Is covid natural or engineered? Plus other covid topics.

This question is a political football, but it shouldn't be since it's a question about fact and any answer will be based on scientific information. 

As a layman, I'm not going to be able to contribute much to resolving this question. I'm not doing any of the first-hand research. I don't know what kind of equipment is involved in such research. I might be able to understand of the evidence and reasoning, but some of it might be outside the scope of my knowledge. 

So if I decide on this question, it will be based on me reading what biology experts have to say, and they don't always agree. 

Some here are three articles about the question of the origin of covid-19. Robert Redfield, former head of the CDC, opined that the virus escaped from the virology lab in Wuhan. However he said it was just his opinion. Their opinions are supposed to be based on scientist fact and extensive knowledge and experience. By not citing his reasons, Redfield reduces his opinion to the worth of a layman's opinion, which is nothing.  That's a big cop-out for a scientist, and it isn't at all clear why he does that. 

This article states that certain aspects of covid show that it wasn't engineered. I don't find it particularly clear or convincing. Something about the backbone and some change to a protein. There was some huge article in Nature or one of the premiere medical journals that was (I infer) categorical about a natural origin for covid. 

Others aren't so sure. Some report that dissent on the origin has been quashed. Wait, that isn't supposed to happen in the sciences, but it probably does. Then there is a piece of cyberpunk happening with the melding of genetics scientists with computer researchers and hackers. 

From what I've gleaned, there are three major theories about the origin of covid:

1. It started with bats in a different province. Spread to one or more humans or an intermediate animal. Got to Wuhan where it could spread much more. It also become more optimized to humans somewhere along the way. 
2. It was a naturally occurring virus and was sampled and set to the Wuhan virology lab, where it possibly changed, and accidentally escaped.
3. It was experimented on in the Wuhan virology lab to improve its capabilities, perhaps as a bioweapon. Probably escaped. 
4. (Nutty) It was made in the US and transferred secretly so that the whole world would blame China. 

The claims it couldn't be engineered are (my attempt at interpretation) that the backbone isn't one a virologist would choose. Nor would they make the changes in the spike protein because virologists are better at copying nature than making successful wild guesses at what might work. 

I'll repeat that I don't know. The natural origin narrative sounds somewhat stronger because of the number of bats available in the wild and all the mutations they could support by passing around viruses. Kind of like what humans are doing now, and we are seeing the variants pop up. 

Image: theparisreview.org

Extras. Biden and the Dems passed a covid relief bill in early March without support of Republicans. Repubs look like shit because of it. Keeping a link to a great article about the effectiveness of masks. I hate those stupid anti-maskers. Just wear it, damn it. It won't hurt you and it seems to help. Turf wars between Inspectors General including a covid IG. People leaving the Mormon church because too many Mormons are acting like angry Trumpers and not listening to the church leadership or medical experts who are urging care and compassion. 

India is having a huge outbreak. This video shows what it's like for someone who runs a traditional Hindu crematorium when covid hits. 

I read this on a private site, so no linking. However there was an explanation for why Michigan had a large surge in March: the return of snowbirds. A lot of Michiganders go south for the winter to places like Florida. There they picked up covid, many were asymptomatic, and they brought it back to Michigan to a less-exposed population. And, presto, a surge. 

Image: clickondetroit.com

Update 5/10/21. Covid is causing significant increases in type 1 diabetes. This isn't a complete surprise because viral infections have long been suspected. But it's been noted among practices and now the information is being tracked. 

More updates, mixed. Timeline of revelations about the Wuhan lab. Important related article. And some fact-checking. More focused on gain-of-function.

Update 6/25/21. A scientist has uncovered hints that several covid-like viruses were circulating in Wuhan and were sampled, and some sequences published and then withdrawn. This might indicate a natural evolution. But there's also a detailed discussion of the evidence of poor lab practices in the past and recently and also involving Wuhan that implicates a lab leak. 

Update 7/18/21. Covid and Politics.....and Facebook. The Biden administrator announced or revealed taht it's telling Facebook when it finds disinformation about covid and the vaccines. Outrage meter spins. I guess the government shouldn't be countering disinformation, huh? 

Epidemic progression... past Easter

Hospitals are have now been slammed in several cities: Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, San Jose, Atlanta, and New Orleans. Nine states saw significant increases in deaths just today, which is a sign that the we are riding the death curve up to where it could get steeper due to lack of medical resources. This happened in Italy and Spain, and there's no reason to think it won't happen here. The nine states are: New York, New Jersey, California, Michigan, Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Colorado, and Connecticut.

First-person accounts. In previous posts I linked to accounts from Italy (one, two, three) and New Orleans. This time I have accounts from Washington (older account but good details) and New York City (one, two). Another account from New Orleans. Video from an pulmonary specialist in New York City with practical tips to avoid infection.

We know from all these accounts that about 10-20% of those infected with the virus need hospitalization, so the hospital can jammed up beyond capacity. The virus might have a death rate of 5-10% of those hospitalized in ideal situations, but the death rate goes up to 8% or more in overloaded hospitals. In Italy, many people just stayed home and died there.

The hospitals in northern Italy got slammed about March 8, and the country instituted a quarantine. Eighteen days later and the death toll is still at a peak. There may be some relief after three weeks, which is the average time between exposure and death.

That means for New York City there probably won't see any relief until April 13... if New Yorkers were as blase about contacts as NY mayor DiBlasio was. (DiBlasio didn't close schools until 3/23.) Probably enough New Yorkers started being careful about contact by 3/14 that there might be a noticeable decline in deaths by April 4. But New York has a huge population that is a large reservoir for infection, so the peak may last many more weeks. The example of Italy is that we don't know how long to expect the peak to last.

All these shutdowns are so annoying--to those who want a strong economy going into the elections this fall. It's terribly inconvenient and unfair to have a pandemic spoiling the economy (and election chances). So some, including Trump, are suggesting that we get back to normal as soon as possible, pandemic be damned! Young people should go back to work and elders stay home (one suggestion). The recovered should go back to work. The exposed should go back to work if they aren't having symptoms. Maybe even the older should go to work and the young stay home.

All these ideas ignore some basic facts that can't be fudged. More exposures means more people getting infected, and passing it on. Most jobs are skilled, and absences mean that the workplace will be disrupted. The idea that people can continue working ignores that many will get sick, so soon the workplaces would be closing anyway due to lack of workers and patrons. It's hard to say how soon this would happen. The infection is more concentrated in cities at this point, but it's also inexorably spreading. So will medium sized cities in Ohio have too many sick in 4 weeks or in 8 weeks? We don't know. It's hard to explain why so many GOPers don't understand this--maybe happy-thinking is the mantra and endemic. One contrarian is Liz Cheney, but she doesn't have much of a voice.

