rebelling against feudalism and oligarchy, as shown when they seized and redistributed 1/3 of the land in the former colonies... or when America seized and redistributed the main property of slave holders and redistributed that property to freed slaves, or mass education or FDR era transfers to farmers and workers and returning GIs or a dozen other times that 'socialist' actions invigorated a flat - fair - creatively competitive society
- Let's tally the 'incineration of Seattle' and other cities by 'antifa' - actual, actual number of burned out city blocks and casualties - to see if MAGA shrieks aren't masturbation to a completely delusional fantasy? Oh, or people killed by MAGA rage junkies vs. lefty ones.
No MAGA/Putinist EVER shows manly guts to back up their blab, as grampa would've. Blowhards flee, amid the ruins of their macho.
ReplyDeleteBecause the nerd castes ARE safe and comfortable, as individuals. So their disempowerment seems a lesser crime than hurting minorities.
Opposing nerds may be the goal of the overlords, but you keep disputing the (to me) evident truth that a useful tool of theirs to rile up their followers and voters is racism. And it's important to point that out when others insist that "economic insecurity" and the like is what causes fellow-Americans to stand behind Trump. No, Trump never actually addresses their economic concerns. What he gives them is a consolation prize. The main reason MAGAts love Trump is that he gives them permission to be mean to people they don't like.
Nerds are some of those people, but so are minorities, feminists, effeminate men, and non-Christians. The lords may not care about bigotry against the powerless, but that's what makes them appealing to their voters. And the more powerless the target, the better, because if there's one thing bullies love, it's picking on someone who can't adequately defend himself.
..." but you keep disputing the (to me) evident truth that a useful tool of theirs to rile up their followers and voters is racism."
ReplyDeleteHow on earth can you say that despite that being EXACTLY what I have repeatedly (and repeatedly) said? You seem to deliberately fail to grasp that dog whistles vs minorities serve one purpose - riling the idiocracy tools... but is not in itself the ol;igarchs' top priority as they could not care less about the powerless.
It is their POWERFUL opponents they must actually destroy.
I give up.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteIt is their POWERFUL opponents they must actually destroy.
I give up.
No, come on. I agree that the knowledge caste is the main target of the overlords themselves.
I just want it to be clear that, in order to hold onto the power to do that, they have to rule up their voters, supporters, and Brownshirts. And racism, sexism, and religious bigotry are a big part of how they do that. Moreso than kitchen table issues like "economic insecurity" that the media claim motivates those voters.
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteThe Book Fairy requests that you at least read Chapter 9. That, I think, would mollify her at least a little bit. I could sit here and type the whole chapter up from my audio version, but that would take hours, and posting might get me sued for copyright violations. I have other things I would much rather do with those hours, but I do very much want you to understand.
If you think that I'm fighting a straw man, then it might be helpful if you wrote a very clear statement of your hypothesis. Why, exactly, do you think that a measly few millennia of harem practices are relevant to the behavior of all humans on Earth today? And what assumptions must be true for your hypothesis to be credible?
From what I've read of your arguments over the years, they seem to contradict many decades of the science of human behavior, and a lot of the relevant factors are addressed in Chapter 9, specifically. The human body is simply not the body of a species that is instinctively harem-collecting, like gorillas, nor do humans have bodies built by ages of the use of rape as a reproductive strategy. Given the current state of the science, the most well-supported explanation for both rape and harems is not that these things represent instinctive drives, but they are reproductive strategies that became available, and in some cases favorable to some males, with the rise of civilization and the inequalities forced on humans by the social hierarchies civilizations build. Gathering harems is not in any way genetic, it's a deliberate choice on the part of large-brained hominids that are, at least to some extent, capable of making choices, and creating propaganda (usually meaning religions) to rationalize their choices.
Chapter 9, okay?
Paul SB
Paul SB
ReplyDeleteThe human body - sexual dimorphism - does not reflect an extreme case - like the Gorillas
But there is still a significant difference between the sexes - which does mean that the "Harem" has been a part of human evolution for a LONG time - hundreds of thousands of years if not millions of years
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteNo, you are 100% wrong about that. Sorry. The easiest thing I can do is point you to the most up-to-date science in the field, in the form of the book I suggested to Dr. Brin. This is recent stuff, not leftovers from the old Man the Hunter paradigm of ages gone by. Solid science. It's either that or synthesize hundreds of papers, but since the author has already done that, why spend months reinventing the wheel?
https://www.amazon.com/Eve-Female-Drove-Million-Evolution/dp/B0BRBW7WFP/ref=sr_1_1?crid=PVMT6AA8IE7F&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qI6wzyy8uYLFx-v2k0_kySdZ4xmkulYev9nCeE_MxVs3hl7sUJPVpJ99qe6wF0nSjc-8bUC-jIaQJBEoAhrjG9S8gZOcOUqGSu-OYicJ9Zys8BjKKrL9PPtzX70cCsrHrkhWmyeo6oSgDcJhaMczA4e8p36SgfeMojtQOwTmBcZ9aHfVJZNxqeB28FkRCS2goSeKSxxv3tys1aYPCy2mrQ.vJogoozpRkNDC0XF9kmtT2x-q79VhjFVxf_5vPWut80&dib_tag=se&keywords=cat+bohannon+eve&qid=1720495800&sprefix=cat+bohan%2Caps%2C189&sr=8-1
Paul SB
Duncan, sexual dimorphism correlates with 'harem size' across many species, it's true. And it suggests a natural 'harem size' of about 1.3 for humans... or an extra wife for 1/3 of men, roughly correlating with old time chiefs.
ReplyDeleteBUT the fundamental REASON for size dimorphism is that in most such species males compete physically directly. But for social humans that has always been just one of many components. Far more important is to persuade other males to accept you as a paramount alpha or chief of lord or king. Necessitating brains, canny manipulativeness, bargaining, deception, and many other traits we see exaggerated in a fair number of men. Sexual dimorphism is just not that big a factor.
I understand Paul's argument and it is specious. traits still get passed on and reinforced by sexual /reproductive success. The bare existence of blond human populations... and the (apparently) recent burst of blue eyes ... are just a few examples. Jesus what do you think the Great Y Chromosome Bottleneck was all about/. Just a few centuries at the beginning of agriculture when only one in six or so males got to breed!
One outcome (and now I speculate) was the fact that humans are more capable than other mammals at resisting addiction to alcohol. Imperfectly, so far, but this winnowing was seen and reported first hand by explorers encountering American and Polynesian tribes.
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI side with PSB against your POV. I suspect primates speciate along those differences and humans appear to have picked a middle road with minimal sexual dimorphism.
However, I do view the Y-chromosome bottleneck as having put pressure on us that undermined beta males abilities to check the alphas. The bottleneck didn't wipe out the powers of betas let alone of women to decide outcomes... but did pressure us. Since it only ended a few millennia ago and our religions show strong evidence of past social expectations, I think the dust has yet to settle.
------
PSB,
The bottleneck was a ferocious filter. So was learning to live with a diet containing alcohol. I wouldn't be shocked if there are some long-lasting impacts to our 'inclinations' which is about as far as genetic narratives will go.
I remember. I'm not supposed to assign the easy explanation to any one cause. Especially genes. I have the genes for growing a tail and fur, but those aren't likely to turn on. I get it.
Still... only a small sliver of males successfully reproduced in the bottleneck. If any inclinations were going to be impacted, it would be ours. Add on what louses we can be when drunk and I would expect a possible impact from our mother's side too. Some of them obviously got selected for their ability to survive the heightened risks that come with inebriation and alcoholism.
The harem hypothesis is neither the only nor the most well-supported explanation for the Y-Chromosome bottleneck.
ReplyDeleteI take it you won't even bother to read if it doesn't confirm your belief?
Here's a few recent papers on the subject:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47618-5#:~:text=This%20suggests%20that%20for%20the,have%20been%20followed%20by%20a
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-mystery-of-the-neolithic-bottleneck-may-be-over-thanks-to-one-plucky-undergrad/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/
Paul SB
Hi Paul SB
ReplyDeleteJust read both papers - and they go a very long way to CONFIRM OGH's viewpoint!
Competition and harems - they also confirm the "10,000 years of warfare" as the reason that we are such superb cooperators
Both Harems and Violence are needed to produce the observed Y Chromosome bottleneck
I would also note that the 15% male death by violence that the authors call a "maximum assumption" is not actually very high in hunter gatherer societies! with some of them having more like 50%
Note
ReplyDelete"Patrilineal segmentary systems" = Harems
Undoubtedly Biden is fitter to be President than Trump is, but everybody is. The problem is not that rational people might miss that, but that lots of voters will simply stay home, and voters who don't think much about the issues will reject Biden because he's obviously senile. This election matters so much, it's a shame the Democrats didn't think about all this two years ago and make the right choice then. Now the ship is almost on the rocks.
ReplyDeleteThey should abandon the attempt to dress up JB as Rambo, which he isn't. Instead, sell him as a kind, experienced (in many ways), intelligent, patriotic American, which he is.
ReplyDeleteGiven the whole Scott Galloway thing (young males are friendless, they aren't having sex, economically they are falling behind, more women graduate from college with higher economic expectations than men, women don't mate/marry downward, dating apps screw young males, we have a whole generation of incels that women spurn, etc.)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVaUG3PUjcw
are we entering a new "harem" age, where only a few upper males are mating - this time run by women?
I'm not all that familiar with the Y Chromosome bottleneck puzzle, but just wanted to throw out that significant changes to a species gene pool can happen very quickly. Evolutionary processes are not always slow, only mostly slow (get it?), even for large multicellular species.
ReplyDeleteThe fastest observed example I can recall happened not too many years ago. The species was a type of lizard, in the anole family if I recall correctly. The population was limited to a single or small number of closely spaced islands. A strong hurricane came through and decimated the population. If I recall correctly the significant change was limb size. Before the hurricane there was a certain distribution of limb size among the population. After the hurricane only lizards with large limb size survived, and this morphological change persisted in the population. The hypothesis to explain the observed facts was that lizards with larger limb size were capable of holding on to the plants they lived among throughout the strong winds, but those with smaller limb size were not. This is a rare example of how on occasion the filtering of natural selection, with consequent changes, can happen very quickly, in this case hours or days.
And the more powerless the target, the better, because if there's one thing bullies love, it's picking on someone who can't adequately defend himself.
ReplyDeleteI believe what Larry said here is the actual point. Strength and Defense comes in numbers.
I believe that in functioning non-authoritarian societies, there is a level of civic engagement and interconnection between citizens that reaches past party allegiance. See it as the top of the democratic pyramid.
Below that, you will find layers and circles of other structures that overlap each other: families, friendships, clubs, companies, churches, unions, initiatives, voluntary fire departments, you name it. They are the ones who can effectively organize support, integrate people, make a community worth living in. That can make a society resilient against divisiveness, persecution, radicalization if decent people are supporting and building that fabric.
It is not about which group of minority to support, which one is more worthy of defense, it is about creating those overlapping layers and circles.
Second, I suppose many populist strategies can be defeated with a single commandment:
You Shall Not Violate Human Dignity.
Regardless of what group you belong to, you deserve decency and respect, chances and opportunities, allies and political representation, a life worth living for.
Remove Human Dignity from any person, for any reason, and you enter the slippery slope of authoritarianism.
Hi Duncan,
ReplyDeleteThere were three papers, to begin with. You haven't said which one you left out, but here's an excerpt from the first one:
"This suggests that for the bottleneck to have occurred around 3000–5000 years ago, an initial transition to kinship systems that are efficient at reducing Y-chromosome diversity (such as the patrilineal scenario 2g, with lineal fission and variance in reproductive success between groups) must have been followed by a transition to kinship systems that are less efficient at reducing Y-chromosome diversity (here we considered a bilateral descent system or a patrilineal system with no variance in reproductive success between groups)."