So the upshot is that this pandemic, and the way this virus spreads, was always going to be highly disruptive unless it was contained extremely quickly. In the US, we missed that window, so we are taking the huge economic lumps for that. There is no avoiding it.

Image: omfif.org

Greatest show on earth: Impeachment Circus

Finally, the impeachment has started. No big surprises so far, which means that I've been well informed, the news media has been on top on information, and the politicos have generally stuck to the positions they had already signaled.

'If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts...'

I listened in a bits and pieces of the House managers case, which was laid out over 3 days. They hit the evidence very hard. Lots of video, lots of evidence discussed. I didn't hear any histrionics, which also makes sense because histrionics and hyperbole would damage a case based on fact.

They do have a strong case. The testimony and other evidence all points to Trump putting a hold on aid to Ukraine while trying to extract a favor--the announcement of an investigation into the Biden family's role in Ukraine corruption. This looks like extortion, coercion, election chicanery, strong-arm tactics--otherwise known as abuse of power.

And now, the defense...

I haven't seen any good explanation refuting this interpretation of the evidence. The laughable arguments against the charge of abuse of power have been that it's hearsay (not once the phone call was released), that the president has the right to make these choices, that blocking the president's choices is treason or usurpation, that it's not extortion or coercion because the Ukrainian president denies feeling pressured, and that the money was released, so no harm and no foul, everything is OK.

The best defense was attempted by Mick Mulvaney, who said there were three conditions for releasing the aid: progress on corruption, Ukraine persuading other countries to provide aid, and cooperation with the Justice Department investigation of 2016 election interference. 

If any of the that had indeed been the reason aid was withheld, then the abuse of power charge would have been severely weakened. However, the 'three conditions' seem to have been a whitewash. There isn't evidence that they were ever the conditions. Oh dear. Someone should have been on the ball with the cover story back during the summer. But no one was, perhaps because Trump is not only corrupt but he is also inept, as are his toadies.

'If you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table'

So what will Trump's team offer as a defense? So far it seems like a mishmash. The largest point seems to be that the charges are false and are a fabrication by angry officials who want to oust the president. This isn't so much an argument about specific pieces of evidence as a denunciation of everything to do with the impeachment.

However, not being able to refute the evidence is a problem. One can claim that the charges are totally bogus, but usually you'd get into the particulars. "No, Your Honor, I couldn't have robbed the bank because I was at work that entire morning as twenty co-workers will testify."

So Trump supporters are trying to say the charges are bogus without being able to refute any of the details. They can make the point that many Dems have been trying to stymie Trump since he was elected. That is true. But it doesn't quash all those particulars related to Ukraine--the aid, the phone calls, the directions to work with Giuliani, etc.

Unfortunately, virtually no one from the GOP camp has been honest about this situation with the evidence. Justin Amash was, but that was months ago, and Amash was a renegade who was easily dismissed. No one of stature in the GOP has stood up and pointed out the evidence and said that it's a pretty huge, heaping pile of evidence that doesn't seem to be crumbling.

So the Republicans have ended up looking like yes men. Yet, when Schiff pointed this out, and referred to a newstory that the GOP senators were threatened (head on a pike if they didn't toe the line), those GOP senators were outraged!!! Sorry, folks, but that's what it looks like. You guys are too cowed to look at the evidence and call it as it plainly looks.

The lonely honest defense

Only National Review has made a reasonable argument: that Trump's actions were wrong, but the electorate can and will have the final say in just a few months, so let them do that. No one else seems to be interested in doing so. I guess the Republicans as a whole will stick with ignoring the evidence and mouthing talking points. They have to hope that most people are such partisans that no one will notice. There's an excellent chance of that. So, really, do the arguments even matter?

Should I have sympathy for the GOP senators? They have to listen to the evidence and then pretend it doesn't add up to anything. They're reenacting a version of the Emperor's New Clothes, which is a painful situation. However, if they are just going to be mice, maybe they don't deserve the respect generally given to senators.

Image: cartoonistgroup.com

Extras. Direct quotes from a large cross-section of senators. Now that the defense presentation is done, here is a summary along with notes as largely shooting huge holes in it. Lots of embarrassed reactions from senators here. Humor here, as senators claim to be blindsided. More humor, as lawyers like Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz reverse their earlier positions. Pay no attention to all that Giuliani talk--a version of there's nothing to see, so don't even look? The same with Bolton--no need for him to testify. On the other hand, Biden really is an issue.

Update 12/31/20. News that Giuliani lobbied for a Ukrainian connection to the same Zelensky adviser who was receiving directions on how to placate Trump. There had been a question on who was paying for Giuliani's travel during the question portion of the impeachment trial. Now we have a clue.

Update Februaryish. This whole Ukraine scandal has been a parade of lies and lame excuses from the Trump administration and their GOP/conservative supporters. Somehow these public servants want to know more about the whistleblower than the actions he blew the whistle on. Hell, there's hardly any interest in that. A few GOP senators are agreeing that Trump did something wrong. How the GOP smears: Stories about the whistleblower.

Impeachment follies - the slow beginning

I expect bigger impeachment fireworks in the future, but the recent developments deserve note. The House voted largely on party lines to impeach Trump for extorting Ukraine and contempt of Congress for mostly stonewalling their investigation.

I support the investigation, and I support the impeachment (see revised opinion here). I personally wouldn't vote to remove him from office for these infractions unless there was a repeat of the kind of behavior as happened to Ukraine. Make no mistake, though. This was a serious infraction, and deserves a full investigation and a huge load of criticism. It's much worse than Bill Clinton lying during a deposition about his sexual activities.

Even though the House voted to impeach, Nancy Pelosi isn't moving ahead to the Senate trial because it looks like Mitch McConnell intends to run a joke of a trial there. It's not clear that the House advocates (officially called 'managers') will be allowed to call witnesses to testify at the Senate. It would be like a trial with no rights allowed for the prosecutor to make a case. So basically a sham, and not in accordance with the historical practice.

Pelosi is not wrong to hold up the impeachment and shine a light on this attempt to suborn the process. In the meantime, the GOP is running its propaganda machine and trying as hard as possible to avoid the process. They don't seem to care what precedents they break, but McConnell was like that when it came time to replace a dead Supreme Court justice with a live one. Precedents only matter when they help you, not when they might prevent you from maximizing your party's power.

Letter from Trump to Pelosi

The letter was authored by Trump and some advisers who provided phrases that sounded more intelligent than 'you stink.' It's not at all a legal opinion, but a kitchen sink overflowing with lame talking points and complaints. Trump is obviously not planning to fight the impeachment as a legal question, but more like a political campaign--where you praise yourself and blast your opponent and the niceties of accuracy are shoved aside. It's also clear that Mitch McConnell isn't going to enforce decorum or a fair process.