Note the use of the words "transition" and "followed by." If the urge to build harems was a simple Mendelian trait, it might be possible for selective pressure to cause such shifts, but the number of human behaviors that follow simple Mendelian rules is precisely zero. Note that what it talks about changing are kinship systems, not instincts. Instinct, in large-brained hominids, is in no way 100% deterministic of behavior, and clearly not deterministic of social behavior.
The whole reason large frontal lobes were selected for in the first place is that they allow hominids to have far greater behavioral flexibility than what you see in most of the rest of the Animal Kingdom. Even tiny-brained rattlesnakes are capable of some learned behavior. You're more likely to die if you are bitten by a juvenile rattlesnake than an adult, because those that survive to adulthood learn not to empty their poison sacks all in one bite. It takes days to reload. Leaning among humans is far more prevalent, powerful, and plays a huge role in determining human behavior. Compare, for example, two of history's most hated villains, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Mussolini certainly behaved more like a gorilla than most humans. he had a cabinet officer bring him an average of four women per day, who he spent around 15 minutes each molesting - then either paying shut-up money or jailing if they wouldn't shut up. Hitler, on the other had, was far more chaste and by all accounts had hardly any love life at all.
to be con.t
The level of genetic determinism that you are suggesting here was debunked decades ago. Humans are biocultural animals. Unfortunately, rigid genetic determinism remains very popular for primarily political and socio-economic reasons. Critical thinking begins with asking the question, “Cui bono?” The claim that DNA is Destiny serves the purposes of the very rich, who have a vested interest in cutting out competition. Partly this is a matter of disincentivizing competition. When someone claims that they were born with some "talent" that makes them "naturally" better than other people, the subtext is this: don't bother trying to compete with me. The don't have a chance because I'm naturally superior to you.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't only happen in the arena of money acquisition (or mate acquisition). You hear it all the time in athletics and entertainment. But the more overtly political side is that genetic determinism has been used to fight against any kind of social safety net, or any sort of social responsibility whatsoever. Then logic is pretty simplistic. If rich people are rich because they are superior, then poor people are poor because they are inferior. Therefore it is unfair and unnatural to tax rich people to support poor people. You hear this as a mantra from conservatives. Poor people are poor because they're dumb and lazy. No matter how much money or education you give them, they won't do anything good with it. They'll just spend the money on drugs and booze and prostitutes. It's the basis of trickle down economics. All good things are done by rich people. This same "logic" of course, has traditionally been applied to anyone who isn't white, male, hetero, and Christian.
So it's not just that you are grossly oversimplifying human nature (and to a person who has an advanced degree in human nature), but your oversimplification feeds the very propaganda system you are vehemently against. Human behavior is not that simple. Some humans are that simple, but that's not genetics so much as witless conformity - something we see increasingly these days.
Paul SB
Darrell,
ReplyDeleteI had a bunch of anoles when I was 10 or so. Cute little people, though not the smartest critters on the islands, no doubt.
Yes, evolution can happen pretty quickly. What you're talking about is called Punctuated Equilibrium by the professionals. It's not an uncontroversial idea, though it's mostly accepted these days as a genuine process, though side-by-side with its competitor - Gradualism. It turns out that reality is complex enough that both can happen.
Lizard legs, however, are simply not nearly as complex traits as human behaviors, which actually evolve much faster than human gene pools due to the relative flexibility of human brains, as well as hordes of emergent properties that result from a complex social environment.
I still think anoles are cute, though.
Paul SB
Unser Oger,
ReplyDelete"Remove Human Dignity from any person, for any reason, and you enter the slippery slope of authoritarianism."
The unfortunate thing is that huge numbers of people are motivated by exactly that. Authoritarian leaders can be quite successful preying on people's insecurities, one of which the desire to promotes one's own ego by tearing down someone else's. That and the oversimplification that we call bigotry is likely a consequence of the energetics of the human brain. Since human brains suck up as much as 25% of all the calories humans eat, the brains are constantly looking for shortcuts, ways to think quickly and easily rather than thoughtfully and intelligently so it uses less energy. Major design flaw.
The important thing (IMO) is that if we understand this, we can choose to stop and engage System 2, with which we can decide what is the better idea. The more we understand how our brains work, the more power we have to make better - and generally more ethical - decisions. I think this is a pretty important message to spread around.
Paul SB
Weirdness, Part 2 seems to have disappeared ...
ReplyDeleteThe level of genetic determinism that you are suggesting here was debunked decades ago. Humans are biocultural animals. Unfortunately, rigid genetic determinism remains very popular for primarily political and socio-economic reasons. Critical thinking begins with asking the question, “Cui bono?” The claim that DNA is Destiny serves the purposes of the very rich, who have a vested interest in cutting out competition. Partly this is a matter of disincentivizing competition. When someone claims that they were born with some "talent" that makes them "naturally" better than other people, the subtext is this: don't bother trying to compete with me. The don't have a chance because I'm naturally superior to you.
This doesn't only happen in the arena of money acquisition (or mate acquisition). You hear it all the time in athletics and entertainment. But the more overtly political side is that genetic determinism has been used to fight against any kind of social safety net, or any sort of social responsibility whatsoever. Then logic is pretty simplistic. If rich people are rich because they are superior, then poor people are poor because they are inferior. Therefore it is unfair and unnatural to tax rich people to support poor people. You hear this as a mantra from conservatives. Poor people are poor because they're dumb and lazy. No matter how much money or education you give them, they won't do anything good with it. They'll just spend the money on drugs and booze and prostitutes. It's the basis of trickle down economics. All good things are done by rich people. This same "logic" of course, has traditionally been applied to anyone who isn't white, male, hetero, and Christian.
So it's not just that you are grossly oversimplifying human nature (and to a person who has an advanced degree in human nature), but your oversimplification feeds the very propaganda system you are vehemently against. Human behavior is not that simple. Some humans are that simple, but that's not genetics so much as witless conformity - something we see increasingly these days.
Paul SB
It seems my To Be Continued didn't go through...
ReplyDeleteThe level of genetic determinism that you are suggesting here was debunked decades ago. Humans are biocultural animals. Unfortunately, rigid genetic determinism remains very popular for primarily political and socio-economic reasons. Critical thinking begins with asking the question, “Cui bono?” The claim that DNA is Destiny serves the purposes of the very rich, who have a vested interest in cutting out competition. Partly this is a matter of disincentivizing competition. When someone claims that they were born with some "talent" that makes them "naturally" better than other people, the subtext is this: don't bother trying to compete with me. The don't have a chance because I'm naturally superior to you.
This doesn't only happen in the arena of money acquisition (or mate acquisition). You hear it all the time in athletics and entertainment. But the more overtly political side is that genetic determinism has been used to fight against any kind of social safety net, or any sort of social responsibility whatsoever. Then logic is pretty simplistic. If rich people are rich because they are superior, then poor people are poor because they are inferior. Therefore it is unfair and unnatural to tax rich people to support poor people. You hear this as a mantra from conservatives. Poor people are poor because they're dumb and lazy. No matter how much money or education you give them, they won't do anything good with it. They'll just spend the money on drugs and booze and prostitutes. It's the basis of trickle down economics. All good things are done by rich people. This same "logic" of course, has traditionally been applied to anyone who isn't white, male, hetero, and Christian.
So it's not just that you are grossly oversimplifying human nature (and to a person who has an advanced degree in human nature), but your oversimplification feeds the very propaganda system you are vehemently against. Human behavior is not that simple. Some humans are that simple, but that's not genetics so much as witless conformity - something we see increasingly these days.
Paul SB
Hi Paul SB,
ReplyDeleteI disagree, the anole example does not support punctuated equilibrium, unless one really wants to use it to do so. Like most of the ideas Gould became notable for he way over-sold PE and nearly all the ideas he built off of PE have not been particularly useful. Noticeable evolutionary changes happen at all rates, though most often slowly. Simple as that. No big paradigms to be built off of that simple reality, IMO, except perhaps chaos.
You keep saying how complex this issue is. You really don't need to. We know. I know. You implied that not enough time had passed for gene frequency changes to have occurred. I gave a simple example showing that that is not necessarily so. And despite the differences in complexity between the two my example is a valid illustration of that point.
You also always argue that environment and epigenetics are more of a factor than genes. No doubt all are very important and I think it is useless to argue, in a general context, which is more of a factor. For specific traits, sure. There will be an answer, if you can gather the necessary data. There is very good data that shows a wide range of heritability for various human traits both physical and behavioral, ranging from mostly genes to mostly environment.
Unless there are some solid studies on heritability of harem-like behavior among males from the relevant time frames then I don't see how any hypothesis regarding genes/environment warrants much credence. And to be clear, I don't think it's possible to do that. You can't really do heritability studies on prehistoric humans. The only other option would be to identify a number of genes that strongly correlate with harem-like behavior, and I agree with you 100% that that would be a very complex and difficult job. But if you could, then you could try and determine the evolutionary history of those genes over the relevant time frame and see if there is anything to support the hypothesis.
On epigenetics, I think you give epigenetics too much credence, at least at this point in our knowledge. Epigenetic gene regulation has indeed been verified. However, no study has ever shown an effect beyond 2 or 3 generations. It is of course a variable that makes things more complex, and it is a newer aspect of biology that warrants continued study that will lead to important contributions, but as of yet the data does not support that epigenetics has any significant contribution to adaptive changes to genomes. It is of course possible that epigenetics could be a causal factor in behavior, 1st or 2nd order.
Paul SB, putting aside your snide dig, of course I looked at the papers, including
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47618-5#:~:text=This%20suggests%20that%20for%20the,have%20been%20followed%20by%20a
…which offers the following sentence that is one of the stupidest I have read in a ‘scientificv paper’ in years:
“We show that variance in reproductive success between patrilineal groups… can lead to reduction in the male effective population size without resorting to the violence hypothesis.”
Seriously? OMG what stunning, staggering, PC-driven stupidity!
I do not say the same thing about Paul, who is obviously a very bright and erudite person. But the catechism he keeps reciting here flies in that face of spectacularly demonstrable facts. Like the fact that evolution happens. Sometimes very quickly. (I mentioned the apparently sudden takeover of blue Eues in northern Europe.). But the notion that the bottleneck "did not involve violence?" OMG.
I don't think it was a coincidence that it happened at the same time that
1. humans gathered into fixed abodes of farming villages
2. mass production of beer
3. Kings who could dominate without the basic democracy of tribal life, and who could order killed anyone they might choose. (This was observed many times!)
JUst as suddenly as it started, the great bottleneck stopped. And I believe it's because LARGER kings developed who were harem satiated and derived no benefit from the slaughter. Indeed, it deprived them of fighting men for their larger armies. And hence they clamped down hard on the village-level lords and stopped the bottleneck.
DP: “are we entering a new "harem" age, where only a few upper males are mating - this time run by women?”
ALL human societies practiced polygamy roughly at the 1.3 ratio predicted by size fimorphism! In feudal societies this was weighted by kings and lords. In tribal societies, it was about a quarter of males becoming ‘chiefs’ in some way. In recent America, it was serial abandonment… men leaving their first family and smooth talkers getting a second round (despicable in many cases, not all.)
Ideally, we’d get this happening in ways that SERVE women and their children, where added reproductive rights are awarded to those males who are best’ according to FEMALE standards that include loyalty, decency, kindness…. I have some sci fi scenarios I’ve never had the guts to publish.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeletemen leaving their first family and smooth talkers getting a second round (despicable in many cases, not all.)
I'm not sure how familiar the world outside the Chicago area is with the name Drew Peterson. He's a former police officer currently serving time (only on circumstantial evidence) for the death of his third wife, which had originally been deemed an accident. The case was revisited after the disappearance of his fourth wife.