The letter was grist for a critique on logic--one of my favorite topics. I could go on much longer than the critique does, but it's still a rare, and therefore valuable instance of actually examining some arguments that are made.

Backlash against a Christian ethical viewpoint

The editor of a moderately popular Christian newsletter bit the bullet and argued that Trump is unfit for office and should be removed. Cue an amazing amount of outrage, as though the editor hadn't pointed out the obvious. In fact, the editorial didn't criticize Trump until its fifth paragraph--that's how much of a preamble they felt they needed before biting that bullet and saying clearly that Trump abused his power and therefore is unfit.

Most of the counterarguments don't dispute the facts, but make the expedient argument that Christianity will suffer without all the support Trump has given. Trump-- a bad man, maybe, but OUR bad man.

I'm under the impression that Christian ethics are supposed to be more ethical than that. Christianity Today was trying to make the argument that character matters. Most of Trump's Christian supporters have to deny that or delude themselves and adopt an ends-justify-the-means mindset. Not what Jesus preached.

The follow-up to the editorial moderated quite a bit. There was some aspects about the Trump administration to be celebrated, but also much that was unethical, like his race-baiting, cruelty to immigrants, and greed. The follow-up doesn't mention that Trump is unfit by his actions and his character, but seems to focus more on Trump being bad PR for American evangelicals. Ummm, is this expedience creeping in? I had much more respect when Christianity Today was willing to give witness to the specific acts were wrong, and that Trump was "morally unable to lead." Maybe it's hard to be as blunt when your fellow Christians have leveled a barrage of stones at your head.

Image: pinterest.com

Update 1/9/20. There have been a series of developments all concerning how the impeachment trial in the Senate will be run. McConnell indicated that he wasn't going to do a standard trial with witnesses being called and testifying about the charges. There were suggestions that McConnell wouldn't allow any witnesses called, and maybe have speeches by senators followed by a pre-ordained acquittal or dismissal of charges. Pelosi and those in the House want much more of a show than that, so Pelosi still hasn't handed the impeachment charges to the Senate.

Pelosi may have to fold eventually. She doesn't seem to have the power or the public support to force the Senate GOP to call witnesses. The country seems complacent about it, and it's hard to blame them. It is a foregone conclusion that Trump will be acquitted. So what is the point now? It seems to be to show how partisan the Senate GOP is. No surprise there. They've been hyper-partisan for over two decades, and it's only gotten worse. So a sham impeachment trial - NO SURPRISE THERE!!!! Remember, these are the folks who wouldn't replace a dead Supreme Court justice with a live one, so they'll certainly have a sham impeachment trial.

The defense of the president has varied:

1. He didn't do any real harm because the money was released.
2. It's not a crime on the lawbooks, folks! 
3. Biden definitely needs to be investigated.
4. No quid pro quo! (maybe that's a variant of not a crime, folks!).
5. The Dems never quit with the complaints and plans to impeach Trump. 
6. The economy is great, so leave the prez alone!
7. It's just bunch of State Department whiners who are angry that Trump bypassed them.
8. No, there wasn't any personal advantage to Trump. None at all.

I imagine all of these defenses, and maybe a few others, will be floated at the trial. McConnell is hinting that it will happen soon even if he has to break a couple more precedents. Well, I shouldn't be surprised by that. 

Extras. The Defense Department tried to figure out what to do as the funds were on hold and it wasn't clear why. Disgraced Rod Blagojevich claims (from prison) that the current Dems are such scum that they'd even impeach Lincoln. What is sickening kiss-up, but then he is in prison.

Update 1/15/20. The House released new information. Not surprisingly, it centers on human hand grenade Giuliani. Yes, he seems even scummier, but not by much.

Update 1/19/20. More new information. Giuliani associate Parnas was also working closely with an aide to Nunes (that incredibly honest fellow). The impeachment articles were passed to the Senate on 1/16/20. The trial will start on 1/21/20. Trump added four more attorneys to his team including Ken Starr (probably still an attack dog) and Alan Dershowitz who has just become legal and publicity whore of epic proportions. Dershowitz won't vote for him, but will go on TV for him and spin incredible legal fairytales. I'll have to watch for the fireworks. Here is a surprisingly sober and not at all boring analysis of Trump's strategy. Basically he'll energize his base, and it's working.

Analysis by the Wall Street Journal, by way of Politico: "The stark tribalism [in the GOP] has led those who want long-term futures in the party to get in line behind the president and those who have had enough to retire quietly without risking a noisy and disruptive exit. Twenty-six House Republicans have announced they are leaving the House since the 2018 midterm elections, when the party’s moderate wing took major casualties as Democrats won the majority. Not one of those retirees, including several moderates, voted against the party line on impeachment."

Update 1/20/20. Another article about Parnas trying to set up meetings and influence. This guy is quite the headache for Trump and Giuliani because their deniability is nil. He definitely seems to have been working with Giuliani in Ukraine. 

November - December links

I wrote more posts in November than in any other month in the past year. The collection of links aside from the Ukraine scandal are paltry. Not much new in America.

Surprising Arizona politics. A tough, nasty, bigoted sheriff prompted many Latinos to run for elected office. This is another sign of the self-correction in the American political system. (But is it enough?)

Illegal gun sales. By law enforcement officials. Did they trust that the guns wouldn't be used on fellow police?

2nd amendment rationale. A viewpoint on the 2nd amendment, including its racial aspects. It's inspired me to look into the background of the 2nd amendment and try to sort out the contradictory arguments.

The GOP southern strategy. An article from back in 1970. It's the typical NYT style with a lot of side trips, but very interesting, focusing on the strategist who foresaw the realignment of voters.

How Kamala Harris failed. She lacked a clear strategy beyond being intelligent, black, and female.

Centrism is deluded. This article makes a strong case that there's no chance of working with Republicans. However, that's not the only reason to support someone like Biden or Buttigieg. Another reason is that those further left may not be able to win, not worth taking the chance, or just too socialist.

Flynn facing sentence. Mike Flynn tried to delay his sentence by promising he'd cooperate more with the Russian investigation. Then he fired his lawyers, brought in a new team to push the deep-state conspiracy narrative, and attacked the people he's supposed to cooperate with. The judge is not amused. A shorter version of the newstory and a longer version.

Media bias measured. Well, I'm not sure how the determination is made, but this site lists how biased a media outlet is, and how factual the reporting is. Plus it gives examples when there are issues with factual reporting.