My somewhat-rhetorical question is always, "Who volunteers to be this guy's fourth wife."
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteI have some sci fi scenarios I’ve never had the guts to publish.
Couldn't you publish them as "John Barron" or the like?
(Kidding on the square)
@ Everyone: re: "--topia"-
ReplyDeleteThanks. Seems like we are in a logotopia= "a place of words" and an "ideatopia"= "a place of 'you can guess'".
@ Dr. Brin: re: "Biden's Judo Moves..."-
It seems James Carville came up with a suggestion not too dissimilar to yours
(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opinion/biden-democratic-nominee.html)
Maybe he got it through the grapevine from YOU!
Keith Halperin:
ReplyDeleteSeems like we are in a logotopia= "a place of words" and an "ideatopia"= "a place of 'you can guess'".
Illusiotopia?
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteYour Y-Chromosome bottleneck actually doesn't require any level of violence beyond the usual background level of any human social group, and it doesn't require limiting male access to females, either. Obviously that happens, and is more common since the rise of civilization than monogamy. However, the math shows that the bottleneck is likely a consequence of village fissioning, the same force that mostly drove human colonization of the continents. This isn't a new idea among people who study human nature professionally. While the bottleneck wasn't discovered until recently, studies of village fissioning, both archaeological and ethnographic (what we call ethnoarchaeology) match the expansion of the human species very well. The thing about fissioning is that it very commonly begins as a bunch of young bachelors who bud off and form their own settlements. Many of these settlements fail in time because they fail to acquire women. Others only acquire a small number of women, so in both cases large numbers of males fail to reproduce. In other cases new settlements manage to acquire an even number of women, either through kinship ties with other villages or by kidnapping. So yeah, violence is very often an option, but a risky one. When men try to acquire women by kidnapping, many of them are killed in the process. Since women actually bear the children, though, they are killed much more rarely - brutalized and enslaved, yes, but killed, no.
Reading a few articles is a start, but seriously, the Bohannon book is far more detailed and up to date.
Paul SB
Keith,
ReplyDeleteHow about Syzitopia - a place of debate? I like that much better. I still want my Calipygiotopia, though ... ;)
Paul SB
I... give... up. Paul's latest is simply spectacularly delusional. A just so story propelled by PC yearnings to believe such a thing could happen without fierce resistance by the losers and fierce compulsion by the winners, It doesn't even make the slightest sense even in its own context, on a scale that encourages zero prospect of crossing the divide. So I'll just drop it.
ReplyDeleteThe real part of the Great Y Chromosome Bottleneck that has me boggled is how it happened all across Eurasia and Africa and then ended at about the same time! Now THAt is weird. I'd love to see a study about The Americas, where every aspect of agricultural society like pyramid-building and human sacrifice seemed to happen 3000 years out of phase with Eurasia.
ReplyDelete@ Larry, @ Paul SB: I like it; this is fun!
ReplyDeleteGerontopia- "a place of old (things)"
Neotopia- "a place of new (things)"
Sophotopia- a place of (the) wise"
Blakasotopia- "a place of fools"
Diaphonotopia- "a place of argument"
Prosbolesotopia-"a place of insults"
Eutuchotopia- "a place of happiness"
Thlipsotopia- "a place of sadness"
"Excuse me, is this Diaphonotopia?"
ReplyDelete"I've already told you once!"
I'll add Thanatopia to the list.
Your President has told you to google 'project 2025'.
I suggest you do so.
Then google 'ecocide'.
No, Dr. Brin, once again you are assuming that I said things I never said. I'm a trained scientist, I know that PC is not valid science. I also know that the hippie years are over. I'm looking at the science as it currently stands. If you were willing to read Chapter 9, like I have repeated many times, you would find that things are just not as simple as you portray them.
ReplyDeletePaul SB
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteThere's an important factor that I keep forgetting to bring up. Sorry, I haven't been able to find a replacement hippocampus.
Studies of modern hunter gatherers cannot just be superimposed on past hunter gatherers for some very important reasons, one of the most important of them being Geographic Circumscription. Before the transition to agriculture, hunter gatherer bands that had too much internal conflict generally split. Individuals who were too violent could be ostracized, which was usually a death sentence, since humans alone in the wild without more advanced technology than "stone knives and bear skins" didn't have much of a prayer. But when groups of people split off together, there was wilderness to expand into, at least until the Würm Glaciation melted away and drowned a huge amount of available wilderness.
Just like with the rest of the Animal Kingdom, most creatures prefer to avoid fights if they at all can. That's why you see lizards wagging their heads up and down at each other. They almost never actually fight with each other, eventually one backs down. Niche Differentiation is another common phenomenon that reduces potentially deadly combat, at the inter-species level. Similar species that should be in competition with each other simply divide the niche specifically so they don't have to compete. The way nature really works and the stories we tell about nature don't have a lot in common.
Paul SB
Hi Paul SB
ReplyDeleteYou referenced TWO "Papers" and a magazine article talking about one of them - NOT "three papers"
I'm an engineer - not a scientist - but I do have the ability to read a paper and understand what it is actually saying underneath the jargon
Those papers say that the observed "Great Y Chromosome Bottleneck" can be explained by assuming ""Patrilineal segmentary systems" (which = Harems)
and that some of the groupings disappeared/failed (warfare or similar violence)
Makes sense to me
The idea that you seem to have of some groups of Batchelors heading off on their own and dying out does NOT make any sense to me
Keith,
ReplyDeleteGlad you're enjoying it. Which of these -topias would you use to describe this place?
Paul SB
Paul SB
ReplyDeleteAlmost never fight is true for animals with millions of years of evolution at their current levels of deadliness
Humans have only been "deadly" at the current levels - knife fights - for a few tens of thousands of years. - so not long enough for us to develop the ingrained surrender reflex
In today's hunter gatherer societies murder makes up as much as 30% of all deaths and the skeletal evidence from back then tends to back this up - lots of skeletons with "death wounds" far more than we would see if violent death was rare
As we track our history backwards we can see a steady reduction in the death by violence
So we can hit this from three separate directions
(1) Today's Hunter Gatherers
(2) Skeletal remains showing violent death compared to not
(3) A visible downwards trend in violent death throughout history
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteIn sports, MVP means Most Valuable Player.
In biology MVP means Minimum Viable Population
In human prehistory, reaching MVP is far from guaranteed, and the same is true for fissioning among modern horticultural and pastoral societies. This has been observed for decades.
When I was a wee undergrad, one of my best history professor made an off-hand remark that actually turned out to be much more important than she even understood. In years and years of teaching about "great men" - kings, priests, and generals - she said, "You know, the kings, priests and politicians are usually at least 20 years behind the people." That told me that we were studying the wrong people.
It's very easy to focus on dramatic events, like wars. But all the social sciences have shown that most of what impels life is not these big, dramatic events and the "big men" who cause them. It's mostly the day-to-day ways of living that make things happen. This is especially so when you look at events over very long periods of time, when the Big Men are all forgotten, it's things like the birth and death rates, average age of marriage, and nutritional status, that makes the difference.
Paul SB
Minimum Viable Population
ReplyDeleteWe have all sorts of hand waving and calculations - AND some actual evidence!
The first settlers in NZ were between 70 and 100 Polynesian castaways - by the time the Europeans arrived there were over 100,000 Māori -
So, we know the MVP is actually quite small
Sorry Paul, but there are a dozen reasons why I do not swallow that suddenly 90% of males went incel across Eurasia and Africa and went off into the wilderness leaving their sisters behind. OMG what a stunning notion. Without a single explanatory factor. Whereas ACTUAL observations of similar level societies show what blatantly happened when small village agriculture took hold - including pottery containing beer remnants -- and the bottleneck suddenly ended when a larger set of multi-village polities could enforce law and reduce the violence.
ReplyDeleteYour cited references in one case = utter utter drivel and the other does NOT say what you claim that it says.
Duncan,
ReplyDelete1300 AD to around 1700 AD, about 400 years, and a culture that is known for being especially war-like, yet the population exploded from around 100 individuals to 100,000 in just a few centuries. And you are assuming that they would naturally form harems.
Fissioning events can often be as few as three or four males, to as many as a couple hundred. Presumably the smaller groups would have been much more common, and would be most like to go extinct without offspring. Now multiply that by 100,000 years. That's how the continents were settled - small movements over very long periods of time, in fits and starts, steps forward and backward.
Paul SB
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteWhen the hell did I say anything about anybody volunteering to go incel? I never said anything liken that at all. Fissioning is generally a violent process, where people are expelled on threat of death. No Kumbaya around the campfire here. The problem is not what I am saying, it's the assumptions you are making. Like I said, the hippie years are long over.
And you still haven't even opened the book. Almost every day I hear science deniers claim that all scientists do is make up stories, cherry pick evidence, and ignore anything that doesn't support their narrative. Sure, some are that bad, but they usually get weeded out by the peer review process. What they are describing is how politicians work, and more often than not, they're projecting.
Are you willing to look at a whole lot of facts that show that your narrative is overly simplistic, or are you going to do exactly what the science deniers say you will do?
Paul SB
Hi Paul SB
ReplyDeleteresend your link to "the book" - please
"...examined signs of violent trauma on the remains of 288 adult individuals from funerary sites across the Atacama Desert coast, dating from 10,000 years ago to 1450 AD. The group also analyzed patterns in weaponry and artistic depictions of combat during this time. They found that rates of violence were surprisingly static over time. However, a notable increase in lethal violence during the Formative Period started around 1000 BC, a trend also found in similar studies of the Andean region. Data from strontium isotopes indicate that this interpersonal violence occurred between local groups, not between local and foreign populations."
ReplyDeletehttps://news.tulane.edu/pr/new-study-reveals-long-history-violence-ancient-hunter-gatherer-societies
Pappenheimer
Hi Pappenheimer -
ReplyDeletethe report says the level of violence was constant - but does not say what the level was!!
However if the level was "constant" with 288 individuals over 10,000 years then the actual level must have been very very high!! or else it would have been lost in the noise
Now this is a study from a very resource-poor region, so violence well might have been endemic due to competition for scarce resources, but are there general studies that show a decline in death by violence the older the remains get?
ReplyDeleteThe tradition of wife-stealing (pre-arranged in modern times, mind you) in Anatolia is very old, and examples like the Mamertines (historical) and the Aeneid (not so historical) do suggest armed bands of young guys going off to mark off territory, kill competitors and get chicks has a strong basis in human culture. Sabine Women and all that. However all these are from a continent that had already been marked off.
Pappenheimer
@Paul SB
ReplyDeleteThe more we understand how our brains work, the more power we have to make better - and generally more ethical - decisions. I think this is a pretty important message to spread around.
Agreed.
With your post, I remembered a study about judges in criminal cases and the exact point of day your sentencing takes place. If in the morning, you can expect leniency, later your chances drop.
The unfortunate thing is that huge numbers of people are motivated by exactly that. Authoritarian leaders can be quite successful preying on people's insecurities, one of which the desire to promotes one's own ego by tearing down someone else's.
Yes, but toxic leaders need susceptible followers as well as a conductive environment to thrive, at least in the toxic triangle model.(I personally think this triangle is a diamond - adding victims which are needed to keep the base of followers energized - or a pentagram - adding outside benefactors of toxic leaders who are not followers, but profit from the system. A certain russian president or spacefaring billionaire comes into my mind. And even Hollywood and the current media corporations.)
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteThe report seems to agree with you on the level of violence - wonder if it's comparable to that in New Guinea among the inland tribes, with Stone Age tech into the 1900's, saturated population for the tech level but nowhere else to go (the jungles on the outer slopes, believe it or not, are a good place for a band of humans to starve to death - Jared Diamond noted that.)
Pappenheimer
Note that that 'Formative Period' the report talks about for the Atacama = development of agriculture and proto-state organization. So these trends, which resulted in fewer deaths at the end of them, sparked a near-holocaust at the beginning.
ReplyDeletePaeppenheimer
Malcolm Nance asks that this post be shared. So be it:
ReplyDeletehttps://malcolmnance.substack.com/p/trumps-ministry-of-revenge-and-retribution
...
The Rittenhouse Doctrine allows anyone who opposes Trump to be designated an evildoer. Hence giving them a religious justification for killing them. This is discussed widely among the Trump supporters. Still, the news media ignores the glaring indicators that mass murder, armed intimidation, and legalized paramilitary seizure action are the fantasies these Trump supporters harbor. A few journalists have sounded the clarion call. Amanda Marcotte from Salon gets it. But the theme that they seriously intend to intimidate, hurt, or kill Americans gets lost in the next news cycle.
But it can get much worse. Trump has already implied he would transform the Department of Justice. He would make the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and National Intelligence community into a Ministry of Revenge and Retribution.
Now that the Supreme Court has indemnified Trump, if he becomes President and so much as whispers that he deputizes any of his followers to assist law enforcement or supplement the National Guard -he cannot be held for any crime that may ensue. It will be an official act of a President, and he has absolute immunity and pardon power. He could legally order his followers to facilitate theft, detention, or even mass murder … just like Hitler’s supreme court.
Be warned.
Electoral-Vote.com Summer Daydream. Somewhat whimsical ideas for Democrats pushing back on the election narrative. Just a few excerpts, but the link is not paywalled.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jul10-2.html
There's a meme floating around right now in which the Democratic Party is invited, in words rather less refined than we prefer to use, to drop the veneer of civility and to start playing for keeps. Put another way, the argument is that faced with the prospect of Donald Trump, it's not just all-hands-on-deck time, it's also time to get Machiavellian.
As a thought exercise—and note, there is little to no evidence that any of these ideas are currently being pursued—we thought we'd put our creative writing hats on and think about what that might look like, if it were to come to pass. Our thinking here is that whether the Democrats stick with Joe Biden, or move on to a different candidate, the party's needs are served by shining a harsh light on Donald Trump. Here are half a dozen ways that might be done:
Double Dare: Of the items on this list, this one is the least original, as it's been discussed a fair bit, both here and elsewhere. But we think there is a pretty good argument for Biden to challenge Trump to take dueling neurological tests. While we recognize the downsides, the fact is that Trump would never agree to the arrangement, which would then change the narrative from "What is Biden hiding?" to "Biden is the one willing to be tested; what is Trump hiding?"
Messaging Bills: In general, we tend to roll our eyes at messaging bills. However, the recent Supreme Court decisions offer some distinct opportunities. For example, how about the Presidents Cannot Commit Murder Act? Either Congressional Republicans can vote against the bill, and can go on the record as being in favor allowing presidents to commit murder, or they can get on board and Biden can have a big signing ceremony in which he makes clear that HE, at least, does not think presidents are above the law. Whatever happens, it will mean a couple of news cycles' worth of coverage of the subject.
Executive Orders: Similarly, Biden could issue a bunch of outlandish executive orders, like one declaring that he is unilaterally adding ten justices to the Supreme Court, or that he's withholding payment of Congressional Republicans' salaries until they agree to pass his preferred budget for FY 2024-25. Then, he could withdraw the XOs the next day, and announce "This was just a demonstration. I never had any intention of abusing my powers in this way, even if the Supreme Court has opened the doors for me to do so. Do you think my opponent feels the same way?"
...
And note again that this is just a thought exercise in how Democrats might be able to change the narrative, particularly if the Party is willing to roll up its sleeves and get a little dirty. We recognize that some of these ideas come with significant risks/downsides. That said, we also recognize that the blue team is a tough place right now, and that it's also fighting with one hand tied behind its back. The Democrats might have no choice but to untie that hand.
Okay, Duncan, here you go:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/Eve-Female-Drove-Million-Evolution-ebook/dp/B0BR51FB12/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qI6wzyy8uYLFx-v2k0_kySdZ4xmkulYev9nCeE_MxVs3hl7sUJPVpJ99qe6wF0nSjc-8bUC-jIaQJBEoAhrjG9S8gZOcOUqGSu-OYicJ9Zys8BjKKrL9PPtzX70cCsrHrkhWmyeo6oSgDcJhaMczA4e8p36SgfeMojtQOwTmBca3gTOk9GzfYMRS9AOE0LgCXSyDPBPzL-suqeBQTUUyog.Dj3S0rumZjxbAFGW-RUkq7aiwgje6qIjYLXwftMI01Q&qid=1720625940&sr=8-1
And how about a couple reviews. Naturally there are those who hate the book, but not, generally, in the scientific community. It offends the politics of people who are committed to hallowed bigotries. In other words, conservatives. I'm just picking reviews from well-known sources.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/10/eve-how-female-body-drove-200-million-years-of-human-evolution-by-cat-bohannon-review
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/cat-bohannon/eve-Bohannon/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/75494215-eve
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26034621-000-eve-review-why-womens-bodies-belong-at-the-heart-of-human-evolution/
Paul SB
Unser Oger,
ReplyDeleteThe judges study has come up in multiple books I have read ion the last several years, both in neuroscience and in behavioral economics. If you find that kind of thing interesting, I can recommend a few really good authors to pursue.
I've never heard of the Toxic Triangle, so thanks for bringing it up. I'll have to look into that one (and staple a note to my forehead so I don't forget...)
As far as susceptible followers goes, given the variable nature of humans generally, there will always be some. In the US, the right wing has been working to cultivate them for many decades, both with intense propaganda and by constantly defunding the public schools and denigrating educated people.
Paul SB
Pappenheimer,
ReplyDeleteYes, the Atacama Desert is the driest place on Earth that is inhabited by humans. I'm not sure how it compares to some of the Antarctic deserts, but it's definitely the kind of place that no one would live in if they had another choice. That's the history of human settlement expansion. People form settlements in the best of places, then when some guy and his buddies get into a fight with the rest of the village, they have to run like hell with only their spears, and never come back. If the conflict involves whole families, then a family or two packs up and leaves, with the mons and kids grabbing whatever they can while the dads put their spears between them and the rest of the village. Once agin, no hippy-dippy singing Kumbaya while they go off on some grand adventure to colonize the world for the sake of all mankind. For social animals, conflict is quite endemic in humans.
Paul SB
@Paul
ReplyDeleteIf you find that kind of thing interesting, I can recommend a few really good authors to pursue.
I would really like to hear your recommendations.
As far as susceptible followers goes, given the variable nature of humans generally, there will always be some.
Yes. There always will be toxic people; my take is that decent people have to salt the earth for them so that they never can take roots and spread.
By the way, Subtertopia might be a good name for Australia
ReplyDeletePappenheimer
@Paul SB: Thanks
ReplyDelete"Which of these -topias would you use to describe this place?"
All, save POSSIBLY one...
Cheers,
Keith
On the lighter side, I'm enjoying Designated Survivor season 2, but it's a very different show from season 1. The first season was all about the conspiracy behind the terrorist activity which caused the protagonist to be the Designated Survivor. Season 2 is more like The West Wing--a wish dream about an honorable president working with a functional government.
ReplyDeleteRe: Designated Survivor
ReplyDelete- filmed in and around Toronto (probably for Kiefer Sutherland)
- Maggie Q
- Virginia Madsen
Really couldn't ask for more.
Stonekettle on Threads:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.threads.net/@stonekettle
Biden can win. Easily.
Or, in his stead, whoever replaces him can win. Hell, a ham sandwich can win.
It's not the candidate. It's you. It's us. It's the goddamn Democratic Party. If we show up, we will win. There are more of us than them. But you have to show up. Even if you don't want to. Even if you have doubts. Even if a celebrity said otherwise.
Here's the ONE hard truth of this: If you don't show up, Trump wins. Then we ALL lose.
It's really just that goddamn simple.
LH I like the 'messaging bills'. But they should have teensy asterisks on the same page when they are issued, leading to a tiny, Emily Litella "Never Mind!" way down at the bottom!
ReplyDeleteWhile the utterly drivel notion that a Y Chromosome Bottleneck might have happened ‘without violence’ is stunningly beyond any conceivable explanation other than PC wish-lobotomization…
ReplyDelete…the notion that female choice might have played a major role is somewhat plausible. Indeed, THE top agenda of a Fifth Feminism ought to be how to empower women and girls to choose well, with scientific/technical skills to parse romantic liars from those males who might make reliable partners. This WOULD result in some degree of sharing such males. But an entirely female-centered and female-controlled polygyny – as appears to have happened among the Cherokee and Iroquois – would be far better than the current version.
Indeed, Female-powered polygyny does offer an extremely unlikely but at least POSSIBLE way the bottleneck could have happened without much male violence. It would require a massively parallel cultural system that pervaded all of Eurasia and Africa at the same time, but then stopped abruptly and left zero traces behind, when it ended. Sorry, the ‘small village agricultural bullies’ theory works much better.
--
I wish Stonekettle would read my proposals. HIS approach is earthy and always right… but incomplete in ways that render him more an entertainer than a leader.
With a time machine, I suspect we'd discover that the bottleneck happened with AND without violence from males.
ReplyDeleteMy deep suspicion is it started without excessive (above the normal) violence due to a drop in life expectancy. Second and third born sons are less likely to have offspring without their fathers alive to make the sons more attractive in terms of resources.
My slightly less deep suspicion (but still strong) is that alcohol in the cities reduced life expectancy along with issues of living in filth. Alcohol provided the needed calories to pull it off, but did nothing to deal with cholera, e-coli being where it shouldn't be, etc. This is the alcohol angle on lowered life expectations and would have affected males and females.
I deeply suspect that alcoholic males DID resort to excess violence. I've seen way too much of that in today's population and we've managed to accrete a partial immunity to the stuff. This is the alcohol angle for lowered life expectancy that would have had a preferential impact on males.
I also suspect that some females got positively selected for their ability to cope with alcoholic males. Again, I've seen this in today's population. Some women have the necessary survival tricks, but I have no idea if those can be traced to any genetic marker. Daughters of mothers who coped with alcoholic husbands would wind up teaching those skills whether they intended it or not... so it could be mostly nurture and little nature.
-----
With a time machine, I think we'd discover All Of The Above is the correct answer for what happened with various particular answers being more applicable in certain places and certain centuries.
-----
The end of the bottleneck is a much more interesting event. I'm tempted to agree that kings with large territories put and end to earlier practices in order to field larger armies, but there is a decent completing explanation.
The end of the bottleneck also happens to correlate with successes related to grain domestication. Early rice cultivation required harvests to occur before the plant was mature. The problem is that maturity led quickly to the seed shells shattering and spreading rice on the ground for the next generation. We had to get the harvest in before that happened and it took a few centuries for a domesticated variant to be found that took a few extra days between plant maturity and shattering.
That all translates as poor nutrition value for early rice harvests and then sudden improvements once the new variant emerged. That would lead to longer lives for father (and mothers) and an end to the bottleneck contribution from missing second and third sons. Of course, it would also lead to more alcohol since mature grains have more sugars to ferment. 8)
Hi Paul SB
ReplyDeleteTHAT book! - I bought it last year and read it early this year - it's an excellent book - but it does not in any way rule out male violence - at most it adds an additional selection mechanism
Actually, I think Paul's references do have a point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't agree with how Paul and some of his sources interpret the outcome of their studies.
In short, we have two competing theories for the Neolithic bottleneck:
1. Mass warfare among patrilineal groups with the winners getting the spoils
2. Patrilineal groups fissioning off and many of these groups dying out
Off the top of my head, I don't think 2 necessarily means less violence.