Trump talking points. Someone allied with Trump launched a special site just for those holidays spent with your stupid liberal family members. It tells zipperheads how to argue, just in case they haven't watched enough Hannity lately. Are these good arguments? OF COURSE NOT. When do Trump supporters care about the quality of their arguments? Blather and blind, willful assertion are fine by them.

Image: snowflakevictory.com

September links

Good news about elections. Elections were administered more fairly in 2016 compared to 2012. The metrics included wait times, which is a good check on whether there is enough equipment in a given area.

Superdelegates and Dems. The DNC has reformed how superdelegates will work. It's a technical change, but the last paragraph in the report may be the most telling. Worth a read, truly

Supreme Court nominee on immorality. Brett Kanavaugh, nominee for the Supreme Court, had a blistering view of Bill Clinton, his immoral behavior, and his lying. I have to wonder how Kanavuagh will rule on such issues when he's on the Supreme Court. I'll be watching.

Responsibility for preventing rape. A professor writes an analysis of some arguments about rape prevention. He tries to claim that he's following logic, but appears to stack the deck in his framing of the two sides of the issue. I give him a D on logic.

Who's responsible for Trump? Fascinating discussion on whether having Obama as president caused the election of Donald Trump. Obama says no, but the article comes down on the 'yes' side, but not in a way that is harsh on Obama. Instead, it is harsh on racial resentment present among white Americans.

How Americans process news. A nice slice of life--on a fairly busy newsday, ask Americans what's happening. Write down the answers. Find out some interesting facets about Americans.

Alex Jones update. Regular readers (if they exist) know I intensely dislike Alex Jones. Here he is being quite an annoying asshole. Love the title of the post.

Image: fortune.com

No natural law

I never studied  the concept of natural law, and was familiar with it mostly from conservative writings. Natural law justified discrimination against gay sex, and maybe many of the ideas against equal rights for women and against contraception. Ugh.

Recently, I read this fascinating article about natural law, ethics, and evolution. Finally, a clear explanation of the concept of natural law:

Step one: look at what happens ‘always or for the most part’ in nature to determine its laws. That investigation will reveal the natural and proper ‘functions’ of organs and activities: those that Nature, so to speak, ‘intended’. (If Nature is just another name for God, then the talk of ‘intent’ can even be taken literally.) Step two: use the resulting observations to determine what we ought to do – and especially what we ought not to do – according to whether it was found to be ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ in step one.

So natural law told us to look at nature, see what 'normal' was by function, and also identify what varied from 'normal.' Oh dear, it looks bad for gay sex.

However, the article moves along and points out that variation is not only normal in nature, it has also been instrumental in the evolution of all living things. Variation itself is not abnormal, but necessary and (can we say this) good:

If no abnormalities had occurred in the past 4 billion years, you and I would still be bacteria. 

That's pretty convincing, at least to me. I'm not a fan of ethical systems that demonize gay sex. I'm happy to see huge gaping holes shot into natural law. I'm not sure the rest of the article hangs together as well, but I definitely enjoyed the beating it gave to natural law. (Take that, Clarence Thomas!)

Image: heartcom.org

Devastating: Victim statement in the Stanford rape

A fair amount has been written about the convicted rapist in this case, and how his sentence was too short. Not enough has been written about the very powerful victim's statement. Yes, this is only from one side, but she is extremely detailed, compelling, and extremely logical.

The statement starts here after five paragraphs. Here's a powerful excerpt:

"The night after it happened he said he never planned to take me back to his dorm. He said he didn’t know why we were behind a dumpster. He got up to leave because he wasn’t feeling well when he was suddenly chased and attacked...

So one year later, as predicted, a new dialogue emerged. Brock had a strange new story, ... with kissing and dancing and hand holding and lovingly tumbling onto the ground, and most importantly in this new story, there was suddenly consent. One year after the incident, he remembered, oh yeah, by the way she actually said yes, to everything, so.

He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, Can I finger you?..."

The statement is long, but worth reading to the end. As I said, devastating. 

Image: news2.onlinenigeria.com

Extra. More details on sentencing and the perpetrator's withdrawal from Stanford.

Short: Accusation about paid protesters

I don't have much time to write this. However, I want to get it on my blog. I've seen commenters say that the protesters against Trump, including the violent protesters, are paid by the DNC and/or left-wing groups.

To this accusation, I say WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? By that, I mean where is the strong evidence? Most commenters have no evidence. Some say that this is just like Wisconsin, where union protesters were bussed in and paid (I haven't verified it one way or another, but it sounds plausible). Or maybe it's just like all protests--they are all staged and managed!

Here are three articles on the protests in San Jose:

• New York Times - protests were individually and locally organized.
• Washington Times - assumption that the San Jose protests were organized by MoveOn.org with little evidence provided.
• Washington Free Beacon - following the money given to progressive organizations, implying that it buys violence.

So what evidence is there? From what I've seen, some progressive organizations pay organizers (as do conservative political groups).Some are involved in organizing protests. However I found no evidence that these paid organizers were involved in protest against Trump in Chicago or San Jose. 

So, if someone is going to claim violence was paid for, they better bring on the evidence, particularly the money trail. 

Image: blackrepublican.blogspot.com

Debunking idiots who believe conspiracy theories

Sigh. I know I spend too much time on the internet, and sometimes get enraged (or merely involved) with gullible people who have fallen for various conspiracy theories. There are theories about CFR (Council for Foreign Relations), PNAC (Project for the New American Century), 9/11 truthers, and, of course, lizard people.

A crazy commenter, Stonehillady, got me thinking about how the World Trade Center towers fell. In turn, I found a great site that explains it very well, while pointing out the flaws in the half-baked conspiracy theories.

Here's one: how many pounds of thermite would be needed to bring down the Twin Towers? I read it somewhere (can't find it now), and the load would have taken something like nine trucks full of thermite. Then the charges would have had to be placed and wired, and who knows what else. And it was all set up to coincide with terrorists flying planes into the towers. Amazing planning that must have been! Literally incredible and unbelievable.

So, if you don't believe the thermite hypothesis (hint: don't believe it), here is a fairly thorough explanation of why the towers collapsed. I can't give a particularly short version of the explanation, except to say it was a combination of the construction, impact of the plane, fire, and buckling of the supports under those conditions. Read the whole thing if you're interested. I learned a lot.

Image: debunking911.com

Caring to the bitter end

I just realized something that seems obvious in retrospect.

I already knew that I was more tenacious in arguments than many. I also knew that I more interested in using argument and inquiry to undercover truth. Of course, I also knew that most commenters on the internet have neither the vigor nor the fairness to follow through on the paths their arguments take. Yet knowing all this, for the first time I attacked another commenter for pivoting away from an argument, and called him to come back to it. This is what I wrote (minus the fake expletives):

Why won't you stay on the topic, thrash it out completely, and find out if you're right or wrong. It's so maddening to argue with some people. If you really care about the issue, stay to the end and really go into the argument, don't bail out.

This is what I really think. If you care about an issue, you go as deep as you can. You keep arguing, and keep listening to all the counterarguments, until you figure out what is strong and what is weak, what is right and what is wrong. The real answers are worth doing this for. If you don't want to go this far, and don't want to make the commitment to following where the arguments lead, you shouldn't be arguing at all.

If, on the other hand, you really care, then you do follow the argument to the end. And sometimes the end is painful. I find I've been wrong for years, or that the world can't be the way I wish it could be.

I know that some of this sounds like self-congratulations, but I think it's more than that. It's a commitment to rigorous thinking, rigorous inquiry, honesty, and acceptance of the truth that's discovered. That's a big commitment, but I mean every bit of it.

Image:edmontonsun.com

Rubio scores with rhetoric and (gasp) truth

I'm very impressed with part of Rubio's performance in the recent debate. He took down criticism of a local paper, the debate moderators, and Jeb Bush, and he did it very well and cleanly.

This was perhaps the most talked-about moment in the debate. Rubio was able to turn the tables on Jeb Bush after Bush attacked him. It's worth looking at how Rubio did this.(Video here, transcript here.)

The moderator referred to recent criticism that Rubio is skipping a lot votes in the Senate while he's campaigning. Rubio handled this so deftly that it should be a blueprint for others. He said:

"in 2004, John Kerry ran for president missing close to 60 to 70 percent of his votes. I don't recall the Sun -- in fact, the Sun-Sentinel endorsed him. In 2008, Barack Obama missed 60 or 70 percent of his votes, and the same newspaper endorsed him again."

Then Jeb Bush piled on, saying he was criticizing him as a constituent. This is how Rubio answered him:

"...you're modeling your campaign after John McCain... You know how many votes John McCain missed when he was carrying out that furious comeback that you're now modeling after? ...I don't remember you ever complaining about John McCain's vote record. The only reason why you're doing it now is because we're running for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you."

How Rubio turned the tables

First, Rubio didn't deny that he was missing votes, He didn't get defensive about why it was OK for him to be missing votes. Instead, he pointed out the important issues facing the country, implying (correctly) that's where the focus should be, not on a tiny non-issue of a senator missing non-important votes:

"For the first time in 35 years, we have more businesses closing than starting. We have a world that's out of control and has grown dangerous and a president that is weakening our military and making our foreign policy unstable and unreliable in the eyes of our allies."

He also didn't get whiny, with his focus on the unfairness of it all. His focus was on the argument being made, and how weak it was.

Rubio pointed out the same newspaper that complained about him endorsed both Kerry and Obama for president, even though both missed many more votes than Rubio did. The clear implication is that 'missing votes' was a smokescreen, showing the complaint was likely a partisan attack, not a major point of principle. Well done!

When Jeb Bush piled on, Rubio was clearly ready. "Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you" is a very raw truth, and it definitely rings true. Bush is not politically very different from Rubio, so his attacks aren't going to be on major issues, but on minor kinks that he'll need to exaggerate in an attempt to gain an advantage.

Don't sweat the small stuff

The truth is that missing Senate votes isn't generally a huge issue for the few senators who are campaigning. However, it's used as an attack because it shows that the candidate isn't PERFECT. Well, duh, we know that. Candidates get into trouble by pretending they are perfect. Rubio definitely avoided this pitfall. Other candidates would be wise to study and learn that technique.

So what is the blueprint for handling attacks? If it's a nothingburger complaint, as this one was, point out how shallow it is, and how hypocritical your opponent is for making such an attack. Of course, this means that you have to live by that standard. I hope Rubio does, as I would hope that all candidates would.

Note that this strategy doesn't help with the big attacks on big issues. That's so different that it has to be a different post.

 Image: freehqphotos.com

My pocket analysis of the same-sex marriage ruling

Ok, I broke down and read much of the Supreme Court's same sex marriage ruling. We have conservatives calling the majority opinion jumbled and impossible to follow, and progressives calling the dissents 'hysterical.' So I have to read them, don't I?

I started with Clarence Thomas's dissent. Why? Because the outtakes listed here were the most hilarious. Thomas's dissent was a mess. First he defines 'liberty' as mostly meaning 'freedom of movement.' So he ignores the freedom or right to marry. Even in discussing the most relevant earlier case, he ignores the right to marry, and says the case was important because people could be imprisoned for being a spouse or a minister in an illegal wedding. Yes, it's a bad opinion.

Comparison to prior case law

The most relevant case, Loving v. Virginia, was a 1967 case where Virginia refused to recognize the marriage of a white man and black woman who had married in Washington DC but returned to Virginia to live. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, overturned all state laws against interracial marriages. The analogy couldn't be clearer.

So how does Loving v. Virginia figure in this latest ruling? In the text, Loving is cited 22 times, mostly by the majority. Both Scalia and Alito ignore it, and Thomas makes the wackadoodle argument about imprisonment being the issue, not marriage. No one says that Loving was wrongly decided because it clearly wasn't wrongly decided.

So if Loving was decided correctly, how does this inform the current case? Neither side makes a slam-dunk argument. The majority doesn't hammer home the point of a couple's status changing as one or both cross a state line. That is the most ridiculous aspect of the situation, and why states are compelled to recognize the marriages and divorces performed by other states.

Recognition or chaos

But it's also a bit ridiculous for one state (Massachusetts) to unilaterally change marriage law in all other states. I supposed the other states could have decided to recognize marriages performed in other states, and maybe we wouldn't have had this ruling. But so many states resisted doing so, and the conditions were set for this confrontation. This was absolutely inevitable. Same-sex couples were:

• Going to get married where they legally could.
• Going to move to states that refused to recognize their marriages.
• Going to sue for their rights. 

I can't respect Roberts' dissent because he doesn't acknowledge this. He wants the legislative process to carry on. To make that decision, Roberts has to ignore the rights of couples who are legally married in one jurisdiction but living or traveling in another.

I stopped reading Alito's dissent because he was whining about how religious people were being labeled as bigots. Alito seems to have missed the facts that 1) a Supreme Court ruling can't prevent public opinion from going that way, and 2) a whiny dissent can't prevent it either. I didn't read Scalia's dissent because I figured it would make me too angry.

So, overall, I was disappointed with the reasoning of this decision. No group really wrestled with the problem of states being required to recognize marriages of other states, and what we're going to do when there are conflicts. Are we going to follow Loving, and now this decision, and force them to recognize the marriages, or are we going to do something else? Who gets to decide?