Consider, you're part of a group of marginalized or impatient young men out to create you're own group where you're the dominant members (shoot, doesn't this sound like people creating startup companies to compete vs. established firms?)
What happens when the fissioned-off group confronts failure?
Either this group will break apart and slink back to their original group and reinsert themselves into an established heirarchy (swallowing a loss of status). OR they will go for broke and try to seize females from established groups if females don't choose to join them.
Once this rogue group starts trying to "raid" existing groups for females....well...now you have violence.
To me, the difference in these scenarios boils down to alternative violent scenarios or piecemeal vs. massed warfare.
In scenario 1, we have patrilineal groups battling with one another until we get large groups holding much larger territories and increasingly larger conflicts.
In scenario 2, we have a series of smaller tribal battles.
So, how does scenario 1 lead to kingdom-sized entities? How do we get to kingdom-sized entites from scenario 2?
I must confess, I---like Dr. Brin---find it difficult to believe these fissioned off groups would passively accept annhilation.
Unless they did something like long-range migration such that the "way back" was cut off, they're giong to try to avert that outcome. Once aware their colony is in trouble, that group will either break apart and try to return to an established social group or they'll launch "do or die" attacks.
I must confess, I haven't read PaulSB's book...which I just purchased. This is just my first impression of the problem, from a guy who was quite interested in the behavioral underpinnings of warfare as a biology grad student (before I converted to the dark side and went to law school).
John,
ReplyDeleteI assume you've read 'Watership Down", or its closely tied relative, the "Aeneid".
Young bunnies and young men off on an adventure, fighting with locals and 'cherchez les femmes'.
Now, we're all assuming that groups of women didn't get tired of arrogant 'big men' in their village and kill them and their cohorts in their sleep. Were there no Amazons?
Pappenheimer
Alfred raises an interesting point. I believe it likely that the bottleneck ended pretty much exactly when kingsoms became large enough to repress murder by minor lords. Kings needed men to survive to fill his army. But another reason could be the transformation of farming from a kind of gardening, that can be handled by woemn, to a major industry in which male muscles make a huge different, even just taming and disciplining domesticated animals, let alone plowing and scything and threshing.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, feminist writers suggest that agriculture robbed women of equality by that very reason, making their nimble eyes and fingers less urgent than the husband's mighty thews.
===
JV>> In short, we have two competing theories for the Neolithic bottleneck:
1. Mass warfare among patrilineal groups with the winners getting the spoils
2. Patrilineal groups fissioning off and many of these groups dying out
Off the top of my head, I don't think 2 necessarily means less violence.
Exactly! " Patrilineal groups fissioning off and many of these groups dying out" is a string of gobbledygook that simply boils down to either driving off or killing the brothers of the women lords glommed for themselves. Jeepers. What blather, worthy of a MAGA.
"Now, we're all assuming that groups of women didn't get tired of arrogant 'big men' in their village and kill them and their cohorts in their sleep. Were there no Amazons?"
exactly the plot of the last 1/3 of The Postman. But in fact, cycles of male on male slaughter were a common feature in Polynesia and the women made do with the facts on the ground.
Well,
ReplyDeleteI see Paul posted an update in which he doesn't preclude violence from "fissioning off."
He's arguing not against "violence" per se but that "large harems" were the driving feature of the Y bottleneck.
However, the paper he cites does argue against large scale fatal violence. Paul seems to suggest that the "violence" in the fissioning off model would end up in more submission than fatal violence.
I propose the following -topia:
ReplyDeletePantopia, The All-Place.
Pantopia is where everything that always happens, always happens. In Pantopia, the weather is chaotic, anything that can go wrong will go wrong, bread falls buttered side down, work expands to fill the time allotted, expenditures rise to meet income, employees in a hierarchy rise to their level of incompetence, there is no free lunch, satisfaction is not guaranteed, bad money drives out good, communication cannot cross a power gap, power corrupts, freedom creates, what is now proven was once only imagined, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
These are, respectively: Lorentz's Forecast, Murphy's Law, Murphy's Second Law, Parkinson's Principle, Parkinson's Law, the Peter Principle, Heinlein's Law, the 19th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition, Gresham's Law, the SNAFU Principle, Acton's Axiom, Miss Liberty's Retort, a Blakean Proverb of Hell, and Clarke's 3rd Law.
Thus Pantopia is highly lawful; in fact it's Lawful Neutral, for Pantopia is a fusion of Utopia and Dystopia, inextricable, interdependent. Its high ideals are firmly grounded upon low hypocrisy. In Pantopia, enlightened self-interest must be enlightened to deserve to exist, but must be self-interested to be able to exist.
Pantopia's political system is the circulation of aristocracies. Its economic system is the exchange of mostly useless items via entirely fictitious money. Its religion is blind faith in blind faith. Its science is mostly fiction.
Pantopia differs from the universe by being a literary/artistic depiction, hence its karma is accelerated for dramatic/comic effect.
Examing Paul's paper, the biggest question I have for the fissioning off model is their presumption that these groups just passively "die out."
ReplyDeleteI think this is a flawed presumption.
I do think it's important that the Y bottleneck happened around the time we shifted from hunting/gathering to agriculture.
Ok, what happens in that transition zone? A hunting gathering tribe instead finds that staying in one place yeilds more wealth.
First, the tribe now requires LESS territory to survive. Instead of following seasonal game and gathered food, supplemented by seeds discarded from campfires creating local crops, you stay in one place. Thus, you're using less land.
If your groups farming skills are up to snuff, they produce more food and more children survive to adulthood. Well, now the tribe has to get bigger because you'll need more cultivated land.
So the children break new ground and the tribe expands. Eventually, this group will expand to fill the entirety of nearby land. This expansion will stop for one of three reasonas:
1. There's no more arible land nearby (at their current farming tech)
2. They run into a competing group
3. Group expands up to the logistical limit of the government method
In scenario 1, you'll see groups "fissioning off" trying to find new territory they can cultivate. Males that don't seek new territory will have to fight existing males.
Again, I'm not really up on how "contiguous" arable farmland would be using ancient farming methods. Just how far would these groups need to wander to find arible land they could cultivate? If that distance were prohibitive...I then could see how such groups could die out absent violence. Basically, they go off to found their new home, fail, then starve without being able to return to the original settlement.
Another factor to consider is government tech. Just how much territory can a tribe control when they don't have a written language? Even if there's a lot of contiguous arable land, you'd end up with multiple entities simply due the logistical limits that a political system can control (scenario 3). In this case, when all the known land is cultivated, the different groups are likely to fight.
When expansion hits an arable land bottleneck, then the competing groups are likely to resort to war (taking my neighbor's stuff). However, the groups aren't likely to lead to bigger entities UNTIL someone invents a new governing system. Say, you get writting language and thus a tribe can communicate (and thus control) larger territories.
What I didn't see in Paul's paper is territorial or governing limits to expansion. It seems like they assume there's infinate territory to cultivate. What happens when we put expansion limits in the model? I suspect we'd find that his paper models PRESUMED violence out of its outcome.
It's like they looked at marginal territorial expansion (to use an economics concept) without considering malthusian limits to their systems.
"Just how much territory can a tribe control when they don't have a written language?"
ReplyDeleteQuite a bit, although records definitely help. The precursors of the Babylonian written language, iirc, were simply tally records - crop yields, taxes, etc. The Incan empire survived quite a while using just quipu strings as memorization aids. Mohenjo-Daro had an estimated population of 40-50000 with no evidence of any writing - no temples or palaces, for that matter.
Regarding limits to expansion, look at the extreme example along the Nile. Agriculture spread along the lush, yearly-watered valley but the land to each side was barren. People who invested in agriculture found themselves in a trap - they couldn't leave their farmland without catastrophic starvation, so any expansion had to be at their neighbor's expense. Defeated villages couldn't pick up and leave, and so became tributaries to victorious neighbors - the nucleus of state formation. At some point there were only two kings left who were not tributary to anyone else. The Delta defeated the Upper Nile, but Egypt was still called the Land of Two Kingdoms. Looks like state development and an increasingly complex system of writing occurred concurrently there.
Pappenheimer
Re: Pantopia proverbs and dead poet callbacks
ReplyDeleteFrom Blake's Tyger, Tyger:
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Similar to Ahab's 'chase and fang' sermon to Starbuck.
This stuff is what ChatGPT cannot do, but FORTH can.
(It can also bang off a decent version of the Hammurabi game in ten minutes).
Just a tidbit - the clay toy carts found in the ruins of Mohenjo-Daro, dating circa 2600 BC, are exactly similar to the bullock-carts in use today. Talk about a mature technology.
ReplyDeletePappenheimer
JV history shows that farming societies were generally violently expansionist into lands of tribal foragers and displaced them genetically.
ReplyDelete"He's arguing not against "violence" per se but that "large harems" were the driving feature of the Y bottleneck."
Jeepers. If nearly all females reproduced and jut 10% of the men did, during th Bottleneck. exactly what is the quibble over 'harems?' For cryin' out loud.
It would be interesting to compare chromosomal bottlenecks between regions.
ReplyDeleteAustralian aboriginals seemed to lived here for 70,000 years plus (not in *complete* isolation, but apart).
Agriculture? Some arguments on what that means, but it's recently been found there was a thriving trade in milling stones up to about 13000 years ago.
Any effects this might have had on Y chromosomes should be distinct from Euro-African experience.
Quite a bit, although records definitely help. The precursors of the Babylonian written language, iirc, were simply tally records - crop yields, taxes, etc. The Incan empire survived quite a while using just quipu strings as memorization aids. Mohenjo-Daro had an estimated population of 40-50000 with no evidence of any writing - no temples or palaces, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteSo nice to talk to people who "know things" off the top of their heads.
I really like your example of the Nile. That's a great model for an arable land limit. Looks like that rather severly constrained environment led to government innovation.
That innovation wasn't necessarily writing. What is the first innovation that enables a tribal society to control more territory? I'd guess monarchy. Is there some kind of intermediate step between tribalism and monarchy?
Maybe a clan system? Associated tribes holding territory with a losely connected clan system as the first step up from a tribal system?
If we look to the history of Rome we get maybe something like this: tribe, clan, monarchy, republic, empire.
Other places went tribe, clan, moarchy, to empire.
Or does the typical territorial progression read something more like this: tribe, clan, city-state, moarchy, empire?
Other random thoughts:
I've long thought that the economic benefits of a democratic system lie in its stability. It identifies then mollifies unhappy people better than anything else. This allows for a more specialized economy without blowing apart.
Basically, a highly specialized economy carries the benefit of more efficieny. However, economic specilization creates a lot of internal conflict in a society. Given that each specialized group has group interests and increase the number of groups, you get more ways that people can conflict with one another.
Intuitively, the "internal tension" will show a geometric increase rather than arithmatic (see prob and stat concepts of combinations and permutations).
Thus, the reason why democracies have been historically beneficial is their ability to create highly specialized economies without blowing apart. Revolutions and civil wars demolish accumulated wealth.
THe interesting question here is: what is driving the global trend back to authoritarianism?
Could it be that information technology (computers/internet/ai) has changed the ability of a central authoritarians to control people?
John,
ReplyDeleteYou're in luck! (?)
This was how non-state societies functioned/raised armies in Bronze/Iron age Europe. It's a 3 part series that goes as in depth as a generalist such as myself could understand. Please note that raising armies is the key function of any society that neighbored on Rome, though much good it did them in the end.
https://acoup.blog/2024/06/07/collections-how-to-raise-a-tribal-army-in-pre-roman-europe-part-i-aristocrats-retainers-and-clients/
Pappenheimer
P.S. Democracy in the formal sense was pretty rare and limited to city-states for the most part - hard to poll a widely scattered population. Informally, an armed population could ignore decrees pretty well - though here, we are talking mostly about free farmers rather than your civitas.