Finally, what happens when a state allow plural marriage? All hell breaks loose again.

Image:skydancingblog.com

The many enemies of Christianity

Somehow I managed to resist writing about how the death battle between same sex marriage and conservative Christians for twelve days, but that reprieve is over. I'm back to the topic again because of the hyperbole of Rod Dreher (the main conservative-religious writer whom I read).

Dreher has blamed the Reformation for this evil before. He's blamed the Founding Fathers and their political philosophy that guarantees the state wouldn't impose religion on the people. He's blamed Martin Luther. Now he's blaming nominalism, a philosophical theory that perfect, ideal things don't actually exist.

I think Dreher should just go all the way and proclaim that the problem is that too many people think, and their thoughts are too often sacrilegious because they end up questioning the dogmas of the church. Somehow, though, Dreher exempts himself. When he questions the church, as he did when he left Catholicism to become Eastern Orthodox, it wasn't a hateful, uppity, and sinful of him to do that.

However, when Martin Luther questioned the Catholic church, he unleashed an incredible amount of evil. All sorts of people started questioning church dogmas and finding alternative ideas. For example what is more likely to be correct: your priest or your conscience? Is the Church correct that the sun and planets revolve around the Earth? Somehow this questioning is the direct cause of Western civilization becoming decadent and materialistic, and forsaking the guiding principles of a religious life.

Does Dreher actually wish that he could shut down all of that thought, remove the free will of people, and force people to put unquestioning faith in whatever their church says? From what I've read, that is what Dreher would prefer, based on the number of column inches he's devoted to defending dogma ("what Christianity actually is") and decrying the wrongness of guys marrying guys.

Oh, the hubris of using your brain! (... if you might come to a different conclusion from that of the Church).

A moderate problem in Dreher's argument is that Jesus himself is an example of questioning orthodoxy. But Jesus is the Son of God, and inerrant, which no other human is. So it's not illogical if Jesus can question but the rest of us can't. An even bigger problem is that humans are questioning authorities all the time, especially when they aren't thrashed within an inch of their lives for doing so. Maybe European stock is somewhat worse in this behavior than others (how frequently did Indians question their caste system?), but it has been a persistent trait for as long as we have records.

People are going to use their minds, and what they think may change as a consequence. God can't stop it, and neither can Dreher. If it is to be labeled a sin, that tells us that Dreher or the Church or God can't deal with a major aspect of human nature. It also raises the question of whether Dreher believes that people deserve freedom, or whether instead they need the cossetting of an authoritarian system to avoid this worst of sins--thinking the wrong thoughts.

Of course, what is most likely is that Christianity wasn't threatened by Martin Luther, the Reformation, liberty-based government, or a metaphysical theory I hadn't even heard of (and me a philosophy major!). Only Dreher's mistaken and narrow definition of Christianity is threatened and only in his mind.

Image: wikipedia.org

Extras. Well, the threat's not quite "only in his mind." Traditionalists in some professions have been sued or fined for not working on same-sex weddings. There are also allegations of jobs lost or discriminatory work environments made by traditionalists.

Religious observance and religious identification are also becoming less common. Is that due to people choosing for themselves too? Most likely.

When is executive fiat OK?

Liberals loathed Bush's executive actions. Perhaps the most criticized action was the torture and long-term detention of terrorist prisoners. These were magically rendered 'legal' by the torture memos of John Yoo, Nonetheless, torture and detention with no due process in sight didn't magically become moral.

Now liberals have a version of executive overreach with the temporary amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants. So, bluntly, here's the question: Is Obama's overreach OK while Bush's was wrong?

It seems like Dems/liberals are lining up to defend Obama, whereas the critics among the Dems are close to mute. A few, such as senators from swing or conservative states, publicly disagreed with Obama for five minutes, and then the issue subsided.

A good enough reason?

I'm very uncomfortable with this approach. On one hand, I want to be compassionate to people who have been in this country for years, working hard and building their lives. On the other hand, when is it OK for the president to make such a big decision unilaterally without the Congress? Aren't we supposed to go through a well-mapped process for such decisions? You know, the process with the bills starting in Congress, getting passed, and landing on the president's desk for a signature or a veto. Without that process, changing the legal status of 5 million people seems to be an arbitrary decision by an impatient president who doesn't respect our governmental system.

Of course I know the argument that Obama gives: All Congress has to do is pick up the mantle (its mantle) and make an immigration reform law. Congress didn't do its duty, so the president decided to go ahead and act.

But here's an important question: what are the limits on presidential action if he doesn't need the Congress to pass laws anymore? If the prez has to wait two years, is that too long, so it's OK for him to do what he wants? Can the prez set the tax rates? Can he change established tax policies, closing loopholes, and maybe opening others?

Obama has carefully addressed these questions. His immigration policy is based on the well-established principle of prosecutorial discretion--the ability of the person enforcing the laws to decide that a case is too weak or too minor to bring to court. Obama has decided that no case against an illegal immigrant with American child warrants prosecution. Beyond that, he's going to give each of these parents a work card.

Do the work

This definitely seems like overreach to me. However, when Obama did the same for illegal immigrants who came here as children, it didn't bother me. This is part of the problem of deciding what is right based on gut feelings. It conveniently bypasses all the hard logic I'd otherwise have to thrash out.

So maybe following my gut feelings are somewhat similar to taking executive actions. Neither follows a good process or well-tested logic. I should not follow my gut feelings on issues of policy, and the president (whoever it is) shouldn't push executive action into new areas. Sometimes, you have to wait, even if it means waiting forever.

So, should Obama simply wait, and not act? Should it be the same for the next president? When has the wait been too long? Maybe there are times when the wait is too long, and immigration reform has certainly been a long time coming.

However, we still haven't exercised the grand old option of chartering a bipartisan committee to thrash this out. We definitely should have one--a recent committee (Simpson-Bowles) was pretty good. Maybe this committee would be good too, but only if it's not led by current politicians (as the Supercommittee was), but by serious, intelligent people who want to figure out what's best for the country as a whole instead of what benefits their party.

Brought to you by thefederalistpapers.org - Not endorsed by MP

Extras. A libertarian blogger agrees with the legal justifications. Is it his steel-trap mind, or is it convenient reasoning? A law professor on different kinds of rules. I understand this--our legislatures are too large and bogged down to make all the rules we need, or to write all the guidance in how to implement them. However, I still think it's overreach to change immigration all for 5 million people.

Did you notice we survived 2014?

 Image: gopixpic.com

According to conservatives, the world was almost certainly going to end in 2014. The Russians were overrunning Ukraine (due to Obama's incompetence), ISIS was going to take over the Middle East and launch massive attacks on western countries (due to Obama's incompetence), and Ebola was going to decimate the US (due to Obama's incompetence).