JV history shows that farming societies were generally violently expansionist into lands of tribal foragers and displaced them genetically.
ReplyDeleteLOL...now I feel silly.
I was thinking of a farming culture expanding into a vacuum (which is the same mistake Paul's paper made).
Of course, groups won't all adopt farming at the same time. You'd have farming groups pushing against tribal hunter/gatherers...hell...founding the US was an example in 15th through 19th Centuries.
And yeah, violently expansionist...for a very simple reason. Go from tribal society to agriculture and the land's carrying-capacity zooms. That means the agrarian society can bury the tribal society with numbers.
We do have examples of tribal societies conquering agrarian societies such as Rome vs. the Germanic tribes and the Mongols vs. China. In the Roman case, those tribal societies adopted Roman farming and written languages (aided by the Catholic Church) and they ended up as argarian monarchies.
The Mongols were able to control China for around 100 years before the Chinese booted them back to Mongola. Eventually, the Turkic tribes were buried with numbers.
John,
ReplyDeleteA lot of people have problems with some of the assertions in Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel' but he's right that 10 not-so-well-fed farmers can overrun 1 hunter/gatherer, no matter how crafty and deadly that hunter is.
The 'Volkwanderung' period of chariot-based tribal warriors pushing across Europe should be understood as one group of elites supplanting another over an understratum of peasants. The Germanic and Celtic tribes were already farmers. The Mongols conquered China* in the middle of a vast civil war inside the Empire, iirc. Nobody was watching the Wall.
*though never all of China
Pappenheimer
Okay, I'm back from work, and it looks like this little discussion has outstripped even the standard politics/worrying about Joe Biden's age. That's good, and several people have brought up some very good points. I have to say, though, that the winner is Alfred. Finally somebody is getting my point. Humans are complex creatures, and any time you are talking about humans, especially large groups of humans over long periods of time, you are going to have a whole lot of different things happening. Multicausality is the rule, not the exception. Yes, harems happen, and have happened for a very long time. But if you look at societies that have harems, the actual number of women who are hoarded is generally a very small percentage of the population. Harems are about conspicuous consumption. Pre-industrial warfare kills off more men than women, and by quite a lot. There's also slavery, where in some cases the owners would breed all the women they own to maximize reproduction, but would only use a small number of male slaves for that purpose while working the other male slaves to death - a condition that has a similar result to a harem. So there are multiple phenomena that likely played a role in the Y-chromosome bottleneck. Any time someone tries to explain complex human behavior with simple, monocausal arguments, we need to get out the salt shakers.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear about one thing, though. I NEVER FREAKING SAID THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE, EVER! Anthropology is the study of humans, not of rocks. Denying the existence of violence in humans is about as stupid as denying the existence of teeth in sharks. Once agin, this is not the Sixties, and even in the Sixties while the hippies were shouting Make Love Not War, the anthropologists were studying warfare (and village fissioning), mainly in horticultural societies. Even Marjorie Shostak's misleadingly titled "The Harmless People" discussed violence among hunter/gatherer cultures.
And if you think that the language used in professional papers just doesn't sound violent enough, do keep in mind that in scientific nomenclature the idea is to use terms that have as few connotations as possible. A term like village fissioning may sound pretty neutral, but the process can become quite violent. I ran into a fellow once who was not scientifically trained, but he insisted that we should use the term "wasteful advertising" in place of "conspicuous consumption." I think you can see why "wasteful advertising" doesn't pass muster in science. While advertising is absolutely correct, wasteful is a very emotionally loaded term, and if conspicuous consumption leads to the consumer attracting more business, it isn't really wasteful, is it?
to be con.t
As to small groups fissioning off from villages and simply "passively allowing themselves to go extinct" - this is both nonsensical and completely unsupported by the ethnographic record. Try this: A group of about half a dozen adolescent males decide they don't like the village headman, so they try to violently depose (kill) him. If they fail, their only option is to run like hell with the headman's best warriors on their heels. This little group escapes into the forest, or the desert or wherever, and set up camp far enough away from their natal village that they aren't going to run into any hunting/foraging parties. Since these guys had to run for their lives, and were most likely bachelors to begin with, they aren't likely to have any mates. They may raid some other, nearby village in an attempt to kidnap some, or try to snag small groups of women who are outside the village on chores (it's very common in horticultural societies for women to do much of the heavy agricultural labor - that changes when you have larger-scale plow agriculture). If they succeed, their new village may survive into multiple generations. Or the warriors from the village they kidnapped women from will hunt them down and kill them.
ReplyDeleteAnother scenario would go more like this: you have a village of 300-400 people, in which a small group of families feel like they are getting the short end of the redistributive stick, lodge protests, get into a few fights, and eventually choose to pack up and leave. Here you have whole families going together far away from their natal village to build their own shabono. These cases will often grow and survive for a few generations before they, too fission.
Yes, this can only take place when there is little or no geographic circumscription. This is how human populations expanded first throughout Africa, then Eurasia, Australasia, and eventually the Americas. The process still happens today, mainly in rainforest communities where there is still some amount of unclaimed land. You will most likely see this where many of the human neighbors have taken up pastoralism, so they aren't much interested in exploiting the rainforest resources. We also see this archaeologically after a population bottleneck, like after a civilization collapses.
For some reason this whole thing is making me think of an old Carol Burnett skit. The humor is in the ridiculousness.
Non-Violent Theatre Presents: The Plot to Hurt Hitler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox89XbepCIY
Paul SB
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteSince you have read Bohannon, you probably have an idea of what I'm getting at in terms of human biology. Humans don't have vaginal flaps like ducks. But the book is so detailed that I wouldn't want to try to summarize her argument. At times I have the short-term memory of a goldfish because of my condition, so I know I would forget important things. Since Dr. Brin actually has a copy of the book, he can read it himself. It's a whole lot more to the point than either of the articles I linked to earlier, and as frog-pile more detailed and up to date.
And no, Bohannon never said that humans aren't violent, either. If you have time, you might go back and skim through Chapter 9. It's not the only relevant chapter, but it makes the point about human biology pretty forcefully and effectively.
Paul SB
John,
ReplyDeleteThere is something that comes between tribe and kingdom. Elman Service created the standard taxonomy for human social complexity way back in the '60s. It goes:
Bands - think Ju/hoansi or many Australian peoples
Tribes - I'm sure plenty of Native American tribes will do there, though not all
Chiefdoms - Look at Kamehameha's Hawai'i. A chiefdom is an almost kingdom. The chief can't pass on his role to his son like you get in state-level societies
States - that's us
Like any taxonomy, the longer it's been used, the more exceptions people find. As far as I know, no one has come up with a replacement yet, but there has been much discussion.
Paul SB
Tony Fisk,
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to compare chromosomal bottlenecks between regions.
From what I've seen in the literature so far, evidence for the bottleneck is strongest around the Levant and south and east Asia. Large civilization centers. It shows up in Europe eventually, but a little late.
The problem with the data, though, is that also happens to be where most people are. Strong evidence for those places correlates with ANY evidence being available.
You can see the problem if you try to hunt for evidence in the Americas… where the human population suffered a MASSIVE die-off after the Spanish arrived. Not only did the evidence suddenly become scarce long before we could sequence their genes, the survivors were weakened so badly that their women could be taken at gunpoint. Good luck getting a good, clean Y chromosome signal in the data when European males showed up. Your best bet is with populations that survived (not the plague) by being far from the original Spanish occupation and then somehow managed not to be wiped out or diluted when the American colonials swept westward. Mitochondrial evidence should still be available, but that won't say much about a Y-chromosome bottleneck.
All sorts of things continued to kill native American groups long after the initial plague. Living anywhere near a Spanish Mission wasn't exactly safe if you wanted to avoid starvation. Living anywhere near northern Europeans with distillery knowledge wasn't safe if you wanted to avoid alcohol poisoning. Living on fertile land became downright dangerous as the old English colonies filled up. Living on the prairie eventually became dangerous when the giant bison herds were driven almost to extinction.
Now… try this same exercise with your own natives. Grim.
With a bit of squinting at what data we do have, though, the picture is pretty straight forward.
The ice melted forcing our HG nomadic ancestors to make hard choices. Move with the climate zones or find new food sources. Mostly likely… every kind of solution got tried and the survivors with live children in today's population found ways to muddle through. Those who took an agricultural path had to deal with piss-poor nutritional value of their early crops and the fact that they got trapped into living in their own filth. Those who moved did better, but their numbers failed to grow to match their farming cousins and that eventually cost them everything when the fences went up. Eventually domestication of plants and animals improved the food supply and agriculture became the post-glaciation path to enormous numbers of humans, but we learned it slowly and passed through countless traumas.
Wolflings indeed.
———
PSB,
The only change I'd make to the standard taxonomy is to split 'state' into a couple of variations. There is a difference between early kingdoms and post-Westphalian states. At some point the state got so large that it became something like an actual organism with preferences and needs somewhat independent of those who rule it. Earlier kingdoms are much more about the will of the king.
I say 'Westphalian' only because of the treaty signed there in 1648 that ended the 30-year war in Europe. That's about when Europe began to recognize the distinction. As usual, though, the Chinese were WAY ahead of them having made the distinction long ago.
As to small groups fissioning off from villages and simply "passively allowing themselves to go extinct" - this is both nonsensical and completely unsupported by the ethnographic record.
ReplyDeletePaul,
I suppose this is the danger of non-specialists reading specialist papers. There's a lot of subtext the non-specialist fails to get. Reading the "fissioning off" paper sounds exactly like these groups passively allow themselves to go extinct.
In our defense, that paper does talk about non-violent mechanisms producing the Y bottleneck but are you now saying that means "war type conflict" and isn't excluding smaller scale violence that you'd get with, for example, the bachelor band?
I suppose a disfavored yet self-sustaining group splitting off would have much more sustainability. They'd have a group identity if they were somehow an underclass withing that 300-400 village.
Pappenheimer posted that interesting link about how european tribes recruited armies to fight the Romans. It did help illuminate how agrarian chiefdoms worked.
Hi Paul SB
ReplyDeleteJust re-read Chapter 9
The point that you are missing is that Chapter 9 is all about the situation a long long time ago - 3 million years ago - not the situation 30,000 years ago - The humans 30,000 years ago were the same as today - with the same constraints and actions as today
And the arguments against long term harems back 3 million years ago do not cut the mustard when used to argue against harems today or 30,000 years ago
Again, the question isn't "Is Biden doing badly?" but "Would any other Democrat do better?" For example, I keep hearing that Trump is increasingly supported by black and Latino voters. Isn't that more about Trump than about Biden? If they like Trump, how will changing the opposing nominee alter that support?
ReplyDeleteAnd then there's the obvious...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jul11-1.html
One thing working in Biden's favor (but which nobody will say out loud) is that many Democrats believe if he is replaced by Kamala Harris, the ticket will lose droves of older working-class white men who have no interest whatsoever in a Black woman as president. But if he is replaced by someone other than Harris, Black women will be furious. There is no Plan B. "Someone Else" was born in Toronto 33 years ago and is not eligible.
Robert Reich's observation is that the people demanding Biden to step down are the big-money donors to the Democratic party.
ReplyDeleteWhy do they think a replacement would be better for their interests?
“You may not like Trump,” Mr. Urban said. “You may think he’s mean-spirited, you might not like his demeanor. You may think he’s crude, he’s rude, he’s brash. But you still think he can run the United States. Whereas with Biden, he’s not running anything.”
ReplyDeleteI wanted to comment on this earlier, but that pesky lack of electricity.........
What absolutely infuriates me about the press is the lack of adequate pushback against nonsense like "But you still think he can run the United States." That is easily refuted by just how badly the Trump Administration botched the Covid response:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-covid-response-worse-than-we-remember
https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-covid-response-revisited
As the articles say, the botched pandemic response alone is enough to disqualify him. But there's so much more. The press is truly failing us. Will they be happy with being restricted to state approved puff pieces?
Another bit of nonsense that needs vigorous rebuttal is this nonsense about "you're just upset about mean tweets". I wish the press would answer thus. Yes Trump is an asshole, but the flaws go deeper than that. He is selfish, greedy, dishonest, and thinks the rules shouldn't apply to him. That's a recipe for historical levels of corruption. Then there's the matter of him being vain, hiring yes-man, and demanding constant ego-stroking. That's a recipe for bad actors pushing bad policies. Then there's his malice and desire for revenge. Who's going to check his worst impulses? I don't expect a President to be a saint or a philosopher king, but I challenge these mouthpieces to name even one redeeming personal characteristic about Trump. Character does indeed matter, more than ever in this case.
Also as bad as Trump's personality flaws are, GOP policy is even worse for the vast majority of Americans. They backpedaling on Project 2025 now, but they WILL do all the bad things on the list if given a chance.
Also every person who touts the posting of the 10 Commandments in schools needs to be absolutely hounded with the question- will that include an annotation of how many times Trump broke each one?
What we do is project our own logic on such people who might not even claim to be logical. Many go by ‘patrimonial’ heuristics, and think intellectuals are “tricksters.”
DeleteSo asking how many Commandments has Trump broken is useless, yet saying to an Alabama judge that you don’t respect the Commandments being posted in a public location—if the judge himself won’t even so much as keep the Sabbath holy—does work. Getting into his head with a Vulcan mind-meld.
Only soundbites succeed with them: simpletons need simple explanations.
This link concerns a ferocious attack on Clooney by Trump:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-fires-back-george-131627732.html
Clooney could announce that Trump returning to the WH would mean Ukraine’s days are numbered; Trump is convinced Ukraine is a ‘foreign entanglement’.
The bottle-neck discussion, in particular Paul SB's comments stressing the complexity of such issues and Alfred's comment on how messy the real world is compared to simplified models, brought to mind a comment I once read succinctly stating this that I liked well enough to save.
ReplyDelete[Question]“How does sexual selection work? Is it through a handicap model, a good genes model, a runaway model, or some other processes?”
[Coyne] Of course there will be a mixture of different mechanisms, so, as in so many evolutionary questions, the answer involves not one definitive answer but a list of frequencies of different processes. But (we) have very little information about how cases of sexual dimorphism come to be.
[Jerry Coyne, excerpt from an answer to a reader question on his website WEIT 04/15/21]
This was a response to a question on sexual selection rather than human behavior, but I think the answer is very widely applicable to any complex phenomenon with lots of variables, i.e. pretty much all real world phenomena.
Alfred,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you make a very good point. Archaeologists have always been okay with naming categories after their first occurrence, or first discovery, as in Neanderthals named for the Neander Valley in Germany where their fossils were first recognized as something distinct from H. sapiens (what we call a "type site"), but cultural anthropologists would prefer a term that is more descriptive of the phenomenon itself. Westphalian might not fly with them.
Paul SB
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteYes, the whole book is about - as the subtitle says - 200 million years of evolution. And that's where you're missing the point. Dr. Brin claims that harem-building is somehow some instinctual drive in (male) humans. It clearly isn't. Everything about human biology proves that. Harem-building is a conscious strategy, and one that doesn't actually fit human biology very well at all. That's the entire point of having big frontal lobes. If your culture is telling you one thing and your limbic system is saying something else, your DLPFC has to resolve the dilemma. Harems are no more part of human nature than celibacy. Both are choices, and both are largely done to create a social niche for individuals to live in. The harem-builder goes the route of conspicuous consumption, jockeying for high status and power by asserting that he already has it. The harem is part of the proof, along with the diamonds, gold, limousines, rented politicians, etc. The celibate goes the route of the religious hierarchy, his celibacy demonstrating his supposed holiness. In reality, though, the harem-builder often fails to impregnate very many in his harem, largely because he is too busy trying to acquire more and more display goods and finagling with politicians. Quite a few of his harem-girls get impregnated by his cadre of loyal beta males. Meanwhile the "celibate" is busy doing little boys behind the rectory, because sexuality IS a massively powerful instinct in humans, and only a tiny percentage of people can go celibate for decades without losing their minds.
One major problem is that most people's conception of what instincts actually are is simplistic, and too often political, rather than scientific. If you delve into how human brains work, it just isn't as simple as the movers and shakers of society want you to think.
Paul SB
Darrell,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that quote. I saw last night that I had missed a post you put up and wanted to respond to it. I wasn't ignoring you, but I was very tired after a day in the climatic consequences of conservative political/economic policies (it was seriously freaking hot!). Right now I have to play Daddy Taxi, so I'll try to remember to get back to you later.
Paul SB
Flypusher:
ReplyDeleteI wanted to comment on this earlier, but that pesky lack of electricity.........
Texas or Ukraine?
The press is truly failing us. Will they be happy with being restricted to state approved puff pieces?
I've got a list of those whose sweet, sweet tears I will drink heartily of between the time that they suffer the consequences of electing Trump and the eventual time that I do.
Members of the press who show their supposed lack of liberal bias by essentially cheerleading for Trump are among them, as are those who only see that Trump is great for clicks.
Along with them are those who are so angry at Biden for Gaza that they're willing to allow someone who says outright that he'll deport them and encourage Netanyahu to "finish the job."
There's more, but I've already jeopardized my liberal and humanitarian credentials.
The penultimate episode of Designated Survivor Season 2, when former-president Moss announces he'll run for re-election to save the country from President Kirkman.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that this aired in 2019, before the 2020 election campaign and certainly before the 2024 campaign, it is eerie to listen to dialogue that is right at home between Trump and Biden today. Just like it was when I saw the 2019 tv sequel to Watchmen--months before COVID--in which Senator Keene Jr. opines, "Masks save lives."
"How much longer can I go on being an atheist?"
ReplyDeleteThis conversation did remind me. Patrilineal groups already were displacing others for many millennia before the Bottleneck around 7000ya. Watch the incredible Euro-archaeology pods of Dan Davis (you’ll be glad you did!) Genetic evidence shows waves of migration that almost obliterated earlier gene pools, sometimes generally but often Y-Chromosome-centered. The former would be whole population migration-substitutions and the latter were conquests. And almost ALL of it happened before the Bottleneck.
The Bottleneck still seems to correlate with one thing. The arrival of large villages without kingdoms. Large enough for an upper caste of armed bullies to no longer fear tribal democracy… but before true kings could enforce law. The near simultaneous END of the Bottleneck is as telling as the beginning.
“ I NEVER FREAKING SAID THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE, EVER! “
And no one ever, ever, ever said you did. But you sure as heck implied and cited folks saying that it was not a major factor.
The scenario of rebel boys running off and then dying off is EXACTLY the likely scenario. Or else the rebels succeed. BOTH happened repeatedly and relentlessly, before witnesses, in Polynesia. And the women mostly made-do with whatever the outcome.
What did NOT happen is that the fleeing packs of boys did NOT (largely) take their SISTERS with them! Which is what those papers you cited seem to imply and in one case clearly stated. Those sisters stayed and successfully reproduced. And yes, at a ratio of 7:1 to the fathers of those children.
“Dr. Brin claims that harem-building is somehow some instinctual drive in (male) humans. It clearly isn't. Everything about human biology proves that. Harem-building is a conscious strategy, and one that doesn't actually fit human biology very well at all. “
Stunning utter drivel. Sorry, Paul. I like you. But what species are you a member of? Heck do you know anything at all about male reproductive strategies across ALL of mammalia?
ReplyDelete“You may not like Trump,” Mr. Urban said. “You may think he’s mean-spirited, you might not like his demeanor. You may think he’s crude, he’s rude, he’s brash. But you still think he can run the United States. Whereas with Biden, he’s not running anything.”
Insanity purified.
IT IS THE APPOINTMENTS who run everything, sometimes presenting recommendations (often more appointments) before the president. Which generally does not have to happen after 8 o’clock.
And Biden’s appointments are generally utterly superb… as opposed to calamitously evil and incompetent monsters appointed by TRUMP. The idea of Trump ‘running’ the US is not better than Biden only doing so 12 hours a day.
As for Ten Commandments… I always counter with the Seven Deadly Sins. TRY reciting the list and not thinking of Trump.
From the season 2 finale of Designated Survivor. Again, relevance is left as an exercise:
ReplyDelete...
Ethan West: "Everybody's working an angle."
President Kirkman: "You're just realizing that now? How long have you been in Washington?"
West: "Long enough to recognize someone who's not working an angle. And that's you. You...you don't scheme. You serve."
Dr Brin:
ReplyDelete"...Whereas with Biden, he’s not running anything.”
Insanity purified.
IT IS THE APPOINTMENTS who run everything
True, but I would push back even further. President Biden is doing a superb job of running the government, from negotiating bipartisan deals with a hostile Congress to flipping ten BILLION dollars worth of oil using the strategic reserve...strategically.
The notion that President Biden isn't up to the job is absurd. Yes, there is a self-reinforcing panic going on because the mob has decided that panic is the serious position to take, just as they once decided that deficit hysteria was.
As for Ten Commandments…
Whenever the religious fanatics try to justify posting the Ten Commandments as the historical foundation of law, they always cite the two prohibiting murder and theft, as if to say, "What could possibly trouble you about government being behind these rules?" They purposely don't mention the purely religious commandments that they want government to give equal weight to.
How about posting the Bill of Rights in schoolrooms instead?
Larry Hart: Texas or Ukraine?
ReplyDeleteTexas. It was an uncomfortable 3 days, but I would tell myself it was still infinitely better than being in Ukraine. Or Gaza.
Texas and its approach to infrastructure is the classic definition of insanity. Nobody in business or government seems to learn a damn thing from increasingly frequent natural disasters. The reaction to winter storm Uri was laughable, but Texas voters decided not to hold Abbot and Co accountable for failures. CenterPoint Energy is on the hot seat right now, but you'd have to give me some very fine odds to induce me to wager that there will be any real accountability:
http://www.offthekuff.com/wp/?p=115223
After Uri, I made an assessment of how prepared I was. I did some home remodeling and purchased a few more power storage and emergency lighting items, all of which made a major difference these past 3 days. I aggressively top off the gas tank, doubly so in summer, so I had the option to get out if the house ultimately got dangerously hot. I do think that all people have a responsibility to know the common hazards of where they live, and to prepare as best as they can, but that ought to include political consequences for office holders who fail their constituents in weather emergencies. As much as I've enjoyed the benefits of the nation's most diverse metro region, I'm starting to think about where else I might retire. Houston is getting hit more often, and a return of "drill baby drill!" isn't going to benefit most of us in the long run.
From this article, the 17:1 breeding ratio (female male) during the Bottleneck wasn't totally uniform: "The Y-chromosome bottleneck varied depending on location. It was more pronounced in Europe, the Near East, and South Asia, and less so in East and Southeast Asia."