If these things didn't happen, does that mean that Obama isn't as incompetent as portrayed? According to classic symbolic logic (if X, then Y), yes, it means Obama isn't as incompetent as stated. But, honestly, 1) conservatives aren't interested in logic and 2) classic symbolic logic is so limited as to be pretty useless. Here's a little known fact--logic doesn't deal with actual causation. 'If then' isn't necessarily a causal statement in classic logic. This is deeply disappointing.

Crisis contained - Russia and Ukraine

I think Obama did pretty well in each of these crises, mostly by not flipping out. Instead of starting a war with heavily armed Russians, he encouraged the Ukrainians to stand up for themselves, which is a VERY GOOD THING. More countries should do this instead of whining for the US to intervene and also conveniently bear most of the costs. The sanctions have hurt, but what's even better is that Obama has let the Russians show their true nature--militaristic liars. If we had gone to war, the narrative could have been that the US is the world-wide bully, and the Russians are heroes making a stand against the US. Instead, the Russians are the local bully, and the Ukrainians are the heroes. Other countries around Europe are seeing that you can make a stand against Russia. (At least I hope this analysis is correct. World affairs isn't my strength.)

(As an aside: This also bolsters the first lesson I learned that disproved a liberal tenet. Liberals said that demilitarization was good and morally superior. I learned, by observation, that being strong enough to defend your country was much more important, and the supposed moral superiority of demilitarization was hogwash. Liberals are so stupid sometimes that it boggles my mind.)

Crisis tested - ISIS

The surge of ISIS definitely was a crisis instead of being a faux-crisis trumped up by opponents. Obama reacted in way we haven't seen before--turning the crisis into a teaching moment. That may sound ridiculous--that you would allow a deadly crisis to play out instead of ending it as soon as possible. But I think this was the right approach.

In the Mideast, as in much of the world, too many people want the US to swoop in and save them (while also conveniently bearing most of the costs). It's a VERY GOOD THING for countries to get a reality check that the US might not be willing to do this, so they better be ready to defend themselves. Plus, they may want to identify threats early and do their best to avoid them.

Perhaps some people in Iraq finally learned the lesson this time. If you oppress large numbers of Sunnis, you create an angry insurgency that will try to take over the country. So don't oppress them. That's a relatively simple lesson that Iraq government under Nouri al-Maliki refused to learn. (Another aside--much of the Mideast, having been locked into strong-man dictatorships for so long, is now learning a lot of lessons. The learning process is important, so we shouldn't short-circuit it by swooping in like a helicopter parent.)

Crisis wildly overestimated - Ebola

The last threat that we survived was Ebola. The conservative response was so stereotypical as to be laughable. Talk about people not learning lessons--the conservatives really don't seem to understand science, and that the US response was going to be scientifically sound and based on evidence. So we brought a few infected citizens back to the US for treatment, and we learned from doing it. When we made mistakes, we learned and didn't repeat those mistakes. It is so incredibly simple, but partisan politicians seem not to know how to learn from mistakes. This is very strange, and I'll have to research why reality doesn't force politicians to learn.

Crisis for dollars - Underage immigrants

While we're reviewing crises that didn't pan out, there was one liberal crisis that didn't end up nearly as horrible as predicted. The crisis of immigrant minors crossing the US-Mexico borders supposedly required an infusion of $3.7 billlion. Not surprising, but the House did not dutifully comply with the request. Somehow, the Obama administration managed to deal with the crisis without the cash, so perhaps they didn't need the money after all.

Congratulations, everyone, we survived! Well, to be more specific, congratulations everyone except:

• Militaristic Russians
• ISIS and their sugar daddies
• Stubborn Iraqi politicians
• Overheated American conservatives
• Pollyanna American liberals

Trust whom?

Image: craftymcclever.wordpress.com

Why don't we have a travel ban?

The Ebola issue is much more political than it should be. Of course, many politicians can't restrain themselves from engaging in bashing their targets over a disease that's as deadly as Ebola. In the 1980's, the politically-infected arguments raged about AIDS, and we haven't had a disease with this much potential since then. However, the politics around AIDS perhaps should have been a lesson to prevent politics from ruling the discussion. But we're Americans, so we inject politics into everything.

Even if you don't think you personally are bringing politics into your viewpoint on Ebola, you probably are. To see how the politics play out, just ask yourself why we don't have a travel ban. Your answer is likely to fall into one of two categories, both of which are heavily influenced by politics.

There must be a good reason

I didn't ask myself about the lack of a travel ban for a while. I'm not sure why, but my left-of-center tendencies probably had something to do with it. I figured that the administration had a good reason for not banning travel from the epidemic areas. I didn't believe that cover stories that it was due to vital trade ties, or that commercial flights were necessary for our humanitarian efforts. I figured that there was a reason that the administration didn't feel comfortable talking about. Perhaps they were worried about human smuggling taking over if there were no flights. (That was my top theory.)

However, my support was based on faith or trust that there was a good reason. Faith and trust--not good scientific reasons.

So why don't we have a travel ban? Maybe it's the smuggling worry. Maybe we have a secret agreement with most European countries that we won't cut off flights. That way the affected countries have contact and a safety valve, but no country with good western medicine ends up with a disproportionate number of Ebola cases (that's another theory, in case you didn't notice).

This is still speculation, faith, and trust. If we based our policy simply on reducing our chances of an Ebola epidemic to the lowest possible level, we would have a travel ban. We would also not have allowed the American workers with Ebola to return and be treated in American hospitals.

So this administration is willing to take some risks. The science does show that the risks are quite low, and that's been born out in the US. The only known cases of transmission in the US occurred between a deathly ill patient (with copious diarrhea and vomiting) and his nurses. No one in his family became ill.

But the low chance of an outbreak here isn't the declared reason for a lack of a travel ban. We're still left wondering and coming up with our own ideas for the lack of a travel ban.

There must be a nefarious reason

If you don't trust the president and his administration, what do you make of the lack of a travel ban? I've read a bunch of theories on that:

• The administration doesn't want to be politically incorrect, so it won't cut off or stigmatize part of Africa.
• The administration supports open borders in every way, even if it lets Ebola into the country.
• Obama hates America and wants an Ebola epidemic here.
• Obama puts the good of other countries above the good of the US.
• This is payback for slavery.
• This is a good way to reduce overpopulation all over the Earth.

By not being clear in its reasons, the Obama administration has opened the door to a lot of speculation. That speculation is either supportive and antagonistic, and all of it is tinged with politics. If you thought your opinion was based solely on science, I hope this post showed you otherwise.