ReplyDeleteAha. And no mention of Africa, which HAD been mentioned in other articles. Though was likely behind in development of patrilinear large vuillage agriculture... and then likely only in Bantu speaking areas. And BTW, the later Bantu Migration was another nearly wholescale invasion replacement in vast areas.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-mystery-of-the-neolithic-bottleneck-may-be-over-thanks-to-one-plucky-undergrad/
Flypusher. THanks for the update and glad you are okay. THis is for you:
ReplyDeleteRe RESILIENCE: Never was it more relevant to discuss what we should have done by now... and can still do... to help our nations, civilization and families be more robust against the batterings of fate. http://denninginstitute.com/pjd/PUBS/CACMcols/cacmJun19.pdf
A screed for you guys:
ReplyDelete"For months, Trump has presided over a characteristically theatrical selection process in which he made dramatic pronouncements at rallies in an effort to drive media speculation before narrowing the list to a final three: the North Dakota governor, Doug Burgum, Senator Marco Rubio and Sen JD Vance." Um... care to give me odds on None Of The Above?
Sure, touting those three helped to keep three potential critics groveling, as an example to others. But there are reasons why I'll take odds none of them will be 'it.'
1. Old Two Scoops loves drama and surprises and switcheroos. It emphasizes his total power.
2. Dems will play over and over videos of all three savagely and hypocritically slagging Trump.
3. His biggest chance of winning the general election will come the same way he beat Hillary in 2016 and Bush beat Gore in 2000... defections weakening the Democratic coalition. In those cases it was frippy-preening sanctimony junky leftists, scampering off to now-proved Kremlin agents Nader & Stein. And that'll happen this time too, though perhaps lesser.
THIS time, old Two Scoops hopes for macho Black and Hispanic males drifting into his camp because of his 'macho.' (A trend, alas.) And he needs to do something about how women hate him.
Hence likely a Black or Hispanic or woman... or all three. Nikki Haley comes close in all respects and she's very smooth. But see the factors below.
4. He's caught in a dilemma. The Bush wing of the party - with vast $$$ troves - wants a Bush-like business-first , preserve the tax cuts at all costs backup. In which case... clearly Nikki Haley.
But that would be insane for Trump to do, since it almost guarantees (as I have offered odds (not 1:1!) that he won't make it to inauguration and likely not to the election. Picking Haley is like asking for cyanide in your Big Mac.
But if he chooses 'life insurance'... a certifiable crazy person... as Veep, then he adds to the odds he'll lose at the ballot box.
Of course much will depend on whether (or when) his Putin-ist cabal pulls their Reichstag Fire... (Sound cynical, much?)
From what I recall in the literature, the intensity of the breeding ratio correlated with the shortness of the bottleneck's duration. The ratio wasn't as bad on the eastern side of Asia, but the duration was worse... possibly because they got started with domestication of grains earlier(?) while other got to borrow from them? I don't know. I'd bet the near East got going on that need pretty quick too.
ReplyDelete------
duncan,
The humans 30,000 years ago were the same as today - with the same constraints and actions as today.
I think that is reasonably debatable.
Mostly the same? Sure. Somewhere in there, though, some of us picked up are lactose tolerance, pale skins, and alcohol resistance.
A much bigger thing (I not so humbly think) is that we also became less xenophobic. There is evidence of wide ranging trade between our HG nomadic ancestors. They didn't just sit in their hunting/foraging range and occasionally fission. Some of them traded with their strange, smelly neighbors.
------
John Viril,
Reading the "fissioning off" paper sounds exactly like these groups passively allow themselves to go extinct.
Heh. The physicist in me expects a few stray sparks when I read about fission. High speed neutrons raiding (burn and pillage) the surrounding countryside. Slow speed ones running off with a couple of women to produce alpha particles. 8)
Trump accidentally filed FEC paperwork listing Gen. Flynn as his running mate. "Certifiable crazy person" is a good description of that choice. Also, it would be a fatal choice since Flynn would waste no time in finding some liberal useful idiot to do the job.
ReplyDeleteLarry, the "mob" isn't trying to get rid of JoeBee. Polling shows remarkably little change.
The media, or most precisely, the editors of major media, are trying to replace Joe. Those same editors are chosen by the billionaire owners of the media.
The movement to replace Biden is not organic. It is being pushed, frantically, by the oligarchy. And the lapdogs at the NYT, the Post, etc. are fully engaged with the plan.
It is not blackmail, it is job security on the part of the editors. Any editor that does not bend has already been replaced.
I suspect the GOP will sort it out at the convention.
ReplyDeleteIt will involve who can bring the most money to Two Scoops.
He will see it as treasure being offered for his blessing.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteTHIS time, old Two Scoops hopes for macho Black and Hispanic males drifting into his camp because of his 'macho.' (A trend, alas.) And he needs to do something about how women hate him.
Hence likely a Black or Hispanic or woman... or all three. Nikki Haley comes close in all respects and she's very smooth.
Yes, but...
Can Trump afford to pick up black and Hispanic voters by betraying his white nationalist followers?
Also, Haley is not Hispanic, and is only "black" in the sense that white racists will call her that. She doesn't descend from slaves, or even from locations that American slaves came from. I'm not clear that American blacks or Hispanics identify with her, or consider her one of their own.
Also, if black and Hispanic males are swinging toward Trump because of his in-your-face macho, they won't be happy about a female VP pick. Especially since Trump is as likely to expire in office as Biden is.
matthew:
ReplyDeleteLarry, the "mob" isn't trying to get rid of JoeBee. Polling shows remarkably little change.
The media, or most precisely, the editors of major media, are trying to replace Joe.
That's what I meant. Maybe "the herd" would have been a better term. A few start calling for Biden to resign, and then everyone starts thinking they better be on that bandwagon.
The "mob" or "herd" I alluded to are what Paul Krugman used to deride as "Very Serious People", before he (apparently) has joined them. They all used to assume that deficits were the greatest danger to our future, because that's what "everyone knows". Now it's "Biden can't win against Trump," to which I reply not "Yes he can," but "Show me who can do better."
Those same editors are chosen by the billionaire owners of the media.
The movement to replace Biden is not organic. It is being pushed, frantically, by the oligarchy. And the lapdogs at the NYT, the Post, etc. are fully engaged with the plan.
In some cases, yes, it is driven by the media's corporate interests. It's not just the oligarchs. Trump's chaos is good for ratings and clicks--right up until he hangs the press. But regarding the New York Times in particular, it seems to be personal.
Barack Obama was not descended from slaves, either.
ReplyDeleteYou misjudge MAGAs, LH. They preen and proudly declare "I'n NOT racist! There are good ones I like!"
Likewise black and hispanic males oft preen about admiring some women figures.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama was not descended from slaves, either.
And Republicans hated him, and still do. I'm not sure how that makes your point.
You misjudge MAGAs, LH. They preen and proudly declare "I'n NOT racist! There are good ones I like!"
Trump's whole brand is catering to male white nationalists who want to control "their" women. I just don't see him thinking a black female running mate would be a net positive.
Likewise black and hispanic males oft preen about admiring some women figures.
But an an authority figure? Then why wouldn't they be behind Kamala Harris?
Dr. Brin, thank you for the article. I've had that discussion about solar panels with friends and family; I would give up the opportunity to sell back excess power to the grid in a nanosecond for the assurance of having even only 3 live outlets in a power outage. Also with the 9/11 example, another commendable example of fast thinking was the person who ordered all the remaining planes in flight to immediately land once it was obvious what the terrorists were doing.
ReplyDeleteLarry, the "mob" isn't trying to get rid of JoeBee. Polling shows remarkably little change.
The media, or most precisely, the editors of major media, are trying to replace Joe.
Yeah, pundits gonna pundit. I've decided to start tuning some of those people out, for the sake of my mental health. Much better to get Jim StoneKettle Wright's take. Or this guy, who has a great point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiyQeBO5SqM
Biden's physical/cognitive fitness is a valid concern, but then so is Trump's, plus Trump is a vindictive, malicious bastard while Joe is decent at his core. Joe has competent people around him, whereas Donny has yes-men, grifters, and the lowest sort of opportunistic ass-kissing toadies. But as Beau states, most of us have picked our sides based on what issues we value most. I don't want a king, I don't want a war on science, and I don't want to see things get worse for various minority groups. Therefore my choice is set in stone.
The Post in particular disappoints me, as I've had an online subscription for years. This is probably my last year. Pity, as it was once so much better, and I also obtained some excellent recipes. I completely stopped reading/watching anything from CNN after they decided to go FauxNews-lite.
Sorry LH but you are deeply, deeply mistaken about your enemy: "Trump's whole brand is catering to male white nationalists who want to control "their" women. I just don't see him thinking a black female running mate would be a net positive."
ReplyDeleteThings are more complicated. They deeply love Clarence Thomas and other 'good ones' and likewise would support MTG.
Flypusher:
ReplyDeleteI've decided to start tuning some of those people out, for the sake of my mental health. Much better to get Jim StoneKettle Wright's take.
Stephanie Miller and Hal Sparks are great balm for the soul on WCPT radio in Chicago.
Hal has a show every Saturday at 9-11am Pacific Time which is livestreamed here. He also does almost-daily internet-only shows:
https://www.youtube.com/@Infotainmentwars/streams
I'm not sure how to find Stephanie without a paywall except catching her live (6-9am Pacific Time weekdays) here on Free Speech TV
https://freespeech.org/watch-live/
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteThey deeply love Clarence Thomas and other 'good ones' and likewise would support MTG.
There are some black or female VPs I could imagine Trump considering an asset. Clarence Thomas and MTG are both full MAGA pit-bulls, so yes, they're acceptable as long as they know their place. Tim Scott may fit the mold, as would Herman Cain if he were still alive. I don't see Nikki Haley as being MAGA enough or infuriating enough (to us) as to overcome her femaleness.
Even so, we're talking about a black woman being a net asset to Trump. Getting him more votes from blacks, Hispanics, or women than she loses to racism. Notwithstanding your point, there are going to be some MAGAs who will consider it weak if not "woke" for Trump to choose a black OR female successor. And on the other side, I'm not convinced that blacks and Hispanics--especially if Trump's appeal is his toxic machoism--feel enough kinship with a light-skinned daughter of Indian parents to vote Republican.
It's not that you don't have reasons for your observation. I just think it's not going to happen. I'm as certain that Trump's VP choice will not be Haley as I am that he will survive until election day. We'll see who gets to say, "I told you so," in the near future, and quite soon for the former.
LH I said I'll 'take odds." That means I deem it plausible and will bet with folks who would give me 4:1.
ReplyDeleteNorms, logic, and careful analysis went out the window long ago. Don't count Mike Pence out. Sort of like going back to where he once fought a starship before. Tacitus was right, some of us do indeed see everything through a TOS lens :)
ReplyDeleteThe NYT appears to have made its pitch
ReplyDeleteIt's always a matter of voting for the least bad (which is occasionally not actually bad). If I had one, my vote would be set on the well-travelled ham sandwich, or a head of lettuce (to use a recent UK analogy) before Trump. Fortunately, you do have better option, even if some don't like it.
"(Project) twenty twenty five, and Biden's still alive." is a rallying cry I will copyleft.
Paul
ReplyDeleteWondering if you've ever read PJ Farmer's Riverworld series. From the POV of an anthropologist would you be annoyed or enthralled?
Tony Fisk:
ReplyDeleteIt's always a matter of voting for the least bad (which is occasionally not actually bad).
For most of my voting-age life, I voted against someone for president rather than for someone. One exception was Barack Obama. I enthusiastically voted for him, both times, even when more Dems were blah about him in 2012.
In 2016, I voted both for Hillary and against Trump. It can be two things. I did think Hillary was the most qualified candidate for the office ever.
In 2020, it was more voting against Trump, but I'm more in favor of President Biden this time around. And against Trump, of course. Goes without saying.
Tony Fisk:
ReplyDeleteThe NYT appears to have made its pitch
So, was all the "Biden needs to drop out" editorials meant to make them look balanced?
No. I think it's the other way 'round. The owners want rumpt tax cuts and the managers don't want to lose their readership, which skews centrist/slightly liberal.
ReplyDeletePappenheimer