Image: microbiologyworld.com

Extras. Christie and Cuomo teamed up to show that they are post-political and would institute a quarantine together. It fell apart in a couple days because it was based on political gamesmanship. Ebola politics in Louisiana, a state that isn't likely to be a locus of Ebola issues. The media steps up to help Obama again--travel bans don't work. See, there must be a good reason.

Evidence-based thinking vs. assumption-based thinking

I've read many comments about how the US is doomed to have an Ebola outbreak because Obama is such a horrible president. I agree that there are plenty of reasons to think the Obama isn't a good president, but it's quite a leap to assume that we'll have people dying of Ebola because of it.

Of course, many people think we are doomed since the country reelected Obama. We were doomed by ACA, so we must be at least doubly or triply doomed. So if we are doomed, any crisis can obviously boil over and burn us all. We were threatened existentially over the summer by immigrants, which turned into immigrants with dread diseases. Then that story morphed into ISIS terrorists infiltrating through the Mexican border. Now we are doomed because ... Ebola!

Some of the concern  has some logic to it. For example, the administration loathes racial discrimination, so it won't ban travel to and from the African countries where the epidemic is occurring. There's some logic to that complaint. The administration hasn't done a great job in explaining why it allows recent visitors from the infected countries to come into the US without quarantine. It doesn't lay out the criteria for when to impose these kinds of measures, so it's reasonable to wonder if they've worked it out at all.

But some critics have leaped to the idea that the administration wants Ebola in the country. Limbaugh says the progressives believe that Ebola is our just desserts for slavery. I can't remember hearing that from the progressives I know, but Limbaugh talks about it quite extensively. Well, we know that Obama and liberals/progressives want to destroy the country, so Ebola would be nifty tool to do it.

Alex Jones thinks Ebola is a great tool for imposing "the medical tyranny state." First you bring people with Ebola into the US, then you release them to spread it around, and then you lock up and/or disappear Americans accused of having the disease. This warning, among others, is helpfully packaged on this Tea Party site, so you can clearly grasp what the real story is.

Contrast this "we-are-doomed" thinking with some scientific observations. Only two people carrying Ebola are known to have left the infected countries by commercial flights. Checking passengers for fever and the cost of tickets appear to have done a good job of deterring infected people, though not a 100% effective job.

Also, it's a fact that the US has handled Ebola patients successfully in this country, so we don't have to take a zero tolerance approach. We can balance the risks: the risk of one or more infected people arriving in the US vs. the risks of cutting off air travel.

Observation also shows that Ebola hasn't spread through casual contact. The only people infected (so far) in the US have been healthcare workers caring for a single patient. No one who had casual contact with the patient, not even the people who shared the patient's apartment, has gotten sick. Observation shows that healthcare workers at the Dallas hospital became infected, but not those at the Atlanta hospital.

Observation doesn't show any connection between Obama and who has gotten infected. So how is Obama responsible? The connection is only possible if you make assumptions, not if you depend on observation and logic. Those who are bashing Obama for presence of Ebola in the US have a bit of a logical case. He could have forbidden the travel of anyone from the effected region. But the bashing goes so far beyond that, and the predictions have been catastrophic because Obama is such a catastrophe himself. By warped logic, Obama is awful, and therefore any awful thing that happens is directly attributable to him.

And by the way, the new Ebola czar that he just named, that guy is a disaster too. Already. He must be, because Obama appointed him.

Image: youngcons.com

Extra. Zero Hedge starts by warning that your civil rights will be gone if there's an Ebola outbreak, Then he warns that Ebola is a "very, very serious disease," and that "we could truly be looking at the greatest health crisis that any of us have ever seen."

So which is it? Should we be protecting our rights and freedom of movement, or should we be cautious of our health? I wish he had decided before he wrote contradictory warnings in a single post.

Ayn Rand is Nietzsche

Nietzsche is commonly credited with offering an alternative morality, where the supermen didn't have to follow the same rules as the sheep the rest of mankind. I haven't read much Nietzsche, so this may be a misrepresentation, but let's pretend it's accurate.

Ayn Rand thought that the bureaucrats and leeches were holding back the greatness of society. This is somewhat a tenet of libertarianism, that we all need to be free to soar as high as possible, free from the regulations that would tether us to mediocrity. Those tethers include anything beyond minimal taxes, gun restrictions, licensing for professions, FDA drug testing, regulations, and paperwork showing compliance with vast numbers of government rules, etc. They also include the social safety net. I'm going to focus on the safety net.

Some people need the social safety net. That's why we have it. Before governments got into that business, there were churches and charities that tried to handle the load but were often overwhelmed. I assume charities were overwhelmed. Perhaps they weren't and it was just a trick some liberal busybodies dreamed up in order to make jobs for themselves. But I bet charities were frequently overwhelmed.

So we've had and needed a social safety net. Yet Ayn Rand was against that net. I can understand if she thinks it's better never to use the safety net, but why should it not even exist? It exists because people have needed it in the past, some need it now, and other will need it in the future. But other people's needs are unimportant to the Ayn Rand archetype. The Ayn Rand hero will never be that needy person. The superman doesn't need the safety net, and the world should be for the supermen, not for the sheep. So, no safety nets for you sheep either.

In the Ayn Rand view, it's too bad that the sheep of Europe even pushed for these safety nets starting back in the 1800's. The sheep of America followed. That's a problem, having these sheep make decisions about what government is going to do. They make sheep-like decisions. The sheep become more sheep-like and dependent, and the supermen are weighed down. Government should be limited so the sheep can't decide what's to be done. [By the way, doesn't this sound suspiciously feudal? The nobility should make the decisions, and the peasants should shut up and be good mules.]

*************************************************

I hope I've shown a strong similarity between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Neitzsche. Perhaps I'm overreaching here, but I don't think so. I wondered for a long time why people are so adamantly against Social Security, a program that has such broad appeal. Why isn't it good enough for anti-SS folks that large numbers of people want the program? Isn't that democracy?

No, democracy isn't a good enough reason. First and foremost, the country should be as free as possible. That's what libertarians strive for. Nothing, not the wishes of the majority for a social safety net, should overrule the primary guiding principle of the country.

On one hand I can see the logic in this. On the other hand, in practice the people of this country (as in "we, the people") took the country in the direction it has gone. This country wasn't invaded and hijacked by Russians who changed our government by fiat. WE changed it. And there was a logic to the changes that we made.

So the libertarians aren't the only ones who have a logical, reasonable view of how our government should work. They have lots of competition, and they've been losing. We, the People, don't want the Ayn Rand or Nietzsche philosophy. The elections tell us that.

 Image: aplaceformom.